salvaging the concept of nudge - the best charcoal grill to buy

In recent years, nudge theory has attracted more and more attention in population design.
Extensive health interventions.
The concept of nudge labels effective effects that maintain freedom of choice without engaging the ability of influencers to consider.
Given the disagreement over what is really needed to maintain freedom of choice, the question is whether the health effects that depend on the automated cognitive process can remain free of choice in a sufficiently strong sense, in order to conduct a moral assessment of actions and policies.
In this article, I make an argument about this, explaining the protection of freedom of choice in terms of choice
Settings are saved and not controlled.
I have also briefly explored the promotion of a health care environment that may take precedence over more control of impact.
Richard seller, behavioral economist, and Cass sangstein, legal scholar (hereafter, T&S)
The word "nudge" was promoted in 2008 books of the same name.
While the authors have never given a technical definition of micro-push, we can re-build their point of view.
For T & S, when A Pushes B by triggering the automatic cognitive process of B, while maintaining the freedom of choice of B, A makes B more likely to Phi (p. 1–20).
1 in the areas of public health, health policy and health promotion, the use of nudges has gained special momentum --
If actions and policies affect the health behavior of individuals and the use of the health care system
Get important groups-level effects.
The concept of promotion is important for an ethical assessment of actions and policies, as it aims to gain effective influence, to maintain freedom of choice, but to bypass the capacity of those affected to consider.
Thus, the moral significance of pushing the concept comes primarily from the conditions necessary to influence the true preservation of freedom of choice.
Consider a healthy sample
Impact T & S or its official online companion John Balz editor's book is called an impact attempt at "nudge", I'm micro-tweet blog: Asparagus-Lovers.
One investigator suggested to the study participants that they liked or loved asparagus when they first tried it in their childhood, which caused false memories and false beliefs about the taste of asparagus.
Subsequently, participants reported that their overall preference for asparagus had increased, their desire to eat asparagus had increased, and were willing to pay more for it. 2Cafeteria.
Restaurant manager at eye-
Level at the beginning of the food queue.
Unhealthy foods are at the end of the list and are the least visible.
Customers are more likely to buy healthy food (p. 1–3).
1 deposit contract.
All primary care physicians in the health care system offer the possibility of voluntary deposits to their patients
Paid a lot of money with the doctor.
Then, if the patient meets certain agreements, the doctor will return it to the patient in a small installment payment
Goals for improving health (e. g.
, Weight loss, exercise, quit smoking)(p. 232).
1 Generic Pharmaceutical.
Medicare beneficiaries receive general medication by default, but have the option to obtain a brandname drug (p. 169). 1HIV-
Test cash transfer.
People living with HIV in Malawi
The test results show that 10% of their daily salary is cash.
Less than you think.
University campuses in Montana organize drinking activities
The reduced exercise is accurate to say that 81% of Montana college students drink four or less alcoholic drinks a week.
The movement underlines the fact that most students are reveling
Drink less than most students think (p. 68).
Father competes.
In a village in India, health professionals post the results of a child's medical examination in public places, creating competition among fathers to improve their children's health.
4 burgers for four.
Free "four-person detour Burger" on heart Grill "(8,000 calories)
For people weighing more than 350 pounds.
While some of these interventions may explicitly retain the freedom of choice, the skeptics argue that this is not the case with other interventions.
For them, maintaining freedom of choice requires not only avoiding the use of direct coercion, because we are also concerned with "personal control over his or her evaluation and choice "(p. 128).
Some people suspect that we may be controlled by others because of the operation mechanism of the nudge.
According to T & S, the brain processes information through two different systems (p. 20).
System 1 is automatic, unconscious, uncontrolled, heuristic, fast, and cognitive stingy.
"System 2" is highly reflective, conscious, controlled, analytical, slow, and cognitive.
If, as T & S tells us, nudges take advantage of the automatic process of System 1, then their impact is valid precisely because the influencer has not chosen on purpose.
So why shouldn't we believe that the nudgees are controlled by the pushers and that there is no real opportunity to easily resist the attempts of influence?
Unless this question is answered, nudge is just an appealing metaphor.
In what sense does Nudges maintain freedom of choice?
T & S seems to be swinging between the two views: either just because the nudge does not rule out any choice, just nudge to keep the choice free, or more substantially to keep the choice free.
If they defend the previous view, many of the effects will be seen as a push and a policy --
Manufacturers will have good reason to see them as important regulatory tools.
The disadvantage of this first view is that for those who care about controlling individuals, their moral appeal will be weak in the face of the effects that are being tried to exert.
