The trouble with indices…

Every index can be challenged on the quality of the data that goes into it, and the weights that are assigned to the various components that make up the overall figure. A lack of transparency about methodology is also a valid criticism. For example, in my previous post on the competitiveness of different regions in the global information economy, the company responsible for the rankings provides little (free) information on how the index was computed. That’s a fair critique. Even when the methodology is transparent, there can still be problems. Gregg Easterbrook, for example, fisks the Kerry campaign’s “middle class misery index.” Easterbrook points out:

Suppose I announced an Easterblogg Happiness Index with these indicators: mortgage interest rates, crime rates, rates of heart disease, life expectancy at birth, rates of car ownership, median home size, air quality, water quality, highest educational degree earned, rates of accidental death, percentage of workforce employed in white-collar professions. Needless to say, I’ve chosen these because all trends in these categories are favorable. My happiness index would not be a fair assessment of society, because I’ve excluded the negatives. (Maybe I should throw in “accuracy of NBA jump shots” just to have one negative.) My all-positive index wouldn’t tell you the larger trend just as Kerry’s all-negative index does not…. You may not like W.-onomics–I don’t like his tax policy for the top bracket–but you’ve got to have a pretty badly jiggered index to hide the favorable current status of the unemployment/inflation comparison, always one of the best measures of the economy. If inflation were as out of whack as it was under Carter, or unemployment as out of whack as it was in the first Reagan term, current misery would be far more pronounced. Give me the “misery” of the George W. Bush numbers any day.

Real Clear Politics has dueling graphs, comparing Kerry’s misery index with the actual misery index. Check them out for youself. Meanwhile, ESPN’s Page 2 devises a much more controversial misery index for baseball teams. Why controversial? Because some Boston Red Sox fans will be shocked to learn that their beloved Olde Towne Team is only the sixth most immiserating team (Montreal was first):

If you listen to the wailings in Boston, no one outside of a Mel Gibson movie has endured the pain of Red Sox fans. And while it’s true they’ve had more agonizing moments than any other team — the Ruth trade, Ed Armbrister, Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, Grady Little … well, you get the point — they’ve also been one of the best, most consistent teams in baseball since the Impossible Dream season. Sure, autumn is always painful but summers in Fenway are about as good as it gets. And really, is there a single Red Sox fan who would trade places with a Brewers fans?

I agree with ESPN, but I’m probably in the minority among Sox fans. Already, some Sox fans are outraged. So, indices seem to serve one useful purpose — the fostering of debate. So debate away!