Kahneman recently (Feb 2017) wrote an online response addressing the replication issues being experienced by some of the studies that form the basis of Thinking Fast and Slow. It's one of the best responses to criticism I've ever read:
https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruc...
Bah, the creators of those "invisible manipulators" have a mind just as weak as the people they are trying to manipulate; Trump's fear mongering and proud-of-his-own-stupidity personality is by itself a result of a culture that rewards narcissism and sees money as a measure of success, regardless of how many unethical things you did to get it.
Also, humans have been doing this for millenniums already, making you believe not one but hundreds of irrational stories of what you must do and think, it's called religion. And it's so successful that people are coerced into not being critical of them by fear of being labeled as "intolerant" or "fascist" or any other big bad word; it's so successful they don't even have to pay taxes regardless of generating millions of dollars for its headmasters. It's so successful that most Americans wouldn't even consider voting for an Atheist for president[0]
Blame the politicians that set our nation's education priorities and funding. Our K-12 system is geared towards churning out 20th century employees, not educated citizens.
The entire education system, including college / trade schools / internships, warrants refactoring for the 21st century.
Have you ever thought about the possibility that your perception of Trump had been influenced by the invisible manipulators described in this article ?
And you typing that comment was influenced by the same manipulators who want me to believe that, yeah it's turtles all the way down. Joking aside; it's usually all much chaotic that one person controlling another; or a group controlling another.
I'm going to guess, as I hold a similar opinion, that one (little "a") doesn't buy into a god individual and the other one (big "A") turns not believing in a god into a religion. Put another way, an atheist just doesn't believe in a god of any sort. An Atheist makes it a major part of their identity.
A similar distinction exists between libertarians (people who subscribe to libertarian political ideology) and Libertarians (members of the Libertarian Party, an actual organization).
That's a different distinction, I think; capital-A Atheists don't seem to be particularly organized in any way I've been able to observe, so much as they are stridently antireligious in a way that would be no less likely to contravene the Establishment Clause than your least favorite televangelist would be.
Yup. A capital-A Atheist by definition has a point to make that isn't befitting of any candidate for US public office. I don't suppose that counts as an automatic disqualification by everyone's lights, but it most certainly does by mine.
The article is long but fairly interesting, repeating much of what Kahneman said in Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow. But I have a few comments.
What is called 'nudging' in the political and policy making sphere and portrayed positively is really the same as what advertisers and salesmen have been doing for many decades and even centuries, and Kahneman has pointed that out, too, of course.
However, "Libertarian Paternalism" is a misnomer for several reasons. First, "libertarianism" is a highly misleading, US-centric label for certain brands of liberalism. It's not a coherent political position and instead used by very different people ranging from the right-wing authoritarian to the right-wing liberal spectrum to endorse a diffuse and internally inconsistent mix of cherry-picked elements of classical liberalism, general anti-federal government sentiments and individual anarchism. Second, there is not much liberal about nudging, since the the whole idea of nudging is to influence people to do the 'right thing' by exploiting flaws and heuristics in their decision making abilities, thereby limiting their actual choices. Real freedom of choice requires the people to be well-informed and educated well enough that the slow system can kick in. It's an old trick to ascribe some 'de jure' choice that in reality does not amount to any real choices for various social and external reasons, and then claim that people are free to choose whatever they want. This has already been criticized in depth by Amartya Sen.
In the end, whether ads, propaganda, and nudging are acceptable or not hinges pretty much on a moral evaluation of the goals of the nudger and the circumstances and level of influence a group gains over another. There is nothing wrong with making people slow down their car by subtle hints on the driveway, so they don't accidentally run over children in an urban housing zone. In other areas such as voting I cannot find anything positive about nudging, since the fate of one's country should always be based on decisions that are rational and as well-informed as possible, i.e., made primarily on the basis of the slow system.
