|
Exactly, and that is biased in the social research sense. The results are not equal to the reality. I and think you are using the word archetypical in a way it is not meant to be used, and you spelled it wrong.
=p
it isnt social research, its political research.
and, yeah, i may have used the word incorrectly, i typed and erased three different words that didnt sound right either.
and what do you mean there isnt spell check on here???
;)
Yeah, that's me, all right. A Marxist entrepreneur.well, a negative score on the economic axis indicates a desire for heavy government regulation and taxes, both of which tend to stifle growth (a bit or a lot, depending on the extreme...), so it would be a bit of a dichotomy to see someone who wishes to start a market driven venture desire a system that makes entering the market harder, especially if the venture would have low capitalization at the onset.
I do fine in small business despite thinking that corporations have to stay accountable and fairly taxed for the common good. Doesn't feel like a mixed up point of view destined to make it harder to enter business to me.
but, thats the point. its a political plotting system, not a compassion meter. the way you have to look at it when answering isn't "what do i want from society?", its "is this what i want government concerning itself with?".
If they want to plot politics then they shouldn't ask questions that elicit emotional responses. It's simple.
if you answered "strongly agree" or "agree" to the marx quote, you're going to scale heavily on the left side of the chart, as that government policy isn't possible without heavy taxation and regulation.that's just one instance, mind you, but there were several questions in the quiz that posed a compassion issue, and you had to consider what that policy would cost, in taxes, before answering...
No, they need to reword the questions. If I submitted this to a social research professor in any field I'm pretty sure it would get a low mark. Furthermore, I doubt all those famous people have taken the test. Someone answered for them.... what's up with that?
its funny, no one seems to mind their "y" axis score, just their "x" axis score.
Perhaps nobody feels that part of the test is biased.
|
|
Yeah, that's me, all right. A Marxist entrepreneur.well, a negative score on the economic axis indicates a desire for heavy government regulation and taxes, both of which tend to stifle growth (a bit or a lot, depending on the extreme...), so it would be a bit of a dichotomy to see someone who wishes to start a market driven venture desire a system that makes entering the market harder, especially if the venture would have low capitalization at the onset.
I do fine in small business despite thinking that corporations have to stay accountable and fairly taxed for the common good. Doesn't feel like a mixed up point of view destined to make it harder to enter business to me.
i think a definition of "fairly taxed" is in order. and, as a point of discussion, you do know corporations just raise their prices to pay for that tax, right?
exactly. but, that is EXACTLY what you get when you try to translate compassion into policy.
None of the questions asked me to speculate about the consequences of lawmaking based on my compassion.
|
|
No, they need to reword the questions. If I submitted this to a social research professor in any field I'm pretty sure it would get a low mark. Furthermore, I doubt all those famous people have taken the test. Someone answered for them.... what's up with that?
this is where we disagree. i think it is beautifully done on the "x" axis, and explains why people vote for a guy (read: carter) for emotional reasons, then wonder why the economy goes in the tank when he does funny things like implement a "windfall tax" on oil companies (sound familiar, anyone?). it is exactly those appeals to emotion that get people elected who are going to make policy that results in economically expensive (i.e. taxes) programs.
|
|
its funny, no one seems to mind their "y" axis score, just their "x" axis score.I minded my "y" score more than my "x" score.
I mean, yeah, I feel that people should be held accountable for their actions. Does that suddenly make me a fascist? No.
oh, just own your inner storm trooper, you'll feel better ;)
Personally I am a very compassionate guy. Despite lingering in the lower middle class I give regularly to several charities. I recycle and compost, and I never use pesticides on my property. I drive a Toyota Corolla, and would drive a hybrid if I didn't distrust the technology. I personally don't give a flying fig what you want to do in the privacy of your own home, whether it involves sex, drugs, rock&roll: go nuts. In many ways I seem like a total hippy. I always feel bad whenever someone is in trouble, and if I can I help them.
However, the real thing that sticks in my craw isn't that the government wants to help people. It's the fact that they do such a wasteful job of it. Most charities try to run a 90/10 split for monies received. I.e. they spend 10% on administrative bureaucratic efforts, and 90% goes to the people benefiting from said charity. The government flips these numbers.
