Ultra-immersive, long-form video games from the past or future

As our technology and understanding of nature improves, we are living longer, and many predict that this trend will continue to the point that humans will become nearly immortal. When confronted with the possibility of living for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years, most people express several concerns: "Will I still be able to retire at age 65?", and "Won't that get boring after a while?"

Fortunately, technology is also improving it other areas (and not just more deadly weapons). Video games, for example, are getting quite sophisticated. As the graphics and other interfaces improve, video games become increasingly immersive and involved, and we begin to feel as though we are really inside the game. As this trend continues, will we get to the point that the games feel so real that we become completely immersed and forget about the outside reality?

So what will million-year old people do to manage their boredom? Perhaps they will play long, complicated, multi-player, fully-immersive video games. If your regular life lasted millions of years, occasionally spending a hundred years playing some fancy game might seem reasonable. Perhaps you would play-out your character's entire life span, from birth to death, in one "sitting". In order to really feel the experience and keep the game authentic, you would of course make it so that everyone playing would forget that it was just a game (though maybe some people would try to cheat).

The obvious question: Is that the future, or the past?

Once we eliminate the certainty of our perceived reality, then how can we justify our certainty of anything else? Accepting true reality, whatever it may be, requires letting go of everything specific.

Building a great team

Unless you happen to be really great at everything, it's very important to build a well matched team of people who have complimentary skills and can work well together. Unfortunately, that's much easier said than done, and most startups really struggle to find the right people. That's why I'm excited to announce another great addition to the FriendFeed team. Check out my post on the FriendFeed blog to understand why this is a big announcement.

Should Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail block Facebook?

Apparently Facebook will ban you (or at least Robert Scoble) if you attempt to extract your friend's email addresses from the service.

Automated access is a difficult issue for any web service, so I won't argue with their decision -- it's their service and they own you.

However, when I signed up for Facebook I gave them my Gmail address and password, using their find friends feature:


It was very helpful -- I didn't think that I would know anyone on Facebook, but it turns out that I knew hundreds of people.

However, Gmail's Terms of Use seems to prohibit this:

You also agree that you will not use any robot, spider, other automated device, or manual process to monitor or copy any content from the Service.

Facebook can also import contacts from Yahoo and Hotmail. Yahoo TOS says:

You agree not to access the Service by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Yahoo! for use in accessing the Service.

And Hotmail TOS says:

In using the service, you may not:
...
Use any automated process or service to access and/or use the service (such as a BOT, a spider, periodic caching of information stored by Microsoft, or "meta-searching")

So the question is, should Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail block Facebook (or close the accounts of anyone who uses Facebook's "friend finder") for violating their Terms of Use?

Twas the night before Festivus...

And all through the FriendFeed Global International World Headquarters, not a creature was coding, not even Bret..



But before that, we were all very busy...


And not just busy posing for pictures -- we're also creating new products! I'm thrilled to announce the release of our latest platform initiative, AirGrievance.

Brilliantly wrong

Being a little bit wrong is easy, but it's much more interesting to be completely wrong.

Google Blogoscoped had an entry yesterday about my statement that, whenever possible, everything should have undo.

The comments on that story had the usual mix of no-so-great usability suggestions (putting options and settings everywhere), and a few good ideas, but it also had one comment that was so remarkably wrong that it brightened my whole day:

While an Undo feature could be useful, isn't this just coddling people who should otherwise be paying closer attention to what they are doing? A mistake is a mistake, and people need to learn to live with the consequences of the mistakes they make.

This comment may have been a joke, but I really like this "tough love" approach to usability, because in just a few words it perfectly captures the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

To design great products, we must truly empathize with our users, and understand that if they are having problems using our products, is more likely our fault, not theirs. This isn't the same as the disdainful or patronizing attitudes too often expressed by engineers and other technical people. Our users aren't dumb, they just have better things to do than waste time understanding poorly designed software.

As for "undo", in general, the more we can lower the costs of making mistakes, the faster we can move. This applies to everything from interfaces (I type fast because I have a backspace key) to societies (people are more likely to start new companies in cultures that are accepting of failure).

Is there more to life than money?

