The Behavioural Insights Team, also known as the Nudge Unit, was set up as government body but now operates independently. (n1 ) The key element in their description of their own purpose is “improving outcomes by introducing a more realistic model of human behaviour to policy”. In other words, if governments want people to eat less sugar, take more exercise, pay their road tax on time etc, just passing laws won’t help. You need to know what makes people tick then do something to nudge them in the right direction. What words should you use to make sure a letter asking for a parking fine actually makes people pay up?
Knowing how our minds work enables governments to manipulate us more effectively. This saves money so is considered a good thing.
But that kind of manipulation, knowing what buttons to press to get a reaction, also enables advertisers to sell us high priced rubbish and propagandists to sell us dodgy ideas. It works because we don’t even know we are ‘buying’ them.
One useful way to test any proposition is to try to form a syllogism. That is an argument with three sections:
1) wood burns
2) this table is made of wood
3) therefore this table will burn
The first line is a statement of general principle, a truth we know.
The second line is a statement we can test by research.
The third line is an inference made by putting the first two together.
If line one is true and line two turns out to be true then, if we are being logical in our conclusions, line three will also be true.
But the first line may be true, or an assumption we make every day and assume to be true. The second line may be untrue as well. But if the third line is something we want to believe it takes mental discipline to accept that it is nonsense.
Lines one and two can be swapped over.
1) David is a hairdresser (research proves that true)
2) All hairdressers are effeminate (a belief held that is not necessarily true but widely accepted as a stereotype)
3) Therefore David is effeminate (would be a logical conclusion if the second line were also true. And note that ‘effeminate’ here seems to be used in a way that is implicitly negative – a ‘bad’ word. There can be more than one problem in the three lines.
Try these:
Homework is a nasty experience
Reading is homework
Therefore reading is a nasty experience
Facts are useful
This book is full of facts
So this book is very useful
Daphne likes men
I am a man
Therefore Daphne must like me
Seagulls are mainly white
That bird is mainly brown
So that bird is not a seagull
Athletes sweat when they run
You are sweating
Therefore you are an athlete.
If an argument strikes you as dodgy – or maybe as so good it has to be obviously true – try to test it out by turning it into syllogisms.
That party wants to reduce immigration
Immigration is causing unemployment
Therefore that party will solve unemployment
That immigrant has a job
I don’t have a job
Therefore that immigrant took my job
He is working as a nurse
I have no qualifications
Therefore he took my job
She is working as a fruit picker
I don’t want a low paid job picking fruit
Therefore you should
(a) pay her more
(b) send her home
(c) fill in your own answer.
notes: