The architects of choice

Nudging

How “nudges” by government can empower citizens without manipulating their preferences or exploiting their biases.

We're all familiar with the idea of “nudging”—using behavioral mechanisms to encourage people to make certain choices—popularized by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their bestselling 2008 book Nudge. This approach, also known as “libertarian paternalism,” goes beyond typical programs that simply provide information and incentives; nudges can range from automatic enrollment in a pension plan to flu-shot scheduling. In Nudging, Riccardo Viale explores the evolution of nudging and proposes new approaches that would empower citizens without manipulating them paternalistically. He shows that we can use the tools of the behavioral sciences without abandoning the principle of conscious decision-making.

A controversial approach. 

Overturning conventional wisdom

Randomistas: How Radical Researchers Are Changing Our World

Clinical trials are the standard way to produce new evidence. A new book reminds us that this is quite new. It starts explaining the scurby case and how it took 50 years to apply its results (lemon) to avoid death among sailors. There is aplenty of details and experiments among medicine, social and policy domains. You'll find a reference to the Rand Health Insurance Experiment and nudge examples.
If you want a good review of the book, check this one or Diane Coyle.

The more we ask the question ‘What’s your evidence?’, the more likely we are to find out what works – and what does not. Scepticism isn’t the enemy of optimism: it’s the channel through which our desire to solve big problems translates into real results. If we let our curiosity roam free, we might be surprised how much we can learn about the world, one coin toss at a time.

Compensating behaviour after nudging

Nudges that fail

Cass Sunstein shows in his las published article that nudging may fail, and explains the reasons and what to do. Great, I was waiting for that, because we need to disentangle the current approaches to nudging. the article tries to shed light, but in the end, uncertainties remain.

The general point is that any form of choice architecture, including the use of default rules, may have little or no net effect if people are able to find otherdomains in which to counteract it. The idea of compensating behavior can be seen as a subset of the general category of strong antecedent references, but it points to a more specifi c case, in which the apparent success of the nudge is an illusion in terms of what choice architects actually care about (Hirschman,1991).
What matters is welfare, not effectiveness (Sunstein,2016). A largely ineffective nudge may have positive welfare effects; an effective nudge might turn out to reduce welfare. A strong reason for nudges, as distinguished from more aggressive tools, is that they preserve freedom of choice and thus allow people to go their own way. In many contexts, that is indeed a virtue, and the ineffectiveness of nudges, for some or many, is nothing to lament. But when choosers are making clear errors, and when third-party effects are involved, the ineffectiveness of nudges provides a good reason to consider stronger measures on welfare grounds.

 Therefore with this text Sunstein is landing to the practical difficulties on nudging. Highly recommended.

PS. Congratulations to Adam Oliver, C. Sunstein and G. Akerloff for the new journal.

Pissarro à Eragny - La nature retrouvée

Au Musée de Luxembourg maintenant

Introducing nudging in the law

Nudge and the Law. A European Perspective

Alberto Alemanno is an HEC law professor focused on issues on behavioral policies and regulation. Now he has edited an interesting book. You can check it from this index:

1. The Emergence of Behavioural Policy-Making:A European Perspective

Part I: Integrating Behavioural Sciences into EU Law-Making
2. Behavioural Sciences in Practice: Lessons for EU Rulemakers
3. Nudging and Evidence-Based Policy in Europe: Problems of Normative Legitimacy and Effectiveness
4 . Judge the Nudge: In Search of the Legal Limits of Paternalistic Nudging in the EU

Part II: De-Biasing Through EU Law and Beyond
5. Can Experts be Trusted and what can be done about it? Insights from the Biases and Heuristics Literature
6. Overcoming Illusions of Control: How to Nudge and Teach Regulatory Humility

Part III: The Impact of Behavioural Sciences on EU Policies
7. Behavioural Sciences and EU Data Protection Law: Challenges and Opportunities
8. Behavioural Sciences and the Regulation of Privacy on the Internet
9. EU Consumer Protection and Behavioural Sciences:Revolution or Reform?
10. What can EU Health Law Learn from Behavioural Sciences? The Case of EU Lifestyle Regulation
11. Conduct of Business Rules in EU Financial Services Regulation: Behavioural Rules Devoid of Behavioural Analysis?

