There is a kind of product that has always made me uncomfortable. It is usually very effective: it catches attention quickly and really can turn it into sales.
And that effectiveness is almost always built on the same things: stimulation, shorter paths, lower thinking costs, and stronger impulses.
These products do not care whether users make better decisions. They only care whether a decision happens faster. That shared direction keeps making me question them.
Because of this discomfort, I once seriously imagined a product that could add a layer of rational support before someone makes a purchase.
For clothing, for example, it could use the information already available to show whether a purchase makes sense for long-term use, instead of simply telling someone to buy less or buy more:
- Is there really a situation where I would wear it?
- Would it make better use of things I already own?
- Is the cost per use too high?
Logically, the idea made a lot of sense to me. It also matched what I have always cared about: cognitive judgment, decision quality, and a longer view.
But when I tried to imagine making it real, I slowly saw a few facts that could not be avoided:
- Decision support naturally has to enter the moment when someone is excited, and that creates tension with how most people behave.
- Better judgment usually needs more input, and most users do not want to stop for that.
- As an independent product, it would still have to deal with cold start, retention, and a real business loop.
Even if we had the ability to build it, the structural limits of human nature and the system itself would hardly give it a chance to survive.
I also thought of another keyword: e-commerce return rates.
In online clothing retail, return rates have stayed very high for a long time.
That is not only because people like returning things. It points to something deeper: many decisions are not properly checked before they happen.
There is a behavior that the industry has quietly accepted. People buy something not for long-term use, but for short-term possession.
From the system's point of view, these transactions do not create real value. They keep using up logistics, inventory, and trust.
When I moved the question from “how do I make an app?” to “who is actually able to solve this?”, I realized something.
This kind of rational support does not fit an independent tool. It is closer to a platform-level ability:
- Platforms already have historical data.
- Decisions happen inside the platform.
- A rational prompt would not need an extra jump.
At that level, helping people make fewer low-quality decisions could actually increase long-term trust and willingness to return.
Reordering decision quality is more practical than loudly calling for anti-consumerism.
I also know that this logic will not have real ground in every market.
In an environment built around turning attention into money, slowing a decision down is already a challenge to the main metrics.
After all, every system has different goals.
I do not think technology can change human nature. Impulse, speculation, and short-term possession will always exist.
The important thing is what technology chooses to do.
It can keep amplifying these tendencies, or it can create a pause at a key moment and give people a chance to judge again.
In an age when algorithms are getting better and better at persuading us, helping people make fewer bad decisions is infrastructure in itself.
So I understand more clearly now that I am not looking for one product that is definitely possible. I am looking for a position from which to judge. (Also, having more apps means spending more time 🤔)
I allow myself to overturn old ideas, and I accept that my understanding will keep changing. More than keeping my views consistent, I care about whether my decision system is reliable.
If technology is going to shape the paths people take, then at least some technology is worth building for clarity.