Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:It's all in your brain apparently.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/08/brain-scans-lean-left-right/
I originally found this on yahoo, but when I went to look for it this was the first place I found it. Please don't crusify me for using a fox news article. I really don't ever check there.

Some of those questions were pretty BS, but here I am. Looks like we are almost all lefty liberals to one degree or the other, or the test is skewed.

I'll totally believe anything fox says, they are fair and balanced.

What questions were BS? They are pretty easy to answer truthfully. Also, the questions are based on more of a world view of left and right rather than the hilarity and idiocy we have in the US that defines our politics.

Maybe you don't really think the way the party you identify with does, or the test haxxed your brain. One of the two.

No my results were pretty much right where I expected them. Although I would have thought I was more right (libertarian) then left.

You apparently read the questions with the same care that you read my post.

"Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence." What if it's prescribed?
"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." Who says it doesn't represent anything, who makes that call?
"Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity." What does make peace mean. Learning and playing by the rules is important, accepting them is another question
"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." It is an advantage to the party, but maybe not to me. Quick government can both be good and bad.
"Sex outside marriage is usually immoral." What if I think that morality doesn't even play a part in this question? What if I think it's always immoral?

These are just a few. Maybe you don't read critically enough.

I haven't taken it in a while, I imagine if I went through it again with the idea in mind to see if the questions seemed biased, I would probably have a different opinion.

I think the point is to ask you a bunch of questions and get your off the cuff response, not have you over-analyze them as you have above. I imagine they probably want you to think about the heart/spirit of the question, rather than break it down into other hypotheticals. Like the first question is basically asking, "should marijuana be illegal or legal" its just asking it in a different form. I imagine "making peace" would be accepting the rules of society, not necessarily liking them.

Let me know if you find a better one, its just a quiz that tries to graph your social leanings. Of course its not going to be totally accurate, most people have more depth than that. The forum I saw this on initially, there were quite a few people who were NOT on the left side of the graph, so I think it can swing either way.

Generally people's answer is massively based on the "phrasing" of the question from what I've seen, during the HCR debacle there were polls all the time, and depending on how questions were asked, the responses varied wildly.

That's about right.

Interestingly the questions seem to have changed from what I recall. It appears as though this is an improvement, as last time many decidedly conservative people came out on the left side of he y-axis.

You may call it biased towards the Left, but most U.S. officials(all of them in fact) were on the Right.


From what I can tell, even Democrats in America are somewhat to the Right.

surprisingly very few US politicians are left. we have left leaning moderates : )

Obama is closer to a moderate then a left.

Mike Noble wrote:From what I can tell, even Democrats in America are somewhat to the Right.

Depends on if you're talking "mainstream" Democrats or Democrats as a whole.

As a whole, many far-leftists exist in the Democrat party, mainly because they tend to associate more with their policies than Republicans. Democrats are oriented towards socialism and redistributionist policies than Republicans (although Republicans do so to a limited extent as well), so they tend to attract the left wingers.

frgsinwntr wrote:Obama is closer to a moderate then a left.

President Obama is pretty much a contrarian. He espouses some very far left (at least from an American perspective, I don't think he has called for lynching the Bourgeoisie) positions, and then backtracks and governs from a more centrist perspective, although tilting left pretty heavily.

So really, it depends on if you're juding him based on his actions or deeds. Heck, the same thing applies to President Bush. He talked up some right-wing issues, but was also pretty liberal on the economic side of things.

so apparently in the same slot as stalin

I think most presidents find that their ability to act is less than they expect when campaigning. For all of Bush's rhetoric, there was little socially conservative action during his terms. Likewise the gay rights movement is furious with Obama over his lack of action.

The president is, after all, the manager of a pretty huge apparatus. Anybody that's taken over as a manager knows that there's not much you can do to really change operations.

Hmm... according to this, I'm further right than most of the Americans here. Interesting...

