posted May 12, 2008 10:45 AM            

I did some searching on the web and found this blog that goes into it with a little more detail. At the very least, I think this concept deserves some reflection.

Enjoy!
_________________________________________________

GPI, GNH, GCH: True Indicators of Progress

Gross domestic product (GDP) is often used as an indicator to measure progress in the economy and society. Everyone usually welcomes GDP growth, and when we think it's not growing enough, we try to find effective measures to raise it. But is it really better when GDP continues to get larger and larger? Can GDP really indicate true progress, including happiness?

GDP goes up when money flows for whatever reason. It adds up any economic activity, that is, the total market value of all final goods and services produced, regardless of whether or not they contribute to people's happiness. It doesn't take into account the aim for which the money flows. In other words, besides goods and services we want, the more traffic accidents, environmental damage, or domestic violence we have, the higher GDP rises. That is because, as part of measuring national economic growth, the GDP also counts up the medical cost for those who suffer, for example, from asthma due to soot and smoke, and the overtime work hours of police devoted to investigating heinous crimes.

We shouldn't be simply delighted when GDP increases. We should very carefully examine the details of any increase in GDP. Let's think about other kinds of activities not accounted for by GDP, but they create happiness, such as housekeeping, child rearing, and so on. When parents read their children some picture books, for example, everyone would agree that they're making their children happy, but since there is no money flow, their activities don't influence GDP. And no matter how hard someone works as a volunteer, the work doesn't affect GDP either, unless a financial transaction occurs.

Because GDP includes what makes us unhappy, and excludes what makes us happy, it cannot be a true indicator to measure social progress. It only measures the amount of money flowing in the economy.

To remedy this, Redefining Progress, a sustainability think tank, created the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) as an alternative to GDP, insisting that relying on GDP as a shorthand indicator of progress is not good for either the Earth or humanity. http://www.rprogress.org/index.htm

The new GPI starts with the same personal consumption data that GDP is based on, but then it makes some crucial distinctions. It adds factors such as the value of household and volunteer work, which are excluded from GDP, as the value equivalent to the cost that would be paid for
workers doing the same job. Furthermore, it subtracts factors such as the costs arising from crime, pollution, resource depletion, family breakdown, and the estimated cost of damage to human health and the environment.

In a comparison of the two indicators over time, the GPI increased in parallel with the growth of the GDP per capita in both Japan and the United States until somewhere between the 1960s and 1970s. After that, however, while the GDP steadily increased, the GPI stopped rising or
even fell. In other words, despite the GDP increases per capita, our level of happiness may not be bigger, or it may even be fading. If so, is it right to continue advocating economic and national policies that seek ever-higher GDP?

Today's media and government officials alike still insist that we must boost the GDP growth rate, or that no growth is no good. Consider thought, that if the economy grew by three percent per year for 24 years, the GDP would be doubled, something beyond our imagination, given the
human and natural resources, and production and financial capital required for this to happen. In today's social economy, however, shortsighted people, or those who have to take the short-term view, keep investing on a short-term basis, parroting that "at least three percent
of growth" is crucial.

Unlike our GDP-oriented society, there is another country that takes a unique and fundamental approach: Bhutan. The country is attracting increasing attention because the Bhutanese consider Gross National Happiness (GNH), instead of GNP, as the indicator to measure national
progress.

GNH attempts to measure national power and growth by happiness instead of production. The term is said to have been used first by Bhutan's King Jigme Singye Wangchuck (then 21 years old) in 1976, when he stated at the Fifth Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries that GNH is more important than GNP. He thought that simultaneous improvement of material and spiritual wealth is vital.

From the 1960s to the early 1970s, Bhutan studied the experiences and models of developed countries. King Wangchuck eventually concluded that economic development -- often causing North-South confrontation, poverty, environmental destruction, and cultural loss -- does not always lead to happiness. So he decided not to use the GNP enlargement policy but the
idea of GNH instead, which seeks people's happiness. "Progress should be people-oriented." That is the basic philosophy for progress as well as the final goal of progress, according to GNH.

