
Nudge economics: has push come to shove for a fashionable theory? - tomaskazemekas
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/01/nudge-economics-freakonomics-daniel-kahneman-debunked?CMP=twt_gu
======
jerf
"That is, what if everyone were allowed to go down to the car dealership
whenever they wanted and pick out any new model, free of charge and drive it
home?"

"At this, Levitt and Dubner expected the prime minister to "light up" and say:
"I see your point about the free healthcare we are doling out!" They expected
him to embrace their behaviouralist argument that no one places a value on
anything unless they are charged for it. In fact Cameron said nothing at all,
but "the smile left his eyes", there was a quick handshake and he "hurried off
to find a less ridiculous set of people with whom to meet"."

Sigh. Let me unpack this for you. The light left his eyes and he hurried off
not because he was freaked out by your argument, per se, but because he
realized that _you_ didn't realize that you were an election prop, and that
you were supposed to smile, say what helped him get elected by giving him the
veneer of Scientific Authority (TM), then bask in the afterglow and get some
money thrown your way for some research or something, and probably get to
write some public report that he would promise to read and make some noise
about. You'd have been given a gravy train ticket for the duration of this
deal. Also you'd be expected to explain to the press why his pet theory or
proposal was fully rational and explained by your economics, and why by
implication everyone who is against it are dumb and maybe a little evil people
standing in the way of Science and Progress for the UK. Regardless of whether
any of that was true.

Instead, you showed that you were naive enough to believe that he had any
actual interest in his options being constrained by science or rationality,
that you were actually _taken in_ by his transparent rhetoric, and lo, you
were discarded as soon as was convenient. He probably also significantly
lowered his intelligence estimate of you.

 _This is not cynicism_. This is politics. It's just how it works, and anyone
who would care to challenge me with this theory being cynical and incorrect
(and don't forget the "incorrect" part), I invite you to come up with an
alternate theory as to why they were shuffled off stage so quickly, if
Cameron's initial enthusiasm for science was genuine.

And, no sarcasm, plaudits for refusing to follow along and be corrupted. I
hope this article is itself a bit of a fashionable pose about how as an
incorruptible scientist the thought of taking a dirty ticket to the gravy
train simply never crossed your mind, though, because the alternative would
be... unflattering.

~~~
Ntrails
Actually, they apparently didn't even consider whether an argument in
applicable.

The whole point of the gatekeeper and waiting list systems is to ration
healthcare. People can only get a free car if the salesman can see they have a
valid need. And they have to arrange an appointment to see said salesman.

This is not a story of incorruptible science, perfectly applied. It's a story
of naively applying a one fits all model and being confused when people think
you're an idiot.

~~~
adwf
I agree, they seem to be trying to compare unlimited healthcare to unlimited
travel. I don't know about them, but I don't tend to go into hospital and ask
"Can I have 3 broken leg repairs and some chemotherapy please", "But you only
have two legs and no cancer", "but it's free!". It just doesn't happen like
that, they've applied the wrong model.

I'm not surprised that if that's the argument they presented to Cameron, he
showed them the door. He may not be my cup of tea, but he's not an idiot.

------
adwf
Considering they are supposed to be "genius" psychologists, who you'd assume
have a good idea of what people think, it was pretty bloody dumb to go after
the NHS as their first idea!

Making the NHS into a paid system, when we can all see how messed up the US
healthcare is, is absolutely a political disaster in the UK. It's no wonder
David Cameron backed off and ignored them. Even if their ideas were correct
(I'm not trying to get into that debate here) and it would work, they'd still
be absolutely destroyed come the next election.

Amusing to see an academic blindspot, they can work out how people think, but
couldn't work out how politicians think.

------
digitalengineer
The book with the theory mentioned in the article: 'Risk Savvy' How to Make
Good Decisions: "In the age of Big Data we often believe that our predictions
about the future are better than ever before. But as risk expert Gerd
Gigerenzer shows, the surprising truth is that in the real world, we often get
better results by using simple rules and considering less information."
[http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Savvy-Make-Good-
Decisions/dp/0670...](http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Savvy-Make-Good-
Decisions/dp/0670025658)

------
dctoedt
I haven't read either man's work, but the article makes me wonder whether they
might be like the blind men trying to describe the elephant -- each has got a
piece of the picture. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant)

------
SixSigma
> "Ask the waiter 'what would you have'"

"Well sir, I'd have the thing we'd like to sell you, chef said we have lots of
scallops that will go off soon so see if I could push those"

~~~
baking
But if you don't like the food he might get a smaller tip and the chef is not
listening to his recommendation. If the waiter mentions the scallops without
you asking he is probably being told to push them. Then if you ask for his
recommendation and he mentions the scallops again, just ask him to recommend
something other than the scallops.

I don't actually do this myself, but I've had enough bad experiences with
restaurant food that I am considering it.

