Now this may have been particularly related to my academic food/health environment and I don't talk with people about the pros and cons of nudging all day, but I am pretty sure it is not considered a universally bad thing.
I don't consider the Social Credit System a form of nudging btw, as actual nudging doesn't exclude you from any choices - it just changes the default choice. The Social Credit System literally gives you points for good/bad actions, it doesn't make the default choice any different.
Yeah the Social Credit is a bad example, sorry. It is often clad in nudging language, that is why I got on it.
I also don't go around asking people what they think about nudging. But when that topic comes up it is nearly always the bad things. I am certainly biased here, coming from a political background ;)
Yea, I know about that food thing you described. Placing fruits right at the start, in a nice display, and people get fruits 40% more or so.
Good nudging is not coercive - it still allows the individual to maintain their freedom of choice, but tends to steer them in the direction of the decision with the better long-term outcome
Most of the "good" examples of nudging take one of two forms:
-Make the "best" choice(subjective) the default choice - e.g. opt-out vs. opt-in systems
-Make it minimally burdensome to make the "good" decision - eliminate as many barriers as possible that might otherwise deter someone from the desired behavior. (and conversely, potentially make it slightly more difficult to achieve the undesirable behavior)
A good "nudging" system isn't punitive - it preserves free will while generally improving outcomes for those who make the "lazy" choice (or non-choice), and makes good choices "easier" to make than bad ones.
For those in this thread unfamiliar with the subject, Richard Thaler's books ("Misbehaving" and "Nudge") are an excellent place to pick up the basics of behavioral economics and origin of the concept of nudging.