Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#11

Post by vintermann »

martingoodson wrote: post #5

This is a poor headline (from The Economist) that does not reflect the referenced work. The correct interpretation is that nudges need to be tested in the field to find out if they work. This is common knowledge in behavioural science. Experts are not good at predicting which nudges are going to work in practice[1]. Trials are always needed. This is no different to the requirement for drug trials. Drugs are not relea…

I wonder if the problem with "nudge" is that for publicity reasons, people only call it a nudge if it sounds like a tiny thing that doesn't sound like it would work. If it's an obvious intervention, such as a default option in a pension form, or higher prices on tobacco, or condom vending machines in hotel restrooms, they don't call it a nudge anymore.

And I also have the feeling some of these may be babies that the Economist's editors would like to throw out with the bathwater.

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#12

Post by asimpletune »

prohobo wrote: post #9
Vetch wrote: post #8

What is a nudge? Do dark patterns, tactics employed by casinos or loot box games that depend on whales and children of wealthy parents count?

Fundamentally yes, except that nudge theory is about manipulating collective action (or inaction) in populations. Promoters of this theory also envision themselves as trying to help, not fleece people of their money.

I don't know a lot about this, but would an example be like when Draghi was at the ECB and he responded with "Whatever it takes" when asked about the S. Europe debt crises?

Or how exactly does nudging look like in practice?

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#13

Post by t_mann »

asimpletune wrote: post #12
prohobo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally yes, except that nudge theory is about manipulating collective action (or inaction) in populations. Promoters of this theory also envision themselves as trying to help, not fleece people of their money.

I don't know a lot about this, but would an example be like when Draghi was at the ECB and he responded with "Whatever it takes" when asked about the S. Europe debt crises? Or how exactly does nudging look like in practice?

No, Draghi's statement was signalling, not nudging. He was willing to throw billions at the problem (and eventually did), his communication was meant to reduce the need for such an intervention.

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#14

Post by t_mann »

vintermann wrote: post #11
martingoodson wrote: post #5

This is a poor headline (from The Economist) that does not reflect the referenced work. The correct interpretation is that nudges need to be tested in the field to find out if they work. This is common knowledge in behavioural science. Experts are not good at predicting which nudges are going to work in practice[1]. Trials are always needed. This is no different to the requirement for drug trials. Drugs are not relea…

I wonder if the problem with "nudge" is that for publicity reasons, people only call it a nudge if it sounds like a tiny thing that doesn't sound like it would work. If it's an obvious intervention, such as a default option in a pension form, or higher prices on tobacco, or condom vending machines in hotel restrooms, they don't call it a nudge anymore. And I also have the feeling some of these may be babies that the…

Default options in forms are the standard example of a nudge, a tax however is definitely not a nudge, the article actually explicitly says so.

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#15

Post by vintermann »

t_mann wrote: post #14
vintermann wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the problem with "nudge" is that for publicity reasons, people only call it a nudge if it sounds like a tiny thing that doesn't sound like it would work. If it's an obvious intervention, such as a default option in a pension form, or higher prices on tobacco, or condom vending machines in hotel restrooms, they don't call it a nudge anymore. And I also have the feeling some of these may be babies that the…

Default options in forms are the standard example of a nudge, a tax however is definitely not a nudge, the article actually explicitly says so.

In that big meta study that questioned the efficiency of nudges, it was said in the discussion on HN that they excluded default options from the definition of nudges.

Either way, the line seems arbitrary to me, and it's part of why I think they're moving the goalposts.

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#16

Post by t_mann »

vintermann wrote: post #15
t_mann wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Default options in forms are the standard example of a nudge, a tax however is definitely not a nudge, the article actually explicitly says so.

In that big meta study that questioned the efficiency of nudges, it was said in the discussion on HN that they excluded default options from the definition of nudges. Either way, the line seems arbitrary to me, and it's part of why I think they're moving the goalposts.

I don't know what people on HN said, but it's the first example of nudges of you look here (and pretty much anywhere else):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory#Types_of_nudges

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#17

Post by simonh »

vintermann wrote: post #11
martingoodson wrote: post #5

This is a poor headline (from The Economist) that does not reflect the referenced work. The correct interpretation is that nudges need to be tested in the field to find out if they work. This is common knowledge in behavioural science. Experts are not good at predicting which nudges are going to work in practice[1]. Trials are always needed. This is no different to the requirement for drug trials. Drugs are not relea…

I wonder if the problem with "nudge" is that for publicity reasons, people only call it a nudge if it sounds like a tiny thing that doesn't sound like it would work. If it's an obvious intervention, such as a default option in a pension form, or higher prices on tobacco, or condom vending machines in hotel restrooms, they don't call it a nudge anymore. And I also have the feeling some of these may be babies that the…

I don't follow. The Economist's editors aren't the ones deciding what is or isn't counted as a nudge in the academic literature.

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#18

Post by winReInstall »

ariendj wrote: post #7
taylorius wrote: post #3

Honest debate and persuasion is so 20th Century.

I kind of miss honesty, though.

Honest debate was the ultimate adventure. Sad its gone, replaced by yelling matches in feeling hive-mind choirs. Guess this how medieval times felt, with oppossing faiths.

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#19

Post by vintermann »

simonh wrote: post #17
vintermann wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the problem with "nudge" is that for publicity reasons, people only call it a nudge if it sounds like a tiny thing that doesn't sound like it would work. If it's an obvious intervention, such as a default option in a pension form, or higher prices on tobacco, or condom vending machines in hotel restrooms, they don't call it a nudge anymore. And I also have the feeling some of these may be babies that the…

I don't follow. The Economist's editors aren't the ones deciding what is or isn't counted as a nudge in the academic literature.

The headline doesn't say nudges. It says behavioural interventions.

(and as far as I can tell, the academic literature isn't consistent on what counts as a nudge or not)

Re: Evidence for behavioural interventions looks increasingly shaky

#20

Post by simonh »

asimpletune wrote: post #12
prohobo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally yes, except that nudge theory is about manipulating collective action (or inaction) in populations. Promoters of this theory also envision themselves as trying to help, not fleece people of their money.

I don't know a lot about this, but would an example be like when Draghi was at the ECB and he responded with "Whatever it takes" when asked about the S. Europe debt crises? Or how exactly does nudging look like in practice?

There's a difference between nudge as in the technical meaning here from behavioural psychology, and what we would commonly call a nudge in everyday english. An economist or politician might describe Draghi's statement as trying to nudge the behaviour of the banks, sure, but that doesn't conform to what behavioural psychologists mean by a nudge in the technical sense.

Which is fine of course, pretty much every specialist discipline has special meanings for some everyday words.

Post reply on HN