queerbychoice (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2004-02-18 04:05 pm
queerbychoice) wrote2004-02-18 04:05 pm
Supposed Liberal/Conservative Morality Test
Supposedly I am 91% politically liberal, 83% socially liberal, and 80% "overall" liberal (whatever it is that "overall" means, since it's clearly not an average of the other two), plus 93% open to new experiences, 69% conscientious, 27% extraverted, 17% agreeable (oh my, what a disagreeable person I am!), and only 2% nervous/high-strung (hmm, this test-maker clearly forgot to ask about how much I shake and tremble when asked to speak to a large audience).
Of course, there are massive problems with self-rating one's own degree of extremeness on each of the scales given, because a person who spends their time surrounded by people much more conservative than them will be much more likely to self-rate as the most extreme liberal, whereas if the same person spent their time surrounded by people much more liberal than them, they would be highly unlikely to consider themself the most extreme liberal anymore.
But the most annoying thing is that I get the definite sense that even though the test scores people's degree of political liberalness higher if they say that "most human behaviors" are "largely determined by" environment rather than genetics, it then proceeds to score people as more conservative if they again choose environment over genetics in the question about how "Gays and Lesbians" got to be "that way" (what a spectacularly homophobic phrase this is that always gets used: "that way" is apparently too horrifyingly disturbing to specify exactly). This is a sign of just how absurdly skewed to the conservative direction all the mainstream discourse on sexual preference really is: the mass media has so thoroughly ingrained the assumption of "gay genes"' existence in everyone's minds that the only publicly audible debate left is the debate between the so-called liberals who believe that the majority of the human species is biologically predestined to be heterosexual and that homosexuality is nothing more than a rare genetic variation that most humans are incapable of experiencing (never mind the massive amounts of anthropological evidence that engaging in sexual behavior with members of both sexes has been the norm in overwhelming numbers of human societies whenever massive homophobia is not used to pressure most people into refraining from it!), versus the ex-gay groups who argue that such genes probably exist but should be resisted or "corrected" (yes, I have examined numerous ex-gay websites very carefully and I have consistently found that every single one of them I've looked at stops far short of denying all existence of gay genes, and is interested only in asserting that these supposed genes still leave room forthe free will to resist them - most such websites even explicitly state that they do believe in some form of genetic "predisposition" toward homosexuality, because it is after all quite useful to homophobes to keep open a second line of defense against the "gay agenda" by suggesting that we're both "choosing to sin" and "biologically defective."
Anyway. The stupid infuriating test is here. :p I'm sure you'd all get linked to it anyway, so you might as well get linked with proper warning first.
Of course, there are massive problems with self-rating one's own degree of extremeness on each of the scales given, because a person who spends their time surrounded by people much more conservative than them will be much more likely to self-rate as the most extreme liberal, whereas if the same person spent their time surrounded by people much more liberal than them, they would be highly unlikely to consider themself the most extreme liberal anymore.
But the most annoying thing is that I get the definite sense that even though the test scores people's degree of political liberalness higher if they say that "most human behaviors" are "largely determined by" environment rather than genetics, it then proceeds to score people as more conservative if they again choose environment over genetics in the question about how "Gays and Lesbians" got to be "that way" (what a spectacularly homophobic phrase this is that always gets used: "that way" is apparently too horrifyingly disturbing to specify exactly). This is a sign of just how absurdly skewed to the conservative direction all the mainstream discourse on sexual preference really is: the mass media has so thoroughly ingrained the assumption of "gay genes"' existence in everyone's minds that the only publicly audible debate left is the debate between the so-called liberals who believe that the majority of the human species is biologically predestined to be heterosexual and that homosexuality is nothing more than a rare genetic variation that most humans are incapable of experiencing (never mind the massive amounts of anthropological evidence that engaging in sexual behavior with members of both sexes has been the norm in overwhelming numbers of human societies whenever massive homophobia is not used to pressure most people into refraining from it!), versus the ex-gay groups who argue that such genes probably exist but should be resisted or "corrected" (yes, I have examined numerous ex-gay websites very carefully and I have consistently found that every single one of them I've looked at stops far short of denying all existence of gay genes, and is interested only in asserting that these supposed genes still leave room forthe free will to resist them - most such websites even explicitly state that they do believe in some form of genetic "predisposition" toward homosexuality, because it is after all quite useful to homophobes to keep open a second line of defense against the "gay agenda" by suggesting that we're both "choosing to sin" and "biologically defective."
Anyway. The stupid infuriating test is here. :p I'm sure you'd all get linked to it anyway, so you might as well get linked with proper warning first.
no subject
Re:
no subject
i'm also 96% more nervous and high-strung than you.
Re:
no subject