5 ms·

The idea of "nudging" is growing in popularity in the popular culture. The idea is that the right government policy can nudge the individual to perform the obvi

by bko 12y ago

The idea of "nudging" is growing in popularity in the popular culture. The idea is that the right government policy can nudge the individual to perform the obviously rational self-interested choice. The policies are innocuous enough that many reasonable people do not oppose them directly. Who thinks getting their fellow denizens to invest more of their savings or eat a little more healthfully is a bad idea? But when you think about it more, you can see some troubling trends of petty bureaucrats trying to control your life through nudging. The most offensive example that comes to mind is politicians in the UK trying to convince ISPs to (by default) block adult content because, you know, think of the children [0]. Of course you could call your ISP and remove the block so what's the concern, right? Be ready to give up ever more and more autonomy through slight manipulation all backed up by intellectuals tearing down Homo economicus straw-men. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit...

baddox 12y ago
> The idea is that the right government policy can nudge the individual to perform the obviously rational self-interested choice. I would be concerned with any discussion of that idea that is unaccompanied by a discussion of public choice. Discussing the "right government policy" is interesting, but not very useful without also discussing whether we're more like to get the right government policy than the wrong one.
ageek123 12y ago
More generally, the entire field of "behavior economics" has a very strong paternalistic, authoritarian subcurrent to it. The message is: people can't be allowed to make decisions for themselves because they aren't capable of acting rationally or in their own self-interest. Of course the idea that the government is more likely to act in people's best interest than people themselves is laughable, yet is actually being advocated as a policy rationale.
- Frondo 12y ago
  Right, because people seldom act rationally, and often act against their own self-interest. The message is an observation. As for the government acting in people's best interest, yes, exactly, that's what it's for. You are calling your state rep to discuss issues, right? If you're articulate, you can probably even book a 15-minute meeting to chat with them and tell them what's important to you, a citizen in their district. That's not as fun as posting hur-hur-gubmint-sucks on the internet, though, even though it's definitely more rational and self-interested.
  - bko 12y ago
    Politicians don't make poor decisions because they don't know any better. They make poor decisions because of the incentives that are presented to them. I don't think you'll be able to have a rational debate and come out ahead with a politician. At best you could bring up some inflammatory story that he can use to his benefit. I would argue that debate on online forums is much more meaningful. I wouldn't go as far as to say someone's one comment really changed my mind on a big issue but reading discussions on forums like hn has certainly opened up my mind. The most promising aspect of new technology is that it is being done outside of the traditional power structure, rendering politics less and less meaningful to our every day lives. As the Chinese proverb goes, "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away"
    - Frondo 12y ago
      How much experience do you have in talking to your elected officials?
      - Frondo 12y ago
        I'm a little disappointed by the downvotes, and the lack of response; I'm guessing the parent poster has zero experience actually engaging politically, and that's why they said the stuff they did about not having rational discussions with politicians. That stuff just sounds like shallow stereotyping, it doesn't sound like it reflects reality at all.
      - bko 12y ago
- RockyMcNuts 12y ago
  The whole field of UX has a strong paternalistic feel to it, guiding people toward 'defaults' and making it as easy as possible to make 'correct' choices as if they can't act rationally or in their own self-interest.
  - sethhochberg 12y ago
    I think there is some merit to the practice from a product design standpoint, though - the commonly cited example of a door with such ambiguous design that it needs a "push" or "pull" sign seems to apply here. Sure, we could leave the door as a blank surface with no hints (design or signs or otherwise) and let people decide whether to try and push or pull on their own, but doesn't that just waste everyone's time? A paternalistic approach isn't necessarily a bad thing if you're being guided through decisions with the benefit of someone else's experience. It helps avoid spending mental effort on decisions which don't matter as much, so utmost attention can be given to those which do.
  - wamatt 12y ago
    Maybe, though I'm pretty sure it's also about reducing cognitive load for the user.
gdubs 12y ago
This is a slippery slope argument. Social Security has been around for a long time, and although folks said it would lead directly to a socialist overthrow of American democracy, it hasn't happened...
- coldtea 12y ago
