Uncharted Understanding
June 16, 2024 Leave a comment
Hadn’t things already been mapped out? Most thought they knew the system of cosmic order and justice in a world of evil, suffering, and chaos. But the course they followed, was it determined by superstitious and romantic assumptions?
Someone had a novel idea: write a prose tale of events and characters employing an extreme case to exemplify, expand, and examine common notions at the time. What was created is similar to a parable.
The conventional wisdom was that you take care of the gods through ritual and they take care of you. You forget the gods and the gods got angry. And then one had to work to appease the gods to regain favor and benefits. This quid pro quo piety-for-prosperity symbiosis between contingent and capricious gods and mankind was considered the foundational principle in the cosmos. It was thought to represent order and justice in the cosmos.
Two particular issues were scrutinized by the author. (1) Was the Retribution Principle (RP) – the righteous will prosper and the wicked will suffer – the foundational principle of the cosmos? (2) Does anyone serve God for nothing?
The characters or figures in the fictional account:
The Arbiter – a character representing God
The Challenger. His function was adversarial: to point out issues with people and policies and to present arguments against a person or policy.
Job, a ritually pious man and the subject of the problem posed.
Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu. They are Job’s friends, counselors, advice givers, and challengers.
An unnamed friend of the heavenly court. He offers supplemental material.
The following is a brief summary of the account:
One day the Arbiter was holding court. Heavenly beings were there to report on what was going on in the cosmos. Among them was the Challenger.
The Arbiter pointed out Job to the Challenger. There was no on quite like him, he said. He considered Job to be honest through and through, a man of his word, totally devoted to him, and someone who hated evil with a passion. Job even made sacrificial atonement to the Arbiter for his children just in case they sinned during their partying.
Knowing that Job was incredibly wealthy and the most influential man in all the East, the Challenger alleged that a self-interest symbiosis with the Arbiter motivated Job. Righteous people like Job behaved righteously, he contended, because of the expectation of a reward from the Arbiter.
Was this true? Was the Retribution Principle the Arbiter’s policy? Was reward Job’s motivation to be righteous? Does Job serve God for nothing? The Challenger wanted to find out. He picked Job to be the unwitting focus of his posed problematic policy:
“So do you think Job does all that out of the sheer goodness of his heart? Why, no one ever had it so good! You pamper him like a pet, make sure nothing bad ever happens to him or his family or his possessions, bless everything he does—he can’t lose!
“But what do you think would happen if you reached down and took away everything that is his? He’d curse you right to your face, that’s what.”
With the Arbiter’s go ahead, Job, a blameless and upright man was exposed to devastating loss. Yet, in spite of losing everything including his sons and daughters, Job maintained his integrity. And, he didn’t blame the Arbiter.
Seeing the failed result of this trial, the Challenger wanted to further test his proposition – that righteous behavior is based on physical blessing:
“A human would do anything to save his life. But what do you think would happen if you reached down and took away his health? He’d curse you to your face, that’s what.”
The Arbiter once again gave the go ahead but with the condition that Job does not lose his life in the process. Job was then struck with terrible sores. He had ulcers and scabs from head to foot. He used pottery shards to scrape himself. He went and sat on a trash heap among the ashes. Job was in extremis.
And it was there, among the ashes, that Job gets his first feedback into the horrendous situation that he finds himself and has had no control of:
His wife said, “Still holding on to your precious integrity, are you? Curse God and be done with it!”
Job’s wife responded with imperatives to her husband: accept the tragic situation, curse God, and accept the fate of death – in effect, “life is not worth living Job”. It should be noted that if Job does what she says, the Challenger’s claim would be proven true: benefits had motivated him all along. But Job tells her that she is out of line:
“You’re talking like an empty-headed fool. We take the good days from God—why not also the bad days?”
The study records that after all that had been inflicted on Job, he remained blameless and said nothing against the Arbiter.
Included in this tale are three cycles of dialogs that Job had with his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. These three heard of Job’s situation and came to console him. When they saw him, it was written, they sat quietly mourning. They thought Job was on the way out.
Later, after days of silence, they each in turn offer Job their worldly wisdom about his dire state. They believed there was something off about him and his thinking. So, they each try to find fault with Job and they each reaffirm the Retribution Principle in the process.
The Arbiter, they tell Job, protects the righteous and punishes the wicked. Regarding the reason for his suffering, they tell Job that no mortal is righteous and how can mortals understand what the Arbiter demands.
Their advice to Job: put away sin, restore your righteousness, plead your case before the Arbiter, and regain benefits. Notably, their counsel was contrary to Job’s wife’s directive when she told her husband to just be done with the RP and die. The friends, like Job’s wife, do tell Job to accept the tragic situation but they want him to revise his thinking and his life and then he will find that life is worth living through restored benefits.
The three friends counsel was in line with the Challenger’s claim: there’s a symbiotic relationship between piety and prosperity. To defend this principle, they reject any notion of Job’s righteousness. For them, the end game was material reward.
