Insurance, obstacles and the creative brain

Our trial of electric road legal buggies (b-bugs) in the Brecon Beacons National Park has come to an end, the results are all analysed and the trial report published. Given its success, we are now busy exploring ways in which b-bugs could become a reality for visitors to the Brecon Beacons. .

But, we’ve currently hit a bit of a wall.  We are struggling to find a company who will insure the b-bugs for self-drive hire. The b-bugs are type approved by the DVLA and straightforward to insure for private use. The trouble is the buggy insurance companies don’t do rental insurance. Conversely, vehicle rental insurance companies don’t cover non-standard vehicles like buggies.

The frustration of finding a solution is made worse by endless calls to insurance companies who are intent on asking their prescribed set of  questions (‘are you married?’ ‘what date do you want to start the insurance?’) in order to find you the cheapest quote. I have yet to find how to engage them in a dialogue which doesn’t revolve around such questions!

So, we are going to have to think creatively and the good news is that  recent psychology research suggests that that is exactly what the brain is good at when confronted with a constraint or barrier. Because of its rich connectivity, the brain normally puts a lot of energy into ignoring ‘spurious’ information and links – otherwise we’d never get anything decided or done.

However, studies suggest that “encountering an obstacle in one task can elicit a more global, Gestalt-like processing style that automatically carries over to unrelated tasks, leading people to broaden their perception, open up mental categories, and improve at integrating seemingly unrelated concepts.”

Insurance doesn’t feel like an obvious candidate for stimulating creative thinking but I’m writing this hoping that, in the meantime, some part of my cortex is digging out some totally spurious unconscious connections.  And, once I’m done, I shall go and lie down flat because that too is meant to help.

Posted in Psychology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Sustainable Agriculture

Whether or not you believe in global warming (as perhaps the majority do) or that mankind’s contribution to it is significant (as increasing numbers don’t, or would rather not) we will run out of fossil fuel.  When that happens, unless we find a substitute we can mine for a few more centuries, we’re going to have to learn to power and feed ourselves sustainably.

Very little of the food we eat in the West is sustainably produced, and there may already be more people than can be fed sustainably.  If the oil ran out tomorrow, most of us in the West (at least) would starve (which might cause the planet to breathe a sigh of relief but otherwise not be considered by many to be a Good Thing). And farmers would starve along with the rest of us, because they need a lot of fossil fuel to produce our food.

So can farming be made sustainable in the sense that it could manage without direct or indirect fossil fuel input?  The farms of old were, like the rest of the economy, sustainable.  They were, like the rest of the economy, far more labour intensive than today, although they probably used less energy per calorie of food produced than developed countries do today.  The large number of farm workers and draught animals would still have needed feeding, of course, but all the energy they consumed would still have originated on the farm and would still have produced a surplus.

Ultimately, all energy comes from sunlight.  Fossil fuel is simply 300 million years of sunlight locked away in the earth to be liberated by mankind in a little over 300 years. Before that, we burned wood, liberating sunlight captured over a couple of decades, and grazed horses liberating sunlight captured in the last year.  If you can  grow firewood and grass as fast as you use them, you can keep it up indefinitely – i.e. it’s sustainable.

Organic farming does not consume fossil fuel to provide fertilisers and pesticides but those organic farmers who still power their machines and generate heat from fossil fuel are no more sustainable in the long run than any other type of farming.  In that respect, sustainability is a binary proposition.

But farm machinery can be powered by oil extracted from currently growing plants and other organisms, so farming can avoid using fossil fuel – and indeed in much of the non-Western world it probably still does. Today, that requires setting aside some proportion of crop land to provide the fuel necessary to cultivate, harvest and process the remainder.  This is what the farmers of old did, and what the extremely efficient Amish farmers of today do.  The Amish, of course, use horses to power their machines, and horses also provide some of the fertiliser for the land they cultivate. But while we may not be able to afford to go back to horse-powered agriculture, we might be able to go back to plant-powered.  Using farmland to grow fuel for combustion engines threatens food supply, and there isn’t enough land in the UK to fuel all the cars, trucks, trains and aircraft the UK uses.  But just providing the fuel for farm machinery – which is what our ancestors did – is still feasible, and might enable our farmers to maintain the efficiency while dramatically improving the sustainability of what they do.

