Nudging, Bullshitting, and the Meta-Nudge

Bibliographic Data

ID21598230
AuthorsScott Gelfand (0000-0001-6790-3886, Oklahoma State University, corresponding author), Scott D Gelfand
Year2023
Volume32
Issue1
Pages56-68
Publication date2023-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0963-1801 • E-ISSN: 1469-2147
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0963180122000500
PMID36468360
OpenAlexW4310708697
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited17

In “Nudging, Bullshitting, and the Meta-Nudge”, the author responds to William Simkulet’s claim that nudging is bullshitting (according to Harry Frankfurt’s analysis of bullshit and bullshitting), and therefore nudging during the process of informed consent renders consent invalid. The author argues that nudging is not necessarily bullshitting and then explains that although this issue is philosophically interesting, practically speaking, even if nudging is bullshitting, it does not follow that nudging necessarily renders informed consent invalid. This is obviously true in those situations in which nudging during the process of informed consent is unavoidable. The author concludes with a discussion of the meta-nudge and suggests that physicians can use the meta-nudge to eliminate or decrease the power of inappropriate, problematic, or undesirable nudges

Alternative medicine · Economics · Informed consent · Meta-analysis · Nudge theory · Positive economics · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access