Except for those people with crippling ADHD, who never get to build a career, have trouble maintaining meaningful relationships and succumb to the overhead and additional stress of having to try life on hard mode.

Let's not pretend those people don't exist or that ADHD is not a problem for adults any longer, in particular in places where healthcare is not readily accessible.

I was wondering what the old reverse engineer had to say about eating pussy, but yeah, that makes sense.

I mean, it's Vinegar Syndrome. They should be doing exactly that.

I love this template

... ᵃⁿᵈ ᵐᵉᵗʰ

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.

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/

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.

No, it doesn't work - that is exactly the problem. If you don't want to listen to the podcast (which would be a shame), they list a number of studies in the show notes.

There are a few select cases for which personal nudges work, but only to a miniscule degree which is far less than what the authors claimed. And naturally, proposing nudge theory hinders actual, much more effective, systematic changes that would really benefit people - and that is a major problem.

It's a face, fake feel good strategy that can be employed to claim improving a given system - like attaching a little plastic string to the plastic cap of your beverage container so companies can claim to have improved the plastic littering problem.

Actually, don't read the books. The concept is pretty much made up. Here is an entertaining podcast about that:

https://pod.link/1651876897/episode/cc36ce12d2fd1a171630d1733998b414

This is pretty much absolutely true by the way:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24785997/

Although, to be fair, that was done by Cutter Labs, which sure, had been acquired by Bayer, but to be honest, Cutter Labs was rotten from the start, they were also responsible for the Cutter incident, infecting people with Polio:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1410842/

That's a pretty normal picture if you have regular, social interactions. What's weird is posting that anywhere outside your circle of friends and the picture becoming the topic of public debate after one of the subjects allegedly shot someone.

That being said, and I say this as a married, retired old fuck - that guy definitely fucks.

They actually joke about it in the show, screaming "Aah, a crocodile", and it's just some woman working there. Same with the director being a lion, I believe.

The exhibit has turtles and penguins.