38
That Dropped Call with Customer Service? It Was on Purpose
(www.theatlantic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
38 points (100.0% liked)
Hacker News
1780 readers
353 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Where do I find the show notes? This is all i see at the link you provided
I'd really like to see and engage with the thesis here, but it's not presented in a accessible way. Could you give the argument please?
The papers are listed at the bottom of the screenshot you posted, I agree it's badly formatted so not immediately obvious / visible.
However, I can provide sources later on, I actually still have to get back to another post to provide some papers, but it'll be a while until I have the time to do that.
ok, guess its these three papers
So the meta-analysis says nudging works, but not to some massive degree.
Given that you quoted from the last paper, there was a response from Maier et al. to that paper explicitly, correcting for publication bias and finding no effect when "nudging":
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9351501/
Maier's letter to the editor is not peer reviewed; it counts as opinion, the original authors have not retracted their paper - so the matter is at best "divided"
The original paper might have other issues, e. g. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/01/07/pnas-gigo-qrp-wtf-approaching-the-platonic-ideal-of-junk-science/
But I'm not here to discuss effect size or quality of sources, I think it is much more important to understand that there is no good proof that nudging enables people to make good, lasting changes, while at the same time offering policymakers an easy and cheap way out of applying uncontested, proven methods that would be a lot more beneficial.