Is this a Circle? - Psychology Perception

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:37 am

You can also explain your reasons as to why you either think it is or you think it is not.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:49 am

Will the Telegraph be happy you didn't give a link to them?

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:52 am

I did not get this from the telegraph, which shows how you try to spoil a test for people which is no surpise.
Its from the Guardian

Sorry everyone since sassy has now spoilt this test there is little point in asking anyone. It could have been fun but as seen sassy only gives a shit about ruining this forum

Here is the details:

Here’s a simple question that can tell us an awful lot about you. Is this a circle?
If you said: “Yeah, sure, close enough,” then you are probably politically liberal, and strongly support the idea of government aid for the homeless and unemployed. You are also likely to support same-sex marriage and legalisation of marijuana for recreational use.
If you said: “No, of course not,” then you are probably politically conservative, and strongly support the idea of protecting the rights of business owners and having a strong military. You are likely to take a particularly dim view of illegal immigration, and would come down strongly on even relatively low-level crime, such as drug use and prostitution.
Although this sounds like some sort of satire, these were – broadly speaking – the findings of a recent study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. People who are tolerant of deviance from the norm when judging a circle (or triangle, square, rectangle or ellipse) are tolerant of deviant or otherwise marginalised groups in society. In fact, they’re not just tolerant of these groups, they actively want to help them. So if you meet someone new and don’t know how to broach the subject of their political orientation, just show them a “circle”.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/dec/06/how-shapes-predict-your-tolerance-of-deviancy

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:58 am

Utter rubbish, you know you have to give a link of this site can be prosecuted.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:01 am

No I do not.
If I posted the link it would show people what the study claims to find on how people view something.
So the fact you are a blabbermouth, has spoilt this test for the posters, who could have answered honestly.
Posting the link would have denied people the chnace to do so, being as this gives the views to each answer from the study.

So well done blabbermouth

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:02 am

Well if you don't you should do.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:05 am

Are you that ignorant?
If I posted the link to this, people would then know how to answer. Can you not see how by posting the link, denies people to openly answer honestly.

So well done fopr spoiling, by you being a blabbermouth stating about a link, left me with no choice but to post up the link as people off your post would have googled for what this was about.

You are such a child and this proves it.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:06 am

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:57 am

I thought it was not a circle, but I don't know if so much can be read into that. I like things to be accurate, and that was not an proper circle.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:19 am

The two options are too simplistic though. Of course I see that it's kind of circular, so in that sense it's close enough, but my sense of accuracy stops me from saying that.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:23 am

That is an interesting answer Rags.
So would you class yourself as a bit of a perfectionist?
Not being insulting either.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:28 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:That is an interesting answer Rags.
So would you class yourself as a bit of a perfectionist?
Not being insulting either.

Yes I would. One of my jobs requires me to be that way, which is why it suits me. Being "close enough" isn't good enough. Laughing

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:09 am

thing is anyone from an engineering background would not find that acceptable as a circle, even if they were left of trotsky.

likewise anyone used to working with precision drawings...

however it does depend on context...as presented the question is meaningless to me

Its good enough as a representation of a circle in a "back of a fag packet" quick drawing

but nowhere even near for a final draught

so the question is somewhat silly....

but thinking about it it does suggest a reason why the biggest sfficionados of ridiculous "abstract art are nearly all "lefties"

Laughing

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:10 am

Lord Foul wrote:thing is anyone from an engineering background would not find that acceptable as a circle, even if they were left of trotsky.

likewise anyone used to working with precision drawings...

however it does depend on context...as presented the question is meaningless to me

Its good enough as a representation of a circle in a "back of a fag packet" quick drawing

but nowhere even near for a final draught

so the question is somewhat silly....

but thinking about it it does suggest a reason why the biggest sfficionados of ridiculous "abstract art are nearly all "lefties"

Well I don't think it's a circle, a circle is a continuous even arc, that doesn't come close, but perhaps that's my science and tech drawing background.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:16 am

Lord Foul wrote:thing is anyone from an engineering background would not find that acceptable as a circle, even if they were left of trotsky.

likewise anyone used to working with precision drawings...

however it does depend on context...as presented the question is meaningless to me

Its good enough as a representation of a circle in a "back of a fag packet" quick drawing

but nowhere even near for a final draught

so the question is somewhat silly....

but thinking about it it does suggest a reason why the biggest sfficionados of ridiculous "abstract art are nearly all "lefties"

Oh for goodness sake, nothing to do with leftism.
Take this into the context of people with disabilities how some will treat them?
Take this into context how some view homosexuals as abnormal?
Can you not see the correlation within such a context?

