Odd survey that I had to take for class...

[w4rma]

The poll placed me here, as I expected:

Liberal Democrats:
COMMENTS: Extremely tolerant on social issues. Champion individual rights and a range of liberal causes. Despite steadfast support for Democratic candidates, many Liberal Democrats prefer to call themselves Independents. Most favor having a third major party.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-choice and support civil rights, gay rights, and the environment. Critical of big business. Very low expression of religious faith. Most sympathetic of any group to the poor, African-Americans and immigrants. Highly supportive of the women's movement.
WHO THEY ARE: Most highly educated group (50% have a college degree). Least religious of all typology groups. One-third never married.

more:
PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Seculars/60's Democrats
9% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Democrat; 41% Independent, Lean Democrat
COMMENTS: Extremely tolerant on social issues. Champion individual rights and a range of liberal causes. Despite steadfast support for Democratic candidates, many Liberal Democrats prefer to call themselves Independents. Most favor having a third major party.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-choice and support civil rights, gay rights, and the environment. Critical of big business. Very low expression of religious faith. Most sympathetic of any group to the poor, African-Americans and immigrants. Highly supportive of the women's movement.
WHO THEY ARE: Most highly educated group (50% have a college degree). Least religious of all typology groups. One-third never married.
MEDIA HABITS: Average news consumption. More than 40% get news online.
LIFESTYLE NOTES: Few live in rural areas. Many attend theater, ballet, opera and do volunteer work for nonprofits. Most (60%) have a gay friend, colleague or family member. Above average Internet use. Almost three-in-four (73%) exercise regularly.
POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Most politically knowledgeable of all groups. Above average voter turnout.
1996 VOTE: 70% Clinton, 4% Perot, 2% Dole
ISSUE PRIORITIES: Education and Health Care

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=82

 

[woerm]

staunch what?

WHERE DO YOU FIT?

Your answers indicate that you are in the Staunch Conservative category.

staunch what all the red ink and irrational regulation comming out of the logic free zone,

dann ja you betcha

r

 

[iapetus]

I am "Disaffected"

COMMENTS: The Disaffecteds feel completely estranged from both parties.

- Probably the most accurate conclusion (although rather stronger than I would have put it).

This financially pressured...
- Well, I don't earn that much just now, although I expect that to change reasonably soon...

...and pessimistic group
- I'm actually pretty optemistic about most things.

...is not only dissatisfied with the ability of politicians to help improve things, but also has less faith in America in general.


DEFINING VALUES: Distrustful of government, politicians, and business corporations. Favor third major political party.
- True.

Also, anti-immigrant

Er, no. And there wasn't even a question about imigrants, as far as I saw.

..and intolerant of homosexuality.

Er, I ticked (and checked back) "Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society."

Very unsatisfied financially.
- well, I would like some more money...

WHO THEY ARE: Less educated (only 8% have a college degree)
- I have a university degree, and will be studying for a Masters this autumn (unless I get a good enough job first).

and lower-income (73% make less than $50,000).
- That's £31,000. And you Americans pay less tax than us Brits. I wouldn't call that "low income". (Although I am on £6/hr just now, so they got that bit right).

 

[Brian Dale]

w4rma, with all of those complimentary phrases, I can guess which group the study's authors consider to be their own.

 

[Justin]

Wow, each of those questions was a false dichotomy wrapped in a red herring and smothered with a sauce made of bias.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

OK. Here's the plan. The Pew Research Trust came up with this whiz-bang theory of "typology" in 1999 to pidgeonhole people. Never mind that the typology was flawed (linear, or a sine wave at best). It attempts to place people on a simple continuum when that is clearly not the case.

Now, how do we test the theory. Why, we contrive a test to give us the results we expect! How scientific!

I hate it whan I waste my time on intentionally biased psyche evals.

w4rma was the only person the poll accurately predicted

The poll placed me here, as I expected:

So, what does that tell you? Hard left bias.

BTW, I am a staunch conservative according to this "scientific" study

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

psy daisy. Dupe

 

[Moparmike]

My instructor gives this every year to his students. He said that it used to have a libertarian category, but they were the smallest group, getting about 5% ( ) of the respondents.


I also noticed that if you put that you are not a registered voter and/or "never" pay attention to politics, it automatically lumps you into the "Dissafected" category.

 

[444]

They labeled me a Staunch Conservative.
You know what ? They are right on the money.
However, I could have told you that without a survey.
The questions are so obvious you don't need to click the final tab for the results.

 

[StuporDave]

I'm supposedly a Staunch Conservative. Not exactly what I'd label myself, but the description is close, with a few inaccuracies.

Staunch Republicans:


COMMENTS: As in 1994, this extremely partisan Republican group's politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system (the free enterprise system is what makes the country work) and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Dissatisfied with the state of the nation (you can say that again), Staunch Conservatives pay close attention to what is going on in politics and are highly vocal. (yep)


DEFINING VALUES: Pro-business(yep), pro-military(yep), pro-life(yep), anti-gay(nope) and anti-social welfare(yep) with a strong faith in America(yep). Anti-environmental(nope, anti environmental wacko). Self-defined patriot. Distrustful of government(yep). Little concern for the poor(Of course I'm concerned for the poor. I'd just rather them get a hand up than a hand-out). Unsupportive of the women's movement(equal rights, opportunity, pay - Yep. Those "ladies" of NOW - Nope).


WHO THEY ARE: Predominately white (95%)(yep), male(yep) (65%) and older(I don't think 39 is older, is it?). Married(yep) (70%). Extremely satisfied financially(hell no, but it's my own damn fault.) (47% make at least $50,000). Almost two-thirds (63%) are white Protestant(nope, actually not really religious at all.).

