Take a photo of a barcode or cover
I found this wayyyy too long. The examples could've been shortened considerably. Interesting read but was a struggle to get through.
informative
slow-paced
Could've said it in half the words.
This book advocates Libertarian Paternalism, which, in essence, is "nudging" with the expected result of a better decision. The authors' argument stems from the fact that people think they are well-equipped to make good decisions for themselves, but when left to their own devices will eat too much, not exercise, and not save enough for retirement. The writers - both professors at the University of Chicago - believe that free will should be preserved, but that people should be presented with choices that help push them in a better direction. For example, in a school cafeteria, healthy food should be placed at eye level, while less seemly options are still available. It's hard to argue with the points these authors make: it's very "live and let live" -- but more "live better and help others live better too."
This book is not what I thought it would be.
I somehow thought it would be about how to improve decision *making* for, say, yourself (which would impact things like Health, Wealth, and Happiness), but it was about choice architecture and how to frame choices to make people choose what you think they should choose.
Which might have been interesting if that's what the book covered. There was a little bit about "choice architecture" in the beginning, but nothing that extended further than common sense. They then left discussion of choice architecture to focus on what the authors' thought should be the solution to problems like losing weight, medicare/health plans, marriage equality (same sex marriage) and retirement accounts (to focus on a few).
And then there was lots of discussion about how they are libertarian paternalists, which really stuck in my craw. It basically came down to: how they would try to push ("nudge") people into choosing what is "best." Best being completely subjective at the discretion of the authors, of course. It's easy to just swallow that their brand of pushing is good using innocuous ideas like saving for retirement "best" (which can easily be decided by "most amount of money gained by retirement"), but the idea that a couple of smug guys deciding what is "best" in a variety of any social issues just annoyed the crap out of me.
I somehow thought it would be about how to improve decision *making* for, say, yourself (which would impact things like Health, Wealth, and Happiness), but it was about choice architecture and how to frame choices to make people choose what you think they should choose.
Which might have been interesting if that's what the book covered. There was a little bit about "choice architecture" in the beginning, but nothing that extended further than common sense. They then left discussion of choice architecture to focus on what the authors' thought should be the solution to problems like losing weight, medicare/health plans, marriage equality (same sex marriage) and retirement accounts (to focus on a few).
And then there was lots of discussion about how they are libertarian paternalists, which really stuck in my craw. It basically came down to: how they would try to push ("nudge") people into choosing what is "best." Best being completely subjective at the discretion of the authors, of course. It's easy to just swallow that their brand of pushing is good using innocuous ideas like saving for retirement "best" (which can easily be decided by "most amount of money gained by retirement"), but the idea that a couple of smug guys deciding what is "best" in a variety of any social issues just annoyed the crap out of me.
An interesting libertarian perspective on issues such as retirement planning, health care, global warming, and education.
Well Thaler, I was with you until you got to the school choice chapter. Yeesh. Once I read this chapter, I started thinking about the saying “the ends justify the means”. I think in this case, the authors believe that the means justify the ends? I don’t believe that you can make decisions or suggestions about school choice without considering your own privilege and how an entire generation of children will be affected while the system gets “fixed” through school choice. It seems to me that their proposal is to offer school choice to everyone and just let the schools that become victims of the system fail? What happens to the children served by those schools? Then kids are going to private schools that are exempt from many regulations and parents have to hold the schools accountable? With what time? You may have time to do that, but most parents of school-aged children do not. I realize that this is a book about choice architecture, and the authors mention many times the idea that too many choices often make things more difficult. Wouldn’t it just make a lot more sense on the whole to level the playing field by making everyone play by the same rules? The authors assert that children who have been able to exercise school choice have been more successful than children who haven’t. I would love to see the data on this, because recent data I have seen regarding student success in charter and private schools is not nearly as positive.
Other than that. An interesting book on choice architecture and how suggestions and “nudges” affect outcomes and decision making. I enjoyed many of the other chapters, but the school choice chapter left a terrible taste in my mouth.
Other than that. An interesting book on choice architecture and how suggestions and “nudges” affect outcomes and decision making. I enjoyed many of the other chapters, but the school choice chapter left a terrible taste in my mouth.
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
The first 100 pages were awesome--4 stars. The last 150 pages were less awesome -- more like 2 stars.
This is aging a little but is still useful. It has a lot of good ideas about and support for nudges, and much of their argument around why nudges work and the idea that we should use nudges is well-put. The two biggest flaws are:
1) They should focus less on the what and more on the how. Their ideas on what constitutes good policy towards which people should be nudged are much less well-backed than than evidence on how nudges work; much of it is little more than personal opinion.
2) With Libertarian Paternalism they make the standard mistake of advocating for a half-way point between two polarised sets of opinions as a logical compromise. Libertarianism, at least as advocated across much of the US, is nothing less than pulling up the ladder behind those who benefited first and leaving the poorest to fend for themselves. In particular, the authors are far too reliant on markets in some solutions. Markets for healthcare and education don't work. Regulated markets in their place can do great things, but 'choice' in education and healthcare has been proven again and again to be a pointless waste of money.
Nevertheless, if you're looking for ideas about how to nudge, you'll get them here; you'll just have to wade through a lot to get there.
1) They should focus less on the what and more on the how. Their ideas on what constitutes good policy towards which people should be nudged are much less well-backed than than evidence on how nudges work; much of it is little more than personal opinion.
2) With Libertarian Paternalism they make the standard mistake of advocating for a half-way point between two polarised sets of opinions as a logical compromise. Libertarianism, at least as advocated across much of the US, is nothing less than pulling up the ladder behind those who benefited first and leaving the poorest to fend for themselves. In particular, the authors are far too reliant on markets in some solutions. Markets for healthcare and education don't work. Regulated markets in their place can do great things, but 'choice' in education and healthcare has been proven again and again to be a pointless waste of money.
Nevertheless, if you're looking for ideas about how to nudge, you'll get them here; you'll just have to wade through a lot to get there.
informative
slow-paced