The Rude Tourist Effect

Which country exports the worst tourists? Although you might not like to admit it, you probably have an answer to this question, and it’s likely based on your personal experiences of travelling. Luckily, statisticians have conducted the polls, crunched the numbers, and come to the shocking conclusion: there is no consensus (although Japanese tourists appear to be overwhelmingly well-liked). In South-East Asia, Chinese and Australian tourists have the worst reputation. But Chinese tourists are relatively well liked in Europe, where it’s the Russians who are most disliked. Germans also hate the British, while the British intriguingly rate other Brits as the worst. In South America, it’s the Americans who are loathed. On a more positive note, this BBC article from 2009 suggests that Canadians are some of the best tourists. Yes, it’s more than a decade old and the data is probably unreliable, but I’ll lean into my patriotism and claim that this study is undeniably accurate.

A well-travelled reader might notice that tourists seem to be most unpopular in countries where they are numerous. There’s probably something to this, although I don’t have any hard evidence. It makes sense. Opinions of tourists are probably based primarily on a few, well publicized negative events, and more tourists means a greater chance that there will be some idiot who does something improper.

Read more

Values in the News: Of Jabs and Djokovic

Note: I had promised readers three articles on misinformation. They’re still coming, just in two weeks. I wanted to talk about this issue while it was still in the news.

Tennis has been an inexplicably major forum to debate social issues in modern times. The Battle of the Sexes, where Billy Jean King beat Bobby Riggs, was a landmark moment in the feminist movement. Serena Williams’ 2018 blowup at an umpire prompted serious introspection about the double-standards of decorum that people hold for male versus female athletes. In 2021, Naomi Osaka withdrew from the French Open to protect her mental health, an event that led to a more open discussion of mental illness among athletes. However, as far as I can tell, there has never been a controversy in tennis over public health guidance and immigration law.

Until now, that is. On January 5, 2022, top-ranked tennis player Novak Djokovic found himself in detention after his Australian visa was denied. In the days leading up to his arrival, there was an explosion of public anger about his intention to compete in the Australian Open. See, Djokovic is unvaccinated against COVID-19, and Australia is experiencing its first major wave of COVID-19. The country had previously avoided the worst of the pandemic through strict border controls and tight lockdowns, which proved to be extremely disruptive to the lives of average Australians. Melbourne was under lockdown for 262 days in two years!

Read more

Values and Fake News

Democrats Vote To Enhance Med Care for Illegals Now, Vote Down Vets Waiting 10 Years for Same Service

Trump’s grandfather was a pimp and tax evader; his father a member of the KKK

See: A Democrat’s favourite activity (left) and a Trump ancestor (right). Allegedly.

Shocking stuff. Depending on your political views, reading one of these headlines probably caused a jolt of adrenaline, the self-righteous “I told you so”. The other may have elicited an eye-roll and an instinctive rush to Snopes.com.

These are two of the most widely shared “fake news” political articles on Facebook of 2019, based on a study by the activist non-profit Avaaz. The reach of these specific headlines was broad. The first headline (about “Med care”, “Illegals”, and Vets) was estimated to have been viewed more than eight million times. The second (alleging that Trump’s grandfather was a criminal and his father a Klansman) came in first place, with a whopping 29 million estimated views, showing yet again that no one steals the headlines quite like Donald Trump. All together, the top 100 most widely shared headlines were estimated to have been viewed more than 158 million times.

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 3)

This is the final article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it).

Over the past two weeks, I delved into recent efforts to cut gifted education programs and other methods of streaming students into academic and non-academic tracks. My first article demonstrated how an exclusive focus on the costs and benefits of gifted education is not particularly fruitful for a policy analyst. There are few costs (and few benefits), so this lens provides little insight into the importance of these programs to students, parents, and educators.

In my second article, I outlined how considerations of fairness are a more useful way to understand the moral underpinnings of gifted education. Importantly, the meaning of “fairness” differs defending on your worldview, and gifted education serves as an excellent example of the two main expressions of fairness: some people on the left define fairness as equity (i.e. everyone is treated in the same way), while the bulk of the political spectrum – the entire right and a large proportion of the left – view fairness as a question of proportionality (i.e. people get what they deserve). Consequently, since gifted programs are inherently inequitable, opposition from certain left-wing groups would be expected. However, gifted programs resonate with the proportionality values of a broader subsection of the population, so any effort to shrink or cut gifted programs is likely to confront fierce opposition. Overall, I argue that proponents and opponents of gifted education fundamentally disagree over the fairness of the programs, not their effectiveness.

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 2)

This is the second article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it). Read the first article here.

Last week, I opened a discussion on the costs and benefits of streaming students into academic and non-academic tracks, such as through gifted education programs. Despite the rancorous debate about the merits of these initiatives, there is little evidence that they make a difference in academic outcomes for students in either Canada or the United States. In other words, students in gifted education programs don’t perform much better than similarly intelligent students in ordinary schools. At the same time though, and there is little evidence that gifted programs are using disproportionate resources that could otherwise be used to improve the educations of a broader subset of the population. In sum, gifted education introduces few measurable costs and benefits.

This leaves us with a puzzle: if gifted programs don’t matter, why are they so contentious? Why did protesters almost come to blows when the mayor of New York tried to widen the eligibility requirements for specialized high schools (a form of gifted education)? Certainly, there is a perception that gifted education programs are superior, so maybe that explains why parents are so invested. But policymakers should know better. Why not let sleeping dogs lie and just leave gifted programs alone?