@biccat - Could you explain why Obama is so far left that it requires the word 'very' in italics in front of the word 'left'...?

I'm an anarchist. All government systems are eventually ruined by corruption and greed, and end up enslaving the people they once sought to protect. I believe in an end to the paradigm of artificial scarcity of resources that create a poor underclass. This alone would eliminate the need for welfare, social security and most other government aid since there would be no poor people that would need it. However, since it is the tendency of the rich to get richer my any means, no matter how wicked, and the poor to get poorer as an inevitable result of those means, I really don't care what the special-interest whores in Washington DC or anyplace else call themselves.

Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

Albatross wrote:@biccat - Could you explain why Obama is so far left that it requires the word 'very' in italics in front of the word 'left'...?

Sure.

First, take his position on health care reform. In '03 (or thereabouts), he was certainly for a 'single payer' health care system. From a US perspective, this is pretty far left. We don't do a lot of socialism-style benefits. Now, obviously social security and medicare are moving in that direction, but there seems to be a sharp ideological divide between those who favor and those who oppose single-payer.

Second, the (in)famous "Joe the Plumber" situation, where he straight-up said that it is necessary to "redistribute wealth." Again, this is a far left issue from the perspective of American Politics.

Third, while campaigning for Senate (or possibly as an Illinois Senator) he referred to the Warren Court as "not very radical." This is quite at odds with the perspective of most historians, who view the Warren Court's decisions on race issues to be a sharp departure from previous jurisprudence. In order to see these as "not very radical," you would have to have a pretty wide view of "radical."

Finally, his anti-war positions before his election were quite liberal:
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Obama said in his speech. “Not in six months or one year -- now"

Again, from the perspective of the US, he has taken some very liberal positions, but the results of his administration (which are due to a myriad of causes, not just his own) have been generally left of center.

It's not just governments that become corrupt and take what they can regardless of how it affects others- thats humans.

It will happen whatever the situation. People will always find ways to get rich at the expense of others.

Saying Obama is left is a bit odd to us. I don't know a huge amount about US politics but I can't think of any true left sided politians that actually get anywhere.

Polonius wrote:Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

No, some government is needed, but we also need to get back to the general mindset that if the government becomes corrupt, the people should have the will and ability to force change. Most people today are little better than sheep, more interested in American Idol or wasting their time and effort fighting for some artificial left/right paradigm to see the truth.

4M2A wrote:Saying Obama is left is a bit odd to us. I don't know a huge amount about US politics but I can't think of any true left sided politians that actually get anywhere.

Perhaps you could explain what a "leftist" is in MOE? Or, why do you think Obama is "right"?

warpcrafter wrote:

Polonius wrote:Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

No, some government is needed, but we also need to get back to the general mindset that if the government becomes corrupt, the people should have the will and ability to force change. Most people today are little better than sheep, more interested in American Idol or wasting their time and effort fighting for some artificial left/right paradigm to see the truth.

Sounds like your problem today is more with the governed, not the government.

warpcrafter wrote:

Polonius wrote:Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

No, some government is needed, but we also need to get back to the general mindset that if the government becomes corrupt, the people should have the will and ability to force change. Most people today are little better than sheep, more interested in American Idol or wasting their time and effort fighting for some artificial left/right paradigm to see the truth.

Emphasis mine, in order to make a point

That's just one interpretation; one person's truth is another's propaganda. Assuming that only you and your compatriots know the "truth" is a very dangerous route to take, it can lead to instances of groupthink which, as the war in Iraq has shown us, never leads to anything good.
Also, on a more pragmatic level, it seems foolish to insult potential supporters when campaigning for political ends, as the average man dislikes being called "unthinking," even more so when the statement is followed with an inferred statement of mental superiority such as "but we see the truth."
Just some thoughts, no offence meant.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:@biccat - Could you explain why Obama is so far left that it requires the word 'very' in italics in front of the word 'left'...?

Sure.

