Improving Decisions About Health - and Happiness

It was an interesting read but the authors' perception of libertarian paternalism stretches the definition of libertarian too far in my opinion. I did not find their policy targets to be especially interesting as subjects for discussion. They are far too timid. zZzzZZ What about choice architecture on my taxes? I would like to be able to opt out. But, this would not have made it through the editorial censors ("liberal" fascist ideology)

I was also annoyed with their incessant use of feminine pronouns...probably "suggested" by their feminist editor.

Thaler's other writings are far superior. This books makes use of status quo bias too much. There are a lot of biases they could have analyzed. What about Thaler's own work on mental accounting?

I think that you are better off reading Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. This is a book you read in the course Managerial Decision Making at uChicago's MBA program. Thaler teaches one of the sections.

This book was referenced in a blog I read related to structuring choices. I purchased it because I liked the concept and wanted to learn more about choice architecture. This book has helped me better consider the power of the default option. I would have enjoyed more examples outside of how choice architecture might help government better direct the decisions of people. I found the overall tone to be condescending and the authors seemed out of touch with their audience.

Thaler and Sunstein's Nudge is best read as a list of examples of and general principles for developing choice architecture in order to improve outcomes. It can provide an understanding of the pros can cons of opt-out, opt-in, forced choices, random selection, and default preferences.

This book was sold to me as something more than that, and the authors continuously repeat their "libertarian paternalism" catch phrase. Simply put, there's very little that could be called libertarian about this book. School choice is a possible exception, but kids always complicate patterns.

To quote the video of the authors on the book's the store page, "this book is not so much about whether we should have big or small government." The primary failing is that while government programs may be improved through choice architecture, there will always be force involved to the extent that government is making decisions. Reducing the size of the government budget is by default a way to increase liberty, and their refusal to acknowledge that makes their "libertarian paternalism" mantra ring hollow.

The most interesting fact I learned from this book is that the social security website has operating hours.

This book about human perception is so new and relevant, and very exciting.
I would recommend it to adults, of course, but whose are very interested in the human psychology.

I absolutly agree with Steven D. Levitt when he says that: "One of few books that fundamentally changed the way I think about the world"

As a former politician who was completely disillusioned by politics, I found Thaler and Sunstein's book insightful and refreshing. The idea of Libertarian Paternalism is a possible solution to American's broken political system. Even if you have giving up on politics, give this book a tried. You won't regret it. I highly recommend it.

Michael Beitler, Ph.D.
Author of "Strategic Organizational Change, 3rd Edition"

Too bad there are no analytic's to back them up. It's just one long run-on folksy and rater boring story (unless of course, you are engrained in academia and spend you evenings pontificating). It does appear our government has bought into it, hook, line, and sinker. The entire concept is anathema to citizens of the US. Who are "they" to pick what is best and then nudge them... as one person pointed out -- the move from nudge to shove isn't very far!

I needed this book for a college class and decided to buy online. I bought it for a much cheaper price than what I would have paid at a bookstore. The book was in the good condition the vendor advertised and I was very happy with the purchase. I'd definitely buy from this vendor again.

As a former politician who was completely disillusioned by politics, I found Thaler and Sunstein's book insightful and refreshing. The idea of Libertarian Paternalism is a possible solution to American's broken political system. Even if you have giving up on politics, give this book a tried. You won't regret it. I highly recommend it.

Michael Beitler, Ph.D.
Author of "Strategic Organizational Change, 3rd Edition"

Too bad there are no analytic's to back them up. It's just one long run-on folksy and rater boring story (unless of course, you are engrained in academia and spend you evenings pontificating). It does appear our government has bought into it, hook, line, and sinker. The entire concept is anathema to citizens of the US. Who are "they" to pick what is best and then nudge them... as one person pointed out -- the move from nudge to shove isn't very far!

I needed this book for a college class and decided to buy online. I bought it for a much cheaper price than what I would have paid at a bookstore. The book was in the good condition the vendor advertised and I was very happy with the purchase. I'd definitely buy from this vendor again.

This book covers a lot of ground, and none of it is covered with any rigour or depth.

There are occasional interesting pieces of insight - for example, if you want people to reduce their energy usage, it may be enough to tell above-average users that they are in that category - below-average users, not so much, they may then use more energy - but you can counter this by a nice smiley emoticon next to where that fact is displayed (implying they're doing a great thing by using less energy) and their usage will stay low.

The problem is, to gain these nice pieces of insight, I had to dig through much much more content that was not covered well.

Here are some of the the things you'll find in this book

- A superficial review of psychology research concerning a few factors on how people make choices (For example, too many choices lead to overwhelm and bad decisions. Another example - people can be influenced to make a bad decision if others around them are making bad decisions).
- A explanation of how people can be helped to make good choices, for example with food, by where food is placed on store shelves (e.g. at eye level vs not).
- Many many pages of excruciating detail on why choices of medical insurance plans can be a complex and painful process. Ditto for how the complexity of investing can lead to bad investment choices. None of this is original.
- A fairly basic solution proposed to complexity of choices - regulations to require providers to provide information on the implications of their choices - for example, lenders should provide documentation of the implications of a given choice of loan - what you'd end up paying over time (not just at the time of initial "special deals") and what the worst case scenario would imply in terms of costs for you. This information, the authors advise, should not be buried in the fine print. Very very obvious stuff.
- A chapter on making organ donation to be opt-out instead of opt-in. One of the better chapters, with some evidence given of it having worked in some countries. But could have been dealt with in a few paragraphs, did not need to be stretched to a chapter (admittedly a short chapter).
- Some attempts at philosophical argument for why governments should be allowed to "nudge" people to better choices, but not done to any depth or rigour.
- Several side comments that did not provide any new insights - for example, that the principle of what actions are being taken by those in authority should be transparent might have prevented the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. Again, nothing original here.
- Several trite pieces of advice about how publicising a commitment you've made (e.g. to lose weight) and setting up disincentives for failure (e.g. a certain amount of money to be donated to a cause you disapprove of) can help you achieve the goal. Again, nothing new here.
- A more reasonable chapter on privatizing marriage - the goal being to allow religious groups to endorse marriages based on their convictions, but for all partnerships to be granted equal legal status. Not really related to the concept of nudging though, and drawn out and padded with sociological thoughts on what function marriage has historically served, which does not seem to be the authors' field of expertise.
- Random pieces of advice such as permitting motorcycle riders to not wear helmets if they take extra training and show evidence of medical insurance. If I could be sure that they are also paying higher insurance premiums I might not be too annoyed at that one, but the authors don't venture into this area of discussion so again I felt their treatment of this topic was incomplete.
- A recommendation that the Social Security Administration assist those claiming benefits by making more clear at what age you should start collecting the benefits if you want to obtain the maximum amount of money by it (allowing for things like, maybe I'm ok with less money if I want it sooner). Having a payer assist a payee in taking maximum advantage is nice and altruistic, good luck with getting that happening.

Overall it felt like the authors had a collection of unrelated instances of advice that they were trying to force to fit the concept of a "nudge".

If you are interested in this kind of content from a psychology viewpoint, read Freakonomics (Dubner and Levitt), Predictably Irrational (Ariely), Influence (Cialdini), Tipping Point (Gladwell). For the investment advice and bits of self-help associated with that, David Bach does a better job in his various books.

Addendum to this review: Since I wote this review, I have done more reading about personal finances, and have landed squarely in the index fund camp, which is different to David Bach's recommendations. For basic investment advice, nowadays I recommend "Millionaire Teacher" by Andrew Hallam.

3.5 stars.

The key words in this book are "choice architecture" and "libertarian paternalism." The first term refers to how the government or private companies sets up the menu of choices for people. The authors posit that how the menu is set up acts as a nudge itself (for example, the person that is 1st on the ballot gets 3.5% more votes than he/she normally would). They spend a lot of time showing how the choice architecture can help or hurt individuals.

The second term refers to giving people very limited direction where the default is as least restrictive as possible and also allows people to opt out.

The book is well researched and makes a number of good points. It is dry at times though, and it took me far longer than normal to get through it. It's probably better as a 125 page book instead of a 270 page one.

If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? ____ minutes.

I instantly answered 100, like most do. The correct answer is 5 minutes. My degree in engineering and an MBA failed me in answering this question in simple arithmetic. When we do this exercise in a large group, it is fun, we burst into laughter.

What if such simple errors have a lifelong impact? Then it is no laughing matter.

Imagine a young employee, aged 23, joining an organization in his first job. The company offers a statutory savings plan to take care of his retirement, after a career spanning over three decades. In most cases, the employee is either too busy in joining formalities and accepts the default saving plan which allocates his money into a safe treasury fund. If he is asked to apportion between two plans, one being a safe Government bond option and the other plan investing in riskier equity markets, he might opt for a 50/50 allocation. Hardly does he know that the riskier option over three decades can make him retire much richer and even retire early.

Consider an investment horizon 1925-2005. $ 1 in Treasury bill would be $18, that in long term bonds would be $ 71, and an investment in S&P 500 index fund would fetch a whopping $ 2658, despite the great depression, wars and recessions in the eighty years.

This book is for all those who answered 100 to the first question opted for bond funds or 50/50 savings solution for retirement. As Financial Economist and Noble laureate Harry Markowitz, one of the founders of modern portfolio theory confessed: ‘I split my contributions fifty-fifty between bonds and equities’.

Despite being offered choices, we instantaneously jump into the wrong options. This according to the authors is due to System 1 or ‘Automatic Thinking’ that is impulsive and intuitive in Humans. The minority that uses System 2 or ‘Reflective Thinking’ that is controlled, slow and deductive are termed Econs. The vast majority of us on this planet are Humans, and not Econs.

The core concept of the book is that of Libertarian Paternalism. Libertarianism is about offering choices and Paternalism is about exercising choices in a way that makes choosers better off in their own judgement. Choice architecture is about organizing choices in the context in which people make decisions, and Nudge is any aspect of choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in predictable ways without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives, explain the authors.

Nudge is not about ‘Mandatory, Compulsory or Prohibited’ as often used in harsh bureaucratic orders, based on narrow ambitions of political bosses, even in large democracies. Nudge celebrates diversity and fosters tolerance.

Nudge is not about greedy corporates tricking customers by creating a fog, through complex choices to make them buy a sub-optimal product or service.

Chapters on savings, health care, insurance, marriage, environment, organ donation and a host of topics clearly demonstrate the need for a rethink on how we behave as a society and how Nudge can make us better off without the frictions and tensions. Even in simple transactions in everyday life, we tend to make the wrong choices either unconsciously or are deliberately misled by cleverly designed choice architecture. Governments, Corporations and Societies should come together to address these issues, argue the authors.

Nudge as explained in this book aims at the ultimate welfare of all human beings, by providing the right choice architecture, exercising it in a prudent manner, thereby all stake holders are better off, simultaneously. This book is in true love for humanity, our planet and means of enduring love and peace.

“Nudge” has little that is new despite the fancy name theory and even less of practical utility for any practitioners as most case studies that are used and solutions preferred are highly situation specific. Yet, this is an immensely interesting book to read. And, that’s the reason behind its success.

For the experienced behavioural science readers, the book will start off too slow and too fast! There is almost a heady summarisation of tens of standard behavioural finance theories and common examples in the first part of the book. Framing, heuristic, prospect theory examples are used to prove that people are “nudgeable “. There is no surprise for anyone who has read the book blurb and knows these theories.

What is surprising, however, is that the authors themselves almost admit at the start that there is nothing new in nudging. Through information, priming and peer pressure, humans have been nudged by their brethren forever. While it is not explicitly admitted that the authors are not presenting anything new, what we have at best is conceptualisation of what is already in practice, There is nothing wrong with this. Behavioral theories do exactly the same almost all the time, with the implicit promise of exploiting the framework for more deliberate use in real life cases. “Nudging”, like many other behavioural theories, disappoint in failing to live up to this promise. More about it later.

The authors introduce an associated concept of choice architecture. The book covers many good examples of crafty uses of this “choice architecture” (or available options in common parlance, perhaps) in retail, consumer lending, mortgages and other industries.

The author's answers to prevent the abuses of these nudgers are two: a> more transparency - which is fair and b> counternudges. In a book that advocates libertarian paternalism, predictably there is little eulogising the value of transparency. This is fair. The focus is on the “counternudges”, which makes some sense but remotely not as much as what the authors imply.

The main problem is that most of the counternudgers have strong negative incentives to exploit the choice architecture. Most of the times, the counternudgers are watchdogs, regulators and other non-profit entities who have strong reasons not to guide because when things go wrong, as they always do in some cases, they are not only blamed for not using the “best” choice architecture by some other theoretician and politicians but are made to bear the financial (at the institutional level) and reputational burdens as well.

Time to paraphrase: There is no ideal choice architecture. Whenever someone consciously chooses one architecture for “nudging”, she bears the responsibility where the architecture fails. And there are always failures. If the choice is made by a non-profit organization like a government or state-baked institution, the financial, legal, political, reputational or bureaucrats’ career-ending costs with nudges. These direct and indirect costs, along with their fears, will always make people reluctant to nudge despite knowing its utility. Those in the profit-seeking industry will look at such costs from a financial angle and make more practical decisions based on personal cost-benefits, even if harmful for many on the other side. The author never discussed how to overcome these practical issues.

There are other issues. Everyone in real life may want to nudge, but most nudges are anything but optimal. Rather, many are downright harmful and wrong. The nudgers have to be indisputably competent, apart from being unbiased, appropriately communicative (that is finding the right balance between what parts of nudges to explain for transparency and what parts to be kept hidden for craftiness reasons) and powerful enough. Same is true those who select them. And those who select the selectors etc. Otherwise, like in the pension scheme examples used in the book, any conscious choice architecture chosen will always be trashed by others as unsuitable. One may end up taking no decisions as people simply keep arguing.

Not all nudges have disputable sides. There are nudges that are incontrovertible; the book provides examples in “Save More Tomorrow” or “Drink More Water”. Yet, these are exceptions.

Overall, the book introduces a concept with terms that stick. The successful case studies do not provide many transferable lessons, but they help cement the framework. The book suffers from digressions and authors’ highly personal opinions that have no connection to the main topic. The one on the marriage is perhaps the most obvious. All said, it is now a celebrated book written by a Nobel laureate. Its chief messages are already far better explained in later books, but none of them can eliminate the Bible-like originator nature of this book from hereon.

Do you remember back in the day when books discussing economics typically rambled on about things like marginal utility, profit margins, and, yeah, maybe even the factory dynamics involved with making pins? Hardly ever were these books, though maybe difficult to grasp on a first reading, outright insulting to its readers. Even the Marxist ones usually maintained a cordial and respectful tone with its consumer. Ahh, those certainly were the days...

Why do I bring this up, you ask?

Well, the literature of economics has a new tone now and its main premise is a little condescending. Apparently, you, as an average consumer, are a bit of a fool. You’re prone to make terrible decisions given almost whatever the circumstances. And, if this makes you feel any better, you’re far from alone. Instead of being the optimal Econ that free marketers once tended to assume most people are, you’re just human, all too human. I knew economists would eventually get around to reading Nietzsche. Anyway... Nudge is a book co-authored by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a now famous social raconteur devoted to addressing the rampant foolishness which has become the human race. What? You want to go back to your Adam Smith? At times, while reading this book, I did, too. The basic gist is that people give undue weight to certain circumstances over others which often have little merit for inclusion when making an important economic choice. The fix is in, whether anyone likes it or not. You can’t get around it. You’re more likely to grab food placed at eye-level in a cafeteria than strain your neck up or down to find what you actually really want. People are more likely to conform to the sway of a crowd, even if they know the crowd is probably wrong. People are inclined to lock in loses for fear of a future dropping of value after they’ve bought in on an investment that was likely already at its peak. We’re now told these are the natural foibles. The authors, Thaler & Sunstein, make no claim of a solution to make us smarter; they only offer that since we’re predisposed to making poor decisions, why not exploit this tendency to help people make better ones? They refer to their approach as “Libertarian Paternalism”. Yes, I know: it gave me a bit of a migraine when I first read it, too. If you’re inclined to think that the authors are merely offering liberal interventionism under a new and somewhat misleading name, well, that was my first reaction, too. Perhaps we should ask the authors what they mean by this oxymoronish neologism. “When we use the term libertarian to modify the word paternalism, we simply mean liberty-preserving.” And they mean it, too, they explicitly state. Well, what do they mean by paternalism? “(W)e argue for self-conscious efforts, by institutions in the private sector as well as government, to steer people’s choices in directions that will improve their lives.” So what does this mean? The freedom to be conned for our own good? Well, there’s a snap decision that’s perhaps a bit harsh. Maybe we should hear them out. “Drawing on some well-established findings in the social science, we show that in many cases, individuals make pretty bad decisions—decisions they would not have made if they had paid full attention and possessed complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities, and complete self-control.”p5. Ouch, right?

Anyway, our authors proffer an extensive overhaul of the private and public sectors centered around recognizing these unfortunate human heuristics that involves what they refer to as “choice” architecture. Crafting default options carefully to combat against the dastardly “yeah, whatever” heuristic which can have an impact(an extremely positive one, according to the authors) on everything from saving for retirement to choosing appropriate healthcare. The crux of the whole matter is that people are very easily nudged regardless of whether that’s purposely directed, or random. Why not nudge people in a more salubrious direction, so long as the freedom to opt out or change course for a dissenting individual is preserved? On the surface of things, it’s hard not to see the authors’ point. The recent economic literature of misbehavior, such as The Undoing Project, focuses on our psychological shortcomings as autonomous economic agents with an impressive amount of research to buttress it. Ignoring this would be opting out for ignorance. Still, one can’t shake the feeling that the authors lean more toward the paternalistic than libertarian. They show more than a little leg by claiming the Swedish government made a mistake encouraging its citizens to pick their own investment plans(apparently the Swedish government did a much better job choosing for its citizens than they happened to do for themselves). Sunstein‘s day job during Obama’s first term in office was to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. His appointment was almost blocked due to his political views. One can probably guess which word of libertarian paternalism gave the legislators the shakes back then. Ultimately, people will remain attached to their personal freedom(whether foolishly so or not) and they’ll rightly be suspicious of any attempt to curtail it; much less surreptitiously direct it, no matter what the intention. I suspect libertarian paternalism won’t gain much popularity beyond this book, but it is ably given its day in court within it. The authors make their points clearly for the common reader, devoid of any needless jargon. Some of their numerous examples for implementation will be off putting to many and some perhaps shouldn’t have survived the editing process(such as giving a dollar a day for female teens who remain not pregnant). But if you can withstand the opening blow to your personal dignity then this is a very interesting book on how consumers will often misbehave and what the sectors, public and private, might do to “nudge” them, for the better, as well as for the worse.

2.5 stars
An interesting few points about influencing behaviour. However, the authors spend 80% of the book going through the details of the examples, rather than the concepts behind them. We don't really care about the bureaucratic specifics of social healthcare schemes in the USA, we want to know about the concepts of choice. influence and behavioural economics.

There are far better, more up-to-date works on behavioural economics and neuroeconomics.

Read the first few chapters and skip the excruciatingly tedious, irrelevant examples. Borrow don’t buy.

