But is social psychology not just one, theoretical, branch of the psycholgical sciences that has no reason to take precedence over any other? Economics sucessfully charts market forces, but social psychology is as unproveable as the now unfashionable theories of Freud - enlightening but not testable

Emma Whipday, Oxford,

why is it claimed that regulation can't change behaviour yet it is laws and regulation which are widely bemoaned for changing behaviour ie creating problems.surely Cameron's proposal to recognise marriage thru the tax system is 'regulation'.

sue, Leeds,

...it seems 'nudge' (and this 'new' theory providesa language cover) is the word used for a regulation one politcally approves of. and regulation is used to attack nudges one politically disapproves of.

sue, leeds,

FYI: Prof. Thaler, who is advising Barack H. Obama, is well-known to those who follow the psychology of finance. They embrace the "negative option," which requires all to belong to social programs, barring advanced skills.

http://experts.uchicago.edu/experts.php?id=412

Cl. Alex. Chien, Chapel Hill, N.C., USA

It's not the politicians that create such publicity - it's the media, and the politicians just react...

Gina, Swindon,

There are also sections of "society" who are the progeny of the selfish and the feckless - therefore further calculations will be required before the actions of Homo Sapiens can be reduced to equations.

Frank, Plymouth, England

So hopefully we are going to abandon the Marxian/Christian denial of genetics that has provided the mainstay of the reactionary world view over the last half century. For decades the West has been reminiscent of Manchu China desperately clinging to the Confucianism that was the cause of its ills.

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

Governments try to do too much. Society is like markets, unmanageable and most efforts are counterproductive like comprehensivisation exacerbating social divisions and lowering standards. Far better that governments confine themselves to doing only what they alone must do like making law and police.

R Mason, London, UK

So what's new? I won't let you steal the shirt off my back but neither am I willing to risk this very same shirt on some hair brained venture. Keeping what you have is a lot more self interested than gaining what you don't have or put another way, 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

DA Maples, Petesfield, Hampshire

As a (retired) teacher I am constantly amazed at certain legislation. Some new laws invoke the behaviour that they purport to revoke! Take for instance "weight tax" on rubbish. The effect will be lots of fly-tipping. Instead of saving money, councils will have to fork out on cleaning this mess up.

Wilma Prins, Vossemeer, Netherlands

Well at least that solves one problem! For years I've been wondering why the chicken crossed the road.

John Muir, Newnham,

I think David Brooks put it well in the NY Times yesterday:
"Saying farewell to the sort of horrible social engineering projects that dominated the 20th century is a major example of human progress."

Lets not start another round. Please.

Theresa Klein, Tucson, USA

"new thinking is seeping into politics.." NEW? Any sort would make a change!

S. Barraclough, Huddersfield, W. Yorkshire

Given the relative lateness to this apparent trend, it is gratifying to note that it is not politicians who run the country.

Abdul Majeed, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK

"Social change is as likely, or more likely, to come through influencing behaviour as it is through regulation."

I thought regulation was one way of influencing behaviour. What exactly are you thinking of here?

JFP, Ohio, USA,

Evolutionary psychology judges people as animals, and is most frequently used to defend sexism as "natural". It's anti-thought. Dawkins isn't a perpetrator, though he brilliantly conceived of memes. A government that expects us to be permanent slaves to memes (or alleged idea-genes) sounds horrible.

_Felix, Nottingham,

Eventually theory will catch up with common sense.

Andrew Burrows, Brighton,

I wonder whether one day soon a future party leader will turn round to his agent and say: “Finally, I've got it! Human compassion.”

Raymond, Glasgow, Scotland

Governments should confine themselves to protecting us so that we can go about our business without fear and provide a safety net for when things go wrong. Leave the anthropology, psychology, etc. to the experts. Governments only last a few years and ministers a year or two so they know nothing.

R Mason, London, UK

Sounds like grasping at straws. The latest gimmick. Cialdini's book was first published in 1984.

By the way I've got some amazing snake oil that does the trick and I'm selling it at twice its normal price so it’s got to be worth it (one of Cialdinis points )

David Cartright, Birmingham,

Economists had theories that were at odds with everyday experience. Now they are recanting, but are saving face by pretending they have had some new insight that they need to communicate to the rest of us. That's human nature, sure enough, or "cognitive dissonance" (to borrow from another fad).

Jamie, Bolton, UK

It's long puzzled me why Anthopology has been absent, or excluded, from the so-called debate on immigration and multiculturism.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

Isn’t there something wrong about Government seeking to influence behaviour through psychology if policy isn’t based on the drivers of behaviour in the first place? Otherwise it looks like manipulation.

Lutobar, Leek, Staffordshire

Nothing new or unknown to previous generations before left-wing liberalism denied the inherent nature of the individual had anything to do with behaviour. Individuality must be supressed and replaced by State imposed uniformity according to the equation equality of input must = equality of outcome.

John Bowman, Sarlat, France

The notion that you can have a gene for trait 'A' (i.e. irresponsibility) has been discredited. Certainly your genetic disposition may give you a propensity towards trait 'A' (i.e. reinforce risk taking) but the path from gene to biological effect is slightly more subtle than you seem to suggest..

APL, Oxford,

"They will take risks to avoid a loss, while behaving conservatively...."

Except when they don't. "Irrational exuberance" didn't become a catchphrase for nothing.

The tendency to use without comprehension or conviction any buzzword which will win the next election - _that's_ human nature!

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

It's about time. The work of economists had become so irrelevant and self-centric. But I see no reason why this is an intellectual revolution. Surely, the economists have just discovered the existence of 'sociology' and 'psychology''and they are now passing this as if it were something new.

steven, birmingham,

I quite like Noam Chomsky. Especially his views on the relationship between the US and Israel.

But you won't publish this blog will you Dan?

Austin Tassletine, South West , UK

The trouble with Darwinian explanations is that when simplified in a politicans primitive brain they can take on the form of eugenics, and we all know where that can lead?

kevin, Lincoln, UK

To these two could be added our increased understanding and application of complex self organising systems theory. This is gradually leading to a totally different way of understanding, for example, the weather, biology, organisations and cities. Despite this, we still hang on to Cartesian thinking.

Andrew Rooney, Adelaide, Australia

I wrote a book 11 years ago for a woman I once loved. I never published it then because I thought it might get me killed.

Now I think the world might be ready for it.

So yes the world has changed radically.

From monotheistic to multicultural. On an emotional level.

Believe it. It's true.

Rhys Jaggar, Leeds, UK