The Best Ideological Quiz?

I really enjoy answering political and ideological quizzes. I have even used the quizzes of various newspapers to determine (yes, determine, not just influence) my personal choices in local and national elections. But a problem with most quizzes tends to be that they are influenced either by current political controversies in specific nations – such as abortion in America - or the ideological preferences of the designer.  I think I have found a test that avoids those pitfalls at  http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=16378307404171364367.

The test is described as follows:

“Most politics tests assess your opinions on a collection of controversial issues and then allocate a political label to you that best corresponds to that set of opinions. But you may have arrived at that particular set  of opinions by happenstance rather than as the result of applying a particular political philosophy. This test allocates labels to you on the basis of your response to particular philosophical statements. The assumption behind this test is that the three most important objectives of all-issues political movements in the modern era have been Equality and Liberty and Stability. Your varying levels of commitment to these will determine your philosophical category (what you do in practice may be different). As much as is practical this test uses the universal definitions of political terms rather than any nation-specific usage.”

The test only consists of ten questions, but the characterization of my personal political ideology is surprisingly accurate:

“You think liberty is important both for yourself and for all of humanity. You respect others and think it is important that everyone be given the opportunity to make decisions for themselves rather than have authority figures tell them what is best. The autonomy of every person is important to you but you think there are times in which personal action needs to be limited. As such you recognize that there is a role for government as long as it depends on the consent of the governed – this makes parliamentary democracy important to you. You prefer the role of government in economics and society to be small. In practice you will tolerate public sector activity as long as it is efficient and allows you to get on with your life. You are likely to advocate both a predominantly free-market economy and a cosmopolitan and permissive culture.”

The label given to this position is liberal, which is distinct both from (minarchist) “libertarian” and “progressive” (which corresponds to ”liberal” in its modern American sense), and seems to correspond to a unique set of answers to the ten questions. The author of the test (former Australian Democrat parliamentary candidate and “progressive” Daniel Berk) sees liberalism – in the tradition of Adam Smith and the Scottish enlightenment -as distinct from and slightly more supportive of government initiatives than modern libertarianism. I couldn’t agree more.

New Values Survey

A research project that I’m participating in this and next year includes a new questionnaire survey of high school seniors (aged 18 to 19) in the Oresund region, which consists of the Copenhagen metropolitan area (Hovedstadsregionen) in Denmark and the Swedish Scania (Skåne) region. We have enlisted the help of several dozen high schools on both sides of the Sound, where questionnaires are being distributed by teachers in social science classes. The project is primarily supported by organizations on the Swedish side, such as Region Skåne and the Southern Swedish Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The project has two objectives. The first objective is to compare the new results with the results of an earlier analogous survey that was carried out in 1991, especially regarding the integration of the two sides that may have taken place as an effect of the new Oresund road-and-rail bridge. The bridge connects the two sides and makes daily commuting between Zealand and Scania feasible for the first time.  The second objective is to put the respondents’ values in a wider context by adding a few key questions from the World Values Survey (WVS) to the questionnaire. We have included all three questions that make up the “postmaterialism index” as well as a number of questions dealing with tolerance and territorial loyalties.

The project should eventually yield an academic book (with me as one of the co-authors). The book is to be published for an international readership in English.  We are also planning for a major conference after the publication of the book as well as a number of popular publications in Danish and Swedish. The conference is scheduled for the summer of 2011 (the dates and venues have not been decided yet).

So far, we have received more than 200 completed questionnaires from three Swedish municipalities. The first results have been partly according to expectations and partly surprising. I don’t want to say very much about these very partial results, but gender differences are as strinking as they always tend to be in this context: a much greater proportion of young men than young women are intolerant of deviations from cultural, behavioral or ethnic norms.

Only in America?

“Only in America” is a book by Matt Frei that I picked up at an airport, not because a recognition heuristic but because I’m a news junkie as long as the news is about politics and elections; the book seemed to be about American politics. It turned out to be both about US politics and American society, but unfortunately it seems to have been written for people who are more ignorant of these things than I am. Matt Frei is a BBC correspondent based in Washington, and as such he fulfills my prejudices about journalists: they are good and witty writers with superficial knowledge about a lot of things.

