It has begun

[MechaPilot]

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.

Originally
Default was no donation, and you could opt out of that default.

Now
Default is donation, and you can opt out of that default.


There is no limiting of options between those two situations: in both cases you have a default that you can choose to opt out of.

As far as who sets the default and what it's set to, that's something that merits debate for each particular default being proposed. I believe that the default of donation is the correct default because I see it as more beneficial to the well-being of the people, while also allowing an outlet valve for those who object on religious or other grounds.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

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


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.

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.

Actually, that is behavior modification. It's an antecedent intervention or antecedent manipulation (same thing).

 

[Maxperson]

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.

And what does this even do? Now you have a bunch of people who are anti-abortion and can't do a thing about it. The Supreme Court should have left abortion as a States rights issue and not touched it, but it didn't. It decided to bench legislate by inventing rights that aren't in the Constitution and now legalized abortion is set in stone for the entire country.

In case you couldn't guess, I hate bench legislation at all levels.

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

Again, what does this do? Nothing. The government can't push religious anything........ever. It doesn't matter how you influence the people.

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.

And this doesn't have anything to do with the government figuring out how to influence people. This is just making the forms difficult to understand and can already be done without influencing public opinion.

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).

I could see how you could influence people to assist the government, but not a specific party. Both parties are at the core the same. They want power. They spend recklessly. They fear monger. And much more that is the same. It's the outside edges that differ. Stances on religion, abortion, etc.

 

[Kramodlog]

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

It is. It goes back to my argument about you not being clear on what is behavioral science.

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.

It is a reading suggestion to help you understand why people make bad choices and how behavioral science can help them with that. Don't read it if you do not want to.

Perhaps, but there's clear instances of behavioral science being abused

Like what?

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

I agree, but so far you haven't given any actual example of behavioral science gone wild. Only vague "what ifs" scenarios.

 

[Orius]

I'd be worried about this but it just sounds like the government found a way to trick companies into paying something they were supposed to be paying, but were weaseling out of instead.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

Behavioral science is not 'evil'. It's a study of how and why people engage in certain behaviors. Often it's used in attempts to maximize positive behaviors and minimize negative ones. You've been subjected to it every day of your life, in fact, since it's just a codification of techniques everyone uses, every day, to steer behavior. Your parents used it on you every time they spanked you or gave you ice cream for being quiet. Your friends and lovers use it in every gesture, every word, and every other form of social interaction you've ever had with them.

What do you THINK made you into a civilized human being? Good wishes? It was behavioral manipulation. (You'll seen an extension of this argument made by people that believe free will does not actually exist)

Every test, every form, every street sign, every advertisement, every store logo, every job interview, every computer game you've ever played and literally millions upon millions of other things operate on these same principals and has been informed and refined by millennia of experimentation, research, and observation (since it's really at the heart of all human interaction, people were doing this sort of thing long before it was a 'science'. It happened before we ever even had language or sentience.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Here is the entirety of the operative section of the executive order (IOW, the directive that has legal force, sans preamble):

NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Behavioral Science Insights Policy Directive.

(a) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) are encouraged to:

(i) identify policies, programs, and operations where applying behavioral science insights may yield substantial improvements in public welfare, program outcomes, and program cost effectiveness;

(ii) develop strategies for applying behavioral science insights to programs and, where possible, rigorously test and evaluate the impact of these insights;

(iii) recruit behavioral science experts to join the Federal Government as necessary to achieve the goals of this directive; and

(iv) strengthen agency relationships with the research community to better use empirical findings from the behavioral sciences.

(b) In implementing the policy directives in section (a), agencies shall:

(i) identify opportunities to help qualifying individuals, families, communities, and businesses access public programs and benefits by, as appropriate, streamlining processes that may otherwise limit or delay participation -- for example, removing administrative hurdles, shortening wait times, and simplifying forms;

(ii) improve how information is presented to consumers, borrowers, program beneficiaries, and other individuals, whether as directly conveyed by the agency, or in setting standards for the presentation of information, by considering how the content, format, timing, and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals, as appropriate;

(iii) identify programs that offer choices and carefully consider how the presentation and structure of those choices, including the order, number, and arrangement of options, can most effectively promote public welfare, as appropriate, giving particular consideration to the selection and setting of default options; and

(iv) review elements of their policies and programs that are designed to encourage or make it easier for Americans to take specific actions, such as saving for retirement or completing education programs. In doing so, agencies shall consider how the timing, frequency, presentation, and labeling of benefits, taxes, subsidies, and other incentives can more effectively and efficiently promote those actions, as appropriate. Particular attention should be paid to opportunities to use nonfinancial incentives.