Part IV: Problems with Behaviourally Informed Regulation
12 . Making Sense of Nudge-Scepticism: Three Challenges to EU Law ’ s Learning from Behavioural Sciences
13. Behavioural Trade-Offs: Beyond the Land of Nudges Spans the World of Law and Psychology
14. Epilogue: The Legitimacy and Practicability of EU Behavioural Policy-Making

The book deserves time reading it, specially if you are interested in latest trends on nudging and regulation. However, if you don't have enough time, go straight to chapter 10. This is what you should read about implications of nudging on Public Health. He says,

Our previous analysis made a case for more experimentation in behaviourally informed regulation in the EU lifestyle policy. This seems particularly true when examined in light of the limited results attained by self-regulatory schemes led by the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries. While the evidence of what works in terms of behaviour change strategies is limited and too often anecdotal, several success factors have progressively been identified in policy-making.

 These success factors are those we have to check in our close environment and test wether it is worth taking this regulatory approach.

A call for a political prescription to tackle obesity

A political prescription is needed to treat obesity
Why Nudge?

Unless there is harm to others, the government cannot exercise power over people. This is the John Stuart Mill's "Harm principle", sometimes called the Liberty Principle. And governments have taken as given that individuals always take decisions in a rational way, fulfilling their preferences. As Cass Sunstein says in his last book "Why Nudge?", such a principle "raises serious doubts about many laws and regulations. Sometimes power is exercised over people in large part to promote their own good, finally people are note entirely sovereign over their body and minds". He argues in favour of paternalism in certain circumstances. We have already explained such details formerly in this blog.
Today I would like to suggest a reading to you, an excellent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It is a call for action on obesity and specifically on food policy and taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages.

Our current approach to obesity relies on the assumption that people have choices, often fail to make the right ones, and should be educated and helped to make better choices. This view is simplistic and clearly absurd, given the continued rise in the prevalence of obesity in countries that have been tackling the problem for decades. Are millions of people really choosing to be overweight?

People are not as free to choose as we would like to believe. Neurobiological desires for sweet and high-fat foods gave humans a survival advantage in a world where food was scarce and every calorie counted. Where food is inexpensive and easily available, biological processes related to eating can mirror addiction and will lead to our destruction. We need to change our approach. We need incentives beyond educational messages. Strategies that include individual interventions,  school-based nutrition and activity interventions, incentives for active commuting and changes to the built environment should continue; however, we also need robust ways to restrict portion sizes and reduce the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages and other high-calorie, nutrient-poor food products. Our government needs to consider taxation as a tool to combat the consumption of these addictive foods and beverages, just as it regulates the sale of alcohol and tobacco products for the purposes of population health.

In USA, Berkeley is the first city that will intoduce the soda-tax after a recent ballot. Berkeley’s Measure D proposed imposing a 1-cent-per-ounce general tax on sugar-sweetened beverages and sweeteners used to flavor drinks. The measure will not dedicate funding to a specific cause and did not require only a majority of the vote.
I still remember how a similar measure was discarded some years ago in our country. The times to reconsider the introduction of a soda tax are coming.

Is nudging ethical?

The challenges and opportunities of ‘nudging’

A forthcoming Editorial in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health provides some amunition for those interested on nudging.

The answer to the question if nudging is an ethically acceptable way of governing people’s behaviour depends on the ethical principles one adheres to. Our core point is that there is no magic trick, any form of policy intervention will impose a criterion against someone’s will, and democracy requires: (1) transparency from the political system in terms of the values selected in deciding and designing an intervention; (2) and at least an evidence-based justification of choice.

If the preferences of an individual change, then we cannot state that his first choice is better/equal/worse than his second one without introducing a ranking among his preference systems. As a result, value-free interventions cannot be defined.

