User talk:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Questions

[edit] Clarity

Your politics section remains quite unclear. Are you in favour of the "right to bear arms"? Are you a "tree-hugger"? Do you like Populists? Berlusconi? Tony Blair? Why do you write Independant with an a? Get-back-world-respect 21:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I favor the right to bear arms, and I hug tree's (generally when climbing them in order to build a tree stand to shoot from ;). More than supporting any one populist, I am a Populist. And the last was a spelling error :). Sam [Spade] 23:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Death

You state that you are "pro-death." What does this mean? Nat 18:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Firstly it is in regards to the abortion debate. Secondly it is in regards to the death penalty. Thirdly it is in regards to "the sanctity of human life". Finially, it is ment to embrace the wheel of life, and all of its componenets. Killing is in my eyes morally equal to reproduction, for example. Both require context. Killing a bad person is good, just as a bad person reproducing is bad. Sam [Spade] 18:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Equality?

So you don't support equality? By inference doesn't that make you a bigot? StoptheBus18 19:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not according to this. I'm very open minded and like almost everybody. I am against satanists and polluters and greed and the wicked conspiracy they told me about on http://infowars.com/ ;) For me equality is a misconception, a false concept. What two things are ever truely equal? I have friends who are twins, and they are certainly not equal. One is good at one thing, has one personality, and the other is completely different. I prefer meritocracy, where we all have incentive to compete to be the best at what we do. Its all about the quality, both of out output and our input. We should learn to be good to each other. Why else be here? ;) Sam [Spade] 04:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, three guesses which link I followed to get here? Right!

Well hmm, to add to the debate: While not all people are exactly equal (We need both doctors and plumbers, or society will come to a screeching halt), this doesn't mean we can treat them differently. I think you'd agree that it'd be mean to look down on the plumber just because he's a plumber, or conversely to look down on a doctor just because he's a doctor. (In differing times and places, plumbers have been more highly regarded than doctors :-) ). Basically all citizens of a nation should have equal rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right?

Well that's what's usually meant when people talk about Equality. I don't think anyone seriously thinks all humans are clones of each other, eh? ;-)

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

Kim Bruning 08:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree 1000% w kim, have you seen the link to meritocracy? Its not the best article, but I agree strongly w all things meritocratic. A good plumber is better than a bad politician anyday! ;) Sam [Spade] 21:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When I say I oppose equality, I mean I oppose equality of outcome (comunism). I support Hierarchy, the rewarding of good service. Sam [Spade] 21:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Corporatism

If not capitalism, how are people to be rewarded for good service? Vacuum 03:09, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

I don't oppose capitalism, rather I oppose corporations. I agree with Adam Smith that corporate involvement is the downfall of honest government. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean by "corporation"? A corporation is a simply a legally recognized entity responsible for conducting business and managing its related affairs. Adraeus 00:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"a legal entity (distinct from a natural person) that often has similar rights in law to those of a natural person."

I don't accept that they deserve such rights. I also disapprove of most definitions of Corporatism. I similarly dislike representative democracy, for much of the same reasons (tendency towards stagnant, corrupt anti-meritocratic, inefficient oligarchy). Additionally I despise trusts. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Going to dinner. Read this while I'm away. [1] Adraeus 02:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I don't like treating groups as individuals in macro or micro circumstances. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Of God and Logic

would you care to explain how you reconcile these two?--Thor Andersen 08:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to, that’s a large part of what I'm here for. My two primary goals are
  1. To learn
  2. To love

For me God is best understood in terms of logic and laws of nature. Clearly if (for me it's obvious, you may take it simply as postulated) there is a singular monist all-encompassing imminent immanent absolute infinite sentient personal God, than [sic] the laws of nature, logic, and everyday common sense would surely be his doing.

I personally began my spiritual saga assuming I was an atheist. I remained in such a state of nascence until I was perhaps 11 or 12 yrs of age, and gained an understanding of the animist nature of reality from my studies. I came to be aware, and felt that others were also aware. I felt that there were conscious entities other than myself, that all objects great and small were alive. From the quark to the cell to the planet and universe, it is clear to me that emergence exists throughout.