Dave

 

[igor]

Even if one would clean the results of a Finn projecting his views on a U.S. platform, their typologies remain inconsistent with the actual responses. Highly curious, as they even use the weighting method that should give very accurate results. Not very sound this way... :banghead: this is your resident Liberal Democrat (not likely) speaking.

 

[Stickjockey]

iapetus pretty much hit it on the head. Man we "Disaffecteds" really get creamed in that one, don't we.

 

[Brian Dale]

Sure do, Stickjockey. That might be one result of this:

He said that it used to have a libertarian category, but they were the smallest group, getting about 5% of the respondents.

So they chucked the category out??? Talk about throwing away data that will tell you something. It looks like their survey was written not to find something out, but to proselytize for the Liberal Democrats.

 

[Stickjockey]

You're not just whistlin' Dixie!

 

[Drjones]

What a bunch of garbage.

A truly stinking pile of bovine excrement.

Look at the way they define these two groups, and pay very careful attention to the words used:

Staunch Republicans:
COMMENTS: As in 1994, this extremely partisan Republican group's politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Dissatisfied with the state of the nation, Staunch Conservatives pay close attention to what is going on in politics and are highly vocal.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-business, pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay and anti-social welfare with a strong faith in America. Anti-environmental. Self-defined patriot. Distrustful of government. Little concern for the poor. Unsupportive of the women's movement.
WHO THEY ARE: Predominately white (95%), male (65%) and older. Married (70%). Extremely satisfied financially (47% make at least $50,000). Almost two-thirds (63%) are white Protestant.

-----------------

Gee, no white male bashing here, eh? Notice how everything is "anti-" this or "anti-" that? Its all given a negative slant.

And if $50K is "extremely satisfied financially," I don't even WANT to know what they'd think of a truly rich individual.

Contrast the above with the praise they heap upon communists:


Liberal Democrats:
COMMENTS: Extremely tolerant on social issues. Champion individual rights and a range of liberal causes. Despite steadfast support for Democratic candidates, many Liberal Democrats prefer to call themselves Independents. Most favor having a third major party.
DEFINING VALUES: Pro-choice and support civil rights, gay rights, and the environment. Critical of big business. Very low expression of religious faith. Most sympathetic of any group to the poor, African-Americans and immigrants. Highly supportive of the women's movement.
WHO THEY ARE: Most highly educated group (Please note that "educated" does NOT equal "intelligent") (50% have a college degree). Least religious of all typology groups. One-third never married.

 

[artherd]

This is stupid. NPI too.

 

[HiWayMan]

anyone notice that no one has been labeled as a hardcore Democrat yet. Wonder why that is?

 

[Iain]

DJ -

you resent being labelled inaccurately, which you are entitled to feel, so why would you go and do the same thing to another group straight after? I don't understand.

 

[Riffraff]

Barely worth the one word I will use to describe it: drivel

 

[Unlucky]

o why would you go and do the same thing to another group straight after? I don't understand.

Who is he bashing, really? He notes that the left-leaning descriptions are more favorable sounding, which he believes, and is likely right, are meant to further the authors' own agenda, which could safely be assumed to be "liberal."

 

[Iain]

Sure Unlucky, I think the agenda of the creators is clear, and yes there was a lot of positive language used to describe the 'liberal Democrat's' (while I apparently don't like black people - news to me) but there is a world of difference between 'liberal Democrat' and the definition of 'communist'.

 

[Unlucky]

there is a world of difference between 'liberal Democrat' and the definition of 'communist'.

I agree to some extent, but I think there are many communists masquerading as liberal Democrats. My personal opinion is that the sincere (but misguided) who believe that they are creating a better world would be considered liberals, while the insincere who are hoping to cultivate power and privilege with leftist politics while paying lip service to the noble ideas of "liberty, egality and fraternity" are commies, which is altogether too many of those I've met.

 

[Iain]

I don't radically disagree Unlucky, it's just that I feel that accusations of communism are like accusations of witchcraft (Arthur Miller got there before me of course) - easy to make because they are so difficult to prove and nicely dehumanise the opponent whilst labelling him fit to be dismissed.

Genuine curiosity - I've lived in Europe all my life, supposedly a hotbed of communism, yet I have met one or two people (students and/or hippies) who believe seriously that communism would work/is a good idea. Is it really common over there or is it often an allegation the like of which I described above? Some people don't do the whole 'individual freedoms' to the extent you guys do, but I doubt many of them would be happy in a commune either, they're just liberals - probably ones that mean well.

I really don't like this whole 'frickin liberal scum commie reds' talk because it smacks to me of lazy thinking - if you can't take their points apart bit by bit without resorting to angry rhetoric, are you sure that you are right and that they are crazy reds and wrong? (Not aimed at you or anyone in particular Unlucky)

 

[Unlucky]

I have met one or two people (students and/or hippies) who believe seriously that communism would work/is a good idea. Is it really common over there or is it often an allegation the like of which I described above? Some people don't do the whole 'individual freedoms' to the extent you guys do, but I doubt many of them would be happy in a commune either, they're just liberals - probably ones that mean well.

I don't even think communists think communism works, as the old USSR and Red China both demonstrate, but with different outcomes, namely that the USSR apparatchiks were only too happy to avail themselves (and only themselves) of the fruits of capitalism when it suited them and the Chinese have moved to adopting capitalism in all but name. I view communists strictly as leftist authoritarians and don't give their adherence to the classical economic theory too much import, as most are only too happy to keep those aspects of capitalism that suit them while paying lipservice to the rest of their "revolution."

 

[Drjones]

St John:

I *really* need to write the thread I've been meaning to write for months now explaining this whole thing...

For a start, read the article in my sig.

I most definitely do not refer to communists in the sense that you are thinking about, and my choice of word is in fact dead on.

Look for a thread by me soon...you'll know it when you see it....