Turns out, you CAN tell me what to do

I have often used the term "leverage" in discussing how a persuasive writer can effect changes in readers, and perhaps that term seems a bit cold and clinical. A bit more human term that may be a bit friendlier is "incentive." Leverage may imply finding some weak spot or perhaps applying physical force, while incentive connotes something motivational to the person we are trying to persuade.

We could also go with "nudge," which is even friendlier, since it is gentler and does not include force. A friend might nudge us when something is said that prompts a fun or silly memory. Some social scientists believe that nudges are more effective in changing behaviors since there is no confrontation and the actions are often hardly noticed.

In economic theory, a nudge must be easy and cheap. Nudges are not mandates. Putting fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not. No options are forbidden and no economic incentives are affected.

Nudges are clearly too subtle for today's health crisis.

I read a column in today's New York Times by two doctors working in an east coast hospital that boiled down to research showing people NOT responding clearly to MORE data. For instance, you would expect that the children of doctors would be more likely to have been vaccinated against chicken pox. But the actual data shows very little difference between children of doctors and everyone else's children.

There are mountains of data out there about how various vaccines (including the Covid shots) benefit the population, the economy, mental health, etc., but piling on more data is clearly NOT making a significant changes in behavior among people who now "believe" that vaccines are harmful or even evil.

So what do those two doctors recommend? Not surprisingly, they support vaccine mandates (and I have favored them in past posts, just to be clear). 

Vaccine mandates bring "negative incentives," since they always include some sort of sanction for those ignoring the mandates. You could lose your job. You could be denied entry into a sporting event or restaurant. You could pay more for health insurance. You could be banned from the big family reunion.

There are certainly positive incentives, such as remaining healthy, unhospitalized, and alive, but a lack of something is not a clear penalty.

Grades are an interesting situation in this regard. Most educators would say that grades are intended to help learners (and parents) know how they are doing (positive) but they are also often negative, as in cases where students are simply trying to avoid failing (or even earning something less than an A).

School assignments are rarely optional. Teachers mandate completion and failure to complete earns a failing mark on that assignment. Some students still fail due to not doing the work and their reasons can be quite complicated.

That's how mandates work. Effects of ignoring the mandate hurt the person doing the ignoring. Otherwise, what's the point? 

We live in a world where many argue against penalties and instead look for positive incentives. Those positives do encourage longer lasting behavioral change.

But when we want fast change? 

Mandates and related negative incentives are our best bet.