Religious texts can be of value, or not, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes they may be the word of God, if he chooses to speak to you that way. More often God speaks to me in my heart. Scriptures can also be confusing or unpleasant, particularly if manipulated by the arts of the wicked (the bible itself warns against those who speak the word, yet bear ill fruits). Jesus had a lot of useful information to share, and one of the most beneficial keys is:

Matthew 7:15-20

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

No matter what anyone says, we ought judge them by their fruits, what they give forth to others. Jesus also said:

Matthew 22:34-40 34

When the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in the same place. 35 And one of them, an expert in the law, asked a question to test Him: 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and most important commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."

These are logical and efficient methods. Love God (God=All) before any other, love your neighbor as yourself, and judge others by their fruits. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

God and Logic are mutually exclusive; god is an unsupported (and by definition unproveable) conjecture.

I understand that is the premise of some, I would suggest that it has no basis in fact or logic, and is an inefficient assumption based entirely on faith. Sam Spade 16:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't believe in either God or logic, and I have studied both. Anyways, here's the thing -- your feelings about such things as the existence of God and the aliveness of rocks could be wrong. It could be that Descartes' evil demon is decieving you. Furthermore, I feel that rocks are not alive. Feelings aren't enough to justify validity, or else--as I just demonstrated--we'd have a contradiction (between your feels and mine), from which it would follow that anything is true. There are generally two categories for justification of beliefs -- evidential and pragmatic. There is no evidential reason to believe in your god. While you may have pragmatic reasons, they speak nothing as to their validity. While a belief in your god may be conceivable, it is not consistent with the principle of parsimony, which, though not necessary, is generally regarded as a good practice in logic. Furthermore, even if a god existed, it is highly unlikely that the Christian God exists. Impossible, rather. There is undeniable evidence that your bible has been changed -- parts added, parts left out, parts revised. Also, there is no contemporary evidence from Jesus' time to corroborate his historical existence. There are no writings by him, or about him. That doesn't usually happen to important real people. All aspects of the new testament are borrowed from mythologies around at the time -- the importance of the sacrafice of the son of a king, the specific wounds given to Jesus by the Romans, the devil, etc. Here's a question that I know is pretty cliche but drives directly at the heart of the issue of god and logic -- can your god create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it? Omnipotence leads to logical paradoxes, and the same goes for omniscience. From what I hear, there are some key sections of your Old Testament that are dedicated to trying to explain that your god's motives are mysterious (IE - not logical, or else we'd be able to understand them using logic). I think you need to drop your belief in either one or the other, if not both, because a belief in both God and logic is not even self-consistent. --Thor Andersen 10:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering under the assumption that God is a god, or maybe just a superhero. I am not a biblical literalist, so I am unconcerned with objections relating to the bible itself. Personally, I would say that the gospel of Thomas, and other parts of the Nag Hammadi library are a good corroboration of Jesus, but frankly none is needed. For me, things discussed are real. Things thought of are real. Everything is real, and God is the foundation of this existence. Thusness. Tatvamasi. Look into monism. God isn't defeated by postulated paradox anymore than the laws of nature are. Perhaps no one can imagine such a heavy rock. Perhaps such a rock would be God himself, and/or the periodic singularity. I don't spend time puzzling over omnipotence, but one thing that I can say is that God doesn't appear to break the laws of nature, or otherwise behave in a "magical" or ridiculous manner. Instead, he does this. Sam Spade 10:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "Everything is real" .. were that true, wouldn't it lead to violations of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (a fundamental law of logic)? Just for clarification, the god you believe in is neither omnipotent nor omniscient (because these are logically impossible), but it creates(/ed) -- is that what you're saying? Are you by any chance a sort of panentheist or pantheist?
Still, you didn't really address my Cartesian skepticism objection. And tied to that is the objection that you have no logical reason (or one that is in line with the princicples of logic) to have a belief in the Christian god. Finally, using logic as evidence for God and God as as a reason to believe in logic |begs the question, so hopefully you're not doing that. I don't feel like you addressed all of my objections, but rather knocked down some of the weaker ones. --Thor Andersen 03:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a pantheist / panentheist, and no, I don't propose that anything is ever created. If anything is, or ever has been, created or destroyed, I am unaware of any evidence for it. As far as if God is omnipotent or omniscient, I have no idea. I don't know for sure if I am, for that matter. If God is, I likely am as well ;)

