It has begun

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

The government is using behavioral science to manipulate its citizens and take away their free will. It seems to be working, too. They've already used this evil science to manipulate people into giving more of their money to the government. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Or not.

 

[Kramodlog]

This goes against a certain orthodoxy by saying people need a little nudge from the government.

Governments generally operate on the assumption that people are rational. One of the basic implications of mainstream economic theory is that public policy works best when people are treated as rational decision makers.

Yet a growing body of research has found that people are not only irrational on occasion, but they tend to be irrational in some consistent and predictable ways. People tend to be influenced by the last thing they heard. They tend to fear losses more than they like profits. They tend to be a little lazy.

And researchers from this new school argue the government should account for these tendencies.

 

[Janx]

So, if you know how people work, why is it wrong to use what you know to achieve your goal better?

Maybe the real problem is that humans are susceptible to manipulation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, if you know how people work, why is it wrong to use what you know to achieve your goal better?

Maybe the real problem is that humans are susceptible to manipulation.

Do you want Rush Limbaugh to have the reins? If not, it's a bad thing.

 

[Janx]

Do you want Rush Limbaugh to have the reins? If not, it's a bad thing.

how do we know he's not already trying to manipulate people? Isn't that the point of his broadcasts?

 

[Ovinomancer]

how do we know he's not already trying to manipulate people? Isn't that the point of his broadcasts?

He doesn't have the police power of the government behind it. If you're fine with the government being able to influence people via open propaganda and subtle marketing to follow it's goals, then you must be fine with those goals and tools being defined by your worst political enemy. If that makes you concerned, you should be concerned about the policy.

Policies and laws are tools. They are not goods in and of themselves. The use they are put to is determined by the power currently behind them. This is why policies should be narrowly tailored to not give broad and unspecified powers or should be entirely transparent so it's use can be fairly judged.

This policy is neither of those. It grants a overly broad justification for the use of behavior research and it's fruits to manipulate the public into being more accommodating of government goals. It doesn't define the limits of the research or its uses, it doesn't define what goals, and it doesn't provide for any transparency so that the public can see and understand how the government is acting. It's a bad policy.

The goal of the policy may be noble, and I don't have any basic disagreement with the concept, but the execution is handing another powerful tool to the government while cloaking it's use in shadow. We have enough of that already, thanks.

 

[Kramodlog]

It grants a overly broad justification for the use of behavior research and it's fruits to manipulate the public into being more accommodating of government goals.

What nefarious goals do you think the government could implement with this policy?

 

[Ovinomancer]

What nefarious goals do you think the government could implement with this policy?

Let's see. Someone anti-abortion gets into office and directs research to find the best way to make people dislike abortion while engaging with the government run services. This gets applied and swings public opinion away from how abortion is provided in the US.

Someone who is pro-religion gets into office and directs research into pushing religiously based morals through the social services programs.

Someone who dislikes social support programs gets into office and directly research into how to make receiving assistance as unpleasant as possible so that fewer people apply.

Someone that wants more government power directs research into methods to influence the seekers of social assistance to support a particular political party (either one).

If these are done openly, they'd never work. If you never see it, how do you know it's happening?

 

[Janx]

He doesn't have the police power of the government behind it. If you're fine with the government being able to influence people via open propaganda and subtle marketing to follow it's goals, then you must be fine with those goals and tools being defined by your worst political enemy. If that makes you concerned, you should be concerned about the policy.

Policies and laws are tools. They are not goods in and of themselves. The use they are put to is determined by the power currently behind them. This is why policies should be narrowly tailored to not give broad and unspecified powers or should be entirely transparent so it's use can be fairly judged.

This policy is neither of those. It grants a overly broad justification for the use of behavior research and it's fruits to manipulate the public into being more accommodating of government goals. It doesn't define the limits of the research or its uses, it doesn't define what goals, and it doesn't provide for any transparency so that the public can see and understand how the government is acting. It's a bad policy.

The goal of the policy may be noble, and I don't have any basic disagreement with the concept, but the execution is handing another powerful tool to the government while cloaking it's use in shadow. We have enough of that already, thanks.

except the problem is, my worst political enemy SHOULD already be doing everything it can to manipulate the public. All that's really happened is more science has come out on how to do it better.

everybody is always trying to manipulate everybody. That's what sales and marketing is.

fact is, how would you differentiate designing a better form from trying to manipulate you to fill the form out correctly? It's all the same thing.

Why would you ignore research and advice on how to communicate more effectively. That's like a candidate being told that he scores better on the polls when he doesn't cuss like a sailor, but deciding not to stop swearing because that would be manipulating people.

Bull crap.

If you don't like being manipulated, stop being moist robot with no free will.

 

[Ovinomancer]

except the problem is, my worst political enemy SHOULD already be doing everything it can to manipulate the public. All that's really happened is more science has come out on how to do it better.

everybody is always trying to manipulate everybody. That's what sales and marketing is.

fact is, how would you differentiate designing a better form from trying to manipulate you to fill the form out correctly? It's all the same thing.

Why would you ignore research and advice on how to communicate more effectively. That's like a candidate being told that he scores better on the polls when he doesn't cuss like a sailor, but deciding not to stop swearing because that would be manipulating people.

Bull crap.

If you don't like being manipulated, stop being moist robot with no free will.

Yes, all the things you said are good uses. I'm not denying (and I said this in the post you quoted) that there can be good and useful reasons to do this. But the wording of the policy doesn't say that this is the purpose (it doesn't limit purpose at all) and it doesn't make it transparent. Surely if the sole goals were the things you listed, then making it completely transparent and open wouldn't be an issue? Surely, if those were the sole goals, they'd be called out as limitation on the effort and not the broad, no limitations policy we actually got? Seriously, look at how it can be abused rather than how you hope it will be used.

As for political manipulation, well, yes, of course it's going on. It should. But that should be a function of the political parties and individuals, not government. Government should be neutral in and of itself. So that entire argument is a red herring that doesn't touch on the policy or it's use.