ナッジねたをもう一丁。マクロスキーほどエキセントリックではないが、Tim Taylorもナッジの在り方に若干の懸念を示している

Three broad concerns discussed by Holmes seem worth noting. First, nudges can often be very specific to context and detail. For example, when people in the UK got a letter saying that most people pay their taxes on time, the number of tax delinquents fell sharply, but the same nudge in Ireland had no effect. Sometimes small details of a government notification--like whether the letter includes a smiley face or not--seem to have a substantial effect.
Second, the total effect of nudge policies may be only moderate. But saying that a policy won't totally solve, say, poverty or obesity hardly seems like a reason to rule out the policy.
Finally, there is a legitimate concern over the line between "nudge" policies and government paternalism. The notion that government is purposely acting in subtle ways to shift our choices is mildly disturbing. What if you just sort of forget to opt out of being an organ donor--but you actually have genuine personal objections to doing so? What if you just sort of forget to opt out of the retirement savings account, but you know that you have a health condition that is extremely likely to give you a shortened life expectancy? A nudge policy can be beneficial on average, but still lead to less desireable choices in specific cases.
最後に、「ナッジ」政策と政府のパターナリズムとの境界線については正当な懸念が存在する。政府が我々の選択を変えるために敢えて微妙なやり方で行動しているという考えは、やや心をざわつかせるものである。臓器提供をオプトアウトし忘れたが、実のところ臓器提供には純粋に個人的に反対しているとしたらどうだろうか? 退職貯蓄口座をオプトアウトし忘れたが、余生が短くなる可能性が極めて高い健康状態に自分があることを知っていたとしたらどうだろうか?*2 ナッジ政策は平均的には恩恵をもたらすかもしれないが、特定のケースではより望ましくない選択につながるかもしれない。


Moreover, what if the goals of a nudge policy start to reach beyond goals like adequate retirement saving or use of generic drugs, and start edging into more controversial settings. One can imagine nudge policies to affect choices about abortion, or gun ownership, or joining the military, or enrolling your child in a charter school. No matter which direction these nudges are pushing, they would be certain to be controversial.
In the Annual Review of Psychology for 2016, Cass Sunstein contributed an essay titled, "The Council of Psychological Advisers." It begins: "Many nations have some kind of council of economic advisers. Should they also have a council of psychological advisers? Perhaps some already do." For many people, the idea of a government council of psychological advisers seeking to set up your choices in such a way as to influence the outcome, in ways you don't even know are happening, is fairly creepy.
Like many people I like to think of myself as a person who considers options and makes choices. But the reality of nudge policies calls this perception into doubt. For many real-world life choices, a truly neutral presentation of the options does not exist. There will always be a choice about the order in which options are presented, how the options are phrased, what background information is presented, what choice serves as the default option. Even when no official nudge policy exists, and all of these choices have been made for other reasons, the setting of the choice will often influence the choice that is made. It will influence me, and it will influence you, too. Thus, there isn't any escape from nudge policies. There is only a choice as to what kinds of nudges will happen--and a need for all of us to be aware of how we are being nudged and when we want to shove back by making other choices.
また、ナッジ政策が、適切な退職後の貯蓄やジェネリック薬品の使用といった目標を超えたところを目指し始めて、より議論の多い領域に入り込み始めたらどうだろうか? 中絶や銃の所有や軍への志願やチャータースクールに自分の子供を入学させることに影響するようなナッジ政策が思い浮かぶ。そうしたナッジがいずれの方向に押すにせよ、議論の的になるのは間違いない。
2016年のアニュアル・レビュー・オブ・サイコロジーでキャス・サンスティーンは、「心理諮問委員会」と題した小論を寄稿した。その出だしはこうだ。「多くの国は経済諮問委員会のようなものを設けている。そうした国は心理諮問委員会も設けるべきであろうか? ひょっとするともう設けている国もあるかもしれない。」 政府の心理諮問委員会が、何が起きているのか我々には全く見当も付かない形で我々の選択を設定し、結果に影響を与えようとする、という考えは、多くの人にとってかなりぞっとするものだろう。