Take the Political Personality Test.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Political Personality Test (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/research_political_personality_test.php)

I'm a Secular Centrist!

[Pylis]

Traditional Conservative.

[onikage]

Secular Centrist

[shrike4242]

Political Personality Test (http://www.iop.harvard.edu/research_political_personality_test.php)

I'm a Secular Centrist!

Ditto here:

Secular Centrist

[zionoverfire]

Secular Centrist

[dtcarson]

You are [well, I am] a Traditional Conservative
based on those four options and what, 10 questions.

[smalien1]

Traditional Liberal with a big penis, thats really what it said!!!

[Kayden]

Ditto here:

Secular Centrist

Double ditto

[Kayden]

Traditional Liberal with a big penis, thats really what it said!!!

Are you sure it didn't say Traditional Liberals are big penises? :lol:

[Duo_Maxwell]

I'm apparently a Secular Centrist

[KingSpike]

Mine says "Jesus."

Is...is that good?

Nah, I'm actually a Traditional Liberal supposedly. I don't really think I am though. More of a moderate.

[MrBadExample]

Traditional Liberal

[MrBadExample]

Nah, I'm actually a Traditional Liberal supposedly. I don't really think I am though. More of a moderate.

I guess compared to the Radical Right Wing that's in charge now, Traditional Liberals do seem like moderates.

[Mouse]

Traditional Liberal

[KingSpike]

I guess compared to the Radical Right Wing that's in charge now, Traditional Liberals do seem like moderates.

Well, the test doesn't have enough questions to really be accurate. I've had multiple friends think I was conservative because I can be traditional about a lot of things and I'm also a stickler for rules (assuming they exist...if they don't then weeeee). I've surprised a couple people by saying that I'm democratic or that I'm moderate.

[Derwood43]

Traditional Conservative
...and proud of it!

[Zman310]

Traditional Liberal

I agree that the test could've used some more questions. Traditional Liberal sort of works for me, but I think of myself more as a moderate with liberal tendencies, so I'm probably more on the border with Traditional Liberal and Secular Center.

[GuilewasNK]

Secular Centrist.

As a minority I am HIGHLY against affirmative action (call me crazy but I like earning my way) so I guess you could say I have conservative tendencies. However, I also think the environment is as important as protecting jobs so moderate is more appropriate to describe me.

[onetrackmind]

Secular Centrist here

[RedvsBlue]

Count me into the Secular Centrist category as well.

[FriskyTanuki]

Secular Centrist here.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.

[Trakan]

Secular Centrist

[KrazyKefka]

Secular Centrist

[camoor]

Traditional Conservative.

There's a shock.

And throw me in the Secular Centrist pile.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Wow, you change the response on one question, the gay one, from a 2-4 and you go from a Secular Centrist to Traditional Conservative.

One question moves you that far?

I don't think so.

[GuilewasNK]

I was surprised abortion wasn't on that list. That is still more hotly debated than anything else they said. Prices of oil/gas should have been on there too.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I was surprised abortion wasn't on that list. That is still more hotly debated than anything else they said. Prices of oil/gas should have been on there too.

I agree it was abit odd abortion wasn't on there.

[dtcarson]

Wow, you change the response on one question, the gay one, from a 2-4 and you go from a Secular Centrist to Traditional Conservative.

One question moves you that far?

I don't think so.

Yep. This test is rather grotesque in its oversimplification of 'political viewpoints.'

I don't think gas/oil prices would be a suitable question--who *doesn't* want lower prices? Now, how to 'fix' any percieved problem with oil/gas supply/prices, that might be a question.

And some of the questions/answers end up being virtually yes/no; I see some a SC, they allegedly
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state."

