This book is not what I thought it would be.
I somehow thought it would be about how to improve decision *making* for, say, yourself (which would impact things like Health, Wealth, and Happiness), but it was about choice architecture and how to frame choices to make people choose what you think they should choose.
Which might have been interesting if that's what the book covered. There was a little bit about "choice architecture" in the beginning, but nothing that extended further than common sense. They then left discussion of choice architecture to focus on what the authors' thought should be the solution to problems like losing weight, medicare/health plans, marriage equality (same sex marriage) and retirement accounts (to focus on a few).
And then there was lots of discussion about how they are libertarian paternalists, which really stuck in my craw. It basically came down to: how they would try to push ("nudge") people into choosing what is "best." Best being completely subjective at the discretion of the authors, of course. It's easy to just swallow that their brand of pushing is good using innocuous ideas like saving for retirement "best" (which can easily be decided by "most amount of money gained by retirement"), but the idea that a couple of smug guys deciding what is "best" in a variety of any social issues just annoyed the crap out of me.