Nudges will enhance moral appeal if T & S chooses the latter view, but their position in the regulatory toolbox will be more humble as less impact will be considered nudges
In this article, I believe that the impact of the cognitive process that triggers the ability to bypass consideration may be morally strong enough to be free to choose, focused on uncontrolled issues.
Therefore, I intend to save the concept of nudge from the charge of oral service to the freedom of choice, but, without clarifying T & S understanding of the concept of nudge, rescue operations cannot be carried out.
In the last section, I explore driving a health care environment that may be better than more control effects.
Let me add another word of caution.
The article focuses on the nature and functionality of the push, whether they are beneficial to the recipient, third party, ii or promoter.
So I will not address the concerns about the much-watched parental style in driving the debate.
Many believe that nudges and T & S "liberal parental" interventions are commonextensive.
Although there are overlapping issues, this is not the case.
Part of the reason for this confusion is that T & S defended libertarian parental style before popularized the word "nudge.
The editor of the micro-push blog clearly distinguishes between the micro-push and the free parent-style: "It is important to point out that the micro-push complements the free parent-style public policy perspective, but the two are different
The liberal parental style is designed to help people make decisions and make them better by their own definition or judgment --
Not by government or private
While the nudge cited in the book is to do this, the nudge takes place in [a]
The clear goal of Nudger is to promote various areas [the nudger's]own welfare (
Almost any consumer marketing strategy or retail store layout can be thought).
"10 liberal parental style is a defense strategy that promotes a subset of two conditions :(1)
They are carried out for the benefit of nudgee; (2)
They met an informed standard of desire benefits.
For example, generic drugs do not meet the first condition (
Because it is mainly to control medical costs)
Therefore, it cannot be supported solely on the grounds of a parent-teacher.
As a push, an influence must maintain the freedom of choice, but there are many concepts about what freedom of choice means.
Choosing the right concept depends on the moral work that we want to push the concept for us.
In my view, the concept has been discussed in the context of policy, and its moral role is to prevent concerns about interference in choice.
With this feature in mind, at least when we have other options for action, the impact gives us the freedom to choose.
Can we go further and claim that influence can remain free of choice only if those affected have unlimited options, or even the widest range of viable options?
The answer is No.
As Alan Wertheimer points out, we "always choose among the limited options "(p. 10).
12 as long as we interact with each other, the actions of others will affect the range that each of us can choose at any time. The choice-
Set must be reserved relatively: Select-
Set the save condition.
A retains the choice of B.
Settings when selecting-
Set did not change or expand compared to the baseline representing B's situation before a affected the attempt (p. 15). 1Choice-
Collection saving is a necessary condition for choosing to save freely, but not a sufficient condition.
Without resorting to coercion, one's choice may be disturbed.
If we cannot resist this influence easily, it will not be enough to preserve the freedom of choice.
T & S recognizes this option
Set the conditions of preservation and reject the liberal view that freedom of choice requires the maximum realization of "freedom of choice without restriction "(p. 1162, fn 11).
Although T & S nominally strives to accommodate libertarians, they do not claim that the impact on choice should be minimized, nor do they claim that there is only a clear agreement to retain the impact of freedom of choice.
I agree with them.
We have no reason to adopt libertarian standards in order to preserve freedom of choice.
Unless expressly agreed, we may be concerned about freedom of choice, without thinking that every human interaction is an attack on freedom and human dignity.
Such standards exclude the most trivial informal practices of human beings.
I maintain in the last part of this article that the libertarian view will not be able to protect the most important freedom and see all freedom as a moral standard.
When T & S writes these things, their gesture to a non-controlled state ,'(t)
O it's just a small push to count, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid '(p. 6).
However, they acknowledge that there is no clear definition of "easy to avoid (p. 248–249).
I suspect they realize that influential people can't easily choose to give up the arrangements they like, because pushing tends to unconsciously change how we think about the choices we offer, make them look more attractive or offensive.
Therefore, my suggestion is to revise our understanding of the driving role and clearly put forward the second condition for protecting the freedom of choice, I will call it 13 "substantially uncontrollable" after Faden and Beauchamp to ensure that influential people can easily resist influential people.
The impact can be located on a continuum from full control to complete control.
Coercion is always manageable, and persuasion is uncontrollable.
Because the persuasion is willing to accept the reason given to her)
, But there are typical means that the third type of influence does not depend on coercion (threats)or persuasion (reasons).
In this third category, there are two thresholds on the continuum: some effects are basically controllable, while others are basically uncontrollable.
Faden and Beauchamp define full control, but not substantial non-control, which I suggest to be described as: substantive non-control conditions.