Whenever there is a discussion about joining a startup vs working at regular job, someone will defend the boring 9-5 job by saying, "there is more to life than money".

These people are, of course, right. There is plenty of evidence that happiness is only loosely correlated with wealth. People seem to derive a much greater sense of satisfaction from good relationships, and having a sense of purpose and meaning in their life. Money matters too, but not as much once the basic need for food and shelter are addressed, and those aren't big issues for most people deciding between joining a startup or a big company.

Furthermore, most people who do join startups will never experience a huge payday. Google distributed billions of dollars to thousands of employees, but that was truly exceptional. Even moderately successful startups that eventually sell for $50 million dollars or so will only make a couple of people rich.

If all you care about is money, I doubt that joining a startup is the right way to go. You'll probably make a lot more at a hedge fund, or by becoming a lawyer, or something like that.

Maybe it now seems like I'm defending the boring 9-5 job, but it's actually just the opposite. Those 8 hours/day are a huge chunk of of your waking life, and don't forget that you'll probably also spend a few hours preparing, commuting, and "unwinding". Even worse, bad or boring jobs can sap our energy, so that at the end of the day all we feel like doing is sitting in front of the tv.

That's no way to live, if you can help it. Why surrender such a huge chunk of your life just to get some money? For some people, that's the only option, but for those fortunate enough to be smart and educated, there's a better way.

Instead of throwing away your "working hours", why not make every minute count? Why not find work that you can actually enjoy, work that's fun and meaningful?

Of course that's easier said than done, but it's not impossible.

For reasons that will have to be left for another post, the structure and systems in big companies tend to make work meaningless and life unpleasant, at least for me. Of course smaller companies can be awful too, but they have a greater potential to be good.

If your job isn't working for you, if it isn't making you happy and energized, then why are you still there? I can't guarantee that you'll find something better, but perhaps you should at least try something new. Don't just give up on life.

I truly enjoy writing code. I love creating new products and features. I like getting feedback from users and finding ways to solve their problems. I like the game of business. I like helping people. Of course there is always some amount of unpleasant work that must be done, but that can be contained (my rule is that work should be no more than 10% awful).

That's why, even though I don't financially need to work, I choose to work (and end up staying up until 4am pushing new code). It's why we created FriendFeed, to have a great place to work, a place where we can build great products and have happy users. Of course I'd also like to earn a few billion dollars, and I plan to make all of our employees very wealthy, but that's more like a bonus. I don't believe that you can be happy and make great products and treat your users right if all you think about is money.

There's more to life than money.




My first Google pay-stub (including note from Heather). Money isn't everything, but this zero-dollar check did make me a little nervous.

There's no such thing as a "social network"

Of course there are many things that people call "social networks", but that's more confusing than enlightening. The "social network" aspect of these products is just a mechanism, not the purpose, and their purposes are often more different than similar. It's like saying that something is a "Javascript". Many websites use Javascript, but hopefully the Javascript is only there in order to accomplish some other purpose. LinkedIn and Twitter, for example, both use Javascript and social networking mechanisms, but clearly they are very different products and have very different uses. Facebook likes to call itself a "social utility", but to me that's just as meaningless.

That said, there is something "social networky" that unites these otherwise-dissimilar "social networking" sites. The two features that seem to define the social network aspect of a product are:

1. Some kind of page or profile for each user. The contents of this page vary wildly, but it always includes a name and often a picture.
   
   
2. "Friend" links among the profile pages, which may or may not be bi-directional. These "friends" only sometimes correspond to real-life friends.
   

Those two features alone are very simple but also very useless. Real products need more functionality in order to somehow deliver value to their users. It is this other functionality that defines the real purpose of a product, not the "social network", which exists only to enable or enhance the core purpose.

So what ARE the purposes of these many "social networking" products? (in random order)

1. Enable people to send messages to their friends. This functionality basically defines email, which can be considered one of the earliest "social networks", though most email systems lack browsable profiles. Annoyingly, many other social networking products reimplement this function, with mixed results.
   
