Quiz #2, 2025, Wednesday, April 23

Right now, I just wanted to get the date in your mind. The biggest change from last time will be many questions on the Layard-De Neve book. I plan to have a couple of questions about Positive Intelligence. Also, I will definitely add a question on this additional short reading:

*************************

Here is what I had about Quiz #2 two years ago:

Blog Posts and Articles to Read to Prepare for the Quiz

Statistical Interpretation Principles to be Tested on the Quiz

Positive Intelligence Training

I do free positive intelligence training for economists. I am extending that invitation all those who have completed my Economics 4060 class, once you have a bachelor’s degree. Take a look at the description in these two posts:

If you are interested, just send me an email after you graduate.

In the meanwhile, I highly recommend the book Positive Intelligence, by Shirzad Chamine. And I think you will find taking this “saboteur assessment” interesting, you’ll get a report describing what your results mean.

Reflections on What You Learned from JP's Big 5 Assessment (Due 11 PM Tuesday April 11)

Report Due 11 PM Tuesday, April 15

****** You have the option of trading this due date with the due date for the Analysis Task. That is, if you choose, you can upload these reflections on April 10 and the Analysis Task on April 15 if you choose.

Take the Big 5 assessment you will find at this link (https://www.understandmyself.com/)

WHEN YOU DO THE QUESTIONS, MAKE SURE TO COMPARE YOURSELF TO EVERYONE IN YOUR HIGH SCHOOL, NOT JUST TO YOUR COLLEGE CLASSMATES. EVERYONE IN COLLEGE TENDS TO BE MORE CONSCIENTIOUS THAN AVERAGE, SO IF YOU COMPARE YOURSELF TO YOUR COLLEGE CLASSMATES, YOUR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS SCORE WILL BE INACCURATELY LOW.

(Let me know if you have trouble paying the $10. We can work something out.)

Note that there may be a little delay in getting your report back, so don’t wait until the last minute.

Write less than a page about the most interesting things you learned from the report.

(I’ll set this up on Canvas well before the time. Don’t worry if it isn’t there yet.)

Your essay on what you learned from this Big 5 assessment can be much shorter, but you can think of this post of mine as me doing this assignment:

Miles's Personality in 10 Facets of the Big Five

Analysis Task: Due 11 PM Thursday, April 10, 2025

FOR ACCESS TO THE DATA, LOOK AT THIS README FILE

Do the Survey Links assignment before trying to think about the analysis task. You need to know what kind of data will be available. (You could use other data sets related to well-being or Behavioral Economics, but I don’t recommend it. We’re set up to help you with this data, and all of it is highly related to the course.) Our goal is to get the data available for you by the Wednesday of Spring Break, but that timeline might slip.

Your Analysis Task needs to report the analysis with tables or figures and also have text that clearly explains the analysis. The idea is that this is like one section of a paper.

If you have an idea of what to do for the analysis task, just send me and Colby (colbychambers4@gmail.com) an email and I'll give a reaction of how interesting I think it is, and maybe a suggestion for a tweak.

Seeing the analysis and its explanation as one section of your term paper. (Your term paper is due later, at 11 PM on Wednesday, May 3—the evening after the last class.) The idea is to make this analysis part of a larger discussion.

Including figures and tables, the analysis task should be at least 5 pages. I'll take a risk and not put an upper limit on the length of the analysis task. (The term paper beyond the analysis task should be between 5 and 10 pages, with closer to 5 being preferred.)

How to structure your writeup of the Analysis Task:

You can design a different structure, but a typical writeup could look like this:

  1. Here is an interesting question or questions. The answers matter (people care or should care) because: …

  2. Here is a statistical analysis that seems to have some bearing on this question or questions:

  3. On the surface the statistical results seem to say: …

  4. However, the following confounding factors could be giving rise to an illusion, making it seem like something is there that isn’t or that something is bigger or different than it really is.

Don’t forget to talk about the confounding factors! (4.)

