The 2 best testers for Political Ideology [Archive]

shanek

10th December 2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Here are the 2.

This one is for Political Ideology itself:

http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=no

COMPLETELY inaccurate—it says I'm a liberal! The questions are weighted and based on false dichotomies.

And this one, is a better overall gage of you on the political spectrum... The Political Compass:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

This one just has completely stupid and irrelevant questions. Example: "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." First of all, abstract art does NOT "not represent anything." Abstract art MUST represent something; you take that something, and you abstract it. NON-OBJECTIVE ART is art that doesn't represent anything. Second, what does this question have to do with one's political orientation?

The questions are stupid and poorly thought out, and there's no option for a completely neutral answer.

I stand by the World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html). With only ten very clear questions, it does an amazing job at placing you on the political landscape. I've given the test to a lot of people. Although about 3% disagree with the results, the overwhelming majority are just floored by how accurate it is.

shanek

10th December 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by cbish
Did anyone notice that all the Conservatives were also Authoritarian. No Libertarian Conservatives? What would Rush think?

Or Neal Boortz?

Suddenly

10th December 2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Or Neal Boortz?

He'd probably think: "How does one go about legally changing one's last name?"

RPG Advocate

11th December 2003, 12:10 AM

OK. This is why I don't participate in politics other than to vote. Politics is a moving target. If you join a political party called "Liberal", for instance, the range of ideas expressed in that party can be quite wide. The fact that there are nine different candidates for the Democratic nomination, and that none of them can agree on substantive issues, paints this picture well. In the end, voting for a political candidate is just a choice of which civil liberties you're willing to forfeit. :(

_______________

Political Ideology

Rank - Item
#1 Liberal
#2 Left-wing Neoliberal (Clinton)
#3 Social-Liberal
[...]
#18 Revolutionary Conservative/Monarchist (far right

Political Compass

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 5.25 [Further Right]
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44 [Further Libertarian]

[EDIT: Looking at the map of famous politicians and where I stand, I notice that not one of them is in the Right/Libertarian quadrant. No wonder I hate politicians so much]

Shanek's Quiz

According to your answers, your political philosophy is libertarian.

Libertarian
Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 80%.

Marvel Frozen

11th December 2003, 12:58 AM

On the second test I got (-6.62,-4.87). That's put me near Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I guess that's better than being near Saddam Hussein.

On the Worlds' Smallest Political Quiz I got:
Left-Liberal
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 30%.

BillyTK

11th December 2003, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by shanek
This one just has completely stupid and irrelevant questions. Example: "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." First of all, abstract art does NOT "not represent anything." Abstract art MUST represent something; you take that something, and you abstract it. NON-OBJECTIVE ART is art that doesn't represent anything.
"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything..." struck me as a bit of an oxymoron. Abstract art is by definition non-representational. If the painting represents something, no matter how "abstract", it's representative art. Compare and contrast Picasso's Guernica (representational art) with Jackson Pollock's "Lavender Mist" (abstract art). I mean, with Pollock how more non-representational can you get? He just threw paint at his canvas! Of course, you could get into a real p!ss!ng match by arguing that if abstract or non-objective art is attempting to convey a concept or emotion, or even simply asserts the interpretation of the artist over that of the viewer, then it's representational art; not visually representational but representational none the less.
Second, what does this question have to do with one's political orientation?
Conservatives don't like abstract art ;)

shanek

11th December 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Compare and contrast Picasso's Guernica (representational art) with Jackson Pollock's "Lavender Mist" (abstract art).

Pollock did nonobjective art, not abstract art. Abstract art MUST be, at least in some way, based on an object or idea. The point is, it's a completely stupid f*cking question like most of the others on that test.

As near as I can figure, that test is assuming that someone who believes that abstract/nonobjective/whatever art is art would be in favor of funding and vice-versa. Not so; I really love nonobjective art, and most of my pieces have been nonobjective, yet I don't thing the government has any business subsidizing art. That's why that test is biased.

BillyTK

11th December 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Pollock did nonobjective art, not abstract art. Abstract art MUST be, at least in some way, based on an object or idea.
Pollock was an abstract expressionist. That's kind of a giveaway (although if I'm feeling grumpy I'll argue that he was actually a surrealist).

Art based on an idea is not necessarily representative because representative is generally used to mean figurative, as in something that looks like something else. But if I'm in that frame of mind, and like I said in my previous post, I'll argue the term 'representative' might cover everything from figurative through to abstract, and into non-objective art if the artist is asserting their interpretation over the viewers, and then argue that analytical cubism is also non-objective art!

The point is, it's a completely stupid f*cking question like most of the others on that test.

As near as I can figure, that test is assuming that someone who believes that abstract/nonobjective/whatever art is art would be in favor of funding and vice-versa. Not so; I really love nonobjective art, and most of my pieces have been nonobjective, yet I don't thing the government has any business subsidizing art. That's why that test is biased.
I think it's a cultural bias; my suspicion is that the questions were written by British authors, in which case the question is useful; the typical reactionary conservative Daily Mail/Express tends to get all flustered over art unless it's a recognisable depiction of a woman in a tasteful state of undress :)

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 08:16 AM

I had some problems with the "World's Smallest" quiz as well.

For example: "Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet." sounds nice if you assume we are talking about content.

However I disagree when dealing with "spectrum" type issues in broadcasting. So I disagree with the statement.

The question seems biased in that it is dressed up as a bland anti-censorship question, so people agree to it, not really considering those "spectrum ownership" issues.

Another question:
"People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose."

This all hinges on how you intepret the semicolon. If you look at it as the conjunction "and," then I would strongly disagree. Sometimes people freely crossing borders is called an "invasion." I'm against those.

However, if you view it as indicating the second clause modifies the first, then there is at least for me the opposite answer. If that is the case why a semicolon?

Lets re-word some of these statements to the opposite effect:

1) The draft is never justified regardless of circumstances, even an invasion by a foreign power.

2) Ownership of the broadcast spectum should be in private hands just like any other property.

3) Incest should be legal

4) It should be legal to sell crack in vending machines.

5) Anyone that wants to enter a country should be allowed to do so.

6) Regardless of short term consequences, government not try to help avoid having a large business with many employees go bankrupt from an unforeseen and isolated event.

7) The welfare of the workers in one's own country is less important than cheaper prices.

8) Minimmum wage laws help prevent exploitation of workers. Repeal them.

9) National Defense should be paid for by user fees.

10) The government has no right to use our money to feed starving children in other countries, even as a part of a long term National Defense strategy.

These are more or less the same 10 statements, just reworded to expose what the original was trying to obscure.

