Everyone here has become familiar with the meaning of the word ‘nudge’ since 2020. It was at the centre of Laura Dodsworth’s book A State of Fear in 2021. In a powerful article of a few days ago Gary Sidley gave us a short history of ‘nudge’.
I always think it is a good thing to have a good argument or good bit of evidence shortened so it can be seen at a glance. Sidley, in short, shows:
- That behavioural science has been central to British Government strategy since Cameron, and came to its height in the happy days of Michie, Sridhar, Hancock and other superior technocrats.
- That this behavioural science is an American invention: an invention which was a grotesque distortion of some academic activity in the 20th century so that it became an exploration of the techniques by which society could be manipulated by a ‘democratic’ regime.
The techniques developed were many. They included bits of rational exaggeration and irrational suggestion, all in the service of ‘conditioning’ us to accept certain rules and edicts. ‘Nudge’, as explained by the authors of the overtly titled book Nudge of 2008, was a remarkable innovation: as it showed why there was no reason to think that the Western enthusiasm for ‘freedom’ should prevent Western regimes from imposing constraints on us worthy of a despotic or autocratic or let us say Eastern regime, for the ‘greater good’.
Is there any hope? One might think not. I certainly think that there is something highly subtle and sophisticated about the West now: it makes the East look primitive. But there is very good reason to suppose that ‘nudge’ has a great flaw in it. It is the same flaw which runs through all social science. It is a flaw in the form of a self-rupturing loop.
I take no credit for this argument. As with the history of ‘nudge’ detailed by Sidley, there has also been a history of scepticism about social science, including behavioural science. To my mind, at least — I am, as usual, no expert — the great heroes of this are Michael Polanyi, Michael Oakeshott and Alasdair MacIntyre — the last of whom is still alive at the great age of 95. The point is very simple, and I shall first use Oakeshott’s way of putting it, before also mentioning MacIntyre’s rather more elaborate way of putting it, which is so decisive that it should stand as a refutation of the very possibility of the social sciences. I am amazed that it is not more famous than it is.
Oakeshott began by saying that one cannot have a science until one has a subject matter which is ‘intelligible’. This is simple enough. ‘Intelligible’ means that whatever we want to study can be subjected to intelligence. Next, the problem with the social sciences, as opposed to the natural sciences, is that its subject matter is — ‘intelligent’. Atoms and stars are intelligible; but humans are intelligent. Note the problem. We are trying to subject to our intelligence an object which is itself not only intelligent, but intelligent in exactly the same way that we are intelligent. In sum, what this means is that when it comes to understanding ourselves there is no Archimedean point, no external point of view, no godlike vision we can possibly hope to have of ourselves. We are limited by our intelligence, and any pretence that we are transcending it by calling ourselves ‘scientists’ — even behavioural scientists — crashes on the rocks of that limitation. We may pretend to be scientific about ourselves, but it is only a pretence.
MacIntyre wrote a sequence of articles and chapters between the early 1960s and early 1970s which I consider to be a refutation of the social sciences, including the behavioural sciences — proof that they are an impossibility. The argument is really just a version of Oakeshott’s, and even Oakeshott’s was just a way of saying something that had been obvious to some historians and philosophers as early as the late 19th century. But MacIntyre’s argument is particularly potent. It is best found in the article ‘Ideology, Social Science, and Revolution’ in Comparative Politics 5 (1973), pp.321-342.
Here he argues that the purpose of the social sciences is to generate some findings about ourselves that could not be stated by the man on the street or the average educated journalist. If the social sciences are to establish anything at all, this should take the form of the sorts of generalisations we call laws. So MacIntyre decided to explain what a law of the social sciences would look like. He argued on p.334 of his article that it would take the following form:
Whenever an event or state of affairs of type A occurs, then an event or state of affairs of type B will occur, unless (1) intelligent reflection by the agents involved leads them to change their ways or (2) unpredictable factors deriving from creative intellectual innovation intervene.
The “unless” is the rupturing loop. This is because the qualifications (1) and (2) make a law of this form absolutely worthless. MacIntyre explained: “A generalisation framed like this is one whose scope can never be known.” If such a law were ever framed, we would never be able to find a counterexample. So anything would go. The fact that our intelligence is a variable that cannot be controlled means, said MacIntyre, that “refutations cannot occur in social science”. It follows that social science is not a science. And: “From this it follows further that, if there is consensus in the social scientific community, and to the degree that such consensus exists, it will not be rational, but a matter of something else, perhaps of academic politics.”
Let us delete the word “academic” in that last sentence and paraphrase the sentence. If there is consensus, it will not be rational — or scientific — but political.
Now, MacIntyre’s refutation is a refutation of the possibility of having a theoretical law of ourselves. But the refutation also destroys ‘nudge’ and for the same reason. We can always be nudged by A in such a way that we will do B unless — unless — we become conscious that we are being nudged and then decide to confound the expectation. In other words, as soon as we become aware that we are being nudged, we can be nudged no longer — at least not in the way that we have recently been nudged. This is because our knowledge of being nudged enters the nudging mechanism as a new input and dislocates it, since the original “nudge” was only supposed to work if we were unaware of it.
Now, the behavioural scientists might say that they can themselves innovate and come up with a new way of persuading us to do things against our own interests for the ‘greater good’, but as soon as we become aware that ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ regimes are in the habit of consciously attempting to manipulate the population as a whole then the game is over. ‘Nudge’ only works if the people being nudged are not aware of it. Make them aware — starting calling things ‘nudge’, for God’s sake — and the game is over. Then governments, if they want to insist on their controls, will have to revert to simple Eastern forms of coercion. Governments will not be able to hide from the people that they are being ‘nudged’ as long as there is even a sliver of free enquiry, open deliberation and public education. This is because we are people being nudged, not by God, or Satan, or Antichrist, or Sauron, or the Daleks, but by other people.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is not a new view, as it says in the article, but the use of nudge by politicians keen to press their political views has been seen through covid and now net zero.
Absolutely. The biggest one in terms of money will be the Net Zero – everything else is insignificant when one is talking in trillions of pounds or dollars.
The quote “‘Nudge’ only works if the people being nudged are not aware of it. Make them aware — starting calling things ‘nudge’, for God’s sake — and the game is over.” says it all but if one does not stand up and say so then we get what we deserve and my view of much of the populace is one of blissful ignorance.
True, the social scientists are not scientists. But did they ever really believe they were?
‘Settled science’ is not science. Science is self-critical, never settled, always correcting. ‘Settled science’ is holy writ. Scripture is interpreted by priests.
The social scientists believe as surely as any mystic in the superior realities of the things unseen. The Apostle Paul declared, “What is seen is transient, what is unseen is eternal.”
Mike Haseler posted this, many years ago, on http://www.bishop-hill.net:
“Social Science has only two problems: it isn’t science and it isn’t social.
Indeed it combines the worst aspects of both areas. It takes as a dogma the dispassionate “uncaring” attitude that science needs to be impartial, and throws away the impartial bit and replaces it with a sloppy agenda driven attitude toward data and methodology which is common in society.
Yes most people cannot tell the difference between “Science” and “Official Science”. One is the genuine search for truth and the other is the evidence free assumptions used as the excuse for public policy.
Best explained thus:
Science and ‘The $cience.’
“Now, the behavioural scientists might say that they can themselves innovate and come up with a new way of persuading us to do things against our own interests for the ‘greater good’, but as soon as we become aware that ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ regimes are in the habit of consciously attempting to manipulate the population as a whole then the game is over. ‘Nudge’ only works if the people being nudged are not aware of it. Make them aware — starting calling things ‘nudge’, for God’s sake — and the game is over.”
I don’t agree, in general. There may be a few people for whom this is true, but most people I know seem to think it’s the state’s job to attempt to influence behaviour. I want to be in a different country to those people!
It seems to me that that worst case usually works itself out through overreach. Think of the Soviet Union, where eventually the untruth collapsed the system, because nobody believed in it any more. But it took a long time.
I think they overreached with “covid”. Their arrogance may be their downfall.
The people who think government is God – or rather, better than God, because He didn’t make everyone ‘equal’ so the government is going to correct his mistake.
A common attitude it seems
I recall being told that the only possible outcome of any social study is, ‘some do, and some do not’.