Here is a Q&A about the analysis task:

Q:

What is the level of analysis you are expecting for this assignment? I’ve taken some stats classes, so I’m familiar with hypothesis testing and regression, but since this class doesn’t have a stats prerequisite I’m not sure how in depth I should go for this assignment.

Since most aspects of wellbeing are correlated with each other, it seems to difficult to use regression to analyze relationships between these aspects without running into reverse causality, cousin causality, or both. My knowledge of stats isn’t sufficient to avoid these problems in cases where instrumental variable regression isn’t a viable alternative. I’m wondering what you would suggest that I do to avoid this issue.

A:

At the low end, it could be simply some scatter plots or bar charts or other interesting graphs.

I don't expect you to have consistent estimates of anything, rather to be able to discuss any biases there might be in the estimates you do get, relative to something interesting. Please make the attempt to figure out the sign (+ or -) of any bias you discuss, and say what that would mean for the truth of the interesting thing one might care about. If there are multiple biases, try to figure out the sign of each one, even if all the biases put together can't be signed because some biases are likely to be + and others are likely to be -. Also, discuss whether you think a bias is likely to be large or small.

Advice for the Analysis Task:

  1. Use lots of graphs. I love scatterplots, but other types of graphs and figures can be good, too.

  2. It’s fine to do some statistics on individual variables, but make sure you do something that relates pairs of variables to each other.

  3. Do some formal statistical tests.

  4. When you test more than one hypothesis, set it up so you can do the multiple hypothesis test correction using the False Discovery Rate procedure!

  5. Make a distinction between being significant at the 5% level and being significant at the 1/2 % level.

  6. If something isn’t statistically significant, you say “I can’t reject the null hypothesis that …” NOT “I reject the alternative hypothesis.” If you want to reject a hypothesis, you have to set it up as a null hypothesis.

  7. Recognize reverse causality and cousin causality, including the consumer-theory-esque model I gave in class of how resources broadly construed help all good things, leading to the general principle (with only a few exceptions) that “All good things are positively correlated.” (This is a statement about the cross section.

  8. Define variables in full. You need to act like your reader doesn’t know what the abbreviations mean. So write out the full text of the aspects, and describe fully all other variables. (You will see that we do this in our papers.)

  9. Don’t order response categories alphabetically! They need to be ordered logically. For example, political leanings should be ordered from Left to Right and levels of education should be ordered from less to more.

  10. When you have interesting results for several variables that are along the same lines, think of creating a simple index to get more statistical power. That is, take simple averages of similar variables and treat that simple average as an index.

  11. Think about how nearly statistically exogenous your right-hand-side variables are. Other things equal, regressions with more nearly statistically exogenous right-hand-side variables are more interesting. That doesn’t mean you can’t do other things. Just think about this dimension.

  12. Think seriously about scale use. Any statistical analysis you do with aspect-of-well-being data you can probably do both with the raw aspect ratings and with (aspect rating - average of calibration questions). Doing both of those analyses will be much more interesting than just the one analysis.

Shirzad Chamine on the War Inside

“The war raging inside our mind between the Saboteurs and Sage, is ultimately a war between the two primal forces that make life possible. The two primal forces are—you guessed it: Fear and Love.

All saboteurs are rooted in fear: fear of failure, fear of poverty, fear of abandonment, fear of rejection, fear of harm, fear of not mattering—and ultimately, fear of death.

On the other hand, the Sage operates entirely on love. When you think about it, the Sage Perspective, that everything can be turned into a gift and opportunity, is based on love for the unfolding mystery of life, and finding the gift in whatever happens.

Of the 5 Sage powers, Empathize is love for yourself and others. Explore is love for discovery. Innovate is love for possibilities. Navigate is love for meaning and purpose. And Activate is love for making things happen.