Jude

11th December 2003, 08:35 AM

Your Political Philosophy
According to your answers, your political philosophy is libertarian.
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 80%.

"Maybe" on the border-crossing issue. Generally yes, but I don't think we should open our doors to people with serious contagious diseases.

"No" on the tax question. I don't see how things like a national defense will be funded by anything but an income tax. Plus, a flat income tax would be much more simple and clean.

I've taken the other two tests before. Besides, I'm too impatient to sit through them.

Thanz

11th December 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by shanek

This one just has completely stupid and irrelevant questions. Example: "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." First of all, abstract art does NOT "not represent anything." Abstract art MUST represent something; you take that something, and you abstract it. NON-OBJECTIVE ART is art that doesn't represent anything. Second, what does this question have to do with one's political orientation?

The questions are stupid and poorly thought out, and there's no option for a completely neutral answer.

kay, you have voiced your concerns with the accuracy of the test. But what did you get, for curiousities sake? I am really interested in knowing what you scored here.

I got:

Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

which puts me somewhere around the Dalai Lama, and in the same quadrant as my current Prime Minister (well, today at least).

Thanz

11th December 2003, 08:43 AM

On the World's smallest Quiz, I am a Left Liberal, described as:

According to your answers, your political philosophy is left-liberal.

Left-Liberal

Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
That's pretty accurate.

Tony

11th December 2003, 08:52 AM

Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

Nyarlathotep

11th December 2003, 09:07 AM

Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

I guess that makes me a centrist with libertarian tendencies. I would say that is pretty accurate.

Underemployed

11th December 2003, 09:12 AM

The Dalai Lama and I should get along well according to the compass.

specious_reasons

11th December 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
I had some problems with the "World's Smallest" quiz as well.

I just tried the test , wound up being slightly to the right of center (!!)

For example: "Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet." sounds nice if you assume we are talking about content.

However I disagree when dealing with "spectrum" type issues in broadcasting. So I disagree with the statement.

The question seems biased in that it is dressed up as a bland anti-censorship question, so people agree to it, not really considering those "spectrum ownership" issues.

I wound up disagreeing with that statement for exactly this reason. I probably wound up answering "maybe" to a lot of the others as a result of considering unintended consequences of me saying yes or no.

These are more or less the same 10 statements, just reworded to expose what the original was trying to obscure.

Obviously, this test us intended to show you how great Libertarianism is, so the questions are going to accentuate the positive aspects.

Your rewording is a bit harsh, but I found it amusing.

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

Your rewording is a bit harsh, but I found it amusing.

Thanks. That's kind of what I was going for.

shanek

11th December 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
For example: "Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet." sounds nice if you assume we are talking about content.

However I disagree when dealing with "spectrum" type issues in broadcasting. So I disagree with the statement.

Except that not all of those methods use the spectrum. It's obviously talking about content, and after giving the quiz literally hundreds of times I haven't run into one single person who was confused by what it was asking.

The statements that seem to cause the most confusion are, "Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults" and "Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them." Some of the others get occasional questions, but in the case of that one I have never run into anyone who was confused by what it said.

[qote]The question seems biased in that it is dressed up as a bland anti-censorship question, so people agree to it, not really considering those "spectrum ownership" issues.[/quote]

The issue of spectrum ownership doesn't go into it because not all of those items deal with spectrum ownership issues!

Another question:
"People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose."

This all hinges on how you intepret the semicolon. If you look at it as the conjunction "and," then I would strongly disagree. Sometimes people freely crossing borders is called an "invasion." I'm against those.

However, if you view it as indicating the second clause modifies the first, then there is at least for me the opposite answer. If that is the case why a semicolon?

Of all the questions I have had about that point, this issue has NEVER come up. I don't get why you're so confused by this...it simply means that people have the right to cross borders, live, and work where they choose. It DOES NOT include an "invasion," and I have never talked to anyone who read the question and thought that it did.

1) The draft is never justified regardless of circumstances, even an invasion by a foreign power.

That changes the meaning of the question. It's not a question of what is "justified," it's a question of what the person thinks should be. We're asking for opinions, not justifications.

2) Ownership of the broadcast spectum should be in private hands just like any other property.

Again, that question has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the broadcast spectrum and I don't see how any rational person could conclude that it does. Where's the use of the spectrum in the press or the internet? (Internet access, maybe, in the case of wireless access, but again that's not what the question is asking about.)

3) Incest should be legal

Where is this even remotely covered in the questions? (Or did you miss the whole "consenting adults" part?)

4) It should be legal to sell crack in vending machines.

I won't even comment on this question, except to say that you have just lost whatever indignation you had at being called a "bigot."

5) Anyone that wants to enter a country should be allowed to do so.

The question isn't just about entering countries; it's about what you can do once you're there.

6) Regardless of short term consequences, government not try to help avoid having a large business with many employees go bankrupt from an unforeseen and isolated event.

What does this even mean?

7) The welfare of the workers in one's own country is less important than cheaper prices.

Again, what the smeg are you talking about?

8) Minimmum wage laws help prevent exploitation of workers. Repeal them.

Weasel words. "Exploitation of workers"...sheesh!

The last two aren't even worth acknowledging.

These are more or less the same 10 statements,

No, they aren't. They aren't even close. you have just, once again, displayed your blatant bigotry towards these issues.

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Except that not all of those methods use the spectrum. It's obviously talking about content, and after giving the quiz literally hundreds of times I haven't run into one single person who was confused by what it was asking.
The statements that seem to cause the most confusion are, "Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults" and "Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them." Some of the others get occasional questions, but in the case of that one I have never run into anyone who was confused by what it said.
That says more about the critical reading skills of the others than it does the evenness of the test

The question seems biased in that it is dressed up as a bland anti-censorship question, so people agree to it, not really considering those "spectrum ownership" issues.

The issue of spectrum ownership doesn't go into it because not all of those items deal with spectrum ownership issues! Spectrum issues are included in the question. Perhaps a change in wording to specify content would be a good idea.

Of all the questions I have had about that point, this issue has NEVER come up. I don't get why you're so confused by this...it simply means that people have the right to cross borders, live, and work where they choose. It DOES NOT include an "invasion," and I have never talked to anyone who read the question and thought that it did. Again, that just speaks to critical reading. Lose the semicolon and the meaning becomes clearer.

That changes the meaning of the question. It's not a question of what is "justified," it's a question of what the person thinks should be. We're asking for opinions, not justifications.

I disagree. My statement also asks for opinions, it just acknowleges that a draft is sometimes a creature of necessity.