Bhutan is now directing its development based on the four pillars of the GNH: (1) economic growth and development; (2) preservation of cultural assets, and transmission and promotion of traditional cultures; (3) preservation and sustainable use of the environment; and (4) good
governance.

As happiness is subjective and can't be internationally measured using a unified scale, GNH has been thought of as a conceptual idea. Nevertheless, it became popular, and many people wondered if GNH could be expressed as a quantitative indicator like GNP, which prompted the
establishment of the Center for Bhutan Studies in 1999 to start targeted research.

To begin with, the center is aiming to develop an indicator that can be used within Bhutan that measures the concept of happiness using the following nine elements (in random order): living standard, cultural diversity, emotional well being, health, education, time use, ecosystem
health, community vitality, and good governance.

So, how are people spending their time? How vital is the community? These factors would seldom influence GDP. Actually, in the GDP-oriented world, if you're relaxing (not consuming) or spend your time on community activities without being paid, you would be considered to be
"unproductive" and creating a drag on GDP.

But what truly measures national progress? When your children or grandchildren are grown up, which do you think, when looking back, was good? Was it that your country's GDP continued to grow, or was it growth of GNH?

Defined in terms of GDP, Bhutan is a developing country with a low GDP per capita. The country, however, is blessed with an abundant natural environment; 26 percent of its land is nature reserves, and 72 percent is covered by forest. There are no homeless people or beggars on the street. According to a survey, 97 percent of the Bhutanese people answered yes to the question "Are you happy?" What percentage of people would say, "Yes, I'm happy," if the same question was asked in your country?

Does the pursuit of money and economic growth really make us happy? Isn't there anything that might be undermined by seeking them? Bhutan's GNH concept prompts us to reconsider our true purpose in life.

Mukouyama Painting, a company in Japan inspired by the GNH concept, is doing business based on its own idea of measuring the company's success. With about 20 employees, it is located in Kofu City, Yamanashi Prefecture, and deals with a wide range of paint products for industrial
and home use.

See also:
The End of Growth: Efforts in Japanese Society and Business to Slow Down http://www.japanfs.org/en/newsletter/200510-1.html

Its corporate philosophy is represented by the following mottos: "The purpose of our work is to make the Earth clean" and "Our business will provide satisfaction to customers as well as to the
environment of Mother Earth." The management of the company thinks that it would be no use making profits if we ruined the Earth and turned it into a deserted planet.

Mukouyama Painting, however, had a different business policy until about a decade ago. In those days, the company was making every effort to go public, with the primary focus on sales figures. Setting an ambitious goal, such as a 20 percent increase in sales annually, the company urged employees to meet the goal by finding new customers. But this didn't work. Many workers quit their jobs, and it was difficult to recruit replacements. Then-president Kunifumi Mukouyama (now senior advisor) had a tough time in dealing with these situations, and felt depressed. He seriously asked himself, --"What am I? What is a company? What should I
do?"

When struggling to get out of the depression, he was influenced by various people. Now, he is sure that he wants to live in a world full of love, peace, harmony, cooperation, and self-sufficiency, although he is actually in a capitalist society where individuals tend to be motivated by self-interest. When Mr. Mukouyama heard about Bhutan's GNH, he immediately decided to adopt a new idea, what he calls "GCH" (Gross Company Happiness), namely, the total happiness of all employees.

At that time, company-wide efforts based on ISO 14001 resulted in an annual cost reduction of 15 million yen (about U.S.$130,000), an equivalent to the net income from the sales of 300 million yen (about $2.6 million). "If we have such gains, some reduction in sales won't hurt the company," Mr. Mukouyama thought. In 1995, he started making a business plan with a reduced amount of sales, say 92 percent of the previous year's sales. The company is aiming at "negative growth" rather than becoming a listed company.

Meanwhile, Mukouyama Painting has been successfully enhancing its corporate values by improving its services to the current customers. The company also has established positive relationships with people in the community by inviting them as citizens' ombudsmen for its internal auditing based on ISO 14001.