Today, whenever you feel any negative emotion, ranging from anxiety and stress to anger, shame, guilt or blame, ask yourself what the underlying fear might be. And then, choose something to love instead: something to love about yourself or the situation or person in front of you, so you begin to shift to Sage. Today, choose Love!”
— Shirzad Chamine, a Daily Focus in the Positive Intelligence app

Survey Links

Please take each of these surveys so you can see what kind of data is available for you. Take all of UAS, Baseline and Life & Psyche. (The Bottomless link takes you to just one block of the survey. The actual Bottomless survey is very long, with many different aspects of well-being and many different calibration questions (CQs) so there is more data on Bottomless than what you’ll see here.)

This is an assignment. I’ll have a couple of Quiz 2 questions that will be easy if you have done it, hard if not.

If you run into trouble with any of these links, email our predoctoral research assistant Colby Chambers: colbychambers4@gmail.com

We’re working on writing up full instructions for accessing the data. The goal is to have that for you by next Wednesday.

UAS

https://uas.usc.edu/survey/playground/uas571/test/index.php

 

Baseline

https://wiagl.gitlab.io/survey-baseline/?workerId=[EXAMPLE ID]

-              (replace EXAMPLE ID with something like your full name without spaces)

 

Bottomless

https://wiagl.gitlab.io/survey-bottomlessA/?workerId=[EXAMPLE ID]

-              (replace EXAMPLE ID with something like your full name without spaces)

  

Life and Psych

https://ucla.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8kK2HMh6YrGSEF8

 

EVERYTHING FROM HERE ON IS OPTIONAL

Aspect Flagging (these are the Qualtrics links to the surveys Colby owns)

-              1.1: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bORDu08uzL5aQf4

-              2.1: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wu8fWJFuoj5Q6q

-              2.2: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6Rl1LME8k4n98j4

-              2.3: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8enmSl5SFjgA0nk

-              2.4: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eLPpy2G1aTKzedw

-              3.1: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_blWFfIUkvLD1vzE

-              3.2: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2nrNlcuAqmi0fum

-              3.3: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5olxMQl9DaNAtJI

-              3.4: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8waQyVU3cpqidIG

-              4.1: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5vCARkRhqbWfEcC

-              4.2: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cBKvaiuO5oF80om

-              4.3: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3jxeDYvKyrtohFk

-              4.4: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1BO0MbaxkhNucjI

-              5.1: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8wSQmff0JdKEQL4

-              5.2: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0wGxqQnjOWnkSt8

-              5.3: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3C0pxd18kfx5nBs

-              5.4: https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3EMVDhnAm4u9nv0

Super Responder (life and psych in its first iteration)

http://wiagl.gitlab.io/survey-super/

Prescreen

https://cumc.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3fLA5sW2a4QIDjg

Bottomless – Preview (This is the screen workers see before accepting the assignment)

https://wiagl.gitlab.io/survey-bottomless/?assignmentId=ASSIGNMENT_ID_NOT_AVAILABLE&

UAS:

https://uas.usc.edu/survey/playground/uas571/test/index.php

Baseline:

https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_78tDltCPOcalvuK

Note: this is a version of baseline contained in a Qualtrics account Colby owns (which is itself a copy of a version Tushar owns). It has a little less elaboration on things in the instructions (e.g. public goods), as well as fewer demographic questions at the end, but the ratings and tradeoffs are the same as the traditional baseline survey.

Life and psych:

https://ucla.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3eiDxyBZnHLwF7g

Bottomless:

https://wiagl.gitlab.io/survey-bottomless/

Note: while the aspects in each block of the survey seem to match those in our tracking spreadsheet, the alternative scale frame aspect and CQs don't perfectly correspond to those we have tracked as being in each block (e.g. cuteness appears with the block 3 aspects even though it is recorded as being a block 12 CQ trio). Beyond this, the structure of the survey is identical to the traditional bottomless survey.

Paper on "Positive Intelligence" by Shirzad Chamine

Due: 11 PM Tuesday, April 3, 2025

3-5 Pages

In addition to reading the book, this assignment asks you to do the saboteur assessment at this link and read the report you are sent about your own saboteurs. DO THIS RIGHT AWAY: IT MIGHT TAKE A DAY TO GET YOUR REPORT BACK.