Non-Contradiction has to take into account differences of location, time and scale. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and other aspects of minor science leave lots of room for alternate realities. Our own imagination has a physical reality in my estimation (remember, I am a monist, so even thought is "real" to me ;)

As far as Descartes, he may be fun to study (and refute), but he's almost as often wrong as Sartre IMO ;) Whimsical imagined paradoxes defeat nothing for me. And don't get me started on dualism! He thought the mind didn't... couldn't affect the "physical" world. Epiphenomenalism is just one of many philosophical jokes him and his intellectual descendants have produced. John Searle (whose own paradigm I don't accept, btw) has a highly amusing debunking of Descartes.

As far as this "you have no logical reason to have a belief in the Christian god"... which god is that? I certainly don't pray to a hyper-calvinist god, for example. My God is All, the absolute infinite, sum total of everything that ever is, was, and ever shall be... even imagined. He is conscious, personal, immanent and imminent, within you and me, and my table. He is the foundation of being, without which there couldn't be anything. Look up Brahman or Ātman, you seem to be limited by a dark age western conception of "god". I'm not talking about Zeus, real or not, I don't pray to a demi-god / genie of some kind!

Begging the question or tautology, call it any name you like, God has to exist, esp. when I define him as existence itself! Sam Spade 00:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Descartes. His conclusions are absurd. Cartesean dualism is a joke. But that doesn't invalidate his skeptical concerns. Also, contradictions/paradoxes are pretty important notions if you claim to believe in logic.
Anyways, I think what you run into is the problem that either you've defined god so losely that the term is meaningless, or you commit a fallacy of equivocation:
1) god is everything,
2) things exist,
therefore 3) a conscious, personal, immanent and imminent god exists
The only conclusion you can validly derive from those premises is that god (in the loose sense in which it refers to everything) exists. If you then replied that included in the everything of the universe is consciousness (for example yours and mine), then once again god is meaningless and you're basically making the tautology that everything is everything, or that things that all things that exist do exist. These would be valid statements, but don't support any further claims or beliefs about god. --Thor Andersen 08:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, minus the presentation (clearly I don't think God is meaningless, any more than I think existence is meaningless). As far as what exactly he is, or intends, most of human existence has been spent attempting to comprehend and explain that. I find certain eastern concepts, like qi, karma, reincarnation and theosis to be useful. To cut to the chase, I think our fundamental distinction regards animism and nihilism. I am an animist (finding much in common with shintoism), and I suspect you tend towards nihilism? Would you mind telling me a bit more about your paradigm? Sam Spade 10:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here goes an attempt. Everything in space is connected to everything else in space. Every moment in time is connected to the moment before it and after it. Pre-conceptually everything exists as a primordial unity. Our conceptualization doesn't have normative authority (there's no necessary causal relationship between our concepts and the outside world), and therefore seperate objects or moments are just illusions (Buddhism), or interpretations (Nietzsche). Pre-conceptually there is no meaning, no individuation, no value, etc. This sort of "all is one" philosophy can be found in the philosophy of some pre-Socratics (namely the Eleatics), in Buddhism, in Nietzsche, and, in a way, is the foundation of modern social construction theory (namely social construction of reality). A consquence is that everything that we know, atleast as we know it (for example our concepts of logic, ideas of god, or understanding of quantuum mechanics), is subjective or relative truth. It is impossible to escape your perspective, or biological/physical being. To say that there is intention in the universe (or god, whatever you want to call it), invovles some heavy interpretive work on what is meant by intention, and more importantly, of what is going on in the universe. It can't be escaped. We experience the universe through our senses and they don't allow us direct access to the outside world--they give us an interpretation of it. What you might find interesting is that any Buddhist will tell you that karma, re-birth, or reincarnation doesn't REALLY exist. --Thor Andersen 23:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I often find Buddhism disturbing. Some buddhists sem to think that nothing really exists, and that we only think we exist due to our atman or ego, which they feel is a bad thing (existence involving suffering). Kinda reminds me of gnosticism. It is especially important to know what they mean by "void" (from my studies it appears they mean different things, depending on who they are). Anyhow, I vastly prefer shinto or hindu philosophy to buddhist. You seem to be a bit existential, bordering on epiphenomenalism itself in your lack of belief in objective reality. I am an absolutist. This discussion of intentionality is an important one. Are you a philosophy student by chance? I think the concept of Emergence is an important one in discussing such matters. For example, I think everything is emergent. Sam Spade 22:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I don't believe in an objective reality. Read my post again. I was saying that objective reality is irrelevent as we have no means of objectively knowing it. I also have no idea where you got the idea that I'd believe in Epiphenomenalism. Dualism is a load of crap. And yes, I'm a philosophy student. By objectivist do you mean that you could supply me with an objective synthetic truth? --Thor Andersen 05:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your distinction, but the difference between objective reality being irrelevant and being non-existant is a fine one, with little practical utility. Without objective reality, others have little verifiability or non-subjective import, and thus Epiphenomenalism would strike me as a potential conclusion, heck, even doubting ones own existence would be possible. As far as synthetic truth... I am not a philosophy major, and have only a passing knowledge of Kant and his paradigms, and no real understanding of the meaning of "synthetic truth" whatsoever. By objective truth I refer primarilly to that which can be known with certainty, such as ones own existance, consciousness, perceptions and sensations. Sam Spade 06:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separate thread

