Are 'Nudging Technologies' Ethical?

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers are debating the ethics of so-called 'nudging technologies' — ambient technology systems designed to shape or influence human behavior, such as an installation which encourages people to take the stairs rather than the lift by using hanging colored balls to represent stairs vs lift usage. A researcher on the project said: 'Most people, when we asked them, "Do you think this has changed your behavior," they said no. But the data showed that it had actually done that.'"

Comments

advertisements

[cheeks5965]

Isn't this the goal of advertizing? To change people's behavior without them realizing it's being changed? Now we'll have all sorts of subliminal installations guiding us to the desired purchases.

Re:advertisements

[nospam007]

No I guess what works are things like Congestion Charge.
You have to pay 15 - 20$ to drive into the City.
It somehow 'discourages' you and if not, it will just be 95$ or whatever works.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

Isn't this the goal of advertizing?

Of course it is. And if "nudging technologies" are ethically questionable, then marketing is absolutely evil.

The marketing of today, including the so-called "neural marketing" has nothing to do with the simple advertising of half a century ago. When American industrialists were selling a middle-class lifestyle of new refrigerators, TVs, Fords and toothpaste to the wives of returning veterans of WWII, it was to help a nation that had developed enormous industrial and manufacturing capacity during the war transform itself into a consumer economy. Today, the techniques are far more sophisticated, to the point where it is pretty much impossible to resist.

I like to challenge people who say, "I don't let advertising influence me". Given a few minutes, and their honest answers to my questions, I can always come up with ways that not only has their buying patterns been influenced by advertising, but even their opinions about what is "good" and "bad" and what is "good design" vs "bad design". Do you think the iPhone has a more attractive design than another smartphone? Do you think a Lexus or Porsche has better design than Chevy? It's because of advertising. Why is "shiny" and "hard" considered superior to "matte" and "cushy" in handheld communications technology? Why is aluminum and glass better than plastic? Why do you think one "feels better" than another? Marketing, that's why.

Even ardent avoiders of advertising like me who don't own a television cannot help but be influenced by the ubiquitous marketing that we have today.

Re:advertisements

[endymion.nz]

"Do you think a Lexus or Porsche has better design than Chevy?"

Lexus are built by Toyota. Of course they are designed better than Chevy's.

Re:advertisements

[bhagwad]

"...she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of that choice at a near-unconscious level"

Sounds familar?

Re:advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

Would the plural not be lexi?

Re:advertisements

[SydShamino]

Doesn't that depend? Do you want the vehicle to accelerate when you press the pedal? Or do you want the vehicle to not accelerate when you don't press the pedal?

(I jest.)

Re:advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what?

I actually don't allow advertising crap to influence me.
Your whole argument is flawed by assuming that most people are idiots who will buy the next shiniest thing they see.
In fact, it reads like one of those "televisions are bad mmkay" posts.

Aluminum and glass are better than plastic because it is cooler. And by that, I don't mean the misuse of the term, I mean literally cooler. Cool hands make for good typing. Plus, crap plastic wears away quickly, which is what most things are made from.
But shiny is terrible. Matte screens are the only good screens.

I buy things that I actually want to use.
Advertisements just make my life easier to find things I am interested in.
And this is one of the reasons I actually LIKE advertising systems that cater to YOUR interests, because I am not a privacy freak who thinks the advertising industry are out to rape my family and lock me in the fiery pits of hell.
I actually research stuff before I buy things. I weigh out the specifications between as many similar things as possible to what I need.

Re:advertisements

[GameboyRMH]

Do you think a Lexus or Porsche has better design than Chevy? It's because of advertising. Why is "shiny" and "hard" considered superior to "matte" and "cushy" in handheld communications technology? Why is aluminum and glass better than plastic? Why do you think one "feels better" than another? Marketing, that's why.

Even ardent avoiders of advertising like me who don't own a television cannot help but be influenced by the ubiquitous marketing that we have today.

LOLWUT? There's a BIG difference between a Porsche Carerra R and a Chevy...anything.

For handheld design I prefer matte finishes, what does that say?

It's not all marketing, some of it is personal taste and objectively better design (not in looks - I find most Porsches ugly actually - but in mechanical design).

Re:advertisements

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I actually don't allow advertising crap to influence me... Advertisements just make my life easier to find things I am interested in.

*Smirk*

Re:advertisements

[obarel]

No, it's the fourth declension.

Re:advertisements

[cheekyjohnson]

I know I buy useless garbage that I see on commercials all the time, remember commercials for a long time (even though I forget what they were about almost instantly), and change my behavior (even though I don't). But they're clearly brainwashing me... even though they're not. They're magical!

Re:advertisements

[Gordonjcp]

Do you think a Lexus or Porsche has better design than Chevy?

Depends on the Chevy. If you mean American Chevy, then they're all equally bad. If you mean the Chevy-badged Daewoos then no, definitely not.

Porsches used to look cool but now they're rather bland-looking, and they've always had fundamentally broken handling. They're badly-designed, because the engine is at the wrong end, the drive axle is at the wrong end, and to make matters worse the weight of the engine and gearbox is *behind* the rear axle. Imagine you're playing darts. Hold a dart with the point towards you and throw it feathers-first at the dartboard. What happens? Did you notice how it flipped around in flight and stuck point-first into the dartboard? Things that are heavy at one end will try to ensure that the heavy end is in front. This has disasterous consequences for the poor old Porsche, which is constantly trying to rearrange itself so that the physics works - which invariably ends up with an excursion backwards through the hedge. No, the Porsche is a bad design, because it's designed with one forwards gear and five reverses.

Lexuses are well-designed, but they're well-designed in the way that Ikea furniture is well-designed. It's all very efficient and comfortable, but it's bloody boring. Let's face it - a Lexus is a minicab. It's always going to be a minicab, and no matter which Lexus you have you're always going to have a niggling suspicion in the back of your mind whenever you drive it that something is missing - like, three drunk young women on the way home from a hen night party, puking their Bacardi Breezers all over the back seat. So, the Lexus is a good design, but a dull one - and way too expensive for what it is.

Let's pick a particular Chevy - the Matiz. It's a small, light car, presumably designed for driving around in cities. Is it well-designed? Well, you only need to look at the list of other vehicles from the stables of Guigiaro - the original Mk1 VW Golf, the Fiat Uno, and the Alfa Romeo Alfasud. So, they obviously know how to do small cars, then. The one to go for is the 1l version which loses a little off the top speed (but it's a city car, so who cares) and is three seconds slower from 0 to 60mph (but, how often do you accelerate from a standstill to 60mph? Never, that's how often). To paraphrase a well-known quote, 67bhp ought to be enough for anybody, and the low exhaust emissions rating squeezes it into the cheapest road tax band - 35 quid a year. In realistic driving, the 1l version gets about 50mpg, pushing the fuel economy into Prius territory without all the nasty battery chemicals to lug around, and apparently you can order them with the Indian-market gas conversion for very clean emissions.

So, the tl;dr version is, yes. A Chevy is a more well-designed car than a Porsche or a Lexus.

Re:advertisements

[Grishnakh]

I like to challenge people who say, "I don't let advertising influence me". Given a few minutes, and their honest answers to my questions, I can always come up with ways that not only has their buying patterns been influenced by advertising, but even their opinions about what is "good" and "bad" and what is "good design" vs "bad design". Do you think the iPhone has a more attractive design than another smartphone? Do you think a Lexus or Porsche has better design than Chevy? It's because of advertising. Why is "shiny" and "hard" considered superior to "matte" and "cushy" in handheld communications technology? Why is aluminum and glass better than plastic? Why do you think one "feels better" than another? Marketing, that's why.

You've got a lot of loaded questions here that show bias on your part.

Do you think the iPhone has a more attractive design than another smartphone?

""Attractive" is in the eye of the beholder. Given that the iPhone sells well, I'd say most people think it's attractive. Then again, pop stars like Justin Bieber sell well, and his music is crap, so just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good, or that you'll like it too. However, you cannot deny that the iPhone revolutionized the smartphone UI and smartphone sales. Before the iPhone, all there was were some crappy WinCE phones and Crackberries, and they didn't sell all that well. iPhone changed all of that. Of course, now it's good good competition from the Android phones, but before the iPhone, it was considered normal to have to use a stylus to use your phone (WTF?).

Do you think a Lexus or Porsche has better design than Chevy?

Define "better". Does a Lexus or Porsche perform better than a Chevy? In most cases, yes (except for the Corvette). Is the Chevy more economical than the Porsche or Lexus? Yes. Is the Lexus or Porsche higher quality than the Chevy? Probably yes (though you have to define "quality" here; but generally Lexuses and Porsches, for instance, use much more expensive interior materials than Chevies. Who (except for a vegan freak) wants to sit in a car with cheap, hard plastic interiors rather than one with high-quality surfaces, leather upholstery, etc.? Now this doesn't mean you'll necessarily experience fewer defects with the Porsche, but there are two definitions of "quality": one concerns defects, the other concerns the niceness of materials. No one's going to buy a Chevy Aveo over a Porsche just because it might (for the sake of argument) have a lower likelihood of needing a warranty repair.

Why is aluminum and glass better than plastic?

That's the eye of the beholder thing mainly, but there's some other things: aluminum and glass are generally considered far more recyclable than plastic, so if you're into saving the planet, that might be a consideration. Plastic requires petroleum to make, the others don't (though the energy used to produce them frequently comes from petroleum, but it can come from any energy source, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.). Aluminum and glass tend to last much longer than plastic, as long as you don't break the glass (high-strength glass helps with this). Plastic tends to degrade in a few years and get brittle. Small parts made with plastic tend to break easily; not so with aluminum. Generally speaking, plastic is a shitty material compared to aluminum; its main benefit is that it's cheap, helped by the availability of cheap oil, and by the fact that it's easier to form due to injection molding.

Marketing is responsible for many things, but I think you're overstating it a little. Microsoft has been marketing their phones aggressively for years, including their latest iteration, and it isn't convincing many to buy them. Sometimes marketing helps, other times it doesn't because the product is just plain crap compared to its competition.

Re:advertisements

[Grishnakh]

But shiny is terrible. Matte screens are the only good screens.

Not exactly. Glossy screens transmit light better, and have a better picture. The problem is, they only have a better picture when they're brand-new and ultra-clean, and you can only see that better picture when there's zero glare (like in a dark room). Add in a few fingerprints, some dust, and some natural sunlight from a window, and the matte screen is a much better choice. It's a question of whether you have ideal conditions or real-world conditions.

Anyway, otherwise I completely agree with everything in your post, including the bit about advertising systems that cater to your interests (instead of, say, trying to sell you feminine hygiene products when you're a man). Without a certain amount of advertising, you simply can't find products you might be very interested in.

Re:advertisements

[TaoPhoenix]

Please try to follow your own instincts.
Energize your local community.
Parody the worst parts of culture so it can be improved.
Share your ideas with others.
It is important that you stay independent.

Re:advertisements

[gerddie]

Plastic requires petroleum to make,

Actually, plastic can also be made from hemp. Just saying.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

There's a BIG difference between a Porsche Carerra R and a Chevy

I'm not talking about the build quality or the quality control or anything that can be measured.

