http://now.msn.com/behavioral-insights-team-nudge-squad-at-white-house
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/govt-knows-best-white-house-creates-nudge-squad-to-shape-behavior/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :horrormirth:
I am always baffled when people expect the government, especially high-level government, to be more disconnected from understanding of the social research which for the most part we only understand the dynamics of because they funded it.
Downing Street has been making similar use of such strategies for the past few years.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/09/cameron-nudge-unit-economic-behaviour
QuoteA "nudge unit" set up by David Cameron in the Cabinet Office is working on how to use behavioural economics and market signals to persuade citizens to behave in a more socially integrated way.
The unit, formally known as the Behavioural Insight Team, is being run by David Halpern, a former adviser in Tony Blair's strategy unit, and is taking advice from Richard Thaler, the Chicago professor generally recognised as popularising "nudge" theory – the idea that governments can design environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves and society.
Thaler was in London for three days this week advising ministers, and in a speech urged the government to adopt longer term horizons. The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said he believed the unit could change the way citizens think.
It is reporting to a prestigious board including Jeremy Heywood, the prime minister's permanent secretary, Steve Hilton, the prime minister's strategic adviser, Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, and Robert Devereux, permanent secretary at the Department of Transport and head of the civil service policy profession. The unit has a two-year life, and its work will be reviewed after a year.
Behavioural work was undertaken by Tony Blair; under Gordon Brown the emphasis shifted to changes in the law and regulations. The aim of the unit, strongly supported by George Osborne, is to explore ways of encouraging citizens to behave in social ways relying on market incentives, as opposed to regulations. The initial work of the unit will be focused on areas such as public health issues such as obesity, alcohol intake or organ donation.
You'll notice the economic underpinning of "nudge theory" is one which is entirely compatible with a crude libertarian approach to economics.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/healthandsocialcare/2012/04/12/whither-behavioural-economic-policy/
QuoteIn policy circles, there appears to be the perception that behavioural economics, due to its potential to guide people towards making 'better' decisions, can be used as an alternative to stricter forms of regulation, such as taxes and bans. This no doubt in part explains the popularity of the approach with the current right-of-centre UK Government and its apparent preference for a smaller central state.
Unsurprisingly, in the UK at least, there is a "for-profit" motive backing this:
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/all/head-civil-service/a-nudge-in-the-right-direction
QuoteAlso buried within the article is the positive story that the Behavioural Insights Team, based in the Cabinet Office, is taking its first step to becoming a profit-making joint venture. This is very much something that has the backing of the team and it is great news for them. They have done tremendous work using "Nudge" techniques to support people to make better choices for themselves, identifying tens of millions of pounds of savings in the process.
The team are considering a joint venture model with a strong element of employee participation in partnership with Government and the private sector. This will give them even more opportunity to increase innovation and win new contracts, as well as respond to the demand they have for their services both in the UK and overseas. And the taxpayer benefits, by receiving profits through the Government-owned share. This has been driven by the team and they will continue to own and run the organisation.
And it's worth noting this particular clusterfuck
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/dwp-admits-more-lies-and-misdeeds-re-fake-psych-test/
QuoteThere has been considerable furore over the fake psychometric 'test' the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been forcing jobseekers to use under the threat of 'sanction' (immediate loss of benefits) since I revealed it in April and the Guardian newspaper published its own account of the story at the beginning of May.
The DWP and the head of Downing Street's 'Behavioural Insights Team' (BIT or 'nudge unit') officially denied to the Guardian that anyone had ever been forced to complete the 'test', while the head of the nudge unit even wrote an indignant open letter to the Guardian to the same effect.
The government then issued a confused statement stating both that it had not forced anyone to take the test – and that it had.
So what's happened is the government has invented advertising :?
No, and if you had bothered to read the links I posted - you know, the ones which I copied and pasted from to make it easier to get a gist of what they are on about - you'd know that.