Again, that question has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the broadcast spectrum and I don't see how any rational person could conclude that it does. Where's the use of the spectrum in the press or the internet? (Internet access, maybe, in the case of wireless access, but again that's not what the question is asking about.) How about a rational person that reads critically and doesn't assume things not in the text. Government control of broadcasting would include spectrum issues and other non-content issues. If the original wasn't trying to be deceptive, they could have specified that only content was considered. It is either intentionaly deceptive or poorly drafted, your choice.

Where is this even remotely covered in the questions? (Or did you miss the whole "consenting adults" part?) Incest can be between consenting adults. Perhaps I should have added that as a qualifier for those that do not understand the legal definition of incest. Incest does not require a lack of consent. Some rapes/molestations may also be incest, but not vice versa. Incest technically (at least every law I've seen) is simply sex between people who are related to a specific degree.

I won't even comment on this question, except to say that you have just lost whatever indignation you had at being called a "bigot." Then explain how selling crack in vending machines will not be legal if we get rid of all drug laws.

The question isn't just about entering countries; it's about what you can do once you're there. Sure. No background checks though. Still agree?

What does this even mean?
What it says. That government should never "bail out" a company struck by an anomolous incident, even if it puts thousands out of work and disrupts the economy.

Again, what the smeg are you talking about?This was pretty simple. Agree or not?

Weasel words. "Exploitation of workers"...sheesh! Your opinion. I guess you agree then?

The last two aren't even worth acknowledging.

No, they aren't. They aren't even close. you have just, once again, displayed your blatant bigotry towards these issues.
Uh huh.

The whole purpose was to present the opposite bias in those statements, not my personal view, so your renewed personal attack is particularly misplaced.

I do find it interesting that you can't accept that the Libertarian viewpoint does lend itself to some opinions that are politically unpopular. Your response to the crack statement in particular. If there are no drug laws, how is that not legal?

shanek

11th December 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
kay, you have voiced your concerns with the accuracy of the test. But what did you get, for curiousities sake? I am really interested in knowing what you scored here.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.38
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

There's no one in the quadrant where I am. (???)

shanek

11th December 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I just tried the test , wound up being slightly to the right of center (!!)

It's actually weighted towards the center. The idea is that it should only place you in one of the idealist quadrants if you apply there by principle, and not just happen to agree with that particular question.

I wound up disagreeing with that statement for exactly this reason. I probably wound up answering "maybe" to a lot of the others as a result of considering unintended consequences of me saying yes or no.

That's actually why the neutral category is there, and why the test is weighted towards the centrist.

Obviously, this test us intended to show you how great Libertarianism is,

No, it isn't. It's designed up front to give you an accurate placing of your political philosophy. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be any good to us. You have to remember that these questions are the result of over ten years of trial and error, and experience, and review.

You might want to read this:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq03

shanek

11th December 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Spectrum issues are included in the question.

Well, there's what you read, with your obvious bias, and there's what the thousands upon thousands of other people have read over the years. But let me guess: They're just all stupid, right?

I disagree. My statement also asks for opinions, it just acknowleges that a draft is sometimes a creature of necessity.[/b]

And by building that acknowlegement into the question, you bias the test.

How about a rational person that reads critically and doesn't assume things not in the text. Government control of broadcasting would include spectrum issues and other non-content issues.

Except that the question doesn't limit itself to broadcast media.

If the original wasn't trying to be deceptive,

They're not. Why don't you read the FAQ I linked to and see for yourself? They talk a lot about how the questions evolved over time to remove confusion and bias.

A great deal of careful thought and analysis has gone into the choice of questions and the wording of those questions. At least 2,000 man-hours of discussion have gone into choosing the wording and layout of the Quiz. And the Advocates leadership regularly discusses potential changes and improvements to make the Quiz more accurate and useful.

But, I guess you, after seeing the quez for what, two minutes, know better than the thousands of man-hours put into it and the years of experience and experimentation behind it...riiiiight...

Then explain how selling crack in vending machines will not be legal if we get rid of all drug laws.

Not the issue. The issue is whether or not the drug laws should exist; not how they should be dispensed in a legal society. It is biased, it is misleading, and it is clearly designed to frighten people into answering 'No."

What it says. That government should never "bail out" a company struck by an anomolous incident, even if it puts thousands out of work and disrupts the economy.

This was pretty simple. Agree or not?

Your refusal to clarify your statements upon request has been noted.

The whole purpose was to present the opposite bias in those statements,

Except that, as the experimentation and experience shows, there is no bias in those statements to begin with. That you see bias where there is none just shows how clouded your thinking is.

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 11:12 AM

Here's a discussion of the "Smallest Political Quiz" by someone not directly affiliated with a libertarian organization, for all you "multiple viewpoint" fans out there...

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/rupright.html

They have a less exagerated re-statement of the 10 statements of the quiz, although I still like mine better:

Personal:
The military should not be allowed to draft soldiers, even in times of national emergency.
Government should not restrict the flow of pornography across the airwaves and internet.
Prostitutes are entrepreneurs. Don't legally restrict their trade.
PCP and heroin should be legal.
Let impoverished foreigners compete for our jobs.
Economic:
Government should not help industries or farms at risk of failure.
We are better off when our products are in free competition with those made by foreigners earning only a small fraction of our wages.
Employers should be allowed to pay people as little as they can.
If people need help from a government program, let them pay for it.
Our government should not support struggling democracies, but rich individuals and corporations can support rebels who would overthrow these democracies.

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Well, there's what you read, with your obvious bias, and there's what the thousands upon thousands of other people have read over the years. But let me guess: They're just all stupid, right?

Not stupid, just not very critical. Other people aren't as critical a reader as me. They have better things to do with their time.

And by building that acknowlegement into the question, you bias the test. Like I said, I am applying the opposite bias. I didn't have years to perfect it, so I'm not as slick, but exposing the hidden components was my point, so slickness wasn't really my goal.

Except that the question doesn't limit itself to broadcast media. Broadcast media is included, and it is not simply limited to content. You would think with all that time they would have figured out to be specific. There are possible non-content issues with the other forms as well, the spectum issue was the first to come to mind. Funny you haven't stated that libertarians would be against private ownership of the broadcast spectrum. If they aren't, why the fuss?

They're not. Why don't you read the FAQ I linked to and see for yourself? They talk a lot about how the questions evolved over time to remove confusion and bias.

But, I guess you, after seeing the quez for what, two minutes, know better than the thousands of man-hours put into it and the years of experience and experimentation behind it...riiiiight... I do have critical skills where I am going to doubt that an outfit called "Advocates for Self Government" is exactly a disinterested neutral party in this regard. Perhaps you should look to an independant review of the quiz. I'm sure libertarians think it is just dandy as a recruiting tool. It reminds me of those "are you a Christian" tests people try to hand me outside of the mall.