As usual, provide evidence in your paper that you have read the whole book, and if you use ChatGPT, follow the clear citation rules for ChatGPT that I set out early on in the class. (See “Ideas for Using ChatGPT.” Using ChatGPT is optional, but it is an interesting thing to try.)

This paper is meant to be a personal essay. The objective is to help you think through things that can help make you happier.

For your paper, think about the following questions:

  1. What did you learn from reading the report on your Saboteur assessment? Focus only on the things that resonated with you; ignore things you thought were off-track for you personally.

  2. What Sage strengths do you have that are associated with the Saboteurs you have? Here are examples of Sage strengths associated with each Saboteur. (There are more sage strengths associated with Saboteurs than these.) Below I have it notated as (bad: good). Saboteurs are often a strength going overboard, and going bad as a result:

    • Judge: blameless discernment

    • Pleaser: empathy

    • Avoider: peacefulness, peacemaking, flexibility

    • Stickler: meticulousness

    • Victim: self-knowledge, especially knowledge of what you want

    • Controller: leadership, making things happen

    • Restless: fun, creativity

    • Hyper-Achiever: achievement

    • Hyper-Rational: rationality

    • Hyper-Vigilant: vigilance

  3. In your own religious or non-religious background, how was what Shirzad calls “The Sage Perspective” taught or expressed? Reading my post “'Everything Happens for a Reason' for Nonsupernaturalists” will help clarify what I mean by this. This post is my personal answer to this question.

  4. What do you want to do in the area of developing the five Sage Powers to a greater extent?

  5. What role do you think Shirzad’s bag of psychological tricks and techniques could have in society in general?

Steps for Applying the Benjamini-Hochberg "False-Discovery-Rate" (FDR) Procedure for Multiple-Hypothesis-Test Correction

  1. Identify a group of hypotheses among which you would shift emphasis according to how good the results look. Note: anything that you would want to talk about if it had strong statistical results counts!

  2. How do you identify groupings of hypotheses? Groups of hypotheses can be handled separately if you will keep the same level of emphasis between groups. For example, you will focus in on Group A and focus in on Group B and discuss them equally regardless of what the results are.

  3. Now, focusing in on one particular group, call the number of hypotheses in this set n. Multiply all reported p-values by n. Let’s call these “adjusted p-values.”

  4. Order all the hypotheses from the smallest adjusted p-value at the top to the largest adjusted p-value at the bottom. (Note that having the numbers in Excel makes this easy to do and then later restore your original order.) Call the hypothesis with the smallest adjusted p-value #1, the one with the second-smallest adjusted p-value #2, etc. And call the m with the smallest adjusted p-values the “top m hypotheses.”

  5. The conventional significant level for a False Discovery Rate is .1 (=10%). Let’s go with that, although it is easy to use other values.

  6. If the #m hypothesis has an adjusted p-value less than .1 m, then the top m hypotheses are all significant at a false discovery rate (FDR) threshold of 10%.

  7. Find the largest m for which the #m hypothesis had an adjusted p-value less than .1 m. This gives you the set of hypotheses within this group that are significant at the FDR 10% level.

Documents for Review of Statistics Drawn from My “Monetary and Financial Theory” Class at the University of Michigan

Well-Being Possibility Frontier/Indifference Curves AND The Corresponding Supply and Demand Graphs

WBPF = Well-Being Possibility Frontier (Orange)

Green is for preferences (indifference curves above, demand below)

MRT = Marginal Rate of Transformation: the opportunity cost of the other things that must be sacrificed to get one point more of happiness

MRS = Marginal Rate of Substitution: amount of other things the individual is willing to sacrifice to get one point more of happiness

Comparative Statics Exercise #1:

Comparative Statics Exercise #2:

Comparative Statics Exercise

Comparative Statics Exercise #4:

2025 Quiz #1: Wednesday, March 12

I realized that for Quiz #1, there are a lot of shorter readings. So I am only going to test through the first third of the Layard-De Neve book on Quiz #1. That is, you are responsible at this point for everything through Chapter 7, so that Quiz #2 will begin with Chapter 8, “Exploring Well-Being”.