In response to the question, "Are your sales decreasing as planned?" Mr. Mukouyama replied, "No, I'm afraid not. Because of unexpected circumstances such as the closedown of a competitive company, the sales are not decreasing. But we are not involved in the activities to get new
customers, and no sales quotas are assigned. This allows employees to have pressure-free work life. It is not my intention to run a company at the cost of employees' humanity. I'd like to do human-centered business.

At one time, the turnover rate was so high and half of the workforce left the company in a year, but now employees rarely quit the company."

Mukouyama Painting believes that it can provide better services to customers and society when its employees are satisfied with the company, and that the happiness of the company depends on the total happiness of all employees. We are pleased to introduce this Japanese company that
measures its success not by the amount of sales, but by GCH that's Gross Company Happiness.

Perhaps it's time to take this discussion into the corridors of power in big businesses and governments worldwide. Shouldn't we all have a say in how to measure progress and plan for the future? Which indicator would you vote for: GDP, GPI, GNH, GCH, or a combination?

posted May 13, 2008 09:45 PM              

------------------
The truth is ... everything counts. Everything. Everything we do and everything we say. Everything helps or hurts; everything adds to or takes away from someone else. ~ Countee Cullen

We are weaving character every day, and the way to weave the best character is to be kind and to be useful. Think right, act right; it is what we think and do that makes us who we are. ~ Elbert Hubbard

posted May 13, 2008 10:36 PM            

The part I find most interesting about this system, as far as I can understand, is that it also takes workplace/social/political satisfaction and sustainable development into account. Idealism and reality seem to be conversing on a global scale. All we gotta do is listen.

I still have to do some homework on Gross National Product, Gross Domestic Product and how this new suggestion has the potential for making an impact on economic measures.

posted June 19, 2008 07:56 PM            

Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, June 19, 2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Joe Fried, author of How Social Security Picks Your Pocket, a book about fraud and waste in the Social Security system. He is the director of the Public Program Testing Organization (PPTO), which is an Ohio-based nonprofit organization that monitors and reports on waste in governmental programs. He is the author of the new book, Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality: Comparing the Voters in Statistics and Anecdotes.

FP: Joe Fried, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Fried: Thanks for having me. It is my pleasure and privilege.

FP: What inspired you to write this book?

Fried: I wrote the book to fill a void in our understanding of the party constituencies. Our images of the typical Democrat and Republican usually come from anecdotes, red state–blue state generalities, and the responses people give to the questions pollsters ask about collective action. For example, a pollster might ask if we, that is society or the government, should do more to help the homeless, fight the spread of AIDS, or help with school lunch programs. Since Democrats are more likely to advocate collective action (which is often appropriate in my opinion), their responses usually seem more caring and proactive. But, what about the other side of the coin? How do Democrats and Republicans stack up when the focus is on individual action and achievement?

FP: What did your research entail and how did you go about to gather your findings and conclusions?

Fried: Most of the information in the book came from large, on-going social surveys such as the General Social Survey produced by the National Opinion Research Center. My focus was on the survey questions that related to individual effort and achievement - not on collective action. For example, I might use a question asking, "How much did you donate to charity last month?" On the other hand, I would not use a question that asked, "Should society give more to help the poor?" For each appropriate question, I tabulated the responses based on whether people self-identified as Democrats or Republicans. Comparisons were made, and differences that were statistically significant were put into the book.

FP: How is your approach unique?

Fried: I am not aware of anyone who has made these kinds of comparisons on such a comprehensive basis, covering many activities and achievements related to work, leisure, education, civic activities, happiness, etc.

FP: What was your finding on the issue of intolerance?

Fried: For more than 30 years the General Social Survey has asked people if certain types of speech should be allowed within their communities. They were asked about speech by racists, atheists, Communists, homosexuals, and militarists. I expected that Democrats would express more tolerance regarding certain of these types of speech, and Republicans would express more tolerance with regard to others. To my surprise, however, Republicans were a little more likely to give a tolerant response with regard to all of the categories. A similar pattern was seen with regard to books. Democrats were a little more likely to advocate banning controversial books from their community libraries.

