[xyzzy123]

In the example you cited I don't think that's a nudge? Or is it?

I ask because I am sure that changing defaults DEFINITELY works, especially if the user does not have a strong existing preference.

You're not really changing user behaviour most of the time, you're changing the outcome of what they're trying to do, which is to reduce their cognitive load by ignoring as much as they possibly can.

[mikkergp]

Some other poster posted that they must have a pretty specific definition of nudge, because it defies credulity that defaults don’t change outcome if only because half the time I don’t read the defaults or know where to find them.

I mean I just found out two weeks ago you could change the hacker news banner color. Are you telling me I’m in a statistically insignia can’t minority of hacker news users?

Also how many settings are there in the average application, you can’t tell me most users go through all of those settings to get exactly what they want.

[xyzzy123]

If defaults don't work then Google wasted 15 billion dollars last year paying Apple to be in the search bar...

I guess there must be further detail in the paper and I will have to read it to understand the nuance.

[inglor_cz]

Defaults very clearly work in matters such as consent to organ donation. In countries where you need to opt out of organ donation, few people bother to do so.

Another question is whether this increases the total amount of successful donations. I was looking around for studies and found this one [1], which basically says "in some countries, yes".

[1] https://behavioralpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Does...

[iudqnolq]

I've heard people argue that that effect isn't a nudge, it's deceit.

That is, all you're doing is tricking people who didn't read carefully. People don't know they've opted in and would opt out if you called and told them that they checked the box.

I find it generally plausible that defaults don't matter much for what people consider very important decisions. I have minimal experience in this area, though.

[manwe150]

There is also some research suggesting that defaults in organ donation (so called presumed consent) may decrease rates of actual donations in those countries. I can't find the original podcast where I heard about it (I assume related to either Planet Money or Freakonomics), but found this source:

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/09/25/organ-donati...

[jjgreen]

Without consent, it's not a donation. "Harvesting" would be an appropriate name.

[salawat]

Consider that 401k's are an onramp through which one delegates one's capital to be allocated by someone else, and it should be obvious the objective.

Capital wants to have the spigot left on. If people don't feed the beast voluntarily, Capital will make that the default.

[Gustomaximus]

Also fair to recognise google also pays Apple to not make or promote a competitor that may offer far more competition.

Id say this is a large part of the reason Gmail, Android and Chrome exist.

[pessimizer]

Or Google is using the search bar as a pretense for paying Apple for something else.

[greggsy]

Suggesting that there is a corporate or government conspiracy without actually saying what it might actually be is the worst type of conspiracy.

[pessimizer]

That's not a conspiracy. When two companies, or countries, or individuals have business dealings on many different levels, a lot of things can be negotiated at the same time.

[analog31]

It seems quite possible for two things to be true: 1) The common sense notion that manipulation works; and 2) Social science couldn't find the signal above the noise.

[SilasX]

> Some other poster posted that they must have a pretty specific definition of nudge, because it defies credulity that defaults don’t change outcome if only because half the time I don’t read the defaults or know where to find them.

My pet theory is, these results hinge on, “does it scale?”

Like, yes, you can do nudges and see behavioral changes. But what about when everyone is doing it constantly? Then people will get fatigued and form countermeasures.

Imagine this dynamic in another context:

“Guys, guys check this out, people are guaranteed to buy your product if you show arguments for it to random people!”

But, oops, centuries of marketing later, advertising isn’t automatically effective enough to cover its costs, people don’t automatically believe the ads.

[IMSAI8080]

I'm guilty of not reading this paper in any detail but it feels that the default setting "nudge" idea should work as described. So if you e.g. nudge people by setting up a pension plan by default (that they can opt out of) does that seriously fail to cause more people to have a pension? Or is this claiming something else?

[elevaet]

Another similar example is jurisdictions that switched to assuming an individual consents to organs donation when they die, rather than having an opt-in system, see much higher rates of organ donation.

https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increa...

[rad88]

The hacker news banner color doesn't matter and few have ever wanted to change it. But your financial position and needs, what % of your salary you can afford to money-hole until retirement, does matter and is pretty individual. It doesn't defy credulity to me that generally people would make a choice about this (when can I retire?), and that the default doesn't influence it.

I grant that it would be surprising if it had no influence at all, but I think the effect is more the social signal that you should want to save the max, that your neighbors probably do (it's the default after all), etc., rather than people completely ignoring/missing it.

[concordDance]

The default influenced me and pretty much everyone in my company Ive talked to (namely, almost everyone stuck to it). So yes, it defies credulity.

