Step into the interverse

In the debate about the future of design my aim is to move our investigation from the practice to the practitioner, from design to designers. True change in the way we shape the world will depend on our ability to reboot our mindset, the place from which we create the future.

I call this place the interverse.

With the term interverse I refer to our belief system, values and motivations. These are the elements that drive our behaviours, hence our work. In our job we often focus on the interverse of those for whom we envision solutions. The understanding of someone else’s interverse - the revelation that unlocks the creative and design process - it's called insight.

This is ironic. In-sight is the act of “looking within ourselves” first of all. In psychology is the practice of introspection that recognises and becomes aware of the inner world. In the work environment our attention is mostly turned away from us. While envisioning solutions is not that common to be mindful of our very own interverse (aka of the insights that lie within us, such as our biases and conditioning).

Before moving to the metaverse, it is time to step into the interverse.

When we look inside new questions arise: from which mindset do we create? In the last decades we have become used to describe our clients as the “target”. The way we address the world - the words we use to define objects and subjects - tells a lot of our mindset. It is a mindset conditioned to think and act a certain way. The word “target” comes from war language. It stands for something we want to hit to gain power and control. What good can come out of this mindset?

The good side of the story is that our mindset has been conditioned as much as we can now train it to think differently. For example I’ve asked my team to be mindful of the words we use and to choose people over expressions such as target or consumer. Consumer is conditioned by the consumerism mindset of the last century. User is free from the above, but still considers the individual simply while (or because) uses a solution, hence it should be used wisely. People is a more inclusive and mindful term. Because it defines equally the customer as much as the designer and the creative.

If our attention is directed to the external world only, we manipulate people rather than helping them achieve their goals. If we look at the outer dynamics, with no clue of the functioning of that same dynamics within, there’s no true connection with the people for whom we create.

Empathy is a word I like to use when describing the art of uncovering insights. What’s the difference between manipulation and empathy? The former is a mean to achieve a goal. The latter invites us to put on someone else’s shoes, to see the world from their prospective. The former is a cold and rational approach. The latter is a rather warmer, intuitive and sympathetic approach.

By renaming things, we can start to reboot our mindset and reframe our role.

The out-sight is a piece of information used to achieve a goal. If we don't take into consideration its wider and long-term impact, the resulting manipulation can trigger addictive and toxic behaviours, such as compulsive scrolling and social media anxiety to name a few.

The in-sight on the other hand has the power to challenge the mindset from which we design. Through the practice of understanding others, we understand ourselves. This way the design process becomes a transformative journey for us too.

In our work both sights are needed: one is turned outside at the object of intervention, the other is pointed towards the subject of the intervention, us. I had the pleasure to work with Otto Scharmer, MIT professor and founder of Theory U, who quotes Bill O'Brian to imply this simple truth:

"The quality of any intervention, depends on the inner condition of the one who intervenes."

We can shape a better future a step - into the interverse - at a time.