Not the issue. The issue is whether or not the drug laws should exist; not how they should be dispensed in a legal society. It is biased, it is misleading, and it is clearly designed to frighten people into answering 'No." Just as the original glossed over the problems of legalization in order to encourage a yes answer. The fact is if there are no drug laws whatsoever, it is legal to sell crack in vending machines. Maybe nobody will do so, but it still will be legal.

Your refusal to clarify your statements upon request has been noted. On my permanent record? NOOOOOOO!!!!!! Please reconsider! What am I going to do now. IT HAS BEEN NOTED that my two attempts to convey something are not enough. I might as well call my mother and tell her I have a record now. Please don't tell anyone! Please! I can't let it get out that I was unable to get you to realize the possible positive short term benefits of government assisting a temporarily troubled buisness. Oh the shame! The agony!!!!

[starts to cry]

O.K. I'm better now.

Except that, as the experimentation and experience shows, there is no bias in those statements to begin with. That you see bias where there is none just shows how clouded your thinking is.

Uh huh. I disagree with a libertarian organization's opinion that a test developed by a libertarian and used pretty much exclusively by libertarians is not biased, so that means my thinking is "clouded."

Thanks for the tip.

Also thanks for not saying my cloudy thinking hs been "noted." I don't know if my carreer could survive another such mark on my record.

shanek

11th December 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
They have a less exagerated re-statement of the 10 statements of the quiz, although I still like mine better:

But those are still faulty, for reasons explained in the FAQ.

specious_reasons

11th December 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, it isn't. It's designed up front to give you an accurate placing of your political philosophy. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be any good to us. You have to remember that these questions are the result of over ten years of trial and error, and experience, and review.

You might want to read this:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq03

Ok, I'll back down on the "obvious" part of my statement. The quiz seems to be an honest attempt at
1) better labelling system for politcal beliefs than the "left-right" scheme
2) a set of questions that attempts to do a "best fit" on that new labelling system.

However, I still think that the questions are not entirely unbiased. (I jumped to the same conclusion that Suddenly did on the "censorship" question.) It's better than the ones in the opening post, but it's still biased.

shanek

11th December 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Not stupid, just not very critical. Other people aren't as critical a reader as me. They have better things to do with their time.

Which is exactly why we don't need to bog them down with a lot of verbiage intended solely to placate a lawyer; we want them to take a short, fun quiz and have it be as accurate as possible. The vast majority of the people understand exactly what is being asked, and those are the people being asked their opinion. the question is worded in such a way that the intended audience understand it perfectly. Your problem is that you think there is something wrong with that.

Like I said, I am applying the opposite bias.

No, you are just applying bias. As the results of the quiz clearly show, there is no Libertairan bias to the questions. That was put to rest when Rasmussen Research did a scientific poll with those exact questions.

Broadcast media is included,

So? Does it mean that government should not regulate the computer industry because the internet is involved? Or the car industry because newspapers have to be delivered in them? You claim to be examining the question analytically; why did you not bring up those aspects?

Funny you haven't stated that libertarians would be against private ownership of the broadcast spectrum. If they aren't, why the fuss?

Because we aren't discussing the Libertarian position here. We are discussing a question on a political quiz and what it means. YOU, in your bigotry, are trying to turn this into an anti-libertarian issue.

Perhaps you should look to an independant review of the quiz.

I did. The Rasmussen poll shows its fairness quite clearly.

I'm sure libertarians think it is just dandy as a recruiting tool.

It is, because it allows us to recognize libertarians on the spot while not wasting our precious resources sending material to people who don't agree with us. We have a vested interest in the test being accurate. But you just can't see that, because your mind has been completely blinded to that possibility.

Just as the original glossed over the problems of legalization in order to encourage a yes answer.

The question addresses neither problems nor benefits. It simply asks if you believe that drug laws do more harm than good, and if so, should they be repealed. It doesn't say anything about what good or what harm they do; just for your evaluation of which one wins out. Neither one should be emphasized, and neither one is.

The fact is if there are no drug laws whatsoever, it is legal to sell crack in vending machines. Maybe nobody will do so, but it still will be legal.

You CLAIM to be a critical thinker. Why did you not think of this?

The Avocates' Quiz: "Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them."

Test taker: "Gee, that would let people sell crack in vending machines...so although some drug laws should be repealed, not all of them should. My answer is Maybe."

Suddenly's Quiz: "Crack should be sold in vending machines."

Test taker: "Good Lord, no! My answer is No!"

Your rephrasing would completely change this person's answer! A person with the exact same opinion would be compelled to answer "No" instead of "Maybe" even though a "Maybe" in that situation is actually what's appropriate for the test. By focusing on one particular aspect, you have moved away from how the person feels principally.

So maybe you aren't the critical thinker you think you are if you can't see that problem.

Uh huh. I disagree with a libertarian organization's opinion that a test developed by a libertarian and used pretty much exclusively by libertarians is not biased, so that means my thinking is "clouded."

Thanks for the tip.

So, you acknowledge that your disagreement with the test is based solely on who created. Thank you for admitting being a bigot.

specious_reasons

11th December 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Here's a discussion of the "Smallest Political Quiz" by someone not directly affiliated with a libertarian organization, for all you "multiple viewpoint" fans out there...

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/rupright.html

They have a less exagerated re-statement of the 10 statements of the quiz, although I still like mine better:

I like yours better, too, but I have my own biases.

For the record, I agree with you: The questions in the "Smallest Political Quiz" are less than perfect. They do gloss over the potentially unseemly aspects of some of the issues. ...and I understood your alterations to the questions were tactless pointers to those unseemly aspects, specifically to make people want to say "no".

I have to tell you both, I love and hate these Suddenly/Shanek feuds, because they're fun to read, but it's so frustrating to see you miss each other's points.

Thanz

11th December 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by shanek

But, I guess you, after seeing the quez for what, two minutes, know better than the thousands of man-hours put into it and the years of experience and experimentation behind it...riiiiight...

They spent thousands of man hours on this quiz and couldn't come up with less biased questions than:

"Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them."

and

"Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them."?

How are these questions any less biased than the ones proposed above?

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Suddenly's Quiz: "Crack should be sold in vending machines."

Please cite where I suggested this.

I said that such a thing would be legal. That doesn't mean it should be done. You of all people should understand that, since the above is often the type of strawman used against libertarian positions.

Should your misrepresentation of my position be "noted" as well? How do I do that? Do I write it down next to the computer? Do I open the word processor in a different window? E-Mail my mom?

shanek

11th December 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Please cite where I suggested this.

I said that such a thing would be legal.

Okay, fine, "It should be legal to sell crack in vending machines." The point still stands. It changes the person's answer from Maybe to No.

specious_reasons

11th December 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Okay, fine, "It should be legal to sell crack in vending machines." The point still stands. It changes the person's answer from Maybe to No.

That would be the point.... It's hard to write an unbiased poll question. Clearly the real question is less biased than Suddenly's, but there is a bias. And the bias leads more people toward the Libertarian pole of that graph.

Why doesn't the question just say "All drug laws should be repealed" ?

Of course, there's the implication of the question: This includes perscription drug regulation.
Would it be more or less biased to include that in the poll?

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Okay, fine, "It should be legal to sell crack in vending machines." The point still stands. It changes the person's answer from Maybe to No.

Which was the whole point. Yes there was bias. It was intentional.

Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.

This is very suggestive and confused. Why?

1) Which is the statement? One could believe that drug laws do more good than harm, but still object on principle to drug laws. Or even that drug laws harm but are still necessary for religious reasons or whatever.

2) It logically calls for the repeal of all drug laws. In that sense the answer should be identical to the question "Should it be legal to sell crack to children." However, the first statement implies a pragmatism or value judgement that doesn't exist in the second.

I think a more accurate question would be a simple:

All drug laws should be repealed.

It just seems in the original you have the libertarian side argued just before the question. A better contra-example than my crack question could be:

Drug laws keep drugs out of kids' hands. Repeal them.

Now, you may disagree with the veracity of the first statement, but people also could disagree with "drug laws cause more harm than good." It is an unproven value statement, and it's function in the statement is unclear and could be taken different ways. Is it an assumption? A compound statement?

I submit that prefacing the "repeal them" with "drug laws do more harm than good" is similar to prefacing it with "drug laws keep drugs out of kids' hands.

Nikk

11th December 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

They spent thousands of man hours on this quiz and couldn't come up with less biased questions than:

"Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them."

and

"Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them."?

How are these questions any less biased than the ones proposed above?

Nevertheless the test nailed me as left liberal which is is reasonable. To give the test the benefit of the doubt; it isn't nessary for questions in a psychometric test to make sense, to be logical or even to be obviously unbiassed as the human mind is none of the above. All that matters is for the suite of questions to disclose the information you want. For all we know the questions could have been refined out of a much more complex series of tests and been found to have high predictive value.

If for example your test includes the question "Do you ever lie - Y/N" and the answer is no, you have learned that the respondent lacks self awareness or is a liar.:D errrm or Jesus.

shanek

11th December 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by specious_reasons
That would be the point.... It's hard to write an unbiased poll question. Clearly the real question is less biased than Suddenly's, but there is a bias. And the bias leads more people toward the Libertarian pole of that graph.

Only when compared to Suddenly's extreme example. As it is, you would have to be very principled about the legalization of drugs to answer Yes, as well as steadfast about drug restrictions to answer No. That's the point: find out where people are in principle.

Why doesn't the question just say "All drug laws should be repealed" ?

Because believe it or not, that phrasing confused a lot of people.

Would it be more or less biased to include that in the poll?

Not more or less biased, but the question required more explanation. The question that is there acknowledges at least some good and some bad that drug laws do. That's why it's unbiased, and why the question makes more sense to people.

shanek

11th December 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
It just seems in the original you have the libertarian side argued just before the question.

Nothing is being argued! It is a STATEMENT!

A better contra-example than my crack question could be:

Drug laws keep drugs out of kids' hands. Repeal them.[/b]

No, this is still biased: you are acknowledging a good thing about drug laws (which isn't even true, BTW) without pointing out the harm done bby them. The question as it stands mentions the drug laws doing both harm and good. That's why it's unbiased, but your own pigheaded bigotry just won't let you see that no matter how many times it's pointed out to you.

Mention good and bad: no bias. Mention only bad: bias.

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Nothing is being argued! It is a STATEMENT!

Right. So making an anti-drug law statement right before asking someone to agree is not bias. Got it.

No, this is still biased: you are acknowledging a good thing about drug laws (which isn't even true, BTW) without pointing out the harm done bby them. The question as it stands mentions the drug laws doing both harm and good. That's why it's unbiased, but your own pigheaded bigotry just won't let you see that no matter how many times it's pointed out to you.

I guess I'm pigheaded because I can see the word "more" before harm and the word "than" before good.

So, to you that something "does more harm than good" is a unbiased statement about that thing that includes both sides of the issue? Really? Is that your final answer?

Pop quiz: Logically, when you say something does "more harm than good" does it follow that you can then say that something does "some" good? In other words, if X and Y are non-negative integers, and (X>Y), does it follow that (Y>0)?

If no, then how does your "non-biased" statement include "good" things?

Mention good and bad: no bias. Mention only bad: bias.

So if I said

Drug laws keep drugs out of the hands of children thus saving their lives, but they cost us a few bucks. Repeal them.

You would consider that to be unbiased. Clearly given your acceptance of the "more" harm the degree of good/harm isn't material.

shanek

11th December 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Right. So making an anti-drug law statement right before asking someone to agree is not bias. Got it.[/b]

That is by far the most disingenous thing I've heard you say. No, it is NOT a biased statement, for reasons that I've heard, and also, by this "logic," there would be NO SUCH THING as an unbiased question since the statement must take one side to let you know if you agree with it!

But no, it's not biased, because the counterpart is easy to see and understand: "Drug laws do more good than harm. Don't repeal them." It's clear what a Y means, and it's clear what a N means. Your rewording would force people in the M category to answer N, and that is NOT the case with the question as worded. Hence, your wordings are biased and the question is not.

I guess I'm pigheaded because I can see the word "more" before harm and the word "than" before good.

Again, the statement must take a position so you can agree or otherwise with it. It's really desperate of you to say that that makes it biased.

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That is by far the most disingenous thing I've heard you say

Actually I was just making a statement. You could agree or disagree with it. I guess that makes me disingenuous that I see suggestive bias in the question. Can't be a difference in opinion. Yep, it's just me trying to take over the world with dishonest debate tactics.

But no, it's not biased, because the counterpart is easy to see and understand: "Drug laws do more good than harm. Don't repeal them." It's clear what a Y means, and it's clear what a N means. Your rewording would force people in the M category to answer N, and that is NOT the case with the question as worded. Hence, your wordings are biased and the question is not.

Again, the statement must take a position so you can agree or otherwise with it. It's really desperate of you to say that that makes it biased.

As to your claim of clarity, if I think that drug laws do more good than harm, but I still want to repeal them, how do I answer? "Maybe" doesn't fit as I am sure of my opinion. Yes makes me agree with drug laws being harmful. No makes me not want to repeal. If these are both legitimate statements to agree or disagree with why is there only one answer if there are non-utilitarians that may not connect "harm vs. good" to the repealing of a law?

