honold

Some Fun Tests

Recommended Posts

The polical compass took an insane amount of time to load after the first page. Must have been SR'd. I'll try it later.

Bit zero bullets and took zero direct hits. Um, I must be a philosopher now, or

something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: -2.1

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.0

I don't know about its conclusion. I don't really think of myself as libertarian by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My score on political compass:

Economic Left/Right: 0.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

So, I'm a moderate right-wing libertarian.

Perhaps this explains why I can't decide whether I'm a Democrat or a Republican.

Interestingly, my score occupied an area not touched by any of the famous leaders on this chart:

internationalchart.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the philosophy thing I bit one bullet and took one direct hit. I disagree with both.

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (B) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, the "God test" seems to have some less than perfect logic, or at least less-than perfectly worded or comprehensive questions. For example:

Question 7

It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.

What the heck does that mean? The operative word here is justifiable. Huh? To whom? For what? It would be better, as in "more acurate" if all of the answer choices included at least a "don't know" - many or not "True/False".

Similarly the quiz plays fast and loose with poor distinctions between the notion of "belief in nonexistance" versus "nonbelief in existance". Similarly equating notions, and corresponding burdens of proof, like the Loch Ness Monster and God does not make much sense.

Mostly the quiz is high school sophistry - takes simple algebraic logic and replaces variables/symbols with real-life issues, which would be OK except that such an approach ignores that the implications of, for example, acceptance of God is several orders of magnitude different than, for example, the Loch Ness monster, and so it is appropriate that different tests be used.

Still, I did OK: You took 1 direct hit and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets. 183911 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Isaac Asimov in his writings about the nature of belief and conservative thinking in science did a much better job. I wish I had a link or something to that. I recall one example that he used in his popular writing was along the lines of if a collegue/student/whomever made the following claims:

A- I have NaCl in my pocket.

B - I have a vial of NaOH in my pocket.

C - I have a sample of plutonium in my pocket.

The "correct" responses would be:

A - "Nice, thanks for telling me, if I need some I'll ask you" - never give the claim a second thought.

B - "That's unusual", perhaps ask to see it, titrate a sample, etc. Plausible, but odd and worthy of a look-see prior to just assuming that it is accurate.

C - "Yeah right "- to even bother investigating that claim would be nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm:

-.75 for the Economic left/right

-.62 for the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian

I guess i'm a moderate left-wing libertarian, whatever that means. :unsure:

I also took one direct hit and bit one bullet. I'm not sure I agree with their answers though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: -5.12

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05

While that's probably in the correct quadrant, there are too many things that I was indifferent about for this to be a good representation of me. I've done similar tests before, and according to those, I'm extremely conservative.

Zero bullets bit, but one direct hit. If I spent more time thinking about the questions, rather than trying to quickly get through it, I would have probably got through with no hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -2.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Guess I'll read up on Gandhi.

I thought I was a South Georgia Redneck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record (reported elsewhere, but if anyone is plotting the SR chart someone needs to offset all you hippies so I don't want it missed):

Economic Left/Right: 6.38 (about GWB level)

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.46 (pretty much on the axis)

According to their charts, I am most like the economist Milton Friedman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 direct hit and 1 between the teeth. I must say that I had chosen "don't know" on many of those God questions had it been a possible choice.

Economic Left/Right: -6.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

Oops. A left winger? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0 Hits and 0 bit bullets.

2,-3 (Neo-Liberal Anarchist?) :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think honold and I must have copied the same test answers or something (we must have cheated, heh!):

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -1.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13

Still, pretty darned close to center on the graph, and if some of the wording to a few questions was a little better I think I would have been a bit more upper right. As it was, some questions needed a "within limits" boundary around the answers, and lacking that I had to balance. Of course, that's what the test is designed to do: find out how I would balance them.

As for god, I bit two bullets - one of which I don't agree with. AFAIK, evolutionary theory has stood the test of Carbon 14 dating of fossils, and Hubble universe exploration - all of which give pretty strong evidence to prove both the timeframe of the universe's existance (consistent with evolutionary theory, not creationism), and the ever increasing complexity of life on earth over millions of years. In my mind, that PROVES evolution to a very high degree of accuracy. They said I was holding proof of god out to a higher standard - when in fact I feel like evolution has been proven quite well enough, and I am still waiting for some scientific basis for god-belief. Shroud of Turin Carbon-14 dating, anyone? :P

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iam a Economic Left/Right: 4.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.92, kinda guy...

Iam glad I didnt score as high as Hitler, that would have been worrysome, but not as far to the right as Thatcher...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying my spot in the empty corner with SC ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...some goofy mix between Tony Blair and Mandela? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic: 0

Social: 1

Must make me a moderate... :) I think I am very much middle of the road.

Again, ambiguous questions that force you to try and determine the meaning even if you feel differently about the actual working

"Sex outside of marriage is usually immoral." Well, I strongly *disagree* with that statement. Take out "usually" and I strongly *agree*

God test:

One hit, one bit.

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

If God is God (all powerful, all knowing, etc. - which the questionare did ask) then squares *would be* circles. 1 + 1 would equal 72.

If you believe God does exist and did create the universe, then rationality is based on God, i.e. God defines what is rational. So, God could pee in a corner of a round room. Yes?

So... no bit bullet there, just a bit of bias on the part of the question's author.

Oh well. So goes on-line tests.

I'll save the evolutionary debate for another thread B),

Dogeared

8^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You took 2 direct hits and you have bitten zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets. 184677 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Anyone else notice, that god is 'she'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone re-word this so that I may comprehend the test?
Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.

Any being which it is right to call god? WTF does that even mean?

Frank

Never mind, the entire test doesn't make sense. What a waste.

Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any being which it is right to call god?  WTF does that even mean?

if i can correctly identify a being as god, then they must be unlimited in ability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any being which it is right to call god?  WTF does that even mean?

if i can correctly identify a being as god, then they must be unlimited in ability

Hmm, I hope that isn't what they meant - I did not read it as anything pertaining to omnipotence at all (which seems to be your interpretation) - I viewed it from a "freedom of action/contraint of action" standpoint. This would be somewhat along the lines of distinguishing between notions of "God" as a natural force versus a being of great power (e.g., Roman, Norse, etc. Gods) versus a more or less monotheistic being from which the general compass of good/evil etc. are set.

Etc.

A bunch of too-clever-by-half philosophy grad students from a 4th rate institution....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now