Political Dimensions

Well I am a Creationist but I also accept the TOE as the best explanation out there so far. Also the questions seemed so funny that about all I could do was laugh. Almost all of them were that the question simply had no meaning.Too funny and too silly to waste time taking.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If you are an evolutionist, your radicalism would be expected to exceed your tender-mindedness

---

I'm also a vegetarian. According to the write up with the test results, that correlates with a high tenderness score.But maybe my vegetarianism and acceptance of evolution cancel each other out, and that is why I'm near the middle (44), eh?

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

But maybe my vegetarianism and acceptance of evolution cancel each other out, and that is why I'm near the middle (44), eh?

---

Conceivably, although not necessarily; right now the median T-score is currently 42. The question is whether this is a result of restricted sample, or if it's inherent in the questions as they were modified from Eysenck's original wording. I am myself a textbook tough-minded capitalist radical, so most of the people I've contacted to take the text would be expected to have similar views. We won't have a very good idea of whether the test is skewed until we see some dyed-in-the-wool back-to-religion creationists taking the inventory.(By the way, can you suggest better site I ought to try to find tender-minded types? They don't have to be right-wing; they could also be anti-death penalty, anti-intolerance, pro-UN, lacto-ovo leftists.)

quote:

---

These scores indicate that you are a conservative; this is the political profile one might associate with a police officer. It appears that you are accepting of religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.

​

To round out the picture, your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.

---

I just decided to put all the answers I believe would fall under right-wing in this test just to see what kind of response it would get. I must say I did not know that police officers were all creationists who hate black people and jews.

took it yesterday, don't remember the exact scores, but55 radical,40ish42ishin whatever order they give out the scores. I was labelled a moderate. which is pretty close. I don't know what I am, except for not radical liberal or radical conservative.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I appreciate that's how it works, but I'm arguing that it is flawed. How can anyone with such extreme and contradictory opinions be fairly labelled moderate? It shows a flaw in the conclusions when it says that the person in question has moderate attitudes towards religion when the opinions put forward were that religious people are all hypocrites, God created the world and that God is just a figment of our imagination.

but if you put "strongly agree" to the questions such as God created the world, and some others like that,shouldn't that create the balance?you're right, it's slightly screwey, but most people who take this test won't pu strongly agree for contradictory statements. In other words, I wouldn't put "strongly agree" for both God didn't create the world and God did create the world.I think that that might be where the test saves it self--in that people don't normally put the same answer for everything, and that if they do, there scores don't count (?).

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

quote:

---

I appreciate that's how it works, but I'm arguing that it is flawed. How can anyone with such extreme and contradictory opinions be fairly labelled moderate? It shows a flaw in the conclusions when it says that the person in question has moderate attitudes towards religion when the opinions put forward were that religious people are all hypocrites, God created the world and that God is just a figment of our imagination.

---

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.

I did take a personality test once (I think it was the Meyers-Briggs test) that had a built in diagnostic to test for things like getting the bubbles on the score paper out of sync with the test questions.But I doubt that many simple on-line tests are going to be sophisticated enough to include such diagnostics.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Since I consider that on-line tests are inherently stupid, I thought an experiment might be interesting. I took the test twice, except that I didn't even read the questions. I merely selected "strongly disagree" or "strongly agree" based on alternating the two answers throughout the test. In the first go-around, I selected strongly disagree for the first question, then alternated. For the second, I selected strongly agree.Interestingly, in spite of what are in fact diametrically opposed answers to each question, the results came out exactly the same in both cases.

quote:

---

Your scores:
Radicalism: 38 percent

​

Tenderness: 47 percent

​

Socialism: 2 percent

​

These scores indicate that you are a conservative; this is the political profile one might associate with a police officer. It appears that you are accepting of religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.

​

To round out the picture, your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.

​

This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.

---

Accurate? Nah. Interesting, perhaps. Anyone have an analysis of why absolutely and completely opposite answers would come out with the same results?

welcome to the fray Lykaios. 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? As a concientious objector during the vietnam war I am personally insulted by this question. This also gratuitously paints all Amish people as traitors. 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. 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. realistic and pragmatic = tough?
idealistic and trusting = tender?You can be 83% radical AND 90% socialist AND NOT idealistic? LOLSomething wrong there eh? 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??? 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, : tyopEdited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Or, it doesn't fit the political agenda of the survey.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

But in this case you have to remember that the "test" is developed and reworded BY a new religion, one started about five years ago by a guy name Hawke or Hawk or such.The rest of their assumptions, like those you pointed out, are just plain silly. That quote alone is enough to leave folk rolling on the ground laughing. The whole idea these days of equating tender-minded with the current crop of conservatives can only be rationalized when you equate tender-minded with "their brains were turned to mush".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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 Eysencksomething is bogus.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Radicalism: 56 percentTenderness: 42.5 percentSocialism: 26 percentEvolution is the best current explanationSocialism was higher then I expected though.