So, just when you thought you were going to skip out on the blog for the week(end). I give you the ever erudite George F. Will.
The story can be found here. Don't forget the 2nd page - you'll have to click on it at the bottom to complete the argument.
So -- what do we make of "nudging"? What's Will trying to say in this piece? I have some ideas, but I want to hear what you say, of course. That's one reason why we do this blog -- to see what you make out of these sorts of things.
George F. Will probably has more education than all 26 of us put together. He's a ridiculously educated man. But I want to know -- is he RIGHT? What do you think of the practice of 'nudging' as Will describes it? Is nudging the same thing as manipulation? Why or why not? You have at least 300 words to state your case. Due Monday. Late Monday.
Enjoy, folks.
-- MP
The idea of a "choice architect" has intrigued me for some time. A favorite topic in one of my recent psychology classes was laziness and the natural inclination of the brain to avoid work or making decisions. From a biological perspective, this makes sense. Less thinking requires less energy. Less energy usage means less of a need for an energy source. From this perspective, laziness and complacency are natural. Due to this sluggish complex, "choice architecture" becomes a viable means of thought manipulation.
ReplyDeleteOne easy way to "nudge" a person into making a decision is through the "default option," as George F. Will states in his article. This "default option" remains in effect until a person makes a decision between the options given. In the examples Will gives (401(k)s and organ donation), this kind of "thought architecture" has benefits for society. However, this kind of perception framing falls prey to the biases of the entity presenting the options. A "default option" implies that a standard exists and that the so called right decision is to go with it. A person still possesses the option to opt out, also preserving the American ideal of freedom of choice. This takes care of pesky legal issues.
Is the "default option" a form of manipulation? Yes, it is. Upon closer examination, however, I do not see a way devoid of bias. Let's look at organ donation, for example. If an answer in the positive is not the default, then the opposite becomes the default. I can go around in intellectual circles for the rest of my life. Even if I do not actively create a "default option," I have inadvertently created one through inaction. That same concept is what Will proposes to manipulate for what he perceives as the greater good. What the greater good really is depends on perspective. Setting the "default option" creates a values system based on the implied context.
For some reason, people tend to make an active decision when confronted with a "default decision" that requires participation or effort. Personally, I would rather have someone manipulate me into making a decision in that manner than remain stuck in the limbo of inaction. At least I can blame the outcome solely on my own actions. This is also why I lean toward Will's point of view. No matter what the situation is, there is always an outcome. Humans can only attempt to control the nature of that end. Forcing people to make a choice is not the same as limiting the possible paths to choose from. In the end, if a person makes an uninformed decision due to carelessness, then that's his or her problem, no one else's.
eorge F. Will begins his article by stating that Americans lives are too busy, complicated, or they are incapable of making well-thought decisions for themselves. The solution is this concept of "choice architecture". Honestly, I think that this idea of presenting options in this way is manipulative and deceiving. This reminds me of a controlled totalitarian country, where the government decided what is for the greater good of society. By presenting options, such as placing fruit at eye level, the presenter is acting from his or her motives. Yes, we know that fruit is healthier for you than desert but the chooser should not be manipulated by the presentation of the options. It would be different if the fruit was absentmindedly placed at eye level as opposed to the desert but the fact that someone knowingly placed them there purposely changes the matter entirely.
ReplyDeleteOkay, a more serious example would be Will's description of Organ Donors. When attaining a driver's license a person would have to choose "no", if not they would automatically be assumed as an organ donor. I don't understand how that would make the American Person's life easier in regards to decision making. Now, a person has to think about the choices that are practically being made for them instead of worrying about the choices which they have absentmindedly made. Yes, our lives are complicated and we sometimes make rash decisions. However, this does not mean that we are incapable of making our own choices or deal with the consequences of the decisions which turn out badly. That is life and it is full of complications. I don't follow the slippery slope fallacy but if the government is going to start manipulating our options I fear for what will come next. "Choice Architecture" sounds like a pretentious way of titling authoritarian control.
What did I think about this week’s article? I found it to be kind of dry and hard to get through. And I didn’t completely understand the article and exactly what “nudging” is so I’ll give it a shot about what I got from it.
