Even if you are the least interested fan about the 2010 World Cup soccer tournament, you know that there were serious problems with the referees.  They made a lot of whopping bad calls that even the most casual of observers could spot.  What to do?

Nudge, baby.

1.  Add Referees.

2.  Add Technology.

3.  Increase Scoring.

4.  Redefine “Offside.”

5.  Rethink Penalties.

6.  Reduce Faking.

Really.

This is Nudging.  Those little things that make big differences.  Little things like adding more key personnel, changing primary rules, spending more money.  Subtle.  Nuanced.  Bright in a deep way.  Deep in a bright way.  Nudge.

And, not that there’s any bias in Nudge:

Consider the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now being established. Above all, I’d urge the head of this agency to devise rules under the assumption that, someday, he or she will be succeeded by a nitwit.

Gee, the Obama appointee to this new Bureau (yet to be named and confirmed) won’t be a nitwit?

Nudge as Oracle!

I’ll probably lose my setting at the Cool Table for this, but I have access to the Nudge for Democrats in the November elections.  If you are a Republican or some other nitwit who isn’t voting for Democrats, stop reading this, otherwise Nudge Along!

1.  Add Democratic Voters.

2.  Delete Republican Voters.

3.  Hire Nudge Consultants.

All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

Persuaders Can Either Be Famous or Effective, But Not Both.

There’s a Difference between Persuasion, and Smoke and Mirrors; With Persuasion the Illusion Lingers.

A consumer research firm, My Type, has broken through the chatter today with its scientific conclusion that iPad owners are “Selfish Elites.”  Of course, this conclusion is probably not true, but it’s a great headline that hits a prejudiced sweet spot.  (And, while I’m probably a Selfish Elite, I don’t own an iPad.)  Let’s look at details.

My Type uses a research method that is not scientific, but sounds like it is.  It’s kinda like kids dressing up in their parents clothes and playing Mommy and Daddy.  My Types dress up like scientists by using science sounding words, but all they are doing is poaching Facebook.  For example, they offer free Personality Quizzes that require you to give them complete and eternal access to your Facebook profile.  They save this information in a huge database.  Then they do “research” by comparing different groups – say Facebookers who own an iPad versus Facebookers who do not own an iPad – on the Facebook profile data.  In fact, this particular “research” on selfish iPad owners is done exactly like this.

Thus, if you want to be honest rather than cunning, you’d have to say today’s infamous results are based on:

1. people who’ve taken a My Type Personality Test (or other such product) and;

2. who’ve given permission to My Type to access their Facebook profile data.

Not exactly what you’d call a random sample or even a representative sample.  Now, it is a big sample.  My Type says they looked at data from over 20,000 people.  A number that big sounds useful, but it is not.  First, even stupidly small differences from foolishly big samples are “statistically significant” but practically useless.  Second, a big and biased sample is not better than small and biased sample – the sample is still biased.  And third, there’s no replication other than the pinging sound you hear when a dishonest shot hits the prejudiced sweet spot.

If you look at the “report” from My Type which is available from my old friends at Scribd, you’ll find tables and figures and numbers.  Download them.  Study them.  Repeat them at parties.  Just don’t bet any money, reputation, or consequence on them, because they are not honest, accurate, reliable, trustworthy, scientific, . . . gee, you get the point.

Now, even more interesting is how My Type is reacting to the coverage of this contrived report.  They are clearly monitoring the conversation and jumping in to clarify as needed.  Here, for example, someone claiming to be with My Type offered comment and amplification to the Wired reporting.  Let me quote:

3) We’re not claiming to be ultra-scientific here. The data is rigorous, the interpretation of the data is up for debate. Again, look at the report, lots of the raw affinities are given there (and “affinity” is defined). You can come to your own conclusions.

Ultra-scientific?  It that like Ultra-Pregnant or Ultra-Cool?  I haven’t taken or taught a research methods course in ten years, so is Ultra maybe a new technique?  And the “data is rigorous” but the “interpretation . . . is up for debate?”  Huh?  This sounds like an answer you write on an essay exam you forgot was scheduled for today.   (It’s also fun to read the rest of the comments from Wired readers.  Many of them smell the rat.)

Now, are there demographic and personality differences between people who own iPads and those who don’t?  Sure.  And can you market iPads differently for different people?  Sure-sure.  And, can you believe My Type’s results to guide your marketing?  No-no-no!

On this one, I’ve got to hand it to the folks at My Type.  All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere and there is absolutely nothing Sincere about this “study.”  But it brought them attention which might mean clients which might mean money.  However, I wouldn’t hire them to research anything beyond their own foolishness.

This is getting too strange.

I observed a recent Wall Street story that was a near perfect match for a much older Wall Street story from a book by ‘Adam Smith’ (the pseudonym for George Goodman) called “The Money Game.”  Both featured young quants, computers, and confidence.  The more things change . . .

Now, today, this NYT story about cocoa.

In a stroke, a hedge fund manager here named Anthony Ward has all but cornered the market in cocoa. By one estimate, he has bought enough to make more than five billion chocolate bars.

Holy Harmonics, Batman!  This repeats, chapter and verse, another story from ‘Adam Smith,’ on the Great Cocoa Caper.  Smith outlines his involvement in a complex trading scheme with cocoa futures in the 1970s.  He, too, thought he had cornered the cocoa market and stood to reap a whirlwind of profit, but stronger forces and cooler heads prevailed.  Mr. Smith and his partners found themselves inheriting a different kind of whirlwind instead.

Right now, everyone is admiring the newest Cocoa King, but he hasn’t cashed in his winnings just yet because this is the futures market, baby, and you never win in the present.  Time will tell which way the wind blows.  But, Mr. Ward is apparently following the same strategy of Smith et al. back in the 1970s.  The big pay day bet on cocoa is to go long on disaster:  Rain!  Revolution!  Pestilence!

Wait for October.

In the meantime, worry about sunny days, friendly relations, and, off-stage, the Big Boys who don’t bet on cocoa, but who are in the chocolate business.

As Mark Twain observed, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”  Given the rhymes to “The Money Game” and “SuperMoney” I wonder what the future holds.

Just as All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere, so too:  All Bad Investing Is Sincere.

The New York Times is reporting the tip of the iceberg.

Now a hard-nosed effort by the federal government to forge tougher advertising standards that favor more healthful products has become stalled amid industry opposition and deep divisions among regulators.

The Times even quotes a communication expert, so you know things are getting desperate.

“All of a sudden everything is dead in the water,” said Dale Kunkel, a communications professor at the University of Arizona who is an expert on children’s advertising. “I have heard no arguments to slow this down other than that the industry doesn’t like it.”

Even a former research partner is called for comment.

“With obesity rates the way they are, it’s no longer acceptable for companies to be marketing foods to kids that contribute to obesity and heart disease and other health problems,” said Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group.

How do those Evil Forces do it?  The Good People pass Good Laws then hand them to the Executive Agencies led by President Obama and what do those agencies do?  Nothing.  Clearly the Evil Forces have Evil Powers that Good People cannot yet overcome.

Or.

Passing a regulation is one of the least effective tactics for creating change.  Once Congress passes a law that describes regulation, relevant Federal Executive agencies must then begin to create and enact the regulation.  There is also a long public comment period as all citizens of the country voice their opinions and concerns about the regulation.  Agencies then meet among themselves and with Congressional staffs to discuss how to write the regulations in ways that do not contradict Congressional intent, coordinate with all affected Federal agencies, and will survive judicial review.  Change cannot happen overnight as reporters, academics, and zealots expect.  Government does not operate that way.

[Sidebar:  Every citizen should be required to follow the regulatory process for just one new regulation.  Create a Google alert that sends you a daily email with key terms like "regulation" "advertising" and "children" and read what you get.  You'll be tested over your comprehension and will be fined depending upon your score on the Race To The Top Regulation Education Test.  I mock, but you should spend 40 days and 40 nights in the Wilderness of Regulation.  You think you're tough.]

Eventually, a regulation will get implemented and then you will have the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster where a Federal agency led by an Obama appointee repeatedly cleared work standards as meeting relevant regulations.  And, then, you will have the public hue and cry on all sides of the issue, calling for more regulations and the circus will circle around on itself, a serpent eating its own tail.

Regulations tend to function more like informal norms of conduct.  When people internalize them, things change.  When people don’t, enforcement of regulations becomes a diverting game of “Gotcha; No, You Don’t” where everyone is Evil or Good, but nothing changes.

To my zealot friends who truly wish to make the world a better place and save people from themselves:  these Regulations will get written, implemented, and enforced.  Many years from now.  The problem you solved with these Regulations will have changed by then and the old Regulations will have no effect, so you can fight for new ones!  Along the way, you can receive grants, contributions, and contracts to study new solutions.

All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.

All People Resist Significant Change.

Power Corrupts Persuasion.

Great Persuaders Don’t Need Rich Uncles, Kindness from Strangers, or Third Party Vote Splitters.

And on and on.

If you really want to change people, get outside of yourself.  The way the Big Food and Big Tobacco and Big Oil and the Military-Industrial Complex and the true Change Agents do.  Regulation was invented to keep you looking in the mirror.

You may remember that Margaret Thatcher served as conservative Prime Minister for the United Kingdom during the 1980s.  Now, the Iron Lady is getting the Hollywood treatment as Meryl Streep stars in the biopic.  Thatcher’s children are concerned.

. . . the screenplay of The Iron Lady depicts Baroness Thatcher as an elderly dementia-sufferer looking back on her career with sadness. She is shown talking to herself and unaware that her husband, Sir Denis Thatcher, has died.

Cameron McCracken who is a major creative force behind the movie notes

. . . Lady Thatcher’s health will be featured, but insists that it will be “treated with appropriate sensitivity”.  He adds of the film: “Although fictional, it will be fair and accurate.”

This echos, of course, Dan Rather’s infamous line, “Fake, but Accurate” when describing on his CBS News broadcast the fake documents about President George W. Bush’s military service.  Rather got fired for his unpersuasive sincerity.  But, at least Rather meant what he said which is why it was unpersuasive.

But, what about “Fictional, but Accurate?”  It sounds like most artful MovieSpeak.