Key resources for this Quiz are:

2025

The graphing question was Comparative Statics Exercise #3. See Well-Being Possibility Frontier/Indifference Curves AND The Corresponding Supply and Demand Graphs.

This was a tough exam. I thought people did well. Here is the letter grade translation for the multiple-choice part of Quiz #1, as if it were the only thing I had to go on at the end of the semester. It really wouldn’t be enough to go on at the end of the semester, so some numbers translate into something between two letter grades. The high score was 28—almost perfect. The low score was 10.

26–28 A

24–25 A-

23 A-/B+

21–22 B+

20 B+/B

18–19 B

17 B-/C+

16 C+

14–15 C

10–13 C-

You’ll notice there there wasn’t a big point difference between C and B. If your score translates to a C, you are well within reach of a B if you do well on other things. The quizzes do matter quite a bit, simply because scores on other assignments have much lower variances among those who do them. The weights in the syllabus are weights in the linear combination I used for the final score. The variance of each subscore also matters for how important it is.

I am required to make close to half of the final grades C+ or below, but I feel no obligation to give anything below a C-. With rare exceptions, I use D’s and F’s only for people who aren’t doing all the assignments.

The graphing question will take longer to grade, since I have to grade it by hand. My goal is by next Wednesday, but it might slip to by next Friday.

2023

Blog Posts and Articles to Read to Prepare for the Quiz

Each of the following has one multiple-choice quiz question. Most of them are of the form “Which of the following is NOT a quotation from …”

Also, to help with the “Which of the following is NOT a quotation from …” style of question I often use, take a look at “Critical Reading: Apprentice Level”

The remainder of the exam will be

  • Multiple choice statistical algebra questions

  • multiple-choice questions (mostly of that form) on the first 1/3 of the Layard de Neve book (all of the first 7 chapters and everything before the first chapter)

  • one short answer question for which you need to be able to graph on another blank sheet the effect of a change on both the well-being possibility frontier/indifference curves diagram AND on the supply and demand diagram for an aspect of well-being. NOTE THAT YOU WILL NEED TO REMEMBER TO WRITE YOUR NAME ON THAT ANSWER ON THE SEPARATE BLANK SHEET!

You will be able to keep the exam itself. I only need the scantron sheets and your graphs. PLEASE WRITE THE ANSWERS YOU GAVE ON YOUR COPY OF THE EXAM. THAT WILL BE THE ONLY WAY FOR YOU TO FIGURE YOUR SCORE. I DON’T LIKE USING CANVAS TO REPORT SCORES BECAUSE CANVAS DOESN’T UNDERSTAND HOW I GRADE.

Meditation App Assignment

Get a meditation app for your phone and use it. Late in the semester, I’ll ask you to write half to one page about your experience doing that.

Some Meditation Apps (some free, some that charge for a subscription)

I personally use Waking Up and 10% Happier. One of my Economics colleagues likes Headspace. I don’t know anything about Calm and Balance, they just came up when I put “meditation” in the app search box on my phone. Also, take a look at this article:

12 Rules for Life Paper

Due 11 PM Mountain Time on Thursday, February 20th. Submit on Canvas. (The assignment is already set up on Canvas. I am asking you to submit it as a pdf; Word has a feature to “print” as a pdf that you can then turn in.)

3-5 pages.

Choose one of Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules that you especially like and what it means to you.

If you dislike all the rules, write your paper about that.

If you want to do something else in relation to the book, that can be negotiated with me.

Remember that any use of AI (beyond thesaurus, spell-check and grammar-check functions) you need to clearly signal. If you are getting more than a word or two from AI, the way to cite it is to say what prompt you used and then the words you got from AI.

Book Presentations from Previous Years on Books No Longer on the List