Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
theatlantic.com
Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#2We're currently in beta with a DNA-based health advice service (http://withinhealth.com) and here are a few observations (this will be written about more in detail at a future date on my personal website)
- People remember health information that is specific (personalized) to them.
88% of our beta users are able to remember their genetic insights/advice 3 or more days after receiving them.
- A compelling, personalized reason can help users get over the hump of taking an action.
No one wakes up in the morning and decides they want to get some blood work done for the heck of it. We identified interesting genetic predispositions for beta testers which were enough to motivate 7% of them to get blood work done. 21% of beta testers took an some type of action based on the personalized and advice we presented.
It hardly goes against common sense to believe that personalization would facilitate retention and action but it has been fulfilling to witness firsthand.
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#3It probably won't come as much of a shock to folks here, but this article has a misleading title.
In the third paragraph, "Nudges hardly help" softens all the way to "nudging sometimes... isn’t effective".
I've come across three groups of reactions to "Nudging":
1) Yay! Let's use science for good!
2) Yeah but it's not a silver bullet
3) I think they're brainwashing us
Camp 1 is sensible, and has room for discussion about ethics, rigour, etc. Camp 2 is arguing against a straw man. Camp 3 is a reasonable position to hold if you have government trust issues and don't understand what's happening, so is an education and operational transparency problem more than anything.
Edit: disclaimer, I've worked closely with a nudge unit but am not an employee of one
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#4Author hardly demonstrates how nudges "hardly help". In fact, my guess is that nudges are extremely effective. Just the trivial 10c grocery bag fees (a "nudge", imo) can reduce bag use by 80% (whether or not bag reduction is good/bad is a different discussion).
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#5> Thanks to problems like these, the economist (and frequent Atlantic contributor) Teresa Ghilarducci has called the 401(k)
Is this true? Is your money better off in an IRA, even with an employer match?
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#6> Thanks to problems like these, the economist (and frequent Atlantic contributor) Teresa Ghilarducci has called the 401(k) Is this true? Is your money better off in an IRA, even with an employer match?
If you just let your employer put your retirement savings in their default mutual fund, what you're going to get is some product sold to the company by a money manager who is taking 2-3% of your money off the top.
Given how rare it is for a mutual fund to consistently return even 4% for any amount of time (seriously, if you know of one that does let me know and I'll sign up at once - 1-2% is more typical), you end up with something that's worth less than a basic savings account, but with a bunch of rules attached to it that prevent you from using your money when you want. Depending on the circumstances, that could be a pretty poor deal.
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#7It probably won't come as much of a shock to folks here, but this article has a misleading title. In the third paragraph, "Nudges hardly help" softens all the way to "nudging sometimes... isn’t effective". I've come across three groups of reactions to "Nudging": 1) Yay! Let's use science for good! 2) Yeah but it's not a silver bullet 3) I think they're brainwashing us Camp 1 is sensible, and has room for discussion a…
I have issues with nudging, but am unsure of whether I fit in one of your categories. My issues are:
a) When a few people make de-facto decisions for everyone else, those decisions are prone to causing black swans because of a lack of (real) diversification of risk. One example of this would be if 20 countries used the default retirement portfolio scheme (that is often used to support nudges), and in one country, the portfolio was not diversified against a type of risk (i.e. interest rate or mortgage default), that could cause severe malinvestment and economic calamity in one country. It would have been much better for 1 in 20 people to make the mistake than 1 in 20 countries.
b) People's decision making abilities are like any other skill (i.e. language, writing, arithmetic), in that they atrophy over time if they are not used. If the people have no reason to look out for themselves, they may not realize when the nudgers are abdicating their responsibilities. In addition to that, financial decisions give clear feedback and have good incentives for the individual, which allows and requires people to exercise their decision making abilities, that will be useful in other areas of life.
Perhaps I fit in to your 'group 3', but either way, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts (if you would be interested in giving any) on these two objections.
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#8We're currently in beta with a DNA-based health advice service ( http://withinhealth.com ) and here are a few observations (this will be written about more in detail at a future date on my personal website) - People remember health information that is specific (personalized) to them. 88% of our beta users are able to remember their genetic insights/advice 3 or more days after receiving them. - A compelling, personali…
Tried to sign up, but got:
"403 Forbidden
qXTJJBys/ed4Gx1wX @ Tue, 08 Dec 2015 18:00:18 GMT
BRICK-6"
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#9It probably won't come as much of a shock to folks here, but this article has a misleading title. In the third paragraph, "Nudges hardly help" softens all the way to "nudging sometimes... isn’t effective". I've come across three groups of reactions to "Nudging": 1) Yay! Let's use science for good! 2) Yeah but it's not a silver bullet 3) I think they're brainwashing us Camp 1 is sensible, and has room for discussion a…
The author seems to have fallen into the 2nd camp. His criticism seems to be based on nudges that haven't resolved an underlying problem. Which should not be a surprise. Nudge (the book) did not argue that structuring default choices with an awareness of behaviour and psychology would immediately resolve the core issue. Only that it would be better starting point than not thinking intelligently about defaults and the decision making process.
Re: Why 'Nudges' Hardly Help
#10I'm a bit surprised that this article doesn't deal with the increasing amount of science behind neurological food reward mechanisms. The tl;dr is that our junk food (and much mass-produced food in grocery stores) has been tailored for a kind of hyper-palatability that mutes the effectiveness of our normal satiety mechanisms. So in the article's context the "nudge" is up against an evolving attack by industrial food against very low-level neurological mechanisms.
I don't have a good "lay" source for this field, but I'd recommend digging into Stephen Guyenet's blog[1], that is if you're up for wading through an academic's professional musings. He's a neurobiologist and obesity researcher, and as such the blog provides his perspectives on ongoing work (his and others') in this field. Warning: DO NOT go here expecting any specific answers, and be able to deal with a fair bit of hypothesizing (i.e. untested, maybe totally wrong) both on Guyenet's part and via the work he reviews. You'll only really get a sense of how this field is going as you pick up enough context of ongoing work. IMO, the most interesting self-contained posts that go by are the significant negative results, where robust work comes to light that just crushes an existing hypothesis.