4 ms·

Dick Thaler, who won a Nobel prize in econ, wrote a book called Nudge (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book

Dick Thaler, who won a Nobel prize in econ, wrote a book called Nudge (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book for more info), which I'd bet good money Fauci and the entire public policy elite have read and internalized. The book is basically about how the ruling class should think about structuring policy and messaging to create the outcomes they desire--"choice architecture". Thaler's work describes how public policy "experts" should frame their messaging such that us sheep submit to their will. Notably, nothing in the book is about how to make public policy to benefit the actual people--the built-in assumption is that our rulers have the unique ability to see the future that is best, and this book simply describes how to achieve that future. Honesty is not a consideration in itself--it is only one factor among many in considering second- and third-order consequences of particular messaging techniques and policy actions. Our (that is, the peoples') "best interests" don't factor into their thinking one single iota. If anyone thinks any of this pandemic crap has anything to do with helping people, at least as far as the rulers go, I feel so sorry for them.

whimsicalism 5y ago
I'll go mask off: yeah, I think "nudging" is probably necessary in a country where 45% of people legitimately believe in ghosts and 30% believe they've interacted with one before. You've got to be in a serious intellectual bubble to be thinking that most people are carefully considering the options and making the best choices for themselves.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  I think the point of view that nearly half of your fellow citizens aren't capable of making good choices is pretty silly. I think sane citizens supporting patriarchal rulers, especially when those rulers have proven themselves basically selfish and untrustworthy, their shameless behaviour openly on display for decades, is super surprising. By the way, that's Thaler's own description: patriarchal. He views the ruling class as basically responsible for cajoling and nudging an unruly mass of unthinking golems toward some future state. It seems you're a big fan of this patriarchs. Seems strange to support that unless you're part of the ruling class. If so, more power to ya, if not, can I ask why you think they're qualified in any way to do this nudging? Why do you think the outcomes they want are going to be good for you personally?
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Patriarchal? Are you sure you don't mean paternal? > why you think they're qualified in any way to do this nudging? Why do you think the outcomes they want are going to be good for you personally? I think publicly sanctioned (ie. elected) rulers should craft policy that alters people's behavior in positive ways. This is the underpinning of representative democracy, we trust our representatives to make more thoughtful decisions on issues than we do ourselves, because they have more time to think on it and it is their full-time job. If we don't trust them to do that, we don't vote for them. Of course, that can break down - if for instance, the primary thing deciding elections is a bunch of idiots voting based on TV ads. But the problem there is with the representative process, not with the concept of "nudging." > Why do you think the outcomes they want are going to be good for you personally? I don't always want outcomes that are good for me personally, I want outcomes that I consider to be good and just. I don't think we always get that, but I think "nudging" can certainly be a tool to realize those outcomes.
    - sjwalter 5y ago
      I did mean paternalism, thank you for the correction. I agree with you that nudging can certainly be a tool to realize outcomes. I seem to have a disagreement with you in that it seems obvious to me that governments across the world have zero to offer in the way of visions for a future that are at all positive for me personally, my family, my community. I think our institutions are not worthy of trust, and I think there is ample evidence that every major institutional category is captured and serves the interests of a tiny elite. You said 'mask off' in your earlier comment, and I think that's interesting because from where I'm sitting the mask is off, but it's the rulers' masks--they clearly view the common citizenry as a threat and a nuisance, and their goals have nothing to do with our wellbeing. Whatever stated goals they have are two-faced and half-hearted.
- lolsal 5y ago
  > You've got to be in a serious intellectual bubble to be thinking that most people are carefully considering the options and making the best choices for themselves It's risky to dismiss people that make different choices than you as idiots not being able to make the best choices for themselves. 'Best' here is entirely relative. For example, I know (in real life), folks that are making the choice to not submit to vaccine mandates because that aligns with their principals which is a preferred choice for them than surviving into old age. It is utter arrogance to argue they are not making the best choice for themselves.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    I don't buy into this level of moral relativism. Sure they might have different principles than me. So do people who support child marriage in India. I have no qualms about outlawing child marriage though. Maybe that is ultimately relative and maybe it is western arrogance. I'm fine with it.
    - sjwalter 5y ago
      I don't see it as moral relativism. We're talking about an individual making their own health choice. Not to mention, the "safe" and "effective" vaccines, according to all available data, are nothing like what they were advertised as. Hell, the President of the USA came out and said you won't get covid if you get the vaccine. And no journalist is calling him out on this obvious lie. Given that environment, it seems strange to have any vitriol to those who aren't submitting to the new biosecurity state.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        > We're talking about an individual making their own health choice. And businesses making their own employment choices. > new biosecurity state. Vaccine mandates are nothing new - I was required to get vaccinated to go to my public school. > I don't see it as moral relativism. You literally said the "best" choice is relative. Your entire stance is deeply relativistic at its core. > And no journalist is calling him out on this obvious lie. I don't see the relevance of what Biden says to my point at all, seems like a jump in logic. And: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-biden/biden-exaggerates-efficacy-covid-19-vaccines/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-biden/...
- colordrops 5y ago
  How does that line of thinking not contradict with the entire concept of democracy? "The rulers know better than the proles so they should make the calls." How do we trust these idiots to vote in the right leaders?

