What Do The Simpsons, Advertising Technology, and Behavioral Psychology All Have in Common?

Remember the scene in The Simpsons when Homer addictively enjoys a Ribwich (delicious pork sandwich)? Hands shaking, pupils dilating, America’s favorite underdog experiences a rush of pleasure so joyous it makes him ring up ribwich after ribwich. Why did it happen? Well, he was lured inside by an advertisement, a waver who may not have known the role he played in the large scheme of things but was ultimately responsible for Homer’s declining health and unnecessary spending.

 It’s a dilemma we unwittingly find ourselves in frequently. Being connected to social media, internet, and news leads to influence. What should we buy, where should we go, what should we believe? Unconscious priming, when a stimulus is introduced and leads to a change in behavior or thinking without a person’s awareness, is not just theory. It is forming the very essence of each individual’s character and the decisions they make.

 Believe it or not, everyone who uses an email server unconsciously experiences similar dopamine rushes and, many are arguing, similar detrimental effects. Now, I know what you’re thinking: I already know advertisements affect my spending and that companies track my location, thank you very much. Well, I hate to break it to you but there’s a lot more to A.I. advertising technology than just location tracking. There’s an emotional-psychological element at play here that is dangerous if placed in the wrong hands. Automation of our cognition (especially intense emotions such as moral outrage) in combination with technology’s predictive power to keep us engaged is the perfect recipe for behavior monetization. Individuals are now drawn to the website banners, promotions tabs, Instagram stories, and email headings that constantly flicker offers specially catered to viewers.

 Take, for instance, YouTube’s auto-play function, introducing content in 10 second windows that feel like an irresistible countdown. YouTube viewers watched a total one billion hours worth of content back in 2017, 70% of which was recommended by algorithms. So, ¾ of the content we viewed was “fed” to us. Clearly, platforms such as YouTube offer content that at worst is wasteful, not necessarily harmful. If you don’t think too highly of your time, which is not free, then you would be right. However, what happens when platforms with this much power feed its viewers information that can lead to genocide?

Things look bad any way you slice the automatic dopamine secreting octopus that is A.I. advertising technology, which constantly plays to our biases. Confirmation bias, or the search for evidence that is only aligned with our beliefs, has the potential for disastrous results. In believing that only our convictions are correct, we form in-groups and out-groups. Our membership becomes a part of our identity if we feel strongly enough about the issue at hand, until all related events become a seamless part of us and we can no longer differentiate where group beliefs end and our humanity begins. The polarization feels good in the moment because it gives people a sense of belonging, but can quickly escalate to atrocities such as the ongoing Rohingya Genocide in Myanmar and the increasingly worrisome divide in American politics. They are completely different problems with a similar root in the internet’s power to play to people’s emotions.

It’s not just worrisome from a morality standpoint. Sci-Fi writers have predicted the eclipse of A.I. and human intelligence (singularity or, in tech terms, automation) for decades, and it’s safe to say the era has arrived. Those more keen on hearing economic arguments will be chagrined to learn that instead of merely gaining and retaining customers, companies are now creating products that make their audiences dependent on their products. The idea of customer dependence on products is antithetical to the trust people assume is inherent to their purchasing choices, and therefore goes against a few pillars (allocation of resources and growth generation) of capitalism as well.

There are a lot of helpful uses of A.I. advertising, mostly financially beneficial ones for companies using it. Coming back to the concept of moral outrage — what happens to a person’s character when they unwaveringly believe they are in the right and avoid discourse with the “other side” that albeit painful, could lead to useful insight? Given the addictive nature of ads in general, is it possible to turn back the wave of the technology? Is there a way to prevent AI Advertising from being used as a weapon of mass destruction? How do we teach the next generation that not everything they see on the internet is real or valid?

Given that the internet is already being used to influence our decisions, the forecast for individual thinking and free will seems grim. However, I think that each generation experiences identity crises that are brought to light by the great thinkers that the literary world (and Twitter) continues to be inspired by. The post-WWII generation relied on the writings of prominent individuals to disentangle the confusion that resulted from coping with home loss, death, personal tragedy, and PTSD. I believe our generation also has influential thinkers who remind us of the power of critical thinking and independence from group thinking. On that note, I leave you with a quote by author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichies from her essay "It is Obscene: A True Reflection in Three Parts," who does a good job of bringing to life the issue at hand. She calls out the moralists who seek to control what people think with fear and a puritanical approach to viewing the world.

“I notice what I find increasingly troubling: a cold-blooded grasping, a hunger to take and take and take, but never give; … an ease with dishonesty and pretension and selfishness that is couched in the language of self-care; an expectation always to be helped and rewarded no matter whether deserving or not; … an astonishing level of self-absorption; an unrealistic expectation of puritanism from others; an over-inflated sense of ability, or of talent where there is any at all; an inability to apologize, truly and fully, without justifications; a passionate performance of virtue that is well executed in the public space of Twitter but not in the intimate space of friendship.”

I think these words strike a chord with anyone who reads them. It has a meta aspect that I encourage everyone to explore, in order to better understand the intention behind any of our actions.