How does he know that? These MRIs were not done during voting!! Perhaps when something is not a hypothetical test, but where you actually are electing your leaders, more thought IS placed upon the actual choices. Oh, but that would mean humans have capability, and aren't like the monkeys.
the government could perhaps frame laws and regulations so that more of us tend to choose more "rationally."
That would be called taking a Logic course!
The conclusion of this article, that therefore we need "soft paternalism" of the government, is just another attempt at godless liberal communism -- anything to stay away from the Republican values of limited government and the worth of humans.
Is that the conclusion? It doesn't sound like something Reason magazine would endorse.
This is more likely the author's conclusion:
However, Harvard University economics professor Edward Glaeser warns, "Successful soft paternalism will make hard paternalism become an increasingly attractive option to the electorate, politicians, and the courts." With regard to saving, think Social Security payroll taxes, instead of 401(k) accounts. Glaeser adds that politicians and regulators are prone to irrational choices too. Private citizens suffer directly from their own irrational errors and thus have much stronger incentives to correct them than do politicians or bureaucrats whose incentives are not directly tied to correcting errors.
Read it again. That's the wrong conclusion, probably due to an error of omission on the part of the author or proofreader. Remember, libertarians don't like big government.
"The result is that irrationally selected politicians can end up telling us how to make more rational decisions. Frankly, I prefer to take my chances with my prefrontal cortex submit to politicians who will certainly govern with me with their amygdalas."
It makes sense as follows:
"Frankly, I prefer to take my chances with my prefrontal cortex (rather than) submit to politicians who will certainly govern with me with their amygdalas."