   
2. Enable people to send messages to non-friends. There are two aspects to this feature: discovery (finding the people) and control (preventing unwanted messages). Email is weak on both aspects, and for many people, this is one of the most useful features of products such as Facebook and LinkedIn (I can easily find and contact people that I don't know).
   
   
3. "Live" address/phone book. Sites like Facebook have fields for phone, email, etc, and since everyone maintains their own page, the information is generally up-to-date (vs the bad-old-world of everyone having to broadcast "please update your address books" every time they move).
   
   
4. Less private communication. Email and IM are often too private. Life would be much less interesting if all of our conversations took place one-on-one in closed rooms. Part of what makes parties, offices, and other social environments interesting is that we can observe other people interacting, overhear conversations, and often join-in. Features such as the "wall" create a kind of public or semi-public email, allowing our friends to overhear conversations. Twitter is often used as a public IM/chat.
   
   
5. Passive communication about my life. I don't want to interrupt or spam my friends every time I have some little bit of news, take some new pictures, or get a random thought, but I have no problem blogging or Twittering those things, or uploading to photo sharing sites (which all have social features now). Similarly, I enjoy seeing this information from my friends (but I wouldn't want them calling me on the phone to tell me about their lunch every day).
   
   
6. Passive sharing of non-personal content. I'll occasionally see an interesting or amusing web page and want to share it with friends. I used to put these things into my IM status, but now I add them to my FriendFeed. Email, Twitter, Facebook, and Digg/Reddit are also sometimes used for this purpose (though obviously Digg is less "friend" oriented).
   
   
7. Self expression. This is most prominent on MySpace, where user profiles are highly customizable and can have embedded music (which starts playing as soon as I visit the page). This behavior is very similar to decorating your house or bedroom in "real life" -- there seems to be some human instinct to define our identity through decorations, fashion, music, art, etc. Self expression is an element of all products which have browsable profiles, but on most sites identity is expressed more in terms of content (favorite movies on Facebook, job history on LinkedIn, tweets on Twitter, etc).
   
   
8. Background information. If I meet someone new (or am about to meet them), I sometimes checkout their Facebook or LinkedIn pages to learn more about their background, see if we have common friends, etc. Obviously this also ties in with self-expression and identity in more social settings -- people "friend" each other after meeting and their MySpace page (or whatever) becomes part of that "first" impression.
   
   
9. Dating. One of the earliest and still most popular uses of sites like MySpace, Facebook, Orkut, etc. It's less "explicit" than on dating sites, but by putting themselves online, people can see and be seen, plus get background info, see who their common friends are, etc. The Facebook newsfeed even tells us when friends break-up (or start dating).
   
   
10. Jobs. Job hunting and hiring are essentially the "professional" analog of dating and seem to work in somewhat similar ways.
    
    
11. Finding old friends. By enabling friend-of-friend and school class browsing, it's much easier to locate old friends, and therefore people do more of it. This also lets people track down old friends without appearing crazy (they can "bump" into them on classmates.com, or whatever -- no private detective needed).
    
    
12. Keeping in touch with "unclose" friends (related to "passive communication about my life"). It's fun to know what's going on with people who we've known in the past, even if we aren't close friends. Profile browsing and newsfeeds make this easier. This can also make unclose friends into closer friends, as we may coincidentally be in the same city at the same time, be attending the same events, or just start chatting.
    
    
13. "Micro-socializing" (I need a better term here). A lot of wall posts, poking, winking, commenting, Twittering, etc can go into the category. The comments on FriendFeed generally fall into this category as well -- someone shares a link or posts some photos, then they and their friends will end up chatting about it. This is somewhat analogous to the traditional "water-cooler" conversation.
    
    
14. Word-of-mouth recommendations. Shared links, news, Yelp reviews, some Twitters, and the like provide us with information about what our friends are doing. Word-of-mouth can be very powerful since we typically trust our friends much more than random people. The new Facebook "Beacon" advertising system is trying to use this effect to sell things.
    
    
15. General amusement for bored people. Clicking around on friends and friends-of-friends and even random people's pages can be kind of interesting. As sites provide more content (such as the links and videos on FriendFeed) or games (many popular Facebook apps are games) there will be even more of this.
    
