Published in The Manila Times in two parts, Sunday, January 20, 2008 and
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
In an earlier article,* I pointed out that perception surveys of the type regularly carried out by the Social Weather Stations should deal only with matters resolvable through perception, not with questions of fact answerable only by appropriate and authoritative persons and agencies.. If people are asked questions the answers to which they alone are the authority, i.e., questions about what they think, feel, observe, or prefer, their responses must be taken seriously for who can know better what people think, feel, observe, or prefer than those people themselves? But when they respond to questions of fact requiring knowledge about a subject outside of their personal knowledge or experience, their replies must be checked against academic or scientific authority. If found correct, not only must the responses be given the importance that objective truth deserves but the respondents must be accorded the respect that is due people with high levels of awareness. If found wrong, the answers must be considered as suggesting that the respondents are in need of appropriate enlightenment.
(When questions of fact beyond the respondent’s personal knowledge or experience are raised in perception surveys, the surveyor can be suspected of ignorance, asking questions of fact as though these can be resolved through perception.)
Recent Surveys
In recent days the national community has been inundated by a deluge of perception survey results on various aspects of our social, economic, and political life. The way events are unfolding, we can expect to be overwhelmed by many more such surveys in the next few months and still more ad infinitum in the months after.
--------------------------------
*Objective Analysis vs Subjective Rumor-Mongering, Manila Times, September 26, 2007.
The most recent of these surveys was that on the extent of satisfaction of the public with the performance of government as a whole. Earlier, we were informed of the results of yet other surveys: one, on the extent of approval by the public of the performance of high government officials; another on the degree of happiness with which the Filipino people anticipated Christmas; yet another, on aspects of the socio-political situation in the locality of respondents, i.e, on whether employment has improved, the quality of education has deteriorated, graft and corruption in the government has worsened, etc.
In the most recent of these surveys, as reported in media, respondents were asked whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the performance of the government in 10 areas of public concern. These concerns and the ratings given by the respondents were: (1) in the conduct of foreign relations +20; (2) in fighting inflation -29; (3) in eradicating graft and corruption -29; (4) in reconciling with Muslim rebels +13; (5) in fighting terrorism +12; (6) in helping the poor +4; (7) in promoting human rights +2; (8) in fighting crime -5; (9) in ensuring that no family goes hungry -22; and (10) in telling the truth to the people -11.
How Should We React to these Surveys?
How should we, the people, react to these survey findings? Should we take them seriously? Be indifferent to them? Dismiss them outright?
Answer: It depends on the nature of the questions posed.
To reiterate, if the questions pertain to perception, that is, the thoughts, feelings, and preferences, of the respondent, we should take the responses seriously—for the answers can be assumed to be valid and reliable correspondent to the respondents’ thoughts, feelings, observations, or preferences unless the respondents choose to deceive themselves. Since respondents are not likely to cheat themselves, we must give due respect to their replies.
If the questions ask about facts, such as the extent of unemployment, the quality of education, the state of health of the community, the quality of governance, we should regard the responses as mere guesses or surmises and give them no more importance than conjecture deserves. If the replies clearly are at variance with the facts, they should be dismissed outright and the respondents informed and enlightened so that they are liberated from their ignorance and lack of information.
Pseudo Perception Questions
There are questions that on the surface appear to be perception-based but by their nature require objective facts to be their basis. If the responses to these questions are not based on knowledge or reliable information, and are therefore bereft of factual foundation, they should be dismissed outright.
Consider the question on inflation in this recent survey. The respondents gave the government a rating of -29 in the fight against inflation, the lowest rating (along with eradicating graft and corruption) of those given. The problem is that this is the concern where the government has been most successful and that is why the inflation rate for 2007 was only two percent. A factually based rating would have been in the neighborhood of, say, +40 (that is, something like 70 percent satisfied less 30 percent dissatisfied).
Clearly the respondents have been influenced by the news that the price of petroleum has jumped from some $65/barrel to some $95/barrel. It will take only a small technical explanation to show that this 46 percent jump in the price of oil will not have any impact on the economy approaching that order of magnitude. When you factor in the government’s efforts to closely monitor the actions of oil distributors and make adjustments on the levy on petroleum-intensive products, not to mention the strengthening of the peso which is itself the result partly, not wholly, of government policy, the total effect on the inflation rate will be modest – as it has been..
There are several other questions in the recent survey where we can reasonably demand to know the factual bases of the answers. If these answers have no factual basis, they should also be dismissed.
Enlightened Public Opinion: the Foundation of Democracy
All this seems to suggest an anti-public opinion bias. This is not so. Survey results, whether enlightened or ignorant, constitute a part of public opinion and public opinion should be given due weight in the formulation of public policy, especially in a democracy. What is being pointed out is that public opinion is of two types, one, opinion that is “informed” and, two, opinion that is “uninformed.” Opinion that is informed provides guidance to public policy. Opinion that is uninformed calls for the enlightenment of the respondents.
