[akyu]

>That's pretty close to saying it doesn't work.

No it's really not.

To say things a different way, I don't think this study will change anything for people actually doing choice architecture in applied settings. They have results that speak for themselves.

[pessimizer]

> results that speak for themselves.

This is exactly how a midwife explained to me why she uses magic crystals. She told me that there's science, and there's results, and that she's seen the crystals work.

[msrenee]

Obviously they don't work by magical vibration, but are you sure they don't work at all? If the midwife feels and acts more confident from having that tool or the mother feels more relaxed because she thinks they will make the process easier, then the crystals do, in fact, work. They just don't work through the mechanism those individuals think they do.

[rsanek]

I mean, yeah, if she has solid RCT data on thousands to millions of childbirths and has found a statistically significant impact from using the magic crystals, I would support their use. A/B as well as scientific research uses the same basis.

The issue is that in fact the midwife will not have such data. The comparison being made is that A/B testing, if run competently, is pretty close to scientific research, in particular for research related to nudging.

[mcswell]

"I don't think this study will change anything for people actually doing choice architecture in applied settings." Probably true, but then evidence that horoscopes etc. don't work, doesn't prevent people from drawing horoscopes, or other people from relying on their horoscope to plan out their day.

"They have results that speak for themselves." Let me put my point differently. Suppose that nudges don't have any effect at all (null hypothesis). More concretely--and just to take a random number--suppose that 50% of the time when a nudge is used, the nudgees happen to behave in the direction that the nudge was intended to move them, and 50% of the time they don't move, or they move in the opposite direction. And suppose there are a number of nudgers, maybe 100. Then some nudgers will get better than random results, while others will get no result, or negative results. The former nudgers will have results that appear to speak for themselves, even if the nudges actually have no effect whatsoever.

This is the same as asking if a fair coin is tossed ten times, what is the probability that you'll get at least 7 heads. The probability of such a number of heads in a single run is ~17%. So 17% of those nudgers could be getting apparently significant results, even if their results are actually random.

[Beldin]

I think gp and you probably see eye to eye, but gp has a problem with your phrasing. If the effect does not live up to scientific rigour, that (more or less) implies that the effect is roughly indistinguishable from randomness.

If folks have results that speak for themselves, then the effect more than likely is scientifically rigorously testable. It may already have been - by those very results.

[DangitBobby]

They would be the people who published, in this scenario.