    
16. Publishing. This especially applies to blogs, twitter, flickr, and the like, but being able to subscribe to the content produced by our favorite authors and artists as well as friends and family is very powerful for both the producer and the consumer.
    
    
17. Group sharing and socializing. This was traditionally done via mailing lists and that's the model behind Google/Yahoo Groups, but of course Facebook, Orkut and the like have have some basic group functionality too, and Ning seems to specialize in it by enabling each group to create their own social network.
    

This list is certainly not complete, but I'm way over my 30 minute limit... I look forward to seeing your suggested additions. I'll probably post an improved list at some point.

I also hope to explain how my company, FriendFeed, fits into all of this. It definitely has social aspects (the word "friend" is right in the name!), but it certainly isn't a social network in the style of MySpace or Facebook.

We all have tunnel vision

Supposedly people can hold about seven "items" in their mind at any one time. I was never sure what that meant -- what qualifies as an "item"? I recently realized that it means our brains have roughly seven "registers", similar to the registers on a microprocessor. These registers don't store much information, they really just hold pointers to something in longer term memory.

Here's the important realization: There's a million important things going on in the world and in our lives, but we're really only aware of seven of them. This means that we all have a very narrow and limited understanding of the world and our own lives. The seven things on our mind all seem very important, while everything else is just kind of forgotten.

We must be very careful about what gets loaded into those seven registers. I like to read reddit occasionally, but I've found that it can be a little dangerous. Some days it is filled with bad news -- my seven registers get filled with scary and depressing things, and it feels like the world is crumbling.

On the other hand, I can go for a walk outside and after a little while I begin to notice how nice the trees are, the various smells of nature, the construction progress on the house down the street, and other pleasant (for me) things, and the world seems like a really nice place.

This seven register limitation also makes people very subject to manipulation. If you can control what is getting loaded into their attention, you can largely control what they think and how they feel. For example, if people keep talking about Iran and how scary they are and debating what to do about them, then pretty soon Iran will seem like the biggest, scariest problem in the world, and no solution will seem too extreme. The truth is that there are probably 100 more important problems, but it won't seem that way because all seven registers are loaded with the same topic. The subject of the debate is more important than the content.

At any one time, a million things are going wrong, the world is falling apart. At any one time, a million things are going right, the world just keeps getting better. Those are both true statements, but one will feel much more true depending one which seven things are loaded into your attention now.

The same thing can happen inside of a company. We can easily become obsessed with one issue or threat, and it ends up taking all of our attention and energy even though it's not the most important problem. And because it seems like the only problem, our response is often completely irrational. I have some amusing Google anecdotes, but I'm almost out of time for this post, so they will have to wait...

How do we deal with this? I'm not certain, but the first step is to simply be aware of it. Take a break. Go for a walk. Try to clear out your attention. Maintain balance. Keep four good things in mind at all times (make a list). We shouldn't ignore the bad things, but we mustn't allow them to overwhelm us, because that's what will happen if the bad completely pushes out the good.

27 minutes.

Update: To be clear, the actual value "seven" is not important -- it's just an idea that many people are familiar with. The point is that our attention has a very limited capacity, and therefore we are always missing out on the bigger picture.

Back to blogging again, I hope

I have about a 1000 posts queued up in my brain, but these things take forever to write, and now that I'm working again, I don't have forever to waste. So, in the spirit of "Good enough" is the enemy of "At all", I'm going to start blogging again, but with an absolute limit of 30 minutes per post. If after 30 minutes I'm not happy with what I've written, I'll delete the post and move on for the day. If anything seems less thought-out or more confusing and inflammatory, this is why (and I didn't mean whatever you thought I meant, I meant something intelligent and non-insulting).

Meanwhile, check out My FriendFeed.

The next big adventure

We have a new startup: FriendFeed!

It's still early beta, and I'll write more about the product and company as soon as I get a chance. Until then, read the NY Times article and checkout our "about" page.

Quick: Read this if you ever store password data

Thomas Ptacek has a good post explaining why your password storage scheme is probably bad.