whimsicalism 5y ago

I'll go mask off: yeah, I think "nudging" is probably necessary in a country where 45% of people legitimately believe in ghosts and 30% believe they've interacted with one before. You've got to be in a serious intellectual bubble to be thinking that most people are carefully considering the options and making the best choices for themselves.

sjwalter 5y ago
I think the point of view that nearly half of your fellow citizens aren't capable of making good choices is pretty silly. I think sane citizens supporting patriarchal rulers, especially when those rulers have proven themselves basically selfish and untrustworthy, their shameless behaviour openly on display for decades, is super surprising. By the way, that's Thaler's own description: patriarchal. He views the ruling class as basically responsible for cajoling and nudging an unruly mass of unthinking golems toward some future state. It seems you're a big fan of this patriarchs. Seems strange to support that unless you're part of the ruling class. If so, more power to ya, if not, can I ask why you think they're qualified in any way to do this nudging? Why do you think the outcomes they want are going to be good for you personally?
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Patriarchal? Are you sure you don't mean paternal? > why you think they're qualified in any way to do this nudging? Why do you think the outcomes they want are going to be good for you personally? I think publicly sanctioned (ie. elected) rulers should craft policy that alters people's behavior in positive ways. This is the underpinning of representative democracy, we trust our representatives to make more thoughtful decisions on issues than we do ourselves, because they have more time to think on it and it is their full-time job. If we don't trust them to do that, we don't vote for them. Of course, that can break down - if for instance, the primary thing deciding elections is a bunch of idiots voting based on TV ads. But the problem there is with the representative process, not with the concept of "nudging." > Why do you think the outcomes they want are going to be good for you personally? I don't always want outcomes that are good for me personally, I want outcomes that I consider to be good and just. I don't think we always get that, but I think "nudging" can certainly be a tool to realize those outcomes.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    I did mean paternalism, thank you for the correction. I agree with you that nudging can certainly be a tool to realize outcomes. I seem to have a disagreement with you in that it seems obvious to me that governments across the world have zero to offer in the way of visions for a future that are at all positive for me personally, my family, my community. I think our institutions are not worthy of trust, and I think there is ample evidence that every major institutional category is captured and serves the interests of a tiny elite. You said 'mask off' in your earlier comment, and I think that's interesting because from where I'm sitting the mask is off, but it's the rulers' masks--they clearly view the common citizenry as a threat and a nuisance, and their goals have nothing to do with our wellbeing. Whatever stated goals they have are two-faced and half-hearted.
lolsal 5y ago
> You've got to be in a serious intellectual bubble to be thinking that most people are carefully considering the options and making the best choices for themselves It's risky to dismiss people that make different choices than you as idiots not being able to make the best choices for themselves. 'Best' here is entirely relative. For example, I know (in real life), folks that are making the choice to not submit to vaccine mandates because that aligns with their principals which is a preferred choice for them than surviving into old age. It is utter arrogance to argue they are not making the best choice for themselves.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I don't buy into this level of moral relativism. Sure they might have different principles than me. So do people who support child marriage in India. I have no qualms about outlawing child marriage though. Maybe that is ultimately relative and maybe it is western arrogance. I'm fine with it.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    I don't see it as moral relativism. We're talking about an individual making their own health choice. Not to mention, the "safe" and "effective" vaccines, according to all available data, are nothing like what they were advertised as. Hell, the President of the USA came out and said you won't get covid if you get the vaccine. And no journalist is calling him out on this obvious lie. Given that environment, it seems strange to have any vitriol to those who aren't submitting to the new biosecurity state.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      > We're talking about an individual making their own health choice. And businesses making their own employment choices. > new biosecurity state. Vaccine mandates are nothing new - I was required to get vaccinated to go to my public school. > I don't see it as moral relativism. You literally said the "best" choice is relative. Your entire stance is deeply relativistic at its core. > And no journalist is calling him out on this obvious lie. I don't see the relevance of what Biden says to my point at all, seems like a jump in logic. And: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-biden/biden-exaggerates-efficacy-covid-19-vaccines/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-biden/...
colordrops 5y ago
How does that line of thinking not contradict with the entire concept of democracy? "The rulers know better than the proles so they should make the calls." How do we trust these idiots to vote in the right leaders?