On the quiz
Now that the Austrian Quiz is upgraded and newly released, a few words on its approach.
There are two main complaints.
First, people say that it is too hard. Well, the response to that is that economics is hard, or rather challenging. It deals with serious material that goes beyond intuition. Proof of that is that its insights are too often detached from other disciplines such as philosophy and history that actually require economic understanding to be truly complete. Its difficulty underscores that economics require careful thinking and study. It isn't enough to merely study the ancients or read the historians. Economics has much to teach everyone, and it takes more than a few seconds to absorb its main insights.
Second, people complain that quiz too seamlessly integrates pure theory with policy, moving from theoretical understanding to political implication too rapidly, whereas it should defer to the Austrian insistence that theory is value free and can be discerned and defended apart from libertarian ideas. This is a valid criticism, and true as far as it goes. But the purpose of the quiz is to highlight the difference between the Austrian School (not just theory) and the other schools of thought (Maxist/institutionalist, Keynesian/neoclassical, Chicago/RatEx) and these schools do not regard their theory and policy as separate. In order to make the contrast more vibrant and clear, it becomes necessary to set aside the distinction between value-free theory and its political implication, because whatever the case in a world of pure thought, economics does in fact have political implications.
So on both these grounds, I do think the current structure is defensible. That said, there is always and everywhere room for improvement!
Comments (46)
Henri
I think it just fine. We not talking about economics 101 here.
As a history teacher in Europe I have to endure that test are being downgraded because students are to lazy to read, study of comprehend what is being explained in the text.
Keep the test as it is. It's excellent!
Published: December 26, 2008 3:50 PM
Michael
It was a lot of fun reading all the offerings to the questions. Reading through the non-Austrian answers I received a real sense of the error held in the non-Austrian views.
I think the test is good as it is.
Maybe too easy. The Austrian answers clearly stood apart from the statist positions. And the hard-core socialist views were simply ridiculous. How can anybody fall for that stuff?
Published: December 26, 2008 4:12 PM
subzero
it's way too long
Published: December 26, 2008 4:21 PM
Andras Ludanyi
The quiz is great, I passed it about two years ago with 94 out of 100 :) I remember I failed on one question where I answered the Chicago answer (3. What is the reason for the interest rate, and should the rate be regulated?) it was before I have the pleasure to read most of the really important Austrian works I found on Mises.org. Now I know where I made that little mistake so I guess I would pass with 100% :) if I take the test again.
Anyway it would be interesting to see some statistics if there is any, like how the average guy score on this test, what percent of us get the 100% or over 90% or less than 50% etc...
I hope you have those statistics and that you are willing to share with Mises.org readers :)
Thanks.
Published: December 26, 2008 4:27 PM
Andras Ludanyi
Correction:
Actually I fail on two question the second was (4. What is the economic impact of saving?) and I also answered the Chicago answer here.
Published: December 26, 2008 4:35 PM
Frank
I scored 98% Austrian.
Can adherents of the Austrian School be considered classical liberals? Or would they more likely be categorized as anarcho-capitalists? Does the Austrian School advocate abolishing the state completely or simply limiting government?
Thanks in advance.
Published: December 26, 2008 4:41 PM
Andras Ludanyi
I think both path can be observed in the Austrian tradition, Mises was more like a minarchist as well as Hayek but Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist. The truth is that this is not an ideology it isn't concerned with political organization of the society of free man, while Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist, Mises more like a utilitarian minarchist who believed in a constitutional republic with democratic institutions, Hans-Hermann Hoppe for instance is a monarchist who believes that a Monarchy is the best political organization. All of them was or are great Austrians in the economic sense.
Published: December 26, 2008 5:06 PM
Inquisitor
Hoppe is not a monarchist. He just considers it superior vis-a-vis monarchy. He is an anarcho-capitalist.
Published: December 26, 2008 5:09 PM
Joe Calhoun
Anyone who doesn't score over a 90 needs to hit the books. I thought the test was way too easy (I took the new one the other day and got 100). The Austrian answers stood out like a sore thumb. Or maybe I just spend way too much time hanging out here.
