However, Tony Hsieh’s book is clearly about something more than business. I recently saw him speak at the Miliken Institute in Los Angeles and the last 10 minutes of his talk could have been from a class we teach at USC, the Science of Happiness. In fact, I think the introduction to that series of slides was entitled the Science of Happiness and Delivering Happiness has a healthy dose of psychological research on happiness in it. His basic thesis is that if he makes his employees happy, they will in turn be able to authentically make customers happy, which will allow Zappos’ brand, which is all about “WOW”-ing consumers (and suppliers actually). For example, Zappos surprise upgrades shipping for customers and tries to pay for dinner when dining with suppliers, who normally have to woo their clients. Zappos actively seeks to hire and fire employees based on their 10 core values, in order to maintain a happy harmonious workforce that can deliver happiness.
“ever since selling linkexchange, I’d committed to living by the philosophy that experiences were much more important to me than material things. Most people assumed that I would have gone out and bought a fancy and expensive car, but I was content with my Acura Integra.”
(re: visiting Africa when it might not be financially the best decision) – “For me, summiting the tallest mountain of a continent was one of those things that I wanted to check off my list of things to do at some point in my life. It went with my life philosophy of valuing experiences over things.”
In collaboration with Ryan Howell and Paulina Pchelin at San Francisco State, we’ve been developing a measure of experiential buying. In validating that measure, we’ve found that happiness->less materialistic values->experiential buying->more happiness. Conversely, neuroticism->more materialistic values->less experiential buying->less happiness. The simple correlational pattern indicated that those who were more approach oriented were more experiential, while those who are more avoidance oriented are more materialistic in terms of the purchasing styles.
I’ve since extended this model in looking at the relationship between values and experiential buying. Consider the below graph and notice that liberals (in blue) prefer experiences over possessions compared to conservatives (in red), who value experiences and possessions more equally. Libertarians also prefer experiences to possessions.
In further analysis, these differences were mediated fully by differences in values between liberals and conservatives. Specifically, liberals valued experiences due to their valuation of stimulation (using the Schwartz Values Scale), while conservatives’ relative preference for material objects was mediated by endorsement of power. I subsequently experimentally manipulated values by having participants recall a low or high power situation (based on the idea that people of low power will seek power and work by Dacher Keltner that high power->stimulation). Sure enough, having people recall low power situations leads to more materialistic buying, while recalling high power situations leads to more experiential buying (preliminary graph below).
These results mirror what Tony Hsieh talks about concerning his values. He is a more approach than avoidant oriented, per this quote from p.103:
My plan was to take almost everything that I had left in my name and liquidate it in a fire sale. I would bet the farm and put all the proceeds into Zappos.
And he thought of his possessions as a means toward stimulation, rather than power or security. From p.115…
selling the party loft symbolized the end of an era for me. It was hard not to feel wistful and nostalgic. The loft had created so many experiences and memories for so many people.
Of course, it’s easier to think about stimulation rather than power, when you’ve made millions in your 20s. But perhaps it explains some of the Zappos culture which includes approach/stimulation oriented statements like “Embrace and Drive Change”, “Create Fun and a Little Weirdness”, “Be Adventurous, Creative, and Open-Minded”, and “Pursue Growth and Learning”. One of Zappos’ core values (“Be Humble”) seems almost the opposite of power. Perhaps the key to Zappos’ success is that its culture is conducive to selling shoes as experiences, rather than possessions.
Wikipedia defines a moral hazard as “when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.” By this definition, the financial crisis is a classic tale of moral hazard. I recently stayed up til 3am finishing Michael Lewis’ book, The Big Short, which explains the financial crisis in character driven terms that are accessible to non-experts. The quick summary of the crisis is that people and companies made big bets on the real estate market not falling (since it hadn’t fallen recently), and did not understand the risks they were taking. However, what people did is nowhere near as interesting as thinking about why they did it.
The most classic case of perverse motivation and moral hazard is the case of Wing Chau, who “was making $140,000 a year managing a portfolio for the New York Life Insurance Company. In one year as a CDO manager, he’d taken home $26 million.” (p.142) For what was he paid? CDO’s are the instruments that allowed people to bet on the housing market. Wing Chau’s clients, pension funds that only looked at the AAA ratings these instruments got from rating agencies (more on this moral hazard later), lost a ton of money, but Chau himself was “paid a fee of .01 percent off the top, before any of his investors saw a dime, and another, similar fee, off the bottom…His goal, he explained, was to maximize the dollars in his care.” Simple put, he was paid on volume, not on performance. This may seem odd, but other such situations exist. Real estate agents also get paid largely on volume, as they don’t get you a higher price, but do make more money the more homes they can sell quickly. Loan originators, such as New Century (p.169) or Countrywide, had similar incentives as they made loans and sold them, making them indifferent as to whether the borrower could actually be paid back.
The ratings agencies themselves get paid on the volume of bonds they rate. ”Moody’s…revenues had boomed, from $800 million in 2001 to $2.03 billion in 2006. Some huge percentage of the increase…flowed from the arcane end of the home finance sector, known as structured finance. The surest way to attract structured finance business was to accept the assumptions of the structured finance industry.” Pension funds often have rules that state that they can only invest in bonds that have high enough ratings, but how useful are these ratings likely to be given that the companies that create these bonds pay the agencies to rate them. It’s the same practice that incentivized Arthur Anderson to “audit” Enron, with the fees paid by Enron, with similarly disastrous consequences for those who believed in such audits.
Still, some CEOs are paid based on the performance of their companies. Are those incentives enough to create a lack of moral hazard? The book gives many instances where there is still much moral hazard, as individuals have lots of upside, but very little risk. If the company makes money, they make millions. If the company loses money, then maybe they find a new job, but they lose nothing. Consider the tale of Howie Hubler, whose group was at one time responsible for 20 percent of Morgan Stanley’s profits. He was paid $25 million a year, but was “no longer happy working as an ordinary bond trader. The best and the brightest Wall Street traders are quitting their big firms to work at hedge funds, where they can make not tens but hundreds of millions.” Morgan Stanley made a deal with Hubler to pay him a lot more money, whereupon he subsequently lost $9 billion. Hubler appears to have been honest, but mistaken, and now runs a company where the slogan “100% of the shots you don’t take don’t go in”. That makes perfect rational sense. If you go to a casino and earn 10% of the winnings and lose 0% of the losses, you can make a lot of money just by making bigger and bigger bets.
Having limited risk, but huge potential gain means that even the dumbest individual can make money. Based on performance, Hubler’s previous gains weren’t necessarily due to skill, but rather to circumstance. Steve Eisman, a central character in the book who foresaw the collapse “got himself invited to a meeting with the CEO of Bank of America, Ken Lewis. ’I was sitting there listening to him. I had an epiphany. I said to myself, ‘Oh my God, he’s dumb!” They shorted Bank of America along with UBS, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, and a few others.” (p. 174) Dumb is perhaps too strong a word, but it seems self-evident that money managers are rewarded as if they are better at money management than they actually are. There is a psychological dimension to this. Both liberals and conservatives attribute their success in work life to ability and effort more than luck or circumstance. Conservatives and libertarians (likely a majority of those who read the Wall St. Journal) are slightly more likely to attribute success to effort and less likely to attribute it to context. Below is a graph of our YourMorals data, which mirrors previous research.
I read Warren Buffett’s authorized biography recently and the fact that I finished the book (which isn’t short) is a testament to the writing of the book and to the uniqueness of Buffett himself. I now understand why people continue to flock to Omaha for Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meetings, where Buffett gives his opinion on the market. His ideas on the economy have stood the test of time and his focus on the intrinsic worth of a company (rather than the momentary worth that impulsive stock trader’s give a company) has proven effective. The book’s name, The Snowball, is named for the fact that Buffett understood the power of compounding rates of return from a very young age and began building his “snowball” of money early on, increasing his capital so that he could take advantage of opportunities to come. From a psychological perspective, one might say that he was extremely good at delaying gratification, which has been linked to better outcomes in life and intelligence. Some of us bought things with our money to enjoy, while Buffet invested that money, a decision which obviously has worked well for him.
