I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I saw this and was amazed at what I saw. What I saw was a video on the BBC website stating the government was using applied behavioural psychology(ABP) to change the way we think... My first reaction was not a nice one. If this was used correctly it would be acceptable with strict limits but I don't trust the cabinet office one bit, they are compulsive liars and abuse their authority and infringe on our already battered liberties. This is human manipulation and mind control. What really caught my eye was the constant use of the word "nudge". Sounds acceptable doesn't it? People would realise what it was if he said applied behavioural psychology and that as far as I'm concerned is the first stage down the path of deception. They apparently tried this with taxes to"nudge us" into paying those taxes and the methods used increased tax revenue(according to them). I don't think alot of people will agree with me but hey, we'll see. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/15343300
<tin-foil> If you think the Cabinet Office are the only ones trying to do this you are sadly mistaken. Try every corporation thats ever run an advertising campaign. Everyone in the world has an angle and everyone is trying to "nudge" everyone else. </tin-foil>
I did not say that, I was merely stating that the implications of this if allowed to continue are worrying in my opinion. I just believe this will be abused, but I could be wrong. EDIT: I'd also like to point out the intense secrecy of it all, and the members only gave their first names, reporters usually go for the full name don't they? Why such secrecy?
Oh noes! Soon we will all be mindless drones worshipping Big Brother! Er... I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just as giving a laptop to a bunch of monkeys won't cause them to be able to hack into the Pentagon (Anonymous' shenanigans notwithstanding), so will giving the government a team of seven experts in behavioural psychology not turn them into a ruthlessly manipulative tyranny. Well, no more than they already were. Apart from the fact that it is quite refreshing to see politicians having another go at the appliance of science (ah, bless), we are inundated by behavioural psychological manipulation all the time: through advertising, traffic signs, social and organisational infrastructure and cultural norms and values. It's nothing new. It does not take a long look around you to realise that it does not reliably work either: people will not buy everything they see, traffic signs get ignored, rules get broken, cultural convention defied. Brain manipulation it ain't. Moreover governments have been trying to manipulate the public since time immemorial: in propaganda, political campaigning, how they communicate with the voting public (or not) on a daily basis. I mean, it's what politicians do. The Nudge Unit is 'behavioural manipulation' in its most open, innocent, vanilla form. And it is not as if people, when free from such influences, make rational, conscious decisions in society's and their own best interests. People are, by and large, a bit stupid at times (want proof? This forum needs moderating. 'nuff said). So if tobacco and alcohol companies can use behavioural psychology to infuence people to consume their products, why can't the government use the same techniques to influence people not to, and make healthier life decisions?
I fully agree with you, but I, like many other people do not trust our government. They are a bunch of liars and have been known on countless occasions to abuse their authority, this cannot be denied. Would you think it was acceptable if they started down a sinister course? And as I said in the previous post, why the secrecy? And nexxo, ME and YOU and every other adult can make our own choices. What about our children? They are easily swayed.
'Think of the children'? Come on. Our children should be raised by us. If we do it right, they will not be easily swayed. Of course governments cannot be trusted, so you don't. Like advertising cannot be trusted, so you don't. But such behavioural manipulation by the junk food, alcohol and tobacco industry has done substantial damage to people's health and well being on a global scale. The Leveson inquiry is still exploring just what depraved depths of manipulation the glorious free press has been plumbing in its pursuit of story that will sell papers. So why are you suddenly barking up the government's tree?