Last post it was unbiased because it included both good and bad things about drug laws. Now you claim it has to "take one side or the other." The test is set up that way, sure. It is funny that all the statements agree with libertarianism, and none disagree. Just a coincidence I guess. You do realize that by saying that "the statement must take a position so you can agree or otherwise with it. It's really desperate of you to say that that makes it biased" you blow a large hole in your calling my examples biased, as they are likewise just taking a position that one can agree or disagree with.

In fact, in your own words, but switching the examples:

But no, it's not biased, because the counterpart is easy to see and understand: "It should not be legal to sell crack in vending machines." It's clear what a Y means, and it's clear what a N means.

If that is the criteria, then nothing is biased as long as it has a clear opposite.

shanek

11th December 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Actually I was just making a statement.

No, you were presenting a statement as a summary of something I just said, which is nothing like what I was saying. That's just disingenuous. You said:

Right. So making an anti-drug law statement right before asking someone to agree is not bias. Got it.

There is NO WAY you could NOT have meant this as a paraphrasing of my point.

As to your claim of clarity, if I think that drug laws do more good than harm, but I still want to repeal them, how do I answer?

Yes. And that's clear to the rest of us. But you're just engaging in more lawyer's tricks.

Last post it was unbiased because it included both good and bad things about drug laws. Now you claim it has to "take one side or the other."

Those were two separate comments about two separate claims of yours. The first was a response to your claim that your biased statements were no more biased than the quiz's. The second was a response to your claim that the question is biased because it takes a side, something it must of necessity do.

What I want to know is, do you get away with pulling this kind of crap in court?

It is funny that all the statements agree with libertarianism, and none disagree. Just a coincidence I guess.

Again, you're being disingenuous, as anyone can see by the way the test is set up. The first five questions agree with both libertarianism and liberalism; the last five libertarianism and conservatism. The axes are used to rate how much of a self-governor you are in both personal and economic issues. So it's not a "coincidence" that it agrees with libertarianism, but it's not bias, either. It's just the math.

You do realize that by saying that "the statement must take a position so you can agree or otherwise with it. It's really desperate of you to say that that makes it biased" you blow a large hole in your calling my examples biased, as they are likewise just taking a position that one can agree or disagree with.

Except that, as I showed, they cause someone to answer "no" to questions they would otherwise answer "maybe" to, thus skewing the answers towards authoritarianism.

But no, it's not biased, because the counterpart is easy to see and understand: "It should not be legal to sell crack in vending machines." It's clear what a Y means, and it's clear what a N means.

No, it isn't, because someone can disagree with that statement and still agree with, say, repealing marijuana laws. That person, again, would be forced to answer "no" and not "maybe," even though his principled position falls on the "maybe."

If that is the criteria, then nothing is biased as long as it has a clear opposite.

More of your crap. I'm saying that just because something takes a side does not necessarily mean that it's biased; you're twisting that to make me say that NO such statements are biased when some clearly are.

Suddenly

11th December 2003, 07:31 PM

Again, you're being disingenuous, as anyone can see by the way the test is set up. The first five questions agree with both libertarianism and liberalism; the last five libertarianism and conservatism. The axes are used to rate how much of a self-governor you are in both personal and economic issues. So it's not a "coincidence" that it agrees with libertarianism, but it's not bias, either. It's just the math. How does the math dictate that all agree with libertarianism? Shouldn't half disagree?

No, it isn't, because someone can disagree with that statement and still agree with, say, repealing marijuana laws. That person, again, would be forced to answer "no" and not "maybe," even though his principled position falls on the "maybe."

Ahh. I see the difference in our positions:

The difference is that I read the question as a categorical statement about drug laws because the first clause seems clear that all drug laws are considered, as it is plural and makes a sweeping generalization, followed by the statement repeal them. Thus, I see this as the logical equal to "repeal all drug laws."

If this is true, I can't see how if there is a single drug law you support the answer can be "yes." Thus my example about crack and vending machines.

You seem the question as inviting a response on a scale of "yes" to "no" with "maybe" being somewhere in between. I guess that is reasonable, even though I disagree with it.

That is a minor matter, and one maybe I should have realized earlier. It really doesn't go to the heart of why I think the question is biased, but this is why I see the "crack" question as legitimate.

I just think the "more harm than good" statement is, like the later "causes unemployment" language there to suggest a viewpoint or plead a case. Especially considering one could easily have a split answer that makes all three choices wrong. I just don't see what it adds to the question. This is largely my opinion.

I see what you are saying. It is not unreasonable, but given the context and precise reading I disagree with it.

I'm going to be gone for a while on a semi-business trip, so I'll not be responding for a few days.

DavidJames

11th December 2003, 08:07 PM

"Yes. And that's clear to the rest of us"

Wrongo. Please even pretend you speak for anyone but yourself. Suddenly's questions are much better than the Libertarian hacks you like.

"Again, you're being disingenuous, as anyone can see by the way the test is set up"

Again, stop assuming what others think. And you claiming someone else is being disingenuous, HA, you have perfected it.

shanek

11th December 2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
How does the math dictate that all agree with libertarianism?

It doesn't, as the work done by PROFESSIONAL POLLSTER Scott Rasmussen showed. You're being disingenuous again. The quis just says IF you agree with all of this, you're a libertarian. It in no way says you have to agree or disagree. Again, if anything it tries to put you in the "maybe" category.

The difference is that I read the question as a categorical statement about drug laws because the first clause seems clear that all drug laws are considered, as it is plural and makes a sweeping generalization, followed by the statement repeal them. Thus, I see this as the logical equal to "repeal all drug laws."

That would be a "yes" answer. Keep in mind the "maybe" is there for people who want to repeal some drug laws but not others, or just aren't sure. So again, people who would definitely answer "no" to your questions should really be answering "maybe," as you picked extreme examples that few people would agree with.

If this is true, I can't see how if there is a single drug law you support the answer can be "yes." Thus my example about crack and vending machines.

Look, it's really perfectly simple: All drug laws should be repealed: Yes. No drug laws should be repealed: No. Some drug laws should be repealed: Maybe. And all these stupid, non-thinking people understand this, but you don't.

You seem the question as inviting a response on a scale of "yes" to "no" with "maybe" being somewhere in between. I guess that is reasonable, even though I disagree with it.

Your agreement is irrelevant. It's simply how the test is set up. Yes if you agree, No if you disagree, Maybe if sometimes/don't know/need more information.

shanek

11th December 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Yes. And that's clear to the rest of us"

Wrongo. Please even pretend you speak for anyone but yourself.

