Political Dimensions

Couldn't get through it, it was stoopid.

quote:

---

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

---

From wikipedia:Political spectrum - WikipediaHans Eysenck, in his book Sense and Nonsense in Psychology (1956), proposed a two-axis system to explain political values... Eysenck submitted value questionnaires to the process of factor analysis, 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." Tough-minded conservatives distinguished themselves from tender-minded conservatives in their heightened support for militarism and harsh punishment and their less favorable attitudes towards religion. Tough-minded radicals were more likely to favor easier divorce laws and fewer restrictions on birth control and abortion, whereas tender-minded radicals were more interested in pacifism and racial equality...You will notice that the Wikipedia article references a book; you can find one chapter from this book online:politicsScrolling to the bottom will take you to Eysenck's old test, where you will notice that the items were not originally worded even by Eysenck himself but instead were "selected from speeches, books, newspapers, and other sources"; 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, some items from the online test you took should still be easily recognizable, such as:Conscientious objectors are traitors to their country, and should be treated accordingly.There is no harm in traveling occasionally without a ticket, if you can get away with it.The practical man is of more use to society than the thinker.Note that some of these questions, such as the last question, are not scored; they are "dummy" questions.Note also that Eysenck's discovery was empirical rather than theoretical in nature; he discovered two factors (initially) and decided to interpret them as R and T. Specifically, the decision to associate the second of these factors with "toughness" and "pragmatism" vs. "tenderness" and "idealism" was his. Eysenck's research and his interpretations were championed by many but also disliked by many; see for instance _Hans Eysenck: Consensus and Controversy_ where Chris Brand defends Eysenck's model and John Jay Ray attacks it.

quote:

---

welcome to the fray Lykaios.

---

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.

I scored thisYour scores:Radicalism: 50Tenderness: 39.5Socialism: 30 percentThese scores indicate that you are a tough-minded moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a jaded materialist. It appears that you are skeptical towards 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 a political centrist.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Didn't see this test until now.Radicalism 17%
Tenderness 74%
Socialism 18%
" ...you are a tender-minded conservative; this is the political profile one might associate with a sincere clergyman. It appears that you are trusting of religion, and have a balanced attitude twoards humanity in general....your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would be generally described as right-wing."I wonder how I would have scored thirty years ago. Probably no more socialist, but certainly not religious or concerned about public morality. Wonder what that would look like. Don't want to go through it again to find out.

Figured I should reply to you so you'll get the notification. I took it, scored above.

Radicalism: 53 percentTenderness: 71 percent (an asset used with good effect during my more promiscuous days)Socialism: 42 percent Moderate in all things bar the gospel. This is true Well spotted, Batman This doesn't gel with my belief that mankind has already driven over the cliff and has yet to even consider applying the brakes in his plummet downwards. Capitalism will be the death of us all...but given the choices It's true: some will go to heaven, some will not. I can only speak with absolute certainty for myself

Leaving aside the fact that wikipedia can be edited, especially by those with an interest in the topic ... 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. 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. 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: 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.

---

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.

Bom dia.Voc fala portugues?

I thought the test was very valid myself. It described me to a tee. The only thing I objected to was that it used the term "clergyman" rather than "clergyperson." That seemed to me in bad taste.I'm sure Crashfrog and Schrafinator would agree.

If valid, it should at least do better than fifty--fifty, no?How come it incorrectly described Iano's disposition towards humanity?
If so valid, that is?how come modulus got a "moderate" score on religion when he answered contradictorily to the questions like
"god created the world"
"god does not exist"If valid, the test should at least recognize the contradiction, and point out that the scores are invalid due to a series of questions being answered contradictorily. Or, it should say--"try again, and this time, answer for real you jackass. Or, stop wasting our time"note: modulus is not a jackass.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

No, he's not.But for this sort of thing to work, one can't be playing games with it.

Iano didn't--it failed to describe, as you said, to a teenot that you said it described him to a tee, but used those words for yourself.the english language be damned for all its confusion!ABE: in fact, the originator of this post claimed the test could be used to predict who accepted evolution and who wouldn't. The test has nothing to do with that. It has to, badly at this, with political disposition.After all, isn't science a conservative? Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

No survey could describe Iano to a tee. Some people are complicated.

and you are simple?
never thought that myself, but okay . . .(slowly backs away from the wierd dude . . . damn it, no emoticons suitable for this! (face is joking but with the "he's wierd" look joke)

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

That's right. Simple and clear.Iano lives in a paradox.