ReplyDeleteWhat do I think about “nudging”? I think it’s a to get people do something they wouldn’t necessarily do or think of. I would say nudging could be a form of manipulation to an extent. The article states “Putting the fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not.”(Nudge Against the Fudge) which could be a form of manipulation. The article also says that employers can be “creative” (Nudge Against the Fudge) when trying to have their employees save more when they get paid more. Also that people already put money in their 401(K)s and employers are matching and I think George F. Will is trying to stop that.
I thought the article was kind of dry but there were some good points in the article to make you think about the society a little bit. Nudging is a type of manipulation but it is not forcing any one into any thing. Organ donation is a great example of a nudge that was in the article and people have the option of saying no. They are not really forced into saying yes. I mean it can convince shy people who are scared to say "no" but it is not really forcing them to be an organ donor. The example of putting fruit at eye level was a good comparison. The person can say no to the apple if they wanted but it is more convenient to them. I think it is just people being sometimes lazy saying their lives are too busy. I mean nudging is a bad way to try and persuade some one because there are a lot of people out there that will fall into traps like organ donations if they do not want to do it. It is not right but I do not think it is that big of a deal. The person still has a decision to make. Like they said it is not like they are banning junk food. They are just putting the apple at eye level so some one can decide what they want to do. It is the person who made the decisions fault so I think it is just giving an excuse that they got persuaded into something that they did not want to do in the long run. So overall yeah I think nudging is not a good way for the government to try and do things but if they really have to than it is not the worst thing they can do.
ReplyDeleteI’d have to agree with Katie on this article being dry and hard to get through. I had to keep rereading it because it honestly isn’t interesting to me, and when I’m not interested in something I tend to not pay attention. So I really didn’t get much out of this article just because it was boring and a bit confusing to me.
ReplyDeleteI think that “nudging” is when someone is being manipulated, but they aren’t completely being forced to do something. The example of organ donation was a good example of nudging because they option to give your organs to someone is available but you are also allowed to say no to that, they fact that they are asking you in the nudging, I think? Then the whole fruit over dessert thing and being at eye level. Something being at eye level doesn’t necessarily make someone pick it, it just seems to be right there, an easy option.
I think “nudging” works more on people who aren’t independent or don’t know what is going on or are indecisive. Since these people don’t know what they want they usually tend to follow someone who knows what they want so they are easy targets to nudge.
I do not think that George F. Will is right, completely, I do agree how people can be nudged, but at the same time to me when I was reading this article I thought he made it sound like everyone is being nudged, which may be true to a certain extent, and we don’t even know about it, but I personally don’t think that everyone is being nudged. I thought that he sounded a bit stuck up and cocky in this article like he’s nudging all of us. He is the puppet master and were his puppets or something like that is what I got from him.
I really struggled trying to read this. It was hard for me to comprehend some of his theories, but I'll give a shot at what I got from it. Nudging to me is somewhat a manipulation of lazy people. It is the easy way out of a decision. With the fruit example, they basically make a choice for you and only show you that option. So lazy people don't really have to think about any other choice but the one being displayed to them. I feel as if nudging is only manipulation if you let it manipulate you.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is a bad idea because if you want to influence people to make a certain choice, than nudging would be effective on the undecided or unaware individuals. I certainly do not think it will work on everyone because most people have their own thoughts and choices and regardless of the extent of nudging, they have their mind set.
George Will has valid points and explained nudging as influencing a decision or choice on someone. I don't think it affects as many people as he claims, but there are different situations where nudging is more effective than in others. Individuals have the choice to say no, but becasue of nudging and it's control over people, it can influence and sway the person's choice.
I think everyone is accustomed to some sort of “nudging” on a daily basis. Whether it’s a commercial or giving money to a charity. It may be not as obvious as Obama’s 401 K “opt out” plan or “default option” for organ donation, but is there really anything wrong with this? Is being manipulated for the benefit of yourself or society bad? I would agree and say that “nudging” is a form of manipulation, however unlike manipulation you still have the right to make your own decision.
