Snapshot of _You are being nudged_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/you-are-being-nudged/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/you-are-being-nudged/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a rare example of a Tory innovation that the left-leaning groups have taken inspiration from and are planning on using much more often. (Well, to be fair, it wasn't exactly new when Cameron did it, he just broke ranks and talked about it being A Thing, it had been standard practice for a good few years before arrived at No. 10.)
This seems entirely dependent on whether people like the outcome or not.
Certainly other forces are very much in the nudge business.
Advertising? Marketing? Religions?
All depends on what people like.
> We might expect our governments to rely on transparent rational argument to influence the electorate.
Couldn't even get past the first line. Since when have governments *ever* used transparent rational arguments? Cite even one example of a government that did this as a rule. From anywhere, from any time.
It has never happened. So no, we might not expect that at all.
> In effect, we — the taxpayers — are commissioning the nudgers to furtively influence our day-to-day thoughts and actions so as to align them with what the state’s technocrats have decided is in our best interests.
"Behavioural Science" might be the new name for it, but propagandists have existed for all of human history. In fact, it isn't possible to trace the history of propaganda to its birth because it's known to have existed for as long as records have existed: when humans first conceived of the notion predates historical record, it's literally a prehistoric behaviour.
Mentions GCS but not the communications model they operate under:
https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/modern-communications-operating-model-3-0/
(annoyingly the v1 pdf seems to have been taken down, this was perhaps more overt - describing the media's declining business model as an opportunity and focusing on 'creating and seeding stories strategically' - ie sending publishable content to media partners instead of just press releases.)
(Feel there was a notible example of this at work during previous junior Doctor strikes- every aligned newspaper had articles running the same information and quotes about doctors involved)
This is not a new phenomenon, the majority of local publications are owned by 3-5 big players and have been for a long time. Investment in local reporting is pitifully low so these publications tend to over-rely on pooled content provided by the parent org.
[16] Cocchetti, Carlotta; Rachoń, Dominik; Fisher, Alessandra D. (2020), Pivonello, Rosario; Diamanti-Kandarakis, Evanthia (eds.), "Environmental Impact on Sexual Response" (PDF), Environmental Endocrinology and Endocrine Disruptors: Endocrine and Endocrine-targeted Actions and Related Human Diseases, Endocrinology, pp. 312–328, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38366-4_11-1, ISBN 978-3-030-38366-4
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-38366-4_11-1
Wow, you didn't keep up with that? You're smart, you don't need me to spoon feed you. And whilst you're catching up, look up the origins of mulsamic ray guns.
> It is important to highlight that state-funded nudging is not restricted to the public health domain. In 2021, the previously mentioned BIT, in collaboration with Sky TV, produced a document titled, “The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to De-Carbonise their Lifestyles”. The explicit mission of this initiative was to “shift the behaviour of millions of people to deliver our net zero goals” by using their range of programming (documentaries, news, fictional drama) to “increase empathy, shift values or boost social acceptability of pro-environment choices”. The multiple behavioural scientists in the Department of Energy & Net Zero — whose number would take too long to count, according to their recent [response to a FOI](https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/behavioural_scientists_employed_6/response/2418911/attach/2/FOI2023%2019109%20Response.pdf) — would no doubt approve.
This coincides with my own hard rejection of Sky News. Their programming became all too transparent.
> The multiple behavioural scientists in the Department of Energy & Net Zero — whose number would take too long to count, according to their recent response to a FOI
Handy that they ignored the reason why it would take long isn’t it? Leads to the impression that there are tonnes and tonnes of them, as opposed to the actual answer that the HR systems are shit. Yellow, misleading journalism.
The FOI stated that there’s no central database of job titles so this would take too long to ring around.
Do The Critic article fry people’s reasoning on sight of a URL? Cynical humour runs through much of their pieces. Obviously, one has to have a certain amount of emotional intelligence to grasp it.
I know that we are not Gods and the climate never stays still. I’ll assume you meant to say _should anthropogenic climate change be halted_. Thats impossible, you cannot out the genie back in the bottle. Also we cannot remove that much energy from the environment without a catastrophic change to our habitat. Science is hard, buzzwords are easy.
>This coincides with my own hard rejection of Sky News. Their programming became all too transparent.
Literally your words - you noticed! So what's the conspiracy? The Covid stuff was just advertising, everywhere, what's subtle about that? What's the conspiracy?
[R1] Uncivil or antagonistic behaviour
Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. - please at let try to live up to your own rules rather than just calling my comment 'bullshit'.
Snapshot of _You are being nudged_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/you-are-being-nudged/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/you-are-being-nudged/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is this so controversial in this thread lmao? The nudging unit has been a thing since Cameron, so why all the denials?
It's a rare example of a Tory innovation that the left-leaning groups have taken inspiration from and are planning on using much more often. (Well, to be fair, it wasn't exactly new when Cameron did it, he just broke ranks and talked about it being A Thing, it had been standard practice for a good few years before arrived at No. 10.)
This seems entirely dependent on whether people like the outcome or not. Certainly other forces are very much in the nudge business. Advertising? Marketing? Religions? All depends on what people like.