From a political psychology perspective, one fact about Warren Buffett is particularly interesting. He has a liberal position, obviously contrary to his self-interest, on the estate tax. From p.596 of my edition of his book:
He liked to compare his tax rate to his secretary’s, pointing out how
unjust it was that she paid a higher tax rate on her income than he
did, just because most of his income came from investing. Having
already angered all the plutocrats and would-be plutocrats, but with
his credibility at a peak in other quarters, Buffett vowed to carry on
the fight against repeal of the estate tax, and would spin on this
subject for years.
Not only is this position contrary to his self-interest, but from the book, one might infer that he is low on openness to experience and high on conscientiousness, two traits which have been found to be central to ideological preferences, with Buffett’s pattern being opposite to most liberals. As an example, Buffet is described as unable to eat foreign foods, preferring plain hamburgers, consistent with low openness to experience scores (e.g. liberals are more adventurous eaters). He is famously conscientious in terms of his business dealings. Below is yourmorals data relating these personality traits to ideology, replicating the study linked above.
Finally, I’d like to share one last tangientially related quote from the final pages of the book, which I found especially wise, more wise than his investment advice actually. I do recommend the whole book.
People ask me where they should go to work, and I always tell them to
go to work for whom they admire the most, It’s crazy to take little
in-between jobs just because they look good on your resume. That’s
like saving sex for your old age. Do what you love and work for whom
you admire the most, and you’ve given yourself the best chance in life
I recently read the story of Motley Crue’s wild ride in the 80s-90s, most of which blends together into a mess of outrageous behavior, impulsiveness, and hedonism. They drank a lot, did a lot of drugs, and had a lot of sex. I was fascinated by it (enough to keep reading), but also disgusted as well. In the course of the book, they assaulted innocent commuters, killed someone by drunk driving, vandalized hotel rooms, and otherwise demonstrated no respect for anyone other than themselves.
It was hard to be sympathetic, but the closest I can come is to think of them as having a radically different time perspective than most people. As Zimbardo says in the below video, addiction is related to a present hedonistic time perspective, and the members of Motley Crue certainly reaped what they sowed in terms of addiction.
The natural question that occurred to me was to determine the time perspective differences among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Unfortunately, I don’t have specific time perspective data, but I do have scores on the Hedonism dimension (e.g. how important is “Enjoying Life”?) of the Schwartz Values Scale in the chart below, which equates to Zimbardo’s Present-Hedonistic perspective.
In the same way, I would argue that the country needs a balanced time perspective, balancing respect for the past, enjoying the present, and considering the future. Conservatives policies might leave us constantly growing our economy and military, so that we can ensure our future security, but perhaps at the expense of the current welfare of many, especially those individuals who are less productive or less fortunate. Liberal policies might ensure that all individuals have basic needs met and that society cares about the happiness of it’s citizens, but at the cost of preparing for the future. A balance of these concerns seems most prudent and perhaps appreciating the benefits of different time perspectives, as Zimbardo states at the end of his video, will allow us to make fewer negative attributions of those on the other side of the aisle….and maybe even of people as hedonistic as the members of Motley Crue.
Today’s lead story from Politico, The Age of Rage, probably summarizes a lot of what people think is wrong with politics. Rather than make good policy, politicians and media are more concerned with scoring points for their political ideology (hyperpartisanship). However, as the Politico article points out, their actions are largely driven by the general populace. Politicians and media reflect what people respond to, which happens to be hyperpartisanship, rather than causing the incivility we see.
