A plethora of on-message communicators, embedded in governments and global organisations, are engaged in disseminating messages to the masses urging us all to change our behaviours so as to save the world from purported existential threats. Near the top of the pyramid of these influencers are behavioural scientists, with the U.K. hosting many such ‘nudgers’ skilled in the art of persuading the populace to comply with diktats to ‘save’ the planet from a looming viral or climate apocalypse. But do these various mouthpieces promoting globalist agendas ever pause to question the legitimacy their goals? Recent evidence would suggest not.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the day – the insidious rise of the ‘Trusted Messenger’ nudgeAugust 12th, 2024 |
 11 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – the insidious rise of the ‘Trusted Messenger’ nudgeLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I can recall people close to “call me Dave” Cameron going on about “nudge” theory 25 years ago.
I’ve always wanted to know if celebrities were paid to nudge vaccines, and by who.
I can recall US federal grant announcements and Open Society announcements 13-14 years ago soliciting proposals to research the most effective nudge techniques.
As of 1250Z today (12/08/2024), USAID is offering awards to employ nudge techniques in Senegal, El Salvador and the Philippines with a 4th opportunity to influence international opinion/practices on “voluntary family planning” under the Frontier Health Markets project. Key word “nudge” turned up a 5th currently-open federal opportunity: a Broad Agency Announcement for basic, applied, and advanced scientific research issued by the United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://www.grants.gov/search-grants
Dr. Sidley lays out a convincing case, yet he declines to acknowledge the obvious when asking: “Did prominent behavioural scientists on the SPI-B – such as Professors David Halpern and Susan Michie – ever pause to reflect on the dire consequences of the behaviours they were pushing?”
One doesn’t become a prominent scientist on an advisory committee if one cannot be trusted to parrot the germane talking points. The vetting/filtering process to identify ideal candidates begins years earlier at a much lower level of prestige and rank.
I’ve always imagined appeals to vanity worked best when nudging celebrities to endorse public policies.
The in-crowd mindset is so pervasive in Hollywood; one cannot go against the flow.
The presumption of these cnuts is unbelievable. Although in fairness, Jacinda Ardern went way beyond “Nudge” and well into Bansturbation territory.
Fortunately the worst excesses of her regime (like the age-based smoking ban) have been repealed.
New Zealand’s Right-wing government scraps major Jacinda Ardern policies
There is a difference between ‘truth’ and ‘Higher Truth’. Once you realize you are speaking a Higher Truth, you don’t have to worry. Higher Truth is good for people. Truth is just information.
I believe they are paid, but the currency is “the love and adulation of all good Communists.”
France 24 (the only English language television station I can get in this hotel) keeps boasting of having been awarded various things for being trustworthy and accurate – which is amusing considering the stream of wild distortions and utter absurdities it broadcasts.
“Trusted Messenger” sounds like an indication to NOT trust such a source.
There were plenty of ‘nudgers’ who tried to convince us that the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the Brexit Referendum. I’ve looked and looked and found no bits of sky littering the ground so I have concluded that ‘nudgers’ cannot be trusted.
What’s baffling is that people do actually believe the nonsense being promoted. No doubt the behavioural scientists can explain why, but surely it doesn’t take much common sense to realise that, after forty years of doomsters going “global warming is about to kill us all”, the fact that we are still here proves they are wrong?
OK, children who have been soaking it up for only five or ten years can be forgiven, but the rest of us?
Do celebrities and white coats really have that kind of power?
@Barbarus
Consider people living in tribes, long ago. For all sorts of reasons – but mostly I suspect – people wanted a view of the future. Where the good hunting would be, where the good plants would be, how to deal with competing tribes. No white coats back then but a shaman with sacred bones and a ready line of patter…
Being the custodian of future events is a position of power, fiercely protected. Which could explain why in modern times the Establishment is so keen to restrict free speech and counter unapproved activity.
And now I call (most) of the Main Stream Media ‘The Ministry of Truth’.