[rad88]

I believe you. If you know it influenced you though, that means you didn't ignore it or not even realize you could change it, which is the idea I was replying to.

Again, it would be surprising if it didn't matter at all, but not unimaginable. What you're saying is that almost everybody in your company would have contributed a lesser amount if not for the default. It means you can all afford to give up $20k or whatever in income this year. There are other factors.

There is no truth to the matter of "whether defaults change behavior". This thread started about 401ks and then was taken into color preferences on the web. If someone has a gun to their head is asked if they want to die, I'm sure we'll agree that whatever the default is doesn't matter. Whether defaults do anything depends on what we're talking about. Nudges might work in web ux but not economics, why is that so incredulous?

[concordDance]

But they DO work in economics. Otherwise why would almost everyone contribute the default rather than a lower or higher amount?

Defaults are very strong when there is a lot of uncertainty about the payoffs of different answers.

[HardlyCurious]

I'm not sure it is useful to lump nudging on decisions users don't want to or don't know how to make in with nudging on decisions users either want to or have to make.

It's a no brainer that defaults will alter outcomes for users who aren't willing or capable of making a selection for the choice in question.

[jolux]

You have to have a certain amount of karma to change the banner color.

[adamisom]

Yeah, I am also confused by the statement that nudges theory doesn’t replicate and I’m afraid that statement won’t replicate haha, or rather, there are basic, indisputable findings with mindboggling effect size that countries with different defaults for organ donors have different donation rates.

Now, you can say all day long that those aren’t causal studies, but there is just no way that confounding factors like different cultures explain it, because cultures just aren’t sufficiently different, or rather cultures that are otherwise pretty similar have vastly different donation rates.

A lot of the replication crisis imo is just realizing that landmark studies were underpowered. That is, they don’t prove what they meant to prove, but that is very different from whether the effect exists i.e. an effect may exist yet be hard to prove and social scientists are rarely rigorous in study design, from training and from inherent difficulty.

[JusticeJuice]

Nudges are often imagined as just how choices are presented, but yes the default option is considered part of nudge theory. As also is social proof ("Your friends picked this choice").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory#Types_of_nudges

[clairity]

also, the question is how much structural elements influence outcomes (not merely decisions), not whether they do or not. that’s the extra complexity of a social system built atop a biological system built atop a chemical environment built atop a physical one. we’re complicated. physics is nigh child’s play in comparison.

[kristianc]

This seems to be the standard response to anything that seeks to debunk nudge. Any time you say ‘This example of a nudge doesn’t work / isn’t replicable / isn’t actually socially helpful’ someone will say ‘Ah but that’s not really nudge tactics.’

[mcswell]

No true Scotsman.

[harry8]

Also the other way will come up in these kinds of "arguments" without doubt.

"How can these horrible critics say nudges don't work? Have they never been nudged with a loaded revolver? Can they not imagine that working?"

Leaving those of us who don't follow the controversy closely in the field and are interested in what has actually been found out and understood about the world with some degree of confidence across many fields of study, leaves us scratching our heads unable to see through the viewing window for all the mud getting flung.

[_8j50]

401k is a good example, I have had it for my whole career but if there was a form at any point asking me how much of my pay I want to contribute I would have said 0 because I prefer cash at hand than cash some day and all the b.s. health insurance is already taking a lot. But 401k doesn't bother me enough to change the default so I leave it be as some kind of rainy day fund. I didn't like paying the penalty to withdraw it, unless I turn 65, it will always be worth significantly less than it says on paper, I am not even convinced it is beating inflation. My point is, because people don't change the default it does not mean they have accepted it or like it, that is an incorrect conclusion.

Food is another example, I like cheese sometimes but when there is an option for it I take it out of the food most times but I won't go out of my way to ask for its removal otherwise, this has a real health impact.

[mikeiz404]

If you’re worried about beating inflation, have a long time horizon, and don’t mind some risk you might looking into investing in total market index funds. An index fund for the S&P 500 has averaged ~10% returns when looking back 30 years [1].

If you’re just concerned about inflation, don’t like risk, and don’t mind locking you money up for a little bit Treasury Inflation Protected Securities [2] are also a thing. Their returns are tied to the Fed’s measurement of inflation (CPI).

1: https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/index-funds/ave...

2: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tips.asp

[jimmydorry]

To add to the above, here's a graph of inflation adjusted S&P 500 [1].

[1] https://www.multpl.com/inflation-adjusted-s-p-500

[LegitShady]

I max out contribution because my employer matches - instant 100% return. If I didn't have that I'm not sure I'd do it.