FP: Banning books, that's not much of a surprise. Why do you think Democrats turned out to be more intolerant? And why the myth in our society that they are more tolerant?

Fried: I read a great piece by John Leo in the Jewish World Review. He said that on many college campuses, free speech by conservatives has been redefined as hate speech – something almost injurious to one's psychic health. Once free speech has been redefined in this way, it becomes something that must not be tolerated – almost a punishable behavior. Perhaps this partly explains why Democrats may be less tolerant – at least with respect to conservative speech.

As for the myth that Democrats are more tolerant, that may stem from a double standard in the mainstream press. Awhile back, Hillary Clinton was criticized for saying that she enjoys more political support than Barack Obama among working white people. I think the criticism of Clinton was well-deserved. But, can you imagine how much greater the outcry would have been if John McCain or some other Republican made such a racially insensitive remark? I imagine that Al Sharpton would be camped out in front of the McCain headquarters to this very day.

FP: So how do Democrats and Republicans stack up when the focus is on individual action and achievement?

Fried: It depends to a degree on how individual action and achievement are measured. For example, when it comes to participation in the political process, Republicans are more likely to vote but Democrats are more likely to join organized protests and boycotts. That said, the surveys I found show that Republicans generally have achieved more in terms of education, income, job responsibilities, civic involvement, marital contentment, and personal happiness.

FP: Happiness?

Fried: With regard to happiness, the differences are large for both men and women, and have been evident for decades. Republicans are much more likely to say they are "very happy," and much of the happiness gap can be attributed to differences in health, income, religiosity, and marital status. However, these factors don't explain all of the disparity. In the book I offer a few of my own theories in an attempt to explain the happiness gap. For example, surveys show (to my great surprise) that Democrats are much less likely to trust the "ordinary man or woman," and psychologists tell us that trust correlates strongly and positively with happiness. In addition, Democrats are less likely to feel confident that they can exercise control over their destinies, and control is another factor relating to happiness (according to psychologists).

FP: Have you checked out Arthur C. Brooks' book Gross National Happiness? What do you make of his findings in connection to the happiness gap between conservatives and liberals?

Fried: I haven't gotten the book yet, but read the interview of Dr. Brooks by Frontpage. It seems that we have similar findings, but frame some of those findings differently. For example, Brooks indicates that religion is a major happiness factor. I agree, but to me the bigger, underlying factor is really trust. Religious people have faith, which means they are trusting people. I found that trusting people, whether or not religious, are much more likely to be happy.

Here is another subtle difference: Dr. Brooks seems to feel that income inequality is not a big factor in causing unhappiness provided people perceive that they have income mobility. I agree with that statement but would add that it is pretty difficult for a guy to feel that he has income mobility when John Edwards and others are screaming about a rigged socio-economic system. So, income mobility is very important but people won't perceive that they have mobility if they are made to believe that the "deck has been stacked." My research shows that a majority of Democrats believe that our economic system is so unfair that the federal government should take action to reduce the gap between rich and poor. For this reason, income inequality may affect happiness – especially for Democrats.

FP: What did you discover in terms of Social Security?

Fried: Social Security is supposed to have a progressive benefit structure to enable lower wage earners to get a relatively high benefit for each dollar of FICA tax paid. However, on the whole, Republicans get a better rate of return on their FICA dollars – even though they have much higher incomes than Democrats. The problem has to do with spousal and survivor benefits. These were added to the system in 1939, when marriage usually meant large families and strained financial resources. Today, however, many workers with stay-at-home spouses have very few children, and are relatively affluent. As a result, spousal and survivor benefits are now highly regressive.

FP: Are Conservatives all created equal?

Fried: The term "conservative" is a widely-used and indispensable part of our vocabularies. However, we must understand that, during the last 35 years, 25 to 50 percent of all self-identified conservatives have been Democrats. Democratic conservatives do not necessarily have the same political views as Republican conservatives and, with regard to education, they are the polar opposite. On average, Republican conservatives have about two more years of education than their Democratic counterparts. That is a huge gap.

