38
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 3 weeks ago

Maier's letter to the editor is not peer reviewed; it counts as opinion, the original authors have not retracted their paper - so the matter is at best "divided"

[-] scrion@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
38 points (100.0% liked)

Hacker News

1985 readers
424 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