ReplyDeleteEvery choice is made in context, so people argue having a “default option” would make people choose that option. However, if someone is really adamant about the issue you can simply say no. For the lazy or indecisive person it seems like this change “default option” wouldn’t faze him or her.
Will gives an interesting example about organ donors. He states that the hardest part of receiving organ donors is receiving consent from the family members, who had not previously registered. This doesn’t necessarily mean this person held a strong stance on not being an organ donor, but maybe thought it “doesn’t matter” or “I won’t die anytime soon, so need to worry.” Having a default option forces people to make a decision on the spot, not manipulating them into that particular decision. As long as there are options a default option seems non-manipulative.
I would first like to say that this author is somewhat hard to comprehend. He uses abstract phrases and words it seems for no other reason than to sound smart. I felt as though I was being talked down to as I read this article. However, I was able to grasp the major points of the excerpt. The author is implying that in order to increase a certain behavior, we need only make it harder for people to not participate. For example, cellular phone companies give out rebates when you buy an overpriced handset. The company is smart in doing this because it seems like a good deal at the time, but many of those who buy new phones will never get around to mailing in their rebate. That is an easy fifty dollars in the company's pocket, and all they had to do was ask the customer to put a stamp on an envelope before they could receive the discount. If the customers want to get their own money back, they must put forth the effort and mail in the receipt. People are generally lazy and these companies exploit that. It is actually a very clever plan on their part.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Obama's automatic savings plans are not exactly exploitation, the same principles apply. His suggestion would make savings the default and those who did not wish to invest would have to actively withdraw from the program. I feel that this is a good strategy for everyone. Although it does “nudge” the public to do something they may not otherwise do, it benefits both the government and the people. This is similar to the cafeteria illustration used in the article. Putting the healthy foods at the start of the line is nudging but it is not the type of exploitation used by wireless providers. Such manipulation is actually a good thing for America, in my opinion. If the default plan is a good savings program, America cannot claim to be ignorant of the benefits of the program. If someone opts out, it was his/her personal choice and hopefully they made that choice based on the information available to them. With the current system, people may not join simply because they are too busy or they were unaware. I am no expert, but making participation in these programs default seems like an undeniably positive change.
Nudging is most certainly a way of manipulation. Almost every day, one is nudged into a decision that they unconsciously make. As a Fashion Merchandising major, we learn about ways to nudge purchases onto consumers. This is obvious in the retail industry because people are impulse buyers. Retailers play up nudging products onto people knowing that people make impulse decisions. This is not necessarily a bad thing because it is the person who is being nudged is fault. With our fast paced lifestyles, it is almost impossible to think about every choice that we make. But with important decision making, you are an idiot if you are nudged into your final resolution.
ReplyDeleteI like it because it is an innocent way of manipulation. It’s not a bad technique. You get what you want without looking bad. I don’t want to be redundant because that is about all I have to say about this article. It was very dry and only made one point. George F. Will makes this scheme seem bad, but nudging, in my opinion, is not a bad thing, it’s smart, and it gives one a predictable outcome. It’s only bad if you let it be. The average person just needs to be aware of this tactic and don’t let it control every one of your decisions.
Nudging is manipulation of people. It is trying to get people to do what you want. I think it is fine to “nudge” someone. It is ok for government to do it to. They nudged people to stop smoking. If you think about it religion nudges people to act and think certain ways. They nudge to be a good person and to go to church. It is easy to nudge someone your way when they are not fully aware of all their possibilities.
ReplyDeleteHow can we be aware when we are being nudged? I give everyone the benefit of the doubt and think they are just trying to help me for the greater good. Maybe I should question everyone and think that they have an alternative motive.
When you nudge someone you are only letting your side be heard. When people don’t know both sides and only hear one they tend to go with it. It’s important to know both sides and to be able to take a stand and decide on your own opinion and issues. Some people try to take advantage of the uneducated about issues. It is your own fault if you are manipulated. It is the people’s responsibility to educate themselves on their choices and not let others persuade them. We nudge everyday and everyone does it knowingly or are unaware that they are nudging people but they should be aware of nudging and know when it is happening to them so they can make their own decisions.