…there are two big incentives that drive behavior at the intersection where politics meets media. One is public attention. The other is money. Experience shows there’s lots more of both to be had by engaging in extreme partisan behavior.
Fox News has soared on the strength of commentators like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, both of whom fanned the Sherrod story on the strength of the misleading Breitbart video. (A Fox senior executive, by contrast, urged the news side of the operation to get Sherrod’s response before going with the story, The Washington Post reported.) On the left, MSNBC is trying to emulate the success of primetime partisanship. Meanwhile, CNN, which has largely strived toward a neutral ideological posture, is battling steady relative declines in its audience.
If media executives hunger for ratings, politicians hunger for campaign cash and fame.
Obama put it best earlier this year, after Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “you lie” during the president’s State of the Union speech. “The easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude,” the president told ABC News.
Indeed, at first Wilson seemed embarrassed and apologized for his outburst. But within days, Wilson and his opponent were both flooded with campaign contributions; Wilson took in more than $700,000 in the immediate aftermath of his outburst and was a guest of honor on Hannity’s show and Fox News Sunday.
We reward politicians and news organizations, with our attention and our money, that engage in the very incivility that makes politics so ugly. This is true on both sides of the aisle.
At the recent meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Linda Skitka gave a talk which puts a lot of this in perspective for me. Her lab studies the dark side of moral conviction, which I call hypermoralism in the hope that the term catches on. Roy Baumeister studies a similar concept, idealistic evil. In Skitka’s talk, she demonstrates in a Chinese sample that political intolerance (e.g. “people with different positions than your own about this issue should be allowed to have their phones tapped by the Chinese government”) and social intolerance (e.g. “How willing would you be to have someone who did not share your views on this issue as a close personal friend?”) were best predicted by moral conviction (e.g. “To what extent are your feelings about this issue or policy based on your fundamental beliefs about right and wrong?”). When controlling for moral conviction, all other variables (e.g. demographics, political position, attitude importance, and attitude strength) were all insignificant predictors of social and political intolerance. I look forward to seeing how this replicates on a US sample and how political intolerance is operationalized. Perhaps something along the lines of liberal consideration of censoring Fox news or conservative publication of what many would consider private discussion would make good operationalizations of political intolerance as they mirror what we see in reality, where considerations of privacy, context, and free speech are considered secondary to partisanship. Moral conviction may underlie the hyperpartisanship that Politico talks about.
As Ms. Barrett notes, modern life surrounds us with supernormal stimuli. An example: Humans evolved strong tastes for fats and sweets, tastes that conferred a reproductive advantage in the days when starvation was common. But these tastes can be a burden when we’re confronted with such supernormal stimuli as the 400-calorie Frappuccino at Starbucks. An evolutionary adaptation that once promised survival is more likely nowadays to produce Type 2 diabetes.
Ms. Barrett pushes her thesis too far at times, but her plain-spoken disquisition makes a strong case that supernormal stimuli “can help us understand the problems of modern civilization.”
One might even argue that supernormal stimuli—or perhaps our reactions to them—are the biggest problems faced by affluent societies.
If anybody has ideas on how to escape this cycle, I would love to hear them. Humanizing and getting to know the opposition, along the lines of intergroup contact theory, is an idea. Perhaps moral emotions can be activated against hyperpartisanship itself, rather than against individual ideologies. Or maybe with greater understanding, we can all learn to recognize supernormal moral stimuli and give them less power in our lives. Ideas welcome and I’m open to operationalizing particularly promising ideas as studies to be run on yourmorals.org.
Presented in the context of bringing together consilience from outside of psychology, a friend of mine sent me the below TED video, by Simon Sinek, which I believe has a lot in common with what much of psychology is discovering, specifically that intrinsic gut-level motivations are much more powerful than extrinsic rational motivations. In some ways, much of moral psychology is just using the scientific method to argue what Hume knew all along, that “reason is a slave of the passions”….and passion results from intrinsic, not extrinsic motivation.