[edit] Yet another atheist thread

[edit] General questions

This page is cool. I wish more people could state their beliefs as succinctly as you do.

A few thoughts and questions....

  • I find it interesting that you are pro-meritocracy, but also pro-hierarchy. I am very pro-meritocracy, but I think hierarchy is inefficient. However, I do support the notion that "Those who are most qualified should be in charge." I just think that the number of levels of management and such should be kept as small as possible.
  • I like how you are pro-efficiency. That is a fundamental factor in decision making, on so many levels, that is often overlooked.
  • The page says you are anti-"choice". By "choice" do you mean abortion? Or do you mean a broader sense of the term?
  • It seems you are anti-corporatism. What does that mean exactly? Are you also anti-plutocracy? (And do you consider corporatism and plutocracy synonyms?) What measures do you propose/support to combat corporatism? Lots of people don't like corporate power, but I wonder... what can be done to reduce their effect on politics and life... especially considering that large corporations tend to provide efficiency. (Or so some people claim.)

- Pioneer-12 16:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


  • I just think that the number of levels of management and such should be kept as small as possible.
    • Sure, why not?
  • By "choice" do you mean abortion? Or do you mean a broader sense of the term?
    • Broader sense, but i did intend to onvoke the abortion issue. i think abortion should be a medical (doctors) decision, not the mothers. No mother should be deciding to murder her baby. Reminds me of the news headlines from Oklahoma... *shudder*
      • Regarding "Choice", you may wish to avoid partisan political jargon when speaking of meaningful issues. Certainly, you don't seem to be fooled by the language. Yet, you willingly parrot it. It would perhaps be better to address the issue as it stands. I.E. Anti-abortion, or anti-"abortion rights". Before you misinterpret my objection, I would note that I (too?)believe abortion is equivalent to killing a person and is therefore unethical and should be illegal. As for your "broader sense", to what are you referring? Superm401 | Talk 18:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • Scroll down. "Parroting" is a rather rude way to refer to repetition of jingoism. I make it pretty clear I am a populist, and multi-entendres hold little fear for me. Sam Spade 01:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems you are anti-corporatism.
    • As usual, I was making a multi-entendre. For one thing, I was referring to that particular fascist economic method. I was also objecting to enormous mega-corporations, as well as the concept of corporations being given all the rights of an individual, but none of the responsibilities. I believe in promoting small business and networking, which I would argue is far more efficient, and provides better service (and more jobs), in the long run. As far as what can be done, everything from us individually promoting small business w our $, to govt. de-regulation and lack of taxation of small business, and precise regulation and regressive taxation of malignant mega-corporations. Taxation and morality need to be more intertwined, w bad stuff (like pollution or otherwise unhealthy products) being regressively taxed, and good stuff (like small family businesses and producers of healthy, helpful products) being deregulated and completely untaxed.

