|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Political Dimensions | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
welcome to the fray Lykaios.
Your scores: Radicalism: 83 percent Tenderness: 35 percent Socialism: 90 percent These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded radical; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general. To round out the picture, your attitudes towards economics appear socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing. Now lets talk about the inherent bias towards christianity in the survey, complete with the leading questions regarding judaism and the total lack of any other religious views being included, and questions on a lot of "hot-button" fundamentalists issues. ie -- non-christian == atheist?
34) Conscientious objectors are traitors to their country, and should be treated accordingly. As a concientious objector during the vietnam war I am personally insulted by this question. This also gratuitously paints all Amish people as traitors.
49) There is no harm in traveling occasionally without a ticket, if you can get away with it. Seeing as you can travel to many IF NOT MOST places without being able to GET a ticket for it, to say nothing of being able to "get away with it" when NOT getting one -- and it's associated implications of wilfull wrongdoing -- this question makes no sense when you think about it.
60) The practical man is of more use to society than the thinker. And of course you can't possibly be both a thinking person and a practical person. This certainly is the implication of many of these "questionable questions" imh(ysa)o.
Secondly, attitudes vary along a tough/tender axis, which appears to distinguish between realistic and pragmatic vs idealistic and trusting individuals. realistic and pragmatic = tough?idealistic and trusting = tender? You can be 83% radical AND 90% socialist AND NOT idealistic? LOL Something wrong there eh?
... while tough-minded radicals are individualistic and secularist, supporting sexual freedom and believing in evolution. On the tender side, tender-minded conservatives were found to be religious and moralistic, supporting censorship and belief in God, ... Excuse me? supporting individual freedom is not idealistic, it's pragmatic and realistic? Better tell the conservatives eh? and the "and believing in evolution" crock comes from where? It's science, folks, not some arcane religion. Supporting censorship and imposing religious doctrines on others is tender???
Lykaios writes: ... dimensions of political values which appear to underlie differences in people's acceptance of evolution vs. creationism, ... Or perhaps we should substitute "thinking" and "unthinking" for liberal and conservative in this "analysis" as it could be closer to what is really evaluated. Or you'll have to put me down as too capable of rational thought to ever be a conservative, which is what this "survey" seems to say. Garbage of very little real dimensional value, imh(ysa)o. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : tyop Edited by RAZD, : subtitle we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just so! It's unfortunate that the programmers don't seem to have the time or interest required to provide the insane, illiterate, and generally bored with more appropriate results. Or, it doesn't fit the political agenda of the survey. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A quick google:
Hans Jrgen Eysenck, Ph.D., D.Sc. (1916-1997) this survey is certainly not his, it has nothing to do with the two "dimension" he used according to:Hans Eysenck something is bogus. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From wikipedia: finding two factors, the first of which was easily identified as the classical "left-right" dimension, and the second of which he labeled as "tough-mindedness" versus "tender-mindedness. Leaving aside the fact that wikipedia can be edited, especially by those with an interest in the topic ...
... Scrolling to the bottom will take you to Eysenck's old test, ... although some efforts have been made to revise the test to bring it more up to date and introduce items that load on the third (S) factor, ... This does not stop the original questionaire from being bogus, as noted on what "tough\tender" involved, but it certainly proves my point that the on-line test was not his, as it has this "third (S) factor" thanks.
Thank you, but now I think I'll leave. I was hoping to test, informally, whether the original finding (which is by now almost a century out of date) that acceptance of evolution was a tough, radical value, and also to see whether the modified test was well balanced regarding the T dimension, but I think I've learned all that I can on this board. I never had any intention of entering any "fray," and while there were a few posters whom I found both reasonable and pleasant, by and large it has been a long time since I found myself in company so obnoxious. In otherwords, cut and run eh? Claim victory and gallop into the sunset? And never forget a parting ad hominum just for good measure. Don't let the door hit you.
... the items were not originally worded even by Eysenck himself but instead were "selected from speeches, books, newspapers, and other sources" ... This makes them any less bogus how? How does this make the questions even relevant to today? 1956 ... coming out from under the cloud of McCarthyism but still well before civil rights. Note that the Amish (among many others) were given CO status IN BULK during the second world war. Do you think it is NOT OBNOXIOUS to portray them as traitors? Do you think the questions regarding the jews were not predicated on anti-semitism? Do you find the implication of rampant anti-semitism in todays society NOT OBNOXIOUS? Sorry to burst your rosy little bubble, but if you want to think that you have found a holey grail for testing the political views of people today in a dated fifty year old work by all means enjoy it. Just don't ask me to fall for it. I have more practical things to think about. and btw, Lykaios:
.. it has been a long time since I found myself in company so obnoxious. You made that bed. But just to be clear: I found the test to be obnoxious and insulting -- if you take that as a personal attack then wear that shoe proudly. And I'll just make one more comment: you have not defended the validity of the test in any way. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you think Fred Phelps would be considered "tender" with this test?
I do think the political compass is more consistent (has it passed mod's test?) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Anybody notice the range of scores that get this result:
These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded radical; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general. Seems rather broad to me.
They seem to be a pretty much nutcase group as seen in this quote: seem? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's like I didn't even take the damn thing. We are also beginning to collect enough responses to see that the spectrum of canned response phrases is limited. One also wonders how descriptive phrases similar to like a university professorlike a police officer like a priest are is describing people, given that each of these kinds of people can span the spectrum of human belief and behavior. what use is a description that doesn't describe? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025