If Job acted in accord to what his three friends said, he would validate the Challenger’s claim. But Job has not been swayed by their words directing him back to benefits. He has shown that his righteousness stands apart from benefits. And so, the three friends are silenced.
Job does question the Arbiter’s justice:
“Does it seem good to you to oppress, to despise the work of your hands and favor the schemes of the wicked?”
In saying his suffering is undeserved, Job claims that what has happened to him cannot be justified by his behavior. He thinks the RP system of justice is broken and the Arbiter is being petty.
The dialog with the three friends ends with them not finding fault with Job’s behavior. Job maintained his innocence all along. He had done nothing wrong and admitted to no wrong doing. And Job does not expect any benefit or reward. He does serve the Arbiter for nothing. As such, he refutes the Challenger’s claim.
In standing by his righteousness, Job believed there was an advocate or mediator (a redeemer) who would show up and vindicate him. This seems to be Job pointing a finger at the Arbiter and wanting the Arbiter to justify his actions to Job. The Arbiter remained silent throughout the dialogs.
After the dialogs, supplemental material is inserted. Someone who has not been involved (an unnamed friend of the heavenly court?) offers poetic insight that speaks to the cosmic issues raised. He provides perspective from territory not explored in the dialogs.
He asks “Where do mortals find wisdom? and “Where does insight hide?” And he answers: “Mortals don’t have a clue, haven’t the slightest idea where to look.”
With what’s been dug up so far in the dialogs, these questions raise issues: what man has found- the Retribution Principle – is this the foundational principle of order in the cosmos? Is justice the foundational principle of the cosmos? If neither is true, then what is?
The supplemental material would have us understand that the foundational principle of the cosmos is wisdom and not justice. And, that the Arbiter alone knows the exact place to find wisdom. For the Arbiter is the only source of wisdom and its only evaluator.
The poem states that the Arbiter, after focusing on wisdom and making sure it was all set and tested and ready, created with wisdom thereby bringing order and coherence to the cosmos. What’s man to do? Totally respect the wisdom of the Arbiter. Insight into that wisdom means shunning evil
After this poetic insert there are three speeches.
Job begins by pining for the past: “Oh, how I long for the good old days, when God took such very good care of me.” The RP was working and things seemed coherent. He was in a good place then and in good standing socially.
“People who knew me spoke well of me; my reputation went ahead of me. I was known for helping people in trouble and standing up for those who were down on their luck.”
But now, Job says, things are not good. His role and status in society has reversed – from honor to dishonor. He’s the butt of jokes in the public square. He’s mistreated, taunted and mocked. And the Arbiter has remained silent. He laments:
“People take one look at me and gasp.
Contemptuous, they slap me around
and gang up against me.
And the Arbiter just stands there and lets them do it,
lets wicked people do what they want with me.
I was contentedly minding my business when the Arbiter beat me up.
He grabbed me by the neck and threw me around.
For Job, things are incoherent. It’s a dark night for Job’s soul. He feels abandoned, empty, and desolate along with enduring extreme physical agony.
The trauma he is experiencing may have scrambled his senses. He lashes out at the Arbiter:
“I shout for help, you, and get nothing, no answer! I stand to face you in protest, and you give me a blank stare!”
“What did I do to deserve this?” he says. “Haven’t you seen how I have lived and every step I take?”
Job tries to restore coherence with an oath of innocence. He lists forty-two things that he is innocent of and then pleads for a vindication scenario: “Oh, if only someone would give me a hearing! I’m prepared to account for every move I’ve ever made – to anyone and everyone, prince or pauper.”
As things seem to be out of control, Job considers the Arbiter something of a wild card, an unknown or unpredictable factor. He’s being capricious like all the other gods.
After Job speaks, another friend enters the conversation. Elihu, younger than the others, has been waiting and listening to the conversation. He’s somewhat brash in addressing the group. Elihu, in a somewhat superior way, wants Job and the others to know that he is speaking on behalf of the Arbiter.
“Stay with me a little longer. I’ll convince you.
There’s still more to be said on God’s side.
I learned all this firsthand from the Source;
everything I know about justice I owe to my Maker himself.”
Elihu is angry with the older three friends. They had condemned Job and yet were stymied because Job wouldn’t budge an inch—wouldn’t admit to an ounce of guilt. And they ran out of arguments. He contends that the wisdom of their many years – the conventional thinking about the self-interest symbiosis and the carrot sticks of the Retribution Principle – did nothing to refute Job.
Elihu presents another accusation angle and it’s not the motivation claim of the Challenger. He starts by repeating Job’s words:
“Here’s what you said.
I heard you say it with my own ears.
You said, ‘I’m pure—I’ve done nothing wrong.
Believe me, I’m clean—my conscience is clear.
But the Arbiter keeps picking on me;
he treats me like I’m his enemy.
He’s thrown me in jail;
he keeps me under constant surveillance.’”
Job thought that he was being scrutinized way too much by the Arbiter. He was being excessively attentive and petty.
