4 ms·

Nudge economics: has push come to shove for a fashionable theory?

14 points by tomaskazemekas 12y ago

digitalengineer 12y ago
The book with the theory mentioned in the article: 'Risk Savvy' How to Make Good Decisions: "In the age of Big Data we often believe that our predictions about the future are better than ever before. But as risk expert Gerd Gigerenzer shows, the surprising truth is that in the real world, we often get better results by using simple rules and considering less information." http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Savvy-Make-Good-Decisions/dp/0670025658 http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Savvy-Make-Good-Decisions/dp/0670...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
SixSigma 12y ago
> "Ask the waiter 'what would you have'" "Well sir, I'd have the thing we'd like to sell you, chef said we have lots of scallops that will go off soon so see if I could push those"
- baking 12y ago
  But if you don't like the food he might get a smaller tip and the chef is not listening to his recommendation. If the waiter mentions the scallops without you asking he is probably being told to push them. Then if you ask for his recommendation and he mentions the scallops again, just ask him to recommend something other than the scallops. I don't actually do this myself, but I've had enough bad experiences with restaurant food that I am considering it.
dctoedt 12y ago
I haven't read either man's work, but the article makes me wonder whether they might be like the blind men trying to describe the elephant -- each has got a piece of the picture. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
jerf 12y ago
"That is, what if everyone were allowed to go down to the car dealership whenever they wanted and pick out any new model, free of charge and drive it home?" "At this, Levitt and Dubner expected the prime minister to "light up" and say: "I see your point about the free healthcare we are doling out!" They expected him to embrace their behaviouralist argument that no one places a value on anything unless they are charged for it. In fact Cameron said nothing at all, but "the smile left his eyes", there was a quick handshake and he "hurried off to find a less ridiculous set of people with whom to meet"." Sigh. Let me unpack this for you. The light left his eyes and he hurried off not because he was freaked out by your argument, per se, but because he realized that you didn't realize that you were an election prop, and that you were supposed to smile, say what helped him get elected by giving him the veneer of Scientific Authority (TM), then bask in the afterglow and get some money thrown your way for some research or something, and probably get to write some public report that he would promise to read and make some noise about. You'd have been given a gravy train ticket for the duration of this deal. Also you'd be expected to explain to the press why his pet theory or proposal was fully rational and explained by your economics, and why by implication everyone who is against it are dumb and maybe a little evil people standing in the way of Science and Progress for the UK. Regardless of whether any of that was true. Instead, you showed that you were naive enough to believe that he had any actual interest in his options being constrained by science or rationality, that you were actually taken in by his transparent rhetoric, and lo, you were discarded as soon as was convenient. He probably also significantly lowered his intelligence estimate of you. This is not cynicism. This is politics. It's just how it works, and anyone who would care to challenge me with this theory being cynical and incorrect (and don't forget the "incorrect" part), I invite you to come up with an alternate theory as to why they were shuffled off stage so quickly, if Cameron's initial enthusiasm for science was genuine. And, no sarcasm, plaudits for refusing to follow along and be corrupted. I hope this article is itself a bit of a fashionable pose about how as an incorruptible scientist the thought of taking a dirty ticket to the gravy train simply never crossed your mind, though, because the alternative would be... unflattering.
- adwf 12y ago
  Yeah they definitely made a mistake going after the NHS first. Even if it might have been a good idea, it's completely politically untenable. A UK politician saying that the NHS sucks and we should privatise/pay for it, would be a bit like a US politician declaring he's an Atheist - political suicide.
adwf 12y ago
Considering they are supposed to be "genius" psychologists, who you'd assume have a good idea of what people think, it was pretty bloody dumb to go after the NHS as their first idea! Making the NHS into a paid system, when we can all see how messed up the US healthcare is, is absolutely a political disaster in the UK. It's no wonder David Cameron backed off and ignored them. Even if their ideas were correct (I'm not trying to get into that debate here) and it would work, they'd still be absolutely destroyed come the next election. Amusing to see an academic blindspot, they can work out how people think, but couldn't work out how politicians think.