If no magic bullet is available on the policy side, the same applies to research. In the domain of health, behavioural approaches must cope with the challenge of not neglecting the socioeconomic and contextual determinant of health inequalities

We argue that neglecting socioeconomic variables would be clearly a mistake also in the design of nudge. However, our point is precisely that behavioural science (and nudge as its policy implication) can incorporate an analysis of social and cultural factors, and avoid cognitive universalism.

Easier said than done. For an op-ed, it fits with the audience, for a strict and concrete policy recommendation requires further elaboration. I can't see  a practical and concrete applicable approach nowadays. Let's continue waiting.

PS. Must read, on medical devices in BMJ.A systematic review of new implants in hip and knee replacement

PS. A flawed PNAS article unveiled. Again and again, where is peer-review?

Jordi Pintó at Galeria Banadas

Positive and negative risk cultures

Risk Savvy

While reading The Guardian I find out that Nudge theories could fall from the mainstream.:

Though nudge-economics remains seductive, what once seemed like a panacea has come to look a bit more like a series of sticking plasters. Earlier this year the nudge unit was removed from direct government control, partly sold to the Nesta innovation charity run by New Labour guru Geoff Mulgan, a move which seemed to suggest the prime minister no longer viewed it as quite so central to his philosophy. That move has coincided with a backlash, or at least a critical analysis, of some of the tenets on which its brand of behavioural economics is based.

You already know from this blog I have devoted many posts to it. And I've said many times that its application is still in its beginings. However, if you look at the new book by Gerd Gigerenzer "Risk Savvy", maybe the perspective could be otherwise. He examines Kahneman works and gives a different view. The issue of two systems of the brain, A and B, when taking decisions is under criticism. He defends heuristics that in some sense use both when taking some difficult decisions.
His work goes beyond such criticism and it is an additional perspective on how we take decisions and the role of risk and uncertainty.
He considers that health sector is dominated by a negative risk culture, a way of doing that tries to hide errors and in such situations learning is much more difficult. On the other end of the spectrum are "positive error cultures that make error transparent, encorage good errors and learn from bad errors to create a safer environment". This is the case of commercial aviation. From his view, the use of check lists and safety measures should be boosted in many settings to improve efficiency.
Gigerenzer work is a good recommendation for summer reading. Wether he is able to convince you more than Kahneman, it's uncertain right now.

We the people

A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before

Cass R. Sunstein is a distinguished professor of Law at Harvard. For economists he is well known for his book with R. Tahler on "Nudge". Today I would like to reproduce several statements of his 2009 book: A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before. Just for those that consider that law should constraint people's expectations:

I mean to identify and explore three approaches to the founding document: traditionalism, populism, and cosmopolitanism.We shall see that in all three contexts, what is at work is a many minds argument–an argument that if many people think something, their view is entitled to consideration and respect.

Traditionalists insist that if members of a society have long accepted a certain practice, courts should be reluctant to disturb that practice. Some traditionalists go further, urging that even po-litical majority should respect longhstanding practices. Populists believe that if most people believe a certain fact or accept a certain value, judges should show a degree of humility—and respect their view in the face of reasonable doubt. Some populists think that if many people be-lieve something, they are probably right, and elected representatives should defer to them too.Cosmopolitans believe that if many nations, or many democratic nations, reject a practice, or accept a practice, the United States Supreme Court should pay respectful attention. Some cos-mopolitanians believe that if most nations, or most democratic nations, do something, other nations should probably fall in line with them.

Of course the three positions are different, and it is possible to accept one while rejecting the other two. But the structure of the central argument is identical in all three contexts. Nothing in the Constitution itself rules out any of the three approaches that I shall be ex-ploring. The Constitution does not set out the instructions for its own interpretation, and many approaches fall within the domain of the permissible. But traditionalism, populism, and cos-mopolitanism all run into serious obstacles. In the end, much of my argument will therefore be negative and critical. I will try to show why each approach has intuitive appeal – but also why each of them faces powerful objections.

Today is a day to reflect on such issues. Laws are created after a political process, popular sovereignity is above them. I wanted just to reflect on that in a historic day.

