So lets say you're talking to somebody and you want to figure out how far they lean to the left or the right what kinds of questions would you ask them? Not the super obvious stuff, but what kind of stuff could you ask a person to figure out if they are politically conservative (or liberal, but my focus is more on conservatives) and why that question would help you infer the politics of that individual.
edit: Not the Super Obvious Stuff^
edit2: I know that the preferable option is just to bluntly talk to people. I bluntly talk to people all the time. This is something different so I'd like to ask everyone to stop saying to ask people directly when the entire point of this thread is about being indirect
Simply bring up any hot button current event and they're likely to insert an opinion; an opinion that will likely match either a liberal or conservative talking point at the time.
Note that the stance on the issue is likely to change person to person and whoever happens to be in office at the time. The national debt for instance was a huge talking point for liberals while Bush was in office, but now that Obama is in office it's a top talking point for conservatives. I'd like to believe there are independent thinkers out there and that the labels are meaningless compared to a stance on the specific issues, but I'm pretty sure I'd just be deluding myself.
Or you could just ask what they think about the issues you are concerned about. Quit trying to label people. That's the reason we have most of the political issues we have today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Can't you just ask their political party of choice and then why?
The idea is to find area's where certain views, views that aren't obvious ones, correlate with certain overall political beliefs. It's about being indirect rather than direct.
Or you could just ask what they think about the issues you are concerned about. Quit trying to label people. That's the reason we have most of the political issues we have today.
Or you could just ask what they think about the issues you are concerned about. Quit trying to label people. That's the reason we have most of the political issues we have today.
OK, then I'd recommend sticking to current issues like Luthansa striking or that Rinehart. Not what they think, just talk about the situation and see what springs from it. They're somewhat politically charged, but not so overtly.
Or you could just ask what they think about the issues you are concerned about. Quit trying to label people. That's the reason we have most of the political issues we have today.
I have to agree here.
While I can stand poliical parties being labelled "left/right/democrat/republican", with human being their leaning will vary depending on the issues.
A person may support health care, for instance, but not an abortion at a very late stage in development. I'm fairly sure at least on or two repulibicans out there will vote Obama, even if just because they don't liike Romney.
You can't pidgeon hole a person like that as "republican/democrat" unless you flat out ask them what they consider themselves to be.
In other words: "Dude, you republican or democrat?"
[SIZE=2]edit2: I know that the preferable option is just to bluntly talk to people. I bluntly talk to people all the time. This is something different so I'd like to ask everyone to stop saying to ask people directly when the entire point of this thread is about being indirect[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Why do you need to be indirect?
And I think most people would be able to figure out when someone is probing for information.
As you can see from this thread, people resist labels, and parties even more so. Everyone wants to be a unique little snowflake.
A friend once told me the two political dichotomies boil down to either the family structured around a central figure or into the families making decisions as a unit. Maybe his words would find more value to you than to me.
As you can see from this thread, people resist labels, and parties even more so. Everyone wants to be a unique little snowflake.
Yeah. Definite resistance to the idea that certain attributes/beliefs/whatever can be used to infer others.
Quote from 1Drop »
A friend once told me the two political dichotomies boil down to the family structured around a central figure or into the families making decisions as a unit. Maybe his words would find more value to you than to me.
An interesting observation. You read up at all on RWA?
Yeah. Definite resistance to the idea that certain attributes/beliefs/whatever can be used to infer others.
They aren't wrong. Taking it issue by issue is the most constructive way to establish political views, and the best way to have a conversation. Sometimes claiming your views are more nuanced than they really are is a way to keep the questions rolling. It's also a defense against being pigeon-holed to popular claims that XXX are destroying this country.
They aren't wrong. Taking it issue by issue is the most constructive way to establish political views, and the best way to have a conversation. Sometimes claiming your views are more nuanced than they really are is a way to keep the questions rolling. It's also a defense against being pigeon-holed to popular claims that XXX are destroying this country.
