/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2025538]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mmdi/questionnaire/

lets see if there are any trends here

[Anonymous No.2025563]

Politics is not science. Politics is applied bullshit. Bullshit belongs on either /b/ or /x/.

[Anonymous No.2025573]

>>2025563
>implying this isn't sociology, a science

[Anonymous No.2025587]

I'm at (-1,-1)

[Anonymous No.2025586]

>>2025573
>implying sociology is a science

[Anonymous No.2025592]

>>2025587
what about your myers briggs type?

[Anonymous No.2025597]

>>2025592
INTP

[Anonymous No.2025599]

INTJ
somewhere in green

[Anonymous No.2025606]

>>2025597
Not surprised. Everyone here is INTP or INTJ.

Also,
>look at relationship advice
>recommends ENTJs
>exactly the kind of people I avoid
>fuck this shit

[Anonymous No.2025610]

around 4,1

[Anonymous No.2025624]

INTJ

Top left corner. I want to be the dictator of the world.

[Anonymous No.2025627]

>>2025610
Personality type?

[Anonymous No.2025636]

>>2025624
>INTJ in charge of the world

I'm okay withthis

[Anonymous No.2025646]

Thank you so much for this post I have found out a lot of about my self A++++

[Anonymous No.2025651]

[Anonymous No.2025650]

Adding onto my post: I am an INTJ it says reminds me of computer programming when I seen the INT

[Anonymous No.2025657]

OP here, and i apologize for not clearly relating what i was looking for.

I'm looking for common relationships between MB personality types and political ideologies

[Anonymous No.2025659]

Eh, I think I'm actually more libertarian than that, but the questions didn't include fine enough gradation in the answers. I was troubled on several by the lack of a neutral option.

[Anonymous No.2025665]

>>2025659
ISTJ, btw.

[Anonymous No.2025670]

INTP
Me.

[Anonymous No.2025691]

(-6.5,-8)
INTP

[Anonymous No.2025706]

INTP

[Anonymous No.2025717]

>>2025706
Are you me? I'm
>>2025670

[Anonymous No.2025724]

>>2025717
No, but we're pretty darn similar it seems.

[Anonymous No.2025725]

if you arent in purple then you're just a faggot

[Anonymous No.2025730]

>>2025659
I think that when people make political decisions, the underlying principles they draw on are just as important as these dimensions. For instance, to me the most important principles are "individual rights (freedom from coercion)" and "rule of law." It might be pretty easy to associate "individual rights" with the libertarian dimension, but where does rule of law fit in? It's not clearly any of the four. On some issues, I might reach similar positions to a person who valued "democracy" and the "social good," but through completely different rationale.

Looking at particular issues as a reflection of someone's political views, instead of examining the underlying theory is something of a "black box" approach.

[Anonymous No.2025736]

>>2025730
People often have an inaccurate perception of their political view, however. Stands on specific issues are a better way to find out what they really believe, not what they think they believe.

[Anonymous No.2025786]

INTP

[Anonymous No.2025789]

(0,-5)
I hate the party system.

[Anonymous No.2025792]

>>2025736
No approach is perfect, but it's extremely difficult to choose a representative set of issues, and without the underlying rationale, the variance from issue to issue can seem incongruous and capricious. Taking myself as an example, let's say that on immigration, the question was: "How should illegal immigrants be dealt with?" to which my answer, based on the primacy of rule of law in my outlook, would be "They should be imprisoned and afterword deported." Or the survey could ask instead "Should immigrants be allowed to come to this country to work?" To which I would reply "They should be issued temporary worker visas, and the citizenship process should be liberalized to allow their subsequent naturalization in many cases." These responses would lead the social scientist off in completely different directions even though he'd think the two questions analogous.

[Anonymous No.2025799]

>>2025792
The questions aren't anywhere close to analogous however, and no good scientist would treat them as such.

