Short thread on "nudges," causation, and changing behavior:

A huge number of behaviors can be classified as "going with the default option"

Nudges that change the default option are (paradoxically) both (1) strongly authoritarian and (2) don't actually change behavior

(1) The term itself is deceptive in its most common usage! A "mere nudge" is not a gentle push, but a radical intervention.

Keeping other options open in theory does not mean people are really free to choose them. Limited intentional capacity is exactly what the "nudge" exploits

(1, continued) The term rebrands the *huge* influence that institutions have over our lives as small, cute, and of course well-intentioned

e.g. "free markets" are just nudges (design choices) all the way down, at no point do "consumers'" "free choices" become causally important

(2) When the underlying behavior is "go with the default option," the default changes, but people continue going with the new default, then no important change in behavior has occurred

A flock of birds isn't changing their behavior every time they swoop in a different direction

(2, continued) Important behavior changes, in my opinion, involve learning and intentional change on the part of the behavioral agent

e.g. Wearing masks in public becomes the new default, so someone conforms--but doesn't wear it properly (over nose & mouth), touches it, etc.

Conclusion: "nudge" ideology is trying to hide the fact that powerful actors have always engaged in massive social engineering affecting all aspects of our lives

Achieving desired change from the bottom up takes much more time, effort, learning, and consensus building