CommentaryOne: Smarter Information Smarter Customers
In"Smarter Information Smarter Customers", Thaler and Tuckerclaim disclosures benefit businesses, customers, and governments.They also claim choice engines influence customer lives and theeconomy largely. The issues arising include the complexity ofdisclosures making it difficult to communicate to clients and thecost impact that regulatory and disclosure policies have on firms.
Thalerand Tucker showed a degree of weakness in their writing since theyrely on experiment conclusions and bias to generalize customerbehavior towards disclosures. They come up with overarchinggeneralizations multiple times in their article, making judgmentsthat are true about their audience at the White House summit but maybe untrue as far as the rest of the public is concerned. Forinstance, in one event, they say, "fail to arrive at decisionsthat maximize their self-interest" (Thaler & Tucker, 46). Itis general to claim that every customer responds to productdisclosures similar to their audience at the White House summit.Additionally, the authors claim technology is the key to enablingcustomers make better decisions concerning products they want.Despite writing this, they do not clearly elaborate their claim, thusmaking another assumption. Through these multiple hypotheses, thequality of the research is questionable since the writing has somedegree of biases and assumptions.
Insummary, the arguments that Thaler and Tucker present throughouttheir article are interesting to a greater degree. They have madetime to illustrate their explanations on disclosures for the benefitof customers, businesses, and governments alike through intensiveresearch on the subject and personal prowess. However, their articleis weakened by underlying assumptions and biases presentedoccasionally.
CommentaryTwo: Dissemination of Knowledge and Copyright: A historical casestudy
Volpeand Schopfel`s primary motive was to provide controversial evidenceabout the history of science case study. They argue on whethercopyright encourages creativity and innovation. Volpe and Schopfelalso illustrate the manner by which new technological channelsinfluence copyright related to scientific articles.
Theauthors wrote their article with some biases since they wereinterpreting information gathered throughout history. They do notagree with the information that the historical case study presents,therefore, are finding ways to ensure that they offer contradictoryinformation. Due to this, they manage to enable the reader see someof the negative and positive lessons from the case study. Despite notdirectly influencing their readers` experiences gathered from thecase study, they present Georges Santayana claiming people shouldremember their past to avoid repeating mistakes (Volpe &Schopfel, 152). Looking at this statement, they are in a wayinfluencing their readers towards discouraging copyright, which wastolerated in the past.
Volpeand Schopfel in some instances became too verbose and technical intheir writing technique making it difficult for average readers tocomprehend. One example, Volpe, and Schopfel stated, "The art ofcounterfeiting their works was the regular practice of authors likeVoltaire for whom the multiplier an explosive influence ofcounterfeiting was a fundamental element of the propaganda in the ageof enlightenment" (150). The sentence is complicated and overlywordy challenging an average reader`s ability to comprehend itsmeaning. A reader may easily get irritate when attempting to decipherthe intended meaning because of the language complexity.
Insummary, the authors achieve their objective by laying down theirarguments in a systematic manner with numerous pieces of evidence.However, their article has weaknesses due to bias and verbose, andoverly technical language.
Thaler,Richard H., and Will Tucker. "Smarter Information, SmarterConsumers." HarvardBusiness Review 91.1/2(2013): 44-54.
Volpe,Tony, and Joachim Schopfel. "Dissemination Of Knowledge AndCopyright: A Historical Case Study." JournalOf Information, Communication & Ethics In Society11.3 (2013): 144-155.