There are academic studies of this on-line, but simply put you can extract a little over 1000 litres of rape seed oil per hectare in the UK, and you need a little over 100 litres of that to drive the tractors and machinery to cultivate that hectare.   That’s the good news. The bad news is that a farmer can get 70p a litre for rape seed oil while his red fossil diesel costs him 60p.  Until that changes, it’s hard to see what else will.

As we run out of fossil fuel, of course, its price will increase, but since a growing proportion of the diesel and petrol we all buy is now (by law) biofuel – i.e. extracted from plant sources – so will the price of rape seed oil.  So long as the subsidised price of fossil fuel for agriculture remains below the market price for bio-fuel feedstock, modern farming will be as unsustainable as the rest of our economy.

Posted in Technology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Challenging our perceptions

I’ve always enjoyed optical illusions. And every now and then, it’s good to encounter a  new one.

The two spirals above are exactly the same colour – i.e. they are both  green (as shown on the right). It’s hard to believe it but there it is. The ‘blue’ appearance is simply our visual system calculating colour relative to immediately adjacent colours.

It’s healthy to be reminded every now and then that we happily interpret the world around us every day – scenes, events, conversations, motivations, emotions – but actually all these our interpretations are similarly affected (distorted even) by context.

Never be too certain…..

Posted in Psychology | Tagged | Leave a comment

Attitudes or Behaviour – which drives which?

The age old psychology question – do attitudes drive behaviour or does behaviour drive attitudes? Whichever model you favour, it seems clear that there’s a pretty complex interaction between the two.

We favour a research approach which starts with behaviour. We introduce new technology into people’s lives which has the potential to disrupt established habits and encourage experimentation – ways to do things differently. We then explore how people’s attitudes (and subsequent behaviours) are changed by the experience. It’s certainly easier than trying to persuade people to change their attitudes and it’s a lot more interesting and fun for everyone involved!

But here’s an interesting behaviour/attitude case from our current b-bug trial. We are loaning tourists a road-legal electric buggy for 3-5 days of their stay in the Brecon Beacons and monitoring the use they make of it and what they see as its potential value compared to a car.

Subject 1 (a motoring journalist from a National newspaper as it happens) had a b-bug for 4 days of his holiday. Here is the Satellite track of 15 of the 20 miles he did in the b-bug during his stay. The location was the field adjacent to the holiday cottage.

15 miles b-bug track in a 3 acre field

And his feedback at the end of 4 days? – “I’m afraid I don’t get the point of this vehicle”.

Here is a more typical subject from our trial (a lady in her 30’s camping with her partner). She had a b-bug for 3 days. Here is the satellite track of the 50 miles driven during their stay.

50 miles b-bug track from Priory Mill campsite

And her and her partner’s feedback at the end of 3 days?  “the b-bug made our holiday… we would have gone to places but the b-bug made going short distances worth the trip … it turns going somewhere into an event, doesn’t it. We loved it. It really did make us go out a bit more than we would have done otherwise

So, did Subject 1 think the b-bug was pointless as a vehicle so he only drove it round in circles on a field or did he only drive it round in circles on a field and therefore decide it was pointless?

And did Subject 2 think the b-bug was an interesting alternative to a car and so use it to explore the area and get to the pub each evening or did she drive it 50 miles to explore the area and get to the pub and therefore decide it was an interesting alternative to a car?

Curious, huh?

Posted in Psychology | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Who takes part in technology trials?

In running trials of a new technology, one always hopes to generate a neat profile of the type of person who will value and use the technology in question.  But it never works out quite like that. In every technology trial we’ve ever run, we end up with a mix of the following types of people involved. The first 3 types are the really valuable ones – you can learn all sorts of useful things from them.  The last 3 types contribute little but they always turn up in the mix.