What annoys me most is everyone acts like, "yeah, this is acceptable". Is it really though? I suppose that comes down to the person. I don't know about you nexxo but I am not with my children all the time. As a parent you can do nothing but your best for your kids, but you certainly cannot say for certain your kids will be around you all the time. And when they get a little bit older they arn't likely to tell you everything that happened while they were off terrorising some poor birds with rocks or something. Even though they should tell us, swines! Edit: Should mention as well, to be absolutely sure they have not been told anything incorrect, are you suggesting I interrogate them to make them divulge every last details of their day just to make sure they were not being manipulated? That would start many arguments in my house
OK, three things. 1. The illuminati the Behavioural Insight Team is led by David Halpern, former strategy advisor of Blair. One advisor is Prof. Richard Thaler who wrote the book on Nudge theory. So far their nefarious objectives have included encouraging people to stop smoking, to register for organ donation, to pay their taxes, to buy more energy efficient home appliances, to shoplift less and to actually attend their GP appointments. When it comes to our children, I'd worry more about commercial adverts targeted at children. But even those are of little threat if you explain the idea of advertising to children. They're smart. They can spot a fib when they hear one. 2. Whether it is acceptable or not comes down to a rational analysis of the situation, like we are trying to do here. 3. If you do parenting right, you are always with your children --in their minds, that is, as a reference point for moral and wise reasoning. What would mommy or daddy say/do in this situation? Stuff like that. And if you do it right, you don't have to interrogate the kids. You just show an interest in their daily activities at the dinner table (you do eat as a family at the dinner table, do you?). If your children learn that you find their lives important and interesting, they will want to share it with you. All children want attention. Call it a nudge principle.
1. According to who? And you added the illuminati for what reason? Are you lowering the tone? 2. Well what happens if I don't agree with your rational analysis? If politicians can't agree we really are stuffed. 3. Nexxo whilst some/we strive to do this and believe me I agree with you, it is hardly a reality for the vast majority of the UK is it?
1. According to The Guardian, and the government. But I concede that they may just be a front for a secret underground conspiratorial organization which aims to mastermind events and control world affairs through governments and corporations to establish a New World Order. 2. Then you disagree. But that does not make the analysis unreasonable, or your opinion reasonable. Furthermore, we are more likely to be stuffed when politicians agree. None of us are as stupid as all of us; teamwork allows people to do dumber things faster and on a bigger scale. It is good when politicians disagree. It's called the democratic process. 3. The majority of the UK population being crap parents is not an excuse for being a crap parent. You cannot toss your child into the world expecting it to look after your child because you were incapable of raising your child to look after itself.
1. Oh Nexxo don't lower the tone. Are you basing that comment on assumptions? You can't even call the NWO a theory anymore, if you listen they talk about it, I knew this when my mother started asking me what it was, and she doesn't even watch the news. FYI I was asking because I just wanted to know the source, that was all. Obviously I didn't express myself clearly. 2. Indeed, nor does it make my analysis unreasonable, or your opinion reasonable, as i'm sure you will agree! 3. I absolutely agree with that statement sir. Could not agree more infact, but your opinion being correct or incorrect does not alter the facts. 4.(Sorry to break the trend) Would it be possible if you are to post again for us to engage conversation in the way of setences and paragraphs... please? You did start it
Indeed it is possible that your opinion is based on a more reasonable analysis of the situation, so please go ahead and tell us about it. I'm not really sure what your argument around parenting is, except perhaps that because many parents in the UK are mediocre at the job at best, government should now step in as responsible parents instead. But does that not invite accusations of acting like a "nanny state"? Isn't that what the Nudge Unit is in fact about: to try and influence people to make wise choices? If you feel that the government should take a hands-off approach in how its citizens go about their lives, that means, in effect, that there should be no regulation: of commerce, industry, advertising, press standards and indeed parenting, education or health care. Caveat emptor: let the buyer beware. How well does that work out? You forget that power abhors a vacuum. If the government steps back, who else is going to fill the regulatory void for the benefit of the people? The people themselves? They can't even make sensible life decisions or raise their own kids right.