I'm talking about the visual design. Why do you prefer the visual design of a Porsche Carerra over a Chevy Malibu? Do you believe a Porsche Cayenne has some inherent visual qualities that make it superior to an, I don't know, pick some Hundai SUV.

The reason we believe one is more "beautiful" than the other is because a certain standard of beauty has been planted in us by marketing.

Back in the last century, the major auto companies would change the visual style of their automobiles every few years. One year it would bulbous. A few years later sleek. Then fins, then boxy, then bulbous, then curvy, then lozenge-shaped, rinse, repeat. Our concept of beautiful car would change because marketing would convince us so. And the car from four years ago that looks so beautiful now looked ugly as a girl from Manitoba.

Years later, we look back and see beauty in what we discarded as ugly. A 1960 Cadillac Coupe DeVille is stunningly beautiful today, but in 1976 you'd be embarrassed to drive one (unless you were 20 years old driving your dad's old car in which case you thought it was the coolest thing rolling).

Our standards of beauty are now set by marketing agencies working on behalf of their corporate clients. And nobody, not one person, is immune.

There are people who insist that they are not affected by advertising, but they always - every single time - turn out to be no more immune than the average person. Sometimes more so because of their arrogance.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

Define "better".

Exactly.

In most cases, our measure of "better" depends upon which marketing campaign got to us first.

Re:advertisements

[treeves]

You lost me with the bit about the young ladies vomiting in the back seat, but overall I like what you wrote.

Re:advertisements

[Grishnakh]

Yes, that's true. It's just not commonly done, and it doesn't help that we in the USA have a bunch of stupid laws that make it nearly impossible to grow hemp.

Re:advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not really. Toyota may be "BUILT" better than a Chevy, but not better designed. When you consider there are Toyota designs that were "designed" by GM, just built by Toyota.

Re:advertisements

[BornAgainSlakr]

You know, your point that everyone is influenced by marketing is well-taken, but your examples are horrible.

Do you think the iPhone has a more attractive design than another smartphone? Yes, I do. And your point? You cannot possibly believe that attractive design is based solely on marketing. For starters, Apple's marketing of the iPhone has exclusively focused on usability from day one. Every commercial for the iPhone and iPad has this premise: show what you can do with the device. It looks sexy in the commercials because it is sexy. The D&AD folks didn't give it a black pencil because of Apple commercials. Regardless of what you think of the iPhone from a technical standpoint, it did reboot the smartphone and deserves design accolades. However, you could ask: "Do you think Apple invented the smartphone and tablet computer?" That question would show how effectively Apple marketing is on most people.

Do you think a Lexus or Porsche has better design than Chevy? Which Lexus, which Porsche, and which Chevy? Porsche design is boring and uninspired. The Lexus IS 300 had some inspired design, especially the chronograph instrument cluster, but the Lexus SC is ugly as sin. The Corvette is always beautiful if you ignore the 80's and 90's, but the thin plastic bits on newer models that flex in a stiff breeze sort of ruins it a little. I can guarantee that I have been exposed to the same amount of Lexus, Porsche, and Chevy marketing as any five other random guys and we could spend the next decade debating the merits and flaws of all three car makers.

You could ask a question about car quality and innovation, but that would be a dumb question too since you are comparing a car maker that mostly caters to the low- to middle-end versus two car makers that cater to the high- to super-high end. Yes, all three have had quality issues, but you can't compare a plastic econo-box to a $30k+ luxury sedan or a $75k+ sports car made for the unlimited speed sections of the Autobahn. Hell, even the Corvette is, overall, of a lower quality than similar sports cars with the same price despite some impressive technical innovations Chevy has achieved in the Corvette over the decades.

Why is "shiny" and "hard" considered superior to "matte" and "cushy" in handheld communications technology? Why is aluminum and glass better than plastic? Why do you think one "feels better" than another? Why do you assume people unquestionably do not like plastic? Plastic doesn't have to look like crap; the iPhone 3G and 3GS were made with semi-gloss plastic backs that had a cushy feel (also, the back of the iPhone 1 was matte, not shiny). They still looked great. Saturn did a really good job of designing good looking cars. They were definitely not as sexy as any Nissan Z or a 60's Corvette, but they were good looking cars that also happened to appeal to a lot of people. Any stigma attached to plastic is basically rooted in it being the material of choice when you want to make something cheap. As a result, plastic is associated with a lot of cheaply built, generic looking, disposable things.

Re:advertisements

[Grishnakh]

Wrong. It depends a whole lot on your budget, and what things you value.

If you value having a super-fast car at any cost, you're going to get a Porsche (or better yet a Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc.). If you value having a car nearly as fast as a Porsche, but with a much crappier interior, but at a much more modest price because you're on a budget, you'll get a Corvette. If you value having economical transportation (since $60k might be "modest" compared to a Porsche 911, but not compared to a normal car), you might get a more run-of-the-mill Chevy instead, such as the under-$20k Cruze, but you certainly won't be winning any races with it.

If your goal is to have economical transportation, then the Chevy is "better". If your goal is to have a nice luxury car, the Lexus is "better" (there's no way a $15k Chevy is as luxurious as a Lexus). If your goal is to show off with a super-fast sports car even though you can't legally drive it at a decent speed in this country, the Porsche is "better".

It's all a matter of priorities. Marketing, no matter how clever, is NOT going to change your priorities. I don't care how clever some commercial is, it's not going to convince some rich dude to trade in his Lambo Gallardo for a Chevy Aveo. It's sort of like hypnotic suggestion. Go talk to a professional PhD psychologist about hypnotism, and they'll tell you that while you can sometimes put people into trances and get them to tell you stuff, you simply cannot get them to do stuff that is against their values. For instance, you could hypnotize some woman, and then try to get her to do or say something sexual in a trance, but if she's a total prude (and it's not just an act, she really believes that way), she's simply not going to do it in the trance. It's the same way with advertising. They can "nudge" you one way or another perhaps, like getting you to consider car model Y instead of its very similar direct competitor model X, but if you're like me, for instance, and hate SUVs, no marketing in the world will convince you to sell your small car and buy a Hummer.

Re:advertisements

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Do you believe a Porsche Cayenne has some inherent visual qualities that make it superior to an, I don't know, pick some Hundai SUV.

Bad example.

The Cayenne is terribly fugly - it looks like a combination of all the bad design elements of any SUV and a regular porsche. I doubt anyone thinks it looks good. At least not the way many people think Porsche two-seaters look good (even those fugly whale-tale porsches look better than a Cayenne). Plus, the first couple of generations of the Hyundai Santa Fe were much better looking than the Cayenne, although the current model is just boring with no recognisable inheritance from the prior generations.

A 1960 Cadillac Coupe DeVille is stunningly beautiful today,

Not so much. Iconic, yes, but not beautiful, much less stunningly so.

Re:advertisements

[realityimpaired]

I actually don't allow advertising crap to influence me.

Hehe... if you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you....

Seriously, advertising is so ubiquitous that it is practically impossible to not be exposed to it on a daily basis. How can you possibly believe that it has never influenced your decision-making process on every single purchase you have ever made?

I freely admit that advertising does affect my decision making process... though I will also point out that it doesn't always affect it in the way the advertisers want: if I see an ad telling me I should buy a Ford because Chevrolet keeps falling apart, I will make a conscious point of avoiding everything with the Ford name on it. Doesn't really happen that much in automotive advertising, but happens all the time in food and domestic product advertising... tell me why I *should* buy your product, don't waste my time telling me why I *shouldn't* buy the competition's. There is something to be said for countries where negative advertising like that is illegal....

Re:advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the tax law as well. It's more of a social engineering tool than a method for raising revenue now.

Re:advertisements

[realityimpaired]

It does depend on the car, though. Lexus and Porsche do make cars that are "fun" to drive, but I agree with you that none of them are even close to value for money when you consider what you can get for less than half the cost.

For example, I am at a complete loss as to why the folks from Top Gear don't buy an entry level Subaru Impreza for their "reasonably-priced car". It is not significantly more expensive than the Kia they're using right now (only about £1000 more, if I reckon the conversion right, though I am basing it off Canadian pricing, and what I paid for my 2011 Impreza in February), but it is a far more enjoyable car to drive. It is better designed for driving fast, it gets decent fuel economy, it handles very well, and it is simply fun to drive (added bonus: it has a traction control off button that actually kills the traction control). The Mitsubishi Lancer is just as fun to drive, and in the same price range, though the base Lancer isn't all-wheel drive like the Subaru.

And both the Impreza and Lancer are far better designed than anything I have ever seen with a Chevy badge on it, even the rebranded Daewoo cars. (I traded up from a 2007 Chev Aveo to the Impreza, so I actually owned one of the rebranded Daewoos for 4 years)

Re:advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the reason you think that advertising is influencing people is because you're using stupidly vague definitions.

"Does a Lexus have better design than a chevy". What's "design"? Are we talking about mechanical design, the electrical design, the aesthetics? What's "better"? Is aerodynamic better? Is bigger better? Is smaller better?

The reason someone thinks that aluminum and hard is better than matte and cushy could be due to marketing... or it could be personal preference regardless of marketing, or it would be a well reasoned answer with lots of evidence.

Re:advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

How convenient for you! Instead of agreeing to disagree, you can instead devalue peoples' legitimately held opinions simply by ascribing them entirely to the malevolent plans of evil advertisers! Oh, and interesting that you say the 1960 Coup DeVille is "stunningly beautiful" today because I think it looks like ass today. I'll even go further: I'd say a Volvo S60 and a '69 Mustang both look better. But of course, you won't believe that I've reached that decision by myself because you can claim that I've been hypnotised by Volvo and Ford's marketing departments...

But how does it work when I say I prefer the look of a Lamborghini Murciélago to that of a Lamborghini Gallardo? Who's evil marketing department am I beholden to then?

Re:advertisements

[LordLimecat]

Today, the techniques are far more sophisticated, to the point where it is pretty much impossible to resist.

Surely a statement that bold requires a source or study. I dont find it impossible to resist; my TV intake consists almost exclusively of netflix, and the normal TV I DO watch tends to have advertising that I dont find it hard at all to resist.

Im sure you could respond "oh, but you ARE affected"; but again, I would expect you to have something more than gut feeling backing up your statement.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

I dont find it impossible to resist; my TV intake consists almost exclusively of netflix, and the normal TV I DO watch tends to have advertising that I dont find it hard at all to resist.

Oh, but you ARE affected.

If we could talk face to face for about ten minutes, I could identify a dozen ways your tastes, preferences, likes and dislikes, political opinions, even specific sexual preferences have been affected by marketing.

There are a lot of people who, like you, find it hard to accept that it's just more powerful than you are. It seems to be a macho thing. I've had this discussion with lots of friends, colleagues, students in my classes, and it's only certain males that find the need to assert that they are somehow immune.

Advertising is one of the most researched fields in human history. The technology currently in use is mil-spec. You can't resist advertising any more than you could resist a unit of Army Rangers.

