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

Hacker News

1901 readers
229 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 9 months ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 12 points 4 days ago

Levine told The Atlantic that Ford does not “encourage or measure ‘sludge,’” and that “there was zero intent to add ‘sludge’” to my interactions with Ford.

Here's the catch: odds are that what Levine is saying is technically correct - truthful, but misleading.

Sure, they (people in those big businesses) might not be active and directly adding sludge. They might not be encouraging it. Or measuring it. But it's there. Because they created the perfect conditions for it to thrive, as the author shows.

And, sure, odds are they are not targetting the author; that sludge is for every single body in a similar situation.

Why this matters: because any potential law punishing sludge should disregard esoteric concepts like "intention", and focus solely on what the customer gets. If the customer is getting sludged, it doesn't matter if the business says "trust us ( = be gullible filth), we don't have the intention!" - the business should get the short end of the legal stick.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Tldr: car steering and breaking didn't work, it was a repeatable problem, none of the mechanics could repeat it. After 108 days Ford re-bought the car and issued a refund to the owner.

Read the books nudge, and sludge.

[–] PagPag@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Why do so many people misspell brake?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 5 points 4 days ago

homonyms, hooked on phonics. There always their waiting to trip me up over they're.

[–] scrion@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I've read nudge, whats wrong with behavioral economics to influence behavior? it seems to work

[–] scrion@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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

Where do I find the show notes? This is all i see at the link you provided

collapsed inline media

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?

[–] scrion@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

ok, guess its these three papers

Our results show that choice architecture interventions overall promote behavior change with a small to medium effect size of Cohen’s d = 0.43 (95% CI [0.38, 0.48])

So the meta-analysis says nudging works, but not to some massive degree.

[–] scrion@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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/

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 4 days ago
[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

they call it something else. I worked in programming a customer support system, the motive for putting so many fucking barriers before you reach a person is so that you can fix your own issue without costing them resources.

On the other end, there are goals that each case and etc has, which may include calls. If you call them and fuck it up, the case milestones stay positive, instead of not calling on time and getting the goal fucked.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Let's be honest, that's what they say, but it's a half truth. The other half is that solving your problem even when it's 100% their fuckup still costs them money, so they want you to jump through hoops of fire to get what you fairly deserve.

It's just another b.s. form of gouging the customer.