I love the opportunity for dialogue such as this! Cheers,

Sam Spade 17:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam! If I may intrude upon this dialogue,

I still don't understand what you mean by anti-choice. Do you mind explaining how you see choice and free will? -- Subramanian talk 11:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I see them as unpleasent burdens generally resulting in suffering and misery. As a general rule, the less choices offered the better. This is not to suggest that anyone is ever anything other than free, we all have freewill. Rather I am suggesting that the options presented be narrowed. For example, I think it is better for wikipedia admins to obey policy, rather than to ignore all rules. Sam Spade 14:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic. I would admire your boldness in stating such controversial opinions, even if I disagreed. Case is, I really do agree. -- Subramanian talk 14:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Splendid, and from a brief look at your user page, it would look like this is far from the only thing we agree on. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paramilitary Youth Programs

What type of these organizations do you support? Do you use the term loosely(i.e. Boy Scouts) or what? Superm401 | Talk 02:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yep loosely, and boy scouts would certainly apply. Essentially I feel children need more organised activities, funding and importance. I feel military or paramilitary training is suitable for this and many other purposes. Sam Spade 06:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So do you actually support arming youth groups, or just support organizations with a similar leadership/achievement structure? If it's the latter, that makes sense to me. I'm a Boy Scout myself. Superm401 | Talk 14:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see a need for "arming" per se, but i do think there is a good deal of value in weapons and hand to hand training, as well as hunting and whatnot. Sam Spade 21:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economics Section

Your economics section is now unclear. Do you oppose all taxation, or only taxation designed to limit pollution? Superm401 | Talk 14:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it was pretty clear that I favor "Taxation and regulation of pollution, vice and trusts". The problem with the earlier version is it was unclear what sort of progressive taxation i was talking about. i didn't mean to imply progressive taxation by income (not that I oppose that either mind you) but rather progressive taxation by the level of pollution or vice involved. Hopefully the new version is more clear, but if not, I'll try to work on it some more. Sam Spade 21:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see. I arbitrarily placed the section under anti, which doesn't make much sense. Superm401 | Talk 21:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see your point! No, I favor anything not explicitly marked anti. I'm gonna make that more clear, thanks! Any thoughts are appreciated, my opinions are a work in progress, and I find discussion of them intellectually stimulating :) Sam Spade 23:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionism

Just wondering, in Wikipedia terms, are you an inclustionist or a deletionist? ··gracefool |☺ 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mergist and inclusionist. Obscure stubs should be merged, and verifiable or undisputed info kept. Sam Spade 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unitarianism

Hey, you say you are against atheism, but for Unitarianism. Please elaborate. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø 00:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddy List

Just wanted to say, if wikipedia had a buddy list, you'd be the first person I'd add.  :-) Lawyer2b 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silverback's scores w/interleaved comments

The individualist believes that society works best through a focus on individual rights, freedoms, actions and responsibilities. The social thinker believes that the ideal state should focus more upon collective action and take a social approach to rights and responsibilities."


Individual Social

You scored 18 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.

3% of test takers were more individual than you. 97% of test takers were more social than you.

  • I agree with this.--Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Theist vs Materialist "The materialist believes that all objective criteria to influence politics can be reasonably derived without recourse to the divine or the spiritual. The theist believes that spiritual beliefs are important and should influence government policy."


Theist Materialist

You scored 82 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.

84% of test takers were more theist than you. 14% of test takers were more materialist than you.