What's awesome here is that the government can't do authoritarian shit properly, let alone social engineering.
I am for some reason reminded of old civil defense films.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 31, 2013, 07:41:50 AM
I am always baffled when people expect the government, especially high-level government, to be more disconnected from understanding of the social research which for the most part we only understand the dynamics of because they funded it.
I think the expectation is that since government entities can't seem to do anything right that something as subtle as this would be way beyond their ability to pull off. Also, it's really easy to get the impression that government on a whole is tech-illiterate since most of congress and almost all of the judicial branch can't tell their ass from an sql injection.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 31, 2013, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 31, 2013, 07:41:50 AM
I am always baffled when people expect the government, especially high-level government, to be more disconnected from understanding of the social research which for the most part we only understand the dynamics of because they funded it.
I think the expectation is that since government entities can't seem to do anything right that something as subtle as this would be way beyond their ability to pull off. Also, it's really easy to get the impression that government on a whole is tech-illiterate since most of congress and almost all of the judicial branch can't tell their ass from an sql injection.
What's funny is that even the competent crowd is under the supervision (and funding) of the morons.
fucking AIDS, its back to the 40s with Skinner and operant conditioning.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 31, 2013, 04:46:55 PM
fucking AIDS, its back to the 40s with Skinner and operant conditioning.
Naw. 8 circuit model, applied ham-handedly. And they told the audience that they were gonna do it.
Hilarity set to ensue.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2013, 04:48:00 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 31, 2013, 04:46:55 PM
fucking AIDS, its back to the 40s with Skinner and operant conditioning.
Naw. 8 circuit model, applied ham-handedly. And they told the audience that they were gonna do it.
Hilarity set to ensue.
I personally don't know the specifics of the 8 circuit model (i know it's Leary tho) I'll look into it... but as far as operant conditioning goes, we already have the punishment (negative feedback), and now we get the reinforcement (positive feedback) - I also remember some part of the book i read by him, some fascist utopia, i think it was this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two)
or was it Watson? I cant quite recall, this one book about how conditioning will resolve all the world's problems by directing the masses that don't know any better, shaped by the government for the "greater good".
This has nothing to do with the 8 circuit model. As people would know if they read the damn links.
Why the fuck do I even bother?
Nudge Squads can't fuck with Don't Budge Squads!
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/6e543e847415517a4220472f73ec3aed/tumblr_moq40vSSzD1qmwidzo1_500.gif)
In reading the links, and knowing a bit about so-called "Nudge Theory", I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I don't really mind it, as a concept. It's been clearly shown that the way you phrase or construct a form can radically change how most people answers or completes it. And if The Man wants The Masses to behave a certain way, it's pretty much the easiest way to do it.
An incredibly simple example is opt-in vs opt-out. If your job sets a 5% payroll contribution to your 401k as a default with a one-click opt-out option, the end result is most employees will keep it; but if the default is nothing, but there's a one-click option to enroll, most people don't do it.
Of course, this could get evil really quickly, no doubt. But I don't see anything morally wrong with the theory.
Cain, I'm still unclear how the UK thinks making the nudge team for-profit will help in any way.
Quote from: Cain on July 31, 2013, 05:25:44 PM
This has nothing to do with the 8 circuit model. As people would know if they read the damn links.
Why the fuck do I even bother?
Followed one of the links...and hopped over to this in action, because I'm not grasping it in the abstract.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/dec/30/jobseekers-dole-nudge-unit-psychology
While I think the use of this is pretty logical in context, I can't help but think " Gee, if the government
really wants to help people get off benefits, it would more profitably look at how to bring more jobs to the UK."
Edited to add:
...So they wanted to require taking this test to receive benefits though...and they were conducting a not-so-tightly controlled psych experiment, in effect...and using unqualified personnel to do it also.
...Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2013, 05:47:35 PM
In reading the links, and knowing a bit about so-called "Nudge Theory", I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I don't really mind it, as a concept. It's been clearly shown that the way you phrase or construct a form can radically change how most people answers or completes it. And if The Man wants The Masses to behave a certain way, it's pretty much the easiest way to do it.
An incredibly simple example is opt-in vs opt-out. If your job sets a 5% payroll contribution to your 401k as a default with a one-click opt-out option, the end result is most employees will keep it; but if the default is nothing, but there's a one-click option to enroll, most people don't do it.
Of course, this could get evil really quickly, no doubt. But I don't see anything morally wrong with the theory.
Right now, the uses seem pretty benign...in the example I listed above, for instance, they are trying to help people feel better about themselves as part of the process of finding a job...and considering how demoralizing it is to look for a job, I think this is a very sensible approach.
Edited to add: My guess is the for-profit aspect of it would be to create advertising for private entities that also supports government objectives of behavioral alteration?
Yeah, this actually makes lot more sense when dealing with so many damned people at once with varying needs. Especially in a society driven encouraged, and designed to consume.
A framework overlaid onto fucked up consumer system will probably not work as well as something built with social well being considered from the ground up.
But you have to do something to motivate people into taking care of themselves, even a little, right? Shaping overall economic environment seems a sensible way to do that.
Even if it is going to be implemented by a bunch of greedy fuckwads. Also, yeah, die hard, judas buffalo libertarians would probably take this to a disgusting extreme.
I don't exactly understand how an economic environment would work in a practical sense, as opposed to, say, seat belt laws though. But i didnt get to all the links and I gotta run.
I am too stupid to understand the subject material as presented in the one link I could see.
I shall leave this to my betters.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2013, 06:29:22 PM
I am too stupid to understand the subject material as presented in the one link I could see.
I shall leave this to my betters.
My ass, Dok, you're fucking brilliant.
...You just feel like battered batshit today for many reasons...
*Hands over the anti-nausea pills*
I was amused by "critics say government shouldn't assume it knows what is best for people" Isn't that sort of what Government does?
I don't understand the problem. Getting more people to conserve energy and saving for retirement are GOOD things.
As far as I can tell, the "nudge" comes from forced economic structures (incentive/barrier?) and even seeks to remove laws and regulations, not that officials are seeking that end.
It doesnt really involve imagery or advertising, it works at a broader level.
Seat belt laws provide and interesting example because HOW?
Also, whats worse:
Public safety at the cost of regulatory consequences?
Or
Public safety at the cost of regulating behavior through locked in economic channels.
:lulz:
Gee, I wonder. No doubt Obama wants some.of that. So would a lot of.other people.
Quote from: Alty on July 31, 2013, 07:06:45 PM
As far as I can tell, the "nudge" comes from forced economic structures (incentive/barrier?)
My understanding isn't so much "force" as it is "utilizing a person's natural tendency to seek the easiest path and framing the issue thusly."
If the "good" option is the default and you have to make an effort to opt out, the general tendency is to not do so.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 31, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
Quote from: Alty on July 31, 2013, 07:06:45 PM
As far as I can tell, the "nudge" comes from forced economic structures (incentive/barrier?)
My understanding isn't so much "force" as it is "utilizing a person's natural tendency to seek the easiest path and framing the issue thusly."
If the "good" option is the default and you have to make an effort to opt out, the general tendency is to not do so.
The big trial for this in the UK right now is opting-out of organ donation in Wales. Seems like a measure that would be hard to argue against. Idea is that if you actually have a serious objection you'll bother to do something about it.
This could have some interesting implications in future lawmaking depending on how successful it is.
It's all fun and games, until you're "nudged" into another war.
Come on, do you really think the people who brought you PRISM, Stellar Wind, Sunni deathsquads in Iraq, Iran-Contra, "Kratos" units and Blackwater really have your best interests at heart? Shit, the only reason they care about your health is because if you're dead, you can't pay taxes to help fund endless wars and bailouts.
Just how naive are you people? For Christ's sake.
