Status
Call number
Genres
Publication
Description
Psychology. Nonfiction. HTML: Every day, we make decisions on topics ranging from personal investments to schools for our children to the meals we eat to the causes we champion. Unfortunately, we often choose poorly. The reason, the authors explain, is that, being human, we all are susceptible to various biases that can lead us to blunder. Our mistakes make us poorer and less healthy; we often make bad decisions involving education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, the family, and even the planet itself. Thaler and Sunstein invite us to enter an alternative world, one that takes our humanness as a given. They show that by knowing how people think, we can design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society. Using colorful examples from the most important aspects of life, Thaler and Sunstein demonstrate how thoughtful "choice architecture" can be established to nudge us in beneficial directions without restricting freedom of choice. Nudge offers a unique new take �?? from neither the left nor the right �?? on many hot-button issues, for individuals and governments alike. This is one of the most engaging and provocative books to come along in many years… (more)
Media reviews
User reviews
This book is well written, easy to read and explores issues of personal freedom, paternalism, and the role of the state.
I was also disappointed that there wasn't more in the book about organizing things to yourself positive nudges. I don't want to depend on an employer or government to point me in the right direction--by the time they start incorporating these ideas, years may have gone by!
Nudge is pretty good and rather interesting, though. I suspect that were it not for existing popular books offering a seemingly economic view reflecting on our awareness of our non-conscious decisions, I would probably have given the book a more favorable rating. If considering Nudge, I would suggest considering an alternative such as the following. If you are interested primarily in psychology and human error, Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational" is pretty good, though imperfect. If you are concerned more about the economics aspect and less about the psychology, consider the Freakonomics series. If you are interested in moral issues related to our decision-making awareness, try Kwame Anthony Appiah's "Experiments in Ethics". That said, Nudge is still worth reading--but the first chapter and the last chapter in this case will probably be enough to get all the good ideas out of this book without redundancy, unless you think you might benefit from Thaler's private financial advice sprinkled throughout the book (hint: you would probably learn something).
Although this work necessarily uses some specialist language, all such jargon is explained in a coherent manner as it is introduced, enabling the general message to be followed with ease. As for the authors, they obviously have a good working relationship (as evidenced by the seamlessness of the work), but moreover their friendship can easily be glimpsed behind the words lending the book itself a generally friendly feel. They appear to honestly care about their argument, however although mostly well contained, the authors' enthusiasm does at times get the better of them – just as an over-zealous decorator may finish the walls and start painting doors, ornaments, and family pets, I felt at times as though the authors were applying their solution where it didn't really belong: the relevancy of the chapter on marriage, for example, seemed somewhat contrived (it's a good chapter which could easily be expanded into a separate work in its own right, I just don't think it really belongs in this book). This is my one criticism. Their solution is a good one, but it is not a panacea to be applied universally, as the authors themselves acknowledge.
A book that genuinely alters one's beliefs is a rare thing indeed, yet this is precisely what I have found in this book. It hasn't changed my 'worldview' or anything so grand as that (I don't wish to exaggerate here) but it has certainly changed the way I think about the future direction of society (in fact, that does sound quite grand after all doesn't it!). Previously an adherent to the 'Just Maximize Choices' solution to social problems, after reading Nudge I now consider myself something of a libertarian paternalist.
When I was working a mad full time job and there was no one in the house to receive deliveries during the week, it always befell me to go the Post Office to collect on a Saturday morning. The queue always stretched out of the office into the
The book is very interesting and it is all about the architecture of choice, it’s actually about common sense and not having enough time to make decisions. OK, it’s about being educated as well. I found some parts a little repetitive and academic, once you have the basic premise about ‘opting in’ or ‘opting out’, it does not need to go on too much about it with detailed examples, you can tell it is written by academics. Imagine if I’d read it over a few weeks? For this reason I found the first half of the book much more interesting than the latter half.
I suggest if you are reading it, you read it in no less than three years. The big question is: What book to put in the car now? Or have smart phones made books in cars redundant? What if I can’t get a reception? – I’m opting in.
The Writing IMP
Choice architecture means that there is no such thing as a neutral default, and thus the responsibility for providing thoughtful, and perhaps (as becomes important) helpful, layouts is placed on those who do the designing. This matters in a bewildering range of domains, although the authors (rightly in my thinking) point out that cases where feedback is not readily forthcoming and in which the long-term consequences truly matter (such as dietary and financial decisions as well as matters affecting health and the environment) are demanding of the most attention.
Sunstein and Thaler espouse (what they argue to be) a benevolent form of interventionism which they label 'libertarian paternalism'. As self-proclaimed libertarians, they are nervous about heavy-handed interference in the form of bans and prohibitions, giving their preference to the soft-gloved approach of incentives and the eponymous 'nudges' made possible by choice architectures. This well-intended 'hands-off' intervention without interfering means to push people into making 'better' choices. However, 'better' remains, as ever, ill-defined and subject to arbitrary definition. Additionally there is a strong case to be made that intervention is intervention no matter how you label it; these methods are less overt, to be sure, but this same property could serve to better conceal their use in the toolkit of unsavory interests.
The remainder of the book runs through various proposals for using 'nudges' in public policy matters, and they do offer a range of ideas worth consideration (although some are questionable, connecting back to a recurrent theme that I will clarify shortly).