FP: How about charity? Democrats arrogate to themselves the moral highground when it comes to concern for the poor, the oppressed and the downtrodden, and they love to portray Republicans as rich people consumed by greed. So what happens when it's time to put your money where your mouth is? Who is actually more generous in real life?

Fried: If we believe what people tell the survey interviewers, the gap is enormous. Republicans are more likely to contribute their time and money to charities, and this is true even when religious giving is taken out of the equation. Also, Republicans give much larger amounts relative to their incomes. I estimate that charities would receive an additional $55 billion per year if Democrats gave as much as Republicans in proportion to their incomes. This begs the question: Why have political fights over the funding of controversial programs such as stem cell research or teen sex education? It would appear that Democrats could directly fund such programs if they simply loosened their wallets.

FP: So the party that talks most about helping the poor doesn't really live up to it when it comes to private personal action. To be sure, leftists in general love talking about redistribution of wealth, but they have never been particularly so good at it in their own personal lives. Why do you think?

Fried: Here is one possible explanation: My father, Floyd Fried, was a lifelong socialist and a generous man. However, he often denigrated the idea of charity because he saw it as a device used by the wealthy to forestall real, governmental action. For example, he might say, "Why give money to cancer research? The solution is to increase federal funding." I am not sure, however, that my father entirely believed this. When he died he left a considerable amount of money to private charities - and nothing to the government.

FP: So what are your overall conclusions?

Fried: First, I think that we need to challenge some of our stereotypes with regard to Democrats and Republicans, and their commitments to compassion, tolerance, work ethics, education, etc. The surveys I examined did not jibe with the conventional wisdom.

Second, it struck me that success and happiness may be the cumulative result of the many little choices we make during our lifetimes. Consider a few of the choices made differently by Democrats and Republicans. Democratic men are twice as likely as Republican men to be teen dads, and Democratic women are 60 percent more likely (than Republican women) to be teen moms. Democrats are much less likely to get married – even when they have children. Democratic men are only 63 percent as likely to graduate from a 4-year college, and Democratic women are only 74 percent as likely. Democrats are more likely to put their health at risk by smoking and by overeating, and employed Democratic men tend to work fewer hours per week than employed Republican men. Over time, these lifestyle differences can have an enormous impact on the health, wealth, and personal happiness of Democrats and Republicans and their offspring. Indeed, if there are "two Americas," these lifestyle differences may be the reason.

FP: What do you hope your book will help achieve?

Fried: I hope it promotes greater understanding between the constituents of these two great political parties, and I hope it provides some ideas that can enable people to improve their personal lives.

FP: Joe Fried, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

posted June 29, 2008 03:39 PM            

I'm still not as informed (as I’d like to be) on the processes of our economic system, but I like this quote from your article:

"Democratic conservatives do not necessarily have the same political views as Republican conservatives and, with regard to education, they are the polar opposite. On average, Republican conservatives have about two more years of education than their Democratic counterparts."

Now that is really interesting! The subject I'm referring to isn't about how these "conservative" politicians of the two political parties may differ in their education. I'm more interested in the manner by which one’s education molds to an individual’s perspectives on life and how that perception begins to reflect their leanings towards certain political ideals.

“…psychologists tell us that trust correlates strongly and positively with happiness.”

I think this part is of grave importance. Trust is absolutely important in regards to happiness and its importance is not related to its mere presence, but to the methods by which that trust develops. Everyone trusts something. A single individual that has no trust whatsoever cannot exist without some form of senility or insanity. In order to possess some sort of functional mentality with the world around us, there must be a foundation of trust, however small. What is most curious is how this trust develops in different ways amongst different peoples but, as far as I can tell, there are really only one of two outcomes: either one becomes “happy” in the revelation of their human condition and develops accordingly or one feels that their condition is incurable, helpless and adheres to the greater molds of their immediate environments. And by “happy” I do not mean that any such person would be absolutely content with their environment and their own personal situations but that they have developed to a state where they are, within their own understanding, happy to be involved and to take part in the development of this condition. Perhaps “spirited” would be a better word for this quality?