I'd go so far as to say even your desire to display an invulnerability to advertising makes you particularly vulnerable to marketing designed for people who like to view themselves as invulnerable to advertising. There's probably an entire department at the biggest agencies that target the macho geek demographic so they can sell them Leatherman multi-tools.

Re:advertisements

[Culture20]

Why is "shiny" and "hard" considered superior to "matte" and "cushy" in handheld communications technology? Why is aluminum and glass better than plastic?

Humans have liked shiny and hard for thousands of years, else precious metals and gemstones would have been worthless until the industrial age, when uses for highly ductile metals and abrasive diamond dust were discovered.

Re:advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have to argue that the design of Porsche cars is inherently beautiful. I had never seen a Porsche ad in my life until recently and always thought the 911 was beautiful. Not every decision about everything is from advertising. Sometimes a product really is better because of the materials it is made out of and the design. Some designs are clearly better than others. What is hard to determine is what the (extra)value of the better product is. Marketing might try and make you think that the actually better product is worth spending the extra money on, I agree. To say that all products are equal and the only difference is marketing is complete bullshit though.

Re:advertisements

[adamofgreyskull]

Today, the techniques are far more sophisticated, to the point where it is pretty much impossible to resist.

Surely a statement that bold requires a source or study.

He quite reasonably asked you to cite a source or a study, and you replied with a lot of flim-flam and bluster, to wit:

If we could talk face to face for about ten minutes, I could identify a dozen ways your tastes, preferences, likes and dislikes, political opinions, even specific sexual preferences have been affected by marketing.

That's never going to happen so your claim will go untested. If we could talk face to face for about ten minutes, I could prove you are harbouring psychotic and homocidal thoughts towards Brad Pitt. Oh look, that proves that you have psychotic and homocidal thoughts towards Brad Pitt, right? Right?

Advertising is one of the most researched fields in human history.

Source?

The technology currently in use is mil-spec.

Source?

You can't resist advertising any more than you could resist a unit of Army Rangers.

Bullshit. Source?

There are a lot of people who, like you, find it hard to accept that it's just more powerful than you are. It seems to be a macho thing

Out of interest, exactly why do you feel the need to ram down everyones' throats just how controlled by marketing they are?

I'd go so far as to say even your desire to display an invulnerability to advertising makes you particularly vulnerable to marketing designed for people who like to view themselves as invulnerable to advertising.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Maybe he was just refuting your assertion that today's marketing techniques are "pretty much impossible to resist"? For all your bullshit carnival-hawker bluster, you've failed to back up your assertion with a shred of proof. No doubt he is affected by some advertising, that doesn't prove that he is incapable of resisting any and all advertising.

There's probably an entire department at the biggest agencies that target the macho geek demographic so they can sell them Leatherman multi-tools.

No fucking doubt. And?

Re:advertisements

[IICV]

Years later, we look back and see beauty in what we discarded as ugly. A 1960 Cadillac Coupe DeVille is stunningly beautiful today, but in 1976 you'd be embarrassed to drive one (unless you were 20 years old driving your dad's old car in which case you thought it was the coolest thing rolling).

Our standards of beauty are now set by marketing agencies working on behalf of their corporate clients. And nobody, not one person, is immune.

What the hell are you talking about? That car just screams zeerust - I mean, look at those ridiculous fins! Even if it could go particularly fast (yeah right), I doubt they'd do anything useful. And that oversized grill! There's no way the engine needs that much cooling, it just looks ridiculous, and it's going to kill your already shitty mileage. And mileage is going to be a problem - the whole thing is so goddamn huge despite seating what, four or five people? What's the rest of that weight for, to make Saudi Arabia happy in a decade, when the cost of oil spikes up? You could fit a whole family of dead bodies in that trunk, except you'd have to climb in yourself to put the last ones in because that thing is going to be cavernous!

Basically, that thing is a boat that somehow sprouted wheels and decided to wander around on land. If that failure of design was an important part of the history of American car aesthetics, then there's a really good reason why all the American car manufacturers went out of business a few decades later.

As to the point of your post: as counter-evidence, I provide you with the Pontiac Aztek. If marketers really had as much sway as you seem to believe, then that thing would have sold; instead, it was panned as the ugliest car ever. How does your theory explain that?

Re:advertisements

[MaskedSlacker]

You're sounding about as rational as Freud. You obviously can't be wrong, because you can just make up anything to prove you right, and you can do it without even interrupting your cocaine habit.

Re:advertisements

[smellotron]

There's probably an entire department at the biggest agencies that target the macho geek demographic so they can sell them Leatherman multi-tools.

No fucking doubt. And?

And a Leatherman is a nice fucking multi-tool to have around. Mine has lasted for almost a decade now, and it gets weekly use.

Re:advertisements

[jon_doh2.0]

Very clever, big clap.

Re:advertisements

[noodler]

If people tell each other that they "represent a grey ball" if they take the elevator then the information system is not subliminal in any way.
In fact, these bright students are researching the influence of signs like "please take the stairs" on people. It's just that the language of the signs is a bit obfuscated.
But i don't think anyone will misunderstand the 'nudge' of a trail of lights pointing you in a certain direction.

Honestly, I think this is just one big excuse to play around with cool stuff.
Any of these 'games' could have non-electronic counterparts that would give the same information (and presumably influence the behavior in a similar manner).
And there is no mention of the 'play' element.
The fact that people will (and of course they will) make a game out of it amongst themselfs.
I've seen this happen over different subjects in the past, none of which included technology in any way.

So i think they are needlessly mixing in the notion of technology into what is a social process that will work with or without gadgetry.
And despite the article mentioning some discussion about ethics there is no mention of it being a research goal in any way.

I mean, this is nothing new, is it?
Sensors prompting you about your posture?
Come on. How is this different from any other behavioural feedback system?
Games have been doing it for decades.
It's your environment giving you extra information about you.
In nature it's nothing new, think of the color of wasps and bees. Think of the colors and smells of flowers.
Signaling is a basic tool in nature and humans are no exception.
The basis for such behavior is not technology.
Any informational system will have this kind of influence on humans.
And using technology for signaling is nothing new as well.

I don't see anything spectacular here to justify a news article about it.
In fact, i'm a bit disappointed by the level at which this research is conducted.
There must be better and more interesting uses, by now, for social/informational feedback systems.

Re:advertisements

[Ed_1024]

I think there's a fair amount of truth in the argument that advertising is becoming more and more irresistible. Go back half a century and an advert would mostly consist of plain product information, maybe with an exhortation to buy: "Use Footso for the foot!" or "Try ACME Wonder Biscuits - they're really rather good!"

Now we have advertising that is so subliminal ("Cillit Bang" excepted) that you are often hard pressed to identify the product and/or manufacturer. Many of us believe that when we purchase something, we clear our minds of commercial interference and choose a product based on only our personal and private needs and wants. But is that actually true? Have our innermost desires been subtly influenced by exposure to very low-level persuasion, sneaking in under the radar to become part of us? How would we know?

I also think that modern, mature consumers have developed the psychic equivalent of immune systems against the constant wash of promotion - which is why advertising directed at children should be strictly controlled as they haven't developed/inherited much in the way of defences yet. I feel we're some distance along the road to almost irresistible advertising: one exposure and you're pretty well hooked, like crack cocaine...

Re:advertisements

[Frnknstn]

Advertising is even more pervasive than you say: even magpies prefer shiny coins to dull ones. Guess that proves that advertising if for the birds.

Okay, seriously, you are overstating your point. You are ignoring our innate sense of taste, which affects our opinion of design and utility. You are also ignoring the fact that it is our culture, not advertising, that informs most of our purchasing choices. Yes, advertising influences culture, but it is just one input in the massive machine that is society.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

Humans have liked shiny and hard for thousands of years

That explains why teddy bears are so popular with the kids. And puppies. And kittens.

Admit it, when you see shiny and hard and super-thin, you immediately think "high tech". Why?

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

Bullshit. Source?

Sure.

See:

The Commercialization of American Culture - New Advertising, Control and Democracyby Matthew P McAllister, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

You will find his argument and data quite persuasive.

Re:advertisements

[GameboyRMH]

Cayenne? That car's an ugly fucker, and not the only one Porsche makes. Most of their other current cars are "just OK." The only one I like the look of is the 918 Spyder, which isn't even in production yet.

Styles do go around and I don't like all of them. I hate bulbous cars, and I think Chris Bangle started that in the early 2000s, with the rest of the industry copying the Emperor even though he was wearing no clothes - although increasing safety standards played a part too.

Since I was a kid, the cars I've found good looking have never really changed. Apart from maybe some silly Hot Wheels cars I thought were cool as a kid and realize are silly now, I've always liked the same cars, mostly those with '70s or mid '80s-early '90s styling, although I also like some of the recent cars and concepts that copy the styling of 2000s sportbikes, like the new Mazda3, Evo 10 and Kia Koup (which would all be very good looking cars if they were more compact - they have good styling but are too "bloated") and the Toyota FR-S 2 (Scion FR-S) concept, which I might buy if it makes it to production with good specs (especially the low weight they've been promising).

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

You are ignoring our innate sense of taste

I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as an "innate sense of taste".

Beyond maybe a fear of snakes and falling, all of our personal preferences are learned behaviors.

Re:advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the goal of advertizing? To change people's behavior without them realizing it's being changed? Now we'll have all sorts of subliminal installations guiding us to the desired purchases.

Much of the advertising these days is buying the media companies so they will run only favorable or at worst, neutral stories on your activities.

Do you think all the Bank ads really get many people to open accounts, switch banks or take out loans? Mostly people bank where it's convenient or they comparison shop for rates, I would guess. Seen many negative stories targeting the activities of these big banks? Maybe a few, but considering the big banks were at least largely complicit in the destruction of the economy, you'd think you'd see a lot more of this.

How about Pharmaceuticals? There's a popular ad now for an asthma drug that is only to be used if another asthma medication doesn't control your condition and one of the prominent downsides of this medication is "risk of death". That drug has a tiny market, but they do huge TV media buys in prime time to hawk it and other drugs that all still require your Doctor to approve. See many negative stories on TV news about drug companies?

Image advertising for organizations like GE and Insurance companies, where they are just trying to put a pleasant face on themselves, is similar. Those don't sell anything at all, but they might make a news organization think twice about running unfavorable stories.

So, yes, a lot of advertising is about changing behavior, but it's not subliminal.

Re:advertisements

[jsvendsen]

No, that's an incentive. A nudge, at least as defined by this book, are changes in the way choices are presented that might affect humans, but would have no effect on the kind of purely rational agents that are described by much of econ theory.

Re:advertisements

[jsvendsen]

[citation needed]

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

[citation needed]

How about a citation showing that there is such a thing as an "innate sense of taste"? That was the assertion of the GP. And he was not referring to the taste done with the tongue. He was referring to the "taste" that tells people they should not wear polka dots with stripes.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

Styles do go around

What better example of how our sense of beauty is wholly created by marketers these days?

There are certainly those of us who try to attain a sense of platonic beauty - the beauty of form, of proportion, etc. But I don't believe that any of us are completely immune to current marketing techniques.