‘In other words, as soon as we become aware that we are being nudged, we can be nudged no longer — at least not in the way that we have recently been nudged.’
I like the optimistic tone of this piece, but I fear it is not true. We can be nudged, even though we know it, if we inwardly want it to be true. The archetypal cases are afforded by revealed religions. When Augustine brought Christianity to Britain, people said at the time it was fantasy and hocus pocus, but they wanted it to be true – an afterlife of compensation for worldly sorrow and hardship – and it took 1500 years to die back.
How many years has the grand global-warming nudge been going now? Thirty-five? People know it is rubbish. Yet it goes on. The reason is the abiding feeling of so many people that something is wrong, and a total change of living is needed to remedy it.
First comes the NUDGE, then comes the PUSH. The Governments that are supposed to represent us do the opposite and represent themselves and their ideologies. Then they pick off all the low hanging fruit with a NUDGE here and there about saving the planet or protecting our children and grandchildren and once they have 2 thirds of the population falling for that con, then it is time for the PUSH to get all of the rest of us. —Classic example is Smart Meters to control and ration energy use, sold to us as a device to save us money. Once all the easily manipulated have them it is time to make them compulsory so as to get them in all the houses where people never fell for their crap.
‘Smart’ is shorthand for ‘tracked & controlled’.
I think there’s a fundamental flaw in this logic. The theory does not account for a society which has been split down the middle. On one side we have the left who do not understand they are being nudged but believe they are being guided, and guided by an ideology that they believe clearly shows a superior intelligence – their superior ideology reflects a a superior intelligence and is barely intelligible to those who dissent. On the other side we have the unintelligent, the ones so stupid that the superior ideology is not intelligible. These people believe silly conspiratorial things like the ‘vaccines’ aren’t vaccines at all, and anthropogenic climate change is far from being a done deal.
So we have the ‘intelligent’ people who will continue to be nudged and manipulated without ever understanding the nudges, and the ‘unintelligent’ who can see the nudges coming as sure as they can the stars at night. The theory posited, as far as I can tell, makes no consideration for the ideological splits in society that exist today, possibly because it was impossible to imagine such incredible dumbness from the ‘intelligent’ section of a society.
I think it’s more complicated than that. Yes, there are priveleged people who follow deluded ideologies on both right and left but the vast majority of people are split between the few of us who take responsibility for their lives and those who just want someone else to tell them what to do.
What can we do about our predominantly zombie nation? Interesting discussion between Neil Oliver and William Keyte about how thinking people can find inspiration at a personal level
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSU03LdCTms&ab_channel=NeilOliver
As more people realise what’s happening, nudging has become hysterical shoving and that’s not working any more either. The next logical step will be force, either through sanctions or legislation.
This is why, just to take one example, the Uni-Party has moved from nudging people on the Net Zero tyranny to shoving. Next will come the kicks.
We will no longer comply without strong evidence and trusted sources, of which there are few left – what they did during Covid and now the ongoing ‘climate emergency’ narrative is to destroy all trust in institutions, that many had relied on for their guidance and information, all their lives. People are waking up day by day as they are made poorer with less opportunities for their children and see their loved ones get sick and die from the so called protective health interventions. The people realise now they are being made ill deliberately, so big pharma can come in a turn another buck after big food has profited from destroying the populations health. This is still probably the best time to live as a human on planet earth, but we have to protect this from the globalist elites, who have little regard for human life and our freedoms.
There was an article in the Sceptic from Gary Sidley about “nudging” a couple of days ago.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/26/how-government-psychological-manipulation-of-the-public-became-normal/
I put a comment on it then, which is relevant to this as well:
“The marketing industry has been using all these techniques to sell things for decades. The result is a level of almost complete cynicism amongst ordinary people about what they see in “adverts”. People have stopped listening to marketing.
Now that politicians also have been using these techniques, the result is the same: a level of almost complete cynicism amongst ordinary people about what they are told by politicians. People have stopped listening to politicians.
These techniques seem “clever” but are ultimately self-defeating. They destroy the moral and factual authority of those using them. People seem to have some kind of immune system against such manipulation. I don’t know enough about psychology to know whether this immune system has been noticed or discussed in that profession.”
I think Dr Alexander may have answered my question!