Reddit reviews Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness

The study was posted here a while ago http://www.reddit.com/r/GirlGamers/comments/1o62c0/a_stanford_study_shows_that_after_women_wear/

I feel like the original study didn't really try to say all that much, it's really the article running with it and conflating it with a different study (this doppelgänger one) without much explanation as to why that is justified.

(that said, I do think that the study makes itself kinda weird by immediately going on about rape myths, is that really the only area where there was a difference in results? What about, I dunno, relationship myths? )

>This isn't good for us, this just makes us look like were easily influenced and easy to manipulate. I for one am not easy to manipulate.

I'm not the biggest fan of this article [like the selection of studies it draws from, or what kind of conclusion it draws] but I don't think think we should be that quick to just discount anything related to invisible influences. After all stuff like that has been studied in a variety of ways on both men and women, for example particularly in the study of advertising (like advertising agencies making studies about what kind of advertising will be most effective). An example is the book Nudge for example. Or the book Mindless Eating (which sounds like a creepy diet book, but is actually a pretty fun book that discusses all the weird various psychological effects related to eating. Like if you eat the same amount of food from a smaller plate you will feel more full than if you ate the same amount of food from a big plate. This isn't because you are "weak willed" somehow, that's just a human thing, for both men and women. It's just one of the million things that goes on in the background. I don't know this doppelgänger study precisely, but I could picture it being something like that, I have heard of a study where playing a game where the character works out supposedly did increase your desire to work out (by putting it on your mind presumably), it might be something similar with food.

BTW the reverse was studied as well, in the so called Buffy effect, which presumably shows a positive influence after watching something like Buffy.

I don't think that this field has been studied enough, like I have yet to see a study that can say for sure that these kind of effects impact you longterm or that they are indeed greater than let's say the effect of reading Twilight or thumbing through Vogue or reading the newspaper.

That's why I asked about this stuff in particular. It seems possible that effects we have in other media could be bigger in gaming, but that's precisely the problem, I don't think that I've read a study on that yet. So seeing the article state that as a fact weirded me out.

Nudge theory isn't really about drastic changes, it's more about making the "correct" choices the default ones. The book cites the example of making pension contributions default rather than employees having to actively opt into the system, as this means that people who are too busy/lazy get a pension. So to link this to your drastic lifestyle change, its more about modifying the environment to prevent you getting to the point where your doctor has to bluntly tell you "change your ways or die". If you have doubts about the idea, I'd highly suggest you pick up the book and give it a read. (Linking to the book's Amazon page is also an example of nudge, takes all the effort out of googling the book, finding out it's called "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness" and looking for the Amazon page, so the only work you have left is to decide if you want to buy it or not).

Nudge - which is about how to use and influence the irrational decision making

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/0141040017

En meget relevant bog, for dem som interesserer sig for dette, er Nudge, som er et langt argument for, at vi skal have et frit valg, men vi skal ikke være tvunget til at tage det, medmindre det faktisk er vigtigt, og at default-valget skal være det, som er bedst for de fleste. Dermed har man mange af de fordele, som der er ved frie valg, men samtidig undgår man paralysen der kommer fra at skulle undersøge alt for mange forhold for selv at kunne træffe de mindst betydningsfulde valg. Det går ud på at designe valgmulighederne således, at borgeren er gavnet.

Et godt eksempel fra bogen er pensionsordninger: hvis alle bliver sat i en default plan som er god for de fleste, men som de godt må melde sig ud af eller skifte ud, så har man præcis det samme frihed som hvis defaultløsningen er ingen pensionsordning. Men empirisk set kommer der til at være flere, som sparer op.