This book is about decision making. This book is primarily aimed at guiding public policy decisions through what the authors call “libertarian paternalism”. Self-described libertarians, among others, should read it. Why is libertarianism oddly coupled with “paternalism”? Because when posing a choice, in the context of “free choice” the choice must be framed and the framing can never be neutral . . . so the framing of options provides a nudge. Vast amounts of sociology reveals that most people make very poor choices but that slight nudges can help them make better choices. Overall I enjoyed the book but took issue with the section on school choice. There is no constitutional right to government provided K-12 education but as a society we have deemed that such education benefits society. And although I agree with some choice in school choice, there are constitutional issues that arise. Of course, this book was written in 2007 and so we have seen how some this plays out in reality. Many people have supported school for reasons other than providing incentives for public schools improve. This subject requires more careful thought.

Yes, that's right, Big Brother is nudging you. But nicely, oh so nicely. Which makes it alright then, doesn't it?

Actually no, no it doesn't. After reading this book, I came away with the same sense of horror that Orwell's 1984 induced, forever shaping my political instincts. But it might be better to compare Nudge with another dystopian tract, Huxley's Brave New World, where the populous aren't so much pushed as pulled into compliance. For Nudge is a book about soft power i.e. indirect, non-coercive influence as opposed to brute force or diktat. And I object to it at almost every level.

I object to the absurd self-classification of the authors' position as 'patriarchal libertarianism'. Let's also talk about square circles or free-market socialism, shall we. This species of overt muddled thinking is in the same remedial class as Blair's bitter 'Third Way' and all its hollow kind. Libertarianism envisions a government that leaves people free to make bad decisions and then take whatever hue of consequences ensues. Paternalism means government acting in parentis loco under the fantastic delusion that a cabal of politicians knows what is best for me. Redefining both - which is that this book does - is exactly an example of soft power in action.

The authors make a distinction between Econs and Humans. Econs are ideal, rational decision-makers; humans are the unwashed mass of humanity as is - irrational, riddled with cognitive biases, automatons of the marketing puppet-masters (read: 'choice architects'). The book argues (correctly) that no choice is neutral - whoever is presenting you with the choice has some game to play. The book's solution is that since people are mere Humans rather than Econs, those in power should help or 'nudge' them toward making the right choices. How? By presenting the choice in such a way that the Human brain will 'freely' choose what Big Brother considers best for them.

My solution would be somewhat different. Instead of assuming the worst, aim for the best. TEACH PEOPLE TO BE ECONS! Use a mixture of critical thinking and mindfulness techniques (the authors use the phrase 'mindless' or equivalent several times e.g. 38, 44, 46-8) to equip citizens in rational, free decision-making, beyond the power of any propagandist, whether state or market originated.

Throughout the book two names kept popping into my head, one of an individual thinker and the other a system of thought. Nietzsche was one of the first to criticise 'herd morality'; his tone is enough to shame his readers into some semblance of independent thought. Nudge uses the word 'nerd' fairly frequently; it forms part of the title for chapter three, in which we find the following gem.

"Econs are pretty unsociable creatures. They communicate with others if they can gain something from the encounter, they care about their reputations, and they will learn from others if actual information can be obtained, but Econs are not followers of fashion...(In contrast to this), Humans are not exactly lemmings, but they are easily influenced by the statement and deeds of others." (57)

I suspect that the authors believe they are dealing with people as they really are, not as we might want them to be. They portray Econs as either some mythical supra-rational species, or vaguely sinister socio-phobs, as here. I profoundly disagree. To be an Econ is to be an individuated, reflective human being, a responsible citizen, a rational thinker. We do exist, and we will not be nudged.

The second name is neuro-linguistic programming, an advanced self-help technology beloved of coaches and sales people. The first time I learned of techniques like 'anchoring' (25) and 'framing' (39) were in this context. But it is unsurprising to find them here. Nudge is indeed an exercise in 'neuroeconomics' (45). Practitioners of NLP use these techniques for interpersonal persuasion, whether in public speaking, negotiation or selling. Here, Nudgers are merely applying these manipulative arts to society-at-large rather than an individual victim.

Did you know that the UK government has an unelected Behavioural Insights Team dedicated to using these Nudge techniques to influence our decision-making in line with government policy? What stops me from having nightmares about this is that I know it exists. Most - the herd - do not. This herd would fight any form of hard power or overt government repression (at least, I hope so). But a cunning use of words and options is more difficult to detect and defend oneself against. It's easier to watch The X Factor instead.

My last word on this comes from the mouth of one of the characters in the excellent film Josey Wales. "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." Well, don't engineer all my decisions and tell me it's liberty! Big Brother isn't a fascist dictator, he's professor of behavioural science. Soma, anyone?

I give the authors one star for satisfactory notes, bibliography and index (which they didn't compile), and another for having the effrontery to publish such a textbook for tender tyranny in the first place.

I bought this book because the info suggested it could help me to make better choices in my life by "nudging" myself in the right direction. But instead the book was about public policy, and how choice architectures (default choices, opt-in, opt-out processes, and other such alternatives) could be used to influence the choices that populations of people made (kids, adults, seniors, etc) in various topic areas (food, smoking, health care, etc).

It seemed to me the general idea of the book was valid (that choice architectures can make a big difference in population choice outcomes). So that's good news.

But there's bad news too. I think the book description could be improved if it emphasized that the book is about choice architectures for implementing public policy choices, rather than a personal choice improvement book. There is nothing in here for the person who wants to improve their own choice making. Second, the book overall is a slow, dry, and tedious read, especially in the last half of the book. I felt it was possible to say what the authors wanted to say with about half as many pages, or less.

Finally, when the authors slid into long, tedious, explanations of possible opposing arguments against their approach, I started skimming faster and faster because there was never any meat, never any new points or info that went anywhere, nothing that added to their thesis in any meaningful way.

I gave it 3 stars because I think their main point(s) are valid. But the presentation seemed very slow, dry, and tedious to me. So I would not recommend this book to anyone except maybe public policy choice architects who design default alternatives for their client populations.

I read this book with the thinking that I would probably be concerned about the practice of Nudging, because it would be a covert way of convincing people they want something they really don't. While the author does mention in the first chapter that Nudging can be used in an unethical manor, the focus of this book is on "Libertarian Paternalism" or the practice of giving people more freedoms, but nudging people towards better decisions by offering better information or requiring people to make an effort to go after the least desired choice. For example, making 401k contributions automatic and requiring employees to un-enroll, if they don't want to contribute. Steps like this have shown that these small steps will increase savings rates. I did feel like several of the chapters were full of extra fluff to lengthen the book, because several points would be beaten to death, but I still found the book an entertaining and fairly quick read.

The way people make choices depends on the way those choices are presented. Give a person a list of candidates and the odds favor her picking the first of that list. Give a person a default and he's hard to budge off that default. Move the fruits and candies around in the cafeteria line and the students' diets either improve or grow worse. So, argue Thaler and Sunstein, doesn't it make sense that people be given intelligent defaults? Shouldn't, for example, the default for a 401k be participate rather than not participate? Shouldn't the default investment be focused toward an index fund rather than a money market which doesn't even keep up with inflation? Shouldn't a cafeteria employee present the fruits and vegetables in an attractive way to encourage students to eat more healthily? Thaler and Sunstein call this paternalistic libertarianism because the individual is still free to make the bad choices but he's "nudged" toward the better choices.

This isn't rocket science. Ballots, for example, now list candidates randomly exactly because there's an equal chance for each candidate to be favored by positioning rather than, say, listing the Republicans first. And it's hard to argue that in a world where individuals are expected to contribute toward their retirement, they should be encouraged to do that rather than defaulted toward doing nothing. Some of Thaler/Sunstein's ideas about giving those who conserve electricity smiley faces make sense, wouldn't cost much, and might motivate behavior that saves those individuals money (while not actually forcing them to use less electricity if, for example, they're running a home lab and need to power all those grow lights).

So, what's not to like? Well, first, Thaler and Sunstein just sort of wave their arms at issues like the environment. Sure, they say, there are externalities. Sure, taxes or permits are a better solution than command, but let's focus on the little nudges instead. Little nudges aren't going to do the job here and they know it. We need big nudges but these are nudges that Thaler and Sunstein aren't prepared to advocate. Second, Thaler and Sunstein trot out the standard Conservative issues of eliminating medical malpractice lawsuits and "school choice" as examples of the kind of nudge that they'd like. I think many Americans would disagree that we should be allowed to contractually sign away our basic rights. Yet that, in essence, is what eliminating malpractice lawsuits would do. Are there problems? Is there abuse? Sure and these should be dealt with. But does anyone really believe that the patient is in an equitable bargaining position when he's about to undergo surgery for a life-threatening disease and his surgeon refuses to operate until that contract is signed? (Good luck keeping your insurance if you refuse to sign away that right... unless the government refuses to allow you to do so). And then there's school choice. It sounds so logical--let competition drive out the bad schools and promote better schools. But really, "school choice" became an issue when racial segregation became illegal and it's not a coincidence. Giving government money to racist schools, to schools who promote narrow-minded interpretations of the truth, to schools who claim to hold open admissions and yet seem to graduate only affluent white students is a problem. I'm not saying school choice can't be well-run but Thaler and Sunstein brush over the fundamental problems in implementation and the basic driving force behind the school choice movement not even mentioning its long history of racism.

I'll just mention the discussion of marriage. Wearing their libertarian hats, Thaler and Sunstein don't believe that the government should exclude gay couples, interracial couples or any other couples from the legal benefits of marriage. They also don't believe that churches should be forced to perform marriages of those whose marriage they disapprove (although they sort of gloss over whether they're really okay with churches refusing to perform marriage of, say, people of different skin colors). I'm good with this. Like Thaler and Sunstein, I don't think an ultra-Orthodox Jewish synagogue should, for example, be forced to perform a marriage for a couple of pagans. But why, Thaler and Sunstein, do you conclude that the government shouldn't call legal marriages "marriages?" After all, they were marriages before Christianity (and called something like this although, of course they weren't called that in English). In France, civil marriages are required and religious ceremonies are optional. It certainly seems to me that Thaler and Sunstein are trying a little too hard to appeal to their right-wing fans here. It won't work, guys. So, let's eliminate the discrimination and let's not change the name just because some groups have a problem with it. Why, after all, should churches, synagogues and mosques be allowed to define legal terms?

Bottom line--I think we economists need to be better behavioralists. We need to recognize that more choice imposes choice costs which may exceed the benefits these added costs impose. We need to recognize that, as social animals, people will respond to information about others' behavior (upon learning that 99% of Americans fairly report their income, more Americans are more honest about their income reporting). I applaud Thaler and Sunstein for recognizing these facts and pointing us in the direction of helping people make better decisions while minimizing the restrictions on their freedom. I wish, however, that they'd been a little more willing to step away from Conservative bete noirs (hello, public school teachers and trial lawyers tend to vote Democratic and contribute toward Democratic candidates... is it really a coincidence that they're so often the targets of conservative ire?), and recognize the importance of externalities that require something more than a little social nudge (e.g., climate change).

In 2015 this book is rather dated. Universal health care has arrived, Medicare Part D has been around for many years, and gay marriage is the law of the land. It was still a worthwhile read but not great. I loved the explanation (at the end of the book) of "asymmetric paternalism":Their guiding principle is that we should design policies that help the least sophisticated people in society while imposing the smallest possible costs on the most sophisticated (Libertarian paternalism is a form of asymmetric paternalism in which costs imposed on the sophisticated are kept close to zero).

For those interested in mortgages the advice is "people who get the best deals are those who pay no fee up front" and "loans made by mortgage brokers are more expensive than those made by direct lenders".

I accidentally stumbled upon a group of books that support a theory I call "our little fake worldviews." My theory is, basically, that large amounts of things we believe -- and do so very firmly in some instances -- aren't even true.

The first in the series I found was "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me), by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. This book was followed by, The Self Illusion: Why There Is No "You" Inside Your Head, by Bruce Hood. Both of these books are highly recommended. Later, I found "Thinking, Fast and Slow," by Daniel Kahneman, which I'm reading now.

The basis of the books are that people are terribly easy to manipulate. For example, if you can prime someone by asking the question in a certain way, you can skew the answers given to the question. For example, if you ask the question, "Did Gandhi live to be 144 years old?" You can make people give a much higher age of death for Gandhi than his actual age when he died. Why? Because by inserting "144 years old" into the question, the majority of people start at 144 years old and go down, having a mental image of a very old man in the process (This example was actually from "Thinking, Fast and Slow," by Daniel Kahneman).

The first section of Nudge is very similar to the above books, being filled with interesting studies that show how little there actually is to "us." While very good, unfortunately, some of the studies had actually been covered in the above books somewhere. At some points, it seemed that entire paragraphs were interchangeable between books, as there were sections that I remember almost word for word from other books. I'm not sure who quoted, who, though, or which books even.

The second section of the book is about retirement plans, investing, insurance, etc. The connection to the first section is that, if people are "nudged" in the right direction (by subtle manipulation), the public at large can be pushed in a direction that benefits both the individual and society as a whole. The authors seem to think they are taking a libertarian position while doing their nudging, but as someone who has studied a lot of libertarians philosophy, nothing really jumped out at me as being overtly libertarian in origin.

Unfortunately, the authors are very long winded. The first section of the book is admittedly really interesting. However, if you don't actually have investments, stock, or retirement plans at work, you can just skip the second half of the book. It is tedious and boring.

While I'm sure the book may be of some help to people who actually have investments, stock, retirement plans, etc., this book could be skipped in favor of the similar but better books mentioned above. If you are interested in this book because of its purported libertarian leanings, I would suggest something from Ron Paul instead.

All in all, I am not disappointed for buying the book, but I sure wouldn't put this at the top of my list for must reads.

Nudge mistakenly attempts to make its simple ideas even simpler so that a popular audience can easily understand them. Unfortunately, Thaler and Sunstein set the bar way too low, and the book is annoyingly dumbed-down. Most educated people know what an externality is: you don't need to put it in quotes. Also, the endless cheekiness and attempts at humor are out of place rather than charming. One would hope that the director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy would write a more serious book on his theory of governmental nudging. To the authors: please challenge us with something that we (a diligent audience who wants to know what you really think) can work to understand.

Moreover, the book is structured around different contexts in which the idea of "nudging" can be applied (enviro policy, health policy, financial regulation). This easily turns into an endless stream of "nifty" anecdotes. How about organizing the book on the gradual development and exposition of the concept of governmental "nudging" and its problematics? Keynes sold hard books to a large audience, so did Schumpeter, so did Darwin. Have people really gotten less intelligent in the last 50 years? I don't think so, but this book makes me think that these academics think so.

This book has some interesting ideas. I didn't know if I would like it since the authors style their ideas as libertarian. But they advocate "libertarian paternalism," which for the most part could be called evidence-based decision-making to make it less unappealing. It offers intelligent, nuanced, and spittle-free alternative views that I think in many ways could supplement liberal understanding on many issues. It did so for this liberal, at any rate!

The ways in which we are influenced by Government, groups, and individuals is mostly hidden from our view and understanding. Thaler exposes the subtle ways we are gently and not so gently moved in a particular direction.

Richard Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago School of Business, is one of the founders of modern behavioral economics, along with economists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Cass Sunstein is a legal scholar at Harvard University, and has been at the forefront of applying the results of experimental economics to social problems, especially in the field of law.
This book has one Big Idea, and it is a very important one. The idea is called "status quo bias," meaning that in many choice situations, people value the status quo (what they currently have), and will forgo the opportunity to switch to an alternative unless the alternative is significantly more attractive than the status quo. In situations where it is difficult to evaluate the exact benefits and costs of what one has over what one could only obtain with some conscious effort, people will tend to stick with what they have.
For example, in the United States, the default condition with respect to organ donation is "no donation," so if people want to donate their organs upon death, they must explicitly state this preference. In France, the default condition is "donation," and an individual who does not like this default condition must expressly indicate a desire not to donate. Consequently, the rate of organ donation is France is several times higher than it is in the United states.
While policies that exploit status quo bias may be called "paternalistic," they cannot be said to violate individual rights, and in a democracy, many may be termed "self-disciplining" for most individuals. For instance, by law there is a little bell that rings incessantly in my car when someone has failed to attach a seat belt. I can easily disable this bell, but I welcome it as an aid to overcoming my inertia in enforcing automobile safety procedures.
The idea behind Nudge is that the choice of a default condition can both allow individuals to choose as they please in a democratic, market society, while at the same time improving social outcomes by providing default conditions that lead to socially useful choices. Thaler and Sunstein call this "libertarian paternalism." While one might think that this minimal sort of market intervention can have only a limited impact on social outcomes, the organ donation example suggests otherwise. Perhaps the most important policy of this type would be a mandate that employers make contributions to retirement savings, in the form of 401(k) and other plans be the default, so that individuals who do not wish to save would have to register the desire to opt out of the plans. A related ideas developed in the book is that employees commit to saving a certain fraction of future raises they are awarded by employers, the idea being that it people do not want to reduce their "status quo" income in order to save, but they may be willing to accept a lower new "status quo" when the status quo changes. This is a very sensible idea.
The justification of the assumption that one default condition is preferable to another is generally the assertion that individuals are systematically prone to overstate the value of immediate gratification and understate the value of future payoffs. This is often called "hyperbolic discounting" in the literature, but the real issue is excessive present-orientation, which can occur just as easily with exponential, time consistent, preferences, as with hyperbolic, time-inconsistent preferences. For instance, making retirement saving the default can serve as a counter to the tendency to undersave, which is itself a response to the overvaluation of current as compared to retirement consumption. A second justification is the tendency for individuals to ignore low probability events, such as having an automobile accident. I consider the irritating bell sounding in my car a present pain that offsets the present pain of fastening my seat belt, given that I cannot really experience the pain of great bodily injury with infinitesimal probability 0.00001.
A second sort of libertarian paternalism takes the form of having the government require firms reveal with clarity and salience the full terms of contractual agreement with consumers. For instance, the nutritional content of restaurant food might be required on the menu, or the precise interest rate on a mortgage might be required to be posted, or all the charges of a broker might be required to be itemized on a monthly statement. These measures are "paternalistic," because if consumers were fully aware of the situation, they might demand this information from firms, and market competition would then lead to compliance. The role of the government in this situation would then be the more traditional one of enforcing "truth in advertizing"---firms are not allowed to misrepresent their offerings.
This form of social policy may also not be really paternalistic. If there are sufficiently high transactions costs, I may tolerate the restaurant's practice of not revealing nutritional content even though I would be willing to pay to have this information revealed, but I would not be willing to pay enough to offset the restaurant's revenue loss due to my eating smaller portions of healthier food. If my unwillingness to pay is due to my excessive present-orientation, and if I recognize this, I prefer the government regulation for myself.
Thaler and Sunstein, like other behavioral economics policy analysts, are widely criticized for their paternalism, which flies in the face of free market ideology. While some suspicion is warranted, the idea of a market economy with no governmental correctives is just a libertarian fantasy they people neither want, nor with which they could comfortably live. Policies of the sort discussed in this volume are a welcome addition to the policy-maker's toolbox.
Libertarian paternalism, of course, is not a panacea, and will not replace the price system as the central mechanism for allocating goods and services, and will not obviate the need for legislation that corrects market failures, such as the tendency for excessive energy use to undermine the natural environment, and perhaps even partially offsets such "human frailties" as the tendency towards undersaving and abusing illegal substances. However, libertarian paternalism is attractive as a first line of attack on even these problems, and should be part of the policy-maker's toolkit.