Published: December 26, 2008 5:15 PM
Andras Ludanyi
Well that's true but he is not an anarcho-capitalist in a sense of Rothbard or Spooner because he is willing to accept Monarchy over Democracy and I believe Rothbard and Spooner or some other hardcore anarcho-capitalist would dismiss Monarchy as much as Democracy. But you are generally right of course. Also he is not a Monarchist in a tradition of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn that should be crystal clear :)
Published: December 26, 2008 5:22 PM
C. Evans
Dr. Hoppe does dismiss monarchy and all manifestations of the State. He's been quite explicit in his speeches regarding this. His argument is that if one MUST have a State, there are advantages of monarchy over democracy. If we lived in a monarchy, my guess is that Prof. Hoppe would contrast the defects of the State with anarcho-capitalism. His argument helps us understand why the transitition from monarchy to democracy has represented a decline in civilization rather than progress as the court historitans would have us believe.
Regarding the quiz, I like it as is. If you wish to make it more challenging, Mr. Tucker, you could have us match each statement with the school of economics if represents. It would probably be longer, but it really would challenge us to know the basics of each school of economic thought.
"...(I took the new one the other day and got 100). The Austrian answers stood out like a sore thumb. Or maybe I just spend way too much time hanging out here."
Ditto
Published: December 26, 2008 5:36 PM
Steven Washer
Kudos on an enlightening quiz. So I scored 100, but I have to admit it was easy to spot the buzz words for the other theories. Perhaps making their answers a bit less emotional, more in line with the rational perspectives you used for the Austrian theory, would toughen things up a bit. I know, I know, how can you make a completely irrational theory sound plausible? Think of it as a challenge. But having said all that, it was great fun! Thanks for the good work. Keep it up.
Published: December 26, 2008 5:37 PM
JD
96%, I was kinda disappointed.......must have been the Chicagoan influence early on, bleeding through. I I guess I missed one of the Friedman books, when I cleaned off the book case a while back. Well at least I didn't lay down any Chicago School of Marx & Obama Dogma on the quiz, then I'd be worried. I still believe I'm salvageable.
It was somewhat long, but IMHO, very concise and clear, well........ except for the 2 I missed!
Published: December 26, 2008 7:25 PM
David C
The quiz was pretty easy, though wordy. Just go to the last sentence. If the answer involves more government regulation/intervention/interference, it is probably wrong. Then go towards the middle sentence, if there is something about the harmful exploits of unbridled capitalists/free markets that needs to be tamed, it is probably wrong too.
If you understand that most actions are productive unless third parties (like government meddle in them) then it it mostly intuitive. I got the part wrong about interest - choosing the Chicago school definition instead. Other than that it was mostly common sense.
Published: December 26, 2008 7:55 PM
Morty
I think the quiz did a good job. There were a few questions that could be answered correctly simply by looking for buzz words (like "time preference") but that's mostly unavoidable.
There were a good amount of questions where the Austrian answer was non-obvious, even for someone who has read a good deal of literature.
Published: December 26, 2008 8:35 PM
phil
actually, i think it is too easy to find the austrian viewpoint based on just wording. the austrian answers are worded too obviously.
Published: December 26, 2008 8:58 PM
TCK
Enjoyed the quiz. I managed to score 100% despite being somewhat new to Austrian Econ. Not only is it fun but it is also a great tool in helping to mentally arrange much of what I have been studying. I made it a point to read all the choices for each question and pick apart the arguments in my head. I believe my results have a lot to do with the ratiocination of Austrian econ. This site has been indispensable to me this past year. I have come quite a long way mentally since I began reading into the Austrian school a year ago. And I mean a very long way. Surely any person with common sense and patience, who is always asking questions and seeking the truth, their logical destination is Liberty.
Published: December 26, 2008 9:00 PM
anonymous
I found the quiz more like an educational presentation of four viewpoints than a quiz to pick the right answer (though I guess you all consider Austrian the right answer while I just consider it a view). After two questions I found it really obvious that you could just map each set of choices to Austrian, Chicago, Marxist, and something liberal (oh Keynesian, duh!).
