President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments On American Public

a reply to: eluryh22

It can not more clear than this,

According to a document released by the White House at that time, the program was modeled on one implemented in the U.K. in 2010. That initiative created a Behavioral Insights Teams, which used “iterative experimentation” to test “interventions that will further advance priorities of the British government.”

The words advance priorities of government. Seems very clear and hell do we know what priorities may be pushed?

The initiative also urges agencies to tinker with how information is presented to individuals, consumers, borrowers, and program beneficiaries.

Presentation of information, consumers, borrowers and programs beneficiaries

That sounds like private sector to benefit from this Behavioral experimentation too

“benefits, taxes, subsidies"

, this by no means is about free money at all.

The most effective version of the letter generated the 13 percent improvement. Other less effective letters only increased enrollment rates by around four percent.

The only reason enrollments increased after the letters was due to the fact that people were told about the penalties for no getting insurance. Republicans insisted that it was a tax increase, but the White House portrayed it as a penalty on the logic that the word “tax” has a negative connotation.

So this means that we are to get coercive information and intimidation to get the people to do what the government wants? So sugar coating too?

So in other words

“Ultimately, nudging…assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them.”

we now will have a new government agency to tell us how to think because we don't really know how too.

Yes I read the entire article.

a reply to: xuenchen

It got private interest all over it, because it is going to help push propaganda better. Is all there in the article.

Perhaps this new agency will be under the NSA, after all they already been doing data mining for private interest for years.

If this is so benign, then why is it they are making sure of it's legality?

After discussing what behavioral sciences have to offer to administrative law, this article explores the extent to which administrative law may accommodate their findings into the regulatory process. After presenting the main regulatory tools capable of operationalizing behavioral insights, it builds a case for integrating them into public policymaking. In particular, it identifies the need to develop a legal framework capable of ensuring that behavioral considerations may inform the regulatory process while at the same time guaranteeing citizens’ constitutional rights and freedoms vis-à-vis the regulatory state.

Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation

If the potential were not there for this to be used in an illegal fashion, then why on earth would they even consider the need to "develop a legal framework?"

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Doesn't that sounds like creating legal grounds for brainwashing? it does to me.

Very alarming.

originally posted by: Willtell
Obama likely is an experiment himself.

Mysterious guy from Chicago, one of the capitals of the sinister order of elitists who churn out these brainwashed puppet politicians…Manchurian candidates.

When Obama went to take his test they put an electrode in his big ass head...

Obama’s probably got all kinds of electrodes in his brain and controllers like the half Iranian internationalist Valerie Jarret.

Obama and his controller Valerie Jarret


She’s his controller like that mad lady controlled that puppet in the first 1962 movie, puppet master played by Angela Lansbury

and the one (in the movie Manchurian Candidate) played in the 2004 remake, the great Meryl Streep…

When Obama went to take his test they put an electrode in his big ass head...

ha that made me lol!

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If the potential were not there for this to be used in an illegal fashion, then why on earth would they even consider the need to "develop a legal framework?"

Because people are confused by the concept of "opting out." It could be argued that by automatically opting in, their right to choose has been revoked, when, in fact, they have simply abrogated that right by not choosing when presented with a choice. Tricky, eh?

I guess their covering themselves legally? Global warming? well, wasn't he just up in Alaska, pushing that agenda? lol so probably so!

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Doesn't that sounds like creating legal grounds for brainwashing? it does to me.

Very alarming.

Nope. Advertising on television is already legalized brainwashing. All this EO does is establish research that will move society from one that is based on fear of punishment to one that is based on rewards for positive behavior. If it were a Republican who issued this EO, that crypto-fascist Breitbart would be praising it for its sound free market economic principles.

And they haven't already been doing this and worse? At least this is out in the open and subject to public scrutiny.

a reply to: DJW001

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance

A planet of play things
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
'The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign...'
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

Free Will by RUSH

The plans indicated by these policies tend to the idea that we do not know our minds nor are we to be trusted with the decisions about what we want in our lives. The state knows best and all decisions we make should agree with those of the state. Not only that, but any and all outcomes are to have the goals of the federal government as their primary purpose.

Where is free will when we are not being given true choices in the first place but rather an illusion of choice in which, no matter the decision, the state comes out on top?

I guess the sheeple didn't flock in the right direction.

The power of the Border Collie hypnotic gaze has been debated for many years. I would say our government border collies are getting set for the final herding except for two things. Border Collies are much smarter than our government could ever hope to be, and are much more compassionate. They mean no harm and in fact their efforts are on behalf of the sheep they are herding.

I VOTE BORDER COLLIE IN 2016. Screw the democrat chi hooa hooa's and the republican hairless what-the-phucks...