The book has some value, but the title led me to pick it up under the belief that it might help me to understand myself better and learn better ways to navigate my choices. It turned out to be more of a laundry list of examples how businesses try to manipulate us, a list that was nudged into book-length...

As one who is not an economist, I appreciated understanding this interpretation of human economic behavior.
Most of the policy endorsements in the book I supported, especially the ones dealing with education. The chapter
on Privatizing Marriage, however, had no grounding in reality. With people from cultures that practice child unions
and forced and arranged marriages migrating to countries where adult consent is required,
the authors missed how Privatizing Marriage can cause abuse. Like it or not, the state has to regulate even this aspect
of human relationships.

This book was recommended as an introduction to libertarian paternalism in a lecture on behavioral economics by Nobel-prize winner Daniel Kahneman. Per wikipedia, libertarian paternalism is "a
political philosophy that believes the state can help you make the choices you would make for yourself--if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind. But unlike 'hard' paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice". It was a new concept to me, and I wanted to learn more. Based on Kahneman's recommendation and a column by George Will in Newsweek, I had expected something a bit more sophisticated---more political philosophy and less practical psychology. Although the authors mention libertarian paternalism frequently and devote the last third of the book to ways to affect social choices, there is little discussion of the basis for libertarian paternalism. . This is not a criticism, but readers should be alerted that this is not a book about libertarian paternalism. Disappointingly, the practical applications of libertarian paternalism discussed were pretty obvious once the concept is defined, although the authors seemed to dwell on them much too long, as if they needed extensive explanation.

Nudge is really more about improving decisions of all types, as the subtitle says. Judged on this basis, if you are new to the subject of how to make or influence decisions, you may enjoy it. It covers just about all the most famous experiments and the work on biases in decision-making of people like Tversky and Kahneman. It is a fascinating subject, but the discussions are so protracted that even if the material is new, I would suspect you might get as impatient as I did. The type of person who is likely to be attracted to this book is also likely to be intelligent enough not to need the implications of each idea spelled out in the detail provided here.

Readers with a long-standing interest in inteligent layman-level books on how we make decisions, such as Predictably Irrational or The Invisible Gorilla, are not likely to find much that is new in Nudge. I think there was one study in the book that was new to me. The applications to governmental "nudges" of citizen choices were not original enough to make reading it worthwhile such a reader. Once they defined the concept, the authors did not add much.

A real disappointment was the writers' inattention to precision in their writing, which grew to the point where I became reluctant to accept their facts. As an example, in the discussion of the Medicare Part D plan, the authors cited the low participation rate when the plan was introduced and said it would have been even worse except that federal retirees and many retirees of large corporations were "easily or automatically" enrolled. On the contrary, federal retirees and many retirees from large corporations already have prescription drug coverage and therefore Part D would not even be appropriate for them. I do not know if the authors did not know this or were simply imprecise on their writing, but the reader will come to the wrong conclusion in any case.

George Will's Newsweek column is a good summary of the book that can help you decide if you want to try it. However, I cannot recommend the audio version to anyone. The reader has a pleasant, clear voice, but too often he annoys with a Valley Girl-style intonation, ending factual statements with a rising questioning inflection. He also mispronounces words such as "mischievous", "laissez-faire", and "err". Both of these failings I consider inexcusable in a commercial recording.

This book represents one of the earliest descriptions and explorations of the concept of a "nudge." I came in with a fair amount of background on this idea and thus probably didn't get as much out of it as those who are new to this area of study will. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the book and gained a few new insights.

I saw today that Richard h. Thaler received a nobel prize for his contributions to behavioral economics, and wanted to find some small way to congratulate and thank him. I hadn't read Daniel Kahnman's book until recently, but I read nudge in a high level psychology course and found the content to be the kind of profound knowledge that immediately changed the way I thought and perceived. Kahnman himself has called thaler the father of behavioral economics, so it's nice to see him get the same recognition as Kahnman/tversky.

From the book, it can be reasonably inferred that a nudge is something that pushes us towards the right direction while making decisions. The arrangement and order in which school lunch items are served can influence students to take 25% more of any particular healthy food item. Thaler and Sunstein teach us how to “nudge” people towards better health, more profitable investments, and cleaner environments without taking away their right to make a mess of things if they want to. A nudge is required to remove the need for people to do anything at all, on the grounds that inertia and laziness are fixed components of human psychology.
I learnt a lot from this book. I learned that when I have to make a decision I shouldn’t follow herd mentality, shouldn’t be lazy and take the way out and always make a pros and cons list. We must also nudge people and push them towards the right direction.
I found the book very interesting and it was an eye opener. It was a little difficult to understand but over all I loved the book.

This is another book that mistakes behavioral analysis with economics. The result is advocation of government paternalism. The best of the book is a myriad of examples showing what the authors call 'nudges' that people are subject to, along with reasoning of why we are susceptible.

We don't always make the best choices for our own interests. There are examples of cognitive dissonances in human perception. We are inconsistent, sometimes engaging in self deception. We are easily 'nudged' by self serving businesses and other humans. However, the chess metaphor is ignorant and wrong. It's perception that is required, not more advice.
They invent unhelpful terminology of 'Econs' and 'Humans' to distinguish between left and right brained operating people. Distinguishing between 'doers' and 'planners' is unoriginal.
We are subject to social nudges to control voting patterns and purchasing habits. However, these 'nudges' are with a proverbial elbow, government tends to use a sledgehammer in the form of excessive taxation and ridiculous regulation.

This is a case of a good premise with many fine examples leading to a ridiculous conclusion that government paternalism is the answer for human foibles. Trying to convince the reader that "libertarian paternalism" is not an oxymoron (It is!). They even handedly cite objections. The objections are much better than the book's thesis. I take this as a lesson to guard against subtle nudges as with 'anchoring' and manipulation of default choices, not as an invitation to submit to the sometimes benign paternalism of government. We have already gone too far down the road advocated by Thaler and Sunstein.

I am going to follow that fad, and write a book entitled. "One."

It will be about the new cool of one word titles that have suddenly exploded on the scene, the silly "Nudge" title in a non silly book, similarly trying to pare brevity down to the chicness of it's barest roots, hint at the topic and leave us all a little mystified, being just another late example.

It's not super substantive, but hey, with three letters, and stylistically descriptive yet casually vague, it's at least got the trendy title. Maybe someone can be nudged to do it.

One. Just one book. About the phenomenon of one word titles. One. (Or maybe it should be a Saturday Night Live Skit.)

Anyway, that said, Nudge is a good book, and worth a read ahead of many others. What more needs to be known?

So here's my review in a nutshell. Unfortunately I can't get it down to one word, but four. "Nudge - check it out, it's thoughtful." (Woops, that was seven. So okay, here's my one word review. "Buy.")

As has been demonstrated numerous times, and reported in numerous books, humans are not rational decision makers. Therefore, why not take advantage of human tendencies to help people make better choices for themselves and for society? "Nudge" is a little wordy, but that is really its only fault. I certainly don't mind being reminded of the various controlled experiments on decision making conducted by psychologists, the humor is good, and I enjoyed the authors' personal experiences. Perhaps more important, the authors are careful in finding and assembling evidence for their recommendations.

Sometimes it is a matter of choosing the proper default to overcome inertia: so organ donation becomes the default rather than the opposite. If this bothers you, then there should be no default: to renew your license you would have to make a choice. Other times it is a matter of eliminating misconceptions: teens tend to overestimate the frequency of teen drinking and smoking, and conformity is a powerful influence. If you inform people about average energy use, and how they compare, they will tend to move toward the average, so the under users actually start using more; just using emoticons with the information (smiley face for the under users) eliminates the negative effects of providing the information and accentuates the positive. Routines are important reminders, so birth control pills for days 20-28 are placebos, but people remember they need to take a pill every day.

The government must take a better role in requiring useful information (such as nutrition labels); Thaler/Sunstein carry this idea farther in suggesting that more standardized/computer readable information be provided, for example on drug plans or mortgage terms: not because this will help the typical consumer directly, but because 3rd party providers could then develop software for the consumer.

Despite the many behavioural economic top sellers in recent years, this book easily stands out as a practical guide for all (dubbed by the authors as choice architects) responsible for organizing the context in which people make decisions, particularly government officials and policy makers to which the authors try to pitch with plenty of suggestions on public health, safety, money .....issues. Well organised and written with vivid real life examples. In short, recommended!

p.s. Below please find some of my favorite passages for your reference.

The nudge provided by asking people what they intend to do can be accentuated by asking them when and how they plan to do it. (illustrating Kurt Lewin's "channel factors" by experitment of Leventhal, Singer and Jones (1965) on the campus of Yale University) pg70

If certain objects are made visible and salient (priming), people's behaviour can be affected. Objects characteristics of business environments, such as briefcase and boardroom tables, make people more competitive, less cooperative, and less generous....People's judgements about strangers are affected by whether they are drinking iced coffee or hot coffee! Those given iced coffee are more likely to see other people as more selfish, less sociable, and, well, colder than those who are given hot coffee. pg 71

iNcentives, Understand mappings, Defaults, Give feedback, Expect Error, Structure complex choices. Voila: NUDGES pg 100

When asked about how he allocated his retirement account, Harry Markowitz confessed: "I should have computed the historic covariances of the asset classes and drawn an efficient frontier. Instead...I split my contributions fifty fifty between bonds and equities." pg 123

This is a good book, but a bit dry to read. It took me a while to get through it, and I'm normally a quick reader. I read several other books whilst I trudged my way through this one.

The content is good, being well described, with relevant examples. The style is serviceable but a bit like a text book.

The key ideas of the book are very useful, and come down to there being no such thing as a "neutral presentation of options" and no such thing as a neutral choice to do nothing. We cannot avoid choosing between options- we can either be architects of our own choices, or we can be shaped by someone else's preferences. In NLP work I think it was Richard Bandler who gave us the phrase, "Who sets the frame sets the game." This book explains why this saying is accurate.

I liked the ideas of safe settings for defaults- nudges that make you do something that is at least basically sensible. There may well be better options available, but for many choices we face we lack information, interest or the ability to interpret it well. And too many choices tend to make decisions harder as we get distracted by minor differences between products (e.g. several different house insurance products), rather than by basic questions about function and purpose. (e.g.my house must be insured so I need to buy an insurance policy.) And as for the future...well I try not to make predictions about it. But I'm glad I joined my pension scheme more or less by default...otherwise I would have spent the money.

Choice architecture will be a key idea for policy makers and sales people for many years to come. It will allow the state to give people a nudge in the right direction, without destroying their liberty to choose differently if they so wish. It allows some sensible persuasion whilst protecting our right to take our own road to hell if we so wish. The problem with the great rhetoric of "freedom to choose" is that many of us do not get around to exercising it well enough and often enough, or even at all. In many areas of our lives we need to be nudged to do something, and this book describes well how to set up the choice architecture to achieve this.

This is a good book, but you could pick up most of its key ideas from a good summary, or by scanning the reviews on here. So a partial nudge from me towards buying it on grounds that it is useful, but a partial nudge away from buying it as I cannot get fully enthusiastic about it.

The theory of "nudging" people rests on the assumption that you know better than your neighbor what is best for him. The fallacy of that assumption appears as soon as your neighbor decides that he knows better than you do what is best for you. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler favor the idea of "nudging" people, which means limiting their choices to what you want them to choose, only as long as they expect to be in the nudging class instead of those being nudged. With that in mind, I intend to send both of them a series of books I think they ought to read and charge them for the books, unless they opt out. If they argue that it's none of my business what books they read, especially at their expense, I shall explain that they just found out what it is like to be "nudged."

I think the main concept discussed in Nudge is critical to how we go about improving our quality of life. The idea of "choice architecture" being inherent in a lot of things we do means we should put some thought into nudging people into making the right choices without inconveniencing people who want to make a different choice. We all do things every day that we can't or don't want to put a lot of thought into, so someone who has better information than we do can set it up so that our default (eye-level) choice is the "best" one for us, without making it our only easy choice by offering other options within easy "reach" if only we know to look for them.

For instance, if only everyone raging about heath care industry reform options with "I don't want you to tell me what to do" would look at things from this point of view! There's ALREADY a plan in place that tells you what to do. Why not set up that plan to help you rather than get in your way?

I'm a process engineer so maybe I was pre-disposed to like a book that talked about improving processes. Still, I felt not only a lot smarter after reading the book but felt more enthusiastic about the future since trying to work for improved choice architecture is a way to make change without forcing change. It offers up a vocabulary to use when talking about systemic change, and that's valuable too. My primary reason for downgrading to 4 stars from 5 is that there wound up being a lot of, to my mind unnecessary, repetition. Yes, you might want to say things in more than one way, but some of the bulk could have been pared back. I wound up skimming later parts of the book thinking, "read that already". Still, I wholeheartedly recommend that everyone read it, or at least peruse the first several chapters, if they have any interest in positive change in their own lives or community.

I was expecting (and hoping) that Nudge was a book about the application of ways to guide human nature to improve myself and my business. What I found, however, was a book much more about recommendations for government policy creation. While there were pearls of wisdom throughout the book, I had to apply significant mental work to make them applicable to my situation. Even then, many of the applications felt forced. This may be a decent read for those in public service, but I found it rather long and tedious and not compelling enough to recommend very highly.

Definitely the best piece of behavioral economics, no wonder why Thaler is a Nobel price winner. Nudge gives you a deep insight of what drives our minds in decision making both quantitatively and qualitatively. Every phrase and finding in the book will help you understand how ideas and actions are set in our minds without notice them. This book will absolutely make you think how you have been making decisions.

I had a hard time getting through "Nudge." I found a lot of ideas and insights better articulated in Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational." Also, I've just finished "Thinking Fast and Slow," and discovered that it covers exactly the same ground as "Nudge."

The main argument of "Nudge" is that people are not economists but humans, and so bring in certain prejudices and weaknesses in making choices. Marketers are very adept at manipulating these prejudices and weaknesses to achieve outcomes that are good for businesses, but not so good for consumers. "Nudge" doesn't support either free market libertarianism or hands-on government, and instead offers a compromise, what the authors call "libertarian paternalism." The government should not mandate things, but it can be clever in its choice architecture to achieve certain results.

The authors do provide many concrete examples, and that's good. But maybe there are too many examples, and there's a great deal of speculation in the book, which doesn't help advance their argument.

This is an excellent user friendly introduction to behavioral economics and the art of decision making in a group context. Richard Thaler is a renowned economist and is a leader in this discipline. He is the main author of this book as he has contributed all the concepts and underlying research.

Behavioral economics deals with all the actions human take within the investment field and others that defy traditional economics. Within "Nudge" Thaler comes up with many examples of such irrational behaviors. Those are also well covered by Dan Ariely in Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions and Scott Plous in The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Those behavioral anomalies, include: anchoring, availability, representativeness, framing, loss aversion, and overconfidence among many others.

Thaler describe our cognitive systems duality. One is the Automatic System that is lightning quick, intuitive, instinctive. It includes the immediate "fight or flight" mechanism. It does not leverage much cognitive resources. Thus, it errs the minute a situation calls for critical thinking. That's when the second cognitive system comes in: the Reflective System. But, as Keith Stanovich states in "What Intelligence Tests Miss" we are all cognitive resource misers. We make mistakes because we rely too often on the Automatic System.

The authors invent a new language to describe the influencing of choice (nudging). They call this activity Choice Architecture (presenting options in a certain manner so as to influence others selection). And, the person doing it is a Choice Architect. Thaler states we are all at times Choice Architects whether we are lawyers, doctors, managers, parents, or spouses. We present facts and options,so as to influence the choice of others. As an example of framing, your doctor will sell you an expensive treatment as having a 90% success rate rather than a 10% failure rate. A computer would not differentiate between the two identical probabilities. But, a human will be very sensitive to this framing.

Choice architecture often is based on the default option being the optimal choice selection. Such default options can cause people to be organ donors in case of death when they would not otherwise. Thaler goes into much detail regarding 401K choice architecture. And, I found it really relevant. I wish many benefit managers would read that specific chapter.

Choice architecture can become complex. the store and NetFlix are masters of choice architecture as their entire websites are geared to facilitate you making desirable choices and continue transacting with them.

Thaler goes on reviewing many different existing choice architectures in the marketplace and find them really wanting. Cell phone plans, mortgages, credit cards, and all other financial products have pretty terrible choice architecture. The customer has no idea what he ultimately will be charged. Thaler suggests all such services should be required to have transparent pricing readily captured in a simple table so the customer understand what he pays. That's a wonderful suggestion, but Thaler may be missing the point that the lack of pricing transparency is intentional to hide the true price to the customer.

Next, Thaler moves on to the government sector. There he reviews the choice architecture of the U.S. Medicare Part D plan and Sweden's privatized social security investment choices. In both cases, the choice architecture is really poor. That is simply because the policymakers (choice architects) fell for the counterproductive mantra of maximizing the number of choices (many different drug insurance option for Part D; many investment fund options for the Swedish system). This seemed like a laudable goal; But, the result was chaos, frustration, and confusion on the part of the relevant constituency. Barry Schwartz in his excellent The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less expands on this theme by stating that the more choice we have the more confused we get and the worst selection we ultimately make. Good choice architecture suggests nudging people towards a single and optimal default option and offering a limited amount of alternatives. Medicare Part D does not even have a default option. Instead, it assigns beneficiaries to various plans randomly with as expected really bad results.

In one of the last chapters, the authors review 12 potential nudges. I found a couple of them really attractive. One of them consists in the IRS automatically generating your tax return if you have a straightforward situation. Studies indicate this process would save 225 million hours! Another interesting nudge is to give the right to motorcyclists not to wear a helmet if they have:
a) completed additional driving training;
b) submitted proof of insurance; and
c) signed an organ donor form.

The authors even invent a political philosophy to reflect their behavioral framework: Libertarian Paternalism. They pleasure in the fact that the phrase is an oxymoron. It stands for little government intervention, much freedom, and enlightened nudges so people make better decision for their health, safety, and welfare of society. They claim this represents the optimal third way to breakdown the logjam in today's polarized politics. Democrats want social mandates to protect the needy. Republicans want "laissez faire" capitalism to maximize choices and opportunity for the competent. The authors instead recommend "nudges" for the needy that still protect choices for the competent.

This is an important book to read given that the authors are Obama's advisors. The authors are from University of Chicago, the school famous for libertarian Milton Friedman who was a favorite of Ronald Reagan. The authors introduce the concept of libertarian paternalism. They do not embrace a pure libertarian nor a left leaning pro-government solution to common problems we face today. My guess is that libertarian idealogues will find some of the ideas offensive.

There is considerable overlap with other books on behavioral economics and psychology such as:
Predicably Irrational by Ariely
Influence by Cialdini
Yes! by Goldstein et al
Whereas the above books were fun to read, Nudge gets dry after the first part.

The book takes a practical but boring turn when it starts tackling specific issues such as social security and healthcare. I found reading these parts boring and not written well. Nevertheless if you trudge through the book you may be rewarded with gaining insight into what an Obama Presidency may look in the future.