Besides dovetailing with my research, I think there is a practical value to be taken from this video. I often find myself concentrating on what I am doing, sometimes forgetting why I do things. In a world where we all have too many paths to choose from, we sometimes choose the path that has the most urgency (extrinsic motivation) rather than the path that is the most meaningful (intrinsic motivation). In business, that might mean doing whatever generates a profit now, rather than what satisfies the business’ core mission. In academia, that may mean writing a paper for publication sake (extrinsic reasons) rather than exploring ideas that may not just get published, but also may serve some larger purpose. If you are inclined to explore these theories/ideas further, I might read more about self-determination theory, which talks about how intrinsic, rather than extrinsic motivation, leads to better human functioning, in addition to the benefits described in the above talk.
I just finished Ted Conover‘s book, Rolling Nowhere, which I definitely recommend to anyone interested in understanding the human condition. In fact, I’d recommend any/all of Conover’s books, where he assumes roles as diverse as a prison guard, illegal immigrant, and in this book, a train jumping hobo. Personally, psychology is always more convincing when placed in a larger context, with conclusions reached from different angles (consilience) and I think there is as much to learn about the human condition from one of Conover’s books as in an issue of a psychological journal. In Rolling Nowhere, Conover hops trains for a few months and joins a subculture of ‘tramps’ that live a wandering, lonely lifestyle on the margins of society.
This may be an odd thing to say, but as a liberal, Rolling Nowhere helped me to appreciate American libertarians better. There are surely lots of differences between liberals and libertarians, but there are similarities as well. The book helped me contextualize the relationships we’ve found between being libertarian, which implies a sacredness placed on the value of freedom, psychological reactance, and the desire for stimulation. These are traits where liberals tend to score higher than conservatives as well.
The below graphs, taken from our yourmorals.org data, show these characteristics, using the Schwartz Values Scale, comparing liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. Notice that while self-direction is valued highly in all groups, it is highest in libertarians, and the difference between self-direction and the next highest value, is greatest for libertarians. Liberals score higher in self-direction than conservatives.
In the above graph, libertarians also show a relatively high desire for stimulation (equal to liberals, higher than conservatives) and a relatively low value placed on tradition and conformity. This is consistent with the idea that libertarians are experience seekers, an idea further confirmed by the below graph of libertarian big five personality dimensions, where libertarians score relatively high (similar to liberals) on openness to experience.
Conover writes a fair amount about the motivation that made him (who seems to lean liberal) seek to experience life as a tramp:
I hit the rails to learn and because, as Lonny said, when you become afraid to die, you become afraid to live. Confronted by the prospect of entering a laid-out and set-up life largely devoid of the need to be resourceful, I had desired an activity with an unpredictable outcome. Risk-taking, in a way, seemed its own reward.
Notice how in the above graph, libertarians score relatively low in agreeableness (e.g. “likes to cooperate with others”). That converges with the below measure of psychological reactance (e.g. “I become angry when my freedom of choice is restricted”).
As Conover writes -
To understand tramps…you have to understand the idea that people cannot always do what they are told. Maybe you are told to get a job, but there aren’t any; maybe you return from a crazy war and are told to carry on as though nothing ever happened…Many tramps’ careers on the road began when the tramp told society, “You can’t fire me– I quit!”
There may indeed be a lot of overlap between the tea party movement and traditional republicans. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t something that liberals can’t identify with in the American libertarian. Both groups share a desire to escape established structure (liberals score higher than conservatives on reactance) and seek new experiences (high openness to experience scores), and I bet Rolling Nowhere, with it’s portrait of individuals who have escaped life’s routines, living by their own resourcefulness, is the kind of book that would appeal to many members of both groups.
Basically, fans of the winning team gain testosterone, which has been linked to aggressive behavior. Fans of losing teams lose testosterone, which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Winners are encouraged to compete more…losers cut their losses.
