What is Reddit's opinion of
Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
ProductGPT
Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
36 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Redditors on almost any other topic: "FUCK baby boomers they drained the economy they are taking everything for themselves they own all the houses they leave nothing for the future."
Redditors when I say I'm opposed to raising SS benefits because the majority of the federal budget shouldn't go to Boomer retirees (SS + Medicare): "Fuck you you greedy corporate shill."
The idiocy is astounding. Social Security is an important social safety net, but it crowds out private savings and it therefore diminishes the capital stock for private investment. Medicare and SS are the two biggest chunks of the federal budget, and they crowd out economic growth.
I'd much rather see the 401(k) and IRA tax-free contribution caps doubled, and see some sort of program to Nudge companies into automatically enrolling workers into private savings plans--especially lower-end workers.
I don’t think it is throwing shade, rather just a genuine description of Thaler and his work. Even Thaler describes himself as lazy and irrational. Most of his academic work is pointing out flawed human thought processes, and behavioral economists have only recently started to apply “nudges” to have positive real world outcomes.
Like I've said repeatedly, feel free to charge smokers a higher premium for government-provided healthcare. Or a higher co-pay for any procedures or medicines they need as a result of health conditions caused or made more severe by their smoking.
We should be trying to nudge people in the direction of making smart decisions; rarely is it effective or moral to outright ban the intimate choices people make about their bodies.
Clinical studies have demonstrated that getting less than seven hours of sleep every night is unhealthy. If the government is providing your health insurance, should they also be able to impose a curfew under that same logic? After all, it's the government that has to bare the cost of the health consequences of your poor sleep schedule.
There is something really perverse about your style of argument. First the state forces people to enroll in its healthcare program. Then the government, because it's forcing you to let it pay for your healthcare, gets to dictate what you do with your body. It's incredibly authoritarian.
"Positive manipulation" (and "positive" is relative...) is pretty much a standard business practice. Has been for a long time, but really got stepped-up in contemporary business thanks to Nudge
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback!
I really like this subject.
>f they would blow it in a month maybe they are not the best ones to obtain it.
It's may sound trivial, however, even in traditional inheritance systems, some people organize it so the receivers can't touch the "three".
For example, some people set that the son need to be at a certain age to spend the principal amount.
This is because some people (even adults) can handle money...
In some cases, it's good to create some nudges, even if it sound "economically wrong"
You probably want to look at Micro Economics, which is more about why individuals make decisions based on economic incentives. Macro economics might be too broad. Consider heading to your local college and grabbing a textbook.
Also though, Nudge by Richard Thaller is good, though na more recent take on micro economics. https://www.amazon.ca/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X
Economics won't tell you tonnes about the mechanics of running a business, but they are a good lense to approach your business.
Also consider a book on strategy. Mine are all in my office. Reply if you want and I'll look at the ones I have and like Monday morning.
That ALSO won't tell you mechanics of running a (small?) Business. Swear to god (and I am an MBA who has been in industry for 20+ years) get a For Dummies book. They are my GO TO for first look at topics I don't understand.
It sounds like this is really a problem of motivation. If you have the time I would take a look at this book. It can help you develop habits that will improve how you manage money.
In Richard Thaler's book "Nudge" He suggests using peer pressure as a means to nudge people to do the right thing. One of the suggestions for encouraging people to pay their taxes is to tell people that 9 out of 10 people pay their taxes honestly (assuming they really do). This creates positive peer pressure for them to know that if others are doing the right thing they should be too.
Not necessarily a business book but-
Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein is about how people set up/change systems in order to get people to change behavior. Kinda story heavy, but the underlying economic/psychological theory behind it is fascinating.
https://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X
While I don't disagree with you, I'm fundamentally not libertarian. If using drugs had no impact on those around you, then yes, definitally legalize. If however using drugs does effect those around you (through direct threat to their health and well-being, or indirect societal costs of healthcare etc.), then the use of drugs should be discouraged.
I would argue that legalization is good, as criminilazation has been proven, at least in this case, not to be an effective detriment to drug use. But I would also say that drug use should be treated as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue. If the use of drugs is bad, then we, as a society, should be working to reduce that use. Finding the most effective ways to treat harmful drug use (which, as pointed out elsewhere is not all drug use) seems like a good idea. Using behavioural economics (i.e. Nudge https://www.amazon.ca/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498670447&sr=8-1&keywords=the+nudge) would be my preferred approach to handling drugs.