Excellent book. Should help you think about about complex decisions in a different light and hopefully better and more efficient manner.

The main point of the book is that small actions or inactions can have major consequences down the road, that people underestimate the power of inertia, that people are prone to error when making decisions about issues that are complex or infrequent, and that we can be gently 'nudged' into making choices that leave us better off than without. The key here is what Thaler and Sunstein call 'libertarian paternalism', it provides and preserves choice for the end-user (libertarianism) while at the same time helping and nudging the user into making the right choices (paternalism). 'Right' as in choices that leave the person better off and as measured by the user himself.

How to make people save more and more efficiently for retirement, how to reduce smoking, how to help people avoid binging on credit cards, how to improve the rate of organ donations, make people eat better, improve the US medical health program for prescription drugs for senior citizens, how to reduce pollution, conserve energy, and even on improving the institution of marriage. Turns out all these and more could be improved via nudges.

None of these topics is controversy free. Indeed, people more often than not hold very strong and definite views on these topics. They do not take lightly to even being 'nudged' towards alternative proposals. It is likely inevitable that suggestions, proposals, and arguments put forth by the authors will make some readers see a hidden political agenda or unwanted insinuations. To the authors' credit, they try, conspicuously, to avoid taking any political stand, and make sure to avoid criticism that could be interpreted as political. They succeed, mostly.

_____"As we have seen, people are most likely to need nudges for decisions that are difficult, complex, and infrequent, and when they have poor feedback and few opportunities for learning."
_____"But the potential for beneficial nudging also depends on the ability of the Nudgers to make good guesses about what is best for the Nudgees." [page 247]

You do not have to force people into making the decisions you want them to make. You also do not need to eliminate choice.
_____"Would anyone object to putting the fruit and salad before the desserts at an elementary school cafeteria if the result were to induce kids to eat more apples and fewer Twinkies?" [page 12]

When it comes to the issue of government employing nudges, or even when arguing in favor of or against such `paternalism', one good test of whether it is should happen or not is what the authors describe as:

_____ "... we endorse what the philosopher John Rawls (1971) called the publicity principle. In its simplest form, the publicity principle bans government from selecting a policy that it would not be able or willing to defend publicly to its own citizens." [page 244]

Paternalism does not mean you do not present the end-user with choice. However, as people have argued (The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less), a plethora of choices does not always lead to more satisfaction. It is in fact somewhat counter-intuitive but true that choices lead to a sense of frustration and dissatisfaction.

_____"To eliminate complexity is to stifle innovation. A better approach is to improve transparency and disclosure." [page 259]

_____"Although rules of thumb can be very helpful, their use can also lead to systematic biases. This insight, first developed decades ago by two Israeli psychologists, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1974), has changed the way psychologists (and eventually economists) think about thinking. Their original work identified three heuristics, or rules of thumb - anchoring, availability, and representativeness - and the biases that are associated with each."

_____Anchoring - "This process is called 'anchoring and adjustment.' You start with some anchor, the number you know, and adjust it in the direction you think is appropriate. So far, so good. The bias occurs because the adjustments are typically insufficient." [page 15, 16]
_____Availability - "... most people use what is called the availability heuristic. They assess the likelihood of risks by asking how readily examples come to mind. If people can easily think of relevant examples, they are far more likely to be frightened and concerned than if they cannot. ... Homicides are more available than suicides, and so people wrongly tend to believe, wrongly, that more people die from homicide." [page 27]
"Accessibility and salience are closely related to availability, and they are as important as well. If you have personally experienced a serious earthquake, you're more likely to believe that an earthquate is likely than if you read aloud about it in a weekly magazine." [page 27]
"... Such misperceptions can affect the policy, because governments are likely to allocate their resources in a way that fits with people's fears rather than in response to the most likely danger." [page 28]
_____Representativeness - " ... when asked to judge how likely it is that A belongs to category B, people answer by asking themselves how similar A is to their image or stereotype of B."
.... "Again, biases can creep in when similarity and frequency diverge." [page 29]

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Collins Business Essentials) is perhaps the best book on influence, while Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts talks about self-serving biases.

The ideas put forward here, that it's possible to improve outcomes without limiting choice, are important and hugely valuable. They need to be taken seriously by policymakers and "choice architects" everywhere.

That said, the book itself is a pretty dull read. I made the mistake of getting the audiobook version, which makes it difficult to skim over sections that go on and on and on and... The regular book is a better choice; after reading a couple of chapters you get the general idea, then you can skip to the application of the approach in areas you're interested in, rather than slogging through all the basically equivalent examples.

Behavioral economics holds much promise. It teaches us ways in which people make decisions IRL, something that more abstract, theoretical, or mathematically-based economic models (such as the [formerly?] dominant Chicago school) have failed to do. Behavioral economists understand that we are not wholly rational beings who weigh the utility of our decisions before we make them, and we certainly do not make those decisions on complete sets of information. Instead, we often act impulsively and with very limited information.

Nudge is a book about applying these insights. However, it comes with an ideological package in tow: 'Libertarian Paternalism.' Many libertarians bristle at the term itself. The authors argue that, in light of human nature, we need to confront the reality of economic decision making, namely that many of us are (consciously or not) "choice architects," people who shape decision making just by setting up options. They aim to reconcile this fact with the general libertarian-bent of the economic profession. Moreover, they try to do it by creating policy proposals that they hope Democrats and Republicans can agree with IRL.

A noble cause, perhaps, but ultimately unconvincing. To a lefty like myself they seem at times to stretch themselves too much in trying to be libertarian, sacrificing more effective policy proposals to order to appease people who want to the freedom to make bad decisions which adversely affect others down the line. To someone who's a libertarian, I'm sure they seem too paternalistic, too willing to transgress individual rights in the vain pursuit of utilitarian goals. Whether or not their soft approaches ("nudges") to changing decisions to more healthful or cost-saving ones work has to wait for their application (notably in the UK and US, where both authors work as government advisers) to bear fruit.

There's something for everyone here, both to like and dislike. That's both the strength and the weakness. I'm giving it four stars for the readability of it, the novel and thought-provoking idea they present of Libertarian Paternalism, and the general pragmatic thrust of making economic policy grounded in real-world behavior.

In this "one-trick-book" the authors explore the implications of their "libertarian paternalism" approach. They describe how humans are limited in their capacity to choose correctly when facing a complex choice, and how a sensible design of the choice architecture (options, presentation, incentives) can lead to better overall results (judged by the people themselves) without limiting their freedom.

I found the first chapters (presentation of various psychological studies that show how we constantly fail at choosing the most rational option) more interesting than the subsequent application to various domain (social security, credit cards, marriage). I found the "marriage" chapter particularly bad. The book is clearly written for an american audience and spends too much time describing the various inconsistencies of the US social security and retirement laws and programs.

I found Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions to be more interesting (and entertaining).

Not a bad book, but I would have preferred less repetition and more depth. (now started with Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions)

This is one of those rare books that can actually make you change the way you look at things. Specifically, Thaler and Sunstein discuss what they refer to as choice architecture or the conscious ways in which choices can be presented to people in various situations, particularly in areas where people can be helped (nudged) in making better decisions. They rely heavily on the existing psychological knowledge base related to decision making, but they take this knowledge and reconfigure it in a way that can make for powerfully beneficial choice architecture.

Thaler and Sunstein provide ample examples and areas of public policy where their choice architecture process can be applied - health insurance, savings, and investments, for example - areas where, generally speaking, choices are plentiful, complex and feedback (results) take a long time to be seen. They give good examples of where good choice architecture has met the desired goals, or at least helped move people in the right direction. They also describe the human tendencies that choice architecture overcomes or counteracts- the status quo bias - for example.

The one area where I think their proposal for choice architecure is naive is in same sex marriages. Creating a dichotomy between the two by having civil authorities approve civil unions (for anyone) and only private institutions, religious ones primarily, conducting marriages, as they see fit, does not address the larger cultural and religious issues which are super-charged with emotion. This is not the same as trying to nudge someone to save more or to reduce their smoking.

Anyone who influences others, particularly government policy makers, needs to read this book to determine whether how they structure choices is helping or impeding their goals, and if the latter, adjust according to Thaler's and Sunstein's suggestions.

Oh, and this is why every doctor should change their last name to Aardvark. When I pick a doctor, after I find the specialty (usually a mental health practitioner), I start looking at the directory alphabetically, and I usually pick my doctor from the first few letters of the alphabet. So, if you are a doctor and want to apply better choice architecture, change your name to Aardvark.

I think that anyone in a leadership position should consider reading this book. The book is all about human psychology and how to nudge, or encourage, people to make decisions or enact certain behaviors. The concept of the nudge is that the coercion is subtle rather than forced, which is why I find this beneficial to people in leadership positions.

Overall, it's a great study in human psychology. The book delves a bit into choice architecture, which seems to scratch a small itch someone might have if they have an interest in usability or user-centered design. The only flaw of the book is that it sometimes finds awkward examples, or that it goes on and on about some topics longer than necessary. The real highlights come in the first half of the book and are mostly just reinforced as the book progresses. Otherwise, it would have been a 5-star book.

Some of my favorite case examples in the book talk about how lines were painted on a curvy part of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago to "nudge" people to slow down. Signs didn't work, but lines painted on the road whose spacing quickly diminished gave drivers the illusion that they were going fast and as such, they slowed down. The book is full of similarly great examples of how nudges work. In fact, I found so much of them useful that after reading the book, I felt that it was worthwhile to take a few notes and post a synopsis to my site at [...]

Too much of this book is about financial planning, saving for retirement, stocks and bonds, financial incentives, etc. As a casual reader I found it very dry and humourless, like reading a keynote speech to a bunch of accountants. The book started off very well and for a couple of chapters had some interesting points on influencing peoples choices. Why they then decided to kill it dead with boring financial advice I don't know. These types of books are usually filled with interesting anecdotes and real world Gladwellian stories used to illustrate the points being made, but Nudge fell well short on this aspect too. In short, if you're looking for financial planning insights then I've no idea how this book rates as I find that whole subject incredibly dull, but you never know ... it just might be useful to someone.

Great book! The idea that I got from the book was that humans are not always great at making decisions but setting up "choice architecture" in the correct way can improve decisions. Your friends might not want to hear you talk about the intricacies of the mortgage market, but it is a must read for anyone who wants to effect the the choices of others.

I read half of Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein's collaboration, Nudge, a few months ago. Then I set it aside, and finished it up recently. It's possible that the pause made me like the book even more. Just when I thought I had read enough, and got their point, I stopped reading. After I returned, I learned more that I thought I knew, and found them even more clever as a result of reading Nudge to the end. The authors observed that humans make decisions in ways different from that expected by economists, or the way econs think they would be made to optimize outcomes. The path of least resistance makes a world of difference, so default choices matter a lot. An expectation of error can also lead to improved decision making because it turns out that humans aren't great decision makers. A nudge is anything that influences our choices, so well constructed nudges can produce better outcomes. These University of Chicago professors have written a cogent, thoughtful and entertaining book about an important subject, and chances are any reader will come away from the book with an increased thoughtfulness about decision making.

Rating: Three-star (Recommended)

What an insightful book! I was happy to read that there are ways that we could structure government policies that could improve our lives. Then at the same time, I was upset, because for our government to actually implement the research from this book would be a miracle. The reason for this is that every decision would have winners and losers. Those on the losing side would spend whatever necessary to lobby the government in their favor.

With that being said, the authors of this book compiled research that indicates that the free market can result in disastrous results because humans do not make rational decisions. They argues that "libertarian paternalism" would help us make better decisions because our choices would be structured in a way that we would be more likely to pick beneficial options. For example, if 401(k) plans were automatic with options to cancel, then more people would be likely to save for retirement. They would still have the choice to cancel, but the overall result would be that more people would have money for the golden years.

- Mariusz Skonieczny, author of Why Are We So Clueless about the Stock Market? Learn how to invest your money, how to pick stocks, and how to make money in the stock market

I hope many people read this so they will be aware of when they are being nudged to make certain decisions. This is social engineering. I can't believe this man was our Regulatory Czar for the last 4 years. I would like to think that most adult want to make their own decisions.

Nudge is perhaps the most insidious book I have read. Thaler and Sunstein aver that libertarian paternalism and choice architecture are preferred to "help" people make crucial life choices. I certainly support the libertarian aspect of this book, but the paternalistic and choice architecture advocacy are nothing more than radical social progressivism masquerading as benign policy prescriptions. In the wrong hands and at the mercy of those hands this book easily dupes unsuspecting, unquestioning readers to accept what appears superficially to be a compelling argument, but one that is both deceptive and manipulative, wrapped in a mantle of "let us help you choose." Little wonder Obama is a fan of this book. Perhaps the Affordable Care Act is a lesson in what Thaler and Sunstein have in mind for America in other areas too. Avoid by all means.

Nudge is really about intelligent policy design. If the goal is to enroll people in prescription drug plans, what is the best way to do that? If the goal is to allow people to choose schools outside of their geographic default, how can that be done? If the goal is to get people to save more, how can we push that along? Sunstein and Thaler understand that people do not always act in their best interest and sometimes they need a "nudge," which is basically a rule that pushes them in an appropriate direction. They understand that good policy is, in many cases, a function of moderation. An absolute free market and choice would not work, but neither would a totally regulated system.

I do not agree with all of the goals the authors lay out for some of their nudges. For example, I'm not that interested in promoting school vouchers or privatizing Social Security. But that is not really the point. If policymakers do choose to do these things, then these authors offer a more intelligent way to do it.

This is a fairly quick read that I would recommend.

Nudge was not what I expected. I was looking for something about marketing, personal impulse, and more on how the brain can fool you. However I got something much more compelling: Nudge.

Here our two authors take a general theory; choice architecture, and present it in a very simple, easy to understand package. At times the writing is humorous (other times their jokes fall pretty flat) but the meanings were never lost. Quite simply, with a little bit of retooling, we could have a potentially huge impact on how our society works (within certain realms). This is powerful and heady stuff indeed. And not being a fan of the Chicago School of Economics, I personally was blown away by the simple fact that I agreed with these two professors so very much.

At the 50,000 foot view, a nudge is a simple change that gently pushes the odds of someone doing, or not doing something, in the direction that the choice architect wants. A great example, not from this book, is placing items a store wants to move on the isle end caps. A better example, from this book, is having an opt-in organ donor policy in order to get more people to become donors and thus save more lives.

Sometimes the authors really hit home run after home run for example when they talk about the benefits of cap and trade and on increasing taxes on polluters. Bonus, they are all for complete transparency (yay!). Even better, they give examples of how complete transparency has helped in the past! This all pushes the reader toward seeing their point of view on the subject.

However other parts lost a little of the choice architecture luster. One chapter that I believe is brilliant was a stretch for choice architecture - and that was the chapter on same sex marriage. They argue that the states should get rid of marriage, create simpler, civil unions for all and let religious groups (or scuba groups) marry whomever they want. Now I'm all for this - government should not be in the business of marriage and everyone, gay, straight, etc should be able to have a civil union - a legally binding contract together, if they so chose. With all that goes with it (taxes, the right to visit each other in the hospital, etc). however this was a stretch for the main topics of the book. Still it was great to see a rational argument for giving everyone the same rights. As someone wise once said, everyone should have the right to marry the person they want to annoy (in a loving way) for the rest of their life!

Past that, the book also gave me some food for thought on school programs (so called vouchers) and the medicare drug option program (and how we could make it better). The latter is actually something that I'm starting to look at as my mom is trying to figure out what to do. She's a former pharmacist so if she's having trouble, you know the design is pretty bad! The simple proposals in Nudge would make life a ton easier. Simply import your current drug regime and get a breakdown on which plan best fits your needs. How much easier could you ask for? Total transparency with an easy mechanism to make things work.

Overall this was a great, quick read that left me wanting to read a little more deeply on this topic. This book, by design, only skims the surface. That's both its blessing and its failure. There were too many topics covered, briefly, and not enough meat at times. This left a few of the ideas feeling half formed; which I think is a disservice to the authors. I don't agree with all their ideas but their presentation was fair, well thought out and articulated from the position of wanting to help everyone - especially those who don't know what their best interests are (and we all fit into that category sometimes). An excellent read.

It would be unfair to label Nudge as 'one of those pop-psychology books' as a. I frown on pop psychology and rate Nudge higher, and b. I'm trying not to generalise.

What I'm trying to say is Nudge fits into the same category as other insightful books such as Gladwell's Blink, or the recent Redirect

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

Redirect: The Surprising New Science of Psychological Change

Beginning with a non-partisan disclaimer Nudge explores the concept of choice architecture: essentially controlling the environment in which people make choices to encourage well-being without directly controlling peoples choice.

Like most insightful type books, Nudge occasionally errs from actually discussing Nudge's and becoming the author's expression of 'how things should be in the world' but is an enjoyable and balanced read nonetheless.

Highlights include The author's discussion of the affects of medical liability insurance, and the privatisation of marriage, but issues from environmentalism and eating peanuts at a party are also included.

Much recommended for anyone wanting to think about politics and interventions a little differently.

In this lovely, useful book, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein examine choices, biases and the limits of human reasoning from a variety of perspectives. They often amuse by disclosing how they have fallen victim to the limitations of thought that they are describing. The fact that these educated, articulate professionals can fool themselves so often demonstrates how tough it is to think clearly, a point the authors emphasize and even repeat. Humans fall prey to systematic errors of judgment, but you can harness this problematic tendency productively, including by helping others make better decisions. Some of the authors' suggestions may not be practical, but many are ' and all are interesting. getAbstract recommends this book to anyone who wants to know how to shape responsible decisions.

Milton Friedman famously wrote that economic models should be judged by their ability to predict and explain, not the realism of their assumptions. Neoclassical microeconomics has long used that argument to defend itself from criticisms of its unrealistic assumptions. But Thaler, Sunstein and many others are amassing a large body of evidence that shows, in many important cases, that neoclassical microeconomics does not predict very well. In so doing, they are liberating economics from the straitjacket of outdated psychology.

In addition to economists, policy wonks should read the book for its clever, "libertarian paternalism" approach to policy that transcends the tired left-right dichotomy. Thaler and Sunstein present many VERY low-cost ideas that could result in major improvements in people's lives.

Heterodox economists of the old-institutionalist variety should also read the book, as it provides evidence for things like the power of emulation and inertia.

Freedom of choice is in many instances a myth. Someone--a manufacturer, policymaker, or store purchasing agent--is pre-choosing the items from which you make your "choices" every single day. With that in mind, would it be so terrible if health and happiness were mandated as choice criteria in some public health instances like school cafeteria foods? Surely there are a few actions we can all agree are "good" and worth promoting? That's the premise of this book.

Nudge is well documented and provides many examples of ways we are already nudged into good behavior, all without complaint. I liked that the argument focuses on promoting positive actions instead of lambasting negative ones. However, I found the book to be disappointingly dull and repetitive after the first few chapters. The concept, however, is anything but; for that reason I recommend at least a thorough skimming of this uplifting book.

I just could not finish the book. It was way too dry, and I had the false impression it could you to making better choices on an individual level, I didn't feel it was going in that direction, and it was nudging me to fall asleep. I agree with some of the ideas. I do believe that government should encourage us to make healthy choices because tax payers have to cover the costs of our mistakes. Human beings are not as rational as economists have to pretend they are...I get that point..

