By: Adam Benforado

Adam Benforado — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:43:33 +0000

Thanks for another thoughtful comment, Tamara! I’m putting together a follow up for the end of this week or beginning of next.

By: Tamara Piety

Tamara Piety — Wed, 26 May 2010 20:08:02 +0000

I do think money makes a difference, that there is reason to fear manipulation but that it is, in general, a good thing to have experts involved in policy-making. I think Drew Westen is just doing what Frank Luntz (“estate tax” to “death tax” man) has been doing for Republicans forever, that is advising them on propaganda techniques. And I think focusing on the word propaganda helps sort out the answers to the various scenarios you raise. As you probably know Bernays tried to make the word “propaganda” respectable with his book of the same name about public relations techniques. He failed in that regard, but succeeded in laying the foundation for what is now the one of the largest and most influential industries in the world – the public relations industry. Public relations is really just marketing by another name; it is the business of persuasion. So it would make sense that politicians would be interested in adopting the techniques gleaned from years of marketing research into what persuades people. Marketing research and behavioral science or mind science research overlap. Sometimes the research is undertaken with an explicit intent to exploit that knowledge to sell people stuff. Sometimes marketers just borrow research and apply it to marketing. And researchers can’t keep their research out of the hands of marketers simply by refraining from publishing in the popular market because those with something to sell and the incentive and means to acquire it will simply read the academic journals and run their own “trials” by using it in their marketing if it seems like it might work. Advertising agencies have never been required to prove something would work before trying it out. That all might seem fair enough, except when the research is used in a way that one might have reason to believe will persuade someone to do something (or buy something or vote for someone) that conflicts with what that person intends or wants. Then it is problematic. I do think money might alter judgments (and the law reflects that concern generally in conflict-of-interest and recusal rules). If that sounds like an unhelpful, tautological test that amount to do “do the right thing,” I fear it might be. It could be the dividing line for the sort of work for hire you are talking about. Do work you believe in. Do work you think actually informs rather than simply persuades. But how do you determine what is what someone would actually choose if you hadn’t intervened? And what if the person doesn’t know themselves, or is of two minds, or has time inconsistent preferences? Unless you have a crystal ball or can read people’s minds, the notion that you should refrain from doing work for hire unless it is advancing the greater good or is consistent with what you actually believe, etc., is difficult to actualize without engaging in what some people would call paternalism – that is, deciding what is best for other people or the world at large. I actually think that is unavoidable. The stance of so-called neutral detachment from the state of mind of the listener, or from the moral worth of a particular project, is, I think, what helps allow people to do what they otherwise would find morally objectionable – like help persuade people to continue smoking even when they know the smokers would prefer to quit. On the other hand, we have the well-known perils of trying to decide what is best for others – which is why I think Sunstein and Thaler tied themselves into something of a knot, attempting to avoid charges of paternalism, by using the term “libertarian paternalism.” It sounds good but really still involves paternalism. They cannot tell us why using behavioral research to put the fruit first (or wherever) in the cafeteria line would not involve a paternalistic judgment that better food choices might = better health and that is what people *really* want. And I think it is paternalistic; except that I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong with that. The choices weren’t “free” in the first place because the choice architecture was designed by those who have been exploiting the research we’ve talked about to engineer choices. Re-engineering them is just trading the judgment of the marketer (“this is what is best for us – the marketer”) for the government (“this is what is best for us – the people”). I think that is, as President Lincoln remarked, part of the legitimate role of government – to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. In this case what they cannot do is single-handedly defend against professional persuaders who use the sort of research we are discussing.
That is a VERY different thing than admitting expert testimony into a lawsuit (which has other problems and limitations and we could perhaps do with more expert testimony that has some empirical foundation and less that looks like phrenology) and also different than expert testimony to Congress (where law makers might have short attention spanned and conflicting interests but at least they have a lot of folks to help them interpret the information). I think (in general) both of those things are good.
At the end of the day though I don’t think there is a way to definitively sort out for these folks (or for anyone) when it is right and when it is wrong except with resort to one’s conscience and a good faith attempt at promoting the public welfare. And no matter what you do, sometimes you will make the wrong choice.I don’t think there is a way to act in the world without sometimes being wrong anymore than there is a way to make a real intellectual contribution (either in academic journals or in the public at large) without generating criticism. :-)

Comments on: The Profits and Perils of Public Engagement

By: Adam Benforado

By: Tamara Piety