Elihu is angry at Job for justifying himself rather than God. Job, he claims, regards his own righteousness more than the Arbiter’s and is therefore self-righteous and proud. That is why he is suffering. And, his suffering, Elihu claims, may not be for past sins but as a means to reveal things now to keep him from sinning later.
Elihu heard Job questioning the Arbiter’s justice: Job was not happy about a policy where the righteous suffer; something was off with the RP system or its execution. Job thought that the Arbiter could do a better job of things. Job, claims Elihu, doesn’t know what he is talking about and speaks nonsense.
He comes at Job with a defense of the transcendence of the Arbiter.
“The Arbiter is far greater than any human.
So how dare you haul him into court,
and then complain that he won’t answer your charges?
The Arbiter always answers, one way or another,
even when people don’t recognize his presence.”
And,
“Take a long, hard look. See how great he is—infinite,
greater than anything you could ever imagine or figure out!
Against Job’s “senseless” claims, Elihu says that the Arbiter is not accountable to us. The Arbiter is not contingent and not bound to our scrutiny. In a break with the conventional wisdom – the quid pro quo piety-for-prosperity symbiosis with the gods – Elihu says that neither righteousness and wickedness have an effect on the Arbiter.
The Arbiter, he says, “is great in power and justice.” He uses nature to explain:
“It’s the Arbiter who fills clouds with rainwater
and hurls lightning from them every which way.
He puts them through their paces—first this way, then that—
commands them to do what he says all over the world.
Whether for discipline or grace or extravagant love,
he makes sure they make their mark.”
Elihu wants Job to know that no one can out-Arbiter the Arbiter. He poses a theodical reason for Job’s suffering –the Arbiter’s justice. And that is how he tries to introduce coherence to Job’s situation. He thinks justice is the foundational principle of the cosmos.
Elihu’s justice and cosmic order also includes the RP. At one point he tells Job that if people listen and serve the Arbiter, they will complete their days in prosperity and their years in pleasantness.
Finally, from out of a whirlwind, the Arbiter speaks. He remains silent about Job’s oath of innocence.
Starting with “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” the Arbiter asks Job rhetorical questions which reveal the utter lack of understanding of those who thought they knew how the complex cosmos was ordered.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
“Have you ever in your days commanded the morning light?”
“Where does light live, or where does darkness reside?”
“Can you lead out a constellation in its season?”
Job and friends had reduced cosmic order to be a mechanical system of automatic justice: the Retribution Principle. The Arbiter would have Job know that he and his friends don’t know all the ins and outs of how the cosmos is ordered including why there is suffering. And that he is not to be defined and held accountable by their systems of thought.
After detailing some of the knowledge and intricate design that went into the ordered cosmos, a cosmos that encompasses the yet-to-be ordered, the disordered, and wild things, the Arbiter then corners Job: “Now what do you have to say for yourself? Are you going to haul me, the Mighty One, into court and press charges?” The Arbiter agrees with Eliphaz’s assessment of Job: Job is self-righteous.
Job responds: “I’m speechless, in awe—words fail me. I should never have opened my mouth! I’ve talked too much, way too much. I’m ready to shut up and listen.”
The Arbiter challenges Job: “Do you presume to tell me what I’m doing wrong? Are you calling me a sinner so you can be a saint? Go ahead, show your stuff. Let’s see what you’re made of, what you can do. I’ll gladly step aside and hand things over to you—you can surely save yourself with no help from me!”
To exemplify their differences and respective roles, the Arbiter instructs Job with examples of imaginative creatures seemingly both natural and mythical: Behemoth and Leviathan
Job is compared to Behemoth: “Look at the land beast, Behemoth. I created him as well as you. Grazing on grass, docile as a cow . . .”
Behemoth is content and well-fed, strong, first of its kind, cared for, sheltered, not alarmed by turbulence. Behemoth is an example of stability and trust: “And when the river rages, he doesn’t budge, stolid and unperturbed even when the Jordan goes wild.”
The Arbiter is compared to Leviathan, the sea beast with enormous bulk and beautiful shape.
“Who would even dream of piercing that tough skin or putting those jaws into bit and bridle?”
Leviathan can’t be tamed or controlled and should not be challenged or messed with. “There’s nothing on this earth quite like him, not an ounce of fear in that creature!”
The Arbiter has drawn a vast distinction between himself and Job.
Job had been speaking about his own righteousness and God’s justice. Behemoth is not an example of righteousness or of a questioning attitude. Rather, Behemoth is an example of stability amidst turbulence (crisis). Behemoth symbolizes creaturely trust.
Leviathan, not an example of justice, is the image of a rather terrifying creature. There is nothing wilder than the Leviathan. Leviathan cannot be domesticated. It would be utter folly to tangle with such a creature.
After the Arbiter finishes his description of Leviathan, Job answers:
You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water,
ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’
I admit it. I was the one. I babbled on about things far beyond me,
made small talk about wonders way over my head.
You told me, ‘Listen, and let me do the talking.
Let me ask the questions. You give the answers.’
I admit I once lived by rumors of you;
now I have it all firsthand—from my own eyes and ears!
I’m sorry—forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise!
I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor.”
The Arbiter accepts Job’s admission that he was both ignorant and wrong about the Arbiter. Job has grown in his understanding: justice is not automatic – good is not rewarded and evil punished mechanically. The Arbiter is not a contingent being. He is not beholden to Job. He is not accountable to Job. Job cannot force the Arbiter to act.
The Arbiter, who heard Elihu say true things about the Arbiter, addresses Eliphaz:
“I’ve had it with you and your two friends. I’m fed up! You haven’t been honest either with me or about me—not the way my friend Job has!”
The Arbiter tells them to go to Job and sacrifice a burnt offering on their own behalf and Job will pray on their behalf – just as Job did for his own children just in case they’d sinned. The Arbiter accepts Job’s prayer.
After Job had interceded for his friends, God restored his fortune—and then doubled it! Job’s later life was blessed by the Arbiter even more than his earlier life. He lived on another 140 years, living to see his children and grandchildren—four generations of them! Then he died—an old man, a full life.
Job’s restoration at the end does not make up for the losses he incurred. The restoration seems to reset the stage for Job to bring the understanding he gained during his suffering to a new generation. He will tell his daughters to have Behemoth-like trust in the Arbiter and not in a mechanical system of justice.
He may even tell them that prayer is not a cause-and-effect mechanism. Prayer is listening to God.
~~~
As we find out, this fictional tale is not an answer as to why there is suffering or benefit, for that matter. The author’s narrative was meant to educate and expand the reader’s understanding of Yahweh in a world where there are things that make people suffer. Its purpose was to challenge conventional thinking about order, justice, and Yahweh.
The narrative asked questions: Is the Retribution Principle (RP) – the righteous will prosper and the wicked will suffer – the foundational principle in the cosmos? And, does anyone serve the Arbiter for nothing?
The first question is answered through two contrasted views of reality: the old-time religion of piety-for-prosperity as order and justice in the cosmos and the Arbiter’s Wisdom as being the foundational principle in the cosmos. The second question is resolved by Job.
He continued to serve the Arbiter (and did not curse him as the Challenger supposed would happen) during his suffering. He did so without expectation of reward thereby rejecting the piety-for-prosperity symbiosis that was thought to exist between the gods and man.
We find out that the Arbiter, not Job, is put on trial. Under great suffering, Job questioned the Arbiter’s policies. He wondered if the Arbiter was petty and unjust.
The Arbiter, with no need to defend himself, corrects Job. For, Job did not begin to understand what’s involved in the mysteries of creation nor about cosmic order and justice. Job and his friends were not the source of Wisdom.
The Arbiter, along with the supplemental “wisdom” poetry, raised Job’s and the reader’s focus on suffering – the “raging waters” – up to great heights – the uncharted territory of creation beyond man’s comprehension where one would find a Leviathan-like being beyond our control.
This brief summary does not begin to extract the wealth of wisdom and understanding found in Dr. John Walton’s study of the book of Job:
Job (The NIV Application Commentary): Walton, John H.: 9780310214427: Amazon.com: Books
Dr. John Walton, Job (30 mini-lectures) – YouTube
How should we understand our world?
Session 25: The World in the Book of Job: Order, Non-order, and Disorder by John Walton from Dr. John Walton, Job (30 mini-lectures) – YouTube
John H. Walton (Ph.D., Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. Previously he was professor of Old Testament at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois.
Bibliography: Block, Daniel I., ed. Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008; Longman, Tremper III, and John H. Walton. The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2018; Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018; idem. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011; idem. Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2017; idem. The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2017; idem. The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2019.
~~~~~
“The suffering and evil of the world are not due to weakness, oversight, or callousness on God’s part. But rather, are the inescapable costs of a creation allowed to be other than God.” – John Polkinghorne
~~~~~
In light of the severe suffering and trauma that Job is exposed to, some may see the Arbiter’s response as cold and clinical, unfeeling and even autistic. Some in this day and age may hold that feelings and victimhood are core principles for understanding the world and may bad mouth the Arbiter for not being empathetic. Some might assert that his response is not their version of the RP’s justice and order- social justice. They may want an Arbiter to express himself like they do. Finding out that the Arbiter is beyond all reckoning unsettles them.
~~~~~
The Uncertainty Specialist with Sunita Puri
Pain is like a geography—one that isn’t foreign to palliative care physician, Dr. Sunita Puri. Kate and Sunita speak about needing new language for walking the borderlands and how we all might learn to live—and die—with a bit more courage.