  >This is a slippery slope argument. And there's nothing wrong with those. Things can and do progress to worse outcomes all the time. >Social Security has been around for a long time, and although folks said it would lead directly to a socialist overthrow of American democracy, it hasn't happened... Probably because the US has some of the worst, and less socialist, social security system in the West.
- justinmk 12y ago
  The US system is socialist, by any meaningful definition of socialism. Medicaid, medicare, "public-private partnerships" abound.
  - gdubs 12y ago
    Right, but my point was that passing Social Security didn't turn the U.S. Into a socialist country -- which was a concern of many. I'm saying we might not want to throw out individual ideas because we're afraid of a slippery slope.
    - justinmk 12y ago
      I'm not quite sure how that isn't a pretty darn good example of a slope being slipped upon.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    None of those government programs have anything to do with worker control of the means of production, the only definition of socialism that matters.
  - sien 12y ago
    The US system isn't Socialism by a standard definition of the social ownership of the means of production. From wikipedia's definition of Socialism: "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system." Cuba and North Korea are properly Socialist. The US is a market, welfare Democracy like the rest of the developed world.
ggreer 12y ago
Considering that the typical reaction is to ban things instead of taxing or otherwise making them less convenient, I'm pretty happy with these sorts of policies. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that. There's all kinds of nudging I'm sure you can get behind, such as opt-out organ donation. Or would you rather everyone be forced to donate their organs at brain-death? Since "nudging" is rather new, there are many more opportunities for it to benefit society, either by discouraging a popular behavior or encouraging an unpopular one. For example, I despise loud cars and motorcycles. They have crazy externalities, yet there are few laws regarding them (and even those are rarely enforced). A Harley[1] riding through a dense city can distract and annoy thousands of people. Bystanders can even have their hearing permanently damaged. Some of my friends wish they were banned. I'm more sensitive to noise than most, but I disagree. A tax commensurate to their damage would satisfy everyone. Granted, such a tax would be quite steep. But if someone really wanted to, they could pay it. That's the sort of nudging I can get behind. 1. I realize not all Harleys are obnoxiously loud and many other vehicle brands can be annoying. It's just a stereotypical example.
- sukilot 12y ago
  BTW, that's not nudging. Nudging would be mandating building bikes with mufflers that the consumer could remove if they really cared.
RockyMcNuts 12y ago
We're constantly swimming in a stew of nudges from the private sector, from social norms, in addition to hard-and-fast rules and laws. Giving some thought to how they impact behavior and how one might improve them seems like a pretty low bar. In particular the private sector spends hundreds of billions of dollars to nudge you towards a lifestyle that's more profitable for them, via ads to get you to eat unhealthy foods, buy a premium vodka that's indistinguishable from the next one on the shelf, not to mention gamble, smoke, etc. Someone comes along to study these polluted waters and ask why the fish are so unhealthy and the fish say, "what's water?" Let's not even study this stuff, since God forbid the gummint varmints use it to, I dunno, get people to save for retirement by default or sign up as organ donors, those bastards. Some further discussion http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-13/wonks-explain-why-we-re-smart-sometimes-dumb-others http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-13/wonks-expla...
- WalterBright 12y ago
  I ate margarine instead of butter for many years because the government said it was healthier. Turns out, it's much worse than butter. Be very careful of the idea that "nudges" from the government means they are correct.
  - wodenokoto 12y ago
    Eh, it was not like that was a conspiracy. They genuinely thought it to be better. Right now we have the whole gluten thing, and while it might not affect you personally, a non-governmental nudging is changing millions of people's diet to something more expensive for no good reason what so ever. So it's not like the government has a monopoly and poor health advice.
    - jospoortvliet 12y ago
      Yeah, this is just how science works - there is no One Truth but a never ending attempt to approach it. That does mean sometimes they got it wrong, yet the scientific consensus is still the best approximation of reality you will find. Think about the shape of earth or the theory of gravity. It isn't truly round nor was Newton fully correct but both theories were more correct than their predecessors and we improved on them since. And probably will improve more in the future. The fact that science isn't perfect doesn't mean it is useless - compare it to medicine. The fact that in complicated cases no two doctors would pic the exact same therapy does neither mean it makes no difference (there certainly are ways to do things wrong in medicine) nor that there is no way to judge. It is 'just' complicated.
mikeash 12y ago
Does nudging actually cause you to give up any autonomy?