By the way, what did you think of the old Toyota MR-2? I had one and I loved that little mid-engine go-kart. I thought it was beautiful and I never understood why Toyota dropped it. It seemed pretty popular at the time.

Re:advertisements

[GameboyRMH]

I like those, I'd buy one right now if I could. In terms of looks, they were pushing the limits of boxyness dangerously close to the ugly zone, but they're still good looking cars IMO.

Re:advertisements

[Gordonjcp]

It's a Lexus, therefore it's a taxi. Unless you really want to look like you ought to be ferrying drunk people home from the pub every weekend night, get something better.

Re:advertisements

[toddestan]

Well, marketing doesn't always work out. My opinion of the Aztek is that it's bad looks are very overrated. It's not a very good looking vehicle, but really it's just a fish in the sea of ugly that's modern car design. But overall, people seem to accept the bland ugliness that comes out of Detroit (and overseas) nowadays.

Re:advertisements

[LordLimecat]

Heres the problem-- you stated, without knowing me or anything about me, that I am undeniably affected by the advertisements around me. You could pull up a dozen studies about how great current advertising is, and STILL not have good backing for that statement-- because I have never participated in such a study, and you are extrapolating information about me that you simply cannot have.

For instance-- there are basically 2-3 brands that I actually care about, and none of them do advertising (kingston, logitech, possibly lenovo)-- my love for them has come from long time use and customer support (no questions asked cross shipping, rapid response, etc). My beverages are generic, my food is generic, my furniture is ikea, and my car is ancient. My desire to change any of them is practically nil.

I suppose you could once again claim that I am suppressing such reactions and that the desires are lurking in my subconscious, but at that point there is nothing anyone could say that would convince you otherwise, because you have ventured in to a hypothetical realm of unprovables, unfalsifiables, and untestables (unless you have a way to dive into my subconscious to fish out what brand of italian suit I truly crave). At some point, it really is time to retract statements that reach way too far.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

you stated, without knowing me or anything about me, that I am undeniably affected by the advertisements around me.

Since everyone is thus affected, I was making a prediction with a probability of 1.0.

I suppose you could once again claim that I am suppressing such reactions and that the desires are lurking in my subconscious

Well, it would be redundant, since you have already stated it.

At some point, it really is time to retract statements that reach way too far.

Absolutely. I'm happy to do so, if like Diogenes seeking the One Honest Man, my lamp's light should ever fall upon the person who is completely unaffected by modern marketing techniques. If I should ever find him, I'm betting that it will not be someone who broadly claims such immunity.

People who express such certainty of their own compass are probably the easiest pickings for the marketeers.

Re:advertisements

[LordLimecat]

Im not sure where to begin with the odd mix of fallacies and flaws in your post. You beg the question, claim to have knowledge without demonstrating a source (how do you KNOW that it has a probability of 1.0?), and act like you can exhaustively prove something outside the realm of logical reasoning-- as if empirical evidence could EVER prove something with a "probability of 1.0".

my lamp's light should ever fall upon the person who is completely unaffected by modern marketing

Ah, but you wont-- you are using some odd type of reasoning where you have declared that all are affected, and those who claim not to be affected are even more affected, and that because all are affected they are unable to see it-- and all this, because you have declared it so. Having never met me nor knowing anything about my preferences, you had immediately declared that I am nevertheless affected; how then could anyone convince you otherwise?

Re:advertisements

[jsvendsen]

Oh, I'm not saying that there necessarily is, just that announcing that there is not seems like an extremely bold claim with little supporting evidence. Your comparison with the "other" taste is interesting, because attraction-repulsion responses in infants when exposed to gustatory stimuli are well documented. The presence of innate preferences in one form of stimuli indicate to me that other innate preferences are more likely to exist than not. (Some evidence appears to exist for color preference in infants, for instance.)

The assertion of the GGP was that since there are animals that prefer one thing to another thing based on shininess, and since those animals are not exposed to advertising, it might also be possible for a human to prefer something over something else because of shininess or whiteness or stripedness or anything that is not advertising. It's a pretty benign claim.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

Your comparison with the "other" taste is interesting

It wasn't really a comparison, rather a distinction. I'm pretty dubious about an innate taste for open-toed shoes, Les Pauls over Stratocasters, or avocado and gold refrigerators (you'd have to be over 35 to get that reference).

But the color preference is very interesting. It might explain why red cars on the cover always sell more car magazines.

Re:advertisements

[jsvendsen]

I'm pretty dubious about an innate taste for open-toed shoes [...]

To that level of specificity, certainly. I'd probably argue that those "tastes" are more likely to be rooted in a (quite possibly innate) taste for conformity.

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

those "tastes" are more likely to be rooted in a (quite possibly innate) taste for conformity

Now THAT is an interesting question: Are we born with an instinct for conformity? Is not conforming an evolutionary trait which improves success?

There's a lot there to think about.

Re:advertisements

[Captain.Abrecan]

That is a very interesting observation. I had not thought about the styles of automobile manufacture being controlled by marketing. I tend to like the build quality more than anything else, and that makes or breaks a vehicles potential beauty from my perspective. I really like the Ford Five Hundred, for example. I find that the interior panels of the cabin, although dull in their shape, fit together with no gaps. the lines seem to fit together in a way that makes the cabin feel solid, without touching it to experience it's structure. It is perplexing, I find the design to be beautiful even though the styling is devoid of any flow between accents and without any romantic curves. The parts are well toleranced and well insulated, so I enjoy the interior more than a Chevy Cobalt, which has loose-fitting components that warp over time as well as rattle. I think that most people have issues analyzing interior cabin spaces. For instance, Wards interior design awards gave a win to the Chevy Equinox in 2010 for the 'popular truck under $39k' category. http://www.autoblog.com/photos/review-2010-chevrolet-equinox/#2362381 When I look at the interior, I notice many mistakes. The dash electrical panel is accented by silver plastic/brushed nickel, however the other panels are trimmed in black plastic. This inconsistency extends to feature trim as well; features like the cup holders are trimmed in chrome, but the air vents and gauges are not. In fact, some air vents are trimmed in black plastic, and some are trimmed in brushed nickel/silver plastic. Although the flowing lines of the panels use black plastic as a border during the transition from the door panels to the dashboard, the flow stops at the dashboard console. It then uses silver plastic to border the lines as they transition to the shifter panel, which has a distinct break in flow and feature trim (accented in chrome, not silver plastic). To me, the whole thing is atrocious. But it won an award, so what do I know?

Re:advertisements

[PopeRatzo]

To me, the whole thing is atrocious. But it won an award, so what do I know?

You should know that the awards are a marketing device.

I can find several 2010 trucks under 39k that I believe are designed better than the Equinox.

But so many of the design decisions are made for what you and I might consider the wrong reasons.

Re:advertisements

[a_nonamiss]

You may have made a conscious decision to not let advertising affect you, but there isn't a person in the world that isn't affected by advertising. (I'm assuming that since you post on slashdot, you're not a member of an elusive tribe in South America that hasn't encountered modern civilization.)

The truth is, if you've ever opened your eyes in public, your actions have been influenced. Maybe not on a conscious level, but your actions have doubtless been influenced in some way. Maybe you saw an attractive girl on a billboard and your eyes lingered a bit longer than normal. Then next time you want a beer your mind subconsciously wanders back to that woman and that's the brand of beer you end up buying. You don't think "hey they had a pretty girl on their ad, so I"m buying their beer" but their ad was effective nonetheless.

In addition, there are other ways besides sex of influencing you. Maybe some image subconsciously makes you feel inadequate because you don't use Tide with Bleach, or because your kids don't eat Jif peanut butter. I understand, and share, your anti-consumer mindset, but the truth is, you just can't avoid advertising in modern culture. And if you're telling yourself that you are, you're probably missing the tricks that are being played on you right now.

Re:advertisements

[treeves]

I see. So, in the UK, Lexus is associated with being a taxi. In the US, that is not the case. Lexus is the luxury (higher end) brand of Toyota and is a common family sedan or SUV. Taxis here are typically domestic sedans (Ford or GM) AFAIK, although I don't have much experience using taxis so I could be wrong.

Re:advertisements

[Gordonjcp]

What you tend to find is that someone buys a Lexus as a company car (often through a leasing company). After a year or two, it's no longer a Brand New Lexus, and the price drops dramatically. Since it's still under warranty and a bloody good car to begin with, they're a very cost-effective buy - and with the reputation for reliability, that's what you want in a taxi; something cheap and reliable that's not going to cost you money while preventing you earning money.

Brand new Lexuses are quite expensive in the UK. Second-hand Lexuses cost less than the Toyota equivalent model.

Is this actually a question?

[RoverDaddy]

It's not even really a question in the study being described. From TFA:

"There's lots of discussion about nudging technologies - whether it's ethical, whether it's not - but people still get to choose,"

There, that's as much as TFA talks about ethics.
How about asking whether -advertising- is ethical? At least these 'nudging technologies' are intended to -help- the person affected.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[geekoid]

To be pedantic, Those nudging technologies are being used to help people..but they could also be used for many things. They're tools.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[jmorris42]

> How about asking whether -advertising- is ethical?

Exactly the right question. Strip away the tech angle and this is just basic marketing being practiced. And that ship has sailed, for good or ill we aren't getting rid of advertising and marketing... even if it were possible to do so.

> At least these 'nudging technologies' are intended to -help- the person affected.

Said he who considers himself superior to the lesser beings being nudged. I'll be the judge of what is good for me and you figure out what is best for you. Now toss me another Brawndo will ya.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[hardwarejunkie9]

Advertising *is* nudging, no question. It frequently manipulates decisions instead of persuading.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[psithurism]

I was thinking along the lines of management coming in and saying:
"Either we hang some colored lights around that will make you feel like taking the stairs or we put: 'Take the stairs rather than the elevator whenever possible' on your list of yearly goals."
I would really prefer the former. Just because I don't think that colored lights encourage me to take the stairs doesn't mean its unethical for them to do so. Balls that light up depending on whether or not I'm being green or not are preferable to most of the creepy posters companies already put up in order to influence my behavior.

Personally I think the employees are right. I don't think the color of an art piece would make me change whether I take the stairs or not, but the reminder that I'm making a choice about it would definitely make consciously choose, rather than defaulting to the more convenient elevator. Also the implication that management prefers the stairs over the elevator would be a strong influence on me.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[Java Pimp]

... They're tools.

The people or the technology?

Re:Is this actually a question?

[SEWilco]

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
If you know what I mean.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[benhattman]

> At least these 'nudging technologies' are intended to -help- the person affected.

Said he who considers himself superior to the lesser beings being nudged. I'll be the judge of what is good for me and you figure out what is best for you. Now toss me another Brawndo will ya.

I think you're saying this sarcastically, but I never really understood the people who actual make these kinds of arguments. Sure, there are many topics where we may all disagree. But if there's a simple nudge that helps people eat more vegetables and less sweets, then who can honestly be against that. And, I'm not just saying it because I think all those fat people need the help. As a decently healthy adult, I don't think it is a bad thing if I am nudged towards a healthier diet or a little more physical activity or using less electricity. Those are all things I want to do, but I can still use the help so long as it doesn't feel intrusive.

In short. Libertarians - BAH!

Re:Is this actually a question?

[Darinbob]

I'd have just put some fake rubber vomit on the escalator then see how many people take the stairs instead.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[cheekyjohnson]

How about asking whether -advertising- is ethical?

Ethical by whose standards?

Re:Is this actually a question?

[jmorris42]

> But if there's a simple nudge that helps people eat more vegetables and less sweets,
> then who can honestly be against that.

I'm all for people making the argument you should eat more vegetables, hell if I'd eaten a few more and chugged a few less Cokes I might not have been diagnosed with diabetes this month. We should be openly debating ideas. Where I get creeped out is when the do gooders don't want to reason anymore, they want to do the jedi mind trick. Same for marketers who don't do straight up ads extoling the product, they do these brand identity ads that slither into yer mind while you aren't paying attention. What especially sucks is that stuff actually works and not just on 'weak minds' but even stronger ones if you aren't alert and watching for the crap, which was what the Brawndo reference was about. Even if you think you are too smart to fall for that marketing hooey you will probably fall for one you didn't notice and wind up not only drinking Brawndo but using the slogan in ordinary conversation.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[DarkIye]

At least these 'nudging technologies' are intended to -help- the person affected.

A proponent of the product being advertised would say that the affected person was being helped, because their product's so awesome. In fact, that's just what's happening in this supposedly less 'ethically questionable' example. Not to denigrate it (it is cool), but this appears to be (on the ethical level) another form of advertising.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not intending to be crass, but I dont care shit about intensions to "help" (road to hell...).

Re:Is this actually a question?

[russotto]

Where I get creeped out is when the do gooders don't want to reason anymore, they want to do the jedi mind trick.

I prefer that to the usual do-gooder alternative, which is force. The Jedi mind trick I can recognize and ignore (especially since the do-gooders are rarely subtle about it). Force can only be countered with sneakiness or more force, both of which can be beaten with yet more force.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[IhateMonkeys]

It's what plants crave.

Now excuse me, I'm off to Starbucks for a handjob.

Re:Is this actually a question?

[Snaller]

But advertising isn't - so thats a wasted discussion.

Short answer: no

[Anonymous Coward]

Are signs suggesting people take the stairs unethical?
Are seatbelt laws unethical?
How do you really wrest an ethical dilemma out of something like this?

Re:Short answer: no

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of libertarians will shortly show up to argue that seatbelt laws are unethical.

Re:Short answer: no

[RoverDaddy]

Well seat belt laws go beyond advice and suggestion to the point of coercion (i.e. Don't do what -we- think is good for -you- and you will be punished), so I don't think that's a good example. But as far as this topic goes, I agree. No ethical issue at all.

Re:Short answer: no

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're answering the wrong question. You're answering whether these uses are ethical; the real question is whether the tools are.

Re:Short answer: no

[lgw]

"Follow this safety procedure or we'll kill you" does seem remarkable popular reasoning these days. But here there's no threat, no donside, so I also don't see the ethical question.

Re:Short answer: no

[Ruke]

The tools themselves are a completely amoral force. You can question the ethics of the decisions of the people surrounding these tools; whether it is ethical to create them, or to use them in a given situation, but the tools are just... things.

I mean, look at gun control laws. I'm for gun control laws, personally. However, it would be ridiculous to say that "guns are bad". I think guns are dangerous, but this isn't a moral judgement on them. It's a more pragmatic evaluation of expected-outcome-of-confrontation-involving-a-firearm. (Gun control is not the issue here. I seriously don't want to debate guns right now.)

I think a more interesting question is when, if ever, it's ethical to "nudge" people using subliminal tools. If you're nudging a person towards doing good, is that acceptable in a way that nudging them towards consumption is not? Are we willing to say that the "nudging" itself is amoral, and we only care about the outcome; if it's used for a "good" end, it's good, and if it's used for an "evil" end, it's evil? Or is there an ethical component towards nudging someone towards doing anything that they might not want to do on a conscious level?

Re:Short answer: no

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of libertarians will shortly show up to argue that seatbelt laws are unethical.

...And they'll be right, at least about the laws that apply to adults driving their own vehicles.

Re:Short answer: no

[andrew_d_allen]

On their own roads? ;-) They never mention who builds the roads...

Re:Short answer: no

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's irrelevant.

Re:Short answer: no

[kaatochacha]

I should totally shoot you for that.

Re:Short answer: no

[hackertourist]

Are seatbelt laws unethical?

That's a question only an American could ask. Elsewhere in the Western world, people occasionally grumble, but everyone concedes that seat belts are a good thing, and seat belt laws are a good idea.

Influence is a tool...

[darkwing_bmf]

...that can be used for good or for evil.

Re:Influence is a tool...

[snowgirl]

...that can be used for good or for evil.

Like The Force!

Re:Influence is a tool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every information input(environmental stimulus) influences decision making. If you notice something, it has some consequence on your thoughts and decisions.

Ethics only comes in when deceit or coercion are intentionally applied. Otherwise, one might as well say a 'we are open' sign is unethical.

Re:Influence is a tool...

[LandDolphin]

or the Schwartz

Re:Influence is a tool...

[darkwing_bmf]

Ethics only comes in when deceit or coercion are intentionally applied.

No, it's broader than that. You can be perfectly honest and still lead someone down the wrong path. For instance "If you learn the secrets of the Dark Side you will gain great power." There's nothing coercive or deceitful about that statement.

Re:Influence is a tool...

[kaizokuace]

May The Influence be with you!

the headlines today...

[drb226]

make me want to quit slashdot. Slow nerd news day.

Re:the headlines today...

[couchslug]

Ah! So that's your response to nudging headlines.

So first we have the "poke".....

[Jailbrekr]

and now we have the "nudge"? Whats next, the "bitchslap"?

Re:So first we have the "poke".....

[blair1q]

No, the sarcastic reply.

Re:So first we have the "poke".....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, like THAT would ever work.

Re:So first we have the "poke".....

[Abstrackt]

Oh, that sounds useful....

Re:So first we have the "poke".....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the sarcastic reply.

Yeah, right, like that would change anyone's behavior.

Re:So first we have the "poke".....

[Anonymous Coward]

say no more, say no MORE!

I say yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you can view them as unethical, because you're trying to manipulate people instead of being upfront about it. But use of force is even less ethical than subliminal cues, and we're already doing that.

Mentalism!

[snowgirl]

Yay! Mentalists are really good at altering your behavior or implanting suggestions without you realizing it. It's kind of awesome to watch, and in a way, disturbing. I actually wonder how susceptible I am to all of this, myself...

Re:Mentalism!

[Zirnike]

I actually wonder how susceptible I am to all of this, myself...

I hope everyone liked the post I made snowgirl make.

Re:Mentalism!

[blair1q]

You did that well.

Here's your cookie: @

Tomorrow you will empty your bank account and mail it to me.

Tomorrow you will get cake.

Re:Mentalism!

[lgw]

Yeah, you rule!

Wait, why did I just type that?

Re:Mentalism!

[Gaygirlie]

*makes a waving motion with her hand* These are not the droids you are looking for.

Re:Mentalism!

[DigiShaman]

Pretty straightforward actually. A mentalist will exude confidence to such a degree that you, I, or anyone else becomes submissive to their ideas. Being a mentalist means tapping into this primal human behavior as a method of directing. On a subconscious level, we have the ability to determine if someone's confidence is encapsulating the truth, or a lie. A mentalists however must not let their subject/s even approach the concept of questioning at that level.

One might say that a sociopath is a natural born mentalist.

Re:Mentalism!

[BadPirate]

Spoiler: The cake is a lie.

Re:Mentalism!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're thinking of Derren Brown or anyone similar, I hope you're aware that every word from his mouth about how he does what he does is a lie. Half the times he "suggests" things to people it's definitely just a magic trick and the NLP bullshit he pulls is for the audience's benefit (so you feel clever for spotting it). The other half of the time it's probably a magic trick but maybe he just filmed it fifty times and picked the one time it worked.

He's very good, but he's a magician.

Re:Mentalism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd. I was actually looking for droids. Two in particular. One very gold looking, possibly gay. The other, half-size and white/blue, whistles a lot.
But, now that you mention it, it wasn't these two. Move along. Move along.

Re:Mentalism!

[snowgirl]

I actually wonder how susceptible I am to all of this, myself...

I hope everyone liked the post I made snowgirl make.

I totally didn't get this until like a full two minutes after I read it...

Re:Mentalism!

[snowgirl]

If you're thinking of Derren Brown or anyone similar, I hope you're aware that every word from his mouth about how he does what he does is a lie. Half the times he "suggests" things to people it's definitely just a magic trick and the NLP bullshit he pulls is for the audience's benefit (so you feel clever for spotting it). The other half of the time it's probably a magic trick but maybe he just filmed it fifty times and picked the one time it worked.

He's very good, but he's a magician.

I imagine the Deception thing on Discovery, when he says, "I can't tell you how I did it", it's possibly because they took 50 takes and only picked the one that worked.

I don't doubt that Mentalists are magicians. In a way, it's a bit of a "duh" statement to make. Magicians don't work like magic, they just use real phenomena and distract us away from that phenomena.

But it remains that people are indeed easily susceptible to persuasion. I don't think it's any sort of "magic" or anything like that, or that there is any sort of NLP crap going on. But if I say "nurse" and then ask you for a word, you're probably going to say "doctor". It's a simple fact of relevance. As another example, the easiest way to get you to think about an elephant is to tell you to not think about an elephant. (See? You just did!)

It's all about priming ideas, and then asking for a person to make a choice... we here on Slashdot should all be aware from Cryptonomicon or general security practices in general: humans are horrible at making truly random, and unpredictable choices.

Re:Mentalism!

[snowgirl]

Pretty straightforward actually. A mentalist will exude confidence to such a degree that you, I, or anyone else becomes submissive to their ideas. Being a mentalist means tapping into this primal human behavior as a method of directing. On a subconscious level, we have the ability to determine if someone's confidence is encapsulating the truth, or a lie. A mentalists however must not let their subject/s even approach the concept of questioning at that level.

One might say that a sociopath is a natural born mentalist.

I'll definitely grant you that. I had the misfortune to face off against a psychopath/sociopath, and I never got the same story twice from him. Everyone else wrote these differences off, likely because he was simply confident about his assertions that this version is the correct one, and he was simply mistaken before.

The first time working with him, I had no baseline to work from. The second time, his stories didn't line up, but I wrote it off as "people have imperfect memories", the third time, I realized "memories are not THAT imperfect".

But yeah, since I left my boyfriend (whose sociopath brother was abusing him, and thus why I ended up involved) the boyfriend has managed to end up right back where he was when I met him: being abused by his sociopath brother... confidence can really give one an incredible ability to predict, and affect their behavior.

Re:Mentalism!

[blair1q]

Two cakes are a lie group.

Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[stating_the_obvious]

Nudging technologies have been around for as long as people have traded one good for another. Prices ending in .99, "buy one, get one free", and the ever popular "act now" are all examples of efforts to nudge someone to action. It can only be a good thing that these subliminal forces are finally being harnessed to encourage positive behavior (e.g., stairs versus elevators or washing hands after using the bathroom)

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[timeOday]

But the more we understand free will, the less it seems to exist. How far will it go? What fun is a gambling without the perception of chance? What fun is life without the perception of choice? I'm not faulting the research, but I'm considering getting annoyed at the universe.

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[RobinEggs]

I think the unspoken current of this conversation, however, is if and when it's ethical to use completely deliberate nudging on someone's subconscious. The advertising and pricing phrases you mention still communicate directly, even if they're largely attacking the subconscious by exploiting the lizard brain or playing to societal norms. In contrast, when you talk about applying these sorts of experiments to marketing you'd be asking whether it's ethical to play soothing music if it increases sales by keeping people in the store longer or put the smell of popcorn in the air conditioner at a movie theater. People already do both of those things, and now we're wondering how far you can ethically take that sort of behavior, wherein there's no way at all to perceive that you're being sold on something.

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[hawguy]

And most malls and department stores use nudging to encourage you to use the escalators instead of the elevator, even though the elevator is often more convenient. When I walk in my local mall, the escalator is hugely apparent, but the elevators are off to the side and not in direct line of sight. The escalators are typically less convenient to go up multiple floors, since you need to go up a floor, then walk around a semi-circle to get to the next escalator and repeat until you reach the floor you want.

Escalators have greater capacity than elevators (this likely more cost effective), and escalator patrons are forced to walk through more of the store, so the mall nudges (and not very subtly) patrons to take the escalator. Further, they can count as emergency egress points, reducing the size of stairwells that have to be provided.

Ethical? It's their property, they can nudge me to climb a ladder between floors if they want to, but if they make me feel unwelcome or uncomfortable, I won't go back, so how far they can nudge me is self limiting.

The hanging balls mentioned in the article don't seem intuitive enough to modify behavior without explanation.

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[stating_the_obvious]

Two quick points to consider:

1) I think you make a false distinction between 'direct' and 'indirect' communication. The distinction here should not be how the message is transmitted, but how it is received. Consider a magic trick one might play on a child -- the same actions on the part of the magician trigger very different responses based on whether the viewer knows how the trick works or doesn't. If you know to watch for this type of influence, you are less likely (even subconsciously) to be controlled by it.

2) The question of "how far you can ethically take that sort of behavior" is always a moving target. This isn't really an ethical question; it is a social question of what can we do as a society to ensure that the gap in knowledge/techniques/practices between the marketers and the consumers stays small. It only becomes an ethical question when we're debating a technique against which a consumer can't be educated (e.g., subliminal flash images of icy cold coca-cola shown at the drive-in).

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[Drgnkght]

But the more we understand free will, the less it seems to exist.
...

I'm not faulting the research, but I'm considering getting annoyed at the universe.

What would be the point if there isn't any free will? Wouldn't that simply mean that It (the universe) wanted you to know it was screwing with you?

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[sconeu]

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

(Courtesy of Rush)

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[hitmark]

They could lay out the escalators so that you have matching up or down side by side by stacking them 4 wide.

Start with two close together at ground floor, then two on the outside of those from first, then two close together again from second. That way going up or down would simply be a case of a quick turn at each landing.

a bit like having two spiral staircases close together.

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[hawguy]

They could lay out the escalators so that you have matching up or down side by side by stacking them 4 wide.

Start with two close together at ground floor, then two on the outside of those from first, then two close together again from second. That way going up or down would simply be a case of a quick turn at each landing.

a bit like having two spiral staircases close together.

They could, and if they were an office building they probably would. But their goal is not to get me in and out of the mall as quickly as possible - they want me to linger and have to travel past as many stores as possible. The store owners spend a lot of time building window displays designed to attract and nudge me into their store.

Re:Marketing packaged into a PhD thesis

[xaxa]

They could lay out the escalators so that you have matching up or down side by side by stacking them 4 wide. [...]

They could, and if they were an office building they probably would.

I can't think of a single shopping centre in Europe (mostly Britain) that I've been in that doesn't do this. Clearly the architects have different theories on behaviour. Almost always it's a tiny turn (1-2 metres) to get from the top of one escalator to the bottom of the next, but the down escalators (or, often, stairs) might be on the other side of the shop.

Oblig. Fun Theory

[Jim Hall]

The Fun Theory does this from time to time. My favorite is the piano stairs in Stockholm. It's a classic example of a "nudging" effect, and yes - I do consider it "ethical".

Of course, the question is if the "nudging" effect lasts over the long haul. I wonder how many of these people would have used the piano stairs after a few days, or a week?

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[Kugrian]

How many people went up and down the stairs several times and messed up the traffic?

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[swanzilla]

Not sure about the long haul, but I would assume that stair usage and hangover severity would be inversely proportional to one another.

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[SanityInAnarchy]

Traffic is still probably moving faster in those cases than with the escalator. It's also giving them that much more exercise. I think that's a fair trade.

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[Golddess]

My favorite is the piano stairs in Stockholm.

Well that at least makes sense for how it influences people into taking the stairs. Step on a step, instant positive feedback.

I RTFA, and I still don't get how those colored balls could influence people to take the stairs.

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have made the escalator electrocute people :)

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[Abstrackt]

I RTFA, and I still don't get how those colored balls could influence people to take the stairs.

My theory is that they just looked interesting enough to encourage people to take the stairs for a closer look at them.

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[vux984]

I RTFA, and I still don't get how those colored balls could influence people to take the stairs.

  There's a feedback in that the red and grey balls are used to score stairs and elevator usage. If more people use the stairs the 'red' balls score better, and the 'healthy choice' "wins".

Turns out people were willing to make a small lifestyle change towards a healthy choice just for that little bit of feedback.

Then add some peer pressure... few wanted to be the guy that lowered the healthy choices score.

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[steelfood]

I wonder how many of these people would have used the piano stairs after a few days, or a week?

Better yet, ask how many people would be ready to rip those artificial noise-makers out after a month.

Novelty is great initially. But it wears out. And if there's nothing to replace it, novelty becomes normal, or often worse.

This is why, as another poster noted above, what's "in" keeps changing every few years. It's because marketers know they have to keep their product feeling new and refreshing, and the easiest way to do that is to continue to make it appear novel. Otherwise, people grow complacent. The new thing of last year becomes the old thing of next year. And old things are uninteresting.

By switching things up every so often, they can keep people interested and keep the money rolling in.

This is also why timeless classics are truly a cut above the rest; they remaining interesting no matter what's currently popular.

Re:Oblig. Fun Theory

[russotto]

The Fun Theory does this from time to time. My favorite is the piano stairs in Stockholm. It's a classic example of a "nudging" effect, and yes - I do consider it "ethical".

That's not pure nudging; there's a strong element of quid pro quo there -- that is, you get to enjoy the piano stairs by using them.

Ethics...

[econolog]

We can say it's unethical but it has happened the world over for many years now and in less noticeable ways than signs. The source of this isn't always the government of that area. Marketing is a form of this for example. The ways people can be manipulated are not limited to just this. TV is a very good medium. There are ways this can be applied in other media but video tends to be the most effective. Social media is also very powerful. As far as this altering your experience (which shapes the individual) it can be summarized that you have less control than you think.

It all depends what you are nudgin people to

[director_mr]

Nudging technologies have existed ever since people had technology I would presume. Exit signs, Stop lights, one way street signs all of these things are meant to direct people in a certain way. I though the way the designers made an atrium where your choices would affect the environment in a fun and interesting way was great. You are basically rewarding behavior you want people to choose with a very modest display, but one that will encourage them to monitor each other's behavior and have a positive outcome. This is about as ethical as you can be. Is there any more ethical way to influence behavior you can think of?

Sounds a bit harsh actually

[ArhcAngel]

I mean...to hang someone by the color of their balls and all.

Marketers have been using it for decades

[Billly Gates]

Why do you think America has been going bankrupt trying to keep up with the Jones next door.

Or walk into a casino? When someone wins large lights and very loud sounds are made while the machine dispatches the cash slowly all for everyone to see that someone else made money.

Re:Marketers have been using it for decades

[snspdaarf]

What might be an even better example is one of the Vegas casinos (forgot which one) that has a moving sidewalk to take you from the street to the entrance doors, but leaving you walk on your own.

Re:Marketers have been using it for decades

[DNS-and-BIND]

Let me guess: you haven't been into a casino, and your experience is based on some movies you saw somewhere. Slot machines don't give out bags of coins any more, and they haven't for a while. You get a receipt to give to the cashier, or feed into another slot machine. Slot jockeys don't give a shit if the person next to them wins, they don't even shrug. They just keep on playing. Earthquake, fire alarm, casino being robbed, it doesn't matter.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" is materialism. You don't get anything but WoW-style mental satisfaction from playing slots.

Re:Marketers have been using it for decades

[LandDolphin]

They might not care if the person next to them wins. However, they still need to hear that rings all around that people are winning. It drives the belief that their big win is just around the corner.

Ambient Design

[hardwarejunkie9]

I'm actually an industrial engineering student who studies cognitive ergonomics (pretty much social engineering). I'm actually quite interested in "nudging technologies" and am doing a bit of research in related fields. I took a Psych class that discussed the relevance of subliminal messaging and covered a bit of the controversy surrounding it. The professor mentioned something strange: subliminal messaging doesn't make an individual do anything they otherwise would not do if persuaded. You can only get standard behavior that the individual would be interested in performing on their own. These nudging technologies do affect an individual's autonomy by affecting the choices they make, but, in the end, they still can make their own decision to take the elevator. An important contrast to consider is that the alternative to make people take the stairs more is to coerce them by making rules. Is that any more ethical? At least in a nudge system they have the option to do as they wish. Sure, the individual may not be aware that they are influenced, but it would be a system incredibly hard to abuse. I've had to deal w/ individuals who throw their newly emptied coke bottles into the trash when the trash can is directly next to the trash can. I don't feel that the best approach is to convince them with general aphorisms about the environment but rather to nudge them that way we can all get along to taking care of more important problems.

Re:Ambient Design

[lgw]

You're going to find an internship at a Disney park, right? The "social engineering" there is masterful, as well as the more ordinary engineering just to allow herds of people to move freely without getting in each other's way (I still find the Orlando airport the easiest big airport to move through thanks to their influence). For example, employee areas aren'tusually blocked by doors or even signs; instead the colors and architecture are carefully chosen to make customers feel uncomfortable, and nudge them back to where they're supposed to be, without explicitly marking areas "off limits" as you walk through the park.

I've had to deal w/ individuals who throw their newly emptied coke bottles into the trash when the trash can is directly next to the trash can.

Wel, eveyrone does that, but I also throw my everyhting into the trash can when it's next to the recycle bin, just for the joy of pissing off hippies, so be careful what you design (but then some jerks throw normal stinky trash into recycling bins where I live: now that sucks).

Re:Ambient Design

[quickgold192]

employee areas ... are carefully chosen to make [people] feel uncomfortable

It must really suck to work there.