The innovators – these people grab the technology and start using it for all sorts of interesting things – including things you’d never thought of. They are gold dust and you always get a few of them and they are more often women than men.

The collaborators – these  people use the technology, see its value to them and then start working enthusiastically with you to improve the design because it’s now in their interest that the product is successful. Creating a set of these “informed users” is one of the most useful aspects of running a trial.

The accidental bug finders – these people unerringly find any faults which are  lurking in your prototype system or user model. They don’t mean to and are very apologetic when something suddenly “doesn’t work” or “breaks” or they “can’t remember which button to press”. They think, unfortunately,  it’s their fault but it isn’t, it’s yours. Value these people as they’ll save you a lot of time and money further down the track!

The passive anoraks – these are the self-styled technical experts who don’t actually use the technology (or even volunteer for the trial) but they hang around the fringes, asking endless technical questions and telling you about faster/better/cheaper ways it could have been designed despite never having built one themselves. They are the most irritating and it’s rare to learn anything from them.

The active anoraks – techie enthusiasts who will sign up to try any new technology! They’re much more fun than the passive anoraks but they don’t tend to provide very useful data or insights. They are so focused on the technology, they can’t think what to actually use it for!  And they are so enthusiastic, they overlook the faults.

The non users – this is perhaps the strangest set but we always encounter a few in any trial. They enthusiastically sign up for a trial but never actually do anything with the technology once they get it. And, unfortunately, it’s never very clear why! Just odd.

One is left with an uncomfortable feeling that, if you were to use exactly the same individuals for every technology trial, however diverse the application, the same people would fall into the same categories every time!

 

 

Posted in Psychology, Technology | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Technology, people and paradoxes

As a cognitive psychologist, brought up on a diet of strictly controlled lab experiments,  I love the “totally out of control” nature of technology trials (although not always at the time!).

However well you plan the trial or design the artefact in question, novice users will surprise you. They’ll use the device for things you’d never thought of (and certainly didn’t design for), they’ll extol the virtues of things you considered incidental whilst taking for granted the features you were most proud of. And finally, they’ll develop their own idiosyncratic model of how the thing works (however good your Technical Guide).

Women are the most rewarding in this regard because, if you can persuade them to take part in a technology trial in the first place (not always easy),  they are excellent at discovering what the technology is most useful for – partly, it seems, because they take little interest in the technology itself but only what it enables them to do.

And then there are the paradoxes which emerge.

When we ran trials of simple information appliances, we found that the less any appliance did, the more uses people found for it and vice versa. That was a tough lesson to convey to a lab full of eager feature-focused engineers.

In our current b-bug trial, we are loaning two electric, road legal buggies to holiday makers in the Brecon Beacons. Two paradoxes are emerging so far from this trial:-

1. People remark that recharging the electric b-bug (which takes about 6 hours) is “quicker and easier“(sic) than filling their car at a fuel station (which takes, say 10 minutes).

We think this is because (a) charging the b-bug just requires a 13 amp socket and everyone has got one of those and (b) people tend to charge the b-bug (or any electric vehicle for that matter) overnight – i.e. whilst you are busy doing something else whereas filling your car at a fuel station is always 10 minutes out of your time. Here in rural wales, the nearest fuel station can even require a 30 minute diversion.

2. People (on holiday) remark that with the b-bug “they don’t need to drive so far because the journey is more interesting“. I’m not quite sure what the psychology is here. It needs some thought.

I am reminded of someone we interviewed some years ago about why they were planning to swap their motor boat for a sailing boat (even though they didn’t know how to sail). Their explanation was that motoring was pointless without a destination whereas “people sailing seemed to have a lot more fun going nowhere“!

Posted in Psychology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Welcome to The Prospectors’ Blog

Welcome to The Prospectors’ Blog.

Archived posts from this blog over the past 5 years can be found at ‘Fresh from the Pan‘.

Posted in General information | Leave a comment