????怎么研究,？

????通過觀察。

????是嗎,？

????咨詢業(yè)這個市值5000億美元的行業(yè)愛問人們需要什么,，但它最大的錯誤就在于人們自己也不知道。

????但是我很清楚我喜歡什么,。不是有一個研究嘛,，雖然很可能是杜撰出來的，說是等到你30歲的時候，尤其是男性,，就基本上已經做出了人生所有重大的品牌選擇,？

????當然。但是你也在不停地打破舊的習慣,，所以你會變成什么樣,？比如我們曾經做過一個研究，探索人們對養(yǎng)老保險的態(tài)度的重大變化,。人們對養(yǎng)老保險的需求應該是像斜線一樣逐年遞增的,，因為你一年一年的變老，對吧,？我今年39歲了,。但是你變老的感覺其實是突然的。還是以我為例,，我走在富蘭克林大街上,，看見一個非常漂亮的20多歲的美女，但她一眼也沒看我,。但我用余光發(fā)現(xiàn)她媽媽在打量我,。于是我坐下來想，原來我已經是另一代人了,。然后我的下一個想法就是：我該買養(yǎng)老保險了,。

????但是你怎樣研究這個課題？你怎樣找到處于突然發(fā)生重大變化的這些人,？

????自然科學與經驗研究是有區(qū)別的,。有些邊緣活動和部分案例可能能夠反映貌似是突然發(fā)生的重大變化，我們就會研究這些活動和案例,。比如以電視為例,，在10年時間里，關于電視的很多變化也發(fā)生在大學宿舍,。然后我們相信一些現(xiàn)在是邊緣的行為以后可能會變成司空見慣的日常行為,。

????所以你們可以說還是在押寶。

????是的,，但是和硅谷押寶的方法很不一樣,。我們要通過大量細致的研究、觀察和等待,，而且還要密切觀察那些宿舍的情況,。我們押的是什么東西與人們的日常生活最契合，而硅谷不明白為什么我覺得眼下存在嚴重的泡沫,。我是一個非常愛挑刺的人,。他們看人的方式有很大問題,，他們甚至不關心一個產品在某人的生活中扮演什么樣的角色，只關心人們愿意為它花多少錢,。這也是我為什么覺得Twitter,、Snapchat和Facebook的規(guī)模雖然龐大，卻沒有多少價值,。那些數(shù)據(jù)能干什么,？進行智能化的廣告決策？谷歌（Google）已經花了很長時間改進算法,，但為什么推送給我的廣告大多數(shù)還是跟我沒關系,？更糟糕的情況是那些東西我已經買過了。

????我認為,，谷歌最讓人激動的是實體的東西……

????但是你發(fā)布產品的時候,，你想要的平均成果是什么？以各種標準衡量,，谷歌都會失敗,。他們是以軟件工程的角度發(fā)布產品的，比如谷歌眼鏡,。

????你怎么看谷歌眼鏡,？

????我討厭那個產品。如果我現(xiàn)在戴著它,，那我現(xiàn)在就在互聯(lián)網上,，那多讓人不舒服,？不能再干蠢事了,。

????但是要說谷歌沒有帶來任何有意義的東西也不對。不過我認為MOOCs（大規(guī)模網絡開放課程）就是證明硅谷傲慢自大的一個好例子,，他們認為只要你能坐在臥室里上課,，就會大大提高教育水平，但他們沒有深入理解教育最重要的是什么,。

????除了硅谷之外,，還有誰讓你感到生氣？

????所謂的“設計思考者”,，也就是那種認為只要讓一群設計師坐在一個屋子里就會創(chuàng)意如泉涌的想法,。這種想法很可怕，而且是錯誤的,。它不僅是個痛苦而緩慢的過程,，而且換句話說就是一句謊言——那種認為創(chuàng)意是容易的、很快的,、大眾化的想法,。

????最危險的想法,，就是有人說只要把五個億萬富翁放在一個房間里就能解決全球饑餓問題，這實在太不接地氣了,。（財富中文網）

????譯者：樸成奎

????

????How?

????Through observation.

????Yes?

????The big mistake of the $50 billion dollar industry that is asking people what they want is that we don't know.

????I have a pretty good sense of what I like, though. Isn't there some study, very possibly made up, about how by the time you turn 30 -- men especially -- you have made basically all the major brand choices in your life?

????Sure, but you also break habits all the time, so where does that leave you? We've done studies about big changes for life insurance. There are equal sized increments on a ramp, you just get older and older and older, right? I am 39 years old. But the way you experience age happens in these jumps. The example I use, I was walking down Franklin Street in SoHo and there was this gorgeous twentysomething, and she was not looking at me. And out of the corner of my eye, I saw her mother was checking me out, and I sat down and thought, I was a whole generation wrong. And my next thought was: I need a pension plan.

????But how do you study this? How do you find people in these moments of sudden great change?

????It's a difference between a natural science and the study of experience. We look at fringe activities or minority practices that might represent a great, seemingly sudden change. So with TV, for instance, a lot of things that have happened to the TV have been happening in dorm rooms for a decade. Then we bet on behaviors that are fringe now but might ... become average everyday.

????You're still placing a bet.

????Yes, but not at all in the way Silicon Valley places bets. It's through a lot of careful study, observation, waiting, and watching in those dorm rooms. We bet on what fits best with average everydayness, and the Valley doesn't understand why I think it's a terrible bubble. I'm a big critic. The way they think about people is deeply problematic. They aren't even interested in what role a product plays in someone's life, it just has everything to do with how much they're willing to pay for it, which is why I think Twitter (TWTR) and Snapchat and Facebook (FB) is just a big volume of activity without much value. All that data is going to do what? Make informed decisions around advertising? Google (GOOG) has had a long time to make the algorithms better, but how come the ads I get are still largely irrelevant, or [for] something I just bought, which is even worse?

????The most exciting things at Google, I'd argue, are physical things …

????But what is the average outcome you want to have when you launch products? Google by any metric would fail. They come to it from a software engineering standpoint. Look at Google Glass.

????What do you make of Google Glass?

????I hate that product. If I wore it now, [I] would be on the Internet, and how uncomfortable is that? You can't do stupid things anymore.

????Saying Google didn't deliver anything meaningful is wrong. But I think MOOCs are a good example of the arrogance in Silicon Valley; that education could be vastly better because you're going to do it in the living room, without the deep understanding of what goes into an education.

????What, or who, besides Silicon Valley, makes you angry?

????Design thinkers. Or this idea that all you need are a bunch of designers in a room and the creative juices will just ... flow. That's terrible. And wrong. It's a painful, slow process and to say otherwise is a lie. The idea that creativity is easy, fast, democratic.

????The most dangerous idea of all is when you say you can put five billionaires in a room and solve world hunger like that, boom. It's just so, so arrogant.