I didn’t like this article at all. In fact it doesn’t interest me at all and don’t want to waste my energy in trying to learn more about it, however, I don’t want to come off as ignorant so here I go... How do we define manipulation? Is it a bad or a good thing? Of course people would say that it depends on who and what you’re manipulating. We are very easy to be “nudged” but does it necessarily mean that we should be nudged? There are those who know more about a certain issue than we do and they’ll nudge us into the right direction. There are also situations like donating organs. Everything now-a-days is about manipulation; for example: television commercials, beauty products, and the government.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the government and the policies we are manipulated to easily because we assume they know what they’re talking about and that they know best. But if informed ourselves more and were a little proactive than maybe half of the dumb stuff that goes on wouldn’t even exist. But like it was said in the article people are “lazy.” People can’t pick up on “nudging” but it happens and if its something like food, we could care less. If it had to deal with our money or our children people get upset. Priorities need to be set and if people knew they were being manipulated a scare would arise nationwide, but it’s always done furtively. The truth is, nudging will always exist whether we want it to or not.
Considering that George F. Will is probably smarter than all 26 of us put together in our class, his article is very hard to comprehend and understand certain points. However, he made a few well put statements. As the article states, it is human nature to have tendencies to behave like others and make choices based off of theirs. I believe that people in general are easily “nudged” into making poor financial decisions. As a result, the American savings rate is considerably low and in the year 2005, it turned negative. Americans spend their money based on the present. They do not provide and plan for their future.
ReplyDeleteAn implementation of the “nudge” effect is persuading Americans to check “yes” on their drives license for being an organ donor. According to Will, 60% of the current 100,000 people on the waiting list for new organs will die before they can receive those necessary organs. “Nudging” people to check “yes” or “no” on their driver’s license increases participation in the organ donning program. This is a positive step the government is taking. However, some nudging is useless and negatively affects our nation and economy as a whole.
Overall, this article was a little dry and hard to understand at times. I agree with many of Will’s points. The government needs to step back from the main concern of individuals and learn to survive and save for themselves. Americans need to start saving money and putting it in the right places. People given power to help run our nation effectively need to make time to think and plan accordingly to minimize the foolish decisions and choices in the government.
I feel that nudging is a form of manipulation, just as many other of my classmates have said. I know that I have been nudged into a decision that I did not put much thought into. Just as he George F. Will discussed about organ donation, I was one that was nudge into my decision. I had been told by my parents to be an organ donor but once the time came when I was asked by the DMV whether or not i would be a donor, I didn't even think about it and just said yes. Had I actually contemplated my options, I still would have been a donor, but being put right on the spot I didn't even think and just said yes. Giving peoples family the option of saying yes or no to donating had the victim not said no is a great idea also but maybe at the time the victim wasn't thinking about whether he wanted to or not or was just nudged into the wrong option. Nudging is a very effective tactic in getting what they want. Personally, I thought this article was very difficult to read and comprehend. I feel that George F. Will is a very well educated man, but he used way to many dictionary words and was hard to comprehend. Maybe it's just me not being as well educated but I felt I did not get the jist of this article.
ReplyDeleteLike a number of others, I didn’t find this article to be the most interesting. To be frank, even after just reading it, most of what George F. Will said has left me and I have a very vague remembrance of it all. This might be due to the fact that I found part of George F. Will’s article to be difficult to comprehend mixed with a topic that didn’t catch my interest. Even though I may not a particularly enjoyed this piece I can still appreciate it for what it is. George F. Will brought up a few good examples to help state his case about the act of ‘nudging’.
ReplyDeleteAs humans we are making choices constantly, some of those might be weight a bit more then others and some we might be ‘nudged’ into choosing. I do think that ‘nudging’ is a form of manipulation to a certain degree, if the person the ‘nudging’ to can be easily swayed. I think in the political sense when dealing government views and issues this ‘Nudge’ is a stronger form of manipulation, while the choice to be an organ donor is much less of a ‘nudge’ in my personal view.
