What's Wrong With Your Head?
There's a relatively new genre of books I just love, about our cognitive biases and blunders, and how, by recognizing them, we might be able to avoid succumbing to common human irrationalities. Dan Ariely's terrific book, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions
And I did reference Tavris and Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)
Yeah, you were dumb. But, you had help. It seems our brains are wired for self-justification. In Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me), social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson explain that most people, when confronted with evidence that their beliefs or actions are harmful, immoral, or stupid, "do not change their point of view or course of action but justify it even more tenaciously." Recognizing that you have this tendency is the best way to avoid succumbing to it -- along with forcing yourself to be ruthlessly honest about what you're doing and why you're doing it. Admitting your mistakes should keep you from marrying them, tempting as it must be when a man gets down on one knee, holds out a twist-tie with a chunk of rock candy glued to it, and says, "Hey, Babe, how'dja like to take over my weekly allowance payment from Mom?"
A few days ago, I got another in this genre that looks absolutely fantastic (and I don't say that about many books): It's Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness
The authors explain libertarian paternalism here in an op-ed in the LA Times:
If, all things considered, you think the arrangement of food ought to nudge kids toward what's best for them, then we welcome you to our new movement: libertarian paternalism. We are keenly aware that both those words are weighted down by stereotypes from popular culture and politics. Why combine two often reviled and seemingly contradictory concepts? The reason is that if the terms are properly understood, both concepts reflect common sense. They are far more attractive together than alone -- and taken together, they point the way to a whole new approach to the role of government.The libertarian aspect of the approach lies in the straightforward insistence that, in general, people should be free to do what they like. They should be permitted to opt out of arrangements they dislike, and even make a mess of their lives if they want to. The paternalistic aspect acknowledges that it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people's behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier and better.
Private and public institutions have many opportunities to provide free choice while also taking real steps to improve people's lives.
* If we want to increase savings by workers, we could ask employers to adopt this simple strategy: Instead of asking workers to elect to participate in a 401(k) plan, assume they want to participate and enroll them automatically unless they specifically choose otherwise.
* If we want to increase the supply of transplant organs in the United States, we could presume that people want to donate, rather than treating nondonation as the default. A study by social scientists Eric Johnson and Dan Goldstein showed that "presumed consent" could save thousands of lives annually.
* If we want to increase charitable giving, we might give people the opportunity to join a "Give More Tomorrow" plan, in which some percentage of their future wage increases are automatically given to charities of their choice.
* If we want to respond to the recent problems in the mortgage market, and do something about credit cards and loans in general, we might design disclosure policies that ensure consumers can see exactly what they are paying and make easy comparisons among the possible options.
We find ourselves these days mired in political battles that pit laissez faire capitalism, with its reliance on unrestricted free markets, against heavily regulated capitalism, which favors government mandates and bans in an effort to ensure "good" outcomes. But this opposition is false and misleading. Any system of free markets will include some kind of choice architecture, and that means libertarian paternalism can offer a real "third way" around the battleground.
The most important social goals are often best achieved not through mandates and bans but with gentle nudges. In countless domains, applying libertarian paternalism offers the most promising alternative to the tired skirmishing in the increasingly unproductive fight between the left and the right.
"libertarian paternalism" is nanny-state liberalism with a choice-colored hula skirt.
It's still about using the coercive power of government to control what people do, but it does so under the guise of letting them choose.
So, I can either live in a society where the government tells me what to eat, or I can live in a society where the government sets narrow parameters for what food is available, and "choose" from their list.
Either way, I'm not making the decision.
The only way forward is to let people fail, and not allow the government to save them. Our forefathers didn't separate from England to have a government enforce "social goals".
I'll pick apart their details later.
brian at February 13, 2009 4:59 AM
"So, I can either live in a society where the government tells me what to eat, or I can live in a society where the government sets narrow parameters for what food is available, and "choose" from their list." How did you see this as a conclusion. As far as food I like the way NYC did it before the trans fat ban which was just stupid mainly because it was badly written (someone fucked up in that natural dairy has some trans fats). They put the calorie count right on the menu with the pictures and the prices. They did not stop you from buying Taco Bell but they do not let you close your eyes to reality. You get a value meal and you know exactly how much the size of your ass will increase. Same thing at those sit down places. I ordered much less food when I eat there and they have been forced to put more healthy option. I'm not a fan of forced choice but full disclosure is always a good thing.
