Are robots becoming more human or are we becoming more robotic? Is it too late?
Are we becoming too reliant on technology? The latest phenomenon of wearable fitness trackers shows that we are becoming too obsessed with the data we store about our bodies, in our watches and phones, thus disregarding what our bodies really desire. Are we the experts of our body or have we lost control?
Wearables are lightweight gadgets, such as the Fitbit, that can be worn to self-monitor health, fitness and lifestyle data, for greater self-awareness and thus control over the body. In 2016, 526 million people owned and wore a wearable device worldwide. Nowadays, it is estimated that 1.1 billion people have surrendered to the wearable craze and are beginning to view this luxury, as more of a necessity.
Don’t get me wrong, to an extent, data tracking is effective, when used for the desired fitness purpose. Wearables such as the Fitbit allow self-tracking of steps, tailor physical activity goals, record workouts, be a part of a community, track food intake, whilst also monitoring sleep patterns. These gadgets also allow us to track biometric data, such as heart rate, blood oxygen and skin temperature. This can help improve fitness levels when training to ensure we are working optimally, and in the correct training zones, for the desired goals. They enable us to compare data throughout a training programme and notice improvements, increasing motivation levels, allowing the person to continue to push themselves. Fitbits offer so much more than just being an effective, affordable fitness tool that they are now becoming an accessory to life.
“There is a big emphasis on data and numbers today,” says Clark. “A sense that if we can quantify ourselves, we can really know ourselves. But the numbers are never contextual. There is a danger of becoming preoccupied by a number that doesn’t consider the whole picture of what is going on in your day.”
If you go for a run, does it count if you aren’t wearing your Fitbit? We are beginning to believe that if we are unable to track our exercise and daily steps then it never happened. We are converting our behaviours to numbers, reducing the inaccuracies and uncertainties of the human embodiment. Many owners of wearables wear their watch 24/7 due to the functionality of them, because of their ability to record from the first step of the day, right the way through the night, as you sleep. This obsession has caused individuals to feel frustrated and “naked” when they aren’t wearing their watches or recording their data. Without the evidence and ability to quantify are behaviours, it’s normalising the objectification of the individual, preventing us from exercising purely because of the kinaesthetic experience. People before us were able to improve fitness without this new technology so why are we so over-obsessed now?
Nudge Theory is where a relatively indirect, subtle action encourages people to adapt their behaviours, based on their broad self-interest and goals. It is believed that without this ‘nudge’ then society is incapable of making the ‘right’ decision. Nudges can be perceived as neo-libertarian, as people are able to act freely in response to them, therefore they seem consensual rather than obligatory. Examples of this include gadgets such as Smart Meters or internet purchases that we make. Smart meters track utility bills and present how much energy and money a household is using. By owning this technology, it may adapt our behaviours by prompting us to control how much heat or water we use, to save money. Another example could be that data is stored within the internet and knows that we may have purchased items at a certain time during the month so will trigger pop-up’s advertising the same product a month later. This could be items such as sanitary products, therefore will prompt you to buy more for the following month. We may be completely unaware that this personal data is being stored and it could be considered invasive.
In the situation of Fitbits, a vibration is sent to the wrist, at 10 minutes to the hour, to encourage the owner to walk the remainder of their steps f they have not yet met their standardised goal. Without this vibration would we get up and move around? This isn’t the worst idea to keep us moving and generally, a very achievable goal to the average individual, however, when looking at the ontological principles underlying these ‘nudges’, it can be seen that this external motivation has such control over our behaviours that we change the way we act due to increased pressure.
This ‘nudge’ may have the potential to discourage individuals because it doesn’t take into account the context or situation of daily lives. The watch may vibrate to say there are still 250 steps to complete, meaning you’ve been sitting down at your desk for too long, although you had already completed 4,000 steps on your morning dog walk. The Fitbit doesn’t consider your daily routine therefore, we may feel ashamed for not reaching our goals. Although, wearing a Fitbit may encourage us to take the stairs that day, rather than the lift, would this behaviour become habitual if you stopped wearing it and nothing was dictating your normal routine or implementing guilt? This shows that we are so consumed by quantifying ourselves that we are dehumanising ourselves and not doing anything voluntarily, just like cyborgs. Contradicting this, what happens if these altered behaviours become embodied and there is no need to monitor activity anymore? Fitbits would become a short-lived piece of technology and a thing of the past.
It is becoming increasingly popular in places such as the USA, the UK and South Africa for insurance companies and employers to use the small data we store in our wearables on a larger scale. Insurance companies are offering life insurance based on habits recorded in their Fitbits. However, how can we be certain that the data being sent to these companies that is now determining our financial outgoings is accurate and reliable? Wearables are not considered as medical devices, measurements such as heart rate fluctuations are not considered to be as accurate as an electrocardiography trace and many owners say that their steps will increase, despite them not moving at all. Insufficient investigations have been conducted on the accuracy of wearables and a more disciplined testing approach is required before we can rely on this data for insurance. There is also the danger of security breaches with sensitive data such as this, by getting multiple companies involved with the storage of health data.
It has been reported that the use of wearables causes owners to feel disrupted from their activity. This is because of the environment they were exercising in due to distracting notifications and vibrations from their device, pushing them to exercise at a higher intensity, for longer. They found it demotivating and increased their perception of effort and tiredness, if their bodies weren’t up to the task. In the age where we critique, particularly the younger generation, for large amounts of ‘screen-time’, it appears slightly hypocritical that we are justifying allowing ourselves to be consumed by our wearables, purely because of the perspective that they are enabling greater self-awareness and control over our bodies.
Are we physically benefiting from our Fitbits? It could be considered that we all have this perception that if we all buy some form of wearable, we will magically change our habits and become healthier. However, the extent that we respond to this purchase will vary and what may benefit one person, may not be the same for everyone. As a society, we appear to have a large amount of trust in popular technology. This could be due to a positive recommendation from a reliable friend or just a general awareness of the product’s popularity, feeding an impulse to be on trend and benefiting also. The default goal of the number of steps a person should do to improve fitness is 10,000 steps, however there is no research to support that this is an adequate amount steps because every individual is different and may require more or less than this. This number stemmed from a marketing campaign by a Japanese company selling a pedometer called the Manpo-kei, “man” meaning 10,000, “po” meaning steps and kei meaning “meter”.
The number of sales of this pedometer was successful therefore, the number seemed to stick, as the universal goal for fitness, however there is no scientific evidence that this is correct, and every individual will vary. Although individuals may not be physically benefiting from this goal, there are potential psychological benefits because individuals will be striving for a goal and will gain positive reinforcement, once rewarded from achieving this. Contradicting this, if people are unable to reach this goal due to lifestyle reasons, they can feel demotivated and are more likely to stop using their device. The default step target on a Fitbit is 10,000, however this doesn’t account for factors such as age or fitness level, therefore steps will vary from person to person.
Wearables and motivation levels
As little as 50% of young people engage in enough physical activity, therefore substantial action and innovation of ideas are required to promote exercise to increase engagement of young people in sport. The younger generation have shown an increased reliance on mobile devices and other technology. This highlights the potential to combine the use of fitness tools such as Fitbits, with a healthy physical lifestyle that promotes exercise and increases motivation. This theory was investigated with the purpose being to analyse whether Fitbits impacted adolescent’s motivation levels to physical activity. Each participant was given a Fitbit to wear for 8 weeks, then they were asked to complete a questionnaire, assessing motivation levels and need satisfaction of the gadget. Results showed that there was a decrease in need satisfaction of the Fitbit and in autonomous motivation, an increase in amotivation due to increased comparisons between participants, creating competition due to increased levels of guilt and internal pressure.
Self-determination Theory
Self-determination theory provides an understanding of the initiation and maintenance of physical activity. Individuals show greater signs of self-determination when they are internally motivated to adapt their behaviour, due to their own interest. This is also known as autonomous behaviour. However, the investigation, as mentioned previously, presents a reduction in participants autonomous behaviour and an increase in amotivation. This is because individuals are becoming so invested in competing with one another to record the best data that if they don’t reach their daily step count or make it on the Fitbit leader board that they feel less motivated and more incompetent. The reduction in autonomous behaviours may be caused by the inability to relate to previous experience on how to formulate the correct habitual demand during exercise. This is because they have eliminated their innate involuntary response by delegating the responsibility and knowledge to an external piece of technology.
In conclusion, technology is becoming a large determinant of the way we behave, and we are beginning to quantify our bodies because of the gadgets we own. We need to begin listening to what our bodies really need again and learning from experience, rather than depending on a record of numbers on our watches and phones.