In this conversation, Kate Bowler and Sunita discuss:
How to walk with one another through life’s ups and downs—especially health ups and downs
What “palliative care” means (and how it is distinct from hospice)
The difference between what medicine can do and what medicine should do
Sunita’s script for how to talk to patients facing difficult diagnoses
Sunita Puri:The Uncertainty Specialist – Kate Bowler
~~~~~
“Here be dragons” (Latin: hic sunt dracones) means dangerous or unexplored territories
“Here be Dragons” was a phrase frequently used in the 1700s and earlier by cartographers (map makers) on faraway, uncharted corners of the map. It was meant to warn people away from dangerous areas where sea monsters were believed to exist. It’s now used metaphorically to warn people away from unexplored areas or untried actions. There are no actual dragons, but it is still dangerous.
The Psalter world map with dragons at the base:
Cindy Wity 
Honey, They Shrunk the Choice Architecture
May 26, 2024 Leave a comment
You and I being are being directed to change our behaviors.
Felt a Nudge lately? A reminder to do something to better your health, your finances, the environment? Felt a Nudge during COVID to mask and social distance and sanitize and to be vaccinated?
Felt a Nudge Down With RYBELSUS? A Nanny State Nudge to buy into a government service? A pop-up nudge? A click-bait nudge? A text nudge? A nudge to buy something before its gone? A nudge to pay for something using only digital payment and not cash? A Nurge (Urgent Nudge) to decarbonize to prevent “climate catastrophe”?
Behavioral science is being used to direct our decisions.
Influencing behavior in a libertarian paternalistic way with active engineering of choice architecture is behind the concept of nudge theory developed by Richard Thaler, a professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago.
Why influence behavior in a libertarian paternalistic way? It has been said that . . .
“In recent decades, behavioral economists have shown that, out of impulse, impatience, or ignorance, people often make choices that are not the best or even good for them: we are not the rational self-interest maximizers that conventional economists have long assumed [see “The Marketplace of Perceptions,” March-April 2006].” Cass Sunstein on the constitution in the 21st century | Harvard Magazine
The “nudge”, a gentle prompt that influences people’s behavior in a predictable way, was popularized in the 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, by behavioral economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein. The book discusses how it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior, while maintaining freedom of choice, to help steer people to people make better choices in their daily lives, because in Thaler’s and Sunstein’s assessment . . .
“People often make poor choices—and look back at them with bafflement!” And . . .
“We do this because, as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself.”
Nudge theory is based upon the idea that by shaping the environment, also known as the “choice architecture” – a term coined by Thaler and Sunstein in their Nudge book – one can influence the likelihood that one option is chosen over another by individuals who feel in control of the decisions they make.
Terms
Choice architecture is the framing of different ways choices are presented. These would include the number of choices presented, the manner in which attributes are described, and the presence of a “default.” One example: how food is displayed in cafeterias. Offering healthy food at the beginning of the line or at eye level can contribute to healthier choices.
Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoronic term coined by Richard Thaler. Being “Libertarian” “means being free to make your own choices about your own life, that what you do with your body and your property ought to be up to you. Other people must not forcibly interfere with your liberty, and you must not forcibly interfere with theirs.”
Paternalism is “A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities. Paternalism can be “excessive governmental regulation of the private affairs and business methods and interests of the people; undue solicitude on the part of the central government for the protection of the people and their interests, and interference therewith.”
A Libertarian approach preserves freedom of choice and being able to opt out. A paternalistic approach assumes a restriction of choice. Libertarian paternalism is “an approach that preserves freedom of choice but that authorizes both private and public institutions to steer people in directions that will promote their welfare.”
Nudge is a gentle prompt that influences people’s behavior in a predictable way to make better decisions. It doesn’t mandate, order, enforce, or control. It uses motivational techniques most people respond to – such as the need to fit in with social norms. A nudge is meant to move people toward the best decisions for ourselves, our families, and our society, without restricting our freedom of choice.
“Nudging, like persuasion, can be used with more or less ethical intentions. When it is less ethical it is known as Sludge. A lot of nudging involves changing a choice architecture that people are faced with.”
10 Important Nudges: Simple Things That Can Change Behaviors – The World of Work Project
Examples of using “choice architecture”:
In Retail:
1. Placement of items in a store
2. Use of scarcity and social proof in marketing
3. Use of loyalty programs and rewards
In Technology:
1. Default settings on devices and apps
2. Push notifications and reminders
3. Gamification of tasks and activities
In Health and Wellness
Use of reminders and goal-setting tools
Design of workout spaces and equipment
Use of social support and accountability
In Finance
1. Automatic savings and investment plans
2. Design of banking apps and websites
3. Use of behavioral economics in financial education
Nudge Theory: Definition and 10 Examples (2024) (helpfulprofessor.com)
Small nudges to giant leaps: Examples of nudging in the workplace (applaudhr.com)
Examples of Nudge Theory in Public Policy:
Nudging supposedly makes it easier for improved access to public services and help people achieve their goals in life.