I have held this concept of “Gross National Happiness” and “Genuine Progress Indicator” with much scrutiny and I think it is considerably thought-provoking. I don’t think that “happiness” or “progress” can really be gauged on a scalar level. This method is far too Second-dimensional to have any chance for being accurate. On the other hand, I do find myself attracted to the sense of questioning that is taking place. It’s not that I feel that quantitative production has no place or value in the indication of progress. I just feel that, there is a heavy importance placed in this factor that can be a bit short-sighted. The same goes for the ideas inherent in GNH and GPI. These are only measuring concepts that are believed to be indicators of a certain form of social progress. I think that the questioning is good, but I also think it is misplaced. It seems a bit harmful to first change a form of measurement before one really understands what is being measured. These thoughts and ideas are just the tip of a coming iceberg, so to speak. I have a strong feeling of a coming period of “enlightenment”, except that this one will find itself reforming the fruits from the previous Age of Reason of our history in a way that we might find surprising at present. This is, by no means, a great vision. It is simply a product of some critical thinking and is, admittedly, rather obvious. Nonetheless, it is an important feeling.

I wonder what it must’ve been like when the concept of measuring the “volume” of an object was first being developed. It seems logical that the idea of measuring the “area” of an object was developed before the idea of its “volume”. But even if it wasn’t, it is still simple enough to see the relationship between the two and how the concept of volume is a development of the concept of area but in a greater dimension. Indeed, for volume to have come into play at all, there must have first developed the foundations for the existence of a third dimension in which its qualities were revealed.

So far, these are the bulk of my thoughts and feelings towards this concept at present. It seems to me that those who find themselves anxious to change this system of measurement are seeking only to reinforce these “indicators” in society without really understanding that it is not the “indicators” that create happiness. Rather, it is the happiness that creates the “indicators”. Similarly, it is not the quantity of production that creates progress, but that progress creates the quantity and quality of production. These ideas are neither new nor inventive. They have been fairly present since time could first tell. There is the possibility, though, of new and inventive ways for these ideas to take form in our world. But for that, trust is surely needed.

posted June 30, 2008 11:45 AM            

Every now and again our learned scholars in the liberal university come up with a study, financed by taxpayers' money, that concludes what every liberal already knows. Conservatives are rigid and not very intelligent. In fact, as one study by two Berkeley professors claimed, the the "whiny, insecure kid in nursery school" probably grew up to be a conservative.

Of course two can play at that game, and so conservative Peter Schweizer took a look at the University of Chicago's General Social Survey and a few other generally available opinion surveys and came to the opposite conclusion in his book Makers and Takers. He found that conservatives are the good guys and liberals are the whiners.

Maybe he got different results because the General Social Survey covers the whole United States while the Berkeley professors only studied a single school in Berkeley, California.

Either way, Schweizer's findings make sense.

Liberals are more materialistic than conservatives, he finds. Of course they are. Believing in equality, differences in material things are very important to them. Not surprisingly, when they discover material differences in society, liberals are offended. There is a word for this feeling of offence: Envy. And so it is that liberals are more envious than conservatives.

Liberals celebrate anger. No, we are not just talking about Bush Derangement Syndrome. "Since the sixties, modern liberals have embraced anger as a sign of genuine commitment to the cause," writes Schweizer and their political rage leaks into their personal lives. The General Social Survey shows that liberals are more angry than conservatives and "three times more likely (17 percent to 6 percent) to have actually done something to get back at someone who had hurt or offended them in the past month."

Liberals are stingy with their money. Again, this is hardly surprising. Liberal political philosophy says: People Have Needs, and the government should provide. Thus liberals, when they actually spend money on anyone other than themselves, give money to the activist organizations that advocate for bigger government. Conservatives, on the other hand, give money to organizations that actually help people. Schweizer shows us that the headline liberals of recent memory-the Clintons, Gores, Kerrys, and Obamas-don't give much. But headline conservatives like Bush, Cheney, and Limbaugh do give, and give generously.