What would be the point and purpose Nexxo? They are the end of the day opinions, we all have a right to one. It would be a pointless argument. I am not saying that because some parents are incompetent and completely selfish parents that it should then be, the governments responsibility. I am simply saying that while your statement made sense and most people would probably agree, the incompetent parents still will not change their ways. I'm not endorsing it, I'm just pointing it out it will continue to happen regardless. Nudge could be a huge success, if those in control use it to work in the best interests of those who they govern. Past events suggests this is most certainly not always the case. I agree, for this reason. When ever I have tried to challenge the law or question the law, I am constantly reminded that I do not have the sufficient legal training therefore my opinion or interpretation is of no worth. People are in effect governed by something we do not understand, which is law. I would even go as far to say it is completely seperate from english in the sense of definitions although alot won't agree with this. Alot of words when writing legal documents are written in english but the legal definition is completely different. Hence the big chunky legal dictionaries with thousands upon thousands of examples. I agree with your above comment because people really are clueless sometimes. They are perfectly happy to be governed and be bound by something that we are constantly told we do not understand. How is this possibly constitutional? I accept this is my opinion.
The idea behind the Serious Discussion thread is that we have rational debates. The purpose of a debate is to practice and develop our reasoning skills and to test the rationality, informedness and coherence of our opinions. I have changed a few of my opinions as a result in the past. And, of course it's fun trying to out-smartass each other. If you just want to voice your opinion and leave it at that, that is totally cool (as you say: everyone is free to think what they want), but that is not what SD is for. Perhaps you want to have this moved to GD.
It is still a serious discussion, I just felt we had hit a stalemate. I did give you my analysis and you disagree'd with some of my points. I'll be honest, I don't want a "oh your one of THOSE people" that believe conspiracies thread. I just felt(with good reason in my mind), it would continue along in that vain and it still ends up with the same conclusion. I don't think I've ever seen you say, "sir, I agree with you" on these boards I was cutting to the chase.
OK, let's start over. What I understood is that you are concerned that the government is using behavioural psychology to influence its citizens' behaviour, because you are worried that the government (being the untrustworthy lying manipulative sods that they historically are) will use these tools for nefarious ends. In support of your argument you refer to the fact that, well, they are untrustworthy, lying and manipulative (no argument there), and that they are secretive about who are members of the Behavioural Insight Team. I argued that historically, governments have always resorted to behavioural psychological manipulation of various sophistication, through propaganda, carefully orchestrated political campaigns, composition of their speeches etc. It's what they do for a living, so it's nothing new. Moreover commercial industry does it much more blatantly, to a much greater impact on our daily lives and that appears not to be a source of concern to you. So I found your position a bit inconsistent. Furthermore if we learned to see through advertising, we can see through government attempts at manipulation. You then argued that children will particularly be vulnerable to this manipulation. I disputed this because children are not the target of the BIT's interventions; their parents are. And if we raise our children right they will be resistant to manipulation (we teach them not to be taken in by advertising either, after all). You argued that most parents are too crap to do that. I argued that is not an excuse. You said no, but it is still a fact. But that doesn't change the point I was making. As for secrecy around who is in the BIT team, I quickly googled up who leads the team. You then seemed to question the source, or veracity of this. So we seemed to reach a dead end there. Am I correct so far?
It's unfortunate when someone who believes in something other than the general consensus is singled out and shunned without much thought to the democratic process. The chance is given to express opinions, but the decision has already been made. Perhaps this ties into the nudge theory, too?
I'm not sure I follow you. If you are referring to the debate, hellblazer.doom wasn't shunned; his opinion was challenged. That is what happens when you post an opinion for debate in a debating thread. If he then says: "Look, that's just my opinion" then that is cool, and he can express it freely, but that is not the point of a debating thread. I outlined the arguments for what you call my decision (I'd call it an opinion). You can disagree, and I welcome you to challenge my arguments.
If I didn't have such a massive superiority complex and then counted how many posts of mine in SD threads just get totally ignored I might start to develop an inferiority complex Hellblazer at no point (so far as I can see skimming through the rest of this thread) have you given an example of what the government might do using this nudge approach that would be so abhorrent. You're just blindly scaremongering. Whenever someone tries to influence someone else's behaviour they are hoping to gain from it, why is this method suddenly so ghastly in particular?