The subtitle of the book ("Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness") is what caught my eye at the bookstore, but dare I say, the authors fail to deliver. The introduction starts with a prolonged justification of what authors call "libertarian paternalism" or "choice architecture" - a process of carefully nudging people into making a specific decision - but the reader is left wondering why the authors are so compelled to defend their own ideas before even explaining them. They've made me a skeptic before they even began.

Studies from behavioral economics, psychology and sociology fields are introduced in the context of choice architecture, but once again, the authors often veer off into giving public policy prescriptions, or simply citing the study results. It is as if they got stuck in the middle: there are no new and interesting academic insights, nor are the public policy suggestions grounded in what the authors know best.

If you're interested in the subject, I would recommend "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely instead.

A wonderful read! Very fun and gives great ideas on how to organize the world. There are some great practices you can impotent at home and at work. It's been really fun looking at the world after having read this and seeing what types of choice architecture are in play!

Before I get to the book review, note that Thaler has done an excellent 1-hour talk about this book for Authors@Google, which is well worth your time whether or not you actually read Nudge. It's much better than the videos on the store.

The book. Thaler & Sunstein define their use of the word "nudge" on page 6: "A nudge, as we will use the term, is any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predicable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting the fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not." The authors then go on, in the first part of the book (roughly 100 pages) to give examples of situations in which nudges can and should be used. Some of the examples are trivial: people eat 53% more old and stale popcorn if you serve it in a big bucket (the popcorn was stale enough that it squeaked when chewed). But many of the examples are significant, and concern people's persistent inability to make good decisions (as defined by themselves) in areas like eating and saving.

Part II of the book (roughly 55 pages) has 4 chapters focused specifically on money. The first of these chapters discusses a program of theirs called "Save More Tomorrow" in which employees can fill out a form to increase their retirement savings in sync with future pay rises. In the example the authors give, those in the program went from a savings rate of 3.5% to 13.6% in under four years. This quadrupling was achieved with nothing more than a nudge. The other three chapters in this part are about: the naivite of many people (even nobel prize winning economists) in making their investment decisions, credit cards and credit generally, and a brief case study of the Swedish social security privitization.

Part III ("Health", 40 pages) has three chapters. The first is about the well-intentioned but badly-designed medicare "Part D" prescription drug program in the US; this will not be very interesting to non-Americans. Next is an 8-page chapter on using nudges to increase organ donation (by changing the default to donation and requiring the person to opt-out). The third Health chapter, somewhat oddly, is about the environment, and Thaler & Sunstein present some examples of nudges, such as an orb that glows red when you use a lot of electricity, which can help people to be more energy efficient. To me, it seems that the world's environmental problems are unlikely to be solved by mere nudges, but I guess they won't actually hurt.

Part IV ("Freedom" 30 pages) is a bit of a misfit. It has three chapters, the first of which is about school vouchers, the second of which advocates a change in the law which would allow patients to sign away their ability to sue doctors for medical malpractice, and the third advocates a redefinition of government involvement in sanctioning marriage. These three together read like general interest libertarian essays, strangely disconnected from the rest of the book. They're good, but a reader could skip them without losing the thread of the book.

Finally, there is Part V ("Extensions and Objections", 25 pages). Every book of serious nonfiction should contain something like Nudge's Part V. Thaler & Sunstein address criticisms of their positions in a serious and thoughtful manner. My impression is that the authors are really putting up the most serious objections that they've faced at seminars and talks, rather than mere straw man arguments. There's no point in my describing these in this review, but I think that the existence of this part says good things about the intellectual tone of the book, and I enthusiastically recommend it.

Both these esteemed gentlemen are deservedly most highly regarded in their professions. Separately, they stand tall, eloquent and innovative. Together, they have produced a book that is forced, flat, superficial, and boring. I was surprised at how easily my eye skipped whole paragraphs, and had to be forced back to read what was missed. Their cutesy personalization attempts grate. Even their "original" ideas were well known to me. I think a few quick search engine checks would have changed the book dramatically. As much as I love reading both their works, this one can quite easily be overlooked. You won't miss a thing.

Welcome to the fascinating world of "libertarian paternalism," our Automatic and Reflective Systems, choice architecture, and the principle of "nudging."

Basically most of us are fallible Humans: lazy or confused, or simply too busy, to make the right decisions in life without some help. Only a few of us are Econs, or the perfect economic man, using his capability to maximum benefit for himself and others.

Here is a description, often amusing, but always with a serious message, of how we can be influenced in our decision-making, with enormous implications for us all; of how small features in any situation can have massive effects on our behaviour, "nudging" us in good or bad ways, and how this phenomenon can be beneficially applied without compromising freedom of choice. The authors tackle smoking, obesity, saving for retirement, health care, climate change, even making suggestions for rethinking the institution of marriage (basically privatize it). They even invite our own ideas on suitable topics for future nudging treatment (see [...]). The authors really do deliver what they promise in the strapline: ways to improve our decisions about health, wealth and happiness. And whilst written with an American emphasis this is no less readable or relevant anywhere else.

The authors not only explain how both public and private policies can be improved, but show that these ideas can usefully cut across political divides, in our overly polarized society, and are relevant for anyone in any position of responsibility, of leadership or authority, for example in business, in church groups, in clubs, etc. and yes, even in families (how, I wonder, can I "nudge" my son to tidy his room?!). At governmental level these ideas, they explain, will make for better governance, and this significance is seemingly not lost on either David Cameron or Barack Obama.

The book concludes with a thoughtful chapter that tackles head on any objections we may have - fears of the "slippery slope," or the potential "bad" nudgers, for example; and how to avoid a "nudge" becoming a "shove" or even worse.

The second edition also has a chapter on the 2007/08 financial crisis. This explains with clarity and within the context of the book just why the crash happened, and how we may be able to avoid a repeat, but only, the authors stress, if we ensure we understand fully the human behaviour behind it.

One of the problems with the almost inevitable lag between researching an idea and the final publication of the book based on that idea is that in this increasingly fast moving world things can date very rapidly. But this is a very minor criticism and in no way detracts from the value of this book, with its advice which if not exactly timeless should certainly have a long and useful shelf life.

This is a book I would like to have written myself; I certainly wish I had known of it when it first came out in 2008. I can strongly recommend it as a good read for all thoughtful persons who would like to help create a better world for us all.

If I can read this book and am not internally conflicted at times, that should scare you (as it may indicate that I think my preferences are always best); however, the book's premise is so valid that the concept must be not only fleshed out in detail, but it must be implemented in some fashion (as the book points out, it cannot not be implemented). The good news is that I was internally conflicted (over which option towards which one should nudge another) and I think most readers will be as well.

The opening story of the school cafeteria sets the stage well and makes the premise clear: people make choices and the way we structure those choices influences the choices they make whether we intend to influence them or not. In light of this, why not choose to influence people to make good choices?

The difficulty is in determining what the good choices are. The book argues that the good choices are those that the people would make for themselves if they had all the best information. However, one still has to ask how one can trust the government to provide all the best information and to even use that with integrity to help people make good choices. It is a difficult dilemma - particularly in modern America where there is such distrust for government.

At the same time, I would certainly rather the school cook place the healthy foods where my child is most likely to choose them than to place the unhealthy foods there. That is a pretty clear decision; however, how does one decide on issues like health insurance and savings. The book suggests that we should make individuals "work" to opt-out of insurance or savings rather than to "work" to opt-in. The point is that people are more likely to have health insurance if the default, with a new job, is that it is taken out of their pay. Additionally, people are more likely to invest in a 401k if the default is that it is taken out of their pay and, unless they make a decision to do otherwise (presumably at the time of hire), it will continue to be.

This seems like a good practice until you realize that the company is defaulting to taking money from the employee and using it for the "employee's good". I can certainly see a time period of struggle where employees may be suing their employers for taking their money without their "explicit permission". That is that since it was a default and not a granting of permission it could be problematic. I supposed time and courts will tell.

This is a tremendous book that brings an important topic to the forefront. Do we need to consciously help people make "better" decisions or can we allow them to make "mistakes" and learn or not learn from those? It does seem to have implications on free will, but at the same time so does doing nothing. This, I'm sure, will become an excellent debate in the coming decades.

Nudge provides a solid, easy-to-read background for the emerging space of behavioral economics. The upfront sections provide the context of fundamental human biases that provide power to those that help to form the decision choices each of us have. For me, the most critical insight of this book is the emphasis placed on how responsible any of us are for setting the default options in the choices we pose - whether to our children, our spouses, our colleagues, our team members or our organizations. Several examples provide further fodder, but if you just read the first few chapters, it can help significantly to remind you, that if you lead any people or help shape any decisions, how critical your role is in the impact on those people's lives.

According to the authors, man is not the hard, cold rationalist, or economic man, who is often described in free market postulations, but is instead quite fallible, even the highly-educated. The thinking and perceptions of man are constantly being waylaid by subtle influences which result in bad choices. The authors propose "libertarian paternalism," a catchall term for the subtle persuasion of people to make decisions that are helpful to them. However, if one examines our economic system, the authors' fears that their paternalism is freedom stifling pale next to the realities of consumer manipulation by large economic entities.

The first section of the book describing the various influences on erroneous thinking are fairly basic, much of it demonstrated in psychological experimentation. Unfortunately, life is a good bit more complicated than merely making so-called correct decisions about trivial or contrived matters. There are many areas in our lives where powerful institutions have created a situation where there are no good choices for most of us.

Take retirement savings, 401k plans, and investment decisions. Workers did not choose for corporations to abandon defined benefit plans and put the onus on workers to save for retirement. Many workers don't contribute to 401k plans because they have insufficient income - not that they cannot make a decision, a fundamental fact not mentioned by the authors. It is simply disingenuous to criticize workers for the performance of mutual funds in today's stock markets, for their investment "choices." Stock markets have been captured by financial elites who use others' investments as money to play with. The ordinary 401k contributor absolutely does not have the tools or the means to manage their investments on a minute-by-minute basis aided by sophisticated computer software.

The idea that parents don't correctly choose a good school for their children is absurd. Let's say in a school district of 100,000 students that there are five good schools with total enrollment of 10,000. Of course, all parents want their children to go to those five schools, or could easily be so persuaded - an obvious impossibility. This is a problem of poor schools, not a failure of parents to choose. Or take the new Part D of Medicare, the Prescription Drug Plan - this plan was designed by insurance companies to be completely incomprehensible with all kinds of loopholes where benefits do not have to be paid. Do the authors really want to use this as an example of choice failure? This is a scam that has been perpetrated on the American public.

On the surface, there can hardly be anything wrong with the idea of improving choices; who advocates making poor choices. However, let's consider our environment. We live in a capitalistic economy - profits are virtually all that matter. Giving good information to people is not a priority; in fact, it could be argued that giving disinformation is, especially if it positively affects the bottom line. What is advertising? It is disingenuous to write a book about poor choices without situating those choices. There are many powerful players who are successful because they count on poor choices and ensure that those choices continue. That is the book that needs to be written.

If and when we ever empower the citizens of this nation to control the nature of our institutions, then criticize the result and the choices. Now the choices we have are not really choices.

This is apparently Obama's PSYOp Manual. It attempts to start a movement called "Libertarian-Paternalism". Behaviorism (attempting to control people. to make them decide the way you want them to; like Obama, Hitler. and of course Pappa Joe Stalin.

Authors, Thaler and Sunstein, make cogent arguments in favor of thoughtful choice architecture particularly when it comes to presenting consumers with difficult or many decisions. Again and again the duo dissect some of the most challenging choice scenarios, including retirement, investment, health care, the environment, and Social Security, to name a few. In the end they sum up the 12 "nudges" they have architected throughout the book. Readers that work in industries where consumer choice might be made more user-friendly will find this an inexpensive guidebook on how to rethink the way they present information and options. Influence doesn't need to be heavy-handed, prove Thaler and Sunstein. We can give our customers, users, and consumers at large benign nudges that ultimately benefit all.

I came to read Nudge in the wake of Iyengar's "The Art of Choosing" and Poundstone's "Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value (and How to Take Advantage of It)," both of which tangentially deal with the topic of "choice."

I bought this book to help nudge myself to better choices, but got a book about how organizations nudge people to do things. Equally useful, but different than I thought.

Well written, funny, insightful. Defanitely worth the read, and a tad short of being spectacular.

This book starts of smoothly by making a fictional character working at a cafeteria. The employ wonders in which way the foods should be displayed in order for the students to eat healthy. Depending on how the food was organized shows which food the students choose more to consume. Easier way to say it is that students eat more if the food is displayed in the middle section where is stands out more. So the cafeteria employ would display it in an orderly fashion to make sure that the healthy foods are more in the middle. This is how a simple nudge works, no one forces students to eat healthier, however, students are gently pushed to eat healthier. Another simple nudge happened in the men`s restroom. Many men at one Netherlands` airport were not actually urinating at the right place causing a lot of bad odor. So the people working at the airport wonder what to do and put a sticker of a fly. For some reason men liked shooting at the fly so the spill of urination reduced by 80 percent making it not to stink anymore. Whether we recognize it or not there is nudge all around us.

This books shows us that people makes choices by nudge at many cases. Whether people know is or not, nudge is always there.

Too wordy and diffuse to hold my interest throughout- could have boiled down to about 5 pages with each of the main concepts outlined and referenced. A big help would be the difference between nudge and shove.

Six principles of good choice architecture:

iNcentives
Understand mappings
Defaults
Give feedback
Expect error
Structure complex choices

Voilà: NUDGES

Thaler and Sunstein created a splendid book which should be read critically and absorbed deeply. We humans, unlike the models in economics books, have very bounded rationality, give in to temptations easily, have many weak points, struggle with lots of complex choices with very little and accurate information regarding our investments, health plans, marriage, future, etc. We need help and we need it now.

You may be a software developer, a new cellphone interface designer, a civil servant, a politician or a manager and you'll benefit from this book because it provides very important clues on how to create choice structures and optimize for aspects of humanity.

The book has wonderful examples and even though there are more specific books such as Norman's Design of Everyday Things and Gigerenzer's books on heuristics, I believe Nudge is a well-balanced text which makes a very good and informative reading without forcing the reader to go and do literature research on various areas of expertise (but as a good choice structure and an example of liberal paternalism the authors provide lots of references to the relevant source of information if you want to check it yourself).

As a software developer, e-learning consultant and cognitive science researcher I know that I'll read this book more than once and I recommend you do the same thing if you want to understand how easy it is to prevent some stupid crises without destroying the freedom of people.

I agree with other reviewers that the topic, though interesting, does not warrant book-length treatment.

I also think the authors fudge the definition of "nudge." For instance, in the last section of "12 nudges," they mention Automatic Tax Returns for those who don't itemize deductions. Purportedly, such automatic filing will save tax filers millions of hours of time a year. Probably a good idea, but how is making something automatic, in effect reducing choice, a libertarian nudge? And really, how is it different now from the current choice architecture, in which filing is mandated anyway? Similarly, while I enjoyed the idea of separating "marriage" and "civil union" and I think it might make good public policy, I don't really see how it fits into the idea of "nudging." This complaint goes hand in hand with my first one, which is that, in order to come up with enough material to make a book, they had to really stretch on some of the nudges.

Finally, and maybe I'm being nit-picky, but I was driven crazy by the amount of parenthetical phrases. It seems, especially in the first half, that every other sentence had something or other in parentheses, most of which in my opinion either could be removed or didn't belong in parentheses in the first place. It really made parts hard to read.

My first impression was Sunstein had gone into the self-help book business, but this is an incredible introduction to the power of policy making based on meaningful and well reasoned research.

Maybe it's too wonky for those not interested in policy making. Maybe it's not wonky enough for those who are in that field already. But for someone interested in better understanding and analyzing policies as an interested voter or for someone who cares about how their company's retirement plan changes (or inadequacies) will have a big impact on their co-workers or their community, this is an incredible resource!

They cover many topics as potentially benefiting from "nudges" which helps teach the reader through application in many fields and to various problems/dilemmas. I appreciate Sunstein's not-too-legal writing style as an attorney and as someone approaching a new subject; generally the writing is excellent and well organized.

Union members and leaders, plan administrators, or anyone creating a form or helping others make important, rare decisions - this is the spring board into leading, helping, and working better, with less effort, and with better results. Highly recommended for anyone who might have a chance to help change the policies at their office, in their community, and even in helping clients make informed/optimal decisions.

Everyone seems to be talking about this book, and the Tories like it a lot (which may not necessarily be a good sign). The book shows how people often behave in irrational ways and offers some gentle 'nudging' techniques for making them behave more responsibly and sensibly. There are some very entertaining illustrations and examples - I love the story about the urinals at the airport (but I won't go into any more detail here or else I'll spoil it for you.) Sometimes, however, the strategies seem to be a little less subtle than the authors suggest - for example, the idea that there should be a waiting period before people get married. Surely that's a little too much interference? Nevertheless, the book is an excellent and stimulating - and optimistic - read. I recommend it along with Stop the Age Clock: Look 20 Years Younger, 20 Pounds Lighter and 200% Prettier in Only 20 Days

I reviewed the book in detail on my blog:

[...]

But briefly, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thaler and Sunstein are witty and engaging through the entire book, and don't leave any readers behind with pretension, but instead make sure it's something everyone can digest easily.

It's definitely a good read for anyone interested in politics or business. If you are in a position where your job responsibilities include shaping the choices that consumers will be making, it provides the ethical guidelines as well as best practices to make sure the choice architecture benefits everyone, but particularly the consumer, as much as possible.

It's also a great book for anyone who wants to empower themselves to make better choices in their own lives. We're faced with choices daily, between how much more to save this month now that you received a raise at work to whether or not to take the offered equity in your company's stock.

Interesting thesis, but flawed. It may work for some markets, like retirement accounts, but it does not work for all markets. One example is credit cards. Research shows that the "nudges" in the credit card reform law only produced slight results, but the "paternalistic" prohibitions against excessive fees saved consumers billions of dollars without significant constriction of credit availability. [...]

Based on behavioral economics, Nudge is about "choice architecture." Sometimes people don't have enough information or expertise to make a good decision. Other times they may be too busy to think about it, so they rely on intuition or heuristics (rules of thumb and biases). Choice architects can improve decision making by nudging people in the right direction.

In the context of 401K enrollment, the goal could be to help participants maximize their retirement benefit. In the context of a school cafeteria, the goal could be to encourage healthier food choices.

Simplification can be a nudge. "One study finds that the more options in the [401K] plan, the lower the participation rates." Disclosure can be a nudge; EPA mileage stickers on new cars help consumers make informed decisions. Default choices are another way to nudge, since many people go with whatever requires the least effort. Opt-in and Opt-out are also forms of choice architecture.

Fascinating examples illuminate a fascinating concept: that we can be "choice architects" structuring our environments so that our natural biases and heuristics lead to better choices and outcomes. Some of the examples are mundane and familiar--such as putting healthy food in a more convenient location than junk food--but the authors quickly move into exploring more novel, unexpected, and compelling possibilities. My only complaint is that the second half of the book couldn't compete with the first half.

Thaler and Sunstein are among another wave of academics that help keep my home town, Chicago,on the intellectual hilltop. This wasn't exactly what I was expecting, since the title seems to indicate something about decision psychology in general not a particular political ideology. But it is a good book and quick read. Whether or not you agree with the political conclusions, the lessons are well-taken.

