What the fuck? You can't tell if a question "seems" bias unless you know the specifity of citation that the creator of the poll has in mind. Seriously, the fact is most likely that you are the one with partisanship and supposition.kr@cker wrote:
well some of the questions were written with an obvious bias, probably becasue whoever created this was a Berkley hippy, I don't have the bandwidth at work to bring them up in another window and post them...
but anyway, seems ol Blair and I have alot in common
econ: L/R 6.38
Social: L/A 1.79
not that this surprises any of you...
I usually end up more libertarian, but like I said some questions seemed biased
o_O
O_o
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
IT"S STARTING!!!!!
O_o
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
IT"S STARTING!!!!!
What? I don't think your idiocy just all of a sudden decides to manifest itself. I think it's pretty much been a constant for quite awhile. + LOLkr@cker wrote:
o_O
O_o
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
IT"S STARTING!!!!!
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 08:14:00)
"Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation."
just a quick example....
the way it's worded it makes it seem that if you disagree in the slightest you favor wanton destruction of the environment, how about
"Environmental protection requires corporate regulation"
this removes any outright reference to a lack of trustworthiness in the corporate world, therefore it isn't subliminally implied
just a quick example....
the way it's worded it makes it seem that if you disagree in the slightest you favor wanton destruction of the environment, how about
"Environmental protection requires corporate regulation"
this removes any outright reference to a lack of trustworthiness in the corporate world, therefore it isn't subliminally implied
Yet you somehow forget that the responses to such propositions are gauged within four varying degrees?kr@cker wrote:
"Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation."
just a quick example....
the way it's worded it makes it seem that if you disagree in the slightest you favor wanton destruction of the environment, how about
"Environmental protection requires corporate regulation"
this removes any outright reference to a lack of trustworthiness in the corporate world, therefore it isn't subliminally implied
Have you somehow not grappled with what answering these polls properly entails? They aren't biased you fuckin' psycho-fuck. If you vote disagree to either, you are essentially saying that you think, for the most part, companies can be trusted with such, but that there are some exceptions. Seriously, like, what the fuck is up here?
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 08:21:00)
and this makes "Environmental protection requires corporate regulation" any less relevant how?
I am full aware how the responses are guaged, I'm just saying that the questions are written with unnecessary negative implications, is it really necessary to put "because corporations cannot be trusted" in the question to acheive the same result?
NO
I am full aware how the responses are guaged, I'm just saying that the questions are written with unnecessary negative implications, is it really necessary to put "because corporations cannot be trusted" in the question to acheive the same result?
NO
Yes it is, because it provides an explicit reason for why regulating should be done. It doesn't mean that it's a bias. Seriously, get the fuck over your slant crap.kr@cker wrote:
and this makes "Environmental protection requires corporate regulation" any less relevant how?
I am full aware how the responses are guaged, I'm just saying that the questions are written with unnecessary negative implications, is it really necessary to put "because corporations cannot be trusted" in the question to acheive the same result?
NO
"environmental protection" is the explicit reason, "cannot be trusted" is a needless colorization of the topic.....
there were a couple worded slanted right, like "there is a worrying confusion of information and entertainment" (or pretty close, may not be an exact quote), the word worrying is not neccessary, but on the whole most of the questions had a politically correct feel to them.....
oh and before I forget, from their own FAQ, note they try to qualify themselves by pointing out that "some people on the left accuse us of being slanted right" or some such nonsense, but anyone with the ability to view the sheet objectively, no matter their political orientation, can see alot of politically correct revisionism.
From their FAQ
Some of the questions are slanted
Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.
they openly admit to putting extreme biases into their question, which is a problem in that they are trying to acheive an objective diagnosis with non-objective methods, kinda like a child psychologist using the question "Has your mother ever caught your dad fondling you?" Yes or no, the implication that there is fondling going on is still there.
there were a couple worded slanted right, like "there is a worrying confusion of information and entertainment" (or pretty close, may not be an exact quote), the word worrying is not neccessary, but on the whole most of the questions had a politically correct feel to them.....
oh and before I forget, from their own FAQ, note they try to qualify themselves by pointing out that "some people on the left accuse us of being slanted right" or some such nonsense, but anyone with the ability to view the sheet objectively, no matter their political orientation, can see alot of politically correct revisionism.