While I want to help people, I don't want Rep. Greasy McPorker to lavish government jobs on his family to administrate giveaway programs with limited oversight. I wish they could be held more acountable, but as this is a meta issue in mainstream politics, it will never change. All we can do is try to vote where we can.
|
|
Personally I am a very compassionate guy. Despite lingering in the lower middle class I give regularly to several charities. I recycle and compost, and I never use pesticides on my property. I drive a Toyota Corolla, and would drive a hybrid if I didn't distrust the technology. I personally don't give a flying fig what you want to do in the privacy of your own home, whether it involves sex, drugs, rock&roll: go nuts. In many ways I seem like a total hippy. I always feel bad whenever someone is in trouble, and if I can I help them.
However, the real thing that sticks in my craw isn't that the government wants to help people. It's the fact that they do such a wasteful job of it. Most charities try to run a 90/10 split for monies received. I.e. they spend 10% on administrative bureaucratic efforts, and 90% goes to the people benefiting from said charity. The government flips these numbers.
While I want to help people, I don't want Rep. Greasy McPorker to lavish government jobs on his family to administrate giveaway programs with limited oversight. I wish they could be held more acountable, but as this is a meta issue in mainstream politics, it will never change. All we can do is try to vote where we can.
you've hit the nail on the head, my friend. government, by nature, is a bureaucratic mess, and is incapable, in practice, to actually get much done. it's one of the reasons i laugh when i hear people say things like "we need to spend more on education", when, at the federal, state, and local level, we spend twice as much per student on public education than private schools do, with much lower results.
apply that across the board, and it isnt how much money, but how effectively the money is spent.
Still no one close to my scores... you must all be right-wing nutjobs who don't care for anyone save yourselves. ;-)
|
|
oh, just own your inner storm trooper, you'll feel better ;)its funny, no one seems to mind their "y" axis score, just their "x" axis score.I minded my "y" score more than my "x" score.
I mean, yeah, I feel that people should be held accountable for their actions. Does that suddenly make me a fascist? No.
Nein!
no, they don't. but, as a POLICTICAL study, not a sociolological one, the implication is built in.
If you think its implicit and other people don't then there IS a problem no matter how much you argue.
You telling us that its our own fault that we didn't pick up on certain implications is pointless. It's a simple test but you are suggesting that I must approach it metacognitively. When I approach the questions by guessing what they mean, or even when I'm in a different affective state, my score changes.
It is not reliable. It is not valid.
I would give it about 40% and ask my student to rewrite it.
I'm voting Obama. There are some fair criticisms of the guy (lack of experience, for example) but I think he's smart enough and dedicated enough to do a good job. Plus, it will be a refreshing change of pace to have a president that can really deliver a speech and seem comfortable in front of a crowd.
What we should really focus on are the issue. No doubt he's smart, he delivers a speech well, etc., but he's quite left-wing on the political spectrum. That's where the focus should be - where the candidates are on the issues not how nice they look/act on camera.
|
You could try the Political Compass test. There's even an FAQ.
Is there a test?
So, I'm taking the test -- come across this question --
"people with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."
So is "significant lack of intelligence" an "inheritable disability"?
|
|
I think that one's typically more "nurture" than "nature" ;)So, I'm taking the test -- come across this question --
"people with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."
So is "significant lack of intelligence" an "inheritable disability"?
I've just often thought that some people should not be allowed to breed -- but not for the reason that the question suggested.
"people with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."
It's supposed to read: "Aberzombie should not be allowed to reproduce."
I've just often thought that some people should not be allowed to breed -- but not for the reason that the question suggested.
Joking aside, I've often felt that people who neglect and abuse their children should not be allowed to breed, but dammit it's too late by then.
While I want to help people, I don't want Rep. Greasy McPorker to lavish government jobs on his family to administrate giveaway programs with limited oversight. I wish they could be held more acountable, but as this is a meta issue in mainstream politics, it will never change. All we can do is try to vote where we can.
