基於心理學的研究,自由家長主義者認為人們的思維有個體難以克服的、根深蒂固的系統性缺陷,並難以通過教育來避免和消除,因此主張因勢利導,仰仗外部專家的"助推"把人們的行為引導到正確方向。然而,從生態理性的角度看,人們依照自由家長主義者所謂的認知偏差做出的選擇未必導致糟糕的結果,而依照自由家長主義者所推崇的理性方法做出的選擇也未必導致理想的結果。本文分析了自由家長主義者用來支持助推的證據后發現:(1)它們源于一些研究者對"何為理性"的狹隘定義,誤解了人類理性的本質;(2)它們對研究結果進行了選擇性的報告,忽視了與這些證據相反的證據。通過這些分析,我們認為"人非理性且難教化"這一自由家長主義者的論斷過于武斷并有失偏頗。投入教育,教會人們如何精明老練地處理風險不僅是可行的,而且是替代助推的一個更為持久有效的解決方案。

Based on research in psychology, libertine paternalists argue that our mind is systematically flawed, which leads to many cognitive biases that are too deeply entrenched to eradicate through education. Thus, they suggest that authorities should take lead and nudge people into proper behaviors and good decisions. However, from the perspectives of ecological rationality, the outcomes of the so-called cognitive biases may not be bad, and in many instances, can be even better than those of the so-called rational reasoning as suggested by libertine paternalists. We analyze the evidence libertine paternalists use to justify nudging and find two major problems:(1) some of the supposed evidence is the product of researchers’ narrow interpretations of what qualify as human rationality and rational thinking; and(2) some libertine paternalists selectively reported scientific evidence,neglecting or sparsely reporting research that show findings contradictory to their belief. We conclude that there is lack of evidence to support the assertion that people are irrational and almost impossible to educate. To invest on education and make people risk savvy not only has been shown plausible and applicable, but also should be a more sustainable solution than nudging.