This is the third book I've read this year that cites Kahneman & Tversky regarding human decision-making quirks. I found Hubbard's How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business to be the most enlighening of all the books in this genre. Nudge may be a close tie with Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets.

Thaler & Sunstein are surfing the leadng edge of the psycho-social responsibility wave that ushers in the second decade of the century. The tongue in cheek tone keeps the reader chuckling. The structure keeps pages turning.

The backbone of the book is the idea of "paternalistic libertarianism," which, IMHO, seeks to restore something that was lost in the age of political correctness. That something is the direction - Thaler & Sunstein call it a nudge - elders or peers give to those who are flailing, or walking down the wrong path.

Paternalism of any kind is dangerous, except for children. There are no "Econs" among the human race, so the "planners" themselves are only us, and not "rational" either, and have their own motivations, benign or malign. Any assumption planners, whether political ones or commercial ones, are always benign is naive. So, we cannot move the decision making to the "planners" and conclude they will inevitably make the best choices for us to be nudged towards.

All we can hope for in fact is that books like Nudge show us how it all works. Then we can at least know what's going on, especially what the "planners" are unwittingly, or more importantly wittingly, trying to get us to "choose", and we can have a say in their activities.

As a digital product designer, I work with the notion of information architecture (IA). IA includes tasks such as organizing, labeling, and structuring information into navigable and intuitive structures. The general goal is to produce an information space that facilitates the completion of a persons desired goals when interacting with said space. In a large part, I'm dealing with the experiential aspects of content structuring. Often times, we have to help our audience make decisions when they're unsure or confused and that's there the notion of a nudge comes in. The authors have done a remarkable job at providing examples from common sociological findings to help in the endeavor of Information Architecture- or "Choice Architecture" as they termed it. Good read in that regard.

I did feel that the second half was about "nudging" readers to a particular political view as the other reviewers noted; however, the first half is chock full of solid, practical information for any information designer.

Based on behavioral economics, Nudge is about "choice architecture." Sometimes people don't have enough information or expertise to make a good decision. Other times they may be too busy to think about it, so they rely on intuition or heuristics (rules of thumb and biases). Choice architects can improve decision making by nudging people in the right direction.

In the context of 401K enrollment, the goal could be to help participants maximize their retirement benefit. In the context of a school cafeteria, the goal could be to encourage healthier food choices.

Simplification can be a nudge. "One study finds that the more options in the [401K] plan, the lower the participation rates." Disclosure can be a nudge; EPA mileage stickers on new cars help consumers make informed decisions. Default choices are another way to nudge, since many people go with whatever requires the least effort. Opt-in and Opt-out are also forms of choice architecture.

Fascinating examples illuminate a fascinating concept: that we can be "choice architects" structuring our environments so that our natural biases and heuristics lead to better choices and outcomes. Some of the examples are mundane and familiar--such as putting healthy food in a more convenient location than junk food--but the authors quickly move into exploring more novel, unexpected, and compelling possibilities. My only complaint is that the second half of the book couldn't compete with the first half.

Thaler and Sunstein are among another wave of academics that help keep my home town, Chicago,on the intellectual hilltop. This wasn't exactly what I was expecting, since the title seems to indicate something about decision psychology in general not a particular political ideology. But it is a good book and quick read. Whether or not you agree with the political conclusions, the lessons are well-taken.

This is the third book I've read this year that cites Kahneman & Tversky regarding human decision-making quirks. I found Hubbard's How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business to be the most enlighening of all the books in this genre. Nudge may be a close tie with Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets.

Thaler & Sunstein are surfing the leadng edge of the psycho-social responsibility wave that ushers in the second decade of the century. The tongue in cheek tone keeps the reader chuckling. The structure keeps pages turning.

The backbone of the book is the idea of "paternalistic libertarianism," which, IMHO, seeks to restore something that was lost in the age of political correctness. That something is the direction - Thaler & Sunstein call it a nudge - elders or peers give to those who are flailing, or walking down the wrong path.

Paternalism of any kind is dangerous, except for children. There are no "Econs" among the human race, so the "planners" themselves are only us, and not "rational" either, and have their own motivations, benign or malign. Any assumption planners, whether political ones or commercial ones, are always benign is naive. So, we cannot move the decision making to the "planners" and conclude they will inevitably make the best choices for us to be nudged towards.

All we can hope for in fact is that books like Nudge show us how it all works. Then we can at least know what's going on, especially what the "planners" are unwittingly, or more importantly wittingly, trying to get us to "choose", and we can have a say in their activities.

As a digital product designer, I work with the notion of information architecture (IA). IA includes tasks such as organizing, labeling, and structuring information into navigable and intuitive structures. The general goal is to produce an information space that facilitates the completion of a persons desired goals when interacting with said space. In a large part, I'm dealing with the experiential aspects of content structuring. Often times, we have to help our audience make decisions when they're unsure or confused and that's there the notion of a nudge comes in. The authors have done a remarkable job at providing examples from common sociological findings to help in the endeavor of Information Architecture- or "Choice Architecture" as they termed it. Good read in that regard.

I did feel that the second half was about "nudging" readers to a particular political view as the other reviewers noted; however, the first half is chock full of solid, practical information for any information designer.

If you've never hear of "choice architecture," it isn't because you haven't experienced it. From your 401(k) enrollment form to the location of food at the company cafeteria (heck, even the menu design), every choice you make (or don't make) results partly from a decision someone else (the choice architect) has made for you. Even while I was still reading Nudge, I found new ways of viewing day-to-day activities which have created both new opportunities and interesting challenges for me personally and professionally.

Nudge is the rare book that keeps you thinking after you read it. Rarer still for a book that is inherently academic. But, with its real world examples, Thaler and Sunstein bring libertarian paternalism to life. Wouldn't it be a hoot of those who could take advantage actually did so? I know I am going to try.

Beyond Paycheck to Paycheck: A Conversation About Income, Wealth, and the Steps in Between (Total Candor)

The first few chapters are interesting, and give some good tips about defaults and explain how you can't really NOT nudge someone, even when you try not to. I found it to be pretty boring once it got into the finance part of the book.

Nudge is a provocative book that questions some of our society's deeply held notions of neutrality and manipulation. It has influenced me greatly. I would and do recommend it to many friends and relatives both for casual reading and so that they may be better informed.

The book's insights are firmly rooted in solid behavioral economic research, much of it published by Thaler in high-end, peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone working in public office, management, or interested in the application of scientific research to simplify societal problems.

This book also suggests the first viable conception of a third party for the American political system that I have heard. Indeed, I believe that almost the entire country could rally around the "Libertarian Paternalism" suggested in this book. By improving the choice architecture of daily life through Nudges, we may have better government instead of more government.

While no one book may accomplish so many things alone, Nudge lays a general blueprint by which we may address these and many other issues intelligently and rationally.

The book, "Nudge", written by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein was about the type of influences (Nudge) that occur on an everyday basis. Although this book does make a case for why well intentioned nudges can be helpful, someone with ill will could use similar nudges to persuade people towards poor decisions. For example the term Libertarian Paternalism is used to describe nudges that can help maintain freedom of choice. What if someone was inclined to be oppressive and use nudges to create the opposite effect? I would recommend this book for anybody that want to find out how they are being nudged on a daily basis. If you can spot the nudge you may be able to avoid its influence. I know it has changed the way I perceive the decision making.

I'm a PhD student specialising in experimental economics. I was a bit lost for direction as to how my field is relevant to happenings in real life. I was directed to reading this book, and I am finding inspiration as I am reading it. Whacky findings presented in casual non-academic prose command interest. I think they summarise nicely how simple arbitrary decisions made in real life can have a huge impact on a variety of matters. It's also nice to know academia isn't just all irrelevant talk.

I read this for my MBA at Texas Tech University and the insights are priceless. Bounded rationality and the conflict between cognition and emotion are battles that we must face everyday within the decisions we make.

I really like this book, as it opened new perspectives on mass & individual decision-making for me. As a professional counselor, this gives me & my clients a new set of tools, especially as the many social experiments presented can be adapted and played with. I particularly liked the thinking about long-term opt-in & opt-out consequences, since recent job changes had set off my subterranean angst re the motives of employers, insurers, & investment houses, with their arcane inter-convolutions.
The old poster "not to decide, is to decide" has always rung true for me. I was thrilled by Thaler's clear demos that whether we like it or not, choices are already being influenced for positive, negative, & even as yet to be determined results. With this needful foundation for his essential point, it’s inarguable that, even if we think we can just walk away, we’re as responsible for the effects of our inaction as we'd be for any action we may think we’ve avoided. Thus, we cannot just walk away; as with "the elephant in the living room," "just walk away" can’t successfully pretend away the reality.
~~
The term "paternalism" is likely a shorthand embedded in economics ages ago by seminal (sorry; pun intended) paternalist theorists, part of the skeletal "old white men" Western history where current perspectives have their roots. And it's likely that my ignorance of economics and social policy-making lets this term be so raw and so irritating. I so very much want to rearrange the letters into "parentalism," which would convey the intended kindly but authoritarian sense yet reflect a more contemporary and unsexist understanding of an ecology of power structures and the individual evolution of one’s psyche. Even in paternalistic families/ cultures, where dad has the final say (de jure), mum is as likely to be the de facto decision shaper or maker, whether silent or amplified. If needful "choice architectures" were presented as being informed by both home and the marketplace, with their very different sets of values, my intestinal dread of monolithic dehumanized pigeonholing into various productivity functions would be much allayed.
~~
Lest anyone harbor any false equivalence of business and people, it was never a chicken-&-egg conundrum: people came first.

An important book about decision-making & the role of community in promoting healthy choices.

Should be read in conjunction with the social psychology literature such as Kahneman, Cialdini, etc. And one should of course be aware of potential misuses of these ideas, with discussion of ways to protect oneself from unwelcome persuasion (which would most commonly come from businesses rather than governments).

This is a very readable text on what the authors call "choice architecture." They begin with a section describing why there is no real way of presenting choices in a neutral manner, and the effects of various choice architectures. They present "libertarian paternalism" as a particularly desirable choice architecture, one that should appeal to all but the extremes of the political spectrum. In this choice architecture, individuals retain freedom of choice, but options, including the default option, are arranged to generate choices that are expected to benefit the individual the most, or do the most societal good. The authors then go through the specifics of libertarian paternalism in the contexts of investing, retirement, health care, environment, school choice, and marriage, among others, before closing.

The ideas in the book - a genuine "third way" - along with the authors credentials and extremely accessible writing style make this book very worthwhile reading.

I bought this book because of all the great blurbs all over the cover quoted from publications that I respect. And frankly, after reading the book I am a bit disappointed. It doesn't take long to understand the concept of choice architecture. And then the book begins to feel repetitive. The books ends up being "okay," and I wouldn't really recommend it.

The authors' concept of "choice architect" is great. They define a choice architect as having "...the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions."

They provide a range of choice architectures in action. Everything from offering healthy snacks earlier in school cafeteria traffic flows to encouraging 401K deposits at a future date rather than immediately, to helping seniors understand Medicare Part D.

In business, whether we know it or not, we are acting as a "choice architects" every time we plan a presentation. Simply by deciding what to leave in and what to leave out, we are designing the context for making decisions.

Thaler and Sunstein offer a range of ways to provide structure to the choices you offer to your business associates, customers, and contributors to your favorite charities

The book is very well written, has some excellent points and is in generel very informative. The one thing dragging this book down is the distribution of subjects it covers.

More than 60% of the book, concerns itself with current political topics in the US, and how they could be handled better by using "nudges" and decision architecture. This has 2 major side-effects, 1. It's mostly irrelevant for non-US citizens, 2. In 5 years time, it will also be irrelevant for US citizens, since they problems mentioned are very specific and will most likely no longer be relevant.

The remains of the book is split something like this:
10% What is a nudge (as well as the Econs Vs. Humans)
5% What is liberal paternalism
20% Defense of liberal paternalism against critics
>5% How do you nudge people.

I highly recommend reading the first 100 pages or so, sadly the remaining 200 pages are mostly filler.

It was interesting at first and had some new insights, but as the chapters dragged out, so too did a tired message. Pre-Obama, ACA, and marriage equality. Read the first 100, then bring it back to the library.

An excellent treatment and analysis of human predisposition to making choices - and how one can influence them. This book clearly establishes the fact many of us suspect - that there is no such thing as pure rational decision-making (realistically), free will, and most importantly, independent thinking. Understanding this critical aspect let's us engineer our own decisions and choice presentations in a more persuasive way. Highly recommended!

When I invest in a book, I expect to get one rock solid idea that I can apply to improve some aspect of my life. "Nudge" handed me that one idea, then another, and yet another. Truth be known, I can't begin to place an idea "value" on this book; new thoughts are springing forth each day. Great book.

My left wing professor mandated that this book be purchased, it is atrocious. Perhaps if you want to learn about a marxist agenda that ultimately expands the government beyond imagination, go ahead and buy this mindless book. 25 or 30 years ago these ideas would be the stuff of science fiction, 50 years ago you would have been called what you are for espousing this,,, a communist. I'm an American so I fundamentally disagree with this book.
Stay away from this book, big waste of time.

Anyone interested in business or business management should read this book. This book discusses how we make choices and how to make better ones. We read about making better investments, promoting a cleaner environment, and steering towards better health.

Romeo Richards
How To Market And Manage A Professional Firm

Nobody forced my neighbor to buy that expensive plasma TV. After reading Nudge now he knows why he spent so much more money than he intended. It seemed like such a bargain, standing right next to a much more expensive set in the store display. In Thaler and Sunstein's terms, the store nudged him to buy that TV. They organized the choice set in a way that gently moved him towards what they want him to do. They got him to buy a pricey TV by taking advantage of the principle of contrast. Such psychological biases have been exploited since the beginning of human commerce to sell us things we don't need. This book makes a compelling argument that the same psychological biases can be used to get us what we really want.

After reading Nudge it is easy to understand how small things can make a big difference. For instance, most people I know would like to save more money; most of them don't. Nudge convincingly argues that people can, and should be helped to do that. Very few of us can commit to saving more money today, but most of us can commit today to save more money tomorrow. This human tendency can be used to help people save, and Nudge describes how several companies have already implemented such programs successfully by nudging employees to committing in advance to save part of a future salary increase.

By relying on a large body of work in Psychology and Behavioral Economics, Thaler and Sunstein elegantly argue that people have predictable, systematic biases and that this knowledge can be put to work to help all of us.

Their basic thesis is simple and brilliant: First, how options are presented matters. There is no neutral way to present options. If you present the salads first in a buffet, people will eat more healthy food than if you put salads at the end. Second, don't reduce choice, but organize the options so that people will be more likely to end up with what they themselves would prefer. This is as true for the salad bar as it is for health care.

This amazing book is useful for individuals and policy makers. Policy makers should be interested because such "choice architecture" is strictly non-partisan. Individuals should be interested because this book will nudge them to improve their life their way.

I would recommend this book for anyone interested in business/management: it is very insightful and relatively easy to read. I was surprised to discover how biased human thought process can be when it comes to making very important decisions in our life. After reading this book, I realized that the concept of choice architecture can be applied to financial reporting, information management, or investing.

I'm not an economist and I rarely read non-fiction, but this is an excellent book. The authors' insights seem just like common sense -- except no one really thought of it before. Treat yourself to a good and educational read.

I like this subject but there are already so many similar views in Galdwell and Ariely books. Thus I did not find many intersting topics in this book. Too many repetitions and too many American examples. Eventhough subject is Global; I did not find the book global enough.

What I expected were interesting perspectives on a series of examples that would illustrate various aspects of their thesis. The examples would start off with promise, but the authors nattered on until it was just too irritating. I would then jump to the next example - either immediately or when I next picked up the book - but each one failed in the same way.

I still can't explain how such interesting topics were rendered so trite.

This book is a target for conservatives, and with some good reason. The authors make a strong case about human cognitive biases and myopia, and certain "choice architecture" being unavoidable, but are a little too gleeful with their discovery. They are entirely too dismissive of criticisms, and there is much more room for mischief and bad policy than they realize. Conservatives and libertarians should read this book if only to appreciate the shape of the landscape in front of us.

Read my full blog review here: [...]

Behavioural economics has rapidly become popularised and a couple of titles have made the best seller list, but if you read only one or two this should be on your list. What makes this different is that the authors come up with policy options which could significantly improve public policy choices and save our taxes.

I normally don't write reviews but this book was a little deceptive and so I felt compelled to write one. In theory this should be a great book. Awesome title, great concepts, but oh so painful to read. I got 3/4 of the way through and just couldn't take it anymore. I was hoping this book would be something like Malcolm Gladwell's books, try any of those three and you'll be much happier. It had the potential to be like Blink and Tipping Point, but was a far cry from these awesome two books. When push comes to shove, this book was written by two economists and you can certainly tell. It's dry, they don't know how to keep your attention, the stories are boring and prolonged, and the authors have no pazzaz for actually writing. I would imagine they teach an exciting economics class, if you want to be an econ major. They differentiate in their book between "econs" and "humans." Yes to both the authors, you are right, I am definitely not an econ, I am a human, and you two are econs and wrote a boring book. Surprisingly, the book "Freakonomics" written by economists was indeed great. Worth the read, and definitely a "freak" of a book given it was written by economists. I'm not sure where all the good reviews come from. Obviously not from humans.

I've read part of this book. Not the whole thing. But have an opinion on it. This is about influencing people's decisions on a grand scale. Do not confuse this with marketing. Marketing is trying to sell you on a product- sometimes emploring tricks in order to do so. This is about influencing you on your choices in life by what the nudger wants you to think is better for you. Ask yourself this question: Would I rather influence my kid (nudge) him into a direction in life or would I rather let him use his free will to decide on what they want? There is no right or wrong answer- it's an opinion or a a belief. Now Cass Sustein does work with the gov't (Obama administration) and does believe in the Nudge philosophy on a grand scale in gov't. Is this Communism? No. Communism would force you to go into that direction. Nudge philosophy would suggest that direction (that you can't make up your mind, so I'm helping you to do so). Is this the proverbial legalese "slippery slope" toward Communism? Yes.

Worthy topic to explore, something to think about if you are in sales & marketing. If you work for a Latin American dicatorship, should be required reading. Castro would be proud. Libertarians should not read this book. If you are of a Socialist mindset, you may be in perfect agreement with the author. Note: I'm giving it 3 stars to keep my review neutral.

While reading, I felt like I had been on a date before with Thaler and Sunstein. They sweet talk you through dinner and a movie; and when it comes to departing from the vehicle at the end of the night, they park in a dimly lit space and instantly develop 4 extra hands. Be prepared to be wined and dined- and even feel a little dirty after reading.

This book will probably evoke one of two responses from the reader- one of agreeableness or one of fear. I think it will depend on the fundamental beliefs of the reader about the purpose of government. I am incredibly at odds fundamentally with Thaler and Sunstein. This book causes me great distress considering Sunstein is in our current administration.

