President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments On American Public

Let's look and see what supporters of the practice have to say:

An Obama administration initiative to create a behavioral insights team could be perceived as further evidence of a federal government out of control. Personal choice and free-will could be viewed as under attack, or at least under the influence of another politically appointed “czar”.

This is indeed what some of us are saying. These techniques could be used for purposes other than what is stated and in contravention of the freedoms we hold to be true for all persons in our country.

Truthfully, behavioral “nudges” have been around for decades. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the office Sunstein headed from 2009 to 2012, began operating under Reagan to reduce redundant costly regulation. Using cost-benefit analyses, regulators eliminated obstacles to beneficial behaviors and increased regulation to influence avoidance elsewhere. These were “nudges”. For his part Sunstein boasts an impressive record of eliminating wasteful regulation, saving individuals and businesses billions of dollars.

...

Under a “nudging” system, consumers can avoid mistakes and remorse while saving time and money. But what about societal “nudging”? In England a behavior team was successful with tweaking communications that “nudged” people to pay their taxes on-time and in full; a pretty simple “nudge”.

Sounds quite innocuous and benign, does it not?

This next bit gives an indication of where this could lead, if one is willing to accept it as possible:

In Austria, a default position is consent to organ and tissue donation unless an individual elects to opt-out of the program; a substantial “nudge” that challenges religious and cultural beliefs and might be better left to legislators.

How long before we are given more defaults from which we have to opt-out of rather than opt-in choices wherein we only participate intentionally rather than by default without prior consent? But I’m sure that will never happen, right? I mean the federal government never begins a program and then have that program grown beyond its original scope and intent, does it?

They do admit that there are (currently) problems with the implementation of this in policy:

The problem we see is that government currently has economists and lawyers directing “nudging”. While these professionals are learned and avid students of behavior, the proper use of choice architecture requires a deeper understanding of psychology, psychodynamics, and neurology, along with an unequivocal adherence to beneficence.

I’m sure I don’t have to point out the potential dangers should systems such as this grow beyond all means of control, do I?

They do have a solution, of course:

For these reasons, the most appropriate leaders and contributors to behavioral insights are consulting psychologists.

Yeah, this is what we need.

Consulting psychologists are trained in the theory and practice of psychology, the methodologies of choice architecture, the appropriate treatment of humans and their relationships, and they operate within the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA). Appointment of a consulting psychologist to the leadership of a behavioral insights team addresses the well-founded criticism that “nudging” may be subject to political abuse. Consulting psychologists operate within distinct boundaries. They are in the business of assisting individuals and organizations make better choices for themselves while avoiding conflicts of interest and rebuking political influences; and they have been doing it for organizations for decades.

If the supporters of the system see the criticism of the same system as being “well-founded” then there must be something to the arguments that belong to those who criticize the use of these systems within the public sphere in order to influence same.

As a side note, I suggest everyone read this to further investigate the above-mentioned organization as can be found discussed within the following thread:

Exposed conspiracy about American Psychological Association also includes Zimbardo

Once you’ve given that thread a read, why don’t you come back and tell me exactly why it is we should not even be discussing the potential overreach of government in regards to behavioral conditioning.

Of course, they close it out by giving a bullet point list full of feel-greatterminology and good intentioned rhetoric:

To further guide “nudging”, we propose a code of ethics based on the five general principles of the APA: Beneficence and Non-maleficence, Fidelity and Responsibility, Integrity, Justice and Respect for People's Rights, and Dignity, along with the following extensions to help identify good “nudge” targets: The “nudge” must…


1. Produce a substantial individual or public saving or gain in respect to its cost;
2. Not conflict with personal, religious, or established cultural beliefs or behaviors;
3. Not create public policy but support it and enhance it;
4. Not conflict with Constitutional freedoms;
5. Preserve individual freedom of choice;
6. Not place anyone in a special condition or create inequality among citizens;
7. Be disclosed, its underlying rationale explained, and subjected to public scrutiny before adoption.

Does anyone want to lay odds that #7 above gets deep sixed when convenient?