Does this same effect extend to politics? My gut tells me no, as politics is less primal and the results develop over months, not hours. In fact, most of the time, we know who will win before an election and so what the winners feel is relief (an idea somewhat validated by this study). This article (fully visible by the public, since it was commendably published in an open access journal) illustrates that for some individuals, there was indeed no testosterone increase among winners, but the same decrease among losers, in the 2008 presidential election.
Another interesting resource, for those interested in the consilience of multiple views on the subject, is Bill Buford’s book, Among the Thugs, where he lives among chronic sports rioters, fans of English football. His explanation dovetails nicely with Bernhardt et al’s research (quote thanks to this source):
I had not expected the violence to be so pleasureable….This is, if you like, the answer to the hundred-dollar question: why do young males riot every Saturday? They do it for the same reason that another generation drank too much, or smoked dope, or took hallucinogenic drugs, or behaved badly or rebelliously. Violence is their antisocial kick, their mind-altering experience, an adrenaline-induced euphoria that might be all the more powerful because it is generated by the body itself, with, I was convinced, many of the same addictive qualities that characterize synthetically produced drugs.
What interested me was not the data, but the critique of how psychologists attempt to illuminate the human condition. A few quotes from the chapter summarize the points I’d like to emphasize.
Psychologists often study phenomena in isolated, artificial environments, which allows researchers to necessarily isolate variables of interest, but….
Aiming to isolate phenomena, scholars in this research enterprise are prone to devise somewhat peculiar and overly constrained assessments of moral functioning that are remote from everyday moral experience.
Psychologists then generalize these findings to natural settings that are ‘messy’ with extraneous factors.
A gold nugget in Gilligan’s (1982) critique of moral psychology was her skepticism concerning such constrained dilemmas and her advocacy for assessing moral judgment more naturalistically, tapping moral problems from individuals’ own experience.
If 60% of participants in a study do X in situation Y, psychologists are prone to saying that “people” tend to do X in situation Y, not addressing the 40% who did not do that. Or in experiments, it may be said that Y causes X, rather than saying that Y can sometimes cause X.
Another paradigmatic assumption to which we draw attention asserts that people are psychologically “cut from the same cloth,” uniformly operating by the same moral psychological
processes. This assumption is manifest in the frequent reliance on a single type of research participant (e.g., undergraduate students garnering course credit), a lack of consideration for
individual differences, and a homogenizing “people” label.
Sometimes psychologists point out such methodological flaws with the conclusion that psychologists need to do more rigorous research. I would say that instead, perhaps there are inherent limits on how convincing any single piece of research can be. Published research can be seen as evidence to be shared, rather than conclusive final words on a subject, which they rarely are when dealing with something as complex as human behavior. Similarly, the author’s conclusion is not to throw out psychological research, but rather to use “multiple lenses” on the same phenomena before concluding anything.
Our proposal contends that lab experimentation should be balanced with real-world observation of socially significant affairs and that morally relevant aspects of personality should
be tapped across all levels of personality description. Different methodologies should be mutually informative. Multiple lenses on the same phenomena contribute to a more comprehensive understanding, whereas divergent findings across methodologies hearken our attention.
So what can psychology tell us about moral reasoning that literature and the humanities, or simply reading the newspaper thoughtfully, cannot? I would say not much, but rather that psychology can help buttress what can be learned by other methods and vice versa. They both get at the same questions. A colleague of mine once shared that he thinks of psychology studies as statistical parables, in the same way that stories of the real or fictional world provide us with different kinds of parables. Anyone who has read a really good novel might believe Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quote that “Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.”
The authors I quote above want us to use multiple lenses to understand the human condition, referring to the lenses that psychologists might use (different samples, different methods). I would further extend that analogy to all fields that attempt to understand the human condition, such as literature and the humanities, but also just reading the news. This is not to say that there is not something powerful about quantitative analysis and methodologically rigorous psychological research. But as I step back from the research, I find that I’m only convinced by findings where there is a web of evidence, of the type that one researcher, paper, study, method, or discipline, could never produce…where the statistical parable has been replicated in other ways by other people and is echoed in situations I’ve faced and news stories I’ve read about. Fortunately, the internet and semantic web technologies promise to make it easier to discover such webs of evidence…but that’s a subject for another post.