When B does not want φ, the effect of A on B to φ is basically uncontrollable.
All in all, influence will retain the freedom of choice only if the choice is reserved --
Completely or basically out of control.
Critics may answer that I should also add protection for freedom and autonomy under these conditions.
However, there is a good reason to avoid introducing freedom and autonomy to explain the protection of freedom of choice.
First of all, freedom is a concept that is richer than free choice.
The description of Freedom by MacCallum is a ternary relationship :(1)an agent is (2)
Not subject to certain restrictions ,(3)
Do or do certain things
A variety of free concepts can be generated from this matrix.
Explaining freedom of choice in the maintenance of freedom can only lead to more confusion.
Similarly, there is no consensus on the meaning of autonomy.
Autonomy, for example, requires not only substantial non-control, but also voluntariness, authenticity and any number of additional conditions.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of those who wish to define the protection of the freedom of choice from a free or autonomous perspective to explain why they are not satisfied with the choice --
Settings are saved and completely or substantially out of control.
The adoption of my suggestion does not make us committed to the controversial claim that freedom of choice is a sufficient or even necessary condition for reasonable use of nudge.
Nevertheless, does an impact retain the choice
If we care about the degree of control that others have over at least some of our choices, actions and preferences, then setting and basically being non-controlling matters for the moral assessment of actions and policies.
Critics may also argue that total or substantial non-control is a unhelpful condition because it cannot be easily determined.
That's why I elaborated on a standard that is easy to resist to determine the substantive uncontrollable --
A concept that is more difficult to describe than a complete lack of control is more relevant to the analysis of the push.
Here, the work of Faden and Beauchamp on electrical resistance is a useful starting point.
They point out that the ability to resist influence is subjective: It depends on the psychological weakness of everyone.
Resistance is the standard for testing the degree of control affected.
For the purposes of public policy, Faden and Beauchamp defend the "objective" interpretation of resistance, depending on the predictable response of the "average (
Or normal, reasonable, etc. )person’ (p. 260).
However, the author relies heavily on the concepts of resistance and resistance without analyzing them, which is a defect that they can easily admit (p. 360–361).
To complement their point of view, I define these concepts and distinguish between resistance and easy resistance: resistance.
If B is able to oppose stress and let her reach Phi, the influence of A is resistant if she does not want.
Easy to resist.
If B is able to fight the pressure effortlessly and get her to Phi, the influence of A is easily resisted if she does not want.
These definitions are consistent with and inspired by the psychological literature.
15 The difference between resistance and easy resistance is the amount of effort that the influencer needs to pay to oppose the pressure of the influencer, making it more likely that she will accept Phi.
If my interpretation of freedom of choice is convincing, then the next task is to provide theoretical and empirical evidence that at least some of the effects that trigger the automatic cognitive process can easily be resisted.
Let me go back to the features of the nudge mechanism first.
Assuming that these effects trigger automated cognitive processes that always bypass thoughtful thinking, but compare two candidates in the T & S sample, such as a cafeteria, to less than you think.
The previous example does not involve consideration at all (
Only deal with clues unconsciously)
The latter mainly triggers the anchor (
Psychological shortcut)
And social norms that, without completely bypassing it, lead consideration to the intended path.
In fact, all the push depends on what I call a "shallow cognitive process ".
I will use this term to cover the non-consideration and incomplete review processes that share three attributes :(1)they are fast; (2)
Because they consume very little resources, "cognitive fans" tend to rely on them; (3)
The response they produce is not a complete result.
Blowing deliberation (
That is, to explore the broad assumption of problem solving (if not always exhaustive).
Replacing "automatic cognitive process" with "shallow cognitive process" is an important correction of T & S for micro-push accounts.
This amendment is important because the conditions for easy resistance vary depending on whether the consideration is full or partially bypassed.
Whether or not the impact is and how our deliberations can be mobilized is also a consideration for an ethical assessment of actions and policies.
To rephrase the question at hand, why should we believe that an influence triggers a superficial cognitive process and is easily resisted?
I suggest analyzing the ability to resist effects in the following terms: the ability to resist easily.
When: B has the ability to realize the pressure of A and let her reach Phi (attention-
Ability to bring);
B has the ability to suppress the Phi tendency she triggers (
Inhibition capacity);
B is not affected, or placed in an environment that will greatly disrupt the relatively relaxed practice of attention-
Ability to bring and suppress.
There's enough psychological evidence to believe in attention.
Even if the impact is "masked", the ability to bring can be activated, that is, there is no prior notice and therefore no explicit representation to the influencer.