  • Hmmm, I think this is because I valued something more than "things" on one question? I don't think I am that theistic.--Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Big Government vs Small Government "The big government advocate believes that governments should be responsible for regulating a wide array of social practices, even what might be considered personal decisions such as abortion, euthanasia, children's education and births. A small government advocate thinks that, wherever possible, these issues should be up to individuals or companies to direct."


Big Gov Small Gov

You scored 98 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.

99% of test takers were more big government than you. 1% of test takers were more small government than you.

  • I've been pegged.--Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist vs Internationalist "The nationalist believes in the sovereign rule of nation states, particularly his or her own. The internationalist believes that there should be more important international fora and perhaps, ultimately, international government."


National International

You scored 51 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to favour international bodies over national ones.

30% of test takers were more nationalist than you. 67% of test takers were more internationalist than you.

  • This is totally screwed up. Both should about 99%, the test interpreted some anti-internationalism as nationalism, and some individualist opposition to internationalism and nationalism as nationalism and internationalism respectively. Because, I preferred the national to the international (on smaller government principles), it assumed I was nationalist.--Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Protectionist vs Free Trader "The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."


Protection Free-Trade

You scored 96 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.

95% of test takers were more protectionist than you. 4% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.

  • Probably pegged. It's trade questions were general though, and didn't get into complicating specifics, like the ethical compromises involved with trading with gulags like China and Cuba, due to their restrictions on emmigration.--Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist "The absolutist believes that either a divine presence or scientific laws provide absolute truths about the world, which can and should be applied in practise. The non-absolutist may be either a relativist, or simply someone who is more pragmatic."


Absolute Non-Absolute

You scored 29 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.

2% of test takers were more absolutist than you. 98% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.

  • This is a rather specialized definition of absolutism. I just believe that most problems yield to critical thinking and have little patience for quishyness and equivocating in ones thinking. This probably explains why I am more comfortable with people who believe in SOMETHING (such as fundies), than I am with post-modern, marxist influenced types.--Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Controlled Market vs Liberal Market "Both of these categories assume a capitalist system. Assuming this system, the controlled market believer holds that government should intervene in regulating a nation's economy: wage laws, environmental standards, privatised industries and workplace relations policy. A liberal market thinker believes that such regulation is unnecessary and often counter-productive."


Controlled Liberal

You scored 80 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.

92% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you. 7% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.

  • Pegged again. --Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Marxist vs Non-Marxist "This scale purports to show to what extent you follow the thought and teachings of Marx. Marxists tend to be scientific, materialist and revolutionary, believe in class struggle and the laws of historical and dialectic materialism."


Marxist Non-Marxist

You scored 65 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.

87% of test takers were more Marxist than you. 12% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.

  • Good grief! One can't think it is OK for labor to organize without being called 12% marxist. I don't deserve this.--Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sam, I don't think you should call this test "thorough" it isn't that good. You must have felt it diagnostic of something you know about yourself that others don't usually perceive?--Silverback 10:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I donno, I actually mainly ment it was long ;) Anyhow, it seemed to do well w you on all but a couple of categories. What I would find entertaining is a short list of maybe 4 questions or so I could answer, and ask others, that pegs our views fairly clearly. Kinda like story problems. That would be fun for coctail parties and such (altho I'm not supposed to discuss religion and politics when overseas, I seem to do nothing but... Very sorry about how your arbcom case went btw, that was quite unforunate. Please keep in touch. Sam Spade 17:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


See also User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases#Weltanschauung. Sam Spade 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fancy-Pants "Sub-Pages"

Pardon my ignorance, but how exactly did you make your "sub-pages" (theoretical biases, for example)? Its something I'd perhaps, like to do to my own user page, but as I have said, I am ignorant on the matter? Sixtus LXVI 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a link in the edit mode, like [[User:Sixtus LXVI/Sub-pages]]. Then when I hit the save button, it became a red link, like thi : User:Sixtus LXVI/Sub-pages. There could also be pages like User:Sixtus LXVI/Sub-pages/a and User:Sixtus LXVI/Sub-pages/b, which could be linked to @ User:Sixtus LXVI/Sub-pages. Sam Spade 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Sixtus LXVI 02:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)