In the UK the Nudge Unit was established in the Cabinet Office in 2010 by David Cameron’s government to apply behavioral science to public policy. The Behavioral Insights team, or “Nudge Unit”, plays a big role in helping the government formulate its response to coronavirus. “The Nudge Unit is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in crafting the government response. The most visible manifestation of its influence to date is in the communication around hand-washing and face touching – in particular the use of “disgust” as an incentive to wash hands and the suggestion of singing Happy Birthday to ensure hands are washed for the requisite 20 seconds.” -Jill Rutter, “Nudge Unit” | Institute for Government
Boris Johnson’s government tried to fight the coronavirus pandemic by using the nudge theory to encourage “herd immunity”.
The Canadian Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), established in 2014, emerged from the original “Nudge Unit” in the British government, which was founded in the Cabinet Office in 2010. It uses a consultancy model to support government and the not-for-profit sector to support BI [behavioral insights] policy interventions. Nudging the way to better public policy (irpp.org)
One example in Canada is to make Elections and voting day need an injection of fun and celebration. Nudge theory illustrates ways to inspire anyone too busy, too “irritated” to vote.
Personal freedoms are a fundamental value of our liberal democracy. Citizens have the choice to opt out of participating. Thus, we should focus on making voting easier to opt into but not mandatory. We should act in ways that will nudge, not force, people to the voting booth.
We need to nudge joy into voting (irpp.org)
Both David Cameron and Barack Obama employed the nudge theory to advance domestic policy goals in their countries.
In the U.S. . . .based on research from University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar. . . who argued in their 2008 book “Nudge” that government policies can be designed in a way that “nudges” citizens towards certain behaviors and choices. . .
On September 15, 2015, Obama issued Executive Order 13707 “Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better serve American People” directing Federal Government Agencies to apply Behavioral Science Insights to design their policies and programs.
Per Donald Marron at Forbes:
“President Obama established the unit—officially known as the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST)—to use insights from psychology, behavioral economics, and other decision sciences to improve federal programs and operations. Those social sciences increasingly appreciate what regular folks have long known: people are imperfect. We procrastinate. We avoid making choices. We get confused and discouraged by complex forms. We forget to do things. We sometimes lack the energy to weigh decisions thoroughly, so we act based on what we think our peers do or how choices are framed. And we sometimes cut corners when we think no one is looking.”
The Executive Order also charges the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a cross-agency group, to make it happen.
Per Megan Fella at Obama’s effort to ‘nudge’ America (politico.com)
“Ultimately, knowing what drives us puts us in the driver’s seat.” – Susan M. Schneider
The Social and Behavioral Science Team (SBST) is a small, but mighty group of leading behavioral scientists and innovators from across the country. Housed within the Office of Evaluation Sciences at GSA, the SBST realizes that “seemingly small barriers to engagement…can prevent programs from effectively reaching the people they are intended to serve” and that “an effective and efficient government must, therefore, reflect our best understanding of human behavior.”
According to Meet the Social and Behavioral Science Team (usa.gov):
In order to create a better government, the SBST looks for opportunities in four aspects of program design:
Streamlining access to programs and benefits
Improving how government presents information to consumers, borrowers, and program beneficiaries
Enhancing how government presents and structures choices within programs
Examining the frequency, presentation, and labeling of benefits, tax credits, and other incentives
Chuck Ross, on September 15, 2015, voiced his concerns: Obama’s Nudge Brigade: White House Embraces Behavioral Sciences To Improve Government (forbes.com)
“President Obama’s federal health care law, Obamacare, is replete with “nudge” language and experimentation. . .
“Another nudge contained in Obamacare was brought to light in the debate over whether the individual mandate contained in the law was a tax hike.
“Republicans insisted that it was a tax increase, but the White House portrayed it as a penalty on the logic that the word “tax” has a negative connotation.
While the Obama administration touted nudge policies, others were hesitant to get on board.
““I am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies,” Michael Thomas, an economist at Utah State University, told Fox News in 2013.
““Ultimately, nudging…assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them.”” (Emphasis mine.)
The purpose of this post is to provide a simplified overview of behavioral science manipulation tactics being used and to make readers aware of “nudging”. The little pokes and prods to improve behavior sound benign:
“Sunstein defines nudges as “simple, low-cost, freedom-preserving approaches, drawing directly from behavioral economics, that promise to save money, to improve people’s health, and to lengthen their lives”—small pushes in the right direction, like a restaurant disclosing the calorie count of each dish so patrons are more likely to order healthy food, or a company setting up its 401(k) plan so employees are automatically enrolled in the savings program and must choose to opt out.”
– Lincoln Caplan, Cass R. Sunstein – Harvard Law School | Harvard Law School
Richard Thaler – Nudge: An Overview (youtube.com)
My concerns:
Who’s nudging me? Who’s arranging my choices? Who’s engineering my “choice architecture” and by what values?
Using motivational techniques most people respond to – such as the need to fit in with social norms to positively change people’s behavior, I’m OK with. Automatically enrolling employees in an optional 401(k), for instance, or easily allowing organ donors to opt out, I’m OK with. But what about the motivational techniques behind consequential choices like healthcare or the COVID vaccine or whether I need more government decision making in my life? Can I opt of the choices given me?
