10 ms·

The article is long but fairly interesting, repeating much of what Kahneman said in Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow. But I have a few comments. What is called

The article is long but fairly interesting, repeating much of what Kahneman said in Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow. But I have a few comments. What is called 'nudging' in the political and policy making sphere and portrayed positively is really the same as what advertisers and salesmen have been doing for many decades and even centuries, and Kahneman has pointed that out, too, of course. However, "Libertarian Paternalism" is a misnomer for several reasons. First, "libertarianism" is a highly misleading, US-centric label for certain brands of liberalism. It's not a coherent political position and instead used by very different people ranging from the right-wing authoritarian to the right-wing liberal spectrum to endorse a diffuse and internally inconsistent mix of cherry-picked elements of classical liberalism, general anti-federal government sentiments and individual anarchism. Second, there is not much liberal about nudging, since the the whole idea of nudging is to influence people to do the 'right thing' by exploiting flaws and heuristics in their decision making abilities, thereby limiting their actual choices. Real freedom of choice requires the people to be well-informed and educated well enough that the slow system can kick in. It's an old trick to ascribe some 'de jure' choice that in reality does not amount to any real choices for various social and external reasons, and then claim that people are free to choose whatever they want. This has already been criticized in depth by Amartya Sen. In the end, whether ads, propaganda, and nudging are acceptable or not hinges pretty much on a moral evaluation of the goals of the nudger and the circumstances and level of influence a group gains over another. There is nothing wrong with making people slow down their car by subtle hints on the driveway, so they don't accidentally run over children in an urban housing zone. In other areas such as voting I cannot find anything positive about nudging, since the fate of one's country should always be based on decisions that are rational and as well-informed as possible, i.e., made primarily on the basis of the slow system. One (but not the only) criterion for distinguishing good and nefarious uses of advertising/nudging is whether the person is lied to or not. Lying to people in order to achieve a desirable outcome is generally unacceptable, according to what many if not most people think, and I agree with them. There may be exceptions under unusual circumstances, but generally I expect my policy makers to take me as an adult individual and only put up a sign "Beware shark attacks" whenever there is an actual danger of shark attacks.

sfRattan 10y ago
>First, "libertarianism" is a highly misleading, US-centric label for certain brands of liberalism. It's not a coherent political position and instead used by very different people ranging from the right-wing authoritarian to the right-wing liberal spectrum to endorse a diffuse and internally inconsistent mix of cherry-picked elements of classical liberalism, general anti-federal government sentiments and individual anarchism. I'll give you that "libertarian" is an Americanism. But I'd remind you that the term became necessary because the term "liberal" was co-opted by left leaning politicians, FDR chief among them, and is now used in American politics where "social democrat" would be used in Europe and much of the rest of the world. And, insofar as any big-tent political movement can be internally consistent at all, "libertarians" in the United States are leagues beyond the Republican shotgun wedding of traditional religious social mores with unfettered corporatism and the Democrat morass of supposedly aggrieved parties jockeying for better position in the pecking order of protected groups. Even to the extend that libertarians disagree with each other, we're able to work together because the state has grown to such an extent that our internal differences pale in comparison to that commonly identified problem. Separately, a more strict criterion for distinguishing the good nudges from the nefarious ones might be: do people who become aware of the nudging object to its happening after some contemplation? (i.e. is there an objection emerging from the "slow" system two?)
- pdelbarba 10y ago
  It's also worth noting that the while you can argue that libertarianism is a cherry picking of political ideas, the same can be said for the main American parties, though this is often due to the not-so-subtle inclusion of religion in one of them
- MaysonL 10y ago
  FT Alphachat had a great interview (March 30 [0]) with Robert Cialdini about his new book, politics, and influence. He told an anecdote on himself which illustrated the difficulty of distinguishing the "good" nudge from the "nefarious" ones. A salesman, seeing him contemplating AN on-sale TV, told him that it was the last one in the store, and that another customer had told him they were thinking of buying it. Cialdini left the store with the TV. Was this a good use of nudging? In an effort to find out, he went back the next day. Did he see another TV? Listen to the podcast to find out. [see what I did there?] [0]http://podcast.ft.com/2017/03/31/how-persuasion-works-in-business-life-and-politics/ http://podcast.ft.com/2017/03/31/how-persuasion-works-in-bus...

sfRattan 10y ago

>First, "libertarianism" is a highly misleading, US-centric label for certain brands of liberalism. It's not a coherent political position and instead used by very different people ranging from the right-wing authoritarian to the right-wing liberal spectrum to endorse a diffuse and internally inconsistent mix of cherry-picked elements of classical liberalism, general anti-federal government sentiments and individual anarchism. I'll give you that "libertarian" is an Americanism. But I'd remind you that the term became necessary because the term "liberal" was co-opted by left leaning politicians, FDR chief among them, and is now used in American politics where "social democrat" would be used in Europe and much of the rest of the world. And, insofar as any big-tent political movement can be internally consistent at all, "libertarians" in the United States are leagues beyond the Republican shotgun wedding of traditional religious social mores with unfettered corporatism and the Democrat morass of supposedly aggrieved parties jockeying for better position in the pecking order of protected groups. Even to the extend that libertarians disagree with each other, we're able to work together because the state has grown to such an extent that our internal differences pale in comparison to that commonly identified problem. Separately, a more strict criterion for distinguishing the good nudges from the nefarious ones might be: do people who become aware of the nudging object to its happening after some contemplation? (i.e. is there an objection emerging from the "slow" system two?)

pdelbarba 10y ago
It's also worth noting that the while you can argue that libertarianism is a cherry picking of political ideas, the same can be said for the main American parties, though this is often due to the not-so-subtle inclusion of religion in one of them
MaysonL 10y ago
FT Alphachat had a great interview (March 30 [0]) with Robert Cialdini about his new book, politics, and influence. He told an anecdote on himself which illustrated the difficulty of distinguishing the "good" nudge from the "nefarious" ones. A salesman, seeing him contemplating AN on-sale TV, told him that it was the last one in the store, and that another customer had told him they were thinking of buying it. Cialdini left the store with the TV. Was this a good use of nudging? In an effort to find out, he went back the next day. Did he see another TV? Listen to the podcast to find out. [see what I did there?] [0]http://podcast.ft.com/2017/03/31/how-persuasion-works-in-business-life-and-politics/ http://podcast.ft.com/2017/03/31/how-persuasion-works-in-bus...