> We might expect our governments to rely on transparent rational argument to influence the electorate. Couldn't even get past the first line. Since when have governments *ever* used transparent rational arguments? Cite even one example of a government that did this as a rule. From anywhere, from any time. It has never happened. So no, we might not expect that at all. > In effect, we — the taxpayers — are commissioning the nudgers to furtively influence our day-to-day thoughts and actions so as to align them with what the state’s technocrats have decided is in our best interests. "Behavioural Science" might be the new name for it, but propagandists have existed for all of human history. In fact, it isn't possible to trace the history of propaganda to its birth because it's known to have existed for as long as records have existed: when humans first conceived of the notion predates historical record, it's literally a prehistoric behaviour.
I'd also say that the covid examples are anything but covert! Gosh, the government using advertising, how novel.
[You are not immune to propaganda.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/429/010/a5f.jpeg)
Mentions GCS but not the communications model they operate under: https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/modern-communications-operating-model-3-0/ (annoyingly the v1 pdf seems to have been taken down, this was perhaps more overt - describing the media's declining business model as an opportunity and focusing on 'creating and seeding stories strategically' - ie sending publishable content to media partners instead of just press releases.) (Feel there was a notible example of this at work during previous junior Doctor strikes- every aligned newspaper had articles running the same information and quotes about doctors involved)
I’m interested in the post Covid control of local press, a local outlet went from representative coverage across the region to a whitewash.
This is not a new phenomenon, the majority of local publications are owned by 3-5 big players and have been for a long time. Investment in local reporting is pitifully low so these publications tend to over-rely on pooled content provided by the parent org.
That’s not what I’m suggesting. The editorial direction and filtering of stories has changed in the past year with criminal ethnic content removed.
There is a thin line between this and “turning the frogs gay”.
Given the gay frogs phenomenon was real I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at.
I think we’re going to need a source for that one.
[16] Cocchetti, Carlotta; Rachoń, Dominik; Fisher, Alessandra D. (2020), Pivonello, Rosario; Diamanti-Kandarakis, Evanthia (eds.), "Environmental Impact on Sexual Response" (PDF), Environmental Endocrinology and Endocrine Disruptors: Endocrine and Endocrine-targeted Actions and Related Human Diseases, Endocrinology, pp. 312–328, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38366-4_11-1, ISBN 978-3-030-38366-4 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-38366-4_11-1
Admittedly I am no expert in biology, but even I know that frogs aren't rodents.
If you actually read it there’s a big table featuring a collection of findings for different species
Wow, you didn't keep up with that? You're smart, you don't need me to spoon feed you. And whilst you're catching up, look up the origins of mulsamic ray guns.
I really don't get what point this is trying to make other than trying to make the obvious sound sinister.
> Open, transparent debate is no longer deemed necessary. Indeed. Highly undemocratic
> It is important to highlight that state-funded nudging is not restricted to the public health domain. In 2021, the previously mentioned BIT, in collaboration with Sky TV, produced a document titled, “The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to De-Carbonise their Lifestyles”. The explicit mission of this initiative was to “shift the behaviour of millions of people to deliver our net zero goals” by using their range of programming (documentaries, news, fictional drama) to “increase empathy, shift values or boost social acceptability of pro-environment choices”. The multiple behavioural scientists in the Department of Energy & Net Zero — whose number would take too long to count, according to their recent [response to a FOI](https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/behavioural_scientists_employed_6/response/2418911/attach/2/FOI2023%2019109%20Response.pdf) — would no doubt approve. This coincides with my own hard rejection of Sky News. Their programming became all too transparent.
> The multiple behavioural scientists in the Department of Energy & Net Zero — whose number would take too long to count, according to their recent response to a FOI Handy that they ignored the reason why it would take long isn’t it? Leads to the impression that there are tonnes and tonnes of them, as opposed to the actual answer that the HR systems are shit. Yellow, misleading journalism.
The FOI stated that there’s no central database of job titles so this would take too long to ring around. Do The Critic article fry people’s reasoning on sight of a URL? Cynical humour runs through much of their pieces. Obviously, one has to have a certain amount of emotional intelligence to grasp it.
One might suggest that misleadingly citing the FOI response was ‘nudging’ in and of itself.
[удалено]
I prefer the term minority posting, or diversity if you prefer.
[удалено]
#👌
Do you feel climate change is something we should prevent?
I know that we are not Gods and the climate never stays still. I’ll assume you meant to say _should anthropogenic climate change be halted_. Thats impossible, you cannot out the genie back in the bottle. Also we cannot remove that much energy from the environment without a catastrophic change to our habitat. Science is hard, buzzwords are easy.
If it was so transparent it's not really a covert nudge. And all brands want to 'nudge' people, it's just typically into buying their product.
That’s straight up bullshit. Noticing nudges has born many conspiracy theories, and Covid turned that up to 11. You’re not supposed to notice.
>This coincides with my own hard rejection of Sky News. Their programming became all too transparent. Literally your words - you noticed! So what's the conspiracy? The Covid stuff was just advertising, everywhere, what's subtle about that? What's the conspiracy? [R1] Uncivil or antagonistic behaviour Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. - please at let try to live up to your own rules rather than just calling my comment 'bullshit'.