I think the question was something like 'should religious values be in government' or something like that. Those aren't opposites. Religious values can be in goverment, if the candidate expresses them and gets elected. There's no harm in that. And I'm not religious, but some things that are 'religious values', I support. But I also believe "strongly in the separation of church and state;" apparently there aren't any First Amendment scholars at Harvard to understand what that actually means ['Congress shall make no law...respecting an establishment of religion.' Which does not mean the President or any other politican is not allowed to invoke God, Yahweh, Allah, Satah, Gob, whomever. A common misconception.]

And the massive generalization of 'environment versus profits'. I'm all for profits, and for proper stewardship of resources. But who determines that, and who controls it, would be a more eye-opening question.

[GuilewasNK]

Yep. This test is rather grotesque in its oversimplification of 'political viewpoints.'

I don't think gas/oil prices would be a suitable question--who *doesn't* want lower prices? Now, how to 'fix' any percieved problem with oil/gas supply/prices, that might be a question.

And some of the questions/answers end up being virtually yes/no; I see some a SC, they allegedly
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state."

I think the question was something like 'should religious values be in government' or something like that. Those aren't opposites. Religious values can be in goverment, if the candidate expresses them and gets elected. There's no harm in that. And I'm not religious, but some things that are 'religious values', I support. But I also believe "strongly in the separation of church and state;" apparently there aren't any First Amendment scholars at Harvard to understand what that actually means ['Congress shall make no law...respecting an establishment of religion.' Which does not mean the President or any other politican is not allowed to invoke God, Yahweh, Allah, Satah, Gob, whomever. A common misconception.]

And the massive generalization of 'environment versus profits'. I'm all for profits, and for proper stewardship of resources. But who determines that, and who controls it, would be a more eye-opening question.

I think they could have asked, "Is it worth drilling for oil even if there is an environmental risk?" (Drilling in Alaska or whatnot) or "Do you blame the Government for rising costs or the demand for crude?" (Not the best question but you see what I am saying).

Two questions were a bit odd IMO.

"Homosexual relationships between consenting adults are morally wrong."

"I am concerned about the moral direction of the country."

Morality is defined so broadly in this day and age by different people that the question needs to be re-worded IMO.

They should have asked, "Do you believe homosexuals have a right to marriage?"

Moral direction doesn't exclusively involve homosexuality. Morality can also be business practices (Enron), content in media, individual attitudes.....

I realize it is a short national survey but one would think Harvard could be a little more direct with the questions instead of abstract.

[Kayden]

Secular Centrist.

As a minority I am HIGHLY against affirmative action (call me crazy but I like earning my way) so I guess you could say I have conservative tendencies. However, I also think the environment is as important as protecting jobs so moderate is more appropriate to describe me.

As a white male I LOVE affirmative action! :roll:

I thought the whole principle of equality was to put everyone on the same footing. My girlfriend told me she was getting a grant on the basis of being a minority... I started to laugh my ass off. I didn't know white women were a minority.

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

women who are smart enough to apply for grants are in the minority...with all those blonds that just go ask their rich dads or boyfriends for money women who do it on thier own are few and far between

[smalien1]

I put in 3 for everything and got Traditional Conservative.

[KingSpike]

I put in 3 for everything and got Traditional Conservative.

So conservatives have no opinion? :lol:

[GuilewasNK]

As a white male I LOVE affirmative action! :roll:

I thought the whole principle of equality was to put everyone on the same footing. My girlfriend told me she was getting a grant on the basis of being a minority... I started to laugh my ass off. I didn't know white women were a minority.

I just think in general it does more harm than good (at least in this day and age). A more qualified person shouldn't lose out because of a quota.

I know with scholarships your heritage can play a part (Native American, local resident, that sort of thing) but I never heard of a grant being like that. I thought those were all based on financial need (I wouldn't know because I had to get loans and scholarships.)

[Pylis]

There's a shock.

And throw me in the Secular Centrist pile.

What the hell? Why are you singling out my posts? Maybe I’m misinterpreting your tone, since all I can do is read your post, but it at least seems like you’re just trying to be a dick.

[Pylis]

I just think in general it does more harm than good (at least in this day and age). A more qualified person shouldn't lose out because of a quota.


