Re “nudgers”, compare Alex Tabarrok in Ezra Klein’s recent article:
In all of this, the same issue recurs: What should regulators do when there’s an idea that might work to save a large number of lives and appears to be safe in early testing but there isn’t time to run large studies? “People say things like, ‘You shouldn’t cut corners,’” Tabarrok told me. “But that’s stupid. Of course you should cut corners when you need to get somewhere fast. Ambulances go through red lights!”
One problem is no one, on either side of this debate, really knows what will and won’t destroy public trust. Britain, which has been one of the most flexible in its approach to vaccines, has less vaccine hesitancy than Germany or the United States. But is that because of regulatory decisions, policy decisions, population characteristics, history, political leadership or some other factor? Scientists and politicians are jointly managing public psychology, and they’re just guessing. If a faster, looser F.D.A. would lose public trust, that’s a good reason not to have a faster, looser F.D.A. But that’s a possibility, not a fact.
“My view is this was all psychology which no one really understood, so I just said, ‘Go with the expected value. Do the thing that’ll save the most lives and stick with it,’” Tabarrok said. “That’s a better rule than trying to figure out ‘If I do this, what will someone else do?’”
I don’t think that nudgers are consequentialists who also try to accurately account for public psychology. I think 99% of the time they are doing something for non-consequentialist reasons, and using public psychology as a rationalization. Ezra Klein pretty explicitly cares about advancing various political factions above mere policy outcomes, IIRC on a recent 80,000 Hours podcast Rob was trying to talk about outcomes and Klein ignored him to say that it’s bad politics.
Of course you should cut corners when you need to get somewhere fast. Ambulances go through red lights!
That is a deeply unfortunate line to see.
Humanity has known for decades that “[most medical calls] don’t dramatically worsen in the course of a very few minutes, and they don’t spread from person to person” (Journal of Emergency Medical Services, 2017).
In the case of red lights and sirens, maybe they made sense before bystander CPR and before we had empirical data. But not now.
The overuse of red lights and sirens doesn’t save lives. It ends them.
Re “nudgers”, compare Alex Tabarrok in Ezra Klein’s recent article:
I don’t think that nudgers are consequentialists who also try to accurately account for public psychology. I think 99% of the time they are doing something for non-consequentialist reasons, and using public psychology as a rationalization. Ezra Klein pretty explicitly cares about advancing various political factions above mere policy outcomes, IIRC on a recent 80,000 Hours podcast Rob was trying to talk about outcomes and Klein ignored him to say that it’s bad politics.
That is a deeply unfortunate line to see.
Humanity has known for decades that “[most medical calls] don’t dramatically worsen in the course of a very few minutes, and they don’t spread from person to person” (Journal of Emergency Medical Services, 2017).
In the case of red lights and sirens, maybe they made sense before bystander CPR and before we had empirical data. But not now.
The overuse of red lights and sirens doesn’t save lives. It ends them.