-
Who wants to debate me on this? Setting the default organ donor policy to 'opt-out' is not nudging. It does not change behavior. It does not change choices made. Most people will keep making no choice. Making a choice FOR people is exploiting inherent inaction, not changing it.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 14 Favorites
2020 May 20
Mood -5 🙁
-
…in reply to @axbom
The morality question is whether that exploitation of a human circumstance can be argued as bringing positive outcomes in a way that outweighs negative ones. But to claim you have nudged people into a new behavior is misleading and frankly a weird take on what behavior is.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
2020 May 20
Mood -5 🙁
-
…in reply to @axbom
I will claim that everyone's stance on being an organ donor did not change overnight in England, but outcomes have changed DESPITE there being no behavior change whatsoever. Zilch. It's called legislation. axbom/1262990742433210369?s=20Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
2020 May 20
Mood -1 🙁
-
…in reply to @axbom
I think people are confused by this because the organ-donor narrative is part of so many behavioral science books. But... there is a huge difference between offering an online consent form with a default value (nudging) and changing the law in one swift move (legislation).On twitter.com
2020 May 20
Mood +3 🙂
-
…in reply to @axbom
Same for this oft-cited example. Making an automated decision FOR people is not an example of nudging behavior. It is an example of legislation, regulation and policy design. bi.team/blogs/automatic-enrolment-and-pensions-a-behavioural-success-story/Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
2020 May 21
Mood 0
-
…in reply to @axbom
Permalink
On twitter.com
2020 May 21
Mood 0