The worrying amount of effort spent discussing how people should be

Whenever a strategy says people “should”, check whether the author has quietly outsourced the difficult bit to the customer. People should read the instructions, compare every fee, choose the healthy lunch, use a unique password, save for retirement and report tiny warning signs before they become disasters. Splendid. They should also floss behind the difficult tooth and remain emotionally mature when the printer says “unknown error”.

The word becomes dangerous when it replaces observation. A service demands twelve fields, then blames abandonment on low intent. A budgeting tool sends its saving prompt after the money has gone, then diagnoses weak discipline. A hierarchy asks for candour after the senior voice has already announced the clever answer. Apparently the humans have failed again. Responsibility still exists. Behavioural design is not a papal pardon for every foolish choice. It simply refuses to build systems for an imaginary species with unlimited attention, no embarrassment and a diary maintained by angels.

The revealing instant is where sensible intention loses: the easiest action, the immediate consequence, the surrounding norm, the small indignity demanded by the approved path. A fixed login or a moved prompt can shift more behaviour than another sermon about commitment. If the same failure happens again, the product may have discovered a second obstacle rather than a fresh outbreak of moral weakness.