Properly done I like the concept and yes there are some risks involved but I fail to see an alternative to some regulation especially on the government itself. If there is not regulation then those ass hats with the tainted peanut butter would simply say tough shit and the feds could do nothing.
vlad at February 13, 2009 5:55 AM
I'm with Brian. These proposals suck big time and there's nothing "libertarian" about them -- unless you consider taking away a choice until you demand said choice as free choice. Oh, and I'm willing to bet, they won't make opting out of that 401K or donating organs easy, no matter what your reasons are -- and you can bet you'd have to fucking justify them to the Nazis that dictated they're gonna take it whether you signed up or not satisfaction and since they decided it's good for you, there's gonna be very little, if any, justification they'll accept.
And 401K's mandatory? You fucking kidding me! They are a risk. I thought about signing up for my employer's but was smart enough to ask is there any chance I could lose whatever money I put in even though I don't understand investing much. Answer was yes, decided that was a risk I was not willing to take (no, I'm not swayed by promises I'll be well-off in retirement if I risk my hard-earned money now) and put it in my FDIC insured account instead. Less of a return but safer. I shouldn't lose everything.
The only thing I'm for in that list above is the disclosure regarding credit options. But it's kinda of irrelevant to my life anyway since I don't fucking use it. (And, yes, that is one reason my standard of living is below the norm.)
As for the charity thing, first let's assume cost of living isn't also going up with pay. They plan on warning people signing up that they cannot predict whether their raise will exceed any increase in the cost of living (since they can't)? Also, hello, freaking already exists in that irritating United Way crap which my employer strong arms for every year and tries to force us to fill out with zeros if we want to opt out. I say let's enact a law banning employers from browbeating their employees into signing up for payroll deductions for charity. Charity should be 100% voluntary -- not coerced because you're afraid of your employer's reaction should you decline to have it "voluntarily" taken out of your check.
T's Grammy at February 13, 2009 6:24 AM
That's not what Sunstein proposes here. Besides, I object to the entire concept of "choice architects", as though there is someone who has a better idea how to live my life than I do.
First, I'll pick on vlad:
Bullshit. I never said that regulation is de facto bad. But there also exists a legal framework for dealing with things like this. It's called "strict liability" (note IANAL). Civil and criminal actions can be taken against a company that, through negligence or malice, allows harm to come to people.
What Sunstein et. al. propose, however, is that the government regulate certain "choices" out of existence. Much like Romney did with health insurance in Massachusetts. "You'll have a choice, but there will be consequences for making the wrong choice". And those consequences were that your money would be confiscated and used to buy insurance. Your choice in the situation was the same as the victim of a robbery: "your money or your life".
brian at February 13, 2009 6:24 AM
"Bullshit. I never said that regulation is de facto bad." Fair point hadn't had my coffee yet, that was a bit more of a reach then it seamed at the time. I'm a bit more supportive of fed regulation for medical devices because of the wacky shit I see being pawned off as therapy, some covered by insurance and gaining ground. I stretched the stance too far.
vlad at February 13, 2009 6:30 AM
"put it in my FDIC insured account instead. Less of a return but safer." Well not always as many have discovered after the banks started falling. Also the return rate of an FDIC insured savings account is usually just around inflation sometimes less. I think that some of the proposals are fine but the devil is in the details.
Also you are forced to pay into a 401k type fund, what else would you call social security. You will have some way of opting out of 401k no matter how convoluted it is. Social Security has NO opt out. The fund manger for that 401k has proven conclusively they have no idea what the hell they are doping.
vlad at February 13, 2009 6:39 AM
I think the examples the OpEd author is giving are unrelated to the libertarian paternalism used in the story of the article. Changing the order in which choices are presented has nothing to do with restricting choice or requiring opting out to make choices.
It's one thing to change the arrangement of the food in the cafeteria and quite another to give you an already filed tray and ask you to put back the stuff you don't want and get something else.
vlad at February 13, 2009 7:00 AM
I am so glad I have read the entry of this blog without a cup of coffee; I would had pulverized my Elixir of Life all over my screen!
