Kruse Kronicle

Nudging and the Great Mind Fallacy

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

James R. Otteson: Nudging and the Great Mind Fallacy

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my paper "Adam Smith and the Great Mind Fallacy" was recently published in the journal Social Philosophy and Policy. In it I argue that one of Smith's arguments for limiting the scope of government authority is that such authority founders on two formidable obstacles: the "Herding Cats Problem" that humans often do not do what a political theorist or social engineer wants or expects them to do; and the "Gathering Information Problem" that theorists, legislators, or regulators cannot gather and process the information that would be necessary to devise successful and useful regulations. I argue moreover that Smith identifies what I call the "Great Mind Fallacy," which is the false yet strangely persistent assumption that someone, somewhere can overcome both the HCP and the GIP.

Although Friedrich Hayek is usually regarded as the standard-bearer for such arguments, I show that he builds on arguments Smith made in the eighteenth century. I also show how Smith's arguments would seem to undermine recent arguments defending paternalism of government experts, like those found in Sunstein and Thaler's Nudge and Peter Ubel's Free Market Madness. …

Comments

2 responses to “Nudging and the Great Mind Fallacy”

  1. JMorrow Avatar
    JMorrow

    Although I’m not as pessimistic as the author with some of the suggestions in Nudge (especially around 401ks for example), his point about Great Mind Fallacy is sound.
    From a theological perspective, I would argue this is one of the central challenges of social justice advocacy on the part of faith communities. Ultimately, some (not all) of the redress we are looking for cannot be brought about by actions of the state as a “Great Mind” overcoming HCP and GIP. It reminds me in a way of how flimsy the word “Official” is. Many Christians for instance assume that when we use legislative or a bureaucratic means to set an “official policy” then the outcome we seek is a fait accompli by virtue of the annoucement. On many social issues that is far from the truth. It’s an overly constitutional model of social change and Shalom.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Agreed. There must be enforced boundaries but the problem is when we begin to move beyond boundaries to social engineering. The ability to engineer people into shalom-filled behavior and relationships is highly overrated.
    I’m getting ready to post an article later today by Paul Heyne who uses one of my favorite analogies for economic thinking. He compares two traffic systems: Air flight and an urban traffic network. The first involves an air traffic controller (Great Mind) who is on top of everything … directing the actions of all players. The second has rules and boundaries but there is no Great Mind managing the traffic flow. Individuals come and go as they need within the limits.
    The urban network is neither an air traffic control scenario nor total anarchy. The problem for many is that they postulate a Great Mind running the economy. Same for many justice questions we face.
    Government plays a supporting role in the achievement of shalom but the bulk of the work is in the day-to-day actions people take based on internalized values. The challenge for the church is to lead in the inculcation of shalom values in individuals lives and networks. There is one Great Mind that can actually transform hearts and He has chosen the Church, each of us working in our contexts, as His strategy for effecting that change. That’s how I see it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading