It has begun

[Janx]

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.

how can government be neutral if it has goals and is made of people who generally are not neutral.

The government wants to recruit people for the military. That is advertising and advertising is manipulation

The government wants people to pay their taxes. redesigning their forms to expedite that is manipulation. They can't be asked to deliberately engineer their forms in the worst possible way just to avoid any charge of "manipulation", when in fact such effort would be its own form of manipulation to sway people from filling out forms and submitting them (which really does happen).

You cannot exist in the world without manipulating or being manipulated. Gravity manipulates you. Words manipulate you. Etc.

To argue one should not use better manipulation techniques over some artificially enforced sense of nobility is like refusing to use the laws of physics because you think it gives an unfair advantage.

 

[Ovinomancer]

how can government be neutral if it has goals and is made of people who generally are not neutral.

Fair point, but it should be the people in government that aren't neutral, yes? An ideal isn't invalid because it's not perfectly achievable.

The government wants to recruit people for the military. That is advertising and advertising is manipulation

And transparent.

The government wants people to pay their taxes. redesigning their forms to expedite that is manipulation. They can't be asked to deliberately engineer their forms in the worst possible way just to avoid any charge of "manipulation", when in fact such effort would be its own form of manipulation to sway people from filling out forms and submitting them (which really does happen).

This is an undeniable legit reason. Legitimate uses do not cancel out illegitimate uses -- it's not zero sum.

You cannot exist in the world without manipulating or being manipulated. Gravity manipulates you. Words manipulate you. Etc.

That's just devaluing a word into absurdity. When people discuss manipulation in this context, it has a clear denotation and connotation. We don't need to muddy the waters because it doesn't help your argument.

To argue one should not use better manipulation techniques over some artificially enforced sense of nobility is like refusing to use the laws of physics because you think it gives an unfair advantage.

Something that's only usable by one side and backed by the police power of government is a little different than the rule set we all exist by, don't you think? Making a ridiculous argument as if it's a stand in for the argument I'm making doesn't actually make my argument ridiculous, you know.

 

[Kramodlog]

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.

I think you have the science wrong. It isn't about nudging opinion, but about nudging behavior. Thus why it is called behaviorial science and not marketing science. Marketing is something different than what is being proposed here.

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.

Not much research needs to be done to have that. I'll post a completely wild opinion here, but it is much easier to make people dislike something than like something. Have people take drug tests to get access to a program. Demand that people have no more than 5,000$ in savings to get access to a program. Don't let people withdraw more than 25$ to get access to a service... These are all policies that Republicans have implemented or want to implement. Not sure they needed much science to come up with those policies.

Of course, this isn't really about liking or disliking a service. It is about helping people make better choices when using a service. Not exactly the same thing.

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).

Again, that seems more like marketing than behavior science. And proposing policies that appeal to segment of the population is already what political parties and politicians do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you have the science wrong. It isn't about nudging opinion, but about nudging behavior. Thus why it is called behaviorial science and not marketing science. Marketing is something different than what is being proposed here.

No, you seem to be confused. You cannot adjust behavior without adjusting opinion. They go hand in hand.

Not much research needs to be done to have that. I'll post a completely wild opinion here, but it is much easier to make people dislike something than like something. Have people take drug tests to get access to a program. Demand that people have no more than 5,000$ in savings to get access to a program. Don't let people withdraw more than 25$ to get access to a service... These are all policies that Republicans have implemented or want to implement. Not sure they needed much science to come up with those policies.

Just because you think a thing is easily done doesn't mean that it's not being done. In this case, you're arguing that the policy couldn't be used to achieve these goals better because some people have tried to do that already.

Of course, this isn't really about liking or disliking a service. It is about helping people make better choices when using a service. Not exactly the same thing.

Assuming gets you nothing. There's nothing at all in the stated policy that limits it in this way. It's called out as an example, but it's certainly not a comprehensive list. That's my point, btw, you're focusing on the bits the statement's crafted to get you to focus on (things you agree with, specifically) and you're ignoring the rest of it that doesn't say that at all. It's almost like you're falling for some behavioral science or something.

Again, that seems more like marketing than behavior science. And proposing policies that appeal to segment of the population is already what political parties and politicians do.

Marketing is an application of behavioral science!1!

 

[Janx]

Assuming gets you nothing. There's nothing at all in the stated policy that limits it in this way. It's called out as an example, but it's certainly not a comprehensive list. That's my point, btw, you're focusing on the bits the statement's crafted to get you to focus on (things you agree with, specifically) and you're ignoring the rest of it that doesn't say that at all. It's almost like you're falling for some behavioral science or something.


Marketing is an application of behavioral science!1!

welcome to planet earth.

It's like counting cards in vegas. the casinos will kick you out for doing it, but the fact of life is, if you can do it and I can't remember the cards, that's your advantage to manipulate the game. If the casino can't detect you doing it, it is your right to do so.

 

[Kramodlog]

No, you seem to be confused. You cannot adjust behavior without adjusting opinion. They go hand in hand.

Actually, you can. For example, having a default options for a retirement program doesn't change opinions. It just means someone who doesn't get involve in their retirement program will have better results with the default than if there was no default setting or the default was chosen randomly. It compensated for people being lazy or inattentive.

Sometimes it is just about changing options. Organ donation is volontary in the US and pretty low. Austria had the same problem and changed that. Opting out of the program is volontary now, not opting in. Organ donation has risen because of this. This wasn't done with a change of opinion.

Read Nudge, it is a book about behavioral science and how it can help people make better choices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)

Your position is just a slippery slop arguement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually, you can. For example, having a default options for a retirement program doesn't change opinions. It just means someone who doesn't get involve in their retirement program will have better results with the default than if there was no default setting or the default was chosen randomly. It compensated for people being lazy or inattentive.

That's limitation of options and/or setting a default state. Neither are changing behavior.

Sometimes it is just about changing options. Organ donation is volontary in the US and pretty low. Austria had the same problem and changed that. Opting out of the program is volontary now, not opting in. Organ donation has risen because of this. This wasn't done with a change of opinion.

Again, that's not behavior modification, it's limiting options. People aren't making better decisions, here, they're having a default decision made for them. I have serious issues with that as well (who decides the default, how transparent is the choice, etc.). Now, I can see an argument that having a default option makes it less likely someone who wouldn't have chosen that option otherwise might choose to not a different option, especially if the default is presented as a good so that the person who would otherwise not do it feels guilted into participating in a program they don't really want to participate in, but I struggle as to how that's a good thing.

Read Nudge, it is a book about behavioral science and how it can help people make better choices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)

This is the internet, you don't get to assign homework so that your arguments make sense. If you can't make the argument, you don't win by telling someone to go buy and read a book so that they can understand your argument.

Your position is just a slippery slop arguement.

Perhaps, but there's clear instances of behavioral science being abused, so it's a very, very slippery and very, very steep slope. I'm okay with that.

(That and slippery slope arguments aren't automatically wrong.)

 

[Janx]

What cleat instances? And if they were clear, how was that a slipper slope?

If evil is pretty obvious, it's because it is evil. Not because its using science

 

[was]

...I think that the scariest part of this is that people have to be tricked into being honest.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip almost the entirely of this post> . . .

Your position is just a slippery slop arguement.

In English, the word "slop" refers to the type of assorted scraps and refuse which is typically fed to hogs.
However, "slope" is an inclined plane. (The terminal letter "e" does not indicate the Feminine in English.)

In English, "argument" contains only one letter "e" (located within the "-ment" syllable), not two, thus: "argument."

You're welcome.