This would seem to hinge on the definition of “exploited”. And the question doesn’t specify who is exploiting the Third Worlders: the companies in question, or the capitalist First World system in general. Perhaps a socialist might argue that they are being exploited because we haven’t compensated them properly for the sins of colonialism, therefore putting them in the position where they have to work in sweatshops to make ends meet. Again it is not inevitable that any intelligent individual would accept that this statement is blatantly false, even after having that “fact” pointed out to him.
More than that, a socialist would almost certainly argue that they are being exploited by the landowner, by the recipient of any fee they have to pay (for instance, for intellectual property) their own government if they pay taxes, and so on. The socialist definition of exploitation is extremely broad but roughly isomorphic to rent. It’s also to my knowledge the only remotely rigorous definition of exploitation that would make sense in that context. So the question is pretty much explicitly asking “are you a socialist” and taking yes as being wrong about economics. Since the author’s of the study disagree with socialists about economics that seems entirely fair, though obviously as an argument that socialists don’t understand economics it’s circular. Still it would be clearer if they said “demonstrably being exploited”, but I think they are assuming that people who think exploited is vague default to no.
In the context of the study, the problem is that the wrongness of certain answers in the survey is supposed to be attributable only to political bias. I am not a socialist but I think it’s fair to say that the socialist view of economics, as far as economic facts are concerned, is not merely a bias. It may be wrong, but it should be credited at least as a mistaken school of thought rather than having all of its conclusions attributed to “myside bias”.
Although as I pointed out there are other problems with the survey, in this case the investigators should have limited themselves to questions that after correction, practically any intelligent person would agree upon—i.e. as close as possible to tautology whilst retaining the possibility for political bias to affect the results.
I can’t think of a good way to reword that particular survey question, so I’d probably scrap it. On the other hand:
a dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person (disagree)
Ceteris paribus an average poor person, in comparison to an average rich person, is likely to be more motivated to perform some task (of which he is presumed capable) by the promise of a given monetary reward.
drug prohibition fails to reduce people’s access to drugs
Drug prohibition doesn’t increase the difficulty or inconvenience experienced by an average individual in obtaining hard drugs whatsoever
Answer Agree/Disagree/Unsure
I would expect “myside bias” to be less evident if the survey questions were like this (i.e. not very open to interpretation).
More than that, a socialist would almost certainly argue that they are being exploited by the landowner, by the recipient of any fee they have to pay (for instance, for intellectual property) their own government if they pay taxes, and so on. The socialist definition of exploitation is extremely broad but roughly isomorphic to rent. It’s also to my knowledge the only remotely rigorous definition of exploitation that would make sense in that context. So the question is pretty much explicitly asking “are you a socialist” and taking yes as being wrong about economics. Since the author’s of the study disagree with socialists about economics that seems entirely fair, though obviously as an argument that socialists don’t understand economics it’s circular. Still it would be clearer if they said “demonstrably being exploited”, but I think they are assuming that people who think exploited is vague default to no.
Thanks for the elaboration, which I endorse.
In the context of the study, the problem is that the wrongness of certain answers in the survey is supposed to be attributable only to political bias. I am not a socialist but I think it’s fair to say that the socialist view of economics, as far as economic facts are concerned, is not merely a bias. It may be wrong, but it should be credited at least as a mistaken school of thought rather than having all of its conclusions attributed to “myside bias”.
Although as I pointed out there are other problems with the survey, in this case the investigators should have limited themselves to questions that after correction, practically any intelligent person would agree upon—i.e. as close as possible to tautology whilst retaining the possibility for political bias to affect the results.
I can’t think of a good way to reword that particular survey question, so I’d probably scrap it. On the other hand:
Ceteris paribus an average poor person, in comparison to an average rich person, is likely to be more motivated to perform some task (of which he is presumed capable) by the promise of a given monetary reward.
Drug prohibition doesn’t increase the difficulty or inconvenience experienced by an average individual in obtaining hard drugs whatsoever
Answer Agree/Disagree/Unsure
I would expect “myside bias” to be less evident if the survey questions were like this (i.e. not very open to interpretation).