Behavioural economic-informed regulation

From Nudging to Budging: Using Behavioural Economics to Inform Public Sector Policy

Is it possible to design a regulatory mechanism to budge the private sector away from socially harmful acts?. Adam Oliver, from LSE offers his view at the Journal of Social Policy:

The role of government is not, for the most part, to interfere with personal lifestyle choices unless those choices present harms – or negative externalities – to others, although the government may be warranted in enforcing some behaviours designed to protect people principally from themselves if the intervention is considered openly and explicitly and supported widely, such as seatbelt legislation. The most effective way of preventing people or organisations harming others is to regulate their activities. Nudge is anti-regulation, but behavioural economics is not.

An awareness of the main behavioural economic findings – for example, present bias, reference points, loss aversion and nonlinear probability weighting – can help to inform decisions on where and how to regulate (for instance, traffic light food labelling), and may also ensure that public officials gain a better understanding of their own decision making limitations.

As I have said before, the idea sounds appealing, its implementation remains uncertain.

Neither manipulated, nor influenced

Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice
A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy

When thinking on health behaviour change, the nudging approach is the trending topic. Let's remember the origins:

The contribution of Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge, however, is not that of conveying novel scientific insights or results about previously unknown biases and heuristics (something that Thaler has championed in his academic publications. Instead, it is the notion of “nudge” itself, and the suggestion of this as a viable approach in public policy-making to influence citizens’ behaviour while avoiding the problems and pitfalls of traditional regulatory approaches.

A recent article explains details about two types of nudging:

Type 1 nudges and type 2 nudges. Both types of nudges aim at influencing automatic modes of thinking. But while type 2 nudges are aimed at influencing the attention and premises of – and hence the behaviour anchored in – reflective thinking (i.e. choices), via influencing the automatic system, type 1 nudges are aimed at influencing the behaviour maintained by automatic thinking, or consequences thereof without involving reflective thinking.

And both can be transparent or non-transparent.  An example of a transparent type 1 nudge is one used by the Danish National Railway agency. Speakers in city trains are used to announce “on time” when trains arrive on time. This nudge has been devised in order to get people to easily remember not just the negative, for example, when a train is delayed, but also the positive, when trains are on time. Non-transparent is closely related to manipulation of behavior and choice.

The authors conclude:

The characterization of nudging as the manipulation of choice is too simplistic. Both classical economic theory and behavioural economics describe behaviour as always resulting from choices, but the psychological dual process theory that underpins behavioural economics, used by Thaler and Sunstein, distinguishes between automatic behaviours, and reflective choices. Nudging always influences the former, but it only sometimes affects the latter. The conceptual implication of this is that nudging only sometimes targets choices.

That's a good point. More details inside the article.

PS Understanding the differences between:  Clinical Categorical vs. Regression Based patient classification systems.

PS. Waste vs. value by U. Reinhardt. Must read.

Choice architecture

A Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy

Is there a need to change "choice architecture" to adopt healthy behaviours?. From behavioral economics perspective, the answer is yes. However, the doubt is over how it should be done.  The lead article on HealthcarePapers is about pushing healthy behaviours. I'm not a fan of financial incentives for these issues. The article hightlights pros and cons, a good review for any newcomer to the field.
From all the comments, Pierre-Gerlier Forest poses a difficult trade-off between the role of the democracy and "nudging" by experts. Unfortunately, he gives no answer and waits for pragmatic improvements.Meanwhile, have a look at this article: beyond nudges, "tools for a choice architecture".

PS. Check "I nudge you".

The pieces of the puzzle

Charter for healthy living

Since we all agree that in developed world, non-communicable diseases are the greatest challenge for health, we are more and more convinced that the solution lies partly beyond the health care system. The issue is not to be convinced about this, the big question is how. And the answers may be different according to the approach. The World Economic Forum has just released a very interesting report and a toolkit on his topic. Though it is necessary to put together all the pieces of the puzzle, and there is a clear emphasis on a multistakeholder approach, I have the impression of some missing pieces. At least two: incentives and cognitive biases in behaviour and decision making. In this blog, I have pointed out the importance of it - remember Nudge or Mindspace- and I can't see it well reflected in the reports. Although there is a minor reference in the annex, you get the flavour of rational patients and governments, as rational consumers and regulators. The context and our departures from rationality are so important that we have to beware of them. Anyway, the most important is to have a look at the toolkit, not only to the report. The intention is clear, focus on the application.

