QUOTE (Q24 @ Jul 4 2008, 10:42 PM)
Ok shall we get really personal with this thing?
The broad groupings are nice but as there are only three, most people will come out in the middle (26-50). The scoring system is simple and if people have 5 minutes it would be interesting to see
exactly what scores we are getting would it not?
You can use the table here to tot up your score: -
Now my own score... that would be telling
Ah ok, I got
41!Interesting, Q.
I like this variant. I think it speaks more to actuality.
I got a 36.
Now, one would think that puts me pretty close, being that I'm only 5 away from you.
However, in looking at the possible range, 15 to 75, I think we can infer that anyone who scores a 15 is absolutely trusting, probably absolutely naive, and knows absolutely nothing about the goings on in the world at all ("Sheep" could indeed be a viable terminology for such a person, if one exists). Concurrently, someone who might score a 75 is absolutely distrusting, and probably is a candidate for treatment (and "Nutcase" might be a reasonable description for such a one).
I honestly don't think that a measurable amount of people, no matter how "sheepie" or "Nutcasey" they may be, actually fall into either extreme range.
Both extremes, and in fact, probably anything within about 10-15 points of either extreme points to some serious deficits. Either extreme range is likely unrealistic for the vast majority of people, whether they believe rather strongly in CTs or they don't.
It appears to me that one could likely discount those ranges completely and use 30 to 55 as a realistic range on which to assess the nature of the being involved; with say 25 to 30 describing someone who's really really trusting, probably a might naive concerning certain things, and someone 55 to 60 being about as far CT as is possible reasonably. Anything below the min or above the max of those ranges likely has some deficits which make them both unreachable.
Thus, I have a realistic range (and this is based upon no major analysis--just eyeballing it and thinking a little) which puts alot more weight on the a single point difference in score.
Using the entire 60 point range, a single point speaks to a 1.6% difference, slanted on way or the other. Using the "reasonable" scale (and again, that's certainly arguable), a single point holds the value of 4% difference.
Therefore, on a 60 point scale, you and I are separated by 8%. You would be considered a mere 8% more CT than I am, or I would be considered only 8% more a "sheepie" than you.
Using the scale I propose, we are 20% different, or slanted toward one mode of thinking from the other.
______________________________________________________________________________
However, looking closer at the questions themselves, it seems apparent that they mean different things to different categories of people. Case in point might be question 9.
QUOTE
9) Most politicians are sympathetic people and do a good job.
I answered this question "2", which is weighted as "4" out of "5" on the CT scale.
Now I honestly don't know about the sympathetic nature of most politicians, but I do not in any way think that most of them do a good job, thus I chose "4" instead of "5". This answer put me potentially 1 or 2 points farther toward CT.
But...I don't think the fact that most politicians do crappy jobs has any relation to things like hiding evidence of aliens from the American people, or with covering up the Moon landing hoax, or a 9-11 inside job, etc., etc...
Breaking these question into sub-questions that would qualify all answers as pertains to possible reasons for the answers would likely show a far greater disparity in respondents scores.
Whatever the case may be, my quickly thought out analysis of this seems to point to the fact, which seems to be substantiated through various discusssions, that folks like myself and Swanny are really somewhere around 20-35% divergent from you in our actual positions.
.