I'm curious how the scoring works. Is every non-Austrian answer only minus 2 points or something? Otherwise why would I get 90/100 instead of 80/100 for picking 5 Chicago answers (just as above commenters are getting 98s and 96es)?
By the way, I've never read a single work by Mises (not proud of it, will read eventually). I don't know if that says something about the way the non-Austrian answers were written, or if I'm just a natural. Honestly if I knew someone who had chosen Marx for all 25 questions I'd still respect their views... I'd just try not to live in a country with many people like that.
Published: December 26, 2008 9:27 PM
Lucas M. Engelhardt
My suspicion: Chicago Answers give a -2, Keynes -3, and Marx/Socialist -4.
Which is consistent with my impression that many Austrians think that Chicago is "a bit off", Keynes is "misleading at best" and Marx is "totally out there".
Published: December 26, 2008 10:30 PM
Carl in Tennessee
I think the test is fine as it is. I am a fairly average guy, with only a bachelors degree in accounting and work as a middle manager in a family-owned industrial distribution firm. My only training in economics was two semesters of Keynesian economics in the standard accounting curriculum. Yet, I found the test questions easy to understand and answer. I am proud to say I scored a 96/100, only missing two questions.
Published: December 26, 2008 11:06 PM
jeff in texas
The test was easy enough if you have read any economics at all , I have only a high school diploma but it was easy to understand the direction the answers were going. I think many have just been spoon fed Keynasian "fast food" all their lives & just have trouble adjusting.
Published: December 26, 2008 11:47 PM
iAMrj * richard jones
My only suggestion is to include a fifth option -- "No opinion" or "Don't have a clue" -- for those with no training in economics, accounting, etc., and see how they perform as well. ;-)
Published: December 26, 2008 11:49 PM
Warren
I scored 100/100 and thought the test was a tad easy to game.
As Steven Washer and David C pointed out it was easy to divine the Austrian answer just by skimming for buzzwords/phrases.
Though I would have got 100/100 anyway. And I have no formal econ training, just been in the movement for a while and have done a lot of private study.
There was only one question that had answers I had to read over a couple of times but I still got it right.
If there is a future revision of the test you could describe some likely and emotionally intense consequences of following certain policies.
Such as: X (which is really bad) is happening, what to do?
A. This answer will lead to certain very negative effects in the immediate future but will lead to something much better in the future.
B. This answer will attempt to stave off most of the negative effects now but will lead to something even worse later unless something very lucky or an unforseen solution is presented.
C. This answer will attempt to even out the effects over time so there is no huge reckoning at all. That is everyone will be miserable for a long time but won't be devastated.
D. This answer will mean a total revolution of how things are down now, and once that is over it will be milk and honey for all with no reckoning for anyone.
The last three answers will draw out the inner planner in people as they try to manipulate their way out of these certain horrible consequences.
And then it will come as a shock to see that they are wrong and to be shown why.
Lastly: Is there anyway to see the overall results of the test? How many have taken it, average score, best and worst scores etc.?
Published: December 27, 2008 12:04 AM
Christopher Hightower
Are You an Austrian?
(30,846 have taken this quiz.)
Your score is: 94/100
Considering I'm pretty new to the Austrian School, I feel pretty good!
Published: December 27, 2008 12:41 AM
Grillz
As a Marxist, I hoped to "fail" your quiz, and did (0/100), so I was relatively pleased in that regard. (I took the short version.)
However, your bias shows quite clearly in the wording. I don't suppose you're overly concerned with that, nor should you feel obligated to hide your bias (we're all have ours); but ideally I think you should approach some respected thinkers from the other "schools" and use their own responses to your questions. Better still, you should collaborate with them on selecting the questions. What you should strive for is a quiz that adherents to all four schools would be happy and even eager to have on their respective web sites.
