[curiousllama]

> statistically and therefore substantively insignificant

This is not what statistical significance implies. This misunderstanding, and its inverse, leads to the very errors for which you criticize the "nudge" papers.

More to the broader point, "set defaults intelligently" in fact implies the ability to "shape peoples' behavior at the margins." Otherwise, why bother thinking about them?

That's why what is actually at issue with "nudges" is effect size & context: how much of a difference can we have, and where?

And to that question, this paper provides little insight. It aggregates too much & ignores real-world policy evidence.

Now, it's still a good paper - people have gone WAY overboard with nudges in silly places - it just needs to be understood as "let's reign in expectations" and not "this field is bunk"