As clear as the ideas described above are, they are not easy to observe in the context of the real world in the Philippines. In our country, the results of perception surveys when presented to the public appear as if they are rock-solid. No one tells us that these are perception conclusions that may have no relation to objective reality.
Public officials are particularly vulnerable to survey spins. When conveyed to the public, survey results seem to imply that whatever the authorities are doing on the matter is false or that, if true, the people do not believe it anyway. Those responsible for the facts are browbeaten by the bludgeon of ignorant judgment and begin to wonder whether they indeed have been guilty of manipulating the facts. The saving grace is that responsible officials reject the implication of manipulation and insist on the integrity of disseminated information. The bad thing is that national or community leaders, including principled ones, are driven to adopt populist positions as a response to the pressures of ignorant replies.
The Promotion of Populism
This might just be the most pernicious effect of perception surveys in our country—the promotion of populism among our leaders – next only to the creation of a mind set that has no interest in discovering facts underlying perception.
Notice how just about every politician has become an anti-poverty advocate. By knee-jerk reaction they criticize GDP growth figures by saying these do not touch the lives of poor people. That they exhibit ignorance by confusing distribution with production does not bother them. Some have no embarrassment in invading the sanctum sanctorum of barangays to profess affinity with the poor after having been convicted of plunder of wealth that could have been directed to poverty alleviation. Capable, honest, and hardworking leaders whose commitment to the poor cannot be questioned are obliged to join the caravan of populism. For instance, in regard to the rating of -29 on the fight against inflation, they are placed under pressure to suspend or scrap socially painful but patently correct programs just to conform to the biases of perception surveys.
No to the “Idiotization” of our Political Culture
In our country, the Social Weather Stations specializes in what a prominent banker describes as the “idiotization” of our political culture. This is very sad but SWS can still do something about it. It can, for instance, concentrate on the measurement of “happiness” and other truly perception matters. Beyond that, it can suggest ways to incorporate measures of happiness into our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), just as President Sarkozy is proposing for France, so that we can join the King of Bhutan in celebrating the joys of living instead of complaining like a clod – to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw -- that our leaders are not devoting themselves to making us happy.
xxxxxxx
. . .
In an earlier article,* I pointed out that perception surveys of the type regularly carried out by the Social Weather Stations should deal only with matters resolvable through perception, not with questions of fact answerable only by appropriate and authoritative persons and agencies.. If people are asked questions the answers to which they alone are the authority, i.e., questions about what they think, feel, observe, or prefer, their responses must be taken seriously for who can know better what people think, feel, observe, or prefer than those people themselves? But when they respond to questions of fact requiring knowledge about a subject outside of their personal knowledge or experience, their replies must be checked against academic or scientific authority. If found correct, not only must the responses be given the importance that objective truth deserves but the respondents must be accorded the respect that is due people with high levels of awareness. If found wrong, the answers must be considered as suggesting that the respondents are in need of appropriate enlightenment.
(When questions of fact beyond the respondent’s personal knowledge or experience are raised in perception surveys, the surveyor can be suspected of ignorance, asking questions of fact as though these can be resolved through perception.)
Recent Surveys
In recent days the national community has been inundated by a deluge of perception survey results on various aspects of our social, economic, and political life. The way events are unfolding, we can expect to be overwhelmed by many more such surveys in the next few months and still more ad infinitum in the months after.
--------------------------------
*Objective Analysis vs Subjective Rumor-Mongering, Manila Times, September 26, 2007.
The most recent of these surveys was that on the extent of satisfaction of the public with the performance of government as a whole. Earlier, we were informed of the results of yet other surveys: one, on the extent of approval by the public of the performance of high government officials; another on the degree of happiness with which the Filipino people anticipated Christmas; yet another, on aspects of the socio-political situation in the locality of respondents, i.e, on whether employment has improved, the quality of education has deteriorated, graft and corruption in the government has worsened, etc.
In the most recent of these surveys, as reported in media, respondents were asked whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the performance of the government in 10 areas of public concern. These concerns and the ratings given by the respondents were: (1) in the conduct of foreign relations +20; (2) in fighting inflation -29; (3) in eradicating graft and corruption -29; (4) in reconciling with Muslim rebels +13; (5) in fighting terrorism +12; (6) in helping the poor +4; (7) in promoting human rights +2; (8) in fighting crime -5; (9) in ensuring that no family goes hungry -22; and (10) in telling the truth to the people -11.
How Should We React to these Surveys?
How should we, the people, react to these survey findings? Should we take them seriously? Be indifferent to them? Dismiss them outright?
Answer: It depends on the nature of the questions posed.
