The ubiquitous deployment of behavioural-science techniques – ‘nudges’ – to increase compliance with both covid-19 restrictions and the vaccine rollout has raised major ethical concerns. Particularly alarming has been the state’s strategic use of fear (or ‘affect’ in the language of behavioural science), shaming (‘ego’) and peer pressure (‘norms’). The tentacles of behavioural science have extended beyond the arena of pandemic management and into many other areas of day-to-day life, including debt collection and the green agenda. Given their widespread prevalence and the profound ethical questions associated with them, it is imperative that the Government’s deployment of these powerful techniques adheres to a robust and transparent ethical framework. Alarmingly, politicians and state-sponsored behavioural scientists have – to date – displayed a stubborn reluctance to discuss these issues.
State-sponsored behavioural science
Tag: discussion
Selling ‘pandemic flu’ through a language of fear

This piece from 2006 is more relevant now then ever. In 2009 many people drank the pigs fly flu kool aid. That so called “pandemic” had been covered extensively at my big tech censored blog. As a matter of fact that’s when the WHO changed the definition of pandemic to spread the fear virus.
Selling ‘pandemic flu’ through a language of fear
You must be logged in to post a comment.