I am speaking for the hundreds of people I have given the test to personally and the thousands of people others have given the test to. None of them seem to have a problem understanding it...But then:

Suddenly's questions are much better than the Libertarian hacks you like.

They aren't the anti-Libertarian bigots that you are. Thank you for proving you have no capacity to examine this rationally.

Thanz

12th December 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Again, the statement must take a position so you can agree or otherwise with it. It's really desperate of you to say that that makes it biased.
Both the drug statement and the minimum wage statement are unnecessarily biased, as each provide not just a position but an argument for that position as well. In each case, the argument is the libertarian argument, and is presented as fact rather than the disputed opinion that it is. It would be easy to craft a quesiton that presents the same position without the argument:

Drug laws should be repealed.
Minimum wage laws should be repealed.

Or, you could flip the position to "be maintained" rather than "be repealed". I would be interested in a test that randomly flipped the wordings of the quesitons to see if the wording has any discernable effect.

Anyway, it is clear that the wording of those two questions is in fact biased. I think that you don't see it as biased as you see the statements as factual.

Thanz

12th December 2003, 12:38 PM

strange forum malfunction bump

shanek

12th December 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

Both the drug statement and the minimum wage statement are unnecessarily biased, as each provide not just a position but an argument for that position as well. In each case, the argument is the libertarian argument, and is presented as fact rather than the disputed opinion that it is.

Bigotry, bigotry, bigotry. I've pointed out several times that the test MUST take a position for you to agree or disagree with. It's not presented as fact, opinion, or anything else; it's just presented. The problem with you and Suddenly and your ilk is that you're so desperate to avoid even considering that there might be one or two people out there who agree with Libertarians, so you have to take whatever potshots you can at anything we do.

The test is FAIR. The questions are NOT BIASED.

I would be interested in a test that randomly flipped the wordings of the quesitons to see if the wording has any discernable effect.

All that would serve to do is confuse the person when it came time to score the test. Notice that in other tests presented in magazines etc., they tell you things like "Score 1 point for every A, 2 points for every B," etc. Your way would introduce so many math errors that the score would be meaningless.

Anyway, it is clear that the wording of those two questions is in fact biased. I think that you don't see it as biased as you see the statements as factual.

No, it's because your bigoted little mind just can't accept the fact that making a statement that you don't like can be unbiased in a situation where you're ASKING SOMEONE WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE WITH IT!!!

I swear, ANY time you or Suddenly take issue with me calling you an anti-Libertarian bigot I'm going to refer you back to this thread. Sheesh...

Thanz

12th December 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Bigotry, bigotry, bigotry. I've pointed out several times that the test MUST take a position for you to agree or disagree with. It's not presented as fact, opinion, or anything else; it's just presented. The problem with you and Suddenly and your ilk is that you're so desperate to avoid even considering that there might be one or two people out there who agree with Libertarians, so you have to take whatever potshots you can at anything we do.
How can you seriously call me a bigot in one sentence and then refer to "The problem with you and Suddenly and your ilk" and make a sweeping generaliztion in the very same paragraph? Unbelievable hypocrisy. I did not take any "potshots" at libertarians, I just pointed out the obvious bias in those two questions.

As for the idea that the questions must take a position to be agreed with or not, I notice that you snipped my suggested wording which takes a position, but does not argue that position. The statements as they are in the test ARGUE for a postion - they don't just state it.

Why is it that you snip the questions I pose? Could it be that they actually show how a statement could take a position without the libertarian argument for that position?

All that would serve to do is confuse the person when it came time to score the test. Notice that in other tests presented in magazines etc., they tell you things like "Score 1 point for every A, 2 points for every B," etc. Your way would introduce so many math errors that the score would be meaningless.
Now you are really grasping at straws. The freaking computer tallies the scores. Do you not think that a computer program to tally the scores could do so without making "so many math errors that the score would be meaningless?" Come on, shanek. This argument is beneath you.

No, it's because your bigoted little mind just can't accept the fact that making a statement that you don't like can be unbiased in a situation where you're ASKING SOMEONE WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE WITH IT!!!
Always with the insults. If you read my post, you would see that the problem I have is that it goes beyond just taking a position. It presents the libertarian argument for that position. It is possible to present the position that drug laws and minimum wage laws should be repealed without also presenting the libertarian justification for it.

I swear, ANY time you or Suddenly take issue with me calling you an anti-Libertarian bigot I'm going to refer you back to this thread. Sheesh...
Go right ahead. Try and point out anything bigoted I have said. I have already said that the test accurately assessed my political leanings.

You, on the other hand, come off as a close-minded zealot when you present arguments like "people will be confused when they score the test" when they don't even score the test.

shanek

12th December 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Now you are really grasping at straws. The freaking computer tallies the scores.

Not on the little cards you hand out it doesn't. You're criticizing a test you know NOTHING about, despite the fact that I provided a link where you could learn all about it.

So, I'm supposed to hand a card to someone and have them take the test, only for them to become so confused that they can't even tally the score and see where they're at?

No, YOU are the one grasping at straws. The fact that all the questions are notmalized has NOTHING to do with whether or not the test is biased.

Always with the insults. If you read my post, you would see that the problem I have is that it goes beyond just taking a position.

The fact that you insist that it does, while ignoring my explanations to the contrary, is exactly what makes you a bigot. The bigot looks at a neutral question and cries bias. And that is exactly what you are doing.

You, on the other hand, come off as a close-minded zealot when you present arguments like "people will be confused when they score the test" when they don't even score the test.

Except that in most cases they DO score the test. You are condemning something you are ignorant of, another sure indication of bigotry.

shanek

12th December 2003, 02:41 PM

BTW, here's the press release from the Rasmussen poll:

http://www.theadvocates.org/library/poll-results.html

Using the same questions and scale, a Portrait of America telephone survey of 822 likely voters found 32% of American voters are centrists; 16% are libertarians; 14% are authoritarians; 13% liberal; 7% are conservative; and, 17% border one or more categories.

So the weighting is clearly towards the centrists.

Portrait of America conducted this national telephone survey of 822 likely voters on August 23, 2000. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Now, let's look at these "biased" questions:

8. Do you agree or disagree with the following: Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.

27% Agree
57% Disagree
16% Not sure

Hmm...the "bias" doesn't seem to have done any good there. How about:

4. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.

28% Agree
44% Disagree
27% Not sure

Nope...still didn't do any good. If their goal was to conduct a biased test and make people answer Yes to the questions, then they certainly did a lousy job of it!

shanek

12th December 2003, 02:45 PM

I'd also like to see Thanz explain to us how a computer can tally these:

http://www.theadvocates.org/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Clal.gif

http://www.theadvocates.org/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Dell.gif

http://www.theadvocates.org/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Surveyl.gif

Especially as these are often given at outdoor functions and other places where an internet connection is not available.

