by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Post

Region: Forest

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Because the point of an attitudinal survey is to gather data about your attitude. "No opinion" directly undermines this goal, and makes the survey pointless. It also provides an easy out for respondents who don't want to put in the cognitive workload to form and express an opinion, but still want to appear "cooperative" by completing the survey -- sort of a manifestation of the Abilene paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox).

And that's actually the biggest flaw of the Advocates of Small Government's quiz. Not only does it provide a "no opinion" option ("Maybe"), but then it appears to interpret it as a centrist attitude anyway. So, a totally neutral response response -- all maybes -- puts the respondent dead center. Or, in the "Libertarian" worldview, half-way to dirty statist. I mean, "Libertarian" evangelism is the whole point of that quiz, so it not surprising that a totally neutral response would be interpreted as proto-statist, it's just bullsh*t is all.

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Because the point of an attitudinal survey is to gather data about your attitude. "No opinion" directly undermines this goal, and makes the survey pointless. It also provides an easy out for respondents who don't want to put in the cognitive workload to form and express an opinion, but still want to appear "cooperative" by completing the survey -- sort of a manifestation of the Abilene paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox).

And that's actually the biggest flaw of the Advocates of Small Government's quiz. Not only does it provide a "no opinion" option ("Maybe"), but then it appears to interpret it as a centrist attitude anyway. So, a totally neutral response response -- all maybes -- puts the respondent dead center. Or, in the "Libertarian" worldview, half-way to dirty statist. I mean, "Libertarian" evangelism is the whole point of that quiz, so it not surprising that a totally neutral response would be interpreted as proto-statist, it's just bullsh*t is all.

That touches on the observation of some school of thought in philosophy that I can't quite recall at this point (probably several, actually), which is essentially that reality is both fundamentally subjective and also objective, because in order for something to be observed, criticized, or presented to others, there must, necessarily, be an observer, a critic, or a presenter, both by definition and also in actual fact. There is no science without a scientist; there is no view without a viewer, so to speak.

In some sense, even if we choose what we would say is a neutral perspective, e.g. "chronological" or "topical" or something, we are, in some sense, taking the 4-D reality of some thing or object or idea and compressing it into a chosen narrative, which must, in order to be intelligible and achieve its purpose, flow according to certain patterns within our experience.

Or, to put it more simply, we're all sort of doomed towards different biases, if only because of our own imperfections and limitations of communication, shared knowledge, and understanding of how things work. Or something like that. Vagueness is the key to broad acceptance, lol.

ContextReport