I agree completely.

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

I just think in general it does more harm than good (at least in this day and age). A more qualified person shouldn't lose out because of a quota.

I know with scholarships your heritage can play a part (Native American, local resident, that sort of thing) but I never heard of a grant being like that. I thought those were all based on financial need (I wouldn't know because I had to get loans and scholarships.)

grants for business loans...getting capital to start my own place

[jaykrue]

You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.

Strangely enough, the words they use are a bit strong considering I'm indifferent to gay rights (neither against nor for), believe somewhat in the separation of church and state, and am less supportive of affirmative action considering I'm asian. I'm not too concerned about the environment but I am somewhat supportive in basic health insurance.

[ryanbph]

Traditional Conservative

[elprincipe]

"Traditional Conservative." Haha, what a joke.

[hiccupleftovers]

You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.


I too think this test should have had more questions. I don't think that from just 10 questions they could have recieved this answer and be so sure of it. I think that a secular centrist is close to what I am, but I find myself to be more in between a Traditional Liberal and a secular centrist. I feel that I'm more moderate than anything. Also, I find that I'm indifferent to gays and gay rights, so I'm not sure where they got the top one.

[Zer0X1999]

Traditional Liberal

Funny, I feel that I'm more towards the middle overall, but liberal on social issues though.

[xeionp]

Traditional Conservative.

[Nirvanaguy777]

Secular Centrist- go gays, fuck the enviornment and seperate the church and state for me.

[Mouse]

I just think in general it does more harm than good (at least in this day and age). A more qualified person shouldn't lose out because of a quota.
I agree completely.

You guys do know that quotas are illegal, right?
Affirmative action is a touchy issue. Those disadvantaged by birth certainly deserve a fair chance, but affirmative action doesn't help them, despite numerous arguments to the contrary. It just helps well off minorities (like me) get extra consideration, even when it's not necessary. Affirmative action should be based off socioeconomic status, not race or creed. Pump more money into the school systems to bring them up to par.

The main problem is that if you are a minority and get accepted into a well renowned college or job position, it's assumed that you used affirmative action to get there. My (white) friends were convinced that I could have gotten into any school I wanted to with my 1330 SAT and high 80s gpa. What a crock of shit. Affirmative Action as it is now just breeds resentment.

So. Quotas = Illegal. All cases where someone was sure they got rejected because preferential treatment was given to a less qualified minority have been proved wrong. But the first thing that needs to change is people's attitudes.
*hint* *hint*

[elprincipe]

You guys do know that quotas are illegal, right?
Affirmative action is a touchy issue. Those disadvantaged by birth certainly deserve a fair chance, but affirmative action doesn't help them, despite numerous arguments to the contrary. It just helps well off minorities (like me) get extra consideration, even when it's not necessary. Affirmative action should be based off socioeconomic status, not race or creed. Pump more money into the school systems to bring them up to par.

The main problem is that if you are a minority and get accepted into a well renowned college or job position, it's assumed that you used affirmative action to get there. My (white) friends were convinced that I could have gotten into any school I wanted to with my 1330 SAT and high 80s gpa. What a crock of shit. Affirmative Action as it is now just breeds resentment.

So. Quotas = Illegal. All cases where someone was sure they got rejected because preferential treatment was given to a less qualified minority have been proved wrong. But the first thing that needs to change is people's attitudes.
*hint* *hint*

"Affirmative action" is just another word for preferences based on some race/class/gender/whatever distinction. It's ridiculous it still exists at all. Instead of arguing about "affirmative action" or "quotas," we should be arguing about how to make the crappy schools poorer kids in general have to go to better to try and get closer to equal opportunity.

[GuilewasNK]

You guys do know that quotas are illegal, right?
Affirmative action is a touchy issue. Those disadvantaged by birth certainly deserve a fair chance, but affirmative action doesn't help them, despite numerous arguments to the contrary. It just helps well off minorities (like me) get extra consideration, even when it's not necessary. Affirmative action should be based off socioeconomic status, not race or creed. Pump more money into the school systems to bring them up to par.

