SOCIAL ATTITUDE TEST
Political Values
April 9, 2014 February 20, 2015
Progressivism 82.5 87.5
Socialism 81.25 68.75
Tenderness 59.375 56.25
Your test scores indicate that you are an open-minded ultra-progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appears socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a humanist.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a sensible principled egalitarian with many strong convictions.
This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.
Unlike many other political tests found on the Internet which base themselves on untested (and usually ideologically motivated) ideas, this inventory is adapted from Hans Eysenck's own political inventory which was developed after extensive empirical investigations in te 20th Century.
First took this test April 9th, 2014. Repeated it today.
Definitely consider myself a progressive. Not exactly a socialist; but more supportive of a bottoms up capitalism as opposed to trickle down economics. And do not believe politeness means other have to like what they are going to hear.
Found it interesting that even Hans Eysenck's research is controversial.
Hans Jürgen Eysenck (/ˈaɪzɛŋk/; 4 March 1916 – 4 September 1997) was a psychologist born in Germany, who spent his professional career in Great Britain. He is best remembered for his work on intelligence andpersonality, though he worked in a wide range of areas. At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals.
Eysenck’s attitude was summarised in his autobiography Rebel with a Cause: "I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts." He was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.
In this book, Eysenck suggests that political behaviour may be analysed in terms of two independent dimensions: the traditional left-right distinction, and how 'tenderminded' or 'toughminded' a person is. Eysenck suggests that the latter is a result of a person's introversion or extroversion respectively.
Colleagues criticised the research that formed the basis of this book, on a number of grounds, including the following.
- Eysenck claims that his findings can be applied to the British middle class as a whole, but the people in his sample were far younger and better educated than the British middle class as a whole.
- Supporters of different parties were recruited in different ways: Communists were recruited through party branches, fascists in an unspecified manner, and supporters of other parties by giving copies of the questionnaire to his students and telling them to apply it to friends and acquaintances.
- Scores were obtained by applying the same weight to groups of different sizes. For example the responses of 250 middle-class supporters of the Liberal Party were given the same weight as those of 27 working-class Liberals.
- Scores were rounded without explanation, in directions that supported Eysenck's theories.
Eysenck was accused of being a supporter of the extreme right.
Remarking on Eysenck's alleged right-wing connections, Buchanan writes: "For those looking to thoroughly demonize Eysenck, his links with far right groups revealed his true political sympathies." According to Buchanan, these harsh critics interpreted Eysenck's writings as "overtly racist". Furthermore, Buchanan writes that Eysenck's fiercest critics were convinced that Eysenck was "willfully misrepresenting a dark political agenda". Buchanan footnotes this observation with a quote from William Tucker who described Eysenck as "Jensen's dark doppelganger". Buchanan however disagrees with this stark interpretation: "Yet the tip-of-the-iceberg metaphor implicit in this accusation appears to be seriously misleading in Eysenck's case. More than most, what you saw was what you got. He spread himself too thin to be harbouring much beneath the surface." Buchanan goes on to argue that Eysenck's research was thinly spread across numerous domains to conclude that "There appeared to be no hidden agenda to Hans Eysenck. He was too self-absorbed, too preoccupied with his own aspirations as a great scientist to harbor specific political aims."
No comments:
Post a Comment