But then they would. Conservatives believe that people should help people, and governments should stick to the stuff that governments do best, defending society against enemies, foreign and domestic.

Liberals are less honest than conservatives. Peter Schweizer compares liberals and conservatives using the World Values Survey and the National Cultural Values Survey. Liberals admit that they don't value honesty as much as conservatives. They are more willing to sell "Aunt Betty a car with a bum transmission" than conservatives, and "twice as likely as conservatives to say it is okay to get welfare benefits they were not entitled to." Schweizer's poster boy for welfare cheat is billionaire George Soros, who once "tried to get a Jewish charity to give him money while also receiving public assistance."

Did you know that liberals are not just angrier but whinier than conservatives? Peter Schweizer samples liberal Whine Country using the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, as representative varietals.

But at least liberals are smarter than conservatives. Everyone knows that Calvin Coolidge was "weaned on a pickle," that Ike fumbled his syntax, that Reagan was an amiable dunce, and that President Bush is too dumb to be president. But navy veteran Sam Sewell found one liberal dumber than President Bush. Browsing presidential candidate John Kerry's website he happened upon the results of "an IQ-like qualifying test Kerry had taken in 1966." It showed that Kerry belonged in the 91st percentile on intelligence, a bit lower than President Bush in the 95th percentile.

Conservatives also rank better on political knowledge, according to Schweizer. Here's the result of a political knowledge test conducted in 2000. A high score is good.

Strong Republican.......18.7
Independent-Republican..15.7
Strong Democrat.........15.4
Independent-Democrat....14.2
Weak Republican.........14.1
Weak Democrat...........13.3
Independent............. 9.5

All this may be true, you will say. But how mean-spirited must Peter Schweizer be to drone on for 200 pages about "why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less... and even hug their children more than liberals?"

posted June 30, 2008 05:30 PM            

50,313 people have been polled overall since 1972. The key word there is overall.

Go here: http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Data+Analysis/
Follow this path:
NORC Public Use Data Catalog
-GSS
--General Social Surveys
----Metadata
----Variable Description
-----Mnemonic Index
-----Sequential Index
------ 1-198
-------- Respondent ID number

You should see:
Dataset: General Social Surveys, 1972-2006 [Cumulative File]

Summary Statistics

Valid Cases: 51020

___________________________

How many people are there in the United States? 301,139,947
What percent of the total U.S. current population is the overall number of people polled over a 34 year period of time? .0169%

posted June 30, 2008 05:53 PM            

Now acoustic, are there any conclusions from the statistical survey you would like to question? Or is this just your way of saying you really don't have anything to say?

posted June 30, 2008 06:03 PM            

I've actually been itching to have a go at this survey since I saw the book. It's good to know that my common sense theory that this couldn't possibly be an accurate poll, bore out in reality. It's just more Republican misinformation. I know you guys are trying to perfect the art, but what you want to be true and what is actually true are often two distinctly different things.

posted June 30, 2008 07:59 PM            

I implied that the author of the book you cited is a Republican using a poor source to justify claims that can't rightfully be made. It is progress to see a Republican citing anything academic, but in this case it's an academic poll that only the insane could say justifies the viewpoints of the nation. My math was incorrect in the last post. It actually extrapolates out 10,000 times. (.0169%) equals (.000169) in decimal form. 1.69 people per 10,000 modern day citizens took this poll.

We could do the math on a year by year basis if you like. It's going to be equally damning. Even if it were as little as 1 per 1,000 I don't think anyone could justify that one voice in a thousand speaks for the remaining 999 people. It's just not a reasonable conclusion.

Well, it's certainly not one voice in a thousand.

Population 1972: 209,896,000
People who took the poll: 1607

1607 / 209896000 = 7.65617258 × 10-6 (10 to the negative 6th power) = .000007