by bko 12y ago

baddox 12y ago

> The idea is that the right government policy can nudge the individual to perform the obviously rational self-interested choice. I would be concerned with any discussion of that idea that is unaccompanied by a discussion of public choice. Discussing the "right government policy" is interesting, but not very useful without also discussing whether we're more like to get the right government policy than the wrong one.

ageek123 12y ago

More generally, the entire field of "behavior economics" has a very strong paternalistic, authoritarian subcurrent to it. The message is: people can't be allowed to make decisions for themselves because they aren't capable of acting rationally or in their own self-interest. Of course the idea that the government is more likely to act in people's best interest than people themselves is laughable, yet is actually being advocated as a policy rationale.

Frondo 12y ago
Right, because people seldom act rationally, and often act against their own self-interest. The message is an observation. As for the government acting in people's best interest, yes, exactly, that's what it's for. You are calling your state rep to discuss issues, right? If you're articulate, you can probably even book a 15-minute meeting to chat with them and tell them what's important to you, a citizen in their district. That's not as fun as posting hur-hur-gubmint-sucks on the internet, though, even though it's definitely more rational and self-interested.
- bko 12y ago
  Politicians don't make poor decisions because they don't know any better. They make poor decisions because of the incentives that are presented to them. I don't think you'll be able to have a rational debate and come out ahead with a politician. At best you could bring up some inflammatory story that he can use to his benefit. I would argue that debate on online forums is much more meaningful. I wouldn't go as far as to say someone's one comment really changed my mind on a big issue but reading discussions on forums like hn has certainly opened up my mind. The most promising aspect of new technology is that it is being done outside of the traditional power structure, rendering politics less and less meaningful to our every day lives. As the Chinese proverb goes, "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away"
  - Frondo 12y ago
    How much experience do you have in talking to your elected officials?
    - Frondo 12y ago
      I'm a little disappointed by the downvotes, and the lack of response; I'm guessing the parent poster has zero experience actually engaging politically, and that's why they said the stuff they did about not having rational discussions with politicians. That stuff just sounds like shallow stereotyping, it doesn't sound like it reflects reality at all.
    - bko 12y ago
RockyMcNuts 12y ago
The whole field of UX has a strong paternalistic feel to it, guiding people toward 'defaults' and making it as easy as possible to make 'correct' choices as if they can't act rationally or in their own self-interest.
- sethhochberg 12y ago
  I think there is some merit to the practice from a product design standpoint, though - the commonly cited example of a door with such ambiguous design that it needs a "push" or "pull" sign seems to apply here. Sure, we could leave the door as a blank surface with no hints (design or signs or otherwise) and let people decide whether to try and push or pull on their own, but doesn't that just waste everyone's time? A paternalistic approach isn't necessarily a bad thing if you're being guided through decisions with the benefit of someone else's experience. It helps avoid spending mental effort on decisions which don't matter as much, so utmost attention can be given to those which do.
- wamatt 12y ago
  Maybe, though I'm pretty sure it's also about reducing cognitive load for the user.

gdubs 12y ago

This is a slippery slope argument. Social Security has been around for a long time, and although folks said it would lead directly to a socialist overthrow of American democracy, it hasn't happened...