The problem, of course, is that each school will want to present itself in the best possible light, and the others in the least flattering way. It would require honest and respectful collaboration -- but I suppose that would put the hardcore individualist schools at a disadvantage in the negotiations.
Published: December 27, 2008 1:05 AM
anon
I don't understand why people are worried that they 'failed' to get a 100%. It is easy to spot the Austrian answer (without being well-versed in economics) - it's another thing to actually believe in the answer.
Austrian economics is definitely sound economics in the sense that it reminds us of the trade-offs involved - however that is not to say that the concerns/disagreements Chicag-ites and Keynesians are totally wrong. Some of their concerns especially when it comes to public policy can be legitimate i.m.o. (markets are not perfect per se, saith Mises) - but of course, just that there is a 'problem' doesn't mean that government should intervene.
Being familiar with the arguments on both sides allows us to have a more comprehensive view of things - even if the Austrian view is correct at the end of the day.
Published: December 27, 2008 4:59 AM
Andras Ludanyi
I think for people somewhat familiar with the Austrian school the Austrian answers is no question, but I believe the average Joe would go for the wrong answers in many case. It is obvious if you believe to some of the polls all over the media. Also many mainstream economist probably would go for non-Austrian answers as well. So I don't think it is so 100% case that everyone will have 90% or more on the quiz.
Now to say a word or two about public policy stuff and the "markets are not perfect", the answer should be in the works of James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock etc. and not in the Keynesian arena. Economics is one thing, politics is another, Austrian school is a school of economy in a classical liberal/libertarian sense, and that's it it isn't a school of politics. Now the truth is that we can't observe economics without the society because the market is a social phenomenon, but we must never forget that Austrian school is considered with economical question and not with the questions of public choice or public policy, it is considered with the market where individuals made exchange, it isn't considered with the state which is also a device where individuals made exchange but in a different way. It is considered with the questions of money, credit, ownership over means of production most of the time.
So please don't mix the two, because life in a society of free man has many complex questions to answer, some of those questions can't be answered by pure economical theory nor Austrian nor any other, that's why we need other theories like public choice theory and many stuff from the works of Knut Wicksell, James M. Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, Fridrich Hayek etc. not quite a part of the Austrian school but fully compatible with it at least to the extent that man should be free, money should be sound and there should be no laws against people who doesn't harm anyone. But we should know the fact that we are living in a society where we are dependable on each other that we have exchange exactly because we are different and that every action we made has some cost and some benefit so that we need a framework compatible with the traditions of the Austrian school to be able to have a society of free man. The trouble is that most of the history people find wrong ways to deal with the problems where actions has higher cost than benefits (at least in the long run) now if all those policies was compatible with Austrian school we would be much better off. It may be the truth that markets isn't perfect all the time but that's the right device of exchange to use in the economy. The state should be limited to non-economical exchange, but that is not the real concern of the Austrian school.
Published: December 27, 2008 8:56 AM
Morty
Andras:
Though economics is a value-free science, that doesn't mean Austrian economics has nothing to offer to the political arena. Austrian economics can help you achieve your goals, such as, if you value prosperity, Austrian economics can tell you the best way to get that is through the free market.
Published: December 27, 2008 12:22 PM
Befree
Actually I agree with Grillz assessment of the quiz. As a freeman I got a 100% (I took the long version). The bias in the answers are obvious even though it is a bias that suits my taste. Maybe if you take some of Grillz advice you will build a quiz that deeply challenges the understanding of the meaning of freedom, which is the root from which Austrian economics spring.
Published: December 27, 2008 12:34 PM
Andras Ludanyi
Morty:
Exactly. What I wanted to say is that Austrian school is a school of economics in the first place, but you are perfectly right, it has many good answers in other areas as well. I believe I once somewhere here on Mises.org wrote that the most powerful tool in any social science is Praxeology. That's why Mises was almost always right, he used that tool in every conceivable way. It's a shame that most mainstream scientist ignores that great tool, especially in areas where it has most to offer.
