Read on Twitter
This is a great intervention, but...
*could we please stop calling basic improvements in design and communication "nudges"*? Why are all behaviour interventions nudges these days? What's the added value of "nudge"?
Let me explain my position: https://twitter.com/tage_rai/status/1314346524881584128
*could we please stop calling basic improvements in design and communication "nudges"*? Why are all behaviour interventions nudges these days? What's the added value of "nudge"?
Let me explain my position: https://twitter.com/tage_rai/status/1314346524881584128
"Nudge" is a misguided book by Thaler & Sunstein, who claim that because of very basic inherent biases in human cognition and perception, we need essentially covert and paternalistic governance to keep us in line.
Thing is, we really aren't that biased:
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3037697/component/file_3047156/content
Thing is, we really aren't that biased:
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3037697/component/file_3047156/content
Calling basic improvement in design or communications reinforces the idea that we need governmental paternalism to keep us functional. But, e.g., in the intervention above, the problem wasn't "human bias" at all, but VERY poor communication & design from centralised authorities.
So it's just way off to call an intervention a "nudge" ("liberal paternalism"), when the problem isnt bias in cognition, but poor, lazy, and often racist design and communication by public authorities. More "paternalism" is hardly the answer to the problems here.
/end of rant
/end of rant
Ok, one more thing: you know, a very basic principle of design is to listen to the needs of users. There's no "nudging" required here. The problem in the intervention above could be solved by simple interaction with citizens. No covert "nudges" are required.