George F Will uses an example about choosing healthier options by putting the apple, or other fruit at the eye level, while the dessert choice isn’t directly in the line of sight as a form of ‘nudging’. While having the fruit in the direct line of sight will register in your brain quicker, if you really want that dessert and you don’t care about the healthier choice, you will choose the piece of cake, pie or whatever it maybe. You may be ‘nudged’ to it, but I think those who have strong opinions or views on something are less likely to be. That being said, not only with fruit, but for anything, government or political too.
I found this article hard to understand and boring because I’m just a simple blue collar type of guy who needs this fancy talk broken down into simple English or laymen’s terms as most would put it. Given all that I can still try to make an “educated” guess as to what Mr. Will was trying to say in this article. I think what Mr. Will was trying to say is that the nudge can be considered as getting people to do certain things by giving them certain and selective choices. Now this is what I took the article as but like I said this is my best educated guess.
ReplyDeleteAs far as being right I think nudging is wrong! People should be allowed the freedom to choose what they what based on whatever criteria they deem necessary. Think about it like this, you don’t what someone telling you how to think or live.
I found this article to be about a pretty interesting concept. George F. Will discusses the idea of “nudging” or in other words, positively manipulating. He goes on to explain how our government can present things in a way that we will most likely make a better choice, or the choice the government wants us to make. For example in cafeterias at school, putting healthier food choices in certain spots of the line and desserts in others can influence children to pick a healthier lunch. One of the other examples Will uses was the idea of indicating whether or a person is an organ donor on their driver’s license. This would prevent any delay time on whether or not organs could be used for patients in need. Our licenses here in Ohio already indicate if you are a organ donor or not and the concept seems to work well.
ReplyDeleteI am undecided about how I feel about this “nudging” by the government. Nudging can definitely help people to make better decisions, like smoking for example. The government does a lot of “nudging” to try and get people not to smoke. This is clearly a positive influence on the American people. At the same time the government could nudge us into things that we don’t necessarily want to or need to do. My only worry with this is that the government can start to go overboard with the “nudging” and try to influence the people more than they need to or should. The concept discussed in the article about automatically adding savings plans for workers unless they choose to opt out could be the start of this. Before we know it the government can start doing all kinds of add ons, but it might not always be what is best for the American people. It could start becoming more of what the government wants.
Oops, this is a bit late, but here goes anyhow.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of "nudging" people into making proper decisions is an older concept in the, used mostly in the world of (ironically) advertising. It is often used marketing campaigns bashing competitors. For example, Time Warner cable recently had an ad in which the middle aged man (who is in most of their ads) talks to a teen aged electronics store employee dressed as a pirate. Without outright saying that DirectTV are pirates for charging for services they provide, they imply they are.
This example is a little more blatant than what the government would have to institute. Nudging would work in our society, it is an excellent idea, but my fear is that it could blow up in their faces. One thing people hate more than being forced to do something is being lied to and convinced to do it anyways. If people realized that the reason that apples were the first food in the line because the government wants them to be healthier they would take offense. And the entire plan could backfire.
On the other hand, nudging has been done successfully by the United States government. Before the drinking age was 21 across the entire country, the federal government set up disincentives. Either states change the age from 18 to 21 and receive money for highways, or not receive money for highways. Every state changed the age because they would be hurt severely in the long run without the millions of dollars the government provided for state highway repair, building, and maintenance. This worked because the option was there, but it made sense to change the age.
Overall, I think this would be beneficial to the American way so long as it is done tactfully. Obama's administration would have to be up front about what they are doing, without making it so obvious that people look for it and purposely avoid situations in which their decisions would be swayed.