coldtea 12y ago
>This is a slippery slope argument. And there's nothing wrong with those. Things can and do progress to worse outcomes all the time. >Social Security has been around for a long time, and although folks said it would lead directly to a socialist overthrow of American democracy, it hasn't happened... Probably because the US has some of the worst, and less socialist, social security system in the West.
justinmk 12y ago
The US system is socialist, by any meaningful definition of socialism. Medicaid, medicare, "public-private partnerships" abound.
- gdubs 12y ago
  Right, but my point was that passing Social Security didn't turn the U.S. Into a socialist country -- which was a concern of many. I'm saying we might not want to throw out individual ideas because we're afraid of a slippery slope.
  - justinmk 12y ago
    I'm not quite sure how that isn't a pretty darn good example of a slope being slipped upon.
- dublinben 12y ago
  None of those government programs have anything to do with worker control of the means of production, the only definition of socialism that matters.
- sien 12y ago
  The US system isn't Socialism by a standard definition of the social ownership of the means of production. From wikipedia's definition of Socialism: "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system." Cuba and North Korea are properly Socialist. The US is a market, welfare Democracy like the rest of the developed world.

ggreer 12y ago

Considering that the typical reaction is to ban things instead of taxing or otherwise making them less convenient, I'm pretty happy with these sorts of policies. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that. There's all kinds of nudging I'm sure you can get behind, such as opt-out organ donation. Or would you rather everyone be forced to donate their organs at brain-death? Since "nudging" is rather new, there are many more opportunities for it to benefit society, either by discouraging a popular behavior or encouraging an unpopular one. For example, I despise loud cars and motorcycles. They have crazy externalities, yet there are few laws regarding them (and even those are rarely enforced). A Harley[1] riding through a dense city can distract and annoy thousands of people. Bystanders can even have their hearing permanently damaged. Some of my friends wish they were banned. I'm more sensitive to noise than most, but I disagree. A tax commensurate to their damage would satisfy everyone. Granted, such a tax would be quite steep. But if someone really wanted to, they could pay it. That's the sort of nudging I can get behind. 1. I realize not all Harleys are obnoxiously loud and many other vehicle brands can be annoying. It's just a stereotypical example.

sukilot 12y ago
BTW, that's not nudging. Nudging would be mandating building bikes with mufflers that the consumer could remove if they really cared.

RockyMcNuts 12y ago

We're constantly swimming in a stew of nudges from the private sector, from social norms, in addition to hard-and-fast rules and laws. Giving some thought to how they impact behavior and how one might improve them seems like a pretty low bar. In particular the private sector spends hundreds of billions of dollars to nudge you towards a lifestyle that's more profitable for them, via ads to get you to eat unhealthy foods, buy a premium vodka that's indistinguishable from the next one on the shelf, not to mention gamble, smoke, etc. Someone comes along to study these polluted waters and ask why the fish are so unhealthy and the fish say, "what's water?" Let's not even study this stuff, since God forbid the gummint varmints use it to, I dunno, get people to save for retirement by default or sign up as organ donors, those bastards. Some further discussion http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-13/wonks-explain-why-we-re-smart-sometimes-dumb-others http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-13/wonks-expla...

WalterBright 12y ago
I ate margarine instead of butter for many years because the government said it was healthier. Turns out, it's much worse than butter. Be very careful of the idea that "nudges" from the government means they are correct.
- wodenokoto 12y ago
  Eh, it was not like that was a conspiracy. They genuinely thought it to be better. Right now we have the whole gluten thing, and while it might not affect you personally, a non-governmental nudging is changing millions of people's diet to something more expensive for no good reason what so ever. So it's not like the government has a monopoly and poor health advice.
  - jospoortvliet 12y ago
    Yeah, this is just how science works - there is no One Truth but a never ending attempt to approach it. That does mean sometimes they got it wrong, yet the scientific consensus is still the best approximation of reality you will find. Think about the shape of earth or the theory of gravity. It isn't truly round nor was Newton fully correct but both theories were more correct than their predecessors and we improved on them since. And probably will improve more in the future. The fact that science isn't perfect doesn't mean it is useless - compare it to medicine. The fact that in complicated cases no two doctors would pic the exact same therapy does neither mean it makes no difference (there certainly are ways to do things wrong in medicine) nor that there is no way to judge. It is 'just' complicated.

mikeash 12y ago

Does nudging actually cause you to give up any autonomy?