One (but not the only) criterion for distinguishing good and nefarious uses of advertising/nudging is whether the person is lied to or not. Lying to people in order to achieve a desirable outcome is generally unacceptable, according to what many if not most people think, and I agree with them. There may be exceptions under unusual circumstances, but generally I expect my policy makers to take me as an adult individual and only put up a sign "Beware shark attacks" whenever there is an actual danger of shark attacks.
>First, "libertarianism" is a highly misleading, US-centric label for certain brands of liberalism. It's not a coherent political position and instead used by very different people ranging from the right-wing authoritarian to the right-wing liberal spectrum to endorse a diffuse and internally inconsistent mix of cherry-picked elements of classical liberalism, general anti-federal government sentiments and individual anarchism.
I'll give you that "libertarian" is an Americanism. But I'd remind you that the term became necessary because the term "liberal" was co-opted by left leaning politicians, FDR chief among them, and is now used in American politics where "social democrat" would be used in Europe and much of the rest of the world. And, insofar as any big-tent political movement can be internally consistent at all, "libertarians" in the United States are leagues beyond the Republican shotgun wedding of traditional religious social mores with unfettered corporatism and the Democrat morass of supposedly aggrieved parties jockeying for better position in the pecking order of protected groups. Even to the extend that libertarians disagree with each other, we're able to work together because the state has grown to such an extent that our internal differences pale in comparison to that commonly identified problem.
Separately, a more strict criterion for distinguishing the good nudges from the nefarious ones might be: do people who become aware of the nudging object to its happening after some contemplation? (i.e. is there an objection emerging from the "slow" system two?)
I think the American use of "liberal" comes from social liberalism [1], which is certainly to the left of classical liberalism. In Europe "liberal" is more traditionally use to mean classical liberalism, hence the discrepancy. But both usages seem proper to me.
That said, we've been hearing about social liberalism quite a lot over the last few months in France. The left tends to brand itself as socialist, so "social democrat" and "social liberal" are rather foreign to our traditional political scene. But it is changing fast: the current president, Hollande, is now usually depicted as a social democrat by the media, and the soon to become president (according to the current polls [2]) Macron is usually depicted as a social liberal.
FT Alphachat had a great interview (March 30 [0]) with Robert Cialdini about his new book, politics, and influence. He told an anecdote on himself which illustrated the difficulty of distinguishing the "good" nudge from the "nefarious" ones. A salesman, seeing him contemplating AN on-sale TV, told him that it was the last one in the store, and that another customer had told him they were thinking of buying it. Cialdini left the store with the TV. Was this a good use of nudging? In an effort to find out, he went back the next day. Did he see another TV? Listen to the podcast to find out. [see what I did there?]
It's also worth noting that the while you can argue that libertarianism is a cherry picking of political ideas, the same can be said for the main American parties, though this is often due to the not-so-subtle inclusion of religion in one of them
"Lying" is, unfortunately, completely open to interpretation. If you use a standard of "knowingly false, and intended to deceive", it's possibly too broad actually and would cover some behaviour that I would consider acceptable.
For example:
- "Fake" buttons on pedestrian crossings. These are sometimes employed to give a sense of agency, and thus lessen frustration, but where the information that someone is waiting cannot be used in timing, or where that information is collected through other means anyway.
– "Beware shark attacks" at a beach, when the reasoning is not to keep people of a property, but when there are certain dangers that often kill (dangerous tide etc.), but any attempt to succinctly explain it was fruitless.
Those both strike me as bad: they might have some first-order good effects, but make it harder to maintain a high-trust society. The U.S. is currently living through consequences of eroded trust.
After the disaster of Flash Boys I really don't trust what he writes anymore. I read Boomerang and The Big Short and they were fascinating but, after Flash Boys was debunked to hell I have a suspicion that he is one of the writers that is writing for big bucks and not truth. Someone who can captivate an audience but is actually harming understanding of the world instead of advancing it.
FYI for those who are reading the comments first: the article is not simply a review of Lewis's book (though it is critical of it), and is mostly about presenting an alternative interpretation of the books subject. Still very much worth a read IMO even if you have no interest in reading Lewis.
