Anti Behavioral Economics Kickoff

The beauty of democracy and freedom et al has always been the ability for anyone voice their own opinion against pretty much anything (sane) and in the process proclaiming their intellect or becoming a pseudo intellectual. I was glad to find concerns and voices against behavioral economics even though its still in its nascency. But once I started watching the debate, it became clear they not only understood the concept of behavioral economics but they seemed more than content with the current situation and they offer nothing new. They want to thrive in the dopamine driven perceptual debates with no middle ground leave alone finding a solution.



Nudge is not an ideology, its an idea. People who are pickled in ideology are unable to grasp this concept. I wrote earlier - "it's probably the only field which gets a free ticket to call us, the people "idiots" while making us feel like Einstein's."On surface it seems like people are pissed because it toys with their ego's but I don't think that's the issue here. The issue is Cass Sunstein is Obama's white house regulatory czar and for cognitive fluency people correspond that to an ideology. In other words, sadly people have started equating behavioral economics as a liberal agenda. If these people cannot handle behavioral economics, I cannot even begin to envisage their reactions when neuroscience envelops our lives (neuroscientists pledge here). They need to come out the vintage bubble, start educating themselves in neuroscience and open to new ideas. Thats only way to keep the neuroscientists from swaying away from the pledge.

"Pledge by Neuroscientists to Refuse to Participate in the Application of Neuroscience to Violations of Basic Human Rights or International Law.
We are Neuroscientists who desire that our work be used to enhance human life rather than to diminish it. We are concerned with the possible use of Neuroscience for purposes that violate fundamental human rights and international law. We seek to create a culture within the field of Neuroscience in which contributions to such uses are unacceptable.
Thus, we oppose the application of Neuroscience to torture and other forms of coercive interrogation or manipulation that violate human rights and personhood. Such applications could include drugs that cause excessive pain, anxiety, or trust, and manipulations such as brain stimulation or inactivation.
Thus, we also oppose the application of Neuroscience to aggressive war. Aggressive war is illegal under international law, where it is defined as a war that is not in self defense. A government which engages in aggressive wars should not be provided with tools to engage more effectively in such wars. Neuroscience can and does provide such tools. Examples include drugs which enhance the effectiveness of soldiers on one side, drugs which damage the effectiveness of soldiers on the other side, and robots that move, perceive, and kill.
As Neuroscientists we therefore pledge:
a) To make ourselves aware of the potential applications of our own work and that of others to applications that violate basic human rights or international law such as torture and aggressive war.
b) To refuse to knowingly participate in the application of Neuroscience to violations of basic human rights or international law."