As employed by government policies and programs, behavioral science “nudging” seems to be making big government more attractive and more conducive for an individual to rely on government for more and more decision making. Nudge’s low intensity manipulation seems to always advance the goals of the federal government while couched in ways as helping people make good decisions. As such, “nudging” seems to be growing the Nanny State.
Certainly, there are concerns about the ethics of nudging. Nudges can engineer people’s choices to reach certain ends desired by a policy maker. A policy “choice architecture” can, by design, make certain options have a greater chance of being chosen. Ergo, the government should be transparent in its behavioral approaches to ensure that policymakers, media, and the public have the evidence they need to judge their merits. Yet, I don’t every government agency will be transparent with its manipulation or propaganda.
When nudging seeks to frame behavior with limited choices to achieve a political outcome, then formerly well-intentioned nudges give way to outright manipulation. We will then be influenced to do whatever those in power want done. Example: When “We’re all in this together” becomes the stigmatizing “The pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
What happens when the owners of a technocratic control group known as social media shrink your choice architecture” on the inter-web and you do not see all there is to know? Such frames are difficult to combat because we are not often presented with the alternative frame, and thus we often don’t realize how the frame we see affects our decisions.
When information leading to truth is censored by technocrats with government approval, tyranny is slowly being put in place to rob common people of their health, savings, freedoms, and their futures. In other words, “Freedom of choice be damned!”
You will want to read this>> Exposing The CIA’s Secret Effort To Seize Control Of Social Media | ZeroHedge
What happens when sensible “choice architecture” that nudges people toward the best decisions for themselves, their families, and society without restricting freedom of choice, shrinks to “choose this or else” as with a mandate? “Honey, they shrunk the Choice Architecture and have grown the size of their influence!”
A [San Francisco Democrat’s] bill before California lawmakers would require new cars sold in the state in coming years to beep a warning whenever drivers exceed the speed limit by at least 10 mph
New cars in California could alert drivers for breaking the speed limit – ABC News (go.com)
According to the write up, the signal can be turned off – the driver’s choice architecture.
~~~~~
More information:
Richard Thaler won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his “contributions to behavioral economics.”
Cass Sunstein is an American legal scholar known for his work in constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and behavioral economics. Cass R. Sunstein – Harvard Law School | Harvard Law School
“From 2009 to 2012, he was Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [under Obama], and after that, he served on the President’s Review Board on Intelligence and Communications Technologies and on the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board. Mr. Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and he has advised officials at the United Nations, the European Commission, the World Bank, and many nations on issues of law and public policy. He serves as an adviser to the Behavioral Insights Team in the United Kingdom.”
How Nudging Can Change Customer’s Behaviour – Radiant Copywriting
Frontiers | Nudge politics: efficacy and ethics (frontiersin.org)
Nudge and Nudging in Public Policy | SpringerLink
Nudging in Public Policy | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
Behavioural Insights Team: ethical, professional and historical considerations | Behavioural Public Policy | Cambridge Core
Nudge theory: what 15 years of research tells us about its promises and politics (theconversation.com)
Nudge theory doesn’t work after all, says new evidence review – but it could still have a future (theconversation.com)
Barriers to Converting Applied Social Psychology to Bettering the Human Condition (tandfonline.com)
There’s a backlash against nudging – but it was never meant to solve every problem | Cass Sunstein | The Guardian
Freedom and Flourishing: Is economics becoming a branch of psychology?
Nudge: How Small Changes Can Significantly Influence People’s Choices – Effectiviology
~~~~~
Winston Marshall Matters
Laura Dodsworth is a photographer, artist and author. In her most recent book Free Your Mind: The New World of Manipulation and How to Resist it, Laura draws on the Nudge Unit, behavioral psychology and fact checking services to analyze the range of ways in which our minds are manipulated. On the podcast, Laura talks about the government propaganda machine and how this all relates back to issues such as climate catastrophe, the pandemic and free speech.
Laura Dodsworth: How to protect yourself from government propaganda | The Spectator
Learn how to recognize and resist the daily attempts to control and manipulate your mind.
There is a war on for your mind. You may not notice, but you are surrounded by manipulators: advertisers, politicians, big tech, even the humble waiter who asks, ‘Still or sparkling?’
Free Your Mind is your field manual to surviving the information battlefield. In this indispensable book, Laura Dodsworth and Patrick Fagan draw on interviews with mind-control experts ranging from monks to magicians, infiltrate cults and forums to uncover their most deceptive techniques and expose the hidden tactics used to influence you, from social media to subliminal messages.
Free Your Mind: The must-read expert guide on how to identify techniques to influence you and how to resist them: Amazon.co.uk: Dodsworth, Laura, Fagan, Patrick: 9780008600945: Books
This is a book about fear. Fear of a virus. Fear of death. Fear of losing our jobs, our democracy, our human connections, our health and our minds. It’s also about how the government weaponised our fear against us – supposedly in our best interests – until we were one of the most frightened countries in the world.