Without having the inferential questions we can't say one way or the other. These kinds of things are done with panels of questions (10, 50 or a few hundred) over thousands of participants to try to get predicative aspects down. All I wanted to get out of this thread was flip "maybe X correlates to Y" and, well, that isn't what happened for the most part.
It really isn't about labels or trying to shoehorn people into something they aren't. The core here is to figure out whether a group of people who fit a certain label (whatever that label is) tend to have something else in common.
Quote from 1drop »
AI am an avid reader of the Regional Water Authority, if that's what you mean.
Right, sorry, RWA = Right Wing Authoritarianism and it was such a close fit to your friends remarks that I thought you were talking about it.
Without having the inferential questions we can't say one way or the other. These kinds of things are done with panels of questions (10, 50 or a few hundred) over thousands of participants to try to get predicative aspects down. All I wanted to get out of this thread was flip "maybe X correlates to Y" and, well, that isn't what happened for the most part.
It really isn't about labels or trying to shoehorn people into something they aren't. The core here is to figure out whether a group of people who fit a certain label (whatever that label is) tend to have something else in common.
Then you definitely want to take this to a more academic level, into the wild world of macro-sociology. Here is an essay on the moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives. I have no idea if or what biases they might have in the essay, but that's the trouble with humans trying to understand humanity. Gödel's incompleteness theorem, don't you know.
Then you definitely want to take this to a more academic level, into the wild world of macro-sociology. Here is an essay on the moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives. I have no idea if or what biases they might have in the essay, but that's the trouble with humans trying to understand humanity. Gödel's incompleteness theorem, don't you know.
An academic level is fine, and something I've done a bit of reading on already.
I made this post here (and, well, 3 other places [none of which reacted negatively]) specifically to get a lay opinion.
In seriousness though its hard to identify what a persons party is sometimes without just asking them. I'm a liberal atm, I can't stand the republican party and I can't stand the thought of them winning the election.
Ask me about justice issues, the death penalty, and gun control laws and I'll come across as a conservative.
Ask me about gay rights, abortion, civil liberties, and social programs and I'll sound like a liberal nut job.
Ask me about military, government spending, and government oversight and I'll probably come off somewhere in between (or lose you entirely at this point).
NASCAR originates from that area, and while its broadcast range is long, I imagine that the die hards are more strongly concentrated in the south. The south strongly votes Republican. A to B to C, enjoyment of Nascar correlates to Conservative politics a certain amount of the time. OTOH, other forms of entertainment probably correlate differently. Does someone enjoy broadway shows? Probably liberal.
I wonder how enjoyment of Basketball correlates, if it does strongly, with political stuff. I'd guess more centrist, skewing liberal slightly if anything.
So, well, thats all kinds of ridiculous, but the weirdest things correlate and thats what I want to start with
After delving into what might be termed "orthogonal politics" recently, I'd ask them these sorts of questions. I'd almost be forced to avoid the "hot-button" divisive issues because that reflects party politics (Democrat vs. Republican, etc.) rather than political philosophy (conservative vs. progressive, etc.).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I generally test the waters by throwing out a recent news story that has political undertones and gauging their reaction. Topics like gun control, voting rights, etc generally let me know which way someone leans. Phrasing it in such a way to make it seem like you made a comment that supports them (but really supports any side) is best ('Can you believe all that Chick-Fil-A nonsense').
So lets say you're talking to somebody and you want to figure out how far they lean to the left or the right what kinds of questions would you ask them? Not the super obvious stuff, but what kind of stuff could you ask a person to figure out if they are politically conservative (or liberal, but my focus is more on conservatives) and why that question would help you infer the politics of that individual.
edit: Not the Super Obvious Stuff^
edit2: I know that the preferable option is just to bluntly talk to people. I bluntly talk to people all the time. This is something different so I'd like to ask everyone to stop saying to ask people directly when the entire point of this thread is about being indirect
Note that the stance on the issue is likely to change person to person and whoever happens to be in office at the time. The national debt for instance was a huge talking point for liberals while Bush was in office, but now that Obama is in office it's a top talking point for conservatives. I'd like to believe there are independent thinkers out there and that the labels are meaningless compared to a stance on the specific issues, but I'm pretty sure I'd just be deluding myself.
