My complaint about Nudge is that what is most provocative about it is the way the authors misuse words, and what is most genuinely useful about it suggestions for policy based on better empirical psychology is pointlessly burdened with their linguistic shenanigans and silly “beyond left and right” framing. Indeed, I agree that “choice architecture” i.e., the idea that everything that affects choice affects choice matters to choice, and that policy ideas reflecting more realistic behavioral assumptions are desirable. You’d have to be an idiot to deny it. But beyond availing ourselves of better psychology, there no notable methodological or ideological advance there.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.