Re: design-centric business models

Gunnar,

> Government overtly regulating
> for the collective good (e.g.,
> setting light bulb efficiency
> or toy safety standards) is
> one thing but I can understand
> someone being at very least a
> bit creeped out by government
> covertly manipulating individual
> decisions.

I think this is a really important distinction ... at least for the 
political left in this country (I'm not sure that the hard-core 
libertarian right supports any regulatory role for government, 
including things like food safety, which is chronically under-funded).

But even this notion of the "collective good" is slippery, and must be 
continually re-negotiated.

Many who think abortion is murder would argue that it is in the 
"collective good" to outlaw it ... OTOH, those who think abortion is a 
profoundly private matter, argue that government should stay out of it.

But this (the debate over abortion in the U.S.) is an *overt* 
political argument of long standing, which makes all the difference.

As a student of rhetoric, my own personal issue here is with 
information asymmetries that distort the realm of responsible human 
choice and conduct (the "covert manipulation" part ;-).

There's already too much of this, as far as I'm concerned.

(My partner was recently in a car accident, and I'm still dealing 
first-hand with the information asymmetries built into this experience 
which impede decision-making, from the moment of impact.)

I also know that such covert manipulation is a constant of modern life 
-- common to friends and family, communities (large and small, online 
and off-), politicians, businesses, professions, courts, schools, 
governmental and non-governmental institutions alike.

Contrary to its often predicted demise, the art of persuasion grows 
ever more sophisticated, and continues to thrive! ;-)


> And then you get into the fight
> about what we should be
> manipulated to do. I, for
> instance, am convinced that the
> low fat salad dressings that
> Karen Glanz is advocating
> stores push are really bad for
> you.

I agree that there are no easy, one-size-fits-all answers to be had 
when it comes to matters of individual health and well-being (so 
speaks the rhetorician, yet again ;-).

That said ... why not push apples, as well as candy bars and other 
processed snack foods, at the checkout counter?

And for our own personal edification: what is your objection to 
low-fat salad dressings?

... That low-fat items are often high-sodium? (I swear there's a 
correlation here: as one element in the fat/sodium binary goes down, 
the other goes up to compensate.)

... Or that a certain amount of fat is needed in order to most 
efficiently absorb the nutrients in veggies?

... Or that the "low-fat" labeling encourages us to eat way more of 
the processed dressing (oftentimes, with added sugar, etc.) than we 
ought to?

... Or perhaps something else?

Just curious,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
[email protected]






___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: 
 [email protected]

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________