A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic: Amazon.co.uk: Dodsworth, Laura: 9781780667201: Books
~~~~~
I have often posted about those who seek to engineer our lives – my previous post Central Planning or I Know What I Know?
I am cynical about those who seek to control us for “our own good.” There are always people in the world who want to manipulate and control others to have them make ‘better’ decisions, i.e., think like them. And this is true in the church:
There’s a growing list of the controlled opposition’s shaming screeds promoted on MSNBC to influence voters by making them feel morally superior if they make the ‘right’ choice: to not support and vote for Trump.
These Nudge-mental authors want to move you in the direction of being an ‘acceptable’ Christian and to be politically ‘acceptable’ in their eyes.
Tim Alberta and The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism, published December 5, 2023
Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman with White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy published on February 27, 2024
Jim Wallis: The False White Gospel: Rejecting Christian Nationalism, Reclaiming True Faith, and Refounding Democracy, published April 2, 2024
The After Party: Toward Better Christian Politics, Nancy French and Curtis Chang, based on project by David French, Russell Moore & Curtis Chang, published April 23, 2024
Ironically, these holier-than-MAGA disparagers no doubt benefitted from Trump’s presidency. There was peace and prosperity. There were no wars. Look at Trump’s Middle East peace deal. There was no invasion of our southern border. Inflation was around 2%. People had money to support themselves and to give to charitable causes like The Roy’s Report and The Trinity Forum, (where these guys hawk their wares.)
During those four years and since, these guys sit around and nitpick about people who are not like them at great benefit to themselves.
And please don’t tell me they are writing these things to protect Jesus from the rabble. “Put down your sword, Peter.” Jesus – very God – is not beholden to anyone for protection.
~~~~~
Well before Nudge, the book of Proverbs talked about those who act out of impulse, impatience, or ignorance. Proverbs talked about people who often make choices that are not the best or even good for them. What Does the Book of Proverbs Say About Fools? – Bible Gateway Blog
Wisdom was in place long before Nudge came along:
The Lord Created me [Wisdom] at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old, Proverbs 8:22-31
Wisdom, personified as a female in the book of Proverbs, aspires to produce much more than a nudge toward a rational self-interest maximizing approach to decision making. Wisdom’s desire is to expand one’s personal bandwidth with the experience of the knowledge and fear of God.
Wisdom wants you to tap into God’s creation.
Wisdom is coupled with humility – you don’t have all the answers. (I get the image of a wife telling her husband to ask for directions when they are lost.)
You can ask God for wisdom in your decision making and God will supply you with wisdom.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge Him,
and He will make your paths straight.
Be not wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and turn away from evil.
This will bring healing to your body
and refreshment to your bones. Proverbs 3:5-8
“The wise shall inherit glory (all honor and good) but shame is the highest rank conferred on [self-confident] fools.” Proverbs 3:35
“A foolish person will believe anything. But a wise person thinks about what he does.” Proverbs 14:15
You don’t need to be a tenuous reed in the wind, nudged in every direction. Seek wisdom from God.
~~~~~
Nudge them not before a TV screen:
“. . . while screen time may be harmless or even enriching in moderation, it’s still rife with pitfalls. Screens can tempt kids away from physical activity and imaginative play, for example, and could stunt development of critical skills like emotional self-regulation if overused.
“According to a new study, screen time for babies and toddlers is also linked to an additional risk many parents may not have considered: developing atypical sensory-processing behaviors. . .
“The behaviors include “sensation seeking” and “sensation avoiding” – when a child seeks out more intense sensory stimulation or is more averse to intense sensations, respectively – as well as “low registration,” a lower sensitivity or slower response to stimuli.”
Screen Time Could Have a Surprising Effect on Our Children’s Ability to Process Sensations : ScienceAlert
There be NO Health choice architecture if Dr. Tedros of the WHO becomes the health dictator:
Exposing WHO Chief Dr. Tedros: Militant Marxist and China Stooge (rumble.com)
The World Health Organization is working with the European Union to roll out international, interoperable digital IDs. If you go to the World Economic Forum website these digital IDs are touted as means to enrich our lives by making the following tasks easier: Accessing healthcare, opening a bank account, traveling, engaging in online transactions, accessing Medicare/Medicaid, voting, and paying taxes. Without these IDs, you won’t be able to do any of those things. Or, if you step out of line in some way (say, if a certain vaccine is mandated that you refuse), the WHO could interfere with your digital ID to limit your access to any of these very basic activities. (Emphasis mine.)
Reggie Littlejohn: “We Should All Be Worried About The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty”
Celebrity “Nudge-mentalism”:
Nudge-truth:
Rate this:
Filed under 2024 Current Events, Culture, social commentary, social engineering Tagged with behavioral economics, behavioral policy, behavioral science, Cass Sunstein, choice architecture, culture, Nudge, politics, Richard Thaler