To reiterate, if the questions pertain to perception, that is, the thoughts, feelings, and preferences, of the respondent, we should take the responses seriously—for the answers can be assumed to be valid and reliable correspondent to the respondents’ thoughts, feelings, observations, or preferences unless the respondents choose to deceive themselves. Since respondents are not likely to cheat themselves, we must give due respect to their replies.
If the questions ask about facts, such as the extent of unemployment, the quality of education, the state of health of the community, the quality of governance, we should regard the responses as mere guesses or surmises and give them no more importance than conjecture deserves. If the replies clearly are at variance with the facts, they should be dismissed outright and the respondents informed and enlightened so that they are liberated from their ignorance and lack of information.
Pseudo Perception Questions
There are questions that on the surface appear to be perception-based but by their nature require objective facts to be their basis. If the responses to these questions are not based on knowledge or reliable information, and are therefore bereft of factual foundation, they should be dismissed outright.
Consider the question on inflation in this recent survey. The respondents gave the government a rating of -29 in the fight against inflation, the lowest rating (along with eradicating graft and corruption) of those given. The problem is that this is the concern where the government has been most successful and that is why the inflation rate for 2007 was only two percent. A factually based rating would have been in the neighborhood of, say, +40 (that is, something like 70 percent satisfied less 30 percent dissatisfied).
Clearly the respondents have been influenced by the news that the price of petroleum has jumped from some $65/barrel to some $95/barrel. It will take only a small technical explanation to show that this 46 percent jump in the price of oil will not have any impact on the economy approaching that order of magnitude. When you factor in the government’s efforts to closely monitor the actions of oil distributors and make adjustments on the levy on petroleum-intensive products, not to mention the strengthening of the peso which is itself the result partly, not wholly, of government policy, the total effect on the inflation rate will be modest – as it has been..
There are several other questions in the recent survey where we can reasonably demand to know the factual bases of the answers. If these answers have no factual basis, they should also be dismissed.
Enlightened Public Opinion: the Foundation of Democracy
All this seems to suggest an anti-public opinion bias. This is not so. Survey results, whether enlightened or ignorant, constitute a part of public opinion and public opinion should be given due weight in the formulation of public policy, especially in a democracy. What is being pointed out is that public opinion is of two types, one, opinion that is “informed” and, two, opinion that is “uninformed.” Opinion that is informed provides guidance to public policy. Opinion that is uninformed calls for the enlightenment of the respondents.
As clear as the ideas described above are, they are not easy to observe in the context of the real world in the Philippines. In our country, the results of perception surveys when presented to the public appear as if they are rock-solid. No one tells us that these are perception conclusions that may have no relation to objective reality.
Public officials are particularly vulnerable to survey spins. When conveyed to the public, survey results seem to imply that whatever the authorities are doing on the matter is false or that, if true, the people do not believe it anyway. Those responsible for the facts are browbeaten by the bludgeon of ignorant judgment and begin to wonder whether they indeed have been guilty of manipulating the facts. The saving grace is that responsible officials reject the implication of manipulation and insist on the integrity of disseminated information. The bad thing is that national or community leaders, including principled ones, are driven to adopt populist positions as a response to the pressures of ignorant replies.
The Promotion of Populism
This might just be the most pernicious effect of perception surveys in our country—the promotion of populism among our leaders – next only to the creation of a mind set that has no interest in discovering facts underlying perception.
Notice how just about every politician has become an anti-poverty advocate. By knee-jerk reaction they criticize GDP growth figures by saying these do not touch the lives of poor people. That they exhibit ignorance by confusing distribution with production does not bother them. Some have no embarrassment in invading the sanctum sanctorum of barangays to profess affinity with the poor after having been convicted of plunder of wealth that could have been directed to poverty alleviation. Capable, honest, and hardworking leaders whose commitment to the poor cannot be questioned are obliged to join the caravan of populism. For instance, in regard to the rating of -29 on the fight against inflation, they are placed under pressure to suspend or scrap socially painful but patently correct programs just to conform to the biases of perception surveys.
No to the “Idiotization” of our Political Culture
In our country, the Social Weather Stations specializes in what a prominent banker describes as the “idiotization” of our political culture. This is very sad but SWS can still do something about it. It can, for instance, concentrate on the measurement of “happiness” and other truly perception matters. Beyond that, it can suggest ways to incorporate measures of happiness into our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), just as President Sarkozy is proposing for France, so that we can join the King of Bhutan in celebrating the joys of living instead of complaining like a clod – to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw -- that our leaders are not devoting themselves to making us happy.
xxxxxxx
. . .
2 comments:
Congratulations on this post, Dad! Very enlightening. Any chance to get it published in the Manila Times? Perhaps, you could start sending the link to family and friends.
Missy, you're so right. The Manila Times has published the article, in two parts, the first part on Sunday, January 20, p.5, and the second and concluding part on Tuesday, January 22, p.5. I am circulating my blog link to friends in the UN Network and to others.
Post a Comment