As an 'idea book' I would highly recommend giving Nudge a look. Sunstein and Thaler make a persuasive case for the nudge concept, right down to the science and their own political leanings. I have my own reservations about their argument and their perspective in making it (which seems to be largely accepting of, if not quite espousing, a status quo of which I find myself increasingly cynical), but I need not bog down the review with those issues.
As a read, I found the later chapters repetitive and I skimmed healthy chunks of them. Once the argument for the nudge is made in the first part of the book, the examples, while interesting, didn't seem quite as captivating (and this may be in part due to my own above-mentioned reservations rather than any true flaw, so this, too, should not be considered off-putting).
My concerns aside, the ideas here are largely sound, interesting, and, in fairness, I even agree with their broadest scope. The soft approach of 'nudging' seems preferable to more overt forms of intervention, and it's hard to disagree that this is an underused method of moving people toward better life-choices (we just have to sit down for a long think about what justifies our conceptions of 'better', although this is no new problem).
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
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.
People in charge of social security systems should definitely read this book. Other may skim through it to pick up the main idea, which is indeed brillant, but they won't need to read all 300 pages to do so :)
When I was working a mad full time job and there was no one in the house to receive deliveries during the week, it always befell me to go the Post Office to collect on a Saturday morning. The queue always stretched out of the office into the
The book is very interesting and it is all about the architecture of choice, it’s actually about common sense and not having enough time to make decisions. OK, it’s about being educated as well. I found some parts a little repetitive and academic, once you have the basic premise about ‘opting in’ or ‘opting out’, it does not need to go on too much about it with detailed examples, you can tell it is written by academics. Imagine if I’d read it over a few weeks? For this reason I found the first half of the book much more interesting than the latter half.
For me, the theory was much more interesting than the practice and it was easy for me to relate to the various situations presented. I do not agree with their idea of privatizing marriage - their paradigms are limited to their construction, although I'm sure that presented with different arguments, the theory would uphold. Very American-centric, but interesting nonetheless.
Thaler and Sunstein are professors specializing in Behavioral Economics. This work explores the ways in which decision options are presented to achieve the result the designer hopes for … i.e. the nudges.
I found much of this very interesting and kept
I had to laugh when reading the updated section at the end, and they reported that the single example that got the most attention was the fly in the urinals at Schiphol airport! I’ve been thinking hard about how I might replicate their results to nudge my husband to put the dirty dishes IN the dishwasher vs just on the counter right above the dishwasher.
The digital audiobook I listened to most was read by Lloyd James. He does a fine job, but much of the material is rather dry, and of course, the listener misses the graphs and illustrations. My local library’s CD version was narrated by Sean Pratt. A fellow book club member listened to a version narrated by Richard Thaler.
At the time this book was published, both authors were professors at the University of Chicago. Both Thaler and Sunstein are firm believers in the efficacy of market forces, but they recognize
In the book, they articulate a philosophy they characterize as libertarian paternalism. It is libertarian in that it preserves individual free choice to the maximum extent advisable: as they say, “people should be free to do what they like-and to opt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so.” On the other hand, it is paternal in that it directs (but does not coerce) behavior in situations where many people have been known to make choices that do not make their lives “longer, healthier, and better.” Hence the term and the title, Nudge (as opposed to coerce or compel).
The authors develop concepts that were originally articulated over the years by Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, and others concerning ways in which humans make poor choices. A more thorough analysis of these same concepts can be found in Kahneman’s 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Thaler and Sunstein show that wise, non-coercive policies can be devised taking these human failings into consideration.
The result is a fascinating, lively account of how governments could help make life longer, healthier, and better through “choice architecture,” their term for a method of influencing decisions by how choices are presented. A simple example of choice architecture through a “nudge” is placing healthy foods in a school cafeteria at eye level, while putting less healthy junk food in harder to reach places. Individuals are not prevented from eating whatever they want, but arranging food choices in that way tends to decrease consumption of junk food and increase consumption of healthier foods. (More mundanely, they cite the technique of "hiding the cashew nuts.") Yet another example they adduce is that of “Clocky,” an alarm clock that runs away and hides if you don’t get out of bed on time.
Evaluation: "The Economist" rated Nudge the “Best Book of the Year.” Not all the critics have been so kind. I found that I raced through the first half, often laughing out loud, but the last half (consisting of numerous policy recommendations) sometimes became a bit heavy going. Nonetheless, I highly recommend this book, especially for legislators and other policy makers.
(JAB)
i'm disappointed with myself...for a long time i was looking forward to reading this book, only to get so bogged down i had to finally give up a few pages short of the half-way point.
the first 5 chapters were really good. scholarly, but entertaining. then followed
plus, the book was very targeted to an american audience. not a bad thing since the lessons can be generalized. but when i have to do that mental adjustment every chapter...when my focus is already running away from me...
maybe i'll pick it up again sometime
Then, we hit part two: a party political broadcast on behalf of the
The text is that money talks. Raise a few taxes, but not too much. The poor will be scared off from fossil fuel use and the rich? Why, they'll pay for ignoring the regulations and the poor are so stupid that they'll take a little extra money and suffer in silence.
Thanks boys, don't call us, we'll call you - all sorts of names!