Thanz

15th December 2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Not on the little cards you hand out it doesn't. You're criticizing a test you know NOTHING about, despite the fact that I provided a link where you could learn all about it.

So, I'm supposed to hand a card to someone and have them take the test, only for them to become so confused that they can't even tally the score and see where they're at?
Dude, it was completely obvious from my post that I was talking about the test on the website, where it would be easy to flip the questions in a random fashion and keep track of responses to see if it makes a difference. But, keep ranting about your little cards as if anything I said applies to them. It is a classic shanek technique - get all indignant about some minor tangential point in the hopes that we won't notice that you haven't addressed the main points.

The fact that you insist that it does, while ignoring my explanations to the contrary, is exactly what makes you a bigot. The bigot looks at a neutral question and cries bias. And that is exactly what you are doing.
Oh, please. Anyone who disagrees with you is called an anti-libertarian bigot at some point. It is quite possible that I can disagree with your stance on things and not be a bigot. But you don't seem to be able to grasp that distinction.

Further, I am not ignoring your explanations - I am disagreeing with them. There is a difference. It is quite possible to craft a question that takes a position that one can agree or disagree with while at the same time remaining more neutral. I have proposed such wording above, and you have now avoided it like the plague in your replies to me. Classic shanek - ignore the point you can't explain while insisting you have explained everything.

Except that in most cases they DO score the test. You are condemning something you are ignorant of, another sure indication of bigotry.
See above. I was clearly referring to the test on the website.

Thanz

15th December 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Hmm...the "bias" doesn't seem to have done any good there. How about:

Nope...still didn't do any good. If their goal was to conduct a biased test and make people answer Yes to the questions, then they certainly did a lousy job of it!
You cannot tell if the questions have bias simply by looking at these test results as you have no control group to compare it to. How do you know that the numbers would not be different if the questions were phrased in the manner I propose above? It is not enough to say that the libertarian answer is lower than the non-libertarian answer - you need to show that the libertarian answer was not influenced by the question, which is something that you cannot tell in isolation.

Which is exactly why I thought it would be a good idea to randomly switch the questions to see if it made a difference.

Get it yet? It is not bigotry, no matter how many times you say it. I think the questions are biased, and I have proposed what I see as non-biased wording. I have also proposed a methodology to dtermine if I am correct in my assessment. But, I expect that you will keep your blinders on and assume that I am bigot for disagreeing with you.

shanek

15th December 2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

Dude, it was completely obvious from my post that I was talking about the test on the website,

Dude, it's the SAME TEST!!! It's a classic Thanz technique to use bait-and-switch when he's called out talking crap about something he knows nothing about...

Oh, please. Anyone who disagrees with you is called an anti-libertarian bigot at some point.

That is absolutely untrue. It's just a small handful of you, the ones bent on twisting any little point of logic to try and score cheap points, like you're doing with the WSPQ.

It is quite possible that I can disagree with your stance on things and not be a bigot. But you don't seem to be able to grasp that distinction.

There are many, many others who have disagreed with me and not been called a bigot. You're just whining now because you don't want to face up to your own behavior, so you're trying to throw the character flaw back at me.

Again, IT'S THE SAME TEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that you're trying to make it out to be otherwise just shows how far you're prepared to go with this stupid little point that doesn't really matter anyway. Any tiny excuse gets all blown out of proportion and then you weasel around when it's refuted. This is clear, 100% bigotry. If you weren't such a bigot, you would admit that there's a perfectly good reason for the test being structured the way it is. But you won't.

shanek

15th December 2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

You cannot tell if the questions have bias simply by looking at these test results

Yes, you can. There are clearly lots of people who weren't at all confused or fooled by the wording of the questions.

Get it yet?

Yes, I get it: No amount of evidence will convince you. Not even the results from one of the most respected pollsters there is.

Answer this: Why are those responses in line with responses from other polls on those subjects, if the questions are biased and skewing the results? Are all of the other polls biased in the same way? Is it all some Libertarian conspiracy to take over the polls?

Thanz

15th December 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Dude, it's the SAME TEST!!! It's a classic Thanz technique to use bait-and-switch when he's called out talking crap about something he knows nothing about...
I know that it is the same test. But I wasn't asking you to change your little cards. I was suggesting a way to see if the wording of the question makes a difference - a way that vould be easily implemented on the website. You responded by talking about scoring difficulties, which are irrelevant on the website.

Let's look at what I originally said about the questions and the idea of changing the wording:I would be interested in a test that randomly flipped the wordings of the quesitons to see if the wording has any discernable effect.
What the heck is wrong with that?

Again, IT'S THE SAME TEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that you're trying to make it out to be otherwise just shows how far you're prepared to go with this stupid little point that doesn't really matter anyway. Any tiny excuse gets all blown out of proportion and then you weasel around when it's refuted. This is clear, 100% bigotry. If you weren't such a bigot, you would admit that there's a perfectly good reason for the test being structured the way it is. But you won't.
I never claimned that it was a different test - just a different medium, and one in which the switching of the questions could be easily accomplished. What about this have you refuted? You are really getting on my nerves with this bigot crap. I am trying to have a rational discussion and you just keep screaming.

Are you EVER going to address my proposed wording?

Thanz

15th December 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Yes, you can. There are clearly lots of people who weren't at all confused or fooled by the wording of the questions.
There is no way to tell this in the abstract.

Yes, I get it: No amount of evidence will convince you. Not even the results from one of the most respected pollsters there is.
Obviously you don't. I have no doubt about the integrity of the pollster. I believe that the questions were asked and they got those answers. But that, by itself, does not tell you about the bias or accuracy of the quiz itself or of those particular questions. To do that, you need to compare it to something.

Answer this: Why are those responses in line with responses from other polls on those subjects, if the questions are biased and skewing the results? Are all of the other polls biased in the same way? Is it all some Libertarian conspiracy to take over the polls?
No, if this were the case then it would speak to the integrity of the quiz. But you haven't showed this.

Again, you are assuming a lot about me that isn't true. First, I have already stated that the quiz was accurate as it pertains to me. Second, I haven't said that the whole quiz was biased, or anything about a libertarian conspiracy. I thought that two questions were worded in a biased way and suggested alternate wording that I don't see as biased (which you have yet to comment on). Third, I then suggested a methodolgy I would be interested in to determine if the wording of the question has any effect at all. In other words, to see if my position on the bias of the question is correct.

So, I said that the test was accurate for me, that I have a problem with two questions but would be interested in a test to see if I am right. And for this you call me a bigot.