> it's that it arrogantly dismisses people who were concerned even then as suffering from a bias. It is your interpretation that it is arrogant. Have you cons

> it's that it arrogantly dismisses people who were concerned even then as suffering from a bias. It is your interpretation that it is arrogant. Have you considered other interpretations? For example, I see Sunstein as being very interested comparing human behavior against rationality (in its various forms). One of Sunstein's main points is that overreactions can cause more damage than the triggering event. This is a valid point, even if COVID-19 did not play out this way. May I ask, what is your experience when reading economics-style writing? In my experience, the authors are often misinterpreted. The tend to operate at a different level of abstraction even though the words seem familar. In this case, I don't think Sunstein is trying to call out individuals for acting irrationally. He certainly doesn't dismiss them. Knowing how people behave, he wants to build better systems to serve them. Sunstein, of all people, understands many nuances of human behavior, including risk tolerance. His 'project' (you could say) is connecting the dots between individual behavior and systemic problems.