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 1)

This is the first article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it).

About two years ago, it was almost impossible to open the New York Times without finding an article about streaming in the education system. Streaming (or tracking) is the practice of separating students into different classes based on academic performance and/or capacity. Streaming can occur in two main ways: between schools through the creation of specialized schools that have academic requirements for entrance (e.g. science-focused schools, sports schools, gifted schools, etc.) or within schools by offering differing course streams based on academic ability (e.g. pure vs. applied math, Advanced Placement courses).

In the past several years, backlash against student streaming has intensified, sparking intense debate over the practice. The most widely debated effort was probably mayor Bill de Blasio’s attempt to scrap the SHSAT, an standardized exam that regulates admission to eight selective high schools in New York that serve as a feeder system to the most prestigious universities in the U.S. This step was intended to reduce (primarily racial) discrepancies between the students admitted to these high schools and the broader population of New York. After fierce public resistance, led primarily by Asian-American families (who are disproportionately admitted to these schools), de Blasio’s effort failed.

Read more

Toolbox: How We Use Reason to Morally Justify Anything

“Toolbox” articles delve into a new way of looking at values, with a view to using these techniques in future articles.

Last week, I introduced the two systems of thinking: System 1, which is based on emotions, intuitions, and heuristics (i.e. rules of thumb), and System 2, which is rational and methodological. Using the Monty Hall problem, a famous brain teaser, I demonstrated how System 1 thinking can lead to mistakes, but also how System 2 can override these errors with time and effort (spoiler alert: it’s extremely uncomfortable, and you would have to be an masochist to want to do that every day).

In this article, I’ll bring the conversation back to values. There is considerable evidence to suggest that value-based judgements are derived from System 1, not System 2. An important piece of proof is “moral dumbfounding”, instances when people have a strong negative moral reaction to a situation (e.g. a moral vignette), but they struggle to explain why they feel that way. If pressed for a justification for their reactions, individuals are left speechless and confused. Sometimes, they conclude that certain acts are just wrong, and no explanation is necessary.

Read more

Toolbox: System 1 and System 2 Thinking

“Toolbox” articles delve into a new way of looking at values, with a view to using these techniques in future articles.

Philosophers have emphasized the key role of rationality in human decision-making for millennia. To Aristotle, reason was humanity’s defining characteristic, the only factor that separates people and beasts. The central importance of reason was further developed during the Enlightenment through the works of Mill, Smith, and Kant.

However, it was in the last century that the cult of rationality reached its extreme in the form of homo economicus, or “the rational man,” the cold, calculating, self-interested figure that stalks economics textbooks across the world. When faced with an important decision, homo economicus feels nothing. Like a supercomputer, they calculate the predicted utility of all possible outcomes, applies a discount rate on future gains (probably using the interest rate on a U.S. treasury bill), and selects the option that will maximize their overall utility.

No doubt, the model of homo economicus has led to impressive developments in the social sciences, from the influential writings of Milton Freeman to the power of game theory. Even so, it should always be remembered that homo economicus is a model, and like all models, it’s wrong (although it can be useful). From Blink to Nudge, best-sellers are constantly showing that homo economicus doesn’t exist. Our decision-making is often driven by emotions and heuristics (i.e. mental rules-of-thumb that allow people to sidestep the arduous process of reasoning), rather than rationality.

Read more

Wicked Problems: U.S. Gun Control (Part 2)

Last week, I began a discussion on firearm ownership in the United States and outlined how many gun control activists are struggling to make in-roads with about half of Americans. Of course, I wouldn’t be writing about this issue unless I thought it had something to do with values (this is Values Added, after all).

In this article, I’ll conclude this brief exploration of U.S. firearm politics by outlining the three values (other than Care) that form the moral basis of the opposition to gun control. Then, I’ll look at how gun control efforts can be tailored to minimize the violation of these values.

Liberty (i.e. freedom and autonomy are moral goods)

It’s no secret that American culture is uniquely enamored with the liberty/oppression value, as evidenced by strong libertarian representation at all levels of U.S. government, a group which is made up of are some of the staunchest opponents to gun control. Unrestricted gun ownership tends to harmonize with the Liberty value in two ways. First, the Liberty value asserts that individuals should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others. It follows that gun ownership should be unrestricted, and only the improper use of guns should invite legal sanction.

Read more

Wicked Problems: U.S. Gun Control (Part 1)

Values analysis is an extremely powerful tool in the hands of the policy analyst. We have already seen how it can help develop better advice, improve program design, and illuminate the complexities of contentious policy questions. And values analysis can do so much more: it can also help to develop novel policy packages – ones that may even be more effective than the same old solutions we tend to default to. To prove it, let’s dig into one of the most contentious issues for our neighbors to the south: gun control.

It’s no secret that gun violence is a major public policy issue in the United States. Rates of firearm-related deaths are higher in the U.S. than in any other OECD country, a rate eight times higher than in Canada and nearly 100 times higher than in the UK.  Worse still, gun violence soared in 2020 and 2021, perhaps signaling the end of a multi-decade decline in violent crime. As of 2021, 72% of Americans believe gun violence to be either a “very big problem” or a “moderately big problem.”

Read more