The main problem is that if you are a minority and get accepted into a well renowned college or job position, it's assumed that you used affirmative action to get there. My (white) friends were convinced that I could have gotten into any school I wanted to with my 1330 SAT and high 80s gpa. What a crock of shit. Affirmative Action as it is now just breeds resentment.

So. Quotas = Illegal. All cases where someone was sure they got rejected because preferential treatment was given to a less qualified minority have been proved wrong. But the first thing that needs to change is people's attitudes.
*hint* *hint*

I know quotas are illegal but look at the NFL. You HAVE to interview a minority candidate for head coaching job even if they aren't your choice for the job. Essentially teams have to ask someone in as a courtesy and not based on talent. Too many people say "Oh there aren't enough black coaches". It not a matter of having an equal amount of black to white coaches. As a minority myself, that is embarrasing to me.

[Kayden]

I was reading an article in Time about AA. It has a chart that showed the 'bonus' black kids get on their consideration into a college. I can't remember exactly what it was.... but it was clearly something to give minorities a better chance to get into a college. It made it possible for a minority that scored around 800-100 on SATs to get precidence over a white kid who scored 1400-1500.

[alonzomourning23]

Traditional Liberal

Though affirmative action is tricky, a fine line between what's technically right and what's best. Is it right to give someone an advantage just because the color of their skin? No. But, giving advantages to poor people go towards helping lower poverty, crime etc. Basically, to get rid of it may be technically fair, but we'll gain nothing for it, and many more families will lose out. If I had to choose one or the other I'd keep it as is, but we should have it for the poor of all races and ethnicities. It's only reason is to help minority groups have the same life opportunities as everyone else and to guard against racist policies (which is still important, in the past and even now, so this part of it should stay). If a poor white family is just as disadvantaged as a black family in a ghetto, then they should get similar advantages.

Though, even though I attended private schools myself, I don't think families should have a choice of where to send their kids, and aren't opposed to getting rid of private schools. The well off, the powerful and the ones who give donations, send their kids and resources to schools for the rich, and now they want vouchers to remove more tax money from them. If these families kids were forced to attend public schools, there would be much more attention, effort and funds aimed at improving them, and that would greatly benefit poor children who have no choice over where to attend.

It made it possible for a minority that scored around 800-100 on SATs to get precidence over a white kid who scored 1400-1500.

That would be in extreme cases maybe, if there was a real lack of minority applicants, though SAT's aren't nearly as important now unless you're applying to top schools. A friend of mine had honors courses and mostly A's, but got about 8 or 900 on his SAT's, and got into a very good school (though not ivy league or anything). Colleges often overlook them.

Creating a diverse student body has educational advantages in itself, namely reducing racism and getting people used to living in a multicultural environment (something many kids aren't used to).

[Duo_Maxwell]

Why is "the" colored black trhoughout your post alonzo?

Also, affirmitive action has no place in an college admissions. It doesn't help based on poverty at all. That has to do with finanicial aid and schlorships none of which is based on admissions. Minorities who are not even poor can be included in school AA policies. Your admission to a college should be based on qualifications not your ethnicity. Kayden's SAT example isn't that far fetched and while SAT and ACT scores have taken a backseat lately, they certainly do the similar things with GPAs and grades. Most admission systems have points and scores and grades are worth so many points then you get bonus points for being a minority (not for being poor or anything else). I hardly see how that is fair or even necessary because without such information they wouldn't even know your skin color so I don't see how they can discrimate based on race unless minorities have different handwritting than white people.

[alonzomourning23]

Why is "the" colored black trhoughout your post alonzo?