The book with the theory mentioned in the article: 'Risk Savvy' How to Make Good Decisions: "In the age of Big Data we often believe that our predictions about the future are better than ever before. But as risk expert Gerd Gigerenzer shows, the surprising truth is that in the real world, we often get better results by using simple rules and considering less information." http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Savvy-Make-Good-Decisions/dp/0670025658 http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Savvy-Make-Good-Decisions/dp/0670...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

SixSigma 12y ago

> "Ask the waiter 'what would you have'" "Well sir, I'd have the thing we'd like to sell you, chef said we have lots of scallops that will go off soon so see if I could push those"

baking 12y ago
But if you don't like the food he might get a smaller tip and the chef is not listening to his recommendation. If the waiter mentions the scallops without you asking he is probably being told to push them. Then if you ask for his recommendation and he mentions the scallops again, just ask him to recommend something other than the scallops. I don't actually do this myself, but I've had enough bad experiences with restaurant food that I am considering it.

dctoedt 12y ago

I haven't read either man's work, but the article makes me wonder whether they might be like the blind men trying to describe the elephant -- each has got a piece of the picture. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

jerf 12y ago

"That is, what if everyone were allowed to go down to the car dealership whenever they wanted and pick out any new model, free of charge and drive it home?" "At this, Levitt and Dubner expected the prime minister to "light up" and say: "I see your point about the free healthcare we are doling out!" They expected him to embrace their behaviouralist argument that no one places a value on anything unless they are charged for it. In fact Cameron said nothing at all, but "the smile left his eyes", there was a quick handshake and he "hurried off to find a less ridiculous set of people with whom to meet"." Sigh. Let me unpack this for you. The light left his eyes and he hurried off not because he was freaked out by your argument, per se, but because he realized that you didn't realize that you were an election prop, and that you were supposed to smile, say what helped him get elected by giving him the veneer of Scientific Authority (TM), then bask in the afterglow and get some money thrown your way for some research or something, and probably get to write some public report that he would promise to read and make some noise about. You'd have been given a gravy train ticket for the duration of this deal. Also you'd be expected to explain to the press why his pet theory or proposal was fully rational and explained by your economics, and why by implication everyone who is against it are dumb and maybe a little evil people standing in the way of Science and Progress for the UK. Regardless of whether any of that was true. Instead, you showed that you were naive enough to believe that he had any actual interest in his options being constrained by science or rationality, that you were actually taken in by his transparent rhetoric, and lo, you were discarded as soon as was convenient. He probably also significantly lowered his intelligence estimate of you. This is not cynicism. This is politics. It's just how it works, and anyone who would care to challenge me with this theory being cynical and incorrect (and don't forget the "incorrect" part), I invite you to come up with an alternate theory as to why they were shuffled off stage so quickly, if Cameron's initial enthusiasm for science was genuine. And, no sarcasm, plaudits for refusing to follow along and be corrupted. I hope this article is itself a bit of a fashionable pose about how as an incorruptible scientist the thought of taking a dirty ticket to the gravy train simply never crossed your mind, though, because the alternative would be... unflattering.

adwf 12y ago
Yeah they definitely made a mistake going after the NHS first. Even if it might have been a good idea, it's completely politically untenable. A UK politician saying that the NHS sucks and we should privatise/pay for it, would be a bit like a US politician declaring he's an Atheist - political suicide.

adwf 12y ago

Considering they are supposed to be "genius" psychologists, who you'd assume have a good idea of what people think, it was pretty bloody dumb to go after the NHS as their first idea! Making the NHS into a paid system, when we can all see how messed up the US healthcare is, is absolutely a political disaster in the UK. It's no wonder David Cameron backed off and ignored them. Even if their ideas were correct (I'm not trying to get into that debate here) and it would work, they'd still be absolutely destroyed come the next election. Amusing to see an academic blindspot, they can work out how people think, but couldn't work out how politicians think.