[Anonymous No.2025800]

-5.88, -6.15

[Anonymous No.2025810]

hmm I see a lot of greens here

[SkiddieKript !!D0wYNBTrK/I No.2025812]

It's more fruitful to put up ideological symbols then waste time filling out that quiz.

[Anonymous No.2025836]

>>2025799
Analogous not in their meaning, but in the roles they might play on a survey. Imagine the survey is trying to map someone onto this 2D grid, and they want to include immigration as an issue. Either question could fill this role, but the effects on the mapping would be opposite. Alternatively, they could both be included, where they'd probably cancel each other and the point would be missed. You can't "average" over an extremely noisy function and expect good fidelity in the results. When changes in the framing of issues (small movements in the x-direction if you will) lead to large changes in the response (dramatic lunges in the y-direction) you don't get a well-behaved system.

My contention is that people's polled positions tend to be sensitive in this way, because they're working from their underlying beliefs, not just from the categorical neighbourhood of the issue.

[Anonymous No.2025849]

>>2025836
That's why surveys use many different questions. Overall, well designed surveys give are a fairly accurate gauge of beliefs.

[Anonymous No.2025850]

>Astrology accurately explains many things.

[Anonymous No.2025874]

im at -6,-4

gasp...

although i think my results were skewed in that direction

[Anonymous No.2025887]

Political: Green (-5.12,-6.87)
Personal: INFP, INTP

master race

[Anonymous No.2025886]

>>2025849
Well, good. I'm proposing a different kind of survey. Good think surveys aren't a waste of time. Those generalities are neither here nor there. We were discussing surveys intended to model and abstract the whole political behaviour of individuals. My assertion is that you can't do this well without looking at underlying beliefs and motivations. Yours is that it can be done if you ask enough particularized questions about issues. My assertion is that the latter kind of data is too noisy to model political beliefs on the individual level.

[Anonymous No.2025894]

>>2025849
Well, good. I'm proposing a different kind of survey. Good thing surveys aren't a waste of time. Those generalities are neither here nor there. We were discussing surveys intended to model and abstract the whole political behaviour of individuals. My assertion is that you can't do this well without looking at underlying beliefs and motivations. Yours is that it can be done if you ask enough particularized questions about issues. My assertion is that the latter kind of data is too noisy to model political beliefs on the individual level.

[Anonymous No.2025896]

[Anonymous No.2025902]

>>2025886
The problem with that is that people's self professed underlying beliefs and motivations are not how they will necessarily behave in real life, making specific questions about specific situations a more accurate gague than asking them about their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.2025913]

>>2025902
Well, as I said before
>No approach is perfect, but it's extremely difficult to choose a representative set of issues [...]

You're also making a bit of an argument through lack of imagination by suggesting that my alternative entails flatly asking people what are their motivating principles. Surely we could be more clever than that in teasing out this information? I'm only suggesting that we should aim to do so, rather than being thoroughly blind to the actual inner workings of people's decision processes.

[Anonymous No.2025919]

>>2025913
All right, I'll accept that. What kind of questions would you ask?

[Anonymous No.2025956]

>>2025919
I can see a few possible approaches, and it'd probably take some empirical study to see which is most propitious at getting past that troublesome tendency you point out.

Maybe you could present a multifarious issue or situation (more developed than the average survey question) then ask the respondent to assign weights to the various aspects of the issue, in order of their importance in developing a solution or position. You could even try asking "Which of these aspects would you like to have more information about, before coming to a conclusion?"

Actually, I'm not sure this kind of approach has ever been taken before. Fund it!

[Anonymous No.2025988]

Could you make a stastical distribution and inference from this data?

[Anonymous No.2026011]

INTP or ENTP

[duuude No.2026019]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-sgiIBj-yk

[richter !!RD3yRVKslsB No.2026027]

intj

[Anonymous No.2026034]

>>2025956
That would be an interesting approach, I'd like to see the results of studies done with your suggested method.

[Anonymous No.2026085]

infj

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=6.00&soc=-3.95

[Anonymous No.2026137]