In regards to material, it really presents no new ideas. It is a book about human initiative to say the least. Man has taken initiative and invented systems and products for free-market use forever. Its when Thaler and Sunstein promote these tactics to be used by unknown and unelected governmental entities that fundamentals find their odds. America, in theory- not so much in practice anymore, is a Republic with a Federal Government constrained by a Constitution and the majority of powers delegated to its States. So, I have no problem with 50 States choosing their own course in regards to the material in this book. But I think we all know that is not Thaler and Sunsteins' objective.

Being the "Libertarian" and "Anti-Paternalist" as they would refer to me in the book, I was quite offended by their adoption of the oxymoronic name "Libertarian Paternalists". Demagogues continue to glom on to freedom promoting terms. For instance, we can no longer call ourselves Liberals- we have to call ourselves Classic Liberals. I see the same happening to the term "Libertarian" if this "Libertarian Paternalist" takes hold. I also found it quite offensive, yet predictable that they would divide Humanity into "Econs" (read Elites) and "Humans"- of which they actually referred to numerous times as "Homer Simpsons". You, reader, are a mere Human. I began to wonder if the "unsophisticated" among us is the modern Elites' new word for "feeble-minded" used by the Elites of old.

The only positive thing I have to write about this book was Thaler and Sunstein's handling on marriage. I too believe that marriage should not require licensure, but should be handled as any other private contract between parties. Though my reasons might be different from the authors', I will admit that I support the idea. Still, Constitutionally this issue would probably be best left in the hands of each State. I can only recall one brief mention of the Constitution in this entire book, on page 249, which I believe exposes Thaler and Sunstein for who they are.

Easier to listen to (audiobook) than some others on similar topics. I really like the mix of psychological and economical examples and terms. Fun and informative, salient examples to illustrate the points. I hung on every chapter. Nice sounding professional reader. Yes, it was actually fun!

This book is a solid read and tackles the basic allocation of default choices to solve problems. By manipulating our own rationalities we can set our society up to make smarter decisions and nudge everyone in the right direction without taking away freedoms. The point of this book is to allow free markets to operate more efficiently because as humans we do not have an "invisible hand" that leads us to the best overall decision for ourselves or our society.

while the ideas behind this book are interesting, they do not warrant a book-length examination. good for the authors for being libertarian--it is mentioned relentlessly throughout the manuscript--and good for them for figuring out the whole choice architecture thing and coining such a pop term. but everyone participates in choice architecture when they make decisions, whether they realize it or not. does it matter if people know that they are doing it and that it has a name? i doubt it.

i did like the idea of separating "marriage" and "civil union"--all 6-8 pages of it-- and that was interesting. overall this would have made for a great nation or new criterion article, but not a book. skip it the book, read the reviews here (some of which are more enlightening than the book itself) and re-read freakonomics instead.

Love the idea of Nudges and the uses for them. This book gets lost in the public policy and economics of the idea. (Look at the backgrounds of the authors). If you care about behavior modification read it, but look for nuggets.

A fascinating look at how people make decisions, and how small changes in the way information is presented can affect those decisions for the better. I think this book would be useful to anyone trying to market products or ideas, and should be required reading for elected officials and people designing government programs.

Nudge's purpose is to use our understanding of Man As He Is to build better policies. Rather than assume a perfectly rational human who can parse long, complicated documents with his mighty, limitless brain, Man As He Is sometimes skims and can be deceived by cleverly worded contracts. Man As He Is is often aware of his own limitations: he'll flush his cigarettes down the toilet to prevent his future self from doing what his present self knows to be harmful; he'll promise to start exercising tomorrow; and he'll curse himself for procrastinating. Perfectly Rational Man -- whom Thaler and Sunstein call an "Econ," to be contrasted with a "Human" -- would never have these problems. Econs sit down with (notional) pencil and paper and calmly work out the costs and benefits of all available actions, then take the action that maximizes their present and future happiness subject to a discount rate (future happiness is worth less than the same quantity of present happiness). They don't have an internal procrastinator at war with a rational planner, nor do they ever regret on Sunday morning what they did on Saturday night.

Nudge is for Humans, not Econs. Nudge realizes, for instance, that making 401(k)s opt-out rather than opt-in, and setting a reasonable default investment plan, will lead lots more people to save money for retirement. And now that they've been enrolled, very few people will opt out. This is what Thaler and Sunstein call "libertarian paternalism": giving people a gentle push in the direction of their own best interests (the "paternalism" part), but never taking away choices (the "libertarian" part). People can quit at any time; it's only the default that has changed.

Your 401(k)'s default investment plan is part of what Thaler and Sunstein call "choice architecture." As a 401(k) administrator, I can guide your choices in any number of ways. I can choose opt-in or opt-out; if I choose opt-out, I have to choose a default plan, whereas if I choose opt-in, I have to decide how much prodding to give you. The point is that choice is inevitable. There's no way to avoid structuring the options available to people, so the right thing to do is to pick the best default. Given this realization, most of Nudge will be entirely uncontroversial.

Thaler and Sunstein digest a mountain of psychological research and reassemble it into a convincing story about how to build policies that correct for human failings. Humans can be expected to make the right decision when faced with a routine, concrete problem -- buying food at the grocery store, say -- but all bets are off when we're asked to evaluate a complicated, large-scale problem like the impact of our air-conditioner usage on global climate change. Thaler and Sunstein want to give the market itself a nudge here. They wouldn't insist that we buy only low-power appliances. Instead, they want our appliances to give us simple, immediate feedback on our energy usage: thermometers that reveal moment-to-moment energy costs, say, and EPA fuel-economy infographics that use easy-to-understand metrics like "dollars per year."

Econs may be able to consume any information thrown at them and correctly render a judgment from what they read; Humans have finite attention spans and would rather spend time with their families than pore over fuel-economy tables. If we want Humans to make the best choices, we have to structure their choice environment to make this possible. Nudge is Thaler and Sunstein's brilliant contribution toward this goal.

If you're in business this is a definite must read.
If you're in sales this is a definite must read.

It will teach you how people make decisions and how to get them to make better decisions.

I didn't finish it, I read about 75%.

This book, although beautifully written, has a terrifying perspective.

We all knew we have never been rational on our choices and orthodox economists have only recognized this when it has become useful for the big companies and capitalist governments to recognize so. Of course people are being nudge by the economic system, we are being bombarded with propaganda in the form of advertisements, movies, books (such as this one), tv shows... But does the book says so? No.

The book shows a very innocent, naive, view of nudges. If it comes from companies and our labour relationships. If it comes from Governments, it is called paternalism.

This book avoids all serious and complex analysis on the economic relationships in our society and how nudging affects them, instead, it is a superficial 250 pages, about how nudge can make you a better consumer.

The good part of this book is that it contains a lot of practical and nonpartisan policy advice, such as requiring corporations to sign people up for the 401(k) by default and then letting them opt out. This is an example of what they mean by "nudge". You don't need to coerce people; since something has to be the default option you can at least give them intelligent defaults.

The bad side of the book is its poor understanding of human nature. Libertarian economists such as Gary Becker have been aggressively promoting free markets based on a mathematical vision of rational decision making. Needless to say, this vision could only apply to ultra-logical people like Mr. Spock - the notorious Homo economicus. The breakthroughs of behavioral economics teach us that real people do not act like Mr. Spock. This book does an excellent job explaining the major findings of behavioral economics. But rather than try to understand the richness of real human behavior, most behavioral economists tilt towards the opposite extreme. They pronounce humans as irrational and filled with hidden biases. Homo economicus has been replaced by Homo irrationalus.

That's unfortunate because the real story of human nature is far more interesting. Consider the case of loss aversion (pp 33-34). In a classic experiment which has been replicated hundreds of times, students were randomly given free coffee mugs. The mug-less students were asked how much they would pay to get a mug and the students with mugs were asked how much they would want in order to sell their mugs. It turns out that students with mugs wanted an average of about twice as much as the mug-less students were willing to pay! This goes by the name of loss aversion, the endowment effect, and the status quo bias. It is labeled a bias because a self-respecting member of Homo economicus would think about how often he drinks coffee, how often he does the dishes, and how many mugs he currently has. Based on this analysis he would put a price on a new coffee mug. That price would not influence by whether or not he just got a mug for free. But in fact this behavior is rational. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein conclude that "loss aversion operates as a kind of cognitive nudge, pressing us not to make changes, even when changes are very much in our interests." (p.34)

The method behind our seemingly irrational madness is found in a classic problem in game theory - the game of hawks and doves. Hawk and dove are different strategies people can use when they are in a conflict over a prize. The prize could be anything. For butterflies it could be a sunlit leaf because male butterflies have more mating success when they occupy such a position. For feral horses it could be a pool of water (Herb Gintis reviews the literature in _The Bounds of Reason_). Doves are sharers. When two doves see a prize they will share it. When two hawks see a prize they will fight over it. When a hawk meets a dove the dove will yield the prize to the hawk. A world of all doves is basically a communist utopia where everyone shares everything. It is also efficient because people maximize the use of available resources (prizes). The problem is that it is not what biologists and game theorists call an evolutionary stable strategy. It can easily be invaded by hawks. The first person to switch to the hawk strategy will get the entire prize without cost wherever he goes. Over time more and more and people will play hawk. That's inefficient because the cost of fighting must be subtracted from the value of the prize.

We have a problem. A world with doves is efficient but unstable. A world with hawks is inefficient but stable. The evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith found the answer - the bourgeois strategy. That means "play hawk when you own the prize and dove when someone else does." A world of bourgeoisie is efficient because it eliminates fighting as effectively as the dove strategy. It is also an evolutionary stable strategy that cannot be invaded by hawks. That's because hawks are basically parasites on doves - they need the free prizes to offset the cost of fighting. A necessary consequence of adopting the bourgeois strategy is that people will value prizes that they own more than prizes that other people own. That's the real reason for loss aversion. It is not a "bias" but an efficient and stable strategy that provides the strategic foundation for the rule of law. The cost of enforcing the law goes up with the number of people who are trying to break it. If people did not have a sense of loss aversion then there would be more useful trades - but there would also be conflict and fighting over prizes.

That is just one example and this is already a long review but these kinds of lessons underlie nearly all of the so-called "biases" that Thaler and Sunstein identify. If you want to learn about Homo economicus then pick up _The Economics of Life_ by Gary Becker. If you want to about Homo irrationalus then buy this book. But if you want to learn about Homo sapiens then you will need to look elsewhere. I recommend starting with Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious_ by Gerd Gigerenzer. It is the book that _Blink_ by Malcolm Gladwell should have been. Books that talk discuss the hawk-dove game and other fascinating results out of evolutionary game theory are pretty scholarly. Games in Economic Development only requires high school algebra and you can easily skip over the math. I also think that most people interested in this book would enjoy Filthy Lucre: Economics for People Who Hate Capitalism. It is an accessible but sophisticated look at modern economics, including some behavioral economics.

The authors make some good points about "choice" architecture. Their Libertarian Paternalism might also be referred to as the "Power of Default Choices."

It was worth the money and time to read the book.

As somone who's read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom The Road to Serfdom and understands one of its core arguements; that centralize/command economies by any name will inevitably become totaliterian, oppressive and violent because as the policies of authorities fail it will require ever increasing levels of force to gain compliance with those policies - this book is a frightening omen. That one of its authors, Cass Sunstein, serves the current administration should strike fear in the very core of any American who is concerned about freedom and personal liberty. Today it's a" Nudge," tomorrow a push and it's only a matter of time before William Ayer's desire to round up and exterminate 25 million people who he estimates will never comply comes to pass.

The only good thing about this book is that makes crystal clear the threat Cass Sunstein and the current administration pose should anyone care enough to read it.

I read this book on vacation and was disgusted by my lack of decision making. When I got home I sold my condo, stopped talking to my ex girlfriend and drink whenever I feel like it. Anything that pops into my head now I do it. Would love to write more but I feel like spiraling a kid so I'm gonna go do it.

Nudge was an incredible book. It was required reading for my Microeconomics class, and after reading the book it made me think about everything that i buy, what salespersons say to try to influence you to buy a product, and just how products are processed to stores in general. Definitely gets you thinking!

I borrowed this one so that I wouldn't contribute income to these cretins. You SHOULD read this in any case, because America is on its way down the rabbit hole in a HURRY and you had better brace yourselves. I don't believe ANYTHING in TV or in the news that I cannot verify. I have verified that this man, Sunstein, is a self-avowed anti-capitalist progressive socialist who believes in eugenics. EUGENICS! While the book is not much of a literary work - after all, the author was only interested in inculcation not a quality read - the information here is a necessary evil and I MEAN EVIL. It was a tough read for that reason, aside from the lack of positive point of view and average structure. For those who believe in this crap, go find a socialist country to live in. Otherwise, read up, wise up and stand up. We have advanced from a Nudge to a SHOVE - over a cliff.

This book is an unequivocal "dummies' guide" to how current power structures use unconscious manipulation for various forms of social control. Though many of the examples provided to articulate the book's fundamental ideas seem trivial and benign, one mustn't put forth much effort to extrapolate how the widespread apathy, misinformation, and malleability needed in order to 'Nudge' citizens toward more 'automated' decisions or outcomes presupposes a highly complacent and disengaged population. Moreover, the authors not only seem contented with fostering the easily exploitable human characteristics which lead to automated decision making, but have the gall to say that it is in our (we, the general, non-elite, decision-ratifying populace) best interest. So long as the real decision making 'Econs' - i.e. the social, political, economic, and academic elite - are the ones nudging us plebeians towards choices deemed acceptable for us, all is well, calm, and as it should be.

There is, of course, an alternative narrative that can be constructed, namely one that portrays our tendency towards unreflective (re)actions and hierarchical subjugation as categorically negative; one that does not perceive a condescending analysis of how humans (besides the authors and their peers presumably) make decisions as quaint or endearing. The only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't coincide with the current power structures that Sunstein and Thaler are apart of, and wont serve to profit the advertising and PR industries billions of dollars a years.

Worth reading if you're unfamiliar with why current sociopolitical/economic trends are steamrolling forward with little to no resistance. If that is something you're already educated on and are not interested in its perpetuation, then I can comfortably suggest you apply your time, money, and, most importantly, intellect elsewhere.

The authors work readers by asking us to estimate the width to length ratios of two tables shown counterposed in their figure 1.1. (This is a variation of a perception puzzle common to pop psychology books.) As expected, they declare the reader wrong if one table is thought to appear longer than the other. One, in fact, does look longer.

We are then told that the two tables are the same shape/size (chagrin). The authors then pounce: "Not only were you wrong; you were probably confident that you were right." (Boy, did we get you on that one!) All of which is an exercise to demonstrate just how much we really need their expertise and how important their tome is to us. Unfortunately, there is a problem with the way the tables are drawn, one that that punctures their presumed authority.

In measuring the table legs of the table on the left in figure 1.1, I find that the more-or-less vertical separation of the legs (as measured from the outer edges of the 'buns' at leg end) is 1 13/16". In contrast, the same measurement taken on the legs of the table on the right (more or less horizontal) is 1 9/16". That difference, 4/16" or 1/4", is clearly noticeable and can only mislead. Inadvertently or not, the fact that the authors have made such a big point of the exercise and yet failed to check their facts suggests unreliable material. Fool me once, shame on you; .... I booted Nudge with a disdainful grudge.

To be fair, I think only first five chapters are worth reading. After that...it's really a long yawn unless you are sympathetic to Libertarian ideas. There is nothing new in this book. I'm little tired of picking up books with rehashed examples already mentioned in other books like "Blink", "Freakonomics" or "Influence".

"Buy on apples, sell on cheese" is an old proverb among wine merchants. Taking a bite of an apple before tasting wine makes it easier to detect flaws in the wine, and the buyer who does so will not as easily make the mistake of paying more than the wine is worth. Cheese, on the other hand, pairs well with wine and enhances its flavor, so a seller who offers cheese may command a higher price for the wine (and may even deserve it, if the wine is intended to be drunk with cheese).

The proverb captures important psychological nuances of choice. The same product - a bottle of wine or a risky medical procedure - may be perceived differently depending on its context, and it is often possible to arrange the context to influence a choice while still maintaining the decision maker's autonomy.

The practice of structuring choices is called "choice architecture" in a brilliant and important new book, Nudge, by University of Chicago Distinguished Professors Richard Thaler (Business) and Cass Sunstein (Law). Nudge lays out the groundwork for the science of choice architecture in investing, insurance, health care delivery, and other areas, and argues for a "libertarian paternalism" in which choices are structured to make it more likely that a decision maker will select what is considered the most beneficial option, without impairing the ability to decision makers to select other options. For example, making enrollment in 401(k) plans automatic for new employees, with a form for opting out, is likely to result in greater retirement savings than an opt-in system, without limiting anyone's freedom to choose.

Thaler and Sunstein apply the principles of choice architecture to a few problems in health care (How could Medicare part D be improved? How can organ donation rates be increased? Why shouldn't patients be allowed to waive their right to sue for medical negligence in return for cheaper health care?) But the concepts in the book go beyond their specific examples and could prove very useful to practicing clinicians, who, they note, are often in the position of being choice architects for their patients.

Their principles of choice architecture (paraphrased by me and focused on physicians helping patients make decisions) are:

* Make sure incentives are aligned with desired outcomes
* Help patients map outcomes of different alternatives into formats they can understand (a major focus of Medical Decision Making as well)
* Arrange default options to favor better health. Pediatricians have done a good job of making vaccination a default option.
* Provide timely and relevant feedback about choices and outcomes. A patient seeking to lose weight needs to experience feedback in the form of measurable progress soon enough that they are not discouraged.
* Expect error and develop systems to prevent, detect, and minimize it. For example, pill cases and inhalers with dosage counters are simple and valuable ways to reduce the frequent errors people make in remembering medication. Psychological research provides direction as to what kinds of errors are to be expected when people are making decisions.
* Structure complex choices to reduce the difficulty of making good decisions. In many ways, that's what medical decision making -- and Medical Decision Making -- is about.

I highly recommend Nudge. It's a great read, and has the potential to change the way you think about clinical practice and medical decisions.

I liked the beginning of the book, but it became repetitive and boring after first three chapters. It could be due to the fact that I generally agree with the major premise of the book: people should be "nudged" to make a decision that will make them better off. And yes, the nudge should be transparent and not synonym to manipulating people's minds. And yes, the government has my permission to nudge me in the right direction; if as a result I will make a decision (for example) to exercise more and eat less junk food.
(As a side note, I will be happy to have such a smart government. Or well, this could be an issue. But this is a subject for another book).
I got it, and I don't need three chapters to convince me. Am I alone in this?

I was much more interested in why and how our brain works to react to the "nudges" ("popular psychology" side that was almost non-existent), than in authors' rebukes to the opponents of "libertarian paternalism" - the political implementation of their theory. The other thing that annoyed me was the authors' attempt to be funny and coin terms, names and definitions that were supposed to make the book readable. Instead, it got annoying after the third appearance of the term "libertarian paternalism" and after the fifth time I saw the term "Econ" (used for infamously rational person from economics textbooks).

I had an opportunity to listen to Thaler's presentation on this subject and it was lively and interesting. He is a brilliant speaker with many great ideas; unfortunately, it didn't translate into the brilliant writing.

I would still recommend the book for the ideas of "nudges" in different areas (personal finance, energy conservation, marketing, politics and everyday life). However, it fells short on the inspirational side. You shouldn't be able to put this book down. But you are.