> Warding is literally free (oh god 1cp pls)!
No, it's not. Warding costs mental effort. You have to be watching the minimap to see where you have vision and where you lack it. You have to be cognizant of which towers are down, how far the minion waves are extended, whether your jungler is on your side of the map, and when the enemy jungler was most recently seen.
> This is my point: there is no question "to ward or not to ward", you ward always.
Nobody asks themselves that question. They do it or they don't even think about it.
> Call it however you want. I might should have used "saboteur" or "faggot" or "asshole", you got me there.
What? No. Don't be homophobic, either.
> Anyway, my point is: if someone does not understand - explain, if they understand, but refuse to ward - leave them be, this is incurable.
You think that every decision every player makes in game is perfectly rational considering the information they have available. This is a mistake. People forget things that they know all the time, especially when they're dealing with nine other people, tracking buff timers, and trying to get last hits. Players who don't habitually think about vision need to be trained to think about vision. It's not an on/off switch based on whether or not they "decide" to ward this game.
Please read Nudge. It's a great book.
>Not sure what the difference is between those two things?
I should have said "in certain situations." Most people act quite rationally most of the time. They eat when they're hungry, they drink when they're thirsty. The take an aspirin when they have a headache. They look for bargains. To say that they're irrational by nature is a mistake. I believe (and the research would seem to indicate) that people are rational with somewhat predictable lapses into irrationality.
>Anyway, what's the solution to the problem?
Good choice architecture
Default choices are important. A high default price with a discount signals "this is a good deal." It appeals to thrift.
Good information
The email I reference in another comment on this thread in which Uber warned me in advance that prices would be much higher than normal allowed me to make alternative plans for transportation
Good feedback
Making decisions while intoxicated is hard. Using a harsh color scheme or warning prompt to ensure people realize that that the rate is 5x what it normally is might be beneficial, or a prompt letting people know if they wait an hour, the price will drop by 1/3. In novel situations, people need to know where a price or opportunity lie along a spectrum of good value to poor value.
This book really changed the way I think about microeconomic choice.
Most of my thoughts were already said! I'll post them anyway to add support though.
1) Since your state income tax is a flat tax, it would be entirely realistic to replace it with a Land Value Tax (LVT). It would be a yearly tax on the unimproved value of land. This encourages land use and development, and discourages vacant lots just sitting empty year after year, or, it would encourage the owner of an under-used land parcel to sell it to someone who would make use of it.
Plus, taxing the value of land holdings has better outcomes philosophically/ideologically than an income tax.
2) Get rid of most occupational licensing. The arguable benefits of occupational licensing (for most jobs) do not outweigh the clear negatives. It's a largely needless thing that just creates bureaucratic (not to bash bureaucrats!) and financial roadblocks to those wishing to enter a trade, while benefiting those already in place.
Plus, it's a bipartisan issue! Or it can be! It has been at the national level. You're much more likely to face resistance from interest groups than lawmaker's ideology.
3a) Zoning reform! It can be hard to do at the state level, and I'm not familiar with Colorado's regulations at the state or municipal levels, but zoning reform is beginning to catch fire across America.
3b) A few basics:
-abolish, or aggressively reduce, single-family zoning areas. If someone wants to build a fourplex or apartments, let them!
-abolish, or reduce, parking minimums at least in metro/core areas. Many businesses are forced to build more parking spaces than they want, which takes up valuable land in a city's economic and cultural center. It's a burden on businesses, it makes cities less walkable, it encourages driving, and it just takes up space. You can't build a new shop or apartments or theater or whatever where a required parking lot is.
-general upzoning- loosening height limits, allow denser housing along transit corridors, even provide incentives to build denser housing units
3c) Some plans to look at for inspiration:
-Minneapolis 2040. Minneapolis just undertook the most ambitious zoning reform in the country. It's been diluted somewhat, but is still tenacious. It can be an inspiration to all cities across America
-California's proposed SB 50 (useful illustration). This bill specifically is a state-level attempt at mandating certain zoning freedoms onto counties. It's awkward in that sense- I'm always hesitant for a state to force very local ideas onto its cities, but in this case I do believe it's entirely called for. Again, I don't know about Colorado's housing in general, but bad zoning is a pretty standard thing across the entire country.
4) Drug decriminalization. I'm not sure how you would feel about pursuing something so controversial, but you guys were first to legalize pot, and Denver just de-prioritized psilocybin, so I figure this is worth a shot!
There can be two levels to this: recreational/criminal justice, and medical. We've been seeing legitimate medical studies, and FDA trials, lately regarding certain drugs', especially psychedelics', ability to treat mental health disorders. This isn't to say "legalize LSD so my husband can trip balls all day, because he has nightmares sometimes." This is to say... it's hard to do studies on these substances because of their legal status, and 1) They're the only thing so far that's shown promise in treating certain disorders, and 2) They show promise in treating some disorders better than the methods we have now- both in the sense of the treatment being more effective, and in the sense of less severe side effects.
I swear this isn't some "duuuude, pot cures cancer, mannn" bullshit.
-MDMA/ecstasy is being researched for its ability to treat PTSD. There's nothing certain yet, but results seem promising. After 1 year, over 70% of patients no longer met the definition for PTSD. It's moved on to FDA phase 3 trials.
-LSD microdosing is just starting to be studied. Participants take an amount of LSD that will not trigger any noticeable effects. There's much anecdotal reporting on its effects, but no good clinical data... hopefully that can change. In the first study from England, it was found that microdosing <em>doesn't</em> trigger noticeable effects, and that people on LSD could perceive or recall time spans more accurately. Nothing remarkable, but it's where we have to start.
-Psilocybin is being studied for its ability to treat a variety of mental health disorders, and more specifically "existential dread" in terminal cancer patients. Although some people don't agree it should be legalized <em>today</em>, it seems important to study.
Damn, writing these, I forgot my other two .-. if I remember, I'll edit later!
Lightning round:
-sanctuary state
-edit: mandatory vaccinations, or something comprehensive enough to ensure herd immunity in all groups. It's a public health issue. The only argument against mandatory vaccinations that I'm sympathetic to is religious liberty, especially for non-Western immigrants with deep cultural differences, or a lack of exposure to what Western medicine is... but the health risk is too serious to mess with.
<strong>-NUDGES</strong>, some people covered this really well already. For organ donation; 401k/pension plans; and virtually anything that someone has to re-sign up for that they'd typically do anyway; or for things that are good for people, but that people generally forget to sign up for. Always allow an opt-out, but when it's something people would generally want, just enroll them!
-edit: and school-to-trades pipelines! This is incredibly dependent on localities and the needs of each state, so again, idk what this looks like in Colorado.
But, getting high-schoolers who are thinking about the trades involved in apprenticeships and similar things in high school. Working with community colleges and local businesses to put systems in place to train local kids and workers. Let them do half a day at school, and half a day at a job site, or local tech college, or whatever.
The German system does this really well, though might go too far.
Get into high schools, and bring the idea of the trades to kids' attention while there's a clear chance to do so. And set up systems to get them trained and in a job. It's amazing what can be done if programs can just match kids with jobs.
Sorry this is so vague, but it's one of those issues that just requires tons of details, and the involvement of local government, local business, and local schools.
<em>Nudge</em> by Thaler (Nobel Prize in Economics) & Sunstein
A book which is unquestionably about Economics and Public Policy
​
I haven't read it yet but it's on my list:
Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics also by Thaler
​
<em>Thinking Fast & Slow</em> by Kahneman (Nobel Prize in Economics)
Not strictly about economics but Kahneman essentially created the field of "Behavioral Economics" and the implications for his theories about decision making bias are extensive in Economics. In many ways Kahneman and Tverski's work is the foundation of Thaler's in Nudge.
​
Also:
Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely
If you can't tell I like the Behavioral Econmics books...
maybe you should read the book nudge (https://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X) It's clearly meant to steer people towards 18+ tips.
Neoclassical economists hate this one book
Medyo mahaba to since may pinagdaanan ako dito from being a shopaholic to the point of debt, to ecomm employee, to burnout walangpake.
- Have a wishlist and make sure to wait 2 weeks before buying. If it’s still on your mind, then go buy it for your peace of mind. If wala nang sparks then congrats, di ka nadala sa hype!
- Always do window shopping in malls and try the items there if meron yung gusto mo. For me nawawala yung FOMO after ko ma-swatch, I guess it scratches the itch of trying something.
- Put a cap in your budget.
Most important!
Have other hobbies besides browsing social media or makeup. Makeup is fun but it’s not the only fun hobby out there! I actually think it’s a bad hobby to get super deep into because you’d have to buy so much and they all expire in 1-2 years. Makeup marketing behaves like fast fashion, don’t contribute to more waste.
There are other things that make you feel good about yourself. Working out and losing weight helped me a lot that I don’t even contour since may “sculpt” na yung face ko.
MONEY MONEY MONEY!! Now is the time to be greedy and hoard money. We’re incoming recession, inflation is so high. It’s very easy to succumb to the lipstick effect but be mindful! Aanuhin mo ang slay today kung flop era ka na pag full recession + bad governance na.
Most “hyped” products are mediocre—lalo na local, idc if I get hate. I won’t support a mediocre product just because it’s local, mas ok yung drugstore counterpart sa states like ELF or kbeauty/cbeauty since they have more R&D and manufacturing capabilities. Products will get better in the future with how much money is being poured into R&D, so save your money and spend it on makeup maybe in 2 years time.
Shopping is a bad hobby. It’s a vice if it becomes habitual and if it’s a strong urge tapos impulse pa. I had a phase in my life that I even had debt from shopping too much makeup/skincare that I barely even use. So ang hobby ko talaga was shopping, not really makeup/skincare lol. Ayun natauhan rin at nakabangon. I still like shopping pero dahan-dahan ako sa makeup and skincare because it’s literally wasteful compared to clothes or others. Di mo basta-basta mareresell or donate ang used makeup/skincare if serious ka with hygiene.
I don’t think I ever finished a lipstick in my life, so I never got my money’s worth. Pag di mo naubos, di mo nasulit tapos may expiration pa, hirap maging makeup hobbyist. Better curate and have a small collection of high quality items kesa mga one-time use lang.
Bonus lang: read books on consumer behavior or behavioral economics! I recommend nudge . These books help me as a sales & marketing practitioner understand how to sell and basically the thought process of budol, and knowing these things make you more resistant to it rin! Since I worked at one of the ecom platforms, I learned a lot about purchase habits and which vouchers affect certain behaviors. All of us are emotional buyers, then we just rationalize it later to justify it. It’s in our nature that’s why budol culture works. You need to actively go against it and learning helped me a lot!
Medyo mahaba to
- Have a wishlist and make sure to wait 2 weeks before buying. If it’s still on your mind, then go buy it for your peace of mind. If wala nang sparks then congrats, di ka nadala sa hype!
- Always do window shopping in malls and try the items there if meron yung gusto mo. For me nawawala yung FOMO after ko ma-swatch, I guess it scratches the itch of trying something.
- Put a cap in your budget.
Most important!
Have other hobbies besides browsing social media or makeup. Makeup is fun but it’s not the only fun hobby out there! I actually think it’s a bad hobby to get super deep into because you’d have to buy so much and they all expire in 1-2 years. Makeup marketing behaves like fast fashion, don’t contribute to more waste.
There are other things that make you feel good about yourself. Working out and losing weight helped me a lot that I don’t even contour since may “sculpt” na yung face ko.
MONEY MONEY MONEY!! Now is the time to be greedy and hoard money. We’re incoming recession, inflation is so high. It’s very easy to succumb to the lipstick effect but be mindful! Aanuhin mo ang slay today kung flop era ka na pag full recession + bad governance na.
Most “hyped” products are mediocre—lalo na local, idc if I get hate. I won’t support a mediocre product just because it’s local, mas ok yung drugstore counterpart sa states like ELF or kbeauty/cbeauty since they have more R&D and manufacturing capabilities. Products will get better in the future with how much money is being poured into R&D, so save your money and spend it on makeup maybe in 2 years time.
Shopping is a bad hobby. It’s a vice if it becomes habitual and if it’s a strong urge tapos impulse pa. I had a phase in my life that I even had debt from shopping too much makeup/skincare that I barely even use. So ang hobby ko talaga was shopping, not really makeup/skincare lol. Ayun natauhan rin at nakabangon. I still like shopping pero dahan-dahan ako sa makeup and skincare because it’s literally wasteful compared to clothes or others. Di mo basta-basta mareresell or donate ang used makeup/skincare if serious ka with hygiene.
I don’t think I ever finished a lipstick in my life, so I never got my money’s worth. Pag di mo naubos, di mo nasulit tapos may expiration pa, hirap maging makeup hobbyist. Better curate and have a small collection of high quality items kesa mga one-time use lang.
Bonus lang: read books on consumer behavior or behavioral economics! I recommend nudge . These books help me as a sales & marketing practitioner understand how to sell and basically the thought process of budol, and knowing these things make you more resistant to it rin! I also worked in one of the ecom platforms so I learned a lot about purchase habits and which certain vouchers make us convert to purchase. From all these things, I guess naging pushback ko is umay na ako sa budol!!! Mas masaya shopping kung mayaman ka na.
> And can you name the conservative policy?
The Flat tax is a perennial favorite. The "Fair tax" replacement of income taxes with a national sales tax comes up in conservative policy circles from time to time. Trump's tax changes moved the ball a little way down the field by increasing the standard deduction and eliminating several of the smaller itemized deductions... I think it was a step forward in simplifying the tax code with it's increases to the standard deduction which will probably help future attempts politically since it reduces the size of the constituencies defending the loopholes. But sadly congress pulled back from actually following through elimination of deductions that were in the earlier drafts... by the time it passed through reconciliation most (though happily not all) of the deductions had been restored.
That's one of the problems with using the tax code to effect policy by "nudging" people via tax incentives. Once you create a loophole to "nudge" people to do what you want you create a constituency of "nudged" people who will passionately defend those loopholes. The left will defend those loopholes on principle as a way to direct the populace in the way politicians desire, the right often ends up defending them to avoid "raising taxes" on the people who had been "nudged".
You are welcome, too! I suggest to take a look at the book Nudge. It may help you a lot on developing simple strategies to improve your daily discipline effortless.
> that's not necessarily going to solve the shortage.
Based on what? I'm basing it on Professor Timothy Taylor's "Unexpected Economics" course, and Richard H. Thalers "Nudge". In any case, if it isn't enough then sure this tech might help. But exhausting the donation route is bound to be easier.
> Also, donation is extremely costly.
So is this tech. Just one heart costs 180k, not including how much resources is needed to install, maintain/check/monitor it. And the tech is at infant stage. And complications should be expected.
The article seems to go well with Nudge theory.
UQ econ assignments by and large will be a set of problems to complete, i.e. a hard worksheet. Friends from QUT have commented that my assignments seem more quantitative, whereas they would more likely be given a case study written assignment. I am weeks from graduating, and in my understanding the options after graduating are:
- Government - move to Sydney for the coveted RBA grad program, or Canberra for other
- Academia - do the honours year and go for a PhD - a lot of subjects have just been slashed but the government just threw a lot of stimulus at this problem, conditions might be more favourable by the time you graduate
- Go corporate - big 4 accounting (safest bet), consulting, ???
The super lucrative jobs in investment banking want a STEM degree not econ/finance as the advanced maths knowledge is more valuable than knowledge of economic theory.
If I could time travel back to 2015, I would pick econ in a dual degree with maths, then have an easy time blazing through the econ quantitative methods major (because I would know a lot of the content from maths). This would also work with software engineering a la machine learning. Doing 1 year of just econ will give you the chance to decide on your own time after having a taste.
If your GPA is 6+ at the start of year 2/3, you can apply to be a tutor and get paid bundles for little work as a student. This is not as hard as it might sound because first year econ subjects are easy to get good marks if you stay on top of everything.
I have liked the degree a lot ! In the core micro/macro subjects you learn the models and how institutions like insurance, unemployment benefits and tax function. In other subjects, the focus tends to be more applied to the real world and on how the model fails to capture certain human behavioural qualities - how we are irrational consumers.
I highly recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X as a concise and entertaining explanation of many concepts you will be taught in the degree, and probably some you won't. Good luck next year!
Read Richard Thaler's Nudge
https://www.amazon.ca/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X
Lots of good coverage of the prize. The mods of /r/economics will be keeping a running list of links on the top of this thread.
Media Coverage
Nobel Prize awarded to Richard Thaler - Tyler Cowen (Marginal Revolution) Alex Tabarrok post
The 2017 Nobel: Richard Thaler - A Find Theorem
Nobel in Economics Is Awarded to Richard Thaler (NYT)
Richard Thaler wins 2017 Nobel prize in economics : as it happened (The guardian)
'Nudge' economist Richard Thaler wins Nobel Prize - BBC
Academic Papers
Household Finance & Nudge
Overreaction in Finance
<em>Link to All Anomalies Columns for JEP</em>
Books
<strong>Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness - With Cass Sunstein</strong>
<strong>Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics</strong>
So I usually tell my MBA students to just read books, not textbooks. Here are a few of my general suggestions:
Nudge, Thaler and Sunstein
Misbehaving Thaler
Superforecasting Tetlock and Gardner
Zombie Economics Quiggin
If you need more suggestions or want to discuss any of the ideas in these books, don't hesitate to ask.
If you agree with that philosophy, you will likely enjoy this book: http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X
I don't personally like the phrase "mind control" and I have some professional experience there. Margaret Singer did the most definitive research on cult brainwashing and while she gets some things correct, she goes a little too far into vague undefinable concepts like "mind control" and "brainwashing". There is a legitimate basis for this research but its not what early "cult" researchers made it out to be.
Its more accurate to talk about environmental and psychological conditions that affect individual decision making. This can be things like "nudges" from behavioral economics to psychological induced effects such as the reciprocity effect of giving gifts.
This explains Nudges the best: http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X
On Gifts and Reciprocity: https://ideas.repec.org/h/eee/givchp/1-04.html
I think by implementing things from behavioral economics and social psychology we can rehabilitate many prisoners. However I don't feel Breivik or the Colorado movie theatre murderer fall into that category. While it is rare, there are people who are, for lack of a better term, diabolical. Breivik and the Colorado murderer fit that category. I don't think knowledge about behavioral economics and cognitive and social psychology is at a level in human evolution where we can adequately rehabilitate diabolical personalities (Breivik, Manson, Colorado murderer). Those people are too calculating and diabolical to ever let back out into society at this point in time. Maybe in the future technology could provide us with controls on that but at this point I don't see it as feasible to ever let those types back out into society.
As a side note, the most effective prisoner rehabilitation program I am aware of is still Timothy Leary's 1960s Concord Prison Experiment using hallucinogens to induce life changing experiences.
Check out Whitney Webb, on last American vagabond or unlimited hangout. This is what she had to say about Q
“I think it’s a US driven intelligence psy-op, the target is to have the demographic that would be the most vocal, against perceived government tyranny, people on the right, gun owners, etc.,..basically have them completely docile, sitting there being like ‘yeah, we’ll just ‘trust the plan’ and it’ll all work out’. In some cases we’ve seen QANON cheer on regime change in Iran, war with Iran, martial law being declared, when before these people would have opposed those things. The roadmap for QANON was originally developed by an Obama advisor, Cass Sunstein, now a WHO advisor on Global Vaccine Agenda for COVID-19, he wrote about the need for the government to infiltrate conspiracy movements in order to reverse the general trend of conspiracy movements fostering a distrust in government and instead foster a love and trust of government. Then we have QANON pop up and it’s all ‘We love Trump’, ‘We love the president’, ‘We love John Bolton’, ‘We love Sessions’, and all of these people who were obviously establishment “swamp monsters”. QANON was designed to be a giant strawman where everything that is ‘bad’ now, all these conspiracies that are inconvenient right now are merging with QANON, which include people like RFK Jr./Children’s Health Defense- which are critics of the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry in general. They’re treating enemies of corporations as enemies of the state. (FBI declared QANON a domestic terror threat and anyone critical of the pharmaceutical industry.)
Matt Dillon Show #226 1:20:05 11/15/2020
So I looked into Cass Sunstein. He’s got a lot of books, several every year, and seems to know a lot of how governments work and how to influence people to make them do what you want.
Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness https://www.amazon.com/dp/014311526X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glc_fabc_b7v8FbDS3YQ9D
Your hypothetical poses a number of problems that would require clarification/defense. I don’t want to tear apart an illustrative hypothetical.
Instead, I will suggest you check out Thaler and Sunstein’s book Nudge.
In short, understanding American liberal political culture as it is (e.g., the value of and commitment to freedom and autonomy, capitalism, etc.), but understanding the complexities of choice and behavior in said society, they look at ways decisions are influenced and how we can “nudge” decisions in ways that still value freedom of choice.
From the publisher: “Using dozens of eye-opening examples and drawing on decades of behavioral science research, Nobel Prize winner Richard H. Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass R. Sunstein show that no choice is ever presented to us in a neutral way, and that we are all susceptible to biases that can lead us to make bad decisions. But by knowing how people think, we can use sensible “choice architecture” to nudge people toward the best decisions for ourselves, our families, and our society, without restricting our freedom of choice.”
It is censorship, just not the kind you’ve been trained to recognize. It gets to the point where the only places you can speak freely are containment zones like this subreddit and 4chan. Most people won’t ever come to a place like this because they don’t want to associate themselves with the “alt-right,” “incels,” “trumpers”, etc. and when they do, half the posts are flat-earth, Alex Jones type psyops, and most of the ones who do make it in will be turned off by the amount of shit they have to sift through to find truth.
It’s libertarian censorship. Nudge style. The system doesn’t prevent you from finding out the truth, they just do everything they can to make discovering it psychologically inconvenient for you.
Look up Richard Thaler. He won the Nobel prize, and has worked extensively with governments. His work revolves around how to get people to act and believe what you want them to without using force. https://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X
A large part of my point is that if you blame the people, who aren't the root of the problem, you won't make any lasting progress in reducing undesireable events. You have to target the system controls or policies that allow, and in many cases incentivise, the behavior. That's why I'm talking about strategically changing the culture by targeting the cultural incentive structures, a strategy outlined well in Richard Thaler's Nobel Laureate work Nudge.
I mean, we can blame the people that participate in these behaviors but we should also keep in mind that they are acting with rational self-interest, and you can't fault someone for acting in their own self-interest, because it's an evolutionary stable strategy that allows people and organisms to survive.
Also, the people that indebt themselves $300k+ entering a system not knowing the behaviors expected of them, and then having their livelihood and the survival of themsleves and their loved ones threated by non-conformity; its not rational to blame them for choosing survival over potential non-survival, this is the concensual conclusion of the Nuremberg trials. We must not put people in these positions.
That's why I prefer not to blame participants in a corrupt social structure because its been shown empirically that given the same choices we all act in predictably uniform ways, excluding outliers. What we should do is optimize incentives to ensure best-outcomes. Right now policies are mainly determined by industry profits, but if we start with patient quality-of-life best-outcomes and work backwards we can fix much of the horror and grotesqueness in modern medicine. Or at least have a chance.
A big problem with this strategy is that the medical industry is a political and financial juggernaut with a market-cap of $3.4 Trillion dollars. And since this industry, and trade organizations, are politically active operating within a current legal political environment that has aboloshed campaign contributions this for-profit industry can buy politicians by buying elections and then write laws that increase profits for doctors, hospitals, and corporate healthcare conglomerates at the expense and harm of the patient.
Edit: I think the solution is strategic management of information. The current healthcare information dark-markets really allow pathological business practices to flourish, in the name of, and as long as profits are maximized.
Edit: This is how I objectively see responsibility in this situation along with a prescription, based on research and analysis, to fix some of these problems. I also think the people who participate in these behaviors bear some responsability, but mainly to tell us the public what is happening. That's why I don't want to condemn this person, since they are helping to expose what is happening by telling us, the public, and thereby allowing us to change it. I'm glad this person is telling us what is happening, and that they know it is wrong but are being forced to participate under threat. That's important information.
Edit: Final edit, I think the supervising physicians that continue these unethical practices by making students participate in them also carry responsability. Also, the management and directors in the hospitals and corporate healthcare conglomerates that commonly force downward, through policies and methods of operation, incentives that create bad and/or profitable behavior at the expense of the patient.
Popular alternatives to Nudge: Improving Decisions ...
COVID-19: The Great Reset
How to Lie with Statistics
