7 ms·

How Obama used behavioral economics to win the election, and how he's using it to govern

53 points by gabrielroth 18y ago

sachinag 18y ago
It's like they respect science and the notion of evidence-based decision making or something.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- mynameishere 18y ago
  Hell. Madison Avenue has always listened to the scientists. Evidence-based blah blah. It's propaganda. That it's good propaganda doesn't make it good in any other context.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  They are experts at manipulating perception.
- jaytee_clone 18y ago
  More than they used to, so that's a step up. Still, I'd rather see these resource being spent on educating the public on behavioral economics as suppose to using the knowledge to manipulate the public. It's true that in most situations, indirect persuasion is more effective at influencing someone's behavior than direct preaching. However, at some point, the public needs "grow up" too, and always treating us like five year olds certainly won't stimulate this process. I hope these guys see that.
  - garndt 18y ago
    "However, at some point, the public needs "grow up" too, and always treating us like five year olds certainly won't stimulate this process." The public always has the ability to "grow up" as you put it but they do not want to. People are not motivated to take action if there isn't an immediate risk to their own personal well being. Risk has been taken out of many things that we do so now we can make ignorant choices without immediate consequences. We keep falling off the bike, but instead of scraping our knee and learning not to fall, we have a security net there to save us over and over again. I don't blame the government for treating us like 5 year olds when that is how a majority of people act.
    - jaytee_clone 18y ago
      I agree with you completely. But I also think it is possible to train yourself to manage your emotions better despite how strong our instinctual wiring is. This is evident in the long history of meditation practices. So, it's good that the government is nursing us. And it will be even better if, in addition to that, they integrate meditation, behavior economics, entrepreneurial training courses, etc, into our education system. However, the current education system is far from that.
mklurfeld 18y ago
Sort of fitting that a man who taught at the University of Chicago and who has Larry Summers for an advisor would use economics for more than just balancing a national budget.
- patrickg-zill 18y ago
  Wow, the Hopeychange flavored Kool-Aid hasn't run out yet!
  - kirse 18y ago
    I agree, people want change but they hardly know what they're in for, especially with universal healthcare "reform"... Some other recent notable changes... - push to eliminate US nuclear weapons - encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power - spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession - increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton - letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan - taking over private businesses and forcing out their CEOs I guess you always need a Carter to usher in a Reagan. ...And bring on the drive-by downmods with no responses.
    - gabrielroth 18y ago
      OK, here's a response: > push to eliminate US nuclear weapons I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing. > encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power Ditto. > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession What's the problem with that? Be specific. > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later? > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response.
ams6110 18y ago
Summary: people are irrational and make stupid decisions. The government knows better. Typical Time Magazine.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  Is this what normal people read all the time? I mean, they make statements like this with no clarification at all: "Our emissions are boiling the planet, and most of our energy use is unnecessary." What's "unnecessary"? Energy drives modern technology, from your desk to your home to your doctor's office. Sure, if you don't care about quality of life, then energy use is unnecessary. And while most scientists think our emissions are going to cause an increase in mean global temperatures over the next few centuries, "boiling the planet" is a long way off. That's just one example out of a dozen. Is Time an editorial magazine, or is it supposed to be some sort of objective journalism? That's not entirely a rhetorical question, I honestly don't follow dead tree media and never got into it much as a kid.
  - Kaizyn 18y ago
    You must not read much mainstream media. Nearly every piece contains little nuggets like the one(s) you mention. It isn't just Time; they all do it. Not surprisingly, newspapers are struggling with their readers now leaving in droves.
  - dmfdmf 18y ago
    I stopped reading Time, Newsweek, USNWR, etc whan I was in High School. Later I read that these magazines were written for 8-9th grade level. That was in the late '70s so I'm sure they are dumbing-down to the 5th grade level by now. Bad strategy. Also, and I'm going out on a limb here, but the internet really changes everything. The reporters have not been objective for decades but they are learning that they cannot get away with slop now that the internet exists. Exciting times!
