↪ Replying to @Letsgorich
@Letsgorich Thank you for engaging :) What is being 'nudged' in this scenario? We are using legislation to achieve an outcome, not positive reinforcement or indirect suggestion to influence behavior. Proponents of nudging usually argue that it's a tool that contrasts to legislation.
↪ Replying to @BillNigh
@BillNigh Interesting, what does being 'throttled' mean in this scenario?
↪ Replying to @unknown
@beingbrad @Webbredaktoren Yes, but I could write a paper on how inaccessible the word accessibility is ;)
Even 'accessable' would make more sense I believe. I'm gonna use barrier-free from know on 😜
Thinking further, that I am able to access it doesn't necessarily mean it's free from barriers... right?
↪ Replying to @seocharles
@seocharles To be clear, I'm not arguing around the morality, just the notion that people use this as a great example of nudging.
@seocharles There are some interesting morality issues raised by others in the thread though.
↪ Replying to @unknown
@drpontus Haha, love this!
@drpontus If anyone would like to invite me into their systems I'd be happy to do a walkthrough.
↪ Replying to @Beastankar
@Beastankar 😁 Du fick mig att minnas första gången jag bloggade om detta fenomen. axbom.blog/fuglesang-tala…
↪ Replying to @unknown
@httpsterio @z_rose That was generally my thinking as well, and what prompted me to start the thread. But you and others brought several new important dimensions to it.
@httpsterio @z_rose The study that @Graffotti linked to introduced this concept of "soft" and "hard" opt-out systems which is very relevant to the points you are making about consulting families.
x.com/Graffotti/stat…
↪ Replying to @unknown
@Graffotti Good one to explain the differences between a "hard" and a "soft" opt-out system. 👍🏻
For people not clicking the link, hard means families are not consulted. Soft means they are.
↪ Replying to @unknown
@httpsterio Thanks. Findings very much in line with @z_rose's experience.
"The findings highlight the importance of registering deliberate active consent for people who choose opt-in, due to concerns over possible family refusal under deemed consent."
↪ Replying to @unknown
@httpsterio Yes, @z_rose brought up the example of adding it to driver's license applications as well, which I thought was brilliant.
x.com/z_rose/status/…
↪ Replying to @unknown
@httpsterio Good reminder, Sami. Thanks. It would be even more interesting of course to understand if the change of opinion also changes behavior. Naturally harder to research as the choice is already in favor of the "new opinion".
↪ Replying to @z_rose
@z_rose What a great example! Always look for ways to encourage conscious and considered choices. Find ways to bring people from inaction to action by stepping in when they are already in motion.
Who wants to debate me on this?
Setting the default organ donor policy to 'opt-out' is not nudging. It does not change behavior. It does not change choices made. Most people will keep making no choice.
Making a choice FOR people is exploiting inherent inaction, not changing it.
The morality question is whether that exploitation of a human circumstance can be argued as bringing positive outcomes in a way that outweighs negative ones.
But to claim you have nudged people into a new behavior is misleading and frankly a weird take on what behavior is.
I will claim that everyone's stance on being an organ donor did not change overnight in England, but outcomes have changed DESPITE there being no behavior change whatsoever. Zilch.
It's called legislation.
x.com/axbom/status/1…
I think people are confused by this because the organ-donor narrative is part of so many behavioral science books. But... there is a huge difference between offering an online consent form with a default value (nudging) and changing the law in one swift move (legislation).
Same for this oft-cited example. Making an automated decision FOR people is not an example of nudging behavior. It is an example of legislation, regulation and policy design.
bi.team/blogs/automati…
Why are so many words better in German?
Today I learned that accessibility is called barrierefreiheit in German. Accessible is barrierefrei.
The literally means Free from barriers.
ht @Webbredaktoren
This*
Today everyone in England becomes an organ donor by law. Essentially they move to an “opt-out” system wherein everyone is considered an organ donor when they die unless they have recorded a decision not to donate, or are in an excluded group.
organdonation.nhs.uk/uk-laws/organ-…
#organdonor
Just please don’t call this ’nudge policy’. It’s not nudging, it’s using laws and regulation to promote positive impact. People still have a choice but this particular choice was made for them, not by them. Their behavior didn’t change, but the outcome likely changes.
Accidental poetry.
I recorded an intro for an explainer video. And then this surreal text, almost a story, popped up on screen. I realized I had transcription for English turned on as I was speaking Swedish.
Trust me, this is veeery far from what I was saying...
If I ever get writer's block as I'm composing fiction I won't hesitate to start using this "trick"...
@stephenanderson I think you'll get a kick out of this.
This is the Swedish text I was reading as the previous text was generated by the transcription algorithm.
It’s essentially just a warning that the scenario I show in the film is not finalized and there may be several changes over the course of the project.
Because I became obsessed I just had to do a side by side of the Swedish versus the machine interpretation.
Machine-readable text here: telegra.ph/Swedish-voice-…
This failure to understand difference between qual/quant has been a pet peeve of mine since decades, mostly in the UX space, but being reminded that it keeps happening within scientific communities is always a downer. x.com/maddi_pow/stat…