Cristina Iglesias at Reina Sofia Museum

Ensucrats fins al capdamunt (2)

La novetat del moment és que s'ha anunciat la introducció d'un impost sobre begudes ensucrades en excés i es recaptarien uns 22 milions. El recent informe de la CAREC (p.34) ja recollia aquesta possibilitat que s'ha incorporat al programa de govern. Amb aquesta decisió ens situem propers a les experiències als Estat Units i França. La qüestió clau és com es concretarà aquesta taxa per tal que pugui recaptar aquesta quantitat. A Health Affairs explicaven que una taxa reduïda podria tenir un impacte molt limitat i per altra banda posar una taxa elevada obligaria a moltes cautel.les. En especial perquè el comerç paral.lel dels llauners faria el seu agost.
Fa poques setmanes en parlava des d'aquí i aquesta setmana The Economist dedica una secció especial a l'obesitat, d'obligada lectura. A l'article sobre la intervenció de l'Estat hi trobareu referències a aquests tipus d'impostos i al següent sobre l'empenta necessària per a uns hàbits saludables (nudge).
Ja sabeu que des d'aquí segueixo l'evolució d'aquestes qüestions de forma preferent. Seria un error pensar només en impostos al marge d'una estratègia global enfront l'obesitat. I per això avui m'agradaria saber quins han estat per exemple els resultats de les recomanacions sobre màquines expenedores de begudes i aliments a les escoles i que no ho he sabut trobar. Deu ser que encara està per fer.

Ensucrats fins al capdamunt

Regulation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Regular o no regular les begudes carbòniques ensucrades, aquesta és la qüestió. Al NEJM contraposen les dues perspectives en dos articles. Ho fan a la secció de decisió clínica, encara que és tracta d'una decisió política. I llegeixes el que diuen i en realitat un vol regular més i l'altre menys, però no són visions contraposades.
M'ha interessat novament allò de l'empenta comportamental (behavioral nudge). Fa molts dies que se'n parla però costa concretar. Un dels autors, Brian Wansink assenyala que publicarà un llibre properament titolat "Slim by design; mindles eating solutions for everyday life". Si el títol permet assolir el que diu ens haurem de treure el barret. Altrament potser només sigui un ham comercial, ja ho veurem.

PS. El passat 1 de juny vaig dir això:  "Per cert no hauria de passar per alt que la nova directora executiva del regulador dels aliments prové precisament d'una de les empreses que més aspartam utilitza als seus productes light. Quina casualitat!. ". Avui afegeixo, prové del fabricant de begudes carbòniques ensucrades. Algú es llegeix les lleis? Algú té interès en complir-les?.

PS. Per comprendre què està succeïnt consulteu WSJ. M'ha interessat la cita a NYT on es mostra amb jurisprudència que la ciutadania europea no desapareix! És un dret individual, i d'això no se'n parla.Cal llegir mitjans forasters per conèixer-ho.

El conreu de l'avidesa

He trobat encertada l'al.lusió de Xavier Bru de Sala a la tertúlia d'aquest matí. Es referia a com durant anys s'havia adobat el conreu de l'avidesa i naturalment, això havia donat els seus fruits. El regulador de l'economia va fer la seva feina, no es trobava de vacances com li passa sovint al regulador sanitari. Va permetre la fusió de caixes en fallida i la venda de productes opacs (CNMV), els inspectors van fer ulls grossos davant el risc del crèdit dels bancs (BdE), es va permetre als promotors comptabilitzar a preu urbanitzable el que era sòl rústic (Parlament). Evidentment, cal entendre que el regulador va fer la seva feina allunyada de l'interès general i una vegada més les institucions de la democràcia van fallar en allunyar els comportaments que socialment són poc desitjables i alhora nocius per al comú.