The idea is to find area's where certain views, views that aren't obvious ones, correlate with certain overall political beliefs. It's about being indirect rather than direct.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
This is about analysis. The labels already exist.
Truth.
Spam warning issued ~r_0
I have to agree here.
While I can stand poliical parties being labelled "left/right/democrat/republican", with human being their leaning will vary depending on the issues.
A person may support health care, for instance, but not an abortion at a very late stage in development. I'm fairly sure at least on or two repulibicans out there will vote Obama, even if just because they don't liike Romney.
You can't pidgeon hole a person like that as "republican/democrat" unless you flat out ask them what they consider themselves to be.
In other words: "Dude, you republican or democrat?"
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Why do you need to be indirect?
And I think most people would be able to figure out when someone is probing for information.
Does it matter? Either participate in the thread or don't.
The point is whether the questions can give insight. Whether someone thinks you're probing for information is a side issue.
A friend once told me the two political dichotomies boil down to either the family structured around a central figure or into the families making decisions as a unit. Maybe his words would find more value to you than to me.
Yeah. Definite resistance to the idea that certain attributes/beliefs/whatever can be used to infer others.
An interesting observation. You read up at all on RWA?
They aren't wrong. Taking it issue by issue is the most constructive way to establish political views, and the best way to have a conversation. Sometimes claiming your views are more nuanced than they really are is a way to keep the questions rolling. It's also a defense against being pigeon-holed to popular claims that XXX are destroying this country.
I am an avid reader of the Regional Water Authority, if that's what you mean.
Without having the inferential questions we can't say one way or the other. These kinds of things are done with panels of questions (10, 50 or a few hundred) over thousands of participants to try to get predicative aspects down. All I wanted to get out of this thread was flip "maybe X correlates to Y" and, well, that isn't what happened for the most part.
It really isn't about labels or trying to shoehorn people into something they aren't. The core here is to figure out whether a group of people who fit a certain label (whatever that label is) tend to have something else in common.
Right, sorry, RWA = Right Wing Authoritarianism and it was such a close fit to your friends remarks that I thought you were talking about it.
Then you definitely want to take this to a more academic level, into the wild world of macro-sociology. Here is an essay on the moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives. I have no idea if or what biases they might have in the essay, but that's the trouble with humans trying to understand humanity. Gödel's incompleteness theorem, don't you know.
An academic level is fine, and something I've done a bit of reading on already.
I made this post here (and, well, 3 other places [none of which reacted negatively]) specifically to get a lay opinion.
In seriousness though its hard to identify what a persons party is sometimes without just asking them. I'm a liberal atm, I can't stand the republican party and I can't stand the thought of them winning the election.
Ask me about justice issues, the death penalty, and gun control laws and I'll come across as a conservative.
Ask me about gay rights, abortion, civil liberties, and social programs and I'll sound like a liberal nut job.
Ask me about military, government spending, and government oversight and I'll probably come off somewhere in between (or lose you entirely at this point).
NASCAR originates from that area, and while its broadcast range is long, I imagine that the die hards are more strongly concentrated in the south. The south strongly votes Republican. A to B to C, enjoyment of Nascar correlates to Conservative politics a certain amount of the time. OTOH, other forms of entertainment probably correlate differently. Does someone enjoy broadway shows? Probably liberal.
I wonder how enjoyment of Basketball correlates, if it does strongly, with political stuff. I'd guess more centrist, skewing liberal slightly if anything.
So, well, thats all kinds of ridiculous, but the weirdest things correlate and thats what I want to start with
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath