
Attempting to Launch a Behavior-Change Revolution - robertkrahn01
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/launch-behavior-change-revolution/
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Maybe, they should start with their fellow social scientists and change their
behavior towards publishing garbage (ie non-reproducible, p-hacked) papers.

In truth, there is likely to be a massive selection effect, just like with
charter schools. Basically, the people who want to change will enroll in the
study. We basically know that a subset of people have enough motivation to
make themselves better and that is whom the studies will select.

Finally, this improving human "frailty" has a horrible track record in terms
of perpetrating horrible atrocities - from the Inquisition to the Soviet
gulags. Often, the most evil people in their own eyes have only the purest
motives for the good of humanity.

~~~
matt4077
Social sciences may produce a lot of "garbage", but they do have at some point
failed to avoid learning the most banal ideas about statistical thinking,
which do include selection bias.

------
avip
We know more than enough about good habits of health, education and finance.
This project is completely astray of the actual problem. Humans are just so
very weak for some reason. Ex.: I _know_ it's healthier for me to go to sleep,
yet I'm writing this comment instead.

~~~
phalangion
That's exactly what this project is attempting to tackle. As addressed in the
podcast, we can do a pretty good job teaching knowledge of what good behavior
is. This project is attempting to get beyond knowledge to action.

------
Dowwie
The project lead asks Kahneman for candid advice at around 36 minutes. So,
Kahneman told the audience the truth about competing for the attention of
business decision makers-- that they'll have to over-promise the benefits of a
behavior lab partnership-- and David Laibson immediately calls him out on it.

Maybe Kahneman should have replied with, "look, I don't know how else to tell
you this-- you're not really going to make a huge difference with this work so
if you want to get anywhere you'll have to exaggerate the benefits"

------
richardw
Lots of negative comments here, which is understandable given the problem.
There's a company that has demonstrated success in one of these areas and is
working on another. The trick is using behavioural economics to get customers
to change their behaviour. If they won't work hard for health, make them work
for karma, which they can use for real-world benefits. They get widgets, they
get healthier as a side-effect, the insurance company benefits.

[https://www.discovery.co.za/vitality/how-vitality-
works](https://www.discovery.co.za/vitality/how-vitality-works)

------
UncleEntity
"...who believed that his field should acknowledge that people rarely behave
as rationally as economic models predict."

So, umm, maybe your models are bad?

If you base your economic model on the silly idea that all (or at least most)
economic actors are inherently rational and act in their own self interest
then perhaps the model will result in a different goal than planning every
tiny detail of people's life like some Soviet Commissar.

I know, heresy...

~~~
matt4077
Just like physicists know that an apple dropping from a tree will not
perfectly follow Newton's laws, economists know, and have always known, that
these models are idealised, and incomplete.

That's why they keep handing out Nobel prizes to people finding better
frameworks approximating actual human behaviour. (i. e. Kannemann 2002, and
this year's)

~~~
UncleEntity
The difference is physicists don't try to change the behavior of apples unlike
the quote that claims economic actors are irrational because they don't fit
the models.

------
Super_Jambo
In the red corner, a rag tag bunch of scientists trying to get people to make
choices in their own self interest.

In the blue corner Google, Facebook, Coke, Mars, every advertising agency,
marketing guru, financial advisor, corrupt politician and dependable scientist
with questionable funding.

Well good luck red corner.

------
amelius
My attempt at a behavior-change revolution: when posting audio or video
material, could the submitter please include a short summary? Thanks!

(Edit: I mean the submitter could leave a summary as a comment)

~~~
throwanem
HN lets you submit a link or text, but not both. On the other hand, there's a
full transcript at the link.

------
dreamfactored
Good grief, can they even spell hubris. "...but Marcus Aurelius and St
Augustine didn't have _the free market and technology_". These people are
completely ideologically indoctrinated, they might as well be in North Korea.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive rants here.

If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't,
please don't comment until you do.

~~~
dreamfactored
I felt it was both substantive and thoughtful. It addresses the issue directly
that these researchers are tackling a topic that the greatest thinkers since
antiquity have addressed and answered to varying degrees, and breezily wave it
away by saying that it's different now because of technology. I consider that
breathtakingly naive, arrogant, and indoctrinated.