El jutge només ha imputat a 33 membres d'un banc, però cap dels cooperadors necessaris hi són presents a la llista. I ha afegit una predicció: "El jutge ha begut oli". Ben cert, li dono tota la raó. Després d'escoltar les reflexions d'un ministre que s'atreveix a opinar sobre qui ha de ser imputat i qui no, entenc que queda clar perquè ho ha dit.
Després de veure com les famílies ja no estalvien, un fet que no s'havia recollit d'ençà que hi ha estadística, convé preguntar-nos novament sobre l'esdevenidor. L'espiral perversa en la que s'ha entrat té tota la pinta d'anar a més. Un dels motius és el proper augment d'impostos. En un any la despesa en béns de consum de les famílies ha disminuït un 9,8% i per tant una major reducció de la renda disponible tindrà un impacte sonor.
Fa unes setmanes vaig assenyalar la necessitat de repensar com podem assumir uns serveis sanitaris públics amb 1000 € de despesa sanitària per càpita en l'horitzó del 2014. Avui hi torno, l'economia empitjora a marxes forçades. Davant la possibilitat (certesa) que ho haguem de fer d'un dia per l'altre, millor que algú es posi a treballar ara mateix. Altrament recordeu que l'opció preferent és una altra, la desconnexió ens permetria augmentar la despesa a mig termini en un 35% i ens oblidaríem d'aquest maldecap.
És en aquest sentit que un ex-ministre ha donat l'argument definitiu, diu que aquesta "és la solució fàcil". En Quim Monzó ja ha corregut a fer una columna deliciosa a LV. Fem-li cas a l'ex-ministre i si és la solució fàcil adoptem-la, no ens hi pensem més.

PS Avidesa:  f. [LC] Desig immoderat d’alguna cosa. Menjar, beure, amb avidesa. Res no pot satisfer la seva avidesa de diners.

PS. Semblaria que en Bru ha llegit l'article d'Skidelsky a FT d'avui. Extraordinari, ja sabeu que en sóc un seguidor fidel. Diu:

First, we must convince ourselves that there is something called the good life, and that money is simply a means to it. To say that my purpose in life is to make more and more money is as insane as saying my purpose in eating is to get fatter and fatter. But second, there are measures we can take collectively to nudge us off the consumption treadmill.

Després proposa la renda bàsica, una qüestió sobre la que discrepo cordialment. Però llegiré el llibre sencer, i veure'm què diu exactament.

Donar una empenta o donar la llauna

Public health in England: from nudge to nag

Els del Lancet es despatxen a gust contra Thaler-Sunstein i el seu llibre Nudge, l'empenta necessària per adoptar comportaments saludables. He parlat altres dies sobre el tema. I si bé tots podem reconèixer febleses en l'aproximació, obliden que la regulació basada en la racionalitat del consumidor no dona més de si en determinades qüestions. Per tant, no es tracta tant de desqualificar la proposta com d'una abordatge fi i mesurat.

PS. De pas aprofito per veure dins l'editorial que el temps mitjà per visita al metge de família NHS és de 11,7 minuts.

PS. Al Lancet també hi trobareu un article sobre regulació en salut pública i una notícia sobre la vaga dels metges alemanys.

PS. En el combat Calvin Klein DKMS vs. Matesanz ha guanyat per ara Calvin Klein. Només el regulador fent d'àrbitre que canvia les regles de joc enmig del partit pot capgirar el resultat. Una vegada més es trobava de vacances, i van ?.

PS. Recordeu que vaig esmentar fingolimod com medicament que incorporàvem al finançament públic sense avaluar suficientment, doncs aquí en teniu la mostra, l'agència europea diu 11 morts per ara.