Re:Ambient Design

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had to deal w/ individuals who throw their newly emptied coke bottles into the trash when the trash can is directly next to the trash can.

I'm really not following you.

Re:Ambient Design

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've had to deal w/ individuals who throw their newly emptied coke bottles into the trash when the trash can is directly next to the trash can."

That was me, wondering why nobody thought to get a recycling bin.

Re:Ambient Design

[T-Bone-T]

It is only uncomfortable for the visitors. There are probably areas where you work that employees are perfectly comfortable with but a visitor might not be comfortable in the same areas.

Re:Ambient Design

[steelfood]

The design works because of the mentality of the people present. People there want to enjoy themselves. They're certainly going to stay away from areas that make their experience less enjoyable.

It does nothing for a determined malefactor who would not be there for an enjoyable experience, but for other purposes.

University Professor Discovers Architecture

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 11.

This just in!

[Palmsie]

Psychologists study human behavior... then change it! What kind of world do we live in, Dr. Milgrim?

Re:This just in!

[Darinbob]

Shocking!

Here I am

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Libertarian. I'm here to take a shit in your living room. Don't worry, the free market will sort it out.

(blatantly stolen from someone else on /.-- free market, come and get me!)

Re:Here I am

[brusk]

That will be $100, please.

Re:Here I am

[AtomicOrange]

You charge people $100 to take a dump on your living room carpet? Intriguing... if you would adjust your business model to anyone's carpet - I think you'd have something there...

Re:Here I am

[brusk]

Who said anything about carpet? That's $5000 extra. I charge $100 to go in my chamber pot. There's a business model you can monetize! Make money at home by making your house into a public restroom!

Re:Here I am

[AtomicOrange]

That happens all the time in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. You'd better patent that before it gets snatched up by Apple!

Sheep Don't Think

[tunapez]

If people want, or allow themselves, to be shepherded and corralled, I guess there's no stopping progress.

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[hardwarejunkie9]

The funny thing about Psychology is that you yourself are easily influenced and will only recognize it when you pay attention for it. Nudging is extremely common and has been used as a basic social method for as long was we've been interacting. Noone's immune. It's just important to realize when it's happening and to think twice about it.

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[jellomizer]

Yes and how many people use the sheep analogy...
Humans are Animals. We have traits that are rational, from careful thought and instincts. Humans are social animals, like other social animals we take cues and we actively try to be the rest of the people. You would normally feel silly if you wore a suit and tie to the beach. As well you would feel just as out of place if you went to work in your bathing suit.

We take cues every day, and it models our behavior, if we break out it is often due to a conscious need to do so.

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[cheekyjohnson]

you yourself are easily influenced

It seems to me that that would depend on the person.

will only recognize it when you pay attention for it

Same as above.

Noone's immune

Can you prove this with 100% accuracy?

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[cheekyjohnson]

rational, from careful thought and instincts

I really don't see how desiring to live is necessarily logical.

Humans are social animals

I see some people talk about humans as if they are all the same. Why is it not possible for one of them to not be a "social animal"?

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[hardwarejunkie9]

The "100% Accuracy" thing is a bit of a stickler, but there are some fun examples in Social Psychology. I know they're not about being "nudged" but they *are* about influence and susceptibility and there should be many more examples in Social Psychology if you are interested in learning more:

-- Asch's Conformity Study: An individual was asked to rate the length of a line while placed in a group. The subject would answer after 5 other people, who were all instructed to agree on the wrong line. The choice was patently obvious, but a *very* large number caved. Those who did not were highly distressed, over LINES.

--Milgram's Obedience study: proved that the average person would electrocute someone to death if told to by an authority figure.

-- Stanford Prison Experiment: demonstrated that individuals fill the role that they are placed into. Atrocity is easy; standing up for your own values is hard.

All in all, I cannot prove with a causal reliability that you are, indeed, prone to influence. However, I know that I myself feel worried on a day to day basis about being influenced and often am despite my best attempts not to be. Either a.) you are a paragon among men (hats off to you) or b.) you have yet to have your own vulnerability proven to you.

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[JohnnyBGod]

I see some people talk about humans as if they are all the same. Why is it not possible for one of them to not be a "social animal"?

If you're talking about yourself, I hope you see the irony of making that statement while casually engaging in a discussion with a complete stranger. :)

If you aren't... pretty much the only way for a human not to be a social animal is to go live survive by himself in some wilderness without having learned to communicate. Otherwise, you're going to need to mingle with some sort of society and... you know... socialize. Those relationships may be all business, but they're still social.

To finally answer your question: yes, it is possible for one of them not to be a "social animal". The ones who aren't, however, are so far into statistical outlier territory they're pretty much not worth mentioning.

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[cheekyjohnson]

If you're talking about yourself

I wasn't.

If you aren't... pretty much the only way for a human not to be a social animal is to go live survive by himself in some wilderness without having learned to communicate.

Which is possible, is it not? I was merely pointing out that referring to every human in existence (and any that will come into existence) as some kind of "social creature" is a bit of an assumption.

The ones who aren't, however, are so far into statistical outlier territory they're pretty much not worth mentioning.

They're worth mentioning to me. Instead of, "humans are social creatures," I'd say, "most humans are social creatures." Though, that's just me.

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[cheekyjohnson]

The choice was patently obvious, but a *very* large number caved. Those who did not were highly distressed, over LINES.

Sounds like the type of people who would just go with what a majority says, or say that something is correct because a lot of people believe it to be correct (appeal to popularity).

Milgram's Obedience study: proved that the average person would electrocute someone to death if told to by an authority figure.

I really don't think I'd do such a thing. I'm not fond of appeals to authority, and I'd rather fight for my freedom than be forced to do pointless things such as that.

Either a.) you are a paragon among men (hats off to you) or b.) you have yet to have your own vulnerability proven to you.

I actually don't know if I am influenced or not. I'd say "no" because my behavior never actually changes, but when the arguments are something along the lines of, "but you don't notice it," then I'm not sure. You needn't be a paragon, either. Just a statistical anomaly. Actually, maybe not even that. In order to prove that someone is a statistical anomaly, they'd need to use most humans on the planet in a study (which hasn't been done so far, as far as I know).

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[Architect_sasyr]

Sounds like the type of people who would just go with what a majority says, or say that something is correct because a lot of people believe it to be correct (appeal to popularity).

Even if you go with what you know is correct, you are probably being influenced - have you never got annoyed at the people around you because they are all wrong? Happens to me every day.

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[cheekyjohnson]

have you never got annoyed at the people around you because they are all wrong

I don't really get annoyed by that. For one thing, I think it's difficult to be certain that they are wrong. Second of all, I just don't care.

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[tbird81]

Well, if 99.999% of humans are social creatures, that's a bit more than "most" and much closer to "all".

Re:Sheep Don't Think

[cheekyjohnson]

Closer, but "all" doesn't accurately describe it (wherever that number came from).

Why Not?

[Scarletdown]

Why would this be unethical? There is no harm in dropping hints for the masses to engage in activities that are truly good for them and perhaps even (gasp) causing them to actually think about behaviors to which they never previously gave any thought. As long as the message is not deceptive, an outright lie, or encouraging something truly harmful, then carry on.

And really, how is this any different than those Saturday morning PSAs put out by the Ad Council back in the 70s and 80s that encouraged people to take responsibility for their health, safety, etc?

It's used both ways

[erroneus]

Let's not call it "nudging technology" and call it what it is -- marketing. Okay, that's not completely accurate either, but where we see these methods used most often is in marketing. Some campaigns push for "good things" like keeping the roads clean ("Don't Mess With Texas!") and others are for selling things that make people fat or often result in other negative consequences.

"There is still a choice" and it's true. I am largely (though not completely) immune to those types of guidance mechanisms. I see a beer commercial selling a "lifestyle" and fail to make the connection between the product and the lifestyle while others just buy right into it. I see the convenient drive-thru window with more than 10 cars waiting. I don't just get in line, I look in the windows to see if (1) it's open (2) how many people are waiting in line within the building. I estimate which choice will get the there faster and choose. I'm not most people.

But by calling it "nudging technologies" we are sort of rebranding marketing techniques aren't we?

Does the nudger benefit from the nudging?

[Rix]

If so, then yes, of course it's unethical.

Re:Does the nudger benefit from the nudging?

[blair1q]

Only if the nudgee gets no benefit in return, or loses in the process.

Re:Does the nudger benefit from the nudging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it really be more ethical if the nudger losed out? Of course not. The primary thing that makes the scheme (and most advertising for that matter) unethical is that the nudgee doesn't know about it.

Re:Does the nudger benefit from the nudging?

[Geminii]

I have here a suitcase with, as you can see, a million dollars in it. You have the choice to leave it alone, or to reach in, give me any one of the bills from inside the case, and walk off with the rest of them.

I benefit a little if you choose the suitcase, you benefit a lot. And you still have the choice to walk away. Unethical?

Re:Does the nudger benefit from the nudging?

[coolmadsi]

I have here a suitcase with, as you can see, a million dollars in it. You have the choice to leave it alone, or to reach in, give me any one of the bills from inside the case, and walk off with the rest of them.

I benefit a little if you choose the suitcase, you benefit a lot. And you still have the choice to walk away. Unethical?

What if the bills in the suitcase were marked and recently stolen and you were trying to get rid of them to frame someone else for the theft? An extreme and unlikely scenario, but you are right that there can be cases where both benefit with no loss for either.

Re:Does the nudger benefit from the nudging?

[blair1q]

The universe is a nudger, and the nudgees generally don't have the first clue about it; in fact, many are sent to oblivion by their ignorance; so is the universe unethical?

Re:"the lift"

[jfruhlinger]

Excellent douchebaggy AC language usage troll! A+++++, would be trolled again.

hanging coloured balls?

[davidiii]

I usually find taking the stairs to be quite uncomfortable when I have blue balls. I would much rather take the lift.

Re:hanging coloured balls?

[blair1q]

You'd rather be lifted by your blue balls?

By my hanging balls..

[toxonix]

Are Hanging Balls really new technology? AFAIK they evolved a looong time ago. I just think they could find a better example. If you want less people to take the elevator, make the elevator slower.

Re:By my hanging balls..

[GameboyRMH]

Won't work. In my office building the elevator is shit-slow, and the lazy asses at the company below me are constantly taking it 1 floor up AND DOWN, even if they have to wait for it. That is the laziest damn thing I have ever seen, and my best friend used to have an elaborate set of remotes so he wouldn't have to move from his bed to do anything in his room.

My office is on the 3rd floor and I usually take the elevator up (doesn't help that it's a hot climate), I take the stairs if I have to go from 3rd-4th, and I always take the stairs when going down.

Re:"the lift"

[ChrisMP1]

I'm not sure what kind of idiot couldn't figure out what "lift" means. I see you managed.

Ever heard of social media?

