
Policymakers around the world are embracing behavioural science - sohkamyung
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21722163-experimental-iterative-data-driven-approach-gaining-ground-policymakers-around
======
analog31
Advertising and manipulation work. Coincidentally, I have ad blockers on my
browser, and I try to have a sense of when someone is trying to manipulate me.

In my view, advertising and manipulation (call them "behavioral science" if
you want a euphemism) will always imply a power hierarchy. We might be told:
"Let's manipulate the workers into being happy without paying them more," but
never "let's manipulate the CEO into being happy with no revenue growth."
There will always be an implied hierarchy based on who deserves to be
manipulated, and who deserves to be given objective information.

I will never voluntarily join the lower caste of that hierarchy, and I can't
see why anybody else would either.

~~~
matt4077
I don't see much support for that power hierarchy... Surly, CEOs are high-
value targets for any number of people or organisations because, almost by
definition, they have both power and money.

And I can think of an endless number of schemes that are actively used to
influence them: asking them to sign pledges, protests, charity dinners,
awarding prices and other honours for certain behaviours–these are just for
political goals. For marketing, they obviously get bombarded with
advertisement as much as anyone else. Airline miles are an example that comes
to mind as top-heavy targeting.

As to "have a sense of when someone is trying to manipulate me" I am only
reminded of all those surveys that fail to find anyone who says "advertisement
works on me". In fact, the "nudging" the article talks about isn't really
about advertisement. The classic example is the small image of a housefly in a
urinal, which vastly improved peoples' aim. Are you sure you can, and want, to
escape that sort of messaging?

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'm not particularly convinced by those surveys you mention, though. My
impression is that the advertising industry is more about maintaining the
fiction that their efforts work.

Especially on-line, where I had the opportunity to see how the sausage is
made. The axiom of on-line advertising is that you have _metrics_ that tell
you whether or not what you're doing works. Except what I've seen is marketers
who lack even most basic understanding of maths convincing customers that this
number going up means advertisements are working, and since customers have
even less clue, everyone is happy and money changes hands, _regardless of
actual outcome_. Even software made by marketers for marketers is optimized
for taking wrong conclusions from the data[0]. But as long as the fiction
works, money flows and participants are happy.

\--

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10873226](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10873226)

~~~
kome
I agree so much. Advertisement it's broken.

~~~
dageshi
Advertising I think broke once google became good, after that point every
consumer knows they can research a topic or even find and reach out to experts
on a topic to figure out what they're best off buying.

------
thescribe
I'm worried that behavioral science will be like advertising in that as people
become more exposed to it the effectiveness will decrease. It could end up
being one more thing to filter around.

Maybe it would be better if we collectively decided not to manipulate each
other, even if we think that we know best.

~~~
cJ0th
> Maybe it would be better if we collectively decided not to manipulate each
> other, even if we think that we know best.

Yes it would but it's not going to happen. I don't like manipulating people
and thus my default is to be as unintrusive as possible at first but this
seldom leads to success.

For instance, if your friend agreed with you to have a phone call soon and you
write an e-mail asking what date would suit him/her then it happens more often
than not that they delay their response or even forget to answer. If, otoh,
you write an e-mail: "Is is okay if I ring you at 8 p.m tonight?" then they
feel more pressure to answer you and maybe even agree with your date. Of
course, they don't have to. It would be perfectly fine to answer: "No, tonight
is not good and I am not sure when I am going to have time." But most people
aren't that free. If you give them a range of choices, chances are they are
going to pick one instead of offering a counter proposal. If you don't offer
choices it is very likely that nothing is going to happen. A loose-loose
situation (in this example: both of you want to talk but no date is being
agreed upon and thus no call) is more likely to happen.

------
godmodus
^ *psychological warfare, more like.

~~~
thescribe
Weaponized Apathy

------
touristtam
Is it on a collision course with marketing?

