A fascinating programme about how social psychology and behavioural economics can be applied to influence our behaviour. At the centre of all this are Cialdini's six "
weapons of influence", and how they may be used as a tool to alter our behaviour: for example by governments to reduce negative externalities.
Personally, I found the idea of us 'turning influence into a science rather than an art' to be particularly interesting.
But I do wonder whether increasing propagation of these techniques could actually diminish their effectiveness. Let's say this truly is brought down to a widely-used science, and the public's understanding of the subject develops. What happens then? If I am aware that the government may use these tools against me, do I become sceptical and alert to them, shutting them out?
In other words, would it be right to say that the 'weapons of influence' depend on information asymmetry to be fully effective?
Once we become informed of these tools, do we become more resistant to them?There is clearly also a political issue related to social freedoms here, which the programme does briefly discuss. That is,
is this unfairly altering our behaviour, extending even to a loss of our freedoms? Or do people still ultimately retain enough freedom of choice to make this acceptable? Finkelstein argues that government is already trying to manipulate us, so this argument is misplaced, at least in the sense that this is not a new issue. Personally I suspect this would represent an significantly different meaning to the government's tools, though - what was once "asking" or "telling" people suddenly seems to become more like "making" people.
What are your views?
Welcome to Economicate 
