Ableton Forum

Can't be fucked to take the test again, and can't find my "chart", but kudos b0unce, I was thinking of posting this myself. Needless to say I'm further down towards libertarian than all of you and as far left as the most left of you.

my problem was the 'weak' words, like 'most', and 'some'. I've always had a problem seeing the world in shades of grey, especially on such macroscopic issues. lots of people out there, lots of stories, lots of situations.

+1 on there being fucked up right wing people out there. I do know some that are fairly cool... who am I kidding, they're assholes!

Machinate wrote:http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-7.33 - meh. Only thing that really surprised me was the lameness of some of the sections... "you cannot be moral without being religious." yeah... in moron-land.

I think that's mostly tailored towards the american testees!

b0unce wrote:Timur thought the question about who's more important, manufacturers etc or writers/artists etc, was lame too .... but I guarantee you there are people who would give strong answers for or against that motion. Right or Wrong doesn't come into it, in today's world people do feel strongly either way. Is the question lame because Timur finds it difficult to answer ?

Excuse me? Where did i state this question was lame? To the contrary, it's a very valid question, but hard to answer for an artist himself. It's not only about people deeming their own profession more important than others, but also about definition of how much "real work" art is and wether it brings any "useful" good to others/society (see the question about abstract art, too). In the end my answer was "the manufacturer" by the way, because I decided that even when art is very important in every society it doesn't matter much once its people starved to death anyway. Still I answered the question about abstract art pro the abstract.

My other statement about "trickery/misleading" questions aimed at how these questions should/would normaly be linked to each other in that the answer of one question defines the nature of the other.

Here is my example, read these three questions in direct succession:

1. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

2. the only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

3. what's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

If I agree to question 1 and disagree to question 2 how is "most successful" defined in question 3? Does it have the same definition for someone disagreeing to 1 and agreeing to 2? I don't think so. But given the fact that this test most likely does not take my answers of question 1 and 2 into account but only uses a fixed analysis scheme I cannot answer question 3 with the intention I have when thinking about "successful corporations" in the context of the other questions. So I answered "Disagree" to question 3 only on the basis that "most successful" is defined as suggested by question 2, but I cannot be sure about how that survey handles it internally.

Many of these questions use stereotypes that paint the world into black and white. That's even the intention of the survey hence no option for neutral answers. They want to force you to take a strong decision instead of your usual uncaring catatonia.

Timur wrote: Excuse me? Where did i state this question was lame?

it must have been your ambiguous post and your over use of this smiley --->
It's rarely used as a positive, but hey...if you say so.

Angstrom wrote:I am, like you lot, just south of the Dalai Lama .
.

that goddamn commie hippy can shove his world peace up his mantra

b0unce wrote:it must have been your ambiguous post and your over use of this smiley --->
It's rarely used as a positive, but hey...if you say so.

Guess so, especially considering that I'm english is not my native language that can happen easily. The is ambiguous, too, but generally I tend to associate more positive than negative feelings with it, because after the eye-rolling it smiles.

Besides I somewhat doubt the overall liberal/left results here. If you think of how much bad mouthing in going on on this forum and how people keep asking others to STFU repeatedly then there seems to be somewhat of a discrepancy with what I associate with liberal/left. (<- there you've got it again, m8 )

that test was stupid and I want my time back

Timur wrote:Here is my example, read these three questions in direct succession:

1. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

2. the only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

3. what's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

If I agree to question 1 and disagree to question 2 how is "most successful" defined in question 3? Does it have the same definition for someone disagreeing to 1 and agreeing to 2? I don't think so. But given the fact that this test most likely does not take my answers of question 1 and 2 into account but only uses a fixed analysis scheme I cannot answer question 3 with the intention I have when thinking about "successful corporations" in the context of the other questions.

I 'agree' to some extent with your analysis, but you can also consider question 3 as relating to corporations as they exist now, not how you think they should operate as posed in questions 1 and 2.

As you probably know corporations have a legal requirement to deliver profit to their shareholders and thats about it, so the question can be read as

what's good for the most profitable corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

which it isnt. unless of course you strongly agree with 1 and 2, then you're probably a rich white man who has already internalised the corporate value system and will probably believe 3 to be true as well because your conception of 'all of us' is constrained to consider only yourself and other rich people.

b0unce wrote:I guess not voting is kind of equal to a neutral vote, if so....those votes don't count in reality, it's just the AGREEs or DISAGREEs .... at least when it comes to referendums in my country anyway. We have a pathetic track record, we voted NO on the referendum for the nice treaty. The government was like 'wrong answer, try again' ...until they got the result they wanted, a big fat YES.

Not voting = continuing with the status quo (rocking all over the world), as invariably something exists there already. So I don't think there is really such a thing, in practice, as a neutral vote.

You're Irish, b0unce?

on a similar point, i watched this recently

http://www.thecorporation.com/

brilliant documentary, highly recommended.

and this :

http://www.hellocoolstuff.com/catalog.c ... rrency=CAD

forge wrote:that test was stupid and I want my time back

hehe, when did you realise it was stupid ?
It is patently obvious what the test is like from the first page. It was worth doing if only to prove to yourself that you're slow to realise when something is a waste of time.




@ 8 O
Ya, I'm Irish...

@mdk
excellent documentary, although I felt somewhat impotent by the end... the caveat in looking closely at the workings of the corporation is that it seems insurmountable or unbeatable, certainly without radical change.... in that respect I'd be afraid that it might promote defeatism in some viewers.... I dunno, what do you think ?