So many choices of what is 'best' are based on opinion and not research -fruit is not very good for you in large quantity, eggs are not bad for you, margerine is not better than butter. But people were told the opposite for years till new reseach arrived. The falacy of books like this one, is that it contends it knows what is best for people and contends people's personal choices are not as good as the decisions the authors would make for them

I don't think that is the point of the book at all, at least, according to the article. It appears to be more about the fact that some default choice will be made (by someone else) and that default choice has a strong effect on your actual decision (whether you admit it or not). Essentially meaning, they make it easier to make the "good" choice.

This is not an argument about what the "good" choice is, that is irrelevent here. The discussion is just that we have much less self-control than we think we do, party do to our own overconfidence in our "self-control", and we are strongly persuaded by what is made easy for us, be that good or bad.

I think this a very intelligent point to be made. Whenever discussions about banning junk food come up, it becomes a "pro-health" vs "pro-choice" argument, but it really should be about making junk food not the default choice (making it more difficult or less acceptable to get), although still allowing people to choose it if they wish.

Another point of the book is that people take actions that are at odds with their stated intent. The judgment of what is good for them is generally their own judgment, but they fail to follow through with it. Making it easier to follow through on a decision that also aligns with others' goals (such as investing for retirement) is a sensible step.

The real issue here is individual choice versus some ruling group making choices. The hook of such arguments is that they appeal to the conceit that there is a group called 'the masses' and another group including 'them and you'. Noone would be in favor of being in the 'masses' group and being told our choices. But everyone believes they will be in the "them and you' group and be the one's that tell everyone else what they can have. This conspiritors gambit is the oldest of scams - as the real ruling power will not include you- just the 'them' that will hold the power.

siempre:

The real issue here is individual choice versus some ruling group making choices. The hook of such arguments is that they appeal to the conceit that there is a group called 'the masses' and another group including 'them and you'. Noone would be in favor of being in the 'masses' group and being told our choices. But everyone believes they will be in the "them and you' group and be the one's that tell everyone else what they can have. This conspiritors gambit is the oldest of scams - as the real ruling power will not include you- just the 'them' that will hold the power.

Actually the idea of "Nudge" is a Hegelian synthesis of that dialectic. It recognizes that individual choices are made against a backdrop of a social system and human nature, and makes explicit some of the hidden factors that affect individual choice.