(c) For policies with a regulatory component, agencies are encouraged to combine this behavioral science insights policy directive with their ongoing review of existing significant regulations to identify and reduce regulatory burdens, as appropriate and consistent with Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens).

Sec. 2. Implementation of the Behavioral Science Insights Policy Directive. (a) The Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and chaired by the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, shall provide agencies with advice and policy guidance to help them execute the policy objectives outlined in section 1 of this order, as appropriate.

(b) The NSTC shall release a yearly report summarizing agency implementation of section 1 of this order each year until 2019. Member agencies of the SBST are expected to contribute to this report.

(c) To help execute the policy directive set forth in section 1 of this order, the Chair of the SBST shall, within 45 days of the date of this order and thereafter as necessary, issue guidance to assist agencies in implementing this order.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(Bolded emphasis mine)

The entire order is structured to improve how the government interacts with its citizens- streamlining processes, improving clarity of forms and overall communication, etc.

In addition, the EO references 2 other EOs that are aimed at "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" and "Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens".

As part of the process of doing all this, they are directed to test & evaluate the efficacy of the methods applied to make sure they actually have the intended result, and have to issue an annual report on their efforts. And then the report can be used to further refine the improvements and eliminate methods proven ineffective or inefficient.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Behavioral science is not 'evil'. It's a study of how and why people engage in certain behaviors. Often it's used in attempts to maximize positive behaviors and minimize negative ones. You've been subjected to it every day of your life, in fact, since it's just a codification of techniques everyone uses, every day, to steer behavior. Your parents used it on you every time they spanked you or gave you ice cream for being quiet. Your friends and lovers use it in every gesture, every word, and every other form of social interaction you've ever had with them.

What do you THINK made you into a civilized human being? Good wishes? It was behavioral manipulation. (You'll seen an extension of this argument made by people that believe free will does not actually exist)

Every test, every form, every street sign, every advertisement, every store logo, every job interview, every computer game you've ever played and literally millions upon millions of other things operate on these same principals and has been informed and refined by millennia of experimentation, research, and observation (since it's really at the heart of all human interaction, people were doing this sort of thing long before it was a 'science'. It happened before we ever even had language or sentience.)

But when the government uses it, it's always for nefarious reasons. They are just trying to control the public. It's just another move to restrict our liberties.

(You'll seen an extension of this argument made by people that believe free will does not actually exist)

Exactly! These people don't believe that we have free will, or that we don't need free will. They will use this to behavioral science to take away our free will. Big brother isn't just watching you. He is experimenting on you to take away your free will.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How did you come to this conclusion?

Here is the entirety of the operative section of the executive order (IOW, the directive that has legal force, sans preamble):



(Bolded emphasis mine)

The entire order is structured to improve how the government interacts with its citizens- streamlining processes, improving clarity of forms and overall communication, etc.

In addition, the EO references 2 other EOs that are aimed at "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" and "Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens".

As part of the process of doing all this, they are directed to test & evaluate the efficacy of the methods applied to make sure they actually have the intended result, and have to issue an annual report on their efforts. And then the report can be used to further refine the improvements and eliminate methods proven ineffective or inefficient.

We must be comprehending different things here. Sec 1.a.i to start with doesn't define, nor is there a general definition, program outcomes (not to mention public welfare). Meaning any program started to do anything that has an outcome is covered clearly by this without regard to what outcomes actually are. This is a blanket that covers the entire government, including intelligence gathering. I could go on, but I'll just point out that what the NSA was doing was entirely legal, and covered by a similarly vague law -- one that may look constrained, but isn't.

And the reports aspect is the only function of the order that has an expiration -- in less than four years.

As for test and evaluate -- there's no standard listed, meaning the test and evaluation is up to the program to determine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But when the government uses it, it's always for nefarious reasons. They are just trying to control the public. It's just another move to restrict our liberties.

No one's making that argument. The argument being made is that you should always inspect what powers the government appropriates because it may be used for nefarious reasons by people in government, who are as likely to be venal as the next guy but with considerably more power. That's it, just a request to look closely and determine how it can be used badly and set up defenses or at least watchdogs to look after that.

I agree that this order is likely to bring useful and good outcomes, but it's also very open to abuse and so should either have better restrictions and controls in place or be entirely open (all research, results, and implementations shared) or both.