Quote from: Cain on July 31, 2013, 10:19:28 PM
It's all fun and games, until you're "nudged" into another war.
Come on, do you really think the people who brought you PRISM, Stellar Wind, Sunni deathsquads in Iraq, Iran-Contra, "Kratos" units and Blackwater really have your best interests at heart? Shit, the only reason they care about your health is because if you're dead, you can't pay taxes to help fund endless wars and bailouts.
Just how naive are you people? For Christ's sake.
Except it's more complicated than this, because the people in the governmental branches who came up with those things don't have much, if anything, to do with the people in the governmental branches who want to encourage people to donate their organs, get vaccinated, and exercise more.
In the UK they do.
Who is the head of the Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team? David Halpern, Tony Blair's chief strategic advisor between 2001-2007. What was Tony Blair mostly doing during that time? Passing insane counter-terrorism legislation, invading other countries and authorising the creation of "kill teams" operating in the Metropolitan Police.
But, you know, I'm paranoid and don't know what I'm talking about.
Quote from: Pergamos on July 31, 2013, 06:36:36 PM
I was amused by "critics say government shouldn't assume it knows what is best for people" Isn't that sort of what Government does?
This is a good point.
Quote from: Cain on July 31, 2013, 10:19:28 PM
It's all fun and games, until you're "nudged" into another war.
Come on, do you really think the people who brought you PRISM, Stellar Wind, Sunni deathsquads in Iraq, Iran-Contra, "Kratos" units and Blackwater really have your best interests at heart? Shit, the only reason they care about your health is because if you're dead, you can't pay taxes to help fund endless wars and bailouts.
Just how naive are you people? For Christ's sake.
I don't trust my government, not at all.
That doesn't make it not useful...I mean, when I gave up on anarcho-syndicalism, I basically sort of accepted government as inevitable, barring vast social changes that would take generations to happen.
Dunno if that's what you call naivete.
Last time we were propagandized and misled right into a stupid war for dubious reasons and they weren't using this stuff.
I DON'T want people to trust their governments.
But accepting they exist and that they might actually be able to achieve more okayness than they do currently, is more realistic than overthrowing them for an anarcho-syndicalist utopia.
Got any better ideas? I am really asking that last, because any idea that causes things to suck less is one I want to look at.
Yeah, I'm seriously proposing anarcho-syndicalism as an alternative. :roll:
Fuck you and fuck this conversation.
Well, I appreciate your take on this Cain. So, thanks.
I think hylierandom may have been speaking more to his(her?) background than the ideas you presented.
Quote from: Telarus on July 31, 2013, 11:42:30 PM
Well, I appreciate your take on this Cain. So, thanks.
I think hylierandom may have been speaking more to his(her?) background than the ideas you presented.
I appreciate it too, Cain.
I was trying to get ideas from you about how we might make a government we don't have to fear.
I don't trust them. I'm thinking that's beside the point.
Apologies for pissing you off, I wasn't trying.
Quote from: Cain on July 31, 2013, 10:52:41 PM
In the UK they do.
Who is the head of the Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team? David Halpern, Tony Blair's chief strategic advisor between 2001-2007. What was Tony Blair mostly doing during that time? Passing insane counter-terrorism legislation, invading other countries and authorising the creation of "kill teams" operating in the Metropolitan Police.
Ahhh, so your government is potentially even more dangerous, because its branches are less isolated from/at odds with each other.
Quote from: Cain on July 31, 2013, 10:54:01 PM
But, you know, I'm paranoid and don't know what I'm talking about.
You can be snarky, but you might consider for a moment that I thought we were talking about the White House, as per the thread title.
I understand where you're coming from, Cain. And I attempted to caveat my post, saying I didn't mind the idea, but I didn't trust the users (paraphrase).
But still, the US didn't have this program in 2001, and we STILL got suckered into a useless, meaningless, and profitable (to some) war. The psychos in the state house don't NEED these tactics.