His post has a lot of words, so I'll summarize:

• Storing passwords in plaintext is obviously bad (most developers already know this)
  
• Using a salted-hash such as MD5 or SHA-1 isn't much better. (too easy to brute force)
  
• Your other clever password storage ideas are probably bad too.
  
• Use bcrypt instead. It was created by real cryptographers for just this kind of thing.
  

Here's bcrypt for Java. It has a nice simple API:

// Hash a password for the first time
String hashed = BCrypt.hashpw(password, BCrypt.gensalt());

// Check that an unencrypted password matches one that has
// previously been hashed
if (BCrypt.checkpw(candidate, hashed))
    System.out.println("It matches");
else
    System.out.println("It does not match");

I'm sure other popular languages have similar libraries.

16GB iPhone "SLR" includes high-quality 8MP camera

And it still fits in my pocket:

Reality, page 191

...replaces all objects of belief with one single thing: reality itself. We believe only in this universe. We don't believe in the afterlife. We don't believe in the sovereignty of nations. We don't believe in money or power or fame. We don't believe in our idols. We don't believe in our positions or our possessions. We don't believe we can be insulted, or that our honor or the honor of our family, our nation or our faith can be offended...

We just believe in reality. Just this.

...doesn't ask you to believe in anything you cannot confirm for yourself. It does not ask you to memorize any sacred words. It doesn't require you to worship any particular thing or revere any particular person. It doesn't offer any rules to obey. It doesn't give you any hierarchy of learned men whose profound teachings you must follow to the letter. It doesn't ask you to conform to any code of dress. It doesn't ask you to allow anyone else to choose what is right for you and what is wrong.

...is the complete absence of belief. ...is the complete lack of authority. ...tears away every false refuge in which you might hide from the truth and forces you to sit naked before what is real. That's real refuge.

Reality will announce itself to you in utterly unmistakable ways once you learn to listen. Learning to listen to reality, though, ain't so easy. You're so used to shouting reality down, drowning it out completely with your own opinions and views, that you might not even be able to recognize reality's voice anymore. It's a funny thing, though, because reality is the single most glaringly obvious thing there is... Yet we've forgotten how to recognize it.

What does it mean to own a "right"? Was Gandhi a thief?

From the Wikipedia entry on Gandhi's 1930 Salt March:

The British monopoly on the salt trade in India dictated that the sale or production of salt by anyone but the British government was a criminal offense punishable by law. Salt was readily accessible to coastal area dwellers, but instead of being allowed to collect and use it themselves for free, they were instead forced to purchase it from the colonial government.

In other words, the British government owned the right to produce and sell salt in India.

And another page says:

On April 5, 1930 Gandhi and his satyagrahis reached the coast. After prayers were offered, Gandhi spoke to the large crowd. He picked up a tiny lump of salt, breaking the law. Within moments, the satyagrahis followed Gandhi's passive defiance, picking up salt everywhere along the coast. A month later, Gandhi was arrested and thrown into prison, already full with fellow protesters.

Was Gandhi stealing salt from the British government, or was he simply breaking the law which gave the British the exclusive right to produce salt?

Since Gandhi wasn't actually taking the salt away from the British, and the ocean contained a practically infinite supply of salt (so it can't be claimed that he was taking it from anyone else), I'd argue that he was not stealing anything.

Did Gandhi steal the legal "right" to produce salt? Not really. A right has no substance or physical reality, so it is difficult to outright steal one (you could perhaps trick someone into signing a contract transferring the right, but clearly that's not the case here).

Gandhi's actions DID decrease the value of the British right to produce salt, but many actions could have that effect. For example, he could have convinced the people of India to switch to a lower salt diet, thereby decreasing the demand for salt and the value of the British monopoly. I don't think that anyone would call that stealing.

In fact, I've never seen anyone claim that Gandhi was a thief. It seems like a somewhat silly argument.

So what's my point? Owning a "right", which is a form of "Imaginary Property", is not the same as owning real property. If someone violates your exclusive rights, they may be breaking the law, but they are not stealing. To claim otherwise is silly and dishonest.