If you have the patience, it’s worth reading the results of the conference in Herzilaya, but if not, perhaps I’ll make a practice of summarizing some of the other chapters as I read them. Social psychology can be unfortunately unintelligible, in ways that literature is not.
Unfortunately, I think the answer is no. For the last week, I’ve been attempting to update a ‘candidate calculator’ website that I helped create for the 2008 presidential election, votehelp.org. Candidate calculators are a term for quizzes or surveys which ask you questions about issues (sometimes weighted by issue importance) and then match you with candidates. They were extremely popular during the 2008 election as people do not have the time to pay attention to every politician’s stance on every issue. Votehelp.org was one of many candidate calculators during the 2008 election, and certainly not the most popular (see also VAJoe, GlassBooth, and there are more…). Even so, we had a lot of traffic and press….below are our traffic stats.
VoteHelp 2008 Election Visitors
VoteHelp served hundreds of thousands of visitors, so I’m guessing many millions took similar surveys when you combine traffic from all 2008 election calculators. Traffic spiked noticeably during decision making periods (Jan-Feb primary and November election) with a low bounce rate, indicating that it served it’s purpose of educating the electorate. There is clearly demand for such time saving services.
The ironic thing is that people know far more about presidential candidates compared to other elections. In 2010, how many people know much about local judges, state senators, or even our congressmen. People have better things to do, even political junkies like me, and it is understandable that people rely on partisanship rather than issue positions when making voting decisions. As much as votehelp was useful in 2008, it could be even more useful in 2010 if it could change the equation, such that becoming informed on individual issues was simpler.
However, the task of assembling data was difficult in 2008. We had some funding, but even for one election, the expense of the research was not small. Repeating those methods, even just for congressional races, would be prohibitively expensive. I was hopeful that the convergence of new data sharing technologies (APIs, XML, the semantic web) and databases (open government data sources) might facilitate this process. I subscribe to mailing lists about parsing political data, follow the Sunlight foundation on facebook, and am aware of few organizations like OnTheIssues and Project VoteSmart which track issues, some of which have APIs. Could I combine these projects into a mashup of data that would inform 2010 voters?
Unfortunately, a few days later, I have to admit defeat. There is tons of data out there. But it just isn’t complete or meaningful enough. For example, VoteSmart has a wonderful service where they have interest group ratings for candidates.Theoretically, these interest groups could take some of the open government data on votes and create composite viewpoints, based on their issue perspective and reflected in their ratings. However, ratings only exist for prominent politicians like Barbara Boxer and not for challengers like Carly Fiorina (her likely opponent in the California Senate race) or Steve Poizner. Fiorina may not have much of a record as a businesswoman, but Poizner certainly should have some ratings from his other official offices. Further, below is a graph of the interest group ratings which exist for Boxer.
Interest Group Ratings for Barbara Boxer
The vast majority of ratings are either 100 or 0, which leaves little room for nuance. The increasing partisanship we see in washington is reflected in these ratings such that there is little predictive power beyond whether someone is a democrat or republican. Perhaps interest groups, which are necessarily partisan, aren’t the best aggregators of knowledge as their views are necessarily extreme and therefore their opinions of legislators are equally extreme.
I don’t think the world needs more open government data, at least for informing the electorate in voting decisions. Maybe that helps the press uncover corruption, but what seems more important are objective ways to aggregate data and create meaning out of the tidal wave of public data. Political scientists and psychologists can play a role in objectively extracting meaning from this data, along with web developers and data architects who make this data available. If anybody has ideas on how I might be able to do this for 2010, I’d love to hear them as I would love to work with smart, resourceful people on these issues. Please drop me an email or a comment. Until then, it looks like votehelp will have to wait til 2012.