Brian compared this farce called libertarian paternalism as a "nanny-state liberalism with a choice-colored hula skirt." I disagree. I see it as a Governmental tyranny of the word NO.
Let's see what life such a phony system would propose. You want to invest your 401K by yourself? You have to say NO to the government. You don't want to give away your organs after your death? You have to say NO.
My problem is this; where do it stop? Where the government will chose to stop "Helping us to live better"? An example: Do you have the right as an owner of an apartment complex to NOT rent some of your units? Of course, unless the Government chose to relocate poor families on welfare in your apartments for a fee. Then every time a tenant leave your propriety, you will have to fill a bureaucratic document to NOT having the state decide who is living in your private-owned building.
This can get bad fast. Can we imagine a family of farmers, upon receiving an inheritance from their father, are learning that the newly-deceased forgot to say "NO" to an initiative of turning his land into a National Park after his death?
This is my fear when I think of that idiocy called "libertarian paternalism"; it will be a tyranny of the NO; a world ruled by paranoia where the State have the right to seize your propriety (and even your body!) if you fail to fill up the proper governmental forms.
Toubrouk at February 13, 2009 8:50 AM
Toubrouk -
What do you think a "choice-colored hula skirt" is?
It is a device of no substance, all appearance.
Sunstein wants to give people the illusion of choice. That's what "opt out" really is. The illusion of choice. Because they will do what so many others do - make it so difficult to opt out, that most people don't.
brian at February 13, 2009 8:57 AM
Sorry Brian, I got it.
It will be a Kafka-esque system when people will never stop filling forms in the hope the government will not seize them up alive. Of course, they will not put a single sheet with a "Refuse All" case to check. they have to make it work somehow.
Toubrouk at February 13, 2009 9:09 AM
"I'm not a fan of forced choice but full disclosure is always a good thing." - You made this comment regarding restaurants disclosing nutrition information. Have you considered that some people might not want to know how many fat grams are in their junk food? That maybe that's kind of the whole point of eating junk food in the first place? Some restaurants already disclose their nutrition information, because their customers have demanded it. Others don't. You have the option to not eat there if you don't like it. Obviously a lot of people don't care. Should we MAKE them care? I say no.
Pirate Jo at February 13, 2009 9:18 AM
"Also you are forced to pay into a 401k type fund, what else would you call social security."
I'm sure you already know this. But your:
401K contributions - are being held in an account for you, even though the value of those contributions may be dropping in response to the market.
Social Security contributions - are being spent.
Pirate Jo at February 13, 2009 9:21 AM
"Obviously a lot of people don't care. Should we MAKE them care? I say no." If they don't care what difference does it make. Super Market food labels are required to show nutritional value right on the label. Why are restaurants exempt? Just like those fat slob buying super Hungry Man meals and blames genetics for being a fat ass won't look at the label you have the same ability in restaurants.
The places that serve the food don't want disclosure makes me want it required even more. We want transparency from the government that takes our money for services and makes a hefty profit to boot, how is Mc Donals different?
vlad at February 13, 2009 10:03 AM
If enough people cared what went into their restaurant food, they would stop eating at restaurants that didn't disclose nutrition content. The fact that the free market has not already made this happen just shows that it's not that important to people, and therefore not worth doing. Government intervention in this area is just more of the same old, same old "knowing what's best for you" nanny statism. Again, you don't have to eat at restaurants that don't disclose carb counts and calories.
Pirate Jo at February 13, 2009 10:42 AM
To answer your question: "If they don't care what difference does it make." more directly -- The difference it makes is that if *I* own a restaurant, *I* should be the one making the decision whether or not to show nutrition information on menu items. The government has no place to step in and tell me how to run my business. They also cannot force people to eat at my restaurant if I fail to please my customers.
Pirate Jo at February 13, 2009 10:44 AM
"The difference it makes is that if *I* own a restaurant, *I* should be the one making the decision whether or not to show nutrition information on menu items." Should the same thing go for sanitation? or adulturated products? Restaurants need to be held to a certain standard.
vlad at February 13, 2009 11:01 AM
A 401K is held in an account for me, unless all the funds in it are lost should the stock market value drop. Kinda of glad (and I'll admit I am largely ignorant on financial matters), I said no to that now. And suspect I might be gladder in the future.
All the comments about Social Security, all the arguments made about it on this blog, kind of back that. But the argument against it, just further backs my argument against mandatory 401K, like it or not. Yes, sigh, I know my money's not secure anywhere any more. Not truly. We have to be constantly vigilant against identity theft. And if FDIC is becoming pathetic, maybe we should have bigger choice on that, buy our own insurance.
I don't pretend to have all the answers but I know if I have to opt out of government decisions, that I may or may not know have been mandated, I'm gonna get screwed and screwed again.
I'm also against being harvested, for the record. And no, I don't want someone else's recycled body parts. I think they keep us alive unnaturally long these days. I want to live a natural life, not a drawn out, artificial one, with no real quality of life. If I have a heart attack and die without a transplant, I'm fine with that. One hell of a lot finer than I am having to survive with one part after another being replaced.
Yes, I'd probably go weak in the knees and mushy and give up a kidney to T if he needed one. I would be acting from emotion, not reason. But, tell you what, they can harvest my body parts, when I can reserve them for use only by my offspring with a coicidal that they couldn't decide to give it up. If my daughter had a heart attack after my demise but before T's grown, I wouldn't be against her getting mine but, yep, selfish or not, I would be against a complete stranger in the same situation getting it. Nope, that's not fair or logical. But it's my feelings. And we can't do that. They make it mandatory they can harvest (what a sick fucking way to put it) me for parts, they have to be reserved for my descendents, and only my descendents.
T's Grammy at February 13, 2009 11:39 AM
VRestaurants need to be held to a certain standard
Health and sanitation stanndars yes. Dictating what to make or how to make it no
lujlp at February 13, 2009 11:45 AM
"Health and sanitation stanndars yes. Dictating what to make or how to make it no" When did dictating what they made or how they made it come into play? Just make what's in it transparent. I'm very much against banning any additives unless they are shown to be overtly toxic but you should not be able to hide what in it or the calorie count same as grocery store.
vlad at February 13, 2009 12:14 PM
"Just make what's in it transparent."
Agree with the sentiment, just not with getting the government involved.
Pirate Jo at February 13, 2009 1:28 PM
"libertarian paternalism", that's a crock!. I am in agreement with most of the other posters about this. Maybe a better name is "Nannyism with possible opting-out, if you're good", though admittedly that is bit long to put in one's campaign slogan.
This reminds me totally of another BS term, "compassionate conservatism" as coined by G.W.Bush or one of his butt buddies. I realize the campaign (this is back in 2000) wanted to be "inclusive" and try to get people who are middle-of-the-road (i.e. somewhat statist) to vote GOP. "Conservative", fine, but "compassion" has no place in government policy.
It is not compassion to take taxpayers' money (take some from Dave L., some from Brian, some from PirateJo, some from Amy, some from Crid - no wait he is living in his mama's basement on welfare - strike Crid),and redistribute it; it is socialist. It doesn't make one compassionate to write bills that take more taxes from people - after all it isn't your money (you've got your own accountant to shelter your cash, as a Congresscritter). You want compassion, leave people alone, and see how much they will help their fellow man, when it is time to do so.
I'm all for just Commies vs. Freedom Lovers; It's just about that simple. BTW, what's with the flipping of this Red and Blue crap? The maps during election 1992 had Demo in red and GOP in Blue, but I guess the red coloring was hitting a little too close to home for the Dems. Who flipped it around, anybody know?
Dave Lincoln at February 14, 2009 1:00 PM
"There's a relatively new genre of books I just love, about our cognitive biases and blunders, and how, by recognizing them, we might be able to avoid succumbing to common human irrationalities."
I'll be bold and say you don't need "books" so much as you need to realize how you form beliefs.
Your entire thought process can be summarized in a hundred paragraphs. It's not that English is that powerful, it's that the basic principles are brief, and few people think about how they think. Ask around and you'll get a lot of blank stares.
You can go on and on about how your decision tree works for you, but that doesn't change the basics.
Radwaste at February 14, 2009 6:24 PM
Leave a comment