Boah, I say boah, us gummint fat cats need our cut of the pork too, ya see.
Shall I kick the whining liberal for you, sir?
Economic L/R: -5.75
Social Libertarian: -4.56I’m hangin’ out between Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.
Kneels before the feet of clay.
Shall I kick the whining liberal for you, sir?
Ah think that might teach him a lesson, son. That boah's about as sharp as a bowlin' ball.
Lead us to heaven oh master Mothman!
Boah, I say boah, us gummint fat cats need our cut of the pork too, ya see.
GAHHH!
Lead us to heaven oh master Mothman!I don't know ... I think my heaven would feature more hotties in barely there bikinis than Ghandis, Mandelas, or the Dalais would be likely to have...
I guess we need a z-axis, too.
As the chairman of the Whig National Committee, I urge all of you to rise up and barbeque Greasy McPorker in true 4th of July fashion.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
As the chairman of the Whig National Committee, I urge all of you to rise up and barbeque Greasy McPorker in true 4th of July fashion.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Go away, son, ya bother me! That boah don't stop talking so much he'll get his tongue sun burned.
As the chairman of the Whig National Committee, I urge all of you to rise up and barbeque Greasy McPorker in true 4th of July fashion.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
*Whack whack whack!*
*Whack whack whack!*
Come see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED!
|
|
You could try the Political Compass test. There's even an FAQ.How do you know if you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent?
Is there a test?
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13I'm in the same quadrant with Nicholas Sarkozy, Dubya, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. I'm happy with my neighbors.
Come see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED!
That boah's just like a tattoo -- gets under your skin!
OK, wondered what the hype was, figured I'd try it.
Economic -2.12, Social -2.56
As a "socially liberal fiscal conservative," I would have expected a MUCH higher, positive, economic number, and a vastly more negative social one. But questions like "It is the duty of all corporations to enslave humanity and destroy the environment, even when those activities are not profitable" seemed a bit loaded to me. So I guess I have to agree with Kruelaid.
"True or false: it's a good idea to kill me, and then yourself, if I promise to give you 10 cents afterwards."
"Uh, false, I suppose."
"Marxist!"
Economic -2.12, Social -2.56
As a "socially liberal fiscal conservative," I would have expected a MUCH higher, positive, economic number, and a vastly more negative social one. But questions like "It is the duty of all corporations to enslave humanity and destroy the environment" seemed a bit loaded to me.
"True or false: it's a good idea to kill me, and then yourself, if I promise to give you 10 cents afterwards."
"Uh, false, I suppose."
"Marxist!"
My economic score is the same as yours. I would also conisder myself a fiscal conservative, which includes, to me, saying no to "let corporations f+@@ over the country then let the taxpayers pay for the cleanup."
So, like I said. the test is crap.
...
As a "socially liberal fiscal conservative,...
The Whig Party needs fine upstanding young satyrs like yourself for delegates to our National Convention.
...
My economic score is the same as yours. I would also conisder myself a fiscal conservative, which includes, to me, saying no to "let corporations f@@* over the country then let the taxpayers pay for the cleanup."So, like I said. the test is crap.
yeah I will say that corporations suck at the government teat as much as anyone. It's sad how they get grants from DC and passes on emissions and John Q. Taxpayer gets stuck with the Superfund bill. I feel that the government does a lousy job of policing environmental violations, we need a outside contractor to watchdog these bozos.
The Whig Party needs fine upstanding young satyrs like yourself for delegates to our National Convention.
So long as I don't have to support Ron "I've never heard of the Tokagawa Shogunate, because history has no lessons worth learning" Paul. That guy's not a libertarian; he's an ostritch.
NOTE: Apologies to all the Ron Paul fans. I wanted to like him. I tried. And he had some great ideas. But, man, he had some lousy ones, too... like every other joker out there, I guess.
|
|
That's true. The problem with a long lifespan would be marriage. Could you imagine being married to same the person for centuries?The only problem is, it would apply across the board. I can't bear the thought of 120 more years of seeing Brad and Angelina stories at the supermarket checkout.
