|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,479 Year: 3,736/9,624 Month: 607/974 Week: 220/276 Day: 60/34 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If the test were liberally biased then conservatives would test as moderates to somewhat liberal. Let me explain with one sample question: No, if conservatives score as moderates then the test has a conservative bias. This is so self-evident to me that maybe I'm having a hard time explaining it. Bias isn't found in the questions, though it can be a result of how the questions are phrased; the bias is in the scoring. If conservatives score as moderates then it means that conservative "fringe" positions are considered moderate by the test; that's what bias means. Liberal bias would present liberal fringe positions as moderate, because moderate has the implication of "normal." That would be the percieved advantage of the bias; normalizing fringe or radical positions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"Enemies"!! C'mon. That is a false assumption. I agree that it's an overstatement, but it's certainly the case that the rich cause negative consequences for the poor simply by existing in the same markets. The astronomically stronger buying power of the rich, or even the well-off, cause the price of resources to rise, often beyond the ability of the poor to afford them. For instance, rental housing.
Many similarities of Evolutionary principles occur in economies. I agree. But that's not a good thing. The poor deserve better than to simply starve to death because they "couldn't compete." Don't you believe that, as humans, we have a unique gift or ability to come up with a better method than "natural" economic selection? It's a reality, yes, but don't you think we can do better? Don't you think we have a responsibility to try?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Bias can be found in the question by creating a situtation where the only choices are to side with the liberals or agree to an immoral position, an immoral position to both conservatives and liberals. Right, which would skew the scoring of liberals towards the middle. If people wind up being "forced" to agree with liberal positions, then more people put "agreement", and liberal positions appear more moderate.
For instance "Do you beat your wife on a regular basis?" If no, then you are a liberal. If yes, then you are conservative. Right. More people would pick "no", siding with the liberals, so the liberal position would swing towards the middle, making liberal positions appear moderate. Liberal bias means liberal positions appear moderate.
If conservatives consistantly rank as moderates or slightly liberal this would be a boon for liberal parties hence the possible use of bias. No... To repeat, if conservative positions are portrayed in such a way that more people agree with them - for whatever reason, including coercion - then it puts more people on the conservative side, which swings the scoring of conservatives to the middle of the graph. Conservative bias means conservative positions appear moderate. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-01-2004 01:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Lemmee see if I can illustrate this with a simple example: a "scale" that tells you if you're "tall" or "short", those terms referring to the difference between your height and the mean height.
In order to set up the scoring I need a sample of people's heights. So, I grab some random people and measure their height. But I have bias. Let's say I'm fairly tall and tired of being considered weird for it. So I use a measuring tape that I cut the first foot off of. That makes my measurement of everyone's height one foot taller than they are - more people who are not really tall are made to appear "tall", according to the "true" average. That throws off my scoring scale. Then, on the webpage, I give instructions on how you can measure your own height using a tape. If you're of average height (that is, the "true" average), you wind up being labeled as "short" because the scoring system is calibrated with zero being one foot higher than you are. If you're a foot taller than the true average, you score as "average" on my score because the scoring is biased one foot higher than average. My score is biased in favor of the tall because it makes the tall appear average.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No if the test was liberally biased liberals would be placed where they were, WAY left... And I've explained why this just isn't so, explained the reasoning, and given you an example. None of which I should really have had to do for something so self-obvious. If none of that is going to convince you, then you don't understand what a "bias" means.
then proving that liberals who answered them were pegged lefty. How is that bias? Liberals are left. If the test pegged liberals as liberals, then the test is accurate, not biased.
(not an actual question on the test) Right. It's not going to do us much good to argue about questions that aren't on the test, now is it? And such questions certainly don't substantiate your argument.
No, "Biased Questions" force the test-taker to make a decision in a perspective that if not answered a certain way seem inhumane, that is what a lot of the questions do in the Political Compass Test! Um, yes, Prophex, that's what results in extreme positions being identified as moderate by a biased test. But I don't believe any of the questions do that. There were plenty of questions where I detected the conservative bias; but I felt no squeamishness or inhumanity in answering "disagree." The questions are loaded, yes - that's to provoke a response. The test then measures your response. The results of the test, so far, suggest that the test is relatively fair, not biased. If the test was biased we could detect it in the score.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We have both given evidence, he has shown none. The so-far accurate scores resulting from the test are the evidence. The test does not appear to be biased.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I do not believe I am a conservitive, but the questions on the test forced me to answer "liberally". Maybe you're a liberal?
I intentionally made that question make you want to answer NO. Neither this question nor any like it appeared on the test. What's the purpose of this? Yes, it's possible to construct a biased question. Look, suppose that the test consisted just of this question. The majority - possible everybody - of takers will answer "no". "No" may be the "liberal" answer, in reality, but the test will report that everyone who answers "no" will be a moderate, because almost everybody answered "no". Get it, yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In other words, by distorting questions so that both liberals and conservatives would answer the same wouldn't allow the question to differentiate between them Right. Which would make the coerced answer the moderate answer (because everybody answered it that way) and the other answer would peg you way, way out in the fringe. New example. Let's pretend the first test is unbiased and is a perfect determinant of whether you're liberal, moderate, or conservative: 1) I am a liberal. Yes - maybe - No. "Yes" means you're a liberal, "maybe" means you're a moderate, and "no" means you're conservative, and lets further pretend the test is perfect, somehow. This test will score you with perfect accuracy. Now, lets pretend that we have a second test: 1) Only idiots are conservatives, and I'm not an idiot. Yes - maybe - no. As you can see, this is much like the first question, but there's obviously an added element of coercion. Lets say that all the people who would have picked "maybe" in the first test are going to choose "yes" in the second, and even most of the people who picked "no" in the first test are going to pick "yes" or "maybe" in this one. Only arch, arch conservatives are going to pick "no" in this second test. Once we normalize the results, it means that people who picked "yes" or "maybe" are going to appear moderate - they form the hump of the bell curve that becomes the zero point - and all the arch-conservatives are going to appear a lot less conservative than they really are, because they've been moved closer to the "moderate" point. The second test is biased in favor of liberals, and clearly, it makes liberals look like moderates - like the majority, like the average. Which is what I've been saying all along. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-01-2004 11:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If I assert that a position is "irrational", I am asserting it has been arrived at via one or more logical fallacies. Then the word you're looking for is "fallacious", not "irrational." You're attempting to backpedal from an obvious ad hominem by conflating "logical" and "rational"; these words are not synonyms.
I did so, by pointing out that leftist economic systems, in practice, are always coercive, in that they have involved using state power to expropriate wealth and property from their rightful owners. That's not a fallacy. In fact, your statement assumes what it's trying to prove; the system can only be called "coercive" if the targets of this system are the "rightful" owners; clearly it is the position of the leftist that they are not. Assuming what you mean to prove is fallacious; it's Circular Reasoning. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-02-2004 11:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My point is that while it seems that capitalists contribute nothing, they actually have a skill and serve a useful purpose. Don't you think, though, if that was the case CEO compensation would reflect their performance, like everybody else who has a real job? Instead, they make millions no matter what boneheaded things they do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024