[puterg33k]

The impact of social media on our everyday lives is incredible, you'd say to yourself after reading what I wrote. Nah, not me. There's no way, but go without it for a year. See what changes... Or better yet, what changes you notice about yourself. It's actually quite revealing, take it from an ex-meathead womaniser that would once kill for his favourite football team. I really noticed it on my deployment, how out of tune I had become. It's as if every conversation with a human being in the conceptual 'normal world' somehow ends up being a ego battle of neo-pop culture trivia. If you aren't in the know, you're not cool. Knowing key references to certain movies, songs, and popular advertisements are a kin to being accepted into a peer group. Without these commonalities, you're a foreigner. Hey don't take my word for it, give it a shot. As a matter of fact, I challenge you. To turn off that TV, unplug for a bit. It did me wonders, I went from lifting weights and calling people fags all the time to learning about DRM, installing linux, reading slashdot. I ended up taking several political science classes and becoming interested in government. Though, I partially attribute the military to my interest in poly-sci. Any who, it's everywhere. Advertisements, speech, social reassurance, and now a machine? Why not, weather you like it or not it will be in every convenient store in America. But the real question is; what the hell are you willing to do about it? Ask yourself that, rather than posting on some website where people do nothing more than drone on and complain. Some complain much more eloquently than others might I add... There's a quote by George Bernard Shaw, it goes something like; Americans would rather invade foreign country than walk across the street to vote. I know that's not the quote, but it goes something like that. So if you know it please post it, but, is it not true? We're apart of a system that knows exactly how we'll react before we do, and you'd best be damn assured social media is the tool that will help us act and react accordingly.

It's good for you

[TheHedonismBot]

There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to take the stairs...

Re:It's good for you

[HornWumpus]

If it were as simple as that, it would be OK to take a dump in the elevator.

Classic example: fly in urinal

[hayne]

I guess the fly in urinal is a classic example of nudging technology.

Re:Classic example: fly in urinal

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I had recently seen that somewhere, and had wondered about it. As I was pondering why someone would have stuck a fly sticker to the back of a urinal, I suddenly realized I was urinating all over the wall.

Re:Classic example: fly in urinal

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just silly. Most of the pee that ends up on the floors isn't the fault of bad aim, it's poor urinal design. Try wearing shorts and sandals and you'll find out that everyone else is peeing all over themselves without even knowing it. I worked one place where you had to aim at one tiny spot up high and on the side to avoid soaking your feet. I talked to another short and sandal wearer and he'd noticed the same thing and we laugh about how everyone else was pissing all over themselves. My current place, the floor below the urinal is always soaked and it's not bad aim. It's just that people don't know which part doesn't splash back.

Overly complex?

[ddd0004]

It seems like they are trying to hard. If you are trying to get people to take the stairs, throw a dead skunk or massive pile of dog doo in the "lift." These are "nudging technologies" with a much higher success rate.

Re:Overly complex?

[adamofgreyskull]

"I'm wheelchair-bound/on crutches/have chronic asthma you insensitve clod/clodette."

Re:Overly complex?

[ddd0004]

That skunk's not stopping you. It's just making it a less attractive alternative to those who are able to take the stairs. So it's actually making the elevator more available to you.

The wrong question, yet again

[Shoten]

Why do people ask "is this technology ethical"? Ethics is about application of choice; the technology itself is not inherently good or evil. One example of a nudging technology is the fact that the operating handle for a garbage truck's compactor is nowhere near the rear opening of the compactor; this actually arose from a lawsuit where a man lost part of his foot because he stood on the back while operating the compactor. As a result now, it's a lot easier to operate garbage trucks safely than in a dangerous manner. I don't see any way to argue that this is unethical, even though it's a nudging technology. But what about technologies intended to drive sales and control purchasing choices by consumers? That seems like a much different question, and I'm not so sure you could say across the board that it's ethical. It's not about the technology, it's about the use.

Re:"the lift"

[Anonymous Coward]

I will admit that when I was 7 I probably wouldn't have known what 'the lift' means. By the age of 47 I have been so thoroughly exposed to the idioms of English used in various parts of the world that many of them are decoded without my even thinking about. If I read something about 'biscuits' or 'crisps' for example, I automatically determine from context if they're really talking about cookies or chips. Treacle, on the other hand, remains freaky shit to me.

As far as elevators go, at this point I respond just as well to 'elevator', 'lift', or 'freaky magic travel box'.

Seriously?!?

[InsertCleverUsername]

My initial reaction to this (of course I didn't RTFA) is that it's ludicrous to discuss whether it's ethical to try to influence people. Forcing someone to do something is unethical, but trying to influence others is something we do almost every time we interact with another human. Somebody really needs better ethical problems to ponder.

Re:"the lift"

[rkww]

But the story, if you chose to read it, would tell you that the research was conducted by a British university and the devices they monitored were in fact lifts. And to be pedantic, American is the regional dialect.

Obligatory xkcd

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xkcd.com/610/

Feels like high school all over again.

[tantaliz3]

From the article:

"Most people when we asked them, 'Do you think this has changed your behaviour?', they said no. But the data showed that it had actually done that," she added. "People were chatting a lot about it... We observed people telling other people off for using the lift - 'You're representing a grey ball right now!'."

This isn't nudging, it's peer pressure! lol

A good example - posting as Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

The vibe I get is, sure, you're welcome to do that, registration is not required. Of course, your post will never be read by anyone except by trolls and people who place no value on their time. And once the thread accumulates a lot of responses you'll have a hard time even finding the sad, lonely thing you wrote.

Once you know that the're doing it..

[Paracelcus]

Do the opposite or nothing at all!

Nudge to the stairs

[steveha]

One of the examples from TFA is a set of colored balls, hanging in an open space by in a stairwell. The bright, cheerful balls represent people taking the stairs, and the grey balls represent people taking the elevators (lifts). There are pressure pads used to count people, and the counts are used to estimate stair usage and elevator usage. The colored balls are just a visual indicator.

According to the article, people say things like "You took the elevator... you are making the grey balls go up, you know" or similar.

And now, my point: the colored balls are not what people care about. People already have an opinion about whether stairs or elevator are "better" in any sense, and the colored balls display is leveraging that. I could use the same technology to track how many people look out the East window, vs how many people look out the West window, and I'm pretty sure nobody would care which color of balls is "winning" at the moment. The colored balls in and of themselves have no power.

I remember in Junior High School a teacher waxed philosophical about wrist watches. "Just think, we strap them on and then obey them. We rush through lunch because of them. A tiny and simple device can drastically shape our behavior!" (Probably a horribly inaccurate quote; this is a memory I haven't thought of in years.) Even at the time I rejected this thesis. It seemed to me (and still seems to me) that the watch itself has no power; it is the whole structure of civilization, at least where it is intersecting with your own life, that makes you care what time it is. If you took the watch off, you would still hurry through lunch, because you need to be done with lunch by some specific time. Indeed, without the watch, you might hurry more, since you might not be sure how much time you have.

The map is not the territory. Neither a watch nor colored balls nor any of the other stuff in TFA can compel behavior. Simple ergonomics can give a mild nudge; tricks that leverage things people care about can give a stronger nudge, but only because the people already care about something.

So the whole "ethics" thing is overblown. And as others have noted, that was one throwaway line from TFA; it's odd that it was chosen for the summary.

steveha

Re:Nudge to the stairs

[mgblst]

I remember in Junior High School a teacher waxed philosophical about wrist watches. "Just think, we strap them on and then obey them. We rush through lunch because of them. A tiny and simple device can drastically shape our behavior!" (Probably a horribly inaccurate quote; this is a memory I haven't thought of in years.) Even at the time I rejected this thesis. It seemed to me (and still seems to me) that the watch itself has no power; it is the whole structure of civilization, at least where it is intersecting with your own life, that makes you care what time it is.

Wow, no need to be so literal. Try to understand what your teacher was saying, rather than delighting in disagreeing when you actually agree.

Re:Nudge to the stairs

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a wristwatch? Suicide surveillance? :}

Re:Nudge to the stairs

[steveha]

Wow, no need to be so literal. Try to understand what your teacher was saying, rather than delighting in disagreeing when you actually agree.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying here. Are you implying that I am not accurately quoting the sense of what my teacher was saying? Because I am not sure how you know that. And I am absolutely sure that I had the sense of it correct: that we let watches control us.

If she was trying to push us to refute her, she could have had a discussion of this idea, but she didn't do that. And I don't recall it being part of a lesson plan, just an off-the-cuff comment she made one day.

And it was a teacher I liked, so I wasn't just sitting around looking for reasons to disagree.

But I guess I have to concede that it is possible she was saying one thing while thinking the exact opposite but not giving us any clues about it at all. She could have been faking that "off-the-cuff" thing; it could have been a crucial part of her lesson plan, just tossed out at the end of one class and never mentioned again. That seems like an odd educational strategy, though.

steveha

Re:Nudge to the stairs

[tbird81]

I agree with your original thought.

To me, it just sounds like a usual high school teacher. They often spout off the nonsense that runs occasionally through their minds (and that runs through all of our minds) but they have a captive audience.

Re:"the lift"

[rjstanford]

Treacle, on the other hand, remains freaky shit to me.

Well, it can be, but that just means you're doing it right...

Re:"the lift"

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that whoever invented the things gets the rights to name them. Since that would be Americans, elevator should be the preferred term. Likewise with laser, transistor, etc.

Re:"the lift"

[Pfhorrest]

And to be pedantic, American is the regional dialect.

To be pedantic, any variation of a language local to a specific region is a regional dialect. Brits, Americans, Canadians, Aussies, and others -- and many subdivisions within each of those regions -- all speak English. The variety of English spoken in any such region is a regional dialect. Neither of any two modern dialects is the same as the most recent common ancestor dialect.

Re:"the lift"

[steelfood]

American is the regional dialect.

You must not be American.

Isn't it ironic?

[Cogent91]

An irony of our society: We child safety proof ALMOST EVERYTHING when it comes to showing dimwits what to avoid (Then hold responsible those who failed to protect idiots from themselves) yet it is somehow controversial to try clever tricks to show the sensible people better paths. .... Sigh. My vote is that civil nudging methods are a definitive good use of influence.

Resistance: piss on the fly or the floor?

[theNAM666]

I don't know. Every time I see the fly at the bottom of a urinal, I aim at the floor. The planners have still manipulated me, I guess-- but I leave them with a bigger mess to clean up.

In Soviet Amerika...

[theNAM666]

Nudging technology means hands wash you.

TV

[UBfusion]

is the ultimate nudging machine. Pretending to be objective, unbiased and ethical, it's rewiring billions of brains.

I'm not a Luddite, but sometimes I think that the only "ethical" way to use technology is to not use it at all, because it's most probably built in a sweatshop by slave labors, and the 500 bucks I spent on it could save a thousand starved dying people for at least one month.

Understatement of the week....

[Anonymous Coward]

Heheh, how true.
None of the 'visitors' we get at my job seem to be comfortable or happy.

signed,
Gitmo staff

Are 'Nudging Technologies' Ethical?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Ban advertising, marketing, education, religion, tax incentives, tax disincentives, "go green" campaigns and just about every other human initiative you mindless drones.

x

Does not add up

[Rix]

If I leave the briefcase, you have a million dollars.