What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?

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.

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. 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?

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. 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. 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

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.

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. How is that bias? Liberals are left. If the test pegged liberals as liberals, then the test is accurate, not biased. 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. 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.

The so-far accurate scores resulting from the test are the evidence. The test does not appear to be biased.

Maybe you're a liberal? 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?

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

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. 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

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.