VOTE BORDER COLLIE!!! PUT SOME INTELLIGENCE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! WE NEED IT!!!

Seriously, if this is true, this must be the last gasp for freedom that leads to the inevitable confrontation of liberty and tyranny.

God bless us all.

this is not new, it's been around for a long time. I remember my parents talking about buying war bonds from the federal government during world war 2....if you didn't, you were made to feel like you were at the harshest, a traitor....or at the least, letting down our boys fighting for our freedom. and what do you think advertisers do to us everyday?......behavior influence has been around before the birth of Jesus

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: DJW001

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance

A planet of play things
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
'The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign...'
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

Free Will by RUSH

The plans indicated by these policies tend to the idea that we do not know our minds nor are we to be trusted with the decisions about what we want in our lives. The state knows best and all decisions we make should agree with those of the state. Not only that, but any and all outcomes are to have the goals of the federal government as their primary purpose.

Where is free will when we are not being given true choices in the first place but rather an illusion of choice in which, no matter the decision, the state comes out on top?

Great song!

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

-C.S. Lewis

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The plans indicated by these policies tend to the idea that we do not know our minds nor are we to be trusted with the decisions about what we want in our lives.

Why do people take out loans they can never repay? Why do people pay outrageous sums for earphones that perform no better than a $20 pair? Why did people buy pet rocks? Why do real estate and stock market bubbles burst? Why do people support political candidates that advocate policies that are contrary to the voters' own interests? Classical economics cannot answer these questions, behavioral economics is attempting to. In the meantime, Breitbart has manipulated you into a knee jerk reaction. His concern isn't your freedom of choice, his concern is to give you another reason to hate and fear President Obama. Your response to his mind control was first rate.

a reply to: DJW001

Classical economics cannot answer these questions, behavioral economics is attempting to.

Serious question.

Do you really think government, and it's so called 'science' can ?

That's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house expecting the fox isn't gonna have a buffet.

Overreach is the nature of the beast.

a reply to: DJW001

Actually, I have not source Breitbart's article nor have I read it. I have sourced Thaler, Sustein, and Balz in my first link, and The International Journal of Constitutional Law in the second.

Another behavioral economist had the following to say:

Thaler and Sunstein start from the proposition that ‘individuals make pretty bad decisions – decisions they would not have made if they had paid full attention and possessed complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities, and complete self‐control.’ Because of these limitations of human decision‐making, there is a role for what Thaler and Sunstein call a choice architect – someone who ‘has the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions.’

emphasis mine

On Nudging: A Review of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein

According to these principles, not only can we not make good choices, but the choices we are going to be offered have already been tailored to fit within whatever parameters the 'choice architect' deems applicable.

We won't even know what other choice may have been available in such circumstance.

But of course, all of this really is about making sure every citizen is healthy and happy, right?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

According to these principles, not only can we not make good choices, but the choices we are going to be offered have already been tailored to fit within whatever parameters the 'choice architect' deems applicable.

That's not exactly what they say. People tend make unconscious cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth my time to read the small print? Some people do, some people don't. On issues that matter to an individual the analysis will prompt them to do the research.

We won't even know what other choice may have been available in such circumstance.

Now that's making the assumption that people are unwilling or incapable of researching their options on their own.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

According to these principles, not only can we not make good choices, but the choices we are going to be offered have already been tailored to fit within whatever parameters the 'choice architect' deems applicable.

That's not exactly what they say. People tend make unconscious cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth my time to read the small print? Some people do, some people don't. On issues that matter to an individual the analysis will prompt them to do the research.

We won't even know what other choice may have been available in such circumstance.

Now that's making the assumption that people are unwilling or incapable of researching their options on their own.

knowledge is power. so its simply a question of the ethics, sane authority, or simple heart and character of those who hold knowledge. human ecology [behavioral sciences] can be used in any manner of ways based upon the character of the owner of the knowledge. as a common warrior, I use behavioral sciences in every single maneuver I make with monkeys or souls.

The plans indicated by these policies tend to the idea that we do not know our minds nor are we to be trusted with the decisions about what we want in our lives. The state knows best and all decisions we make should agree with those of the state. Not only that, but any and all outcomes are to have the goals of the federal government as their primary purpose.

Where is free will when we are not being given true choices in the first place but rather an illusion of choice in which, no matter the decision, the state comes out on top?

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just the beginning when we the people will have to ask permission to make decisions when they are not under the government permitted and allowed choices.

This is a dangerous territory and I am sure that it will be breaking some constitutional rights. No wonder is just an experiment right now. I don't like it and I don't want it.