- Joined
- Jul 6, 2022
Something i was thinking about with these tests. The way they word things, sometimes so vaguely, or with what seems to be hints of loaded talking point language, but not enough to make you sure one way or the other.. It's not often clear if you're being asked a straight question or a political/ideological talking point. Not nessasarily because of any bias or intent of the test or makers, but because of how the language and terms have been subverted in popular discourse. Such as for example, a question asking something simple and seemingly uncontroversial in plain language, that because of political misuse and talking points, makes it hard to tell if you're are agreeing with the uncontroversial plain meaning, or a talking point. (I personally get very jumpy around semi-vague questions or statements about issues such as immigration, letter people issues, medical transition, "common sense gun control" and others.. and especially feel-good sounding moral or ethical statements) Leading to many likely choosing defensively. This probably isn't exclusive, but certainly mismatched in political 'sides'.. With progressive leftist discourse so often being officially used interchangeably with the actual plain meanings of terms. (like "forgetting" to specify legal status when talking about immigrants, or difference between adults and minors when talking about letter issues and especially transition etc.)
Such fears really end up distorting results in the end and lead to unwarranted and extreme outcomes, and then labels. I'd really like to see a study done into the level of internalization and eventual acceptance of the greater ideas that come with labels. Fascist, socialist, authoritarian and the like especially. It doesn't have to ask or count things as loaded to get a distorted outcome. I wish test makers went into a little more detail in to some questions and especially statements.
Personally, i know i score at least a bit higher on the authority axis because of what are likely a few too simple questions and statements. I just can't bring myself to take the certain statements and questions at face value in the current year.
Of course a lot of this is musings.. And there are certainly bigger issues to deal with in these. Like lumping religion in with governance, and nationalism is with right wing and fascism. The biases of socialist economic questions not really seeming to count on the freedom-authority axis, only economic one. To say nothing of the issue with labels. A lot of what should be neural ones seem inextricably tied to specific ideologies and sides. Plus he just plain badly thought out axis in general.
Such fears really end up distorting results in the end and lead to unwarranted and extreme outcomes, and then labels. I'd really like to see a study done into the level of internalization and eventual acceptance of the greater ideas that come with labels. Fascist, socialist, authoritarian and the like especially. It doesn't have to ask or count things as loaded to get a distorted outcome. I wish test makers went into a little more detail in to some questions and especially statements.
Personally, i know i score at least a bit higher on the authority axis because of what are likely a few too simple questions and statements. I just can't bring myself to take the certain statements and questions at face value in the current year.
Of course a lot of this is musings.. And there are certainly bigger issues to deal with in these. Like lumping religion in with governance, and nationalism is with right wing and fascism. The biases of socialist economic questions not really seeming to count on the freedom-authority axis, only economic one. To say nothing of the issue with labels. A lot of what should be neural ones seem inextricably tied to specific ideologies and sides. Plus he just plain badly thought out axis in general.