Also, affirmitive action has no place in an college admissions. It doesn't help based on poverty at all. That has to do with finanicial aid and schlorships none of which is based on admissions. Minorities who are not even poor can be included in school AA policies. Your admission to a college should be based on qualifications not your ethnicity. Kayden's SAT example isn't that far fetched and while SAT and ACT scores have taken a backseat lately, they certainly do the similar things with GPAs and grades. Most admission systems have points and scores and grades are worth so many points then you get bonus points for being a minority (not for being poor or anything else). I hardly see how that is fair or even necessary because without such information they wouldn't even know your skin color so I don't see how they can discrimate based on race unless minorities have different handwritting than white people.

I have the google toolbar which has a highlight option. Basically, when I do a search I use the highlight option to find the words I was searching for on the page. The text is black with a yellow background and all that this picks up is the black. I must have been doing a search that had the word "the" in it and still had the highlight on, usually I just have this problem when I quote things.

But affirmative action was designed to ensure that minorities get into these universities and careers, by making it so that they're not discriminated against by being refused admission to university or jobs based of there origins. They failed to take into account that all the oppression that has occured, and the more subtle racism that still exists today, could not be reversed instantaneously. The assumption was the percentage of accepted students should represent the population, but a myriad of factors prevents that.

There is still plenty of racism today and some safeguards are needed, but the days of where you can reasonably make a blanket assessment of visible minorities as poor are over. Safeguards against racist and bigotted hiring and admission are still needed, but there needs to be a way to keep that in place, while only rewarding those who are actually disadvantaged. Doing otherwise is overkill.

[smalien1]

You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:

* Strongly supportive of gay rights.
* Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
* Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
* Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
* Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.


I too think this test should have had more questions. I don't think that from just 10 questions they could have recieved this answer and be so sure of it. I think that a secular centrist is close to what I am, but I find myself to be more in between a Traditional Liberal and a secular centrist. I feel that I'm more moderate than anything. Also, I find that I'm indifferent to gays and gay rights, so I'm not sure where they got the top one.

Thats the generic list.

[Ziv_Zulander]

Traditional Liberal.

I must have picked the wrong numbers or something x-p.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I have the google toolbar which has a highlight option. Basically, when I do a search I use the highlight option to find the words I was searching for on the page. The text is black with a yellow background and all that this picks up is the black. I must have been doing a search that had the word "the" in it and still had the highlight on, usually I just have this problem when I quote things.

But affirmative action was designed to ensure that minorities get into these universities and careers, by making it so that they're not discriminated against by being refused admission to university or jobs based of there origins. They failed to take into account that all the oppression that has occured, and the more subtle racism that still exists today, could not be reversed instantaneously. The assumption was the percentage of accepted students should represent the population, but a myriad of factors prevents that.

There is still plenty of racism today and some safeguards are needed, but the days of where you can reasonably make a blanket assessment of visible minorities as poor are over. Safeguards against racist and bigotted hiring and admission are still needed, but there needs to be a way to keep that in place, while only rewarding those who are actually disadvantaged. Doing otherwise is overkill.


Makes sense...

But you sort of missed my main point about affirmative action. I'm not talking about careers and jobs, just college admission here. And in college admission you're ability to pay the tuition is not part of the focus. I was admitted to Notre Dame but didn't go because I could never afford it. That is school and federal financial aid that handles how you pay your way. Yet AA is still present for simple admissions. Why? It serves no purpose in my view, and certainly does nothing for kids to actually afford college. You could argue that it provides multicultural diversity, but school programs, scholarships, and international students are a much bigger contributing factor than simple admissions. Colleges especially larger public ones get thousands upon thousands of applications per year and simply by checking a box, another person can now have a greater adventage at getting admitted to the university. The kicker is I'm not allowed to check the same box.

If I get what your saying you basically agree with me. I'm saying that AA needs to be elminated from college admissions process. Should it be considered in financial aid oppertunities...perhaps so, but those are examined much more closely on a person by person, case by case basis to determine who needs what so it may not even be needed there.

[bmulligan]

Don't fret it, alonzo misses the point on just about anything that clashes with his neo-couture fascist view of america.

