Another very thought-provoking article. I am fascinating by the connections between behavioural economics and smart tech (and this is something which is central in Zufoff's 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism), but I think your discussion of robotics is important precisely because it raises the prospect of a more embodied form of social influence. The most arresting issue in this piece is the question of whether it matters if nudges are actually effective. I think that even if nudges are ineffective there are still ethical costs in their application. By treating people as flawed and utilising unconscious strategies of behavioural modification is it not possible that behavioural economics could contribute to the construction of the types of human subjects its theories predict. Perhaps I am over-estimating the power and influence of traditional mechanisms of behavioural economics, but in the age of the hyper-nudging this trend could become more realistic.
Another very thought-provoking article. I am fascinating by the connections between behavioural economics and smart tech (and this is something which is central in Zufoff's 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism), but I think your discussion of robotics is important precisely because it raises the prospect of a more embodied form of social influence. The most arresting issue in this piece is the question of whether it matters if nudges are actually effective. I think that even if nudges are ineffective there are still ethical costs in their application. By treating people as flawed and utilising unconscious strategies of behavioural modification is it not possible that behavioural economics could contribute to the construction of the types of human subjects its theories predict. Perhaps I am over-estimating the power and influence of traditional mechanisms of behavioural economics, but in the age of the hyper-nudging this trend could become more realistic.