Published: December 27, 2008 1:14 PM
Mr. Karla
@ Lucas M. Engelhardt
You know, Rothbard used to say that there is one good thing about Marx: he was no keynesian ;)
Published: December 27, 2008 1:15 PM
asdf
Andras, praxeology is pure quackery, as anyone with even a layman's understanding of human psychology would understand. This is why Mises was almost always wrong; his first principles - the core of his ideology - is patent nonsense.
Published: December 27, 2008 2:30 PM
Andras Ludanyi
asdf (very original name):
And... that would be probably the reason why we have this economic meltdown because the "understanding of human psychology" told us that: what the heck, "the fundamentals are changing" and the laws of the market is actually no laws at all it just quackery just as the basic thing that a man will act because he want a better state of affairs not worse. Tell us, please what is wrong with praxeology?
Put some light on us, at least I want to be an enlightened one like you and not a stupid one as I am. Btw the only problem with praxeology is that it is pro freedom, that parasites which want to conquer men can't fool nor can buy those who really understand praxeology. Is it perfect? Probably not, but please show me a better tool for understanding human action and human interaction and exchange. Marxian collective class locked mind? Common man is that really so hard to have a civilized and scientific debate or you just have to dismiss something as quackery and move along to something like "human psychology" the area of human science with epistemological mess? Did you read one line from Mises? Did you understand one word of it? Because I still don't have the required mental capacity to process half of his stuff and believe me I am a computer scientist with very high mathematical knowledge, still Mises's mind work amazes me and left me most of the time speechless although I am aware that he made some mistakes too, but probably less than any other economist in human history. Of course we should know that most of his work was even more perfected by modern Austrians, it is I guess probably because he was as you say wrong with the core.
Published: December 27, 2008 2:53 PM
blah (better?)
Typically for your kind, you fly completely off the handle and label anyone who disagrees with you a Marxist.
Ironically, Mises makes the same mistakes as Marx. Both their economic systems stem from comically bad starting principles. Both were pseudo-scientists.
I'm not about to debunk either of them here in the comment section of a blog. (Although I suspect you'd be perfectly willing to accept my criticism of Marx, Keynes, etc. - just not Mises. No, no, anyone but Mises.) Suffice it to say that there are plenty of actual scientists - even libertarian ones - who treat praxeology with mocking scorn.
Have you never bothered to seek out criticism of your beliefs? If not, then how can you feel comfortable embracing them? The first thing I do when I realize that I've accepted something as axiomatic is go in search of dissenting opinion. I suggest you start Googling.
Praxeology belongs in the same category with Marx's "Historical Materialism," Rand's "Objectivism," and all the other pseudo-scientific first-principles on which entire worldviews are too-often based. (It is doubly ironic that those last two are so closely tied to atheism; they recognize the pseudo-scientific absurdity of Christianity, but not of their own near-religious ideologies.)
Published: December 27, 2008 4:36 PM
James
Your comment is completely useless, besides the laughably bad Mencken imitation you haven't even made an argument. Anyway, I doubt you know what Praxeology is. If you do, you should have been able to provide us with more information. What is the argument against Praxeology that puts it in the category of pseudo-science? Saying that "scientists" think it is isn't good enough. Some scientists agree with Praxeology and some don't, without any evidence we can't judge the validity of these opinions. By the way, Christianity isn't pseudo-science, as faith by definition precludes any attempt at making a coherent science out of what is clearly irrational and unprovable. I suspect your just a simple troll who gets off on provoking others with fallacies disguised as valid arguments.
Published: December 27, 2008 5:14 PM
Andras Ludanyi
Sorry I don't have time right now to further discuss this, but I would like to suggest the fact that not many scientist (especially not social scientist/economist) made a real deep research on the epistemology of the science they worked on and the core underlying theories they come up with or was used by them. Well Mises did, you can read all that in the Epistemological Problems of Economics free at Mises.org if you wish. Mises was many thing but he just wasn't a bs artist. And of course never forget to study some of the work of Popper who was very good in this area in logical organization and of course on falsifiability of any theory. You can believe or not in praxeology but you can't say that it has ever been refuted, at least not by any scientific method.