First, take his position on health care reform. In '03 (or thereabouts), he was certainly for a 'single payer' health care system. From a US perspective, this is pretty far left. We don't do a lot of socialism-style benefits. Now, obviously social security and medicare are moving in that direction, but there seems to be a sharp ideological divide between those who favor and those who oppose single-payer.

Second, the (in)famous "Joe the Plumber" situation, where he straight-up said that it is necessary to "redistribute wealth." Again, this is a far left issue from the perspective of American Politics.

Third, while campaigning for Senate (or possibly as an Illinois Senator) he referred to the Warren Court as "not very radical." This is quite at odds with the perspective of most historians, who view the Warren Court's decisions on race issues to be a sharp departure from previous jurisprudence. In order to see these as "not very radical," you would have to have a pretty wide view of "radical."

Finally, his anti-war positions before his election were quite liberal:
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Obama said in his speech. “Not in six months or one year -- now"

Again, from the perspective of the US, he has taken some very liberal positions, but the results of his administration (which are due to a myriad of causes, not just his own) have been generally left of center.

Yeah, hes left for an American, but from the overall world perspective, Leftism is not too common here, mostly just left leaning moderates who are considered far left because of how they compare to the rest.

Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, hes left for an American, but from the overall world perspective, Leftism is not too common here, mostly just left leaning moderates who are considered far left because of how they compare to the rest.

So...what is a leftist?

You've said that Obama is on the right, and that the moderates in England are "left-leaning," but what makes a leftist?

Not too shocking. Surprised I wasn't more authoritarian though. I should be. The quiz doesn't have enough questions to really determine that in my mind.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

Polonius wrote:Do you think that the weak will be better off without a government at all?

It seems to me that absent a government, the strong will simply enslave the weak.

No, some government is needed, but we also need to get back to the general mindset that if the government becomes corrupt, the people should have the will and ability to force change. Most people today are little better than sheep, more interested in American Idol or wasting their time and effort fighting for some artificial left/right paradigm to see the truth.

Emphasis mine, in order to make a point

That's just one interpretation; one person's truth is another's propaganda. Assuming that only you and your compatriots know the "truth" is a very dangerous route to take, it can lead to instances of groupthink which, as the war in Iraq has shown us, never leads to anything good.
Also, on a more pragmatic level, it seems foolish to insult potential supporters when campaigning for political ends, as the average man dislikes being called "unthinking," even more so when the statement is followed with an inferred statement of mental superiority such as "but we see the truth."
Just some thoughts, no offence meant.

No statement of superiority was intended. The average person is ignorant of the reality of the world because that's the way the powers that be engineered it. I believe that if they were allowed to hear the likes of George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller speak candidly about their plans for us, they would be in the streets demanding change, all of them and no amount of riot police could do anything about it. By the way, the aforementioned three, they are the ones who claim mental superiority. Just so you know.

I ended up with the Dali Lama which is a little more lefty than expected but then again it is a bit different every time I take when this same post gets made every four months and leads inevitably to that same test.

Ahtman wrote:I ended up with the Dali Lama...

Dirty hippy!

Ahtman wrote:I ended up with the Dali Lama which is a little more lefty than expected but then again it is a bit different every time I take when this same post gets made every four months and leads inevitably to that same test.

The test is really gakky. The questions are awful and lead to many often conflicting interpretations, often many at once. It's unfortunate because the formats good.

Sounds about right, though I was unsure about the question on Corporations and plantlife, so I just disagreed.

Polonius wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I ended up with the Dali Lama...

Dirty hippy!

I get my bi-weekly shower in!

Utilitarian. Which isn't on the list, I see..

wow... i took that test and I was almost in the bottom left corner! i was farther left than I was down... but lol thats funny

Samus_aran115 wrote:Utilitarian. Which isn't on the list, I see..

Probably because thats not a political philosophy.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Utilitarian. Which isn't on the list, I see..

Probably because thats not a political philosophy.