tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post6326196122278923455..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Nudging -- with a GunGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-70033955677927333062008-05-06T11:46:00.000-06:002008-05-06T11:46:00.000-06:00Thanks for posting that here! I liked your post on...Thanks for posting that here! I liked your post on the smoking ban, but had forgotten that you (or I, for that matter) had mentioned Thaler before.<BR/><BR/>That first paragraph from the Globe really ticks me off. I think it's the whole "We think you're an idiot, so we're going to look out for by bossing you around -- and since it's for your own good, you shouldn't say anything against it." that does it. <BR/><BR/>This whole insulting appeal is to what they feel you should think of as your own self-interest -- and yet at the same time, they claim brownie points for altruism.<BR/><BR/>Ugh! It's not just coercive. It's disgusting.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-16584768409333163572008-05-06T10:51:00.000-06:002008-05-06T10:51:00.000-06:00Good old Thaler and Sunstein. You can find my opi...Good old Thaler and Sunstein. You can find my opinion of them in a comment I wrote to <A HREF="http://titanicdeckchairs.blogspot.com/2008/03/smoking-ban-protecting-us-from.html" REL="nofollow">my post</A> on the MA smoking ban. The Boston Globe ran an article on their libertarian paternalism. I'm including an excerpt of the article and my comment below.<BR/><BR/><B>From the Globe:</B><BR/>-------------------------<BR/><I>Simply giving people more choices, therefore - whether it's among healthcare plans, pension plans, or schools - is no assurance that they'll make the best choice.<BR/><BR/>So libertarian paternalists like Thaler and Sunstein argue there's a real need for someone to step in and guide us. But they do not hold the traditional liberal belief that a wise government mandate is the best kind of social policy...<BR/><BR/>Hence Thaler and Sunstein's faith in <B>choice architecture</B>. <BR/><BR/>... in realms such as retirement savings, healthcare, and organ donation, the government is already setting defaults. It makes sense, say proponents, to set those options intelligently...</I><BR/>-------------------------<BR/><BR/><B>And my abridged comment:</B><BR/><I>...this insidiously bland language ... takes the same core philosophy -- that individuals need to be guided by the state against their will for the purpose of the moment -- and just coats it in grease, sugar, and the distraction of complexity so it slides down our throats without us even noticing.</I><BR/><BR/>There's something about this topic that just makes me seethe with rage. I seriously can feel my blood pressure going up when I think about it or read what Thaler has to say.<BR/><BR/>This also reminds me of the new field of "behavioral economics" and its most prominent supporter, <A HREF="http://titanicdeckchairs.blogspot.com/2008/03/economist-refutes-rationality-proves.html" REL="nofollow">Dan Ariely</A>. The title of his book says it all -- "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions." His pseudoscience studies are exactly the type of junk that Thaler would use to support his terrible ideas.C. Augusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05860759500684485756noreply@blogger.com