Published: December 27, 2008 5:42 PM
some dude
I took the first quiz. I wouldn't say it was too hard, but some of the questions were too jargon-y. Perhaps that couldn't be helped.
Published: December 27, 2008 10:30 PM
anon
Andras,
Yup, I agree with you. btw which works of James M. Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and Hayek do you recommend?
Published: December 27, 2008 10:55 PM
Lucas M. Engelhardt
@ asdf/blah,
I'm curious: what starting principles are better than the action axiom?
From my experience, every economics classroom I've sat in has started with one of two starting principles. Either the Austrian "humans act", or the more mainstream "choice in the face of scarcity".
Which, really, aren't too far apart. If anything, I'd say that "humans act" as generally interpreted by Austrians implies "choice" and "scarcity" (Rothbard does this very clearly in MES), and as such is a "prior" principle to the mainstream "first" principles.
The problem: you have to start from somewhere. If not from "humans act", then you must have something else in mind. I'm not looking so much for a critique of praxeology. Just tell me what the truth is, if it is not praxeology.
Published: December 27, 2008 11:31 PM
Andras Ludanyi
anon:
Well, the works of Buchanan, Tullock and Hayek are huge and I managed to read only a little part of it until this moment (but I will eventually read them all), so far I can recommend the Calculus of Consent (Buchanan) and The Limits of Liberty (Buchanan/Tullock) and regarding political organization/order a great work from Hayek would be the Law, Legislation and Liberty, especially the third volume. The first two you can find on oll.libertyfund.org, the third one... well in some public library of course.
Published: December 28, 2008 6:19 AM
anon
Is Law, Legislation and Liberty heavy reading? I gave up on Constitution of Liberty (too draggy) and opted for a summary which I found online. >_
Published: December 28, 2008 6:49 AM
Andras Ludanyi
Not a light one for sure.
Published: December 28, 2008 6:59 AM
Shamgar
Typo: on question 8, final answer "Consumers should not to hoard cash" (note the spurious 'to' in there)
Published: December 28, 2008 6:09 PM
jstanley01
Great test. I scored 83/100. Would have aced it if I'd googled Praxeology first.
Not that my goal was to ace it, mind you. Just to see where I fall on the continuum.
BTW, I wish you folks would take your debate over to the Praxeology entry at Wikipedia. The article is in dire need of knowledgeable help, and nothing like an edit war to spark some interest.
=D
Published: December 28, 2008 9:38 PM
DixieFlatline
What is missing now is HTML and bbcode for a banner link showing the score.
Then people will add them to their Facebooks, MySpace etc encouraging others to also take the quiz.
That's viral marketing...
Published: December 28, 2008 11:34 PM
asdf/blah (call me Tiler)
Ah, but Lucas, praxeology is a bit more than just "humans act," now isn't it? If that's all it were, then there'd be nothing to contest -- and no need for the word. It's a bit like when a theist assures an atheist that "God is love"; well, if that's the case, then of course I believe in Him!
Please.
Praxeology, in the sense used among you all, is a set of ridiculous tautologies that you attempt to use to justify your preferred ideology by equating it with "human nature" (as if there were such a thing). It even dares to use fun Latin terms like "a priori" in the same sentence with itself, even though it's presumptions are no more objective than Rand's presumptuously-labeled "Objectivism."
But you're not looking for a critique of praxeology. You're looking for the truth. Again, like a theist, if I poo-poo your religion you demand to know my alternative. But here's the thing: I don't have one. Aha! Now you've got me! Right? Wrong, and here's why: because I don't need one. And why not? Because economics is not science.
(Gasp!)
Yes, I know it's a shocker, but it's true. Economics is ideology. You've got yours, he's got his, she's got hers. There is no "truth" to be found there. Smith, Marx, Mises, Rand... all just ideologues with opinions. And you know what they say about opinions....
(This comment won't be approved, because it's true, and the "Austrian School" flunks out when truth is on the test.)
Published: January 4, 2009 4:48 PM