User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 92

  1. #51
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    As expected, just southwest of Milton Friedman (who, BTW, is plotted slightly inaccurately away from libertarianism and toward authoritarianism).

    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #52
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    To all those who were unhappy with either the questions or the results of the test: Did you read the FAQ and read them thoroughly?

    Of course the test is flawed but the FAQ will explain a lot of what has been mentioned here.

    As for the question on people being unlucky: They don't specifically mention homeless people, but your answer implied that you see this as the result of either choice or misfortune or structural problems. If you think it is more misfortune than choice or structural, answer yes. If you think it is more structural /(or choice) answer no. As is explained in the FAQ, they also ask about a believe in fate and luck etc (the astrology question) because they link it to the authoritarian scale on a more psychological level.

    As for the answer on globalization: If you think the two don't exclude each other or even depend on each other, you should obviously answer no.

    Really, it's not that difficult.


    The thing is that the questions in this test have a very obvious framework and everything is so simplistic and one dimensional (at least to me) . I mean I have a feeling that behind each term there is a classic definition of that term. But on the other hand if you want something done it is pretty easy to twist logic (depending upon your goals).





    Here are some simple examples. (if you wish I could try to makes to more complex)



    If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

    And what if it is not inevitable ?
    Plus I am not sure that this "helping the humanity" is a good idea actually. (but I am not siding with the corporations either)

    They are both too chaotic and self-destructive to win my simpathies.


    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    The answer is totally situational.


    Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

    I bet that this question makes you more authoritative or more of a libertarian.
    However I have chosen "I strongly agree" because I think that "corrupt" authority is hiding behind those laws. But once this big bloodbath is over my opinion will be exactly the opposite.


    And here is my logic. You have 5 authoritative regimes that block you out in creating a normal, stabile, progressive and liberal society. Since you have to spend too much resources and energy on defences and observing them that you simply can progress normaly. Even if you are obviously stronger than they are.
    What would mean that the only way for you to reduce security and military expenses to pretty much zero is to vipe those regimes from the face of the Earth once and for all and repair the damage.

    As a matter of fact I think that authoritative regimes tend to not attack each other that much but instead they maintain themselves through status quo.


    I don't know. It is just that the logic of the question is too simple for me.



    Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.


    Honestly? Both options sound too capitalistic to me.



    Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

    It should be legal. But not because I am very concerned about women rights or morality but because I think that we should limit population growth. However I am pretty sure that the question is not refering to that.



    It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.


    Of course it is natural. But it is very situational is this good or bad. (desired or not)


    Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.

    The marijuana is not good or bad but something on what you can build a political career. (publicity or funding)
    Also the entire marijuana thing promotes laidback way of life what can be good because it gives you an edge against the people who go too deeply into this.
    So voting for marijuana does not necessarily mean liberal humanistic belifs.



    What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

    And what if it is good for me and bad for someone else ? (or the other way around)
    What would mean that there is no simplistic yes or no answer.
    Not to mention that it is possible that this is good for me only because it makes things much worse for the other person than it is standing on my way.
    But if I say that this is clearly not good for us all then I would be aswering with answer I would not relate to. What leads towards my "mistyping".


    A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

    That totally depends on political figures that are involved.


    Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

    I live in a country that has pretty much nothing to do with terrorism however you turn the cards. So whatever I choose it is not a option I relate to.



    The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.


    The last time I have checked killing of high goverment official is a serious crime in antitolerant regimes. Not to mention the dilemma that often one man's hero is another men's criminal.



    In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.


    It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.


    Totally depends upon the nature of the majority of the crimes that are committed.


    Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

    Establishment is too vague term since it is very impotrant for the question what does that establishment actually does. Not to mention that I think that it is quite likely that the imature people will be the ones that will makes the peace with the establishment. And yet I have a feeling that the test is not open for this option/opinion.


    You cannot be moral without being religious.

    How much religious ?


    Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

    Totally situational. They can be equally good or bad. All depends on who runs them and the general amount of resources in society.


    It is important that my child's school instills religious values.

    Which religous values ? There are few major religions and tons of smaller ones. (all pretty different from each other)


    What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state

    That totally depend upon the density of the population of the country , the amount of available resources and general tech level.




    Also this test rates things as if you think that every country in the world should have pretty similar laws. Or that you can't see other peoples misery as a way to gain something. Since in that case you vote the opposite from what you believe.