To me, I think that 'nudging' can be more common. Personally, I would associate it with the same words as persuasion or propaganda. My interpretation of 'nudging' is any influence to where you are getting an audience to change their particular view on any given issue. Nudging can take place in elections, influencing others to become organ donors like previously stated, or even everyday things like what kind of food someone wants to eat for a meal. How you go about the 'nudging' is totally different. If you have ulterior motives I feel that the 'nudging' would be more blatant... the ultimate goal still remains, to change a point view to agree with those doing the 'nudging'. Like Jeff stated above, nudging is an effective way to try and get what you want out of someone or something. Is nudging right? Done the ethically correct way, I think that 'nudging' can be a positive way of influence, as long as underlying motives are no longer involved. However, I'm partial because part of me doesn't see 'nudging' without ulterior motives because there are always two sides to every argument. If a person 'nudges' towards a specific side there will always be an opposing side that in the end, loses. This topic really made me think about how 'nudging' effects both sides of the equation, ethically and personally. Personally I really think 'nudging' should only occur if the end result would be more beneficial than any opposing arguments. In the case of organ donation, personally I believe being an organ donor is a positive thing... you're not using them if you pass, so do something heroic and save a complete stranger, or someone as close as a family member. But hey, I just 'nudged' in the previous sentence. I can see where it would be beneficial but its always to the advantage of those whose ‘nudging’ is the most captivating and effective.
ReplyDeleteNudge Against the Fudge
ReplyDeleteI think it is safe to say that George Will is for the government using the nudging tactic, as am I. I do not see the use of nudging as manipulation. Technically the government is “manipulating” a situation by putting nudging to use to accomplish a goal. To me the term manipulation is viewed in a negative light, and seems to be permanent. On the other hand, nudging is less harsh, and after all with nudging the people still are free and have a choice. There are not any rights violated with nudging. Will is explaining how nudging is used to better the people. He is explaining how being a ‘libertarian paternalism' is a positive thing in politics. Nudging in politics is comparable to a teacher’s influence in a classroom setting. A teacher can lead his or hers students to a correct answer without giving them the right answer directly. Therefore this teaching method would only be helpful to the student’s grade. The students still have a choice to choose which ever answer they feel is correct. This is a great tactic to use when governing over a large body of people. Most of the time the people are too busy with their lives to concentrate on an issue that will affect their future, and that’s when the government steps in to help. The government realizes this and tries to aid in the decision making process by using the nudging tactic. In no way does nudging infringe on the rights of the people. An interesting topic Will writes about that I found interesting was how the order or the way something is worded affects the way people make decisions. This is important information for the practice of nudging.
This article was boring, and so I had to reread it many many times to understand it, and I still don't really because I am tired.
ReplyDeleteNudging as they talk about in the article is to me trying to talk someone into something they really want to do. Examples are voting, organ donation, and donating to certain charities. They make you look good so those people decide to do it because when some one asks you to donate organs o a dying person when you have no life left in you you kinda want to do it or you will look like shit. That is what nudging is to me.
Nudging is a definite way of manipulating people; it is seen everyday even if people don’t realize it. George F. Will talked about how having fruit at eye level in the grocery store is a way of nudging. This is very true; at the grocery store, in the cereal aisle, the unhealthy cereals like captain crunch, trix, and other kid’s cereals with sugar are put on the bottom shelf, in children’s reach. The healthier cereals are always placed on the top shelf. This may be just smart product placement, but it is also a way of nudging people.
ReplyDeleteBeing a fashion merchandising major, people that work in retail are told to “nudge” people into buying things. Most people are impulse buyers, so having the retailer “nudging” them to buy the product will most likely turn into a sale.
I agree and disagree with this article. Many people are nudged into making a certain decision, but it does not work on everyone. Just because someone or something is trying to manipulate into doing something, does not mean they will fall for it. Manipulation/ nudging is used in most places, but it does not necessarily always work.
Nudging is possibly the most either physical or subtle form of manipulation. I wouldn't say its an act of forcing someone against their will. I think this is more of a way of saying "Don't you agree?" and a way to get people to tell their conscious, "Yes. Yes I do."
ReplyDeleteObama's actions putting employees through a decision of two choices, where more than half of the people would choose in Obama's favor is not necessarily wrong. If a person sees something wrong or have an inkling feeling that one of two things is not fairing well then they of course would choose the other thing. It can be and orange or an apple or a low cost policy with benefits or a high cost policy with benefits. If the one is spotty and expensive why not choose the other.
Being indecisive, I have a hard time figuring out things I want to do or buy. I try to weigh my options between pros and cons, but if I have a friend with me who gives me a nudge getting me to finally do something, even if its something I never thought of doing or thought I wanted to do, in the end when I make the choice I know its what I wanted to do or buy anyway, and for that I am grateful.