  - mkn 18y ago
    "Our emissions are boiling the planet, and most of our energy use is unnecessary." What's "unnecessary"? Energy drives modern technology, from your desk to your home to your doctor's office. Sure, if you don't care about quality of life, then energy use is unnecessary. Really? This is your complaint? By 'unnecessary,' we can reasonably presume that the author means 'needlessly inefficient.' That much is evident to any sincere reader of the article who cares enough about the pursuit of knowledge to abide by the principle of charity: Put the best face on the argument before you refute it, otherwise you are not contributing. The straw-man argument, "Sure, if you don't care about quality of life, then energy use is unnecessary," is wholly beside the point. And while most scientists think our emissions are going to cause an increase in mean global temperatures over the next few centuries, "boiling the planet" is a long way off. Again, this cannot be a serious complaint. The phrase 'boiling the planet' is clearly a metaphor. A surface reading would be that we're just raising the temperature of the planet to an unhealthy extreme. A more nuanced reading reveals that the author means that we are raising the temperature of the planet to such a high temperature that we are going to cause irreversible change, such as when one boils food and finds that no amount of refrigeration will bring it back to it's former state. More simply, we are doing something analogous to sterilizing the planet, though to a lesser degree, in that many species may ultimately be made extinct. That's not entirely a rhetorical question, I honestly don't follow dead tree media and never got into it much as a kid. This is evident from the shallowness of your misguided critique. More practice at reading, dead-tree media or otherwise, might have made you a skillful enough reader to have been able to follow the plot here.
gills 18y ago
And here I thought they were all just incredibly stupid. But this is worse, they've ejected rational thought entirely from the policy-making process. We. Are. Doomed.
bk 18y ago
This is a peeve of mine: It's not "behavioral economics". It's social and organizational psychology. Virtually all the research has been done by psychologists. For example, Daniel Kahneman, Economics Nobel Laureate, is a Psychologist. "Smart" people and the media have been obsessed with "rationality", (pseudo-)math and quantitative research, until it finally emerged in the economistic world view that people are - surprise, surprise - not that rational; something that psychologists have known for ages. Right now, economics is sort assimilating a lot of psychological insights, which is good for humanity, but it's not economics, the original creativity stems from psychology.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  you're working off the strawman version of rationality. people are are perfectly rational...from the perspective of small hunter gatherer tribes inconstant conflict for status and resources.
  - jaytee_clone 18y ago
    I totally agree with you. We were evolved to be rational, but only in the environment that we evolved from. The environment we have now is far from small hunter-gatherer tribes, yet we are still equipped with the same rationale mechanisms. Hence, it's not working out perfectly. Maybe if we restructure our society to simulate what it once was or at least some parts of it, we can better utilize our rationale mechanisms.
    - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
      I shouldn't say we evolved to be perfectly rational of course. it's more that we evolved to approximate rationality in a manner more efficient than actually calculating everything. see "how outfielders catch fly balls" as an example of a rationality shortcut.
  - bk 18y ago
    The "rationality" that a lot of traditional (micro-)economic arguments are based on is the one defined by rational choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory). While economics may be moving on, many journalists, business people, politicians, etc. have not yet gotten the memo, and operate based on very flawed assumptions. I thus thus didn't use a straw man, but rather the operational definition of rationality traditionally employed by mainstream lines of economics. You're onto something with your definition in that a lot of friction and inefficiency today originates from people not coping well with an environment that is fast-changing and very different from our environment of evolutionary adaptiveness.
jessep 18y ago
Often when I'm confronted with a policy suggestion I think, "I can't possibly know enough about the ecosystem that policy impacts to say whether the policy would succeed." Not being a domain expert in most issues, I reserve judgement on them. In this case, though, I don't. As someone who obsesses about product design, usability etc., I just think accounting for real world factors of human behavior is always a good idea. I'm very happy to read this, and if you've ever noticed the difference between two layouts for conversions on your site (or any small detail that makes a huge behavioral difference), you should find this heartening too. Unless, of course, you oppose the goals of the policy or policymaker.
Kyderdog 18y ago
ha I tricked Obama.. I had our accounted take out extra money so I will get my tax rebate in one big chunk when I file taxes.