A "Nudge", in my interpretation of the book, is forcing you to do something, but you can "Opt Out" of it. Here is an example NOT in the book, it is my own:

Imagine the government says it's illegal to go directly to McDonald's. You must first go to Subway. Once at Subway, after viewing the healthy menu, THEN you can go to McDonalds if you want. The authors suggest dozens of ways to get you to be "better", but they claim you are still a free person of choice. I say that's control and it's dangerous.

The authors suggest throughout the book to automatically make people to do things, then tell them they can "choose" to change it if they don't want it. For example, in the book, in Austria 99% of it's citizens are organ donors. Everybody is "signed up" at birth. But anyone can "cancel" it. Is that freedom of choice? I think not.

The authors wrote this book for nothing, because CHOOSING not to participate is the ultimate and real foundation of choice. And, they contradict themselves: it's true what they say, people don't know what's best for them, THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE 'NUDGED'!
You can only "suggest", with words, good choices. When are people going to mind their own business?

Nudge me and I'm going to nudge back. Remember that.

A basic truth, but nothing new. It's marketing and advertising 101, only less ethical. Walk through the supermarket. Eye-catching packages nudge you toward a product, though you are free to choose others.
Ask any retail store designer about choice architecture. It's their stock in trade. At least we know that marketers and advertisers are trying to manipulate us. How less moral is it to advocate slippery people in government deciding they know better what's good for us and secretly manipulating our choices?

Can you spell "manipulate"?
The premise that most people make poor decisions may well be flawed. Poor decisions based upon who's judgement? The authors?
I may think that everyone should go to church. Based on their premise I would simply mandate everyone go to church but let them choose which one.
I don't require the government or anyone else "nudge" me in any direction. I was taught to think for myself.

Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein are both professors at the University of Chicago and where the Chicago school was once famous for the Milton Friedman doctrine of free markets (look where they've got us today!) Thaler and now his Law professor friend Cass Sunstein have swung the pendulum the other way.

Here in Nudge, they argue that totally free markets can lead to disasters precisely because human individuals are not actually very good decision-makers. As Behavioural Economists (Kahneman & Tversky Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases- who credited Thaler as being a key inspiration - and Dan Ariely, whose Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions has become a best seller) argue, we are riddled with little psychological tics in our decision-making processes. We buy things, then suffer remorse. We get confused by choices and often make no choice at all.

But where Ariely keeps his discourse in the world of the day to day, Thaler and Sunstein develop an argument that is political - and is bound to cause heated debate. What they argue is that, in the face of our decision-making weaknesses, Governments and Businesses can help "nudge" us in the right direction. The elephant in the room can be benign.

They call their viewpoint `libertarian paternalism' and what they argue is that it would be a good thing for some gentle nudging of the citizenry in the right direction. As Thaler said recently in the New York Times: "In light of human limitations, Cass Sunstein and I argue for policies that we call libertarian paternalism. Although the phrase sounds like an oxymoron, we contend that it is often possible to design policies, in both the public and private sector, that make people better off -- as judged by themselves -- without coercion. We oppose bans; instead, we favor nudges."

How does a Government do this without imposing laws and edicts. A primary argument is that defaults can be set that counter the tendency by humans to procrastinate or make no decision. One example is the Save More Tomorrow Plan which Thaler developed back in 1996 as an employer sponsored retirement plan for employees. Instead of presenting the details and asking employees to consciously sign-up to increase their savings each time they got a pay rise, the plan presented the details and asked employees to basically check the box if they wished in future to automatically increase their savings as their pay went up. To pre-commit. Such schemes have proved very successful, yet they offer the same free choice, though with a different default.

As Thaler argues: "Since it is often impossible for private and public institutions to avoid picking some option as the default, why not pick one that is helpful?"

Another form of nudge might be the act of disclosure. Thaler & Sunstein argue, for example that credit card companies should issue annual statements that tell us how much we've spent this year on late fees and interest. Again: we have the complete freedom to use cards as we want, but the additional information may help us reframe our own spending strategies. Or how about stickers on new cars that show how much gasoline each vehicle would burn over the next 5 years under typical usage. Hold that Hummer.

These are examples of what the authors call helpful "choice architecture." Nice phrase. The architecture puts our options on more clear display.

I must say, I like the thinking here, and it gives credence to agent-based simulation modelling I've carried out whereby small changes can lead to big effects.

But this volume is about more than modelling and mere theory. One cannot help but think that the book has been timed to coincide with the meltdown of the present economy. The free market, the totally free market, the authors implicitly argue, needs quite a nudge itself. Rather than seeking highly regulated solutions, the better response might simply be a series of tweaks to the choice architecture that influences our spending, saving, health care and borrowing patterns.

The authors present a clear argument and no doubt it will cause heated and lively debate. This book has landed like a rock, right into the centre of the current and somewhat stagnant economic pond. It will definitely cause ripples. Well worth reading.

These guys dont go into any of the points they make. THey go into policy, when i wish they would just back up the thesis of the book! When everyone says that it turns DULL in the middle...........um yup! I knew I had to take this book to THE RIVER when I heard the FEMINANT BANKER problem, AGAIN!!! thats the 5th time this year.....this book had no new ideas, Period. If you got dooped casue your interested in the subject, or the cute lil elephants got you....(shut up...you know they did) try: WISDOM OF CROWDS,PREDICTABLY IRRATIONAL,SWAY, DRUNKARDS WALK, BLINK.....or oldies like SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE or TIPPING POINT.

Glad this book was written, it foreshadows what "they" think is best for us. Instead of letting people make choices for themselves and taking responsibilities for their own actions(freedom of choice, a basic human right), he believes the elites should make choices for us.
Progressives learned their lesson during Prohibition, so now it is a "nudge" instead a shove, at least at first.
In particular, the opinionated example of forcing people to do what is not necessarily best for them is demonstrated in chapter 13, "Improving School Choices", where the sub-section of "Nudging High Schoolers Toward College" pp.207, talks about what a great idea it is to force high school students to waste time applying to a community college as a prerequisite for graduation. Not all students should or want to go to college!
Some want to attend technical or vocational schools. It hardly occurs to the ego-centric, arrogant authors that not everyone wants to be like them. Real life example- friend was an accountant, went to college, got her CPA, then decided to go to beauty school and open up a beauty salon.

People were endowed with the gift of Free Will and have to deal with the consequences of their actions. You cannot force them to do what your mere mortal ego thinks is right when you have never walked a mile in the other person's shoes. It is condescending bullies like Hitler, Stalin, the Ayatolla Khomeini (who had a vision of his ego-centric reality for Iran), now Sunstein and Thaler, in their ego of illusion, that do not realize human beings have a right to free will on their own terms, not on some elitist group's terms.

Firstly I need to state that I see a corporo-fasctic, dystopian country (if not world) we live in today. We have a veneer of "capitalism" over a Statist structure. Concepts such as those in this book do nothing to change this viewpoint. And the concepts expressed in this book aren't merely theoretical, they are currently being implemented at the Federal level.

To conceive that there is anything libertarian with the oxymoron of "paternal libertarianism" is nonsense. To state that people are at liberty by having to TAKE ACTION to NOT have something happen that is man made is inherently false. The real idea here is that "GIVEN THE DEGREE THAT CHOICES ARE ALREADY MUDDLED UP BY STATIST INVERVENTION, ISN'T PREFERABLE TO TILT THE TABLE THIS WAY"?

Basically the vast confusion that laborers face as to how to dispose of their "gains", whether to consume or save/invest is State made. It is the State that seeks to tax above and beyond providing collective defense from aggressors, and even well beyond simple co-operative services (garbage collection, signage etc etc). It is the State that says "save in this way, or we will take it". It is the State which lies and says that IT provides a "safety net" which makes for an environment wherein moral hazard EXPANDS. If people were confronted by the reality that their lives are bounded by what they create, which has to be allocated between consumption and investing (if allowed at all), then they will act very much differently than they do today - where they are led to believe someone will always be there to bail them out.

So to have and "end game" rigged wherein people are allowed a small decision in a complex leviathan and call THAT freedom or liberty is nonsense. And it doesn't take a clairvoyant to see that whatever "choice" is left will soon be legislated out as a rider to a bill recognizing the state reptile of Mississippi. The inexorable expansion of the State works just this way - it trumpets the the small chinks left in the Statist wall that will be bricked up later when you're paying even less attention since you don't have any control over your life anyway.

More practically I recently met with the rather parasitical gentleman who "consults" my company on our 401k plan. It has reached a point where it feels a lot less like he is providing an intellectual service to us (which is what he is paid for) than as a mouthpiece for the Corporo-Fascistic Apparatus. He cautions us that even though the market lost 45% over the last year and our profit sharing portion (that which he doesn't consult over) lost only 16% we are still exposed since we don't have his nifty "analyses" nicely bound up. If ERISA doesn't have one of those we are prima facie exposed for sanctions. And of course this fellow is all guns for the "automatically in unless actively opt out" conceptions, the fact that if there's going to be unthinking people in the world then the ruts might as well work in the direction that increases the base assets that he takes his skim out of. The result is an obstensibly capitalistic service which exists in the Statist/Beaurucratic vacuum forged by the State.

It needs to be understood that people need to invest a portion of what they create. Eating all your "seed corn" isn't the mode by which civilization advances. But the economy and markets and human behaviors are mind bogglingly complex. But that never stops macro-economists and Statists from believe that they somehow have tapped into the Ether, somehow managed a more insightful understanding of All and Everything with their 24 hour days and 7 day weeks than the rest of humanity. And they trot out their "findings" in books such as this. And the State gets more fuel for the fire of its Good Works.

No, we need to reject such thinking. We need to educate children on how to be productive and how to balance consumption and savings/investing. Let's make rational thinkers out of our children instead of unthinking lemmings. "Nah! We'll keep putting out financial idiots and tax them into oblivion and beat back all this nasty complexity that we've created for our engrandizement by doing even more thinking for them. That'll work."

More philosophically put - life is an absurdity. Life is thrust upon us unasked for. We advance out of the primordial haze of infancy and eventually become self-possessed. We navigate through the complexities of limited resources and a bevy of other self-possessed, self-interested people all with the purpose of staving off pain and death, knowing full well we will sometimes painfully stumble and eventually die. We can either progress through this absurdity free and at liberty or let people who have convinced themselves of their superiority put us in chains. Just because they give you a small choice as to how those chains are applied isn't Liberty.

I was very disappointed with this book. I was expected it to be a discussion of the psychology of how people are influenced to act in different ways and so forth. Instead, the authors advocate positions on political issues and propose ways to enact the policies they favor so that people will act as the authors desire.

The basic premise of this book is simple: YOU are too stupid...too much like Homer Simpson to make rational decisions for yourself so someone in the govt. will make that decision for you. This is EXTREMELY dangerous thinking. This is how individual choice gets taken away gradually and slowly and into the hands of the govt. Yes there are stupid people in the world but the vast majority are not. The authors of this book propose to take away the choice of EVERYONE because a small minority are just plain uneducated in simple logic.

As yourself these questions:
1. Do you really want the govt. telling you what you can and cannot eat?

2. Do you really want govt. telling restaurants how to cook meals or what they can offer on their menus?

3. Do you really believe YOU are too stupid to make rational choices on your own behalf?

4. Do you think its the govts job to take away your right of choice in the free market?

5. Do you really believe the govt has the right to tell business how to conduct their business, what they can and cannot offer consumers and what profits they can make?

6. Who exactly decides what the "right" choice shall be? What if they're wrong?

7. What do think will happen if people resist this "nudge"?

This kind of Progressive Liberal thinking is how Communism was started. Take away individual choice and replace it with Govt. choice. The "people" are too stupid. Drag them kicking and screaming into whats best for them. This extremely dangerous thinking and people like Cass Sunstein need to be exposed for the Socialist he really is.

More like: you are all too stupid to make you own rational decisions so "someone" should give you a limited set of choices. No thanks.

Note to authors: What if the nudge choices turn to to be totally wrong and thousands of people were nudge to choices that were not best for them or society...i.e the 'nudger' made a mistake? hmm? oh...I guess Phd.'s or Gov. bureaucrats don't make mistakes.

trash....don't waste your money

The underlying assumption of this book is that people are dumb and government is smarter, therefore government needs to create a "Visible Hand" to help "nudge" the dumb person. Setting a default or "opt out" position is creating inertia around a political and idealogic framework. This is highly dangerous to our Declaration of Independence and "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Of course, what the authors want is Declaration of Dependence because they declare themselves to be smarter than the average bear.

Take a hint....Don't buy the book nor the idea!

Well, I guess my title says it all. Two commie nitwits explaining why they think it fitting and proper for them to tell all of us how to live. And if you don't like it, they'll send their goons with the guns to MAKE us like it, dammit!

Scary times.

For all you Liberals (Progressive Democrats) who believe this book is the answer for the rest of us, you should show how committed you are to nudging people into doing what you think is best for them. Please post your name, email and address; so that others can find you and thank you in person some day. :-) Seriously, many of you truly deserve to be recognized for your tacit endorsement and participation in nudging people without their approval.

It is ironic how liberals proclaim to love freedom but at nearly every turn, they seek to acquire, manipulate or control (restrict) the freedom of others who disagree with them. These people are perhaps some of the most intolerant people on the planet due to their fixed ideologies. The word "compromise" does not exist in their vocabulary. Don't believe me? Sit down with one of these Cass Sunstein devotees and try to have a conversation of opposing thought. They are always the first to get up to walk away but not before turning around to give you the middle finger and call you a F-ing Fascist or some other kind of derogatory comment.

Nudge, should be "nudged" into a dust bin of history. It is only suitable for those who seek to be told what to think - rather than thinking for themselves. Save your money seek answers founded in Self Reliance, Charity, Compassion and Entrepreneurship.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Did anyone read the interview with the store.com? the store asks "You are very adamant about allowing people to have choice, even though they may make bad ones. But if we know what's best for people, why just nudge? Why not push and shove?" IF WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST! IF WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST! That may seem okay to YOU if the "we" first want to control smoking or "unhealthy" food choices, but what happens when the "we" go after something YOU care about???
Driving is bad for the environment--nudge. Meat is bad--nudge. You run your air-conditioning too much in the summer--nudge. What if I wanted everyone nudged into belonging to my religion?
Maybe the drone at the store should read 1984 instead and see where this ends. Or better yet, just move to your favorite communist country and enjoy what it's like to live under what someone else thinks is best for YOU.
**And by the way, the reason they don't "push and shove" is because people might actually notice an outright move and fight back. Instead they count on the slow-witted to remain in the pot as the water begins to heat to a boil, rather than just jumping out at the obvious temperature change.

The authors don't think you're very smart, which is undoubtedly why they published this thinly veiled dogma posing as erudite economics for the general public.

A good read if you want to begin understand how the current administration will take advantage of what they believe is your ignorance, and a good replacement for caffeine if having your intelligence insulted gets your blood going in the morning.

More like: you are all too stupid to make you own rational decisions so "someone" should give you a limited set of choices. No thanks.

Note to authors: What if the nudge choices turn to to be totally wrong and thousands of people were nudge to choices that were not best for them or society...i.e the 'nudger' made a mistake? hmm? oh...I guess Phd.'s or Gov. bureaucrats don't make mistakes.

trash....don't waste your money

The underlying assumption of this book is that people are dumb and government is smarter, therefore government needs to create a "Visible Hand" to help "nudge" the dumb person. Setting a default or "opt out" position is creating inertia around a political and idealogic framework. This is highly dangerous to our Declaration of Independence and "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Of course, what the authors want is Declaration of Dependence because they declare themselves to be smarter than the average bear.

Take a hint....Don't buy the book nor the idea!

Well, I guess my title says it all. Two commie nitwits explaining why they think it fitting and proper for them to tell all of us how to live. And if you don't like it, they'll send their goons with the guns to MAKE us like it, dammit!

Scary times.

For all you Liberals (Progressive Democrats) who believe this book is the answer for the rest of us, you should show how committed you are to nudging people into doing what you think is best for them. Please post your name, email and address; so that others can find you and thank you in person some day. :-) Seriously, many of you truly deserve to be recognized for your tacit endorsement and participation in nudging people without their approval.

It is ironic how liberals proclaim to love freedom but at nearly every turn, they seek to acquire, manipulate or control (restrict) the freedom of others who disagree with them. These people are perhaps some of the most intolerant people on the planet due to their fixed ideologies. The word "compromise" does not exist in their vocabulary. Don't believe me? Sit down with one of these Cass Sunstein devotees and try to have a conversation of opposing thought. They are always the first to get up to walk away but not before turning around to give you the middle finger and call you a F-ing Fascist or some other kind of derogatory comment.

Nudge, should be "nudged" into a dust bin of history. It is only suitable for those who seek to be told what to think - rather than thinking for themselves. Save your money seek answers founded in Self Reliance, Charity, Compassion and Entrepreneurship.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Did anyone read the interview with the store.com? the store asks "You are very adamant about allowing people to have choice, even though they may make bad ones. But if we know what's best for people, why just nudge? Why not push and shove?" IF WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST! IF WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST! That may seem okay to YOU if the "we" first want to control smoking or "unhealthy" food choices, but what happens when the "we" go after something YOU care about???
Driving is bad for the environment--nudge. Meat is bad--nudge. You run your air-conditioning too much in the summer--nudge. What if I wanted everyone nudged into belonging to my religion?
Maybe the drone at the store should read 1984 instead and see where this ends. Or better yet, just move to your favorite communist country and enjoy what it's like to live under what someone else thinks is best for YOU.
**And by the way, the reason they don't "push and shove" is because people might actually notice an outright move and fight back. Instead they count on the slow-witted to remain in the pot as the water begins to heat to a boil, rather than just jumping out at the obvious temperature change.

The authors don't think you're very smart, which is undoubtedly why they published this thinly veiled dogma posing as erudite economics for the general public.

A good read if you want to begin understand how the current administration will take advantage of what they believe is your ignorance, and a good replacement for caffeine if having your intelligence insulted gets your blood going in the morning.

I finally figured out how a book written by liberal elites can become a bestseller: make it mandatory reading on state-controlled college campuses!

This book is required reading for a particular Lit course at our local Cal State university. Along with "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, these are two examples of books that aim at indoctrinating young 'minds of mush' towards liberalism. Instead of educating the leaders of tomorrow, colleges across the US are set on brainwashing students through required reading of propaganda such as this. It was also the case 20 years ago when I was in college; it's much worse now.

This type of 'nudging' should stay out of the halls of higher education.

The fashionable ideas of behaviourial economists like this are elitist rubbish. Who decides what "positive social norms" people need to be nudged toward? Those same would-be decision makers are just as fallible, lazy, stupid, greedy, weak, loss-averse, stubborn, and prone to inertia and conformism (and poor decision-makers) as the people to be nudged.

so yeah i did what they said on pg 17-18 and measured the dimensions of the tabletop diagrams. the two tabletops on pg 17 measure 5.25mm by 2.5mm and 5.5mm by 2.2mm respectively. A smaller difference that the naked eye suggests, but a difference nonetheless. Then on pg 18 we're presented with a different diagram of two identical tabletops, 2.4mm by 5.4mm (or thereabouts, the sides aren't all even in any of the diagrams) and told these tabletops have the same dimensions as those on pg 17, thus proving they were identical all along. wtf?