From their FAQ
Some of the questions are slanted
Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.
they openly admit to putting extreme biases into their question, which is a problem in that they are trying to acheive an objective diagnosis with non-objective methods, kinda like a child psychologist using the question "Has your mother ever caught your dad fondling you?" Yes or no, the implication that there is fondling going on is still there.
Who the fuck cares if they think they've slanted the questions? Because of the ambiguity present, to claim such a prospect as holding ground is to in fact evidence your partisanship. It is not that I am only disagreeing because of said fact, but I honestly see no such connection because of the amount of vague-toned application in (their) wording.kr@cker wrote:
"environmental protection" is the explicit reason, "cannot be trusted" is a needless colorization of the topic.....
there were a couple worded slanted right, like "there is a worrying confusion of information and entertainment" (or pretty close, may not be an exact quote), the word worrying is not neccessary, but on the whole most of the questions had a politically correct feel to them.....
oh and before I forget, from their own FAQ, note they try to qualify themselves by pointing out that "some people on the left accuse us of being slanted right" or some such nonsense, but anyone with the ability to view the sheet objectively, no matter their political orientation, can see alot of politically correct revisionism.
From their FAQ
Some of the questions are slanted
Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.
they openly admit to putting extreme biases into their question, which is a problem in that they are trying to acheive an objective diagnosis with non-objective methods, kinda like a child psychologist using the question "Has your mother ever caught your dad fondling you?" Yes or no, the implication that there is fondling going on is still there.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-07-03 09:30:21)
Kr@cker don't not never hide partysandships, but kr@cker know time and place for partysandships am not always
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-03 09:33:05)
Dude, let the mahstohr shoh yooh how tehw fohnetighz lighk uh proh. Pahrteizahnshihpz foohl!
Um, yeah, they are biased.Xietsu wrote:
Have you somehow not grappled with what answering these polls properly entails? They aren't biased you fuckin' psycho-fuck. If you vote disagree to either, you are essentially saying that you think, for the most part, companies can be trusted with such, but that there are some exceptions. Seriously, like, what the fuck is up here?
This is called leading, and leading introduces bias, as it presupposes a response. The premise is stated as a fact, and the answer, regardless of what one answers, cannot deny the premise; only the conclusion of the premise. In this case, the premise is that corporations will not voluntarily protect the environment. The actual question of regulation is virtually a given, because the untrustworthyness of corporations is assumed. There could be twenty possible answers, but the way the question is phrased leads one toward a particular response, and is therefore biased. One could say corporations cannot be trusted, yet still do not require regulation, but this is answering the question knowing its affect on the test, not answering it truthfully.the test wrote:
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment....
To be fair, other questions are leading in different directions, but because there isn't overall bias (or maybe there is, I didn't count how many were biased in whichever direction) it doesn't mean that the individual questions aren't biased.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-03 09:58:02)
whats this mean
http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/prin … ;soc=-0.05
http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/prin … ;soc=-0.05
how did you accomplish that?
boom head shot
It means you should run for office.
About the perceived bias of some propositions... There are more than a few propositions I felt were worded in a leading way. According to the site, this is deliberate. The goal seems to be to elicit an emotive response, although I could be wrong about that. I definitely recall seeing earlier iterations of certain questions that were worded more neutrally, in any case.
Ultimately, I think the overall bias of the assessment is not definable without knowledge of the underlying algorithms, which could be "decompiled" by brute force testing, I'm sure. Seems like a lot of work for not much pay-off, though, so I think a simpler alternative is just to ask people what they thought of their assessment.
Keep in mind that according to their FAQ...
But thanks to the later wave of respondents, at least now we know the test doesn't just take your answers and output "You are Gandhi -- thanks for playing!"politicalcompass.org wrote:
[O]ur test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.