The unconscious pre-attention monitoring process monitors the output of various cognitive processes and reminds conscious attention to abnormalities.
Pay attention to the mismatch between the previous process identification personal goals (
Broad understanding)
Her actions responded by calling for a resolution of the conflict.
There are a variety of labels and models for these attention.
Ability to bring.
For example, according to some cognitive psychologists, stimuli that produce a strong sense of right (
That is, to judge the right intuition)
It is unlikely to be reviewed further, and those who create a sense of non-fluency are more likely to trigger a review (p. 187).
At least when individuals have enough preferences, goals, or beliefs, they may be aware of anomalies.
The goal of the influencer is to change the behavior or mental state of the influencer.
Depending on the disposition of the influencer before the impact, this change can take three different forms.
The influencer may attempt to counter, promote or shape the behavior or mental state of the influencer.
Let me explain each possibility in turn.
First of all, when the preferences, goals, or beliefs of the influencer and influencer are inconsistent, influencer may try to counter them and guide the influencer in the direction she wants.
If there is enough conflict between the influencer and the influencer's goal, attention-
The ability to bring may be activated and the influencer may resist attempts to counter her behavior.
Second, when the influencer and influencer have the same preferences, goals, or beliefs, the influence may facilitate the actions of the influencer.
Promotion occurs when the influencer removes obstacles to the implementation of actions considered by the influencer.
If the obstacle is an external obstacle to the influencer and the influencer is dedicated to solving the problem with all his heart, then the problem of control will not arise.
However, when the obstacle is inside the agent, because her first
Order and second
Inconsistent desire to order (
She wanted to smoke but would rather give up than run a marathon.
, Promotion may create conditions for activating attention-
Bring capacity, because at that moment, the influencer may not want Phi (eg, her first-
The desire to order is stronger than her second. order desires).
To illustrate the difference between confrontation and promotion, consider generic drugs.
The purpose of this policy may be to combat the behaviour of a portion of the target population (
People who choose brands
Name the drug for no reason, increase the total cost of health care)
And promote the conduct of another part (
Those who may wish to buy generic drugs but do not know the name of the generic drug to be taken).
Third, when influencers do not have preferences, goals, or beliefs before they do, influencers may want to shape them from scratch.
I mean, the influencer's preference, goal, or belief in Phi ing cannot be solved by derivation from her previous mental state.
In this case, the standard of easy resistance is not applicable.
Remember the anti-fact definition of resistance: If B objects to stress effortlessly, let her reach Phi, and if she does not want to, the influence of A is easily resisted.
Indifference to Phi ing and not Phi ing cannot produce a desire for not phi.
As a result, these effects are not pushed because they do not meet conditions that are essentially out of control (
While they may not have substantial control either, somewhere in the spectrum).
The frequency of real re-formation of health effects is controversial.
However, we should not jump to conclusions simply because the impact of the re-shaping may be substantial control.
Even the effects of full control are sometimes morally reasonable;
For example, when coercion is used to avoid harm to others.
Similarly, even if we believe that these effects do not cause other moral problems, such as the risk of no attraction, it is not necessarily morally reasonableWelfare profile.
Influencers may lack the legitimacy to interact with influencers on these terms.
Besides attention-
In order to facilitate resistance, inhibition is also necessary.
I am referring here to our ability to suppress our tendency to do what influencers want us to do.
Inhibition is the ability to stop the cognitive process once the cognitive process is triggered, and 16 is a necessary part of resistance.
Some people refer to any type of inhibition as "willpower", but these abilities also include the ability to suppress erroneous but spontaneous forms of reasoning.
From a practical point of view, the key condition for resistance is (3)
: This is the exclusion criteria for interventions that are not easily resistant.
This effect should not result in an environment that destroys these abilities, nor should it attempt to drive away individuals who are already in a state of cognitive tension.
In order to get the "relative" qualification effortlessly, an influential person should not be expected to get exceptionally high skills to improve her attention --
Ability to bring or suppress.
In the context of the impact on the individual group, the non-effort is related to our expectations of the normal individual (
In this group)
There are limited resources that can be exhausted.
There is more and more data about the situation that destroys people's attention.
Ability to bring and suppress.
Usually, the main factors are time pressure and pressure (and stress-
Poor)
, Yielding to the authority, fatigue, anxiety, cognitive load, and distraction of perception.
15, 16, 18, 19 in order to understand how the standard of resistance to resistance can distinguish between the effects of substantial control and the effects of substantial non-control, please consider: pharmaceutical TV advertising.
In Drug TV commercials, the list of side effects is read in a monotonous voice, while displaying images of butterflies and happy people.
This advertisement triggers a non-negotiated shallow cognitive process by providing pleasure and attention to the brain --
Grab stimuli that have nothing to do with audio leaks.
Its strategy is to confuse the audience through the association of these stimuli with positive effects, rather than the negative effects usually associated with worrying side effects (See Bosh and others. , p.
44 and 48, "dazzling" tactics).
This effect can be resisted, but it is not easy to resist.
This is not a push.
What about the impact of incomplete consideration, reliance on spiritual shortcuts that lead to recognition of faith, intention formation, or change of preferences?
These effects are different from those that trigger the cognitive process of non-negotiation, and have information content.
If the influencer weakens our attention
The ability to bring and suppress important information through deception, concealment or false statements is not easily resisted.
For example, it's less than you think, but a misleading movement has inflated or rotated the number of students who don't often binge --
Drinking will weaken students' ability to choose independently.
This is because when they expect the authority to communicate with them to be true, their ability to suppress the beliefs they are exposed to will diminish.
The influence of not being easily resisted does not mean that it does not resist at all.
Some have found misleading or deceptive content of the impact and have the ability to resist it.
Recall that when a policy applies to individual groups, it is easy for ordinary people to resist.
Is the information-
Rich influence is easily resisted, depending on the proficiency of the target population.
Mathematicians are more likely than the rest of us to resist attempts based on misleading statistics.
In some cases, based on realistic expectations that the influencer may use, it may be our responsibility to be vigilant, which means it is easy for us to resist him or her.
Compare a situation in which an influence can lead to incomplete thinking, trying to convince us rationally.
When rational persuasion occurs, the influencer begins to believe in or form the intention of phi, while being able to assess the merits of the reasoning provided by the persuader in support of his or her point of view in knowledge.
The criteria necessary for cognitive evaluation are complex, and the exploration of these criteria is beyond the scope of this paper.
For my purposes, we can simply say that, given her values and preferences, influencers need to draw conclusions using reliable forms of theoretical or practical thinking.
Then, the persuader is able to assess the persuader's claim on knowledge.
Therefore, rational persuasion is completely uncontrollable.
We sometimes say that the power of argument is often "irresistible", but this is different from the argument that rational persuaders put irresistible pressure on us to change our beliefs.
The effect of triggering an incomplete form of deliberation activates psychological shortcuts rather than formal reasoning.
The reliability of these psychological shortcuts depends on the quality of the information extracted in the selection environment controlled by the influencer.
As Stanovich puts it, "a heuristic hostile environment is a clue that is rarely available in a heuristic process, or that is misleading "(p. 21). 16 Asparagus-
Lovers are an example of a hostile environment arranged to bring health benefits.
The deceived participants were affected by the substantive control of the investigator, who created an environment in which participants misunderstood their tastes.
In contrast to the harsh environment, the influence that provides us with accurate information creates a "beneficial" environment in which, we can trust our fast and frugal superficial cognitive processes reliably without the need for slow andconsuming full-
Thoughtful consideration.
Finally, I have shown that in some cases the effect of triggering the shallow cognitive process maintains the freedom of choice.
So nudgees control their choices: they have a real chance to oppose nudger.
The meaning of this argument is a revised definition of micro-push: Micro-push.
When A Makes B more likely to Phi, A Pushes B, mainly by triggering the shallow cognitive process of B, while the influence of A retains the choice of B --
Settings and are basically out of control (
That is, to retain the freedom of choice of B).
ViiLet I added some comments to this definition.
A slight push adds some individuals in a group, or the probability of personal pre-event Phi over time.
This is a term for probability success.
Gentle push is also an intentional action (
In the words of T & S, "choose architecture"
Because only other agents can infringe or maintain a person's freedom of choice.
Although random features of the natural, social or architectural environment, or unintentional behavior of agents, may also trigger our superficial cognitive processes, they are morally and politically irrelevant and, therefore, in the sense that I use the term, the person is not pushed.
My description of nudge fixes the definition of T & S on two points.
First, it clarifies the meaning of protecting freedom of choice by setting out the importance of substantive non-control.
Second, it introduces a more sophisticated
An in-depth understanding of the non-review and incomplete review facilitation mechanism.
Is this suggestion a revisionist?
The response depends on whether these amendments bring our understanding of the push closer to the role we want this concept to play in our public debate on health impacts.
While my proposal reduces the extension of the concept, it is clearly conducive to a stronger understanding of freedom of choice, which has a real moral appeal.
The impact of triggering shallow cognitive processes without meeting substantive non-control conditions is not driven because they cannot track the impact of maintaining freedom of choice in a sufficiently powerful sense.
In order to facilitate dialogue, I would suggest adding to the classification of effects that I call "behavioral stimuli": behavioral stimuli.
When A makes it more likely that B will have Phi, A proposes B, mainly by triggering the shallow cognitive process of B, and the influence of A retains the choice of B --
But it's actually control.
Behavior is not easily resisted. Asparagus-
Lovers are examples of behavioral stimulation.
Because behavior prods use the same means (ie, default-
Settings, frames, anchors, etc. )
Promotion and protection as an option for influencers
One set, when commentators narrowly focus on the impact techniques used and ignore the level of control over the impact exercises, they are often confused.
The difference between Nudges and behavioral prods explains why we are not willing to call many businesses --
Orientation affects "nudge ".
The way in which a person or institution affects behavior is often not the only one.
There is more control impact.
In this case, the choice of a nudge indicates the self
Restraint, tension with profits-
Maximize Business objectives-
Practice-oriented.
The title of the typical sales technical manual goes without saying: "irresistible quote: how to sell your product or service in 3 seconds or less ".
Sales people don't always succeed in crushing resistance, but it's naive to ignore their goals.
Marketers tend to prefer stimulus rather than nudge.
Critics may object to the use of the same marketing techniques by health promoters.
This is correct, but the focus of my attention is not a set of techniques.
The impact of promoting unhealthy behavior is often more difficult to resist than the impact of stimulating consumer health behavior.
I think, for the sake of this argument, we agree on what is healthy behavior.
For evolutionary reasons, we tend to eat fat and sugary foods rather than the other way around, avoiding exercise. When self-
Control is at stake, and strengthening the influence of our natural tendencies is more likely than those choices that reposition our impulses and habits or promote alignment with our second choice to ultimately greatly control our behavior --order desires.
Health promoters are often easier to push than promoters.
However, when promoting policies aimed at different groups of people,
Promoting policies aimed at promoting part of the population may have an unexpected, albeit predictable, greater impact on the other part of the more mentally vulnerable population.
From a moral point of view, health promoters are responsible for the overall reasonable and predictable impact of their policies.
In conclusion, when a person changes three parameters, many of the effects are different from the push: the extent to which the influencer controls the behavior of the influencer;
Range of options provided by the influencer to the influencer;
The main means used by the influencer.
Combined with these parameters, table 1 summarizes some of the most prominent types of impact that are critical to the moral assessment of actions and policies.
IxView this table: View the inline View popuptable 1 impact classification according to the impact classification, the concept of x Light Shift is accurate enough to distinguish from other types of effects.
Therefore, it is not too vague.
20, 24 with these differences, we can better see what is the problem with the impact sample I mentioned in the introduction. Asparagus-
Because it is deceptive, it is not easy to resist, so the lover is not a nudge.
The deposit contract is from
Deliberately choose coercive suppression measures that are not easily resisted.
The four-person detour between Hamburg and his father is designed to stimulate strong emotional reactions and the power of social norms (
Sex or male competition)
In order to control the impact to a large extent.
From the initial list of T & S, only the cafeteria and general medical institutions are eligible to become nudges.
Although we have improved our accuracy, there is still room for Blur or edge conditions.
First of all, we may wonder whether the impact is major or minor in explaining its effect.
I note that pushing "primary" triggers shallow Cognitive Processes: that is, these processes are always triggered and play an important explanatory role in the effects of the impact.
Secondary processes may also be triggered and play a secondary explanatory role.
Occasionally, it is difficult to sort out the effects of several processes, so it is difficult to distinguish between push and incentive effects or incentives.
Second, the impact is an incentive, a push, or a stimulus, sometimes controversial.
Consider clearly-
Cut reward: gym bonus.
Bonus salary provided by the company ($5,000 a year)
Employees will get help if they go to the gym regularly.
What's the difference with HIV?
Cash transfer test?
There is one thing in common in both cases: the recipient is offered some benefits to complete the intended behavior (
Conditions of conduct)
But in the gym bonus, the benefits are important even for a wealthy professional.
Incentives may introduce new reasons for action for motivating behavior changes. HIV-
Testing cash transfers may not be an incentive, as its effect is largely not explained by the size of the benefits it provides.
If this happens only once, even for vulnerable groups, 10% of the daily pay in cash may not be sufficient to adequately explain its impact.
The best explanation for the effect is that it triggers a tendency to overestimate recent and recent benefits. Is HIV-
Test cash transfers, incentives, or behavioral stimuli?
The answer depends on how misleading the overestimate of interests is.