When Frei is describing what he thinks is weird about America, I couldn’t help but think that he is also inadvertently describing what’s weird about Europe and Britain (Frei was born in Germany but grew up in Britain).  For example, what he describes as Americans’ obsession with state-of-the-art bathrooms made me think of the sorry state of British plumbing as I experienced it while living there in the early nineties. When he writes “Americans believe, Europeans doubt,” I was thinking that American faith is just more obvious to Europeans because they believe in different things. Frei claims that Americans in general believe in God and the US Constitution while Europeans are skeptical. But one could also turn the argument around and say that Europeans believe in the Welfare State and Government while Americans are skeptical. Given the respective track records, maybe one should be more astounded by the faith of Europeans. I know I’m ideologically biased, but a largely unexamined faith in the welfare state (which is shared by 90% or so of European voters) seems to be the main reason that governments administer about half of the economy in most European countries. It doesn’t seem to matter whether a government calls itself  ”socialist,” “christian democrat” or “conservative.”

Gut Feeling

While looking for a book to read in a bookstore three weeks ago I chose the book “Gut Feeling” by Gerd Gigerenzer, because the name seemed vaguely familiar. The funny thing is that Gigerenzer explained why I had chosen his book: my choice made use of the recognition heuristic that is one of the most important ways by which people choose.

As it turned out, Gigerenzer is an experimental cognitive psychologist, and his book is well worth reading. The main conclusion of the book is that humans mainly rely on three ways of reaching decisions: gut feelings, the recognition heuristic, and lexicographic preferences. What they do not generally rely on is expected utility maximization.

Personally, I found the book encouraging, since I have argued in favor of lexicographic preferences over expected utility maximization in “Property Rights, Consumption, and the Market Process.” My argument there was based on non-mainstream economic theories as well as introspection. But it seems that psychological experiments support these theories as being more realistic than those of mainstream economics. I didn’t know this. Even the recognition heuristic can be seen as a lexicographic preference in the sense that it is the tiebreaker when the choosing individual knows next to nothing about the feasible choices.

A gut feeling is slightly different: it refers to the utilization of tacit knowledge and allows for much quicker decisions than when the decision maker evaluates a list of  pros and cons with attached probabilities. The interesting thing is that a gut feeling tends to perform better than careful choices, as long as the decision maker has a lot of relevant experience. There might be an interesting connection between entrepreneurial alertness or judgment and gut feelings (I’m not sure about this, but for some reason entrepreneurship was my gut feeling when I read Gigerenzer’s account of gut feelings).

All in all, I think “Gut Feeling” is a very interesting and rewarding book. It is both profound and accessible. I get the impression that the author must be a brilliant lecturer (I could of course be wrong; some people write much better than they speak). I especially recommend the book to complacent mainstream economists.

Venice (Venezia)

I have just returned from Venice, where I spent one day at a conference and two days walking the alleys. My subjective evaluation of the place:

Pros

• Venice is architecturally one of the most attractive cities anywhere. But this is of course common knowledge. However, a Chinese conference participant told me that most Chinese would not consider Venice beautiful: no skyscrapers or shopping malls.
• Venice is much more attractive in January than in August (the timing of my last visit 20 years ago). In some squares and alleys, I was the only one around.
• Its public places are surprisingly clean and trash cans are abundant (Venice is not Naples).
• Everything was aesthetically satisfying: the shops, the restaurants, the facades, and even the coats that people were wearing.
• The quality of the bread, cheese, and pasta is high absolutely everywhere. The coffee is good too, but very strong.
• There are no motor vehicles anywhere. This is the aspect of Venice that I personally like the most: it’s a high-density city which is almost as quiet and tranquil as a mountain retreat.

Cons

• Public transporation is expensive (6.50 euros for a regular “water bus” ticket)
• The food is expensive (20 euros for a regular lunch, and 30-40 euros for a basic dinner)
• Hotels are expensive (at least 80 euros per person)
• January is only a good time to visit if you don’t pay any attention to the weather. Except for the first day (sunny and +7C) it was cloudy, windy, and cold or snowy, windy, and cold.
• Cafes are only attractive if you’re prepared to stand at the bar, which is what the locals do. A coffee is about 2 euros if you stand; 4 euros if you sit down at a table, and even more if you sit down outside, which is of course not an option in January. It is even more expensive around St. Mark’s square: avoid! While I was checking in, the receptionist at my hotel said that she only had one piece of advice: while in Venice, “don’t sit.”
• There is a lack of regular stores in central Venice – everything seems to be geared to well-heeled tourists.

Altogether, Venice is good, but not good value unless you’re rich.