In today’s Real Time Economics section of the Wall Street Journal appeared a piece entitled “Thaler on Nudging People to Make Better Choices” that is certainly worthy of comment.The net of the piece speaks of an upcoming book entitled “Nudging” in which Dr. Richard Thaler, professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, along with co-aughor and law professor Cass Sunstein, also at the University of Chicago, write about linguistic phrases which “nudge” people into “better choices.
The writer begins with a common issue we all face in the market place, statements though true, are positioned for greatest favor. A salad, as an example in the article, is labeled 98% fat free rather than simply saying 2% fat. Though both are accurate, and the latter more succinct, the former is most commonly used, and this is the result of a great deal of thought and research. In the end, 98% fat free is more enticing to those who seek to limit their fat intake, and this positioning goes on all around us, all the time. Most often it is relatively harmless, though not always. Consider this response by the author when asked of their consulting services acquired by the Obama campaign.
Thaler: There are several ways in which the Obama campaign employs nudges. For example, the idea of automatic enrollment is used in several domains such as his health-care plan, and of course, his reluctance to have a mandate is in line with our philosophical approach.
As a response to the nature of Obama’s plans for heathcare, it seemed clear that people were “reluctant” to anything that forces them into a healthcare plan they do not want, hence the replacement phrase: “automatic enrollment”.
There is something profoundly unappealing about this. Perhaps in March of 1971 one could say that I had been “automatically enrolled” and simply nine months later found myself in Vietnam. I don’t for a minute regret my service, but we were more honest back then and simply called it the draft.
Now, Obama is not the first to use such approaches to persuasion, though his gift of delivery may make him more effective than most, the challenge lies in knowing when you’re being played. In many cases such linguistic positions, or nudges as preferred by Thaler and Sunstein, are relatively benign and only mildly manipulative. However, in matters of socializing the single largest sector of the American economy, the purposeful use of ambiguous language is dangerous.
In the end of the healthcare debate it breaks down to individuals being treated. If you get heart disease and need surgery, no one can step in on your behalf, you have to do your self. In this, as economists would tell you, you are the residual claimant. Only you and your loved ones bear the cost of the consequences of a medical treatment. Yes, the monetary costs may be shared by many and we as a society have lots of work ahead of us to make certain that we manage those costs well, but no one can do your dying for you hence you have a legitimate voice in how best that trip can be managed.
It is certainly not my intent to be “political” on this blog and I don’t expect this to have been an exception, though it might seem so. The issue here remains one of improving efficiency in healtcare, and treating the discussion with sober, respectful clarity and candor.