Lol! Well, it kinda depends on how far science advances by the time I'm old. I might die at 80 or if they figure a way to stall the aging process I might live twice that.
If that was the right person, I would have difficulty imagining a more wonderful thing. Seriously. No joke. Marriage can be pretty awesome, guys. My folks have been married over 34 years, and they seem to be just getting happier. My wife and I will hit 4 later this month and it seems like every year that goes by the bad stuff shrinks and the good stuff gets better. My wife's parents seem pretty contented, too, though they're both falling apart physically (decades of smoking does that to people). Add in three sets of still-married grandparents (and the last set is no longer married due to the death of my wife's grandfather from Alzheimer's Disease) between my family and my wife's and it's a bit hard for me to see why so many people look at marriage as a horror to be avoided at all costs. I'd be perfectly fine being married for centuries as long as I got to stay married to the person I'm married to now.
NOTE: Apologies to all the Ron Paul fans. I wanted to like him. I tried. And he had some great ideas. But, man, he had some lousy ones, too... like every other joker out there, I guess.
Don't feel bad, I've never seen a real good Libertarian candidate. But then again, I can pretty much make the same comment about any political party ;)
My OPINIONS (read, yours could be different) on this year's picks:
McCain: Wishy washy same old same old Washington Hack, can't even tell what party he represents. Respect his service, but I don't know if he is up to the challenges the next 4 years will bring.
Obama: Very charismatic, thus I dislike him. Smooth talkers often hide worse things under their smile. Very liberal, and has a touching faith in government to solve all ills in the world. Would be an interesting term as president, just to see if he could get his sea legs quickly in the confusing swirl of modern global politics.
Barr: Don't even get me started.
Figg: A fine man. Stands for corporate accountability, personal responsibility, detortifying our legal system and just plain good ol' fashioned FDA, FCC, BATF and DEA dismemberment. Death to the acronyms!
|
|
The Whig Party needs fine upstanding young satyrs like yourself for delegates to our National Convention.So long as I don't have to support Ron "I've never heard of the Tokagawa Shogunate, because history has no lessons worth learning" Paul. That guy's not a libertarian; he's an ostritch.
NOTE: Apologies to all the Ron Paul fans. I wanted to like him. I tried. And he had some great ideas. But, man, he had some lousy ones, too... like every other joker out there, I guess.
ron paul would have been comfortable in the republican party of the 30's: isolationist, protectionist. he isn't a Libertarian, not really.
Then he's a fraud who cannot be trusted.Ah... but is he really? What if he's pulling a bait and switch? Hmmmmmmmthe McCain of 2008 is against everything he stood for.
What you mean is he is a politican.
|
|
exactly. but, that is EXACTLY what you get when you try to translate compassion into policy.None of the questions asked me to speculate about the consequences of lawmaking based on my compassion.
It's my experience that many don't care. I'm all for compassion, by the way, it's just that governments are inherently dispassionate. If you want REAL compassion out of an organization, it needs almost by definition to be a private not-for-profit. If I were a disaster victim, I'd much rather see Salvation army or Red Cross trucks & personnel than FEMA ones, for instance. It's also a very bad idea to put a government agency between you and anything you'll ever need quickly. Like medical care.
|
It's also a very bad idea to put a government agency between you and anything you'll ever need quickly. Like medical care.True. On the other hand, if medical decisions are made based SOLELY on finance then a lot of people are f@%#ed. Like my grandfather. They made a lot of money putting him on expensive drugs, as much as they could, really, and it killed him. Or my brother, who was turned away from a hospital because he didn't have a plan...back when he was in college.
Either way, I have never seen anything and medical go fast. Example ER spent 2 hours for Kindey Stone passing and didn't catch it the first time in one hour earlier. Had the balls to charge my for both visits.
I look at it as this before my wife and I got married our first child didn't cost anything now that we have insurance it's going to cost us close to 6,000 dollars. How's that fair? Also, if a doctor can't fix it they shouldn't charge me. I don't pay a mechanic if he doesn't fix my car. OK, I am stepping down from my box.