Update: Some people have interpreted this post as meaning that I'm opposed to Imaginary Property, or that infringing on other's legal rights is ok. That is not the case at all -- IP can serve an important and beneficial role in society. My only point is that Imaginary Property is not the same as Real Property, and that infringing on someone's legal rights isn't the same as theft. Pretending that they are the same has caused a lot of unnecessary trouble.

The first thing that you need to understand about humans

Humans aren't rational -- they rationalize. And I don't just mean "some of them" or "other people". I'm talking about everyone. We have a "logic engine" in our brains, but for the most part, it's not the one in the driver's seat -- instead it operates after the fact, generating rationalizations and excuses for our behavior.

I first realized this fact several years ago when I read something about "split brain" people. These people have had their corpus collosum, the structure which connects the left and right brain hemispheres, cut or damaged, leaving the two halves of the brain largely unable to communicate with each other. I don't recall where I read that, but a quick Google turned up this similar article:

"A split-brain patient shown a photograph of Hitler only in the right hemisphere, for example, might exhibit facial expressions indicating anger or disgust. But when asked to explain those emotions, the patient will often invent an answer, such as 'I was thinking about a time when someone made me angry.'" (Newberg and D'Aquili 2001, p. 23)

Kenneth Heilman offers another, more concrete example, writing about the research of Dr. Michael Gazzaniga and his colleagues. In one experiment, they showed sexually suggestive pictures to a woman with callosal disconnection, flashing them only on the left half of a screen so only her right hemisphere could perceive them. The woman giggled and blushed, but when asked why she was doing so, she replied that she was thinking of something embarrassing (Heilman 2002, p. 129).

Are these people lying? In one sense of the word, perhaps; but it seems clear that there is no conscious intent to deceive. Rather, researchers have concluded, what is happening is that the right hemisphere, upon seeing an image with strong emotional connotations, generates the appropriate response. However, due to the callosal disconnection, it cannot transmit the associated sensory data to the left hemisphere and its language centers. The left hemisphere perceives a change in the body's state, but does not know why - and so it "fills in" the missing details, fabricating a logical reason for the emotional reaction. This happens at a subconscious level, so that the person genuinely believes the verbal explanation they provide. In the language of psychology, this filling-in process of unconscious invention is called confabulation.

The important realization is that this process of "confabulation" is not limited to people with brain damage -- everyone does it -- people with "split brain" are just a little more obvious.

It's tempting to think that "most people" have this problem, but that you or I are different, to think that our actions are all logical. That is a mistake -- denying the truth is irrational and dangerous. By accepting that people are fundamentally irrational, we can deal with ourselves and others in a more rational and effective manner. We can learn to manage our irrational selves (somewhat). If, however, we insist that all of our actions and feelings are rational, then we will never be able to deal with them honestly, and are more likely to cling to irrational beliefs and limitations. If we are going to be honest, then we must admit the possibility that everything we know and believe is, in fact, incorrect.

The fascinating (and easy to read) book "Influence: Science and Practice" has some great examples and explanations of how people actually work. Here's a great quote about the effect of attractiveness, and how unaware people are of their true decision making process:

A study of the 1974 Canadian federal elections found that attractive candidates received more than two and a half times as many votes as unattractive candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Despite such evidence of favoritism toward handsome politicians, follow-up research demonstrated that voters did not realize their bias. In fact, 73 percent of Canadian voters surveyed denied in the strongest possible terms that their votes had been influenced by physical appearance; only 14 percent even allowed for the possibility of such influence (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Voters can deny the impact of attractiveness on electability all they want, but evidence has continued to confirm its troubling presence (Budesheim & DePaola, 1994).

A similar effect has been found in hiring situations. In one study, good grooming of applicants in a simulated employment interview accounted for more favorable hiring decisions than did job qualifications—this, even though the interviewers claimed that appearance played a small role in their choices (Mack & Rainey, 1990). The advantage given to attractive workers extends past hiring day to payday. Economists examining U.S. and Canadian samples have found that attractive individuals get paid an average of 12-14 percent more than their unattractive coworkers (Hammermesh & Biddle, 1994).

Equally unsettling research indicates that our judicial process is similarly susceptible to the influences of body dimensions and bone structure. It now appears that good looking people are likely to receive highly favorable treatment in the legal system (see Castellow, Wuensch, & Moore, 1991; and Downs & Lyons, 1990, for reviews). For example, in a Pennsylvania study (Stewart, 1980), researchers rated the physical attractiveness of 74 separate male defendants at the start of their criminal trials. When, much later, the researchers checked court records for the results of these cases, they found that the handsome men had received significantly lighter sentences. In fact, attractive defendants were twice as likely to avoid jail as unattractive defendants. In another study —- this one on the damages awarded in a staged negligence trial -- a defendant who was better looking than his victim was assessed an average amount of $5,623; but when the victim was more attractive of the two, the average compensation was $10,051. What's more, both male and female jurors exhibited the attractiveness-based favoritism (Kulka & Kessler, 1978).

Other experiments have demonstrated that attractive people are more likely to obtain help when in need (Benson, Karabenic, & Lerner, 1976) and are more persuasive in changing the opinions of an audience (Chaiken, 1979).

Understanding our irrational nature is also critical to product design. How can you expect to make something for humans if you don't understand how they think or make decisions?

Another book, "The Culture Code", has some great examples based on the author's experience helping companies improve the design and marketing of their products.

The people at Chrysler had indeed asked hundreds of questions; they just hadn't asked the right ones. They kept listening to what people said. This is always a mistake. As a result, they had theories about moving the Wrangler in multiple directions (more luxurious, more like a traditional car, without removable doors, enclosed rather than convertible, and so on) with no clear path to follow.
...
When I put groups of consumers together, I asked them different questions. I didn't ask them what they wanted in a Jeep; I asked them to tell me about their earliest memories of Jeeps.
...
I returned to those wary Chrysler executives and told them that the Code for Jeep in America is HORSE. Their notion of turning the Wrangler into just another SUV was ill advised.
...
The executives weren't particularly moved. After all, they had vast research that told them consumers said they wanted something else. ... I asked them to test my theory by making a relatively minor adjustment to the car's design: replacing the square headlights with round ones. Why? Because horses have round eyes, not square ones.
...
They tested the new design and the response was instantly positive. Wrangler sales rose and the new "face" of the Wrangler became its most prominent and marketable feature. In fact, the car's logo has incorporated its grille and round headlights ever since.

Using surveys and focus groups to design your product is a great way to produce boring and mediocre products that are the same as everything else.

Another great quote from "The Culture Code" connects us back to the "split brain" example that I started with:

What do Americans look for in a car? I've heard many answers when I've asked this question. The answers include excellent safety ratings, great gas mileage, handling, and cornering ability, among others. I don't believe any of these. That's because the first principle of the Culture Code is that the only effective way to understand what people truly mean is to ignore what they say. This is not to suggest that people intentionally lie or misrepresent themselves. What it means is that, when asked direct questions about their interests and preferences, people tend to give answers they believe the questioner wants to hear. Again, this is not because they intend to mislead. It is because people respond to these questions with their cortexes, the parts of their brains that control intelligence rather than emotion or instinct. They ponder a question, they process a question, and when they deliver an answer, it is the product of deliberation. They believe they are telling the truth. A lie detector would confirm this. In most cases, however, they aren't saying what they mean.

The reason for this is simple: most people don't know why they do the things they do. In a classic study, the nineteenth-century scientist Jean-Martin Charcot hypnotized a female patient, handed her an umbrella, and asked her to open it. After this, he slowly brought the woman out of her hypnotic state. When she came to, she was surprised by the object she held in her hand. Charcot then asked her why she was carrying an open umbrella indoors. The woman was utterly confused by the question. She of course had no idea of what she had been through and no memories of Charcot's instructions. Baffled, she looked at the ceiling. Then she looked back at Charcot and said, "It was raining."
...
Even the most self-examining of us are rarely in close contact with our subconscious. ... Therefore, we give answers to questions that sound logical and are even what the questioner expected, but which don't reveal the unconscious forced that precondition our feelings. This is why polls and surveys are so often misleading and useless.

Of course this understanding is important to more than just product design. It's critical to anything involving humans, which is everything involving us. How does it apply to your life and work? Are you still making decisions with the assumption that we are rational?