There is still plenty of racism today and some safeguards are needed, but the days of where you can reasonably make a blanket assessment of visible minorities as poor are over. Safeguards against racist and bigotted hiring and admission are still needed, but there needs to be a way to keep that in place, while only rewarding those who are actually disadvantaged. Doing otherwise is overkill.

We obviously need a Racism Czar to ensure these "safeguards" and assure they only go to those who are deemed to be "actually disadvantaged". If not a Czar, than at least a well stocked bureacracy to handle the problem. God knows we can't let people have the fredom to do as they please becuase they will invariably make the wrong choices.

BTW, this is a horrible political test. This one's not comprehensive, but measurably better than the one on the OP.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[alonzomourning23]

Don't fret it, alonzo misses the point on just about anything that clashes with his neo-couture fascist view of america.



We obviously need a Racism Czar to ensure these "safeguards" and assure they only go to those who are deemed to be "actually disadvantaged". If not a Czar, than at least a well stocked bureacracy to handle the problem. God knows we can't let people have the fredom to do as they please becuase they will invariably make the wrong choices.

BTW, this is a horrible political test. This one's not comprehensive, but measurably better than the one on the OP.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I got the point, but affirmative action involves more than just college. I also was only half responding to his point and half going off on my own.

I was suggesting that affirmative actions needs to be corrected, as the style in place has lost much of its usefullness, but I also argued that the current system is better than nothing at all.

Though if people had done what they pleased, then desegregation would only have been partial, as many in the south (and to a lesser extent the north) wanted nothing to do with it and would not have allowed blacks into their businesses, schools and universities. We would not have the relatively integrated society that we have today if that were the case, and if these safeguards are not there there is nothing to stop people from following such policies in job or college admissions.

People doing what they want is fine, but not when those practices hinder peoples career and education oppurtunities. And besides, if you were (are?) black and your boss fires you, or refuses to hire you because you're black, are you going to be content with the logic of "people should be able to do what they please"? Other peoples discrimination can play a major role in someone elses life. And let's be realistic here, the minority cannot effectively make a discriminatory society to counter anothers discriminatory society that is equal in terms of jobs and education, as you have suggested before.

Also, thanks for adding a new term to my list of "I can't believe people called me this", I am now a fascist, though conservative is still my favorite :razz: .

[Kaijufan]

You are a Secular Centrist. Secular centrists like you tend to be:



Strongly supportive of gay rights.
Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.
All of those points are pretty much accurate for me.

[elprincipe]

Don't fret it, alonzo misses the point on just about anything that clashes with his neo-couture fascist view of america.



We obviously need a Racism Czar to ensure these "safeguards" and assure they only go to those who are deemed to be "actually disadvantaged". If not a Czar, than at least a well stocked bureacracy to handle the problem. God knows we can't let people have the fredom to do as they please becuase they will invariably make the wrong choices.

BTW, this is a horrible political test. This one's not comprehensive, but measurably better than the one on the OP.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05

That test is much better than the simple 10-question one, thanks for posting it. According to that one, I'm very slightly to the right-of-center and somewhat more libertarian.

[alonzomourning23]

Economic Left/Right: -7.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.59

[GreenMonkey]

I always liked the politcal compass site myelf. A little more multi-dimensional.

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

People wonder why I say that I am somewhere between a libertarian and a democrat (when they say they have opposing viewpoints on many things - true).

[elprincipe]

I always liked the politcal compass site myelf. A little more multi-dimensional.

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

People wonder why I say that I am somewhere between a libertarian and a democrat (when they say they have opposing viewpoints on many things - true).

Well, Democrats aren't necessarily not libertarian in a lot of ways, depending on the Democrat obviously. Democrats can range from fairly authoritarian positions (political correctness, "affirmative action," game/music censorship, unions (closed shops), forced retirement program taxes, etc.) to very libertarian. Republicans can be the same, from the anti-government militia types to the religious protect-the-children ultra-conservatives.