53 points by gabrielroth 18y ago

sachinag 18y ago

It's like they respect science and the notion of evidence-based decision making or something.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
mynameishere 18y ago
Hell. Madison Avenue has always listened to the scientists. Evidence-based blah blah. It's propaganda. That it's good propaganda doesn't make it good in any other context.
jacoblyles 18y ago
They are experts at manipulating perception.
jaytee_clone 18y ago
More than they used to, so that's a step up. Still, I'd rather see these resource being spent on educating the public on behavioral economics as suppose to using the knowledge to manipulate the public. It's true that in most situations, indirect persuasion is more effective at influencing someone's behavior than direct preaching. However, at some point, the public needs "grow up" too, and always treating us like five year olds certainly won't stimulate this process. I hope these guys see that.
- garndt 18y ago
  "However, at some point, the public needs "grow up" too, and always treating us like five year olds certainly won't stimulate this process." The public always has the ability to "grow up" as you put it but they do not want to. People are not motivated to take action if there isn't an immediate risk to their own personal well being. Risk has been taken out of many things that we do so now we can make ignorant choices without immediate consequences. We keep falling off the bike, but instead of scraping our knee and learning not to fall, we have a security net there to save us over and over again. I don't blame the government for treating us like 5 year olds when that is how a majority of people act.
  - jaytee_clone 18y ago
    I agree with you completely. But I also think it is possible to train yourself to manage your emotions better despite how strong our instinctual wiring is. This is evident in the long history of meditation practices. So, it's good that the government is nursing us. And it will be even better if, in addition to that, they integrate meditation, behavior economics, entrepreneurial training courses, etc, into our education system. However, the current education system is far from that.

mklurfeld 18y ago

Sort of fitting that a man who taught at the University of Chicago and who has Larry Summers for an advisor would use economics for more than just balancing a national budget.

patrickg-zill 18y ago
Wow, the Hopeychange flavored Kool-Aid hasn't run out yet!
- kirse 18y ago
  I agree, people want change but they hardly know what they're in for, especially with universal healthcare "reform"... Some other recent notable changes... - push to eliminate US nuclear weapons - encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power - spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession - increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton - letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan - taking over private businesses and forcing out their CEOs I guess you always need a Carter to usher in a Reagan. ...And bring on the drive-by downmods with no responses.
  - gabrielroth 18y ago
    OK, here's a response: > push to eliminate US nuclear weapons I have seen no evidence of anyone in the administration suggesting any such thing. > encouraging an international currency and removing the US dollar from a position of power Ditto. > spending $3.55 trillion for 2010 ($400bn over '09), when we've already committed $12.8 trillion to the recession What's the problem with that? Be specific. > increasing the marginal tax rate to the highest levels since Clinton 'to the highest levels since Clinton' means 'to a higher level than after Bush's tax cuts.' Was the economy, and the federal treasury, in better shape in 2000 (when Clinton left office) or eight years later? > letting North Korea get away with launching missiles over Japan Given that this happened two days ago, it's a little early to assess the administration's response.

ams6110 18y ago

Summary: people are irrational and make stupid decisions. The government knows better. Typical Time Magazine.

jacoblyles 18y ago
Is this what normal people read all the time? I mean, they make statements like this with no clarification at all: "Our emissions are boiling the planet, and most of our energy use is unnecessary." What's "unnecessary"? Energy drives modern technology, from your desk to your home to your doctor's office. Sure, if you don't care about quality of life, then energy use is unnecessary. And while most scientists think our emissions are going to cause an increase in mean global temperatures over the next few centuries, "boiling the planet" is a long way off. That's just one example out of a dozen. Is Time an editorial magazine, or is it supposed to be some sort of objective journalism? That's not entirely a rhetorical question, I honestly don't follow dead tree media and never got into it much as a kid.
- Kaizyn 18y ago
  You must not read much mainstream media. Nearly every piece contains little nuggets like the one(s) you mention. It isn't just Time; they all do it. Not surprisingly, newspapers are struggling with their readers now leaving in droves.
- dmfdmf 18y ago
  I stopped reading Time, Newsweek, USNWR, etc whan I was in High School. Later I read that these magazines were written for 8-9th grade level. That was in the late '70s so I'm sure they are dumbing-down to the 5th grade level by now. Bad strategy. Also, and I'm going out on a limb here, but the internet really changes everything. The reporters have not been objective for decades but they are learning that they cannot get away with slop now that the internet exists. Exciting times!
- mkn 18y ago
  "Our emissions are boiling the planet, and most of our energy use is unnecessary." What's "unnecessary"? Energy drives modern technology, from your desk to your home to your doctor's office. Sure, if you don't care about quality of life, then energy use is unnecessary. Really? This is your complaint? By 'unnecessary,' we can reasonably presume that the author means 'needlessly inefficient.' That much is evident to any sincere reader of the article who cares enough about the pursuit of knowledge to abide by the principle of charity: Put the best face on the argument before you refute it, otherwise you are not contributing. The straw-man argument, "Sure, if you don't care about quality of life, then energy use is unnecessary," is wholly beside the point. And while most scientists think our emissions are going to cause an increase in mean global temperatures over the next few centuries, "boiling the planet" is a long way off. Again, this cannot be a serious complaint. The phrase 'boiling the planet' is clearly a metaphor. A surface reading would be that we're just raising the temperature of the planet to an unhealthy extreme. A more nuanced reading reveals that the author means that we are raising the temperature of the planet to such a high temperature that we are going to cause irreversible change, such as when one boils food and finds that no amount of refrigeration will bring it back to it's former state. More simply, we are doing something analogous to sterilizing the planet, though to a lesser degree, in that many species may ultimately be made extinct. That's not entirely a rhetorical question, I honestly don't follow dead tree media and never got into it much as a kid. This is evident from the shallowness of your misguided critique. More practice at reading, dead-tree media or otherwise, might have made you a skillful enough reader to have been able to follow the plot here.

gills 18y ago

And here I thought they were all just incredibly stupid. But this is worse, they've ejected rational thought entirely from the policy-making process. We. Are. Doomed.

bk 18y ago

This is a peeve of mine: It's not "behavioral economics". It's social and organizational psychology. Virtually all the research has been done by psychologists. For example, Daniel Kahneman, Economics Nobel Laureate, is a Psychologist. "Smart" people and the media have been obsessed with "rationality", (pseudo-)math and quantitative research, until it finally emerged in the economistic world view that people are - surprise, surprise - not that rational; something that psychologists have known for ages. Right now, economics is sort assimilating a lot of psychological insights, which is good for humanity, but it's not economics, the original creativity stems from psychology.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
you're working off the strawman version of rationality. people are are perfectly rational...from the perspective of small hunter gatherer tribes inconstant conflict for status and resources.
- jaytee_clone 18y ago
  I totally agree with you. We were evolved to be rational, but only in the environment that we evolved from. The environment we have now is far from small hunter-gatherer tribes, yet we are still equipped with the same rationale mechanisms. Hence, it's not working out perfectly. Maybe if we restructure our society to simulate what it once was or at least some parts of it, we can better utilize our rationale mechanisms.
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    I shouldn't say we evolved to be perfectly rational of course. it's more that we evolved to approximate rationality in a manner more efficient than actually calculating everything. see "how outfielders catch fly balls" as an example of a rationality shortcut.
- bk 18y ago
  The "rationality" that a lot of traditional (micro-)economic arguments are based on is the one defined by rational choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory). While economics may be moving on, many journalists, business people, politicians, etc. have not yet gotten the memo, and operate based on very flawed assumptions. I thus thus didn't use a straw man, but rather the operational definition of rationality traditionally employed by mainstream lines of economics. You're onto something with your definition in that a lot of friction and inefficiency today originates from people not coping well with an environment that is fast-changing and very different from our environment of evolutionary adaptiveness.

jessep 18y ago

Often when I'm confronted with a policy suggestion I think, "I can't possibly know enough about the ecosystem that policy impacts to say whether the policy would succeed." Not being a domain expert in most issues, I reserve judgement on them. In this case, though, I don't. As someone who obsesses about product design, usability etc., I just think accounting for real world factors of human behavior is always a good idea. I'm very happy to read this, and if you've ever noticed the difference between two layouts for conversions on your site (or any small detail that makes a huge behavioral difference), you should find this heartening too. Unless, of course, you oppose the goals of the policy or policymaker.

Kyderdog 18y ago

ha I tricked Obama.. I had our accounted take out extra money so I will get my tax rebate in one big chunk when I file taxes.