Conclusion: the moral significance of the concept of micro-push in health care emphasizes two considerations for moral assessment of actions and policies: to what extent others control our choices, our deliberations have been mobilized.
However, I do not ask for the question of moral permission to be promoted by claiming that influence must be largely out of control in order to be morally permitted, or, in accordance with the least restrictive alternative principle, less control impact is always better than more control impact. Policy-
Policymakers and supporters of opposing moral views can use this revised push concept without having to recognize questionable moral assumptions.
When powerful public or private institutions change the tiny aspect of the chosen environment that creates the population, the morality that drives is particularly complex
Broad health benefits.
This article focuses on the conditions under which, no matter how important a particular choice is, one can control those choices.
That is why those who favor and those who oppose the view that all freedoms are morally equal deserve the presumption that they are equally good, I can use my description of the push concept in their debate about drive ethics.
I can only outline here the ethical implications of the general presumption driving the refusal to support freedom, which I have formed in conjunction with Madison power and Ruth Fadden.
Contribution of specific freedom to leadership self
Determining life is the standard we use to assign different presumed weights when national policies interfere with freedom for the protection of public welfare.
What we call ourselves here
Determining life is a life in which no other individual, as well as social and political institutions, exercises power in its main outline.
It is also a life that has been given enough material resources and opportunities to enable individuals to truly develop and implement the "life plan ".
The primary moral goal is to ensure a great degree of control over the broad form of a person's life.
26. I believe that the application of this framework to the ethical norms promoted
Influencing choice is so important for the leadership self
Decide that they should live as completely out of the control of others as possible.
They should benefit from a strong presumption in favor of them.
Substantive non-control to promote guarantees may sometimes not be sufficient to protect these freedoms (Some aspects --of-
Choice of life and reproduction).
Many other health
For the leadership self, the influence of choice is insignificant
Determine the life (
Public health policies usually interfere with certain daily choices).
They do not need any presumption in favor of them.
In this case, it is allowed to even affect control more than a nudge.
When public authorities pursue legitimate public health goals and interfere with freedom without a presumed weight, the principle of substitution that limits the least is null and void.
Push is not always better than more control impact.
I suspect that only when the freedom to be interfered has sufficient weight to demand a presumption in its favor, but should not be strongly shielded from outside interference, ceteris paribus, allows (
Even if the impact of the smaller limit is feasible)
Better than more control effects.
The challenge, then, is to explain whether and why we should prefer to push rather than the same non-control incentives and restraints.
If the survey is successful, we will rethink the scope of application of the least restrictive alternative principle, which is often considered in public health and health policies as a reason to prove that system preferences are conducive to promotion.
The authors warmly thank Maggie litle and Madison Bowles for their detailed comments on the early draft of the article, as well as Daniel Andler, Luc bovins, Carl Grill, Edmund bob Veatch, alan Wertheimer and the anonymous referee.
The authors benefit from conversations with David Armstrong, Richard Ashcroft, Bennett Fodi, Marianne pumberg, Gina Lini and Simon Rippon.
Earlier versions of this article are given in James Martin's Advanced Research Seminar, the Institute for the future of mankind (
University of Oxford)in May 2011.
Reference RH, Sunstein CR.
Decisions to improve health, wealth and happiness.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
More information on the parenting strategy of "Fool Your Child. In: Balz J, ed. The Nudge [blog].
Published in May 14, 2009. (
Visit April 4, 2012).
The behavioral background of economic incentives. In: Balz J, ed. The Nudge [blog].
Published in March 16, 2011. (
Visit April 4, 2012).
A little healthy competition for parents can make children healthier. In: Balz J, ed. The Nudge [blog].
Published in January 27, 2009. (
Visit April 4, 2012). Various links. In: Balz J, ed. The Nudge [blog].
Published in June 2, 2010. (
Visit April 4, 2012).
Welch B. Horsman DM
Push or not.
J. Pooja Philos 201018:123–36.
Anderson J.
Nudge er RH, Sunstein CR reviews micro-push: Improving Decisions About Health, wealth and happiness.
Econ Philos 2010; 26:369–406.
Dr. White medicine.
Kant's ethics and economics: autonomy, dignity and character.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2011.
Relative humidity of Sunstein CR, Taylor.
The parents' style of liberalism is not contradictory.
Transfer of law to University 2003; 70:1159–202.
On a hot issue: the nudge of abortion. In: Balz J, ed. The Nudge [blog].
Published in May 1, 2008. (
Visit April 4, 2012). ↵Carter I.
Freedom of choice, freedom of choice.
Welfare 2004; 22:61–81.
Open links to science. Coercion.
Princeton University Press, 1987.