    Plus it is biased since it thinks that only humans can produce something. So the focus should be and it is on people and social structures. While on the other hand it is obvious that machines and technology will eventually replace huge parts of the social structures and their folklore.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Cool, I'll play too.

    If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

    I think yeah that it shouldnt be in the interests of transnational corporations or rich elites but it probably will be because they are necessarily a link in the chain, its be a little like saying you'll have an economy with producers or consumers or businesses or you're going to bank without having an account.

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    No. The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy.

    Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

    Defying the law is sometimes necessary and easily whether its international law or not.

    Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

    I think that controlling unemployment is more important.

    Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

    I dont think it should be illegal, I dont think its always moral.

    It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

    Natural meaning justified or good or acceptable? Nope.

    Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.

    I dont agree with this.

    What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

    Not necessarily, in fact I'd say not usually but the theory would suggest that they pay it forward then they get done a solid by government. Not just to politicians either. That's the theory, its not right if you ask me.

    A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

    Nope. Argument isnt going to be abscent in a one party state. There could be more argument and it could be a greater problem for the regime that the normal business of government in fact.

    Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

    I dont know, I'd not say so but perhaps it really is the case. Terrorism is one of those things which I think has best been discussed in books like The Secret Agent or The Man Who Was Thursday.

    The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.

    I dont really believe in capital punishment but I do believe in revenge. Perhaps if they allowed the next of kin to have the final say rather than have the action taken on behalf of all the citizenry.

    In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

    I dont know if either are more important than the other, I think punishment is largely abscent from the present law and order system in the UK.

    Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

    I dont know, if only because the establishment will have changed itself in that time, so a young liberal could find that the so called establishment they resisted is liberal itself by the time they mature.

    What I've found is that economically the establishment hasnt changed since I decided it was worth opposing but culturally its gone far, far beyond what I would consider supportable or acceptable.

    You cannot be moral without being religious.

    I think you can be moral without being religious, they arent the same thing at all.

    Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

    No. Both are detrimental to some people.

    It is important that my child's school instills religious values.

    I dont know, I'd need more information to decide and there's every chance that it would result in very irreligous children, the schools arent good at making kids competent in academic subjects already.

    What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state

    In the main I'd agree, specific to sexual behaviour, which I believe this question is, I'd say I agree. It could be the business of the landlord, landlady, other residents or any number of other factors though.

  4. #54
    meinmeinmein! mmhmm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,300

    Default

    Economic Left/Right: -0.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.05

    every normal man must be tempted, at times,
    to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
    and begin slitting throats.
    h.l. mencken

  5. #55
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    I think I took this years ago and fell somewhere in the lower left. I don't see why that would change dramatically today.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  6. #56
    libtard SJW chickpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,962

    Default


  7. #57
    Uniqueorn William K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You cannot be moral without being religious.

    I think you can be moral without being religious, they arent the same thing at all.
    Believing that doing a 'good' thing leads to a 'positive' outcome and a 'bad' thing leads to a 'negative' outcome does not require believing the 'positive' outcome is going to Heaven, and the 'negative' one is going to Hell.
    4w5, Fi>Ne>Ti>Si>Ni>Fe>Te>Se, sp > so > sx

    appreciates being appreciated, conflicted over conflicts, afraid of being afraid, bad at being bad, predictably unpredictable, consistently inconsistent, remarkably unremarkable...

    I may not agree with what you are feeling, but I will defend to death your right to have a good cry over it

    The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell

  8. #58
    Senior Member Perch420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    NiTi
    Enneagram
    5w1
    Posts
    381

    Default


  9. #59
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William K View Post
    Believing that doing a 'good' thing leads to a 'positive' outcome and a 'bad' thing leads to a 'negative' outcome does not require believing the 'positive' outcome is going to Heaven, and the 'negative' one is going to Hell.
    More than that: wouldn't a truly moral person do the right thing because it is right, not for personal reasons or gain? There's an Albert Einstein quote to that effect I like:

    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  10. #60
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    I be leftist libertarian.

    Quelle surprise.

Similar Threads

  1. Where Are You On The Psychopathy Spectrum?
    By Nørrsken in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-21-2017, 09:36 AM
  2. Trump's rise correlated to authoritarianism - Where are you on the scale?
    By Hard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-20-2016, 07:01 PM
  3. Where are you in the rat race?
    By Oaky in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-17-2015, 06:22 AM
  4. Are you on the side of Order or Chaos?
    By BWCB1890 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 03-10-2015, 06:17 PM
  5. Where do you fall on the political spectrum?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-01-2014, 09:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO