Big congrats!

I am 11 months late to this party but mine is pique(d) vs. peak(ed) fo sho

This is a great analogy for good critique; it’s a sign of respect to be tough, even harsh when necessary, but it’s in the spirit of respect and generosity vs. mean-spiritedness or the urge to demonstrate power just because you can (looking at you, reviewer #2)

We were just wondering how far you had gotten since we were out there

A really important distinction... BeSci acknowledges contextual heterogeneity but is less in the habit of bringing the same level of nuance to how personal frames impact choice perception. I wrote about some similar stuff here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Many thanks! Appreciate your helping build the community here

if applied behavioural science qualifies for inclusion and room allows, I would love to added

I would love to be added, please and thank you!

would also love to be added, if possible! It is great bluesky is gaining some critical mass now and I'm keen on helping build a robust behavioral science community

TL;DR — current conceptual models for behavioral public policy don’t fully recognize or address that people don’t just have different preferences + values, but different frames for seeing/evaluating choice. Adopting a dialogic mindset and set of practices can help overcome this

Secondly, transdisciplinary behavioral policy work requires its own approach to or/rationality through strategic use of ‘boundary objects,’ which do not prioritize any one discipline but supports collaboration across different viewpoints through dialogic and shared space

Overcoming this requires dialogic inquiry; first, behavioral practice can embrace deep, continual dialogue with potential intervention recipients, borrowing from design and participatory/co-design approaches to cultivate an understanding of others’ frames + lived experience

Also, both cases assume that course-correcting irrational behavior to become more rational is the goal. But is this a false binary? We argue that decision-making is not just about satisfying different values but understanding different frames: it’s about ‘or/rationality’

In attempting to satisfy people’s different values, contractarianism presumes participants’ unwavering belief in institutional legitimacy. But many people have good reasons to be skeptical of the status quo, especially when they have historically been excluded from its benefits

Consequentialist approaches (like nudges) use individual preference to guide interventions. But preferences are hard to gauge reliably and solutions risk becoming a ‘view from nowhere’. However, the contractarian ‘marketplace of opportunity’ also has limitations, namely that…