L'economia del comportament i l'obesitat

Eating Behavior and Obesity Behavioral Economics Strategies for Health Professionals

Sabem que majoritàriament els indicadors de salut dels catalans que empitjoren, tenen relació amb els comportament, amb els hàbits saludables. I que l'obesitat es troba al capdavant.
Entendre què cal fer és crucial. Però malauradament tenim visions i estratègies de curta volada. Ara acaba d'aparèixer un llibre que ofereix noves perspectives tot introduint l'economia del comportament davant el problema de l'obesitat. Diu:

There are two ways of thinking about influencing behavior. The first is based on the standard rational model. That is, infl uencing what people consciously think about by increasing knowledge and awareness (known as the refl ective system ). This aproach assumes that the individual is a rational agent who surveys the situation to see what the various options are and then does a quick cost-benefi t analysis of those options in order to choose. The second approach is to alter the context within which people act (known as the automatic system ). This type of intervention is similar to the “nudge” outlined by Thaler and Sustein (2008), which often involves small changes to the choice environment. For example, one intervention tried to encourage school children to make healthier choices without alienating students by reducing their perceived choices. In a school cafeteria, what kids choose depends on the order in which the items are displayed.

 Els que llegiu aquest blog ja sabeu que m'hi he referit anteriorment en termes genèrics. Però aquest llibre esdevé més interessant perquè mostra amb molta precisió un canvi de perspectiva. Destaco una conclusió del primer capítol:

Rational food decisions often involve trade-off between short-term gains of sensory pleasure and longer term gains of health and wellness. Findings from behavioral economics research suggest that even when people are motivated to make healthy choices, external constraints in the decision-making process can prevent them from choosing optimally. Most of us prefer immediately gratifying short-term pleasure over our long-term goal of eating healthy. Errors in choices arise from systemic decision biases, emotion, and the limits of cognitive capacity.

Atesa la importància de "l'epidèmia" potser caldria que més d'un hi fes una ullada. Encara que també vull anunciar que el capítol d'implicacions per a la política (el 12) és molt fluix. Us caldrà doncs una mica d'imaginació i reescriu-re'l vosaltres mateixos.

 No us perdeu les friky-fotos de Diane Arbus al Jeu de Paume

(suggerit per un lector del blog i que em plau compartir amb valtros)

PS. Les retallades són notícia a la CNN, (confonen Catalunya amb Espanya, treball periodístic de nivell...)

A empentes i rodolons

Nudge

En Thaler i en Sunstein es pregunten quan necessitem una "empenta". És a dir, tenint en compte que la informació disponible per a prendre decisions és limitada i asimètrica, i que depèn del context on cal prendre-la, mostren una sèrie de situacions interessants. Diuen, la gent necessita "empentes" per a decisions díficils i ocasionals, de les quals no tindran feed-back i que a més a més esdevé complex entendre els termes de la situació. El capítol 4 del llibre Nudge ho explica bé i el 5 mostra com fer-ho. Hi ha qüestions òbvies, per les quals la regulació tracta de contribuir-hi, però n'hi ha d'altres tipus "paternalisme llibertari" que són més complexes d'identificar. Trobem un exemple al capítol 16:

8. Destiny Health Plan. Insurance companies don’t like paying large
medical bills any more than patients do. There is room for some creative
efforts on the part of such companies to work with their customers to improve
people’s health while reducing medical bills for all. Consider here
the Destiny Health Plan now offered in four states (Illinois, Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Colorado). The plan features a Health Vitality Program explicitly
designed to give people an incentive to make healthy choices. A
participant is able to earn “Vitality Bucks” if he works out at a health club
in a particular week, has a child join a soccer league, or completes a bloodpressure check with normal results. Vitality Bucks can be used to obtain
airline tickets, hotel rooms, magazine subscriptions, and electronics. The
Destiny Health Plan is a clever effort to combine health insurance with
nudges designed to get people to live healthier lives

Intueixo que és una mica més complicat, en Thaler i en Sunstein haurien de mostrar-ne els detalls. Mentrestant reflexionem-hi nosaltres.

PD. El termòmetre segueix pujant, però ara ja no fa tanta calor, possiblement és una febre que cal aturar convenientment i després fer el diagnòstic i tractament correcte. A LV trobareu els detalls i aquí el video sencer.