Desfaden RR, Beauchamp TL.
History and Theory of informed consent.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
GC maccallum GC Jr. .
Negative and positive freedom.
Philos Rev 1967; 76:312–34.
Openness, resistance and persuasion of scientific knowledge.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Elbaum Association, 2004. ↵Stanovich KE.
The mind of reason and reflection.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Evans JS by Frank Thompson VA. Dual-
Process Theory: metacognitive perspective.
In two minds: Double process and transcendence.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2009: 171-96.
Radio frequency, Lenny Baumeister J.
Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest power of man.
Penguin Press, New York, 2011
Wright Bosh DM, Friestad M, Wright P.
Market deception: Deception and persuasion and consumer selfprotection.
New York: Rutledge, 2009.
Darren Bonell C, McKee, Fletcher, wait.
One is to move forward, and the other is to retreat: Why a nudge can cause chaotic public health and waste of resources. BMJ 2011; 342:241–2.
Science's OpenUrlWeb nunuffield Bioethics Council.
Public health: ethical issues.
London: The nuffeld Committee on Bioethics, 2007. ↵Grant RW.
Additional conditions: Unlock the ethics of motivation.
New York: Russell serch Foundation, 2011. ↵Blumenthal-
Bobby JS, balles H.
Seek better health care outcomes: Use the ethics of "nudge.
J Bioeth 2012 in the morning; 12:1–10.
Openurlpubmedmarteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, etc.
From close: can it be close to improving the health of the population? BMJ 2011; 342:263–5.
Openurlpowers powers power M, Faden R, Saghai Y.
Moral framework for freedom, Mills and public health.
Public health ethics in 2012; 5:6–15.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text ↵ Saghai mi.
The concept of micro-push and its moral significance: Responses to Ashcroft, Bowen, dwoking, Welch, and weitheimer.
Medical ethics 201339:499501.
Funding assistance for the Edmund Pellegrino scholarship and 1-
Dr. month's mentor, Pellegrino.
The Cosmos Foundation provided a travel grant to support the author's visit to the UK in May to June 2011.
There is no competitive interest.
The source of the entrustment and peer review;
Internal peer review.
I, Balz, worked as a nudge researcher while completing Dr. Sunstein's degree.
The second example includes the promotion of vaccination programs that are not conducive to those who are vaccinated.
The proposition of the compatibility between nudge and freedom of choice is independent of the metaphysical problem of Will Freedom (
See chapter 2 of White).
For an overview of the literature on these skills, see Bosh et al.
Thanks to Daniel Dannett for bringing this to my attention.
I think that when A induce B to voluntarily believe or form the intention of Phi, A rationally persuades B, mainly by going to Phi (
See Fadden and Beauchamp, page 13.
Wertheimer of 261-262 and 12 p292).
A and B represent individuals, institutions or populations.
Although A and B are usually different entities, they can be the same entity at different times (self-nudge).
Of course, readers do not have to adopt the technical terms I have suggested.
If some prefer to use the word "nudge" to broadly refer to the effects of activating shallow cognitive processes, they can distinguish between control and non-control nudge.
I use the word "behavioral stimulation" to distinguish between an impact pattern that should not be confused with an impact pattern commonly referred to as "impact", that is, the entire category that controls the impact (
Including coercion).
I provide these definitions as a starting point for discussion only.
12, 13, 21-23 please note that not all forms of speech
Based on the reduction of influence to rational persuasion (
Deception, flattery, etc. ).
Incentives may be different from rewards and punishments by introducing merit or desert considerations (see Grant,22 p. 70).
This classification is not a "ladder of intervention ".
These ladders classify interventions based on the degree of limitations of the interventions, assuming that more restrictive interventions are more justified than those with fewer restrictions.
21 The classification of the degree of control is neither sure nor deny that the burden of defense will increase as the degree of control increases.
Xi grants two objections to the types that do not sufficiently distinguish the form of control (
Or power, in her terms)
Degree of control (or power)(see Grant,22 p. 68).
Her first objection was that persuasion should not be considered necessarily weaker than coercion, as deception may have more control than threatening to use force lacking credibility.
This objection does not weaken my argument, because my focus is on rational persuasion, which is certainly less than forced.
Also, I see all the categories in my type as success terms, while Grant confuses success coercion with attempt coercion.
Her second objection is
Or "bargain", in her words)
A specific degree of control cannot be allocated between coercion and rational persuasion entirely.
I agree with Grant at this point, and I think that motivation and suppression are sometimes substantive controls and sometimes substantive non-controls.
There is no penalty for choosing a brand name for this argument.