The Nudge Unit was established in the Cabinet Office in 2010 by David Cameron’s government to apply behavioural science to public policy. Now owned partly by the Cabinet Office, by Nesta and by employees, it has operations across the world.
What is the Nudge Unit doing on coronavirus?
The Nudge Unit is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in crafting the government response. The most visible manifestation of its influence to date is in the communication around hand-washing and face touching – in particular the use of “disgust” as an incentive to wash hands and the suggestion of singing Happy Birthday to ensure hands are washed for the requisite 20 seconds.
B.F. Skinner said that behaviour is selected by consequences and here we see mass behaviour being manipulated in just that way during the coronavirus debacle. The adverse consequence in question being serious illness or even death.
We may reasonably assume that for about twelve years we have been governed and controlled by psychological pressures designed by experts in the craft of covert persuasion. Yet it doesn’t feel like that, it feels just as crude as it always was. No more subtle than toothpaste ads.
If behaviour is selected by consequences, then it is not an option. It must apply to both nudged and those doing nudging. Yet elites still seem to act as if their behaviour is somehow immune to consequences. One conclusion we could draw from that is that elites are not constrained by adverse consequences because for them there are few adverse consequences.
Yet the supposed point of the Nudge Unit and its successors is to make government more effective by nudging the wider population towards desirable goals. Yet if those goals were attractive in the first place, then they would attract the wider population towards them. There would be no need to nudge apart from providing dependable information about those desirable goals.
Perhaps we should be cynical, not that we aren't already, but often the political point of the nudge is to nudge the wider population away from something, not towards it. That something is likely to be a state of affairs thought to be only enjoyable by elites. Only sustainably enjoyable by small number we might say. Hence Net Zero.
Behold - we are back with Malthusian politics again. The right side of history is the comfortable side but elites don’t see it as big enough to accommodate all of us. We are being nudged away from that and have been for some time.
If behaviour is selected by consequences, then it is not an option. It must apply to both nudged and those doing nudging. Yet elites still seem to act as if their behaviour is somehow immune to consequences. One conclusion we could draw from that is that elites are not constrained by adverse consequences because for them there are few adverse consequences.
Yet the supposed point of the Nudge Unit and its successors is to make government more effective by nudging the wider population towards desirable goals. Yet if those goals were attractive in the first place, then they would attract the wider population towards them. There would be no need to nudge apart from providing dependable information about those desirable goals.
Perhaps we should be cynical, not that we aren't already, but often the political point of the nudge is to nudge the wider population away from something, not towards it. That something is likely to be a state of affairs thought to be only enjoyable by elites. Only sustainably enjoyable by small number we might say. Hence Net Zero.
Behold - we are back with Malthusian politics again. The right side of history is the comfortable side but elites don’t see it as big enough to accommodate all of us. We are being nudged away from that and have been for some time.
4 comments:
It seems to me that the only remedy for this as far as the 'common people' are concerned is the proffering towards the 'elites' of violence. I am probably to be regarded as horrid, because after the report of Chris Witty being pushed about in a park by a couple of idiots seeking a selfie with him; I regretted that it had not been a couple of thugs who had beaten him up. After all it works very well for militant muslims.
As you say, if we thought we were being nudged towards what suits us, then there would be no need for the nudging; open discussion and information would be the most efficient means of getting there. So we are being nudged towards something that we would not choose. The traditional rationale for such paternalism is that the nudging is justified if the destination is in our own long-term interests (e.g. we want to smoke and drive while drunk, but if we were in full possession of the facts we would agree that we ought to be stopped).
Perhaps we are entering a new era where politicians no longer pretend that it is in our interests, but that it is somehow in the interests of the whole planet. It will be OK, that is, if a few people fly and eat beef, but we shouldn't try to extend the same benefits to 100 million Africans. So current issues and uncertainties are around re-jigging the debate. Who should be in the elite, and what can we let them get away with? And what are we going to tell the Africans?
Your angle is slightly different, AKH, but it boils down to the same thing - manipulation - and to this end, years ago I ran a post on groupthink, NLP, all of that, which is what nudging is all about. Sounds innocuous, which it's meant to be until one looks at the source, well over a century old, the rabbithole in the UK being Chatham House, thence Internet of all things, Demos, Tavistock, and the creation of the illusion that we decide in a state of free choice. Tell that one to sdvertisers.
The only thing left is the individual's decision as to whether this is legit or insidious.
Tammly - I'd prefer to see Whitty dismissed because that's a problem, we can't vote on the performance of such people.
Sam - the hike in fuel prices could be an interesting development if enough people realise that we have been lied to for years about sustainable energy and climate change. As for Africans, we could tell them to manage their own affairs and send some senior politicians and bureaucrats to assist them on a permanent basis.
James - yes it is well over a century old and fairly obviously insidious. Of course the legit bits are mingled in with it plus the semi-legit bits such as welfare, making it complex while being aware that many don't do complex.
Post a Comment