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:19 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:thing is anyone from an engineering background would not find that acceptable as a circle, even if they were left of trotsky.

likewise anyone used to working with precision drawings...

however it does depend on context...as presented the question is meaningless to me

Its good enough as a representation of a circle in a "back of a fag packet" quick drawing

but nowhere even near for a final draught

so the question is somewhat silly....

but thinking about it it does suggest a reason why the biggest sfficionados of ridiculous "abstract art are nearly all "lefties"

Oh for goodness sake, nothing to do with leftism.
Take this into the context of people with disabilities how some will treat them?
Take this into context how some view homosexuals as abnormal?
Can you not see the correlation within such a context?

It is supposed to distinguish liberals from conservatives though isn't it? A liberal is pretty much like a leftie really.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:22 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Oh for goodness sake, nothing to do with leftism.
Take this into the context of people with disabilities how some will treat them?
Take this into context how some view homosexuals as abnormal?
Can you not see the correlation within such a context?

It is supposed to distinguish liberals from conservatives though isn't it? A liberal is pretty much like a leftie really.

Depends how you view those with lefty views, which I would class the likes of sassy and co with their regressive leftism
Liberals do not tend to be such hypocritical and have the worst double standards.

I mean look at the type of posters who look poorly on ethnic groups, homosexuals etc.

To me, there may well be a correlation here and it is something then that can help deal with why people discrminate.

Hence why its silly to just dismiss this out of hand.
That is what interests me most on this

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:22 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:thing is anyone from an engineering background would not find that acceptable as a circle, even if they were left of trotsky.

likewise anyone used to working with precision drawings...

however it does depend on context...as presented the question is meaningless to me

Its good enough as a representation of a circle in a "back of a fag packet" quick drawing

but nowhere even near for a final draught

so the question is somewhat silly....

but thinking about it it does suggest a reason why the biggest sfficionados of ridiculous "abstract art are nearly all "lefties"

Oh for goodness sake, nothing to do with leftism.
Take this into the context of people with disabilities how some will treat them?
Take this into context how some view homosexuals as abnormal?
Can you not see the correlation within such a context?

so you are saying all precisionists are gay hating disabled abusing types then?

I'm saying there is more likely a broad and very weak correlation between how and when you would consider the above to be a circle and your position on the L/R spectrum

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:25 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Oh for goodness sake, nothing to do with leftism.
Take this into the context of people with disabilities how some will treat them?
Take this into context how some view homosexuals as abnormal?
Can you not see the correlation within such a context?

so you are saying all precisionists are gay hating disabled abusing types then?

I'm saying there is more likely a broad and very weak correlation between how and when you would consider the above to be a circle and your position on the L/R spectrum

Show me anywhere that a correlation means every single person with said stance?
Seriously is your brain starting to freeze up?
I think there is more likely a strong correlation, when you view people who hold similar views that are discrminating to many groups.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:27 am

sassy wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:thing is anyone from an engineering background would not find that acceptable as a circle, even if they were left of trotsky.

likewise anyone used to working with precision drawings...

however it does depend on context...as presented the question is meaningless to me

Its good enough as a representation of a circle in a "back of a fag packet" quick drawing

but nowhere even near for a final draught

so the question is somewhat silly....

but thinking about it it does suggest a reason why the biggest sfficionados of ridiculous "abstract art are nearly all "lefties"

Well I don't think it's a circle, a circle is a continuous even arc, that doesn't come close, but perhaps that's my science and tech drawing background.

And PS, abstract art leaves me cold!

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:27 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

so you are saying all precisionists are gay hating disabled abusing types then?

I'm saying there is more likely a broad and very weak correlation between how and when you would consider the above to be a circle and your position on the L/R spectrum

Show me anywhere that a correlation means every single person with said stance?
Seriously is your brain starting to freeze up?
I think there is more likely a strong correlation, when you view people who hold similar views that are discrminating to many groups.

ok so "most precisionists are ........" hows that?

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:29 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Show me anywhere that a correlation means every single person with said stance?
Seriously is your brain starting to freeze up?
I think there is more likely a strong correlation, when you view people who hold similar views that are discrminating to many groups.

ok so "most precisionists are ........" hows that?

Does not even have to be most.
Sizeable would be a better way of stating would it not?
Now do a sizeabe amount of perfectionists get irritated and even anxious over how others are not perfect in how they accomplish many things?

by Eilzel Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:14 pm

I saw this the other say. Apparently conservative minded people say its not a circle, and more accepting, liberal types say it is.

I say that's BS haha. It isn't a circle. It's a bad attempt at a circle. Wouldn't call myself conservative Wink

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:15 pm

Eilzel wrote:I saw this the other say. Apparently conservative minded people say its not a circle, and more accepting, liberal types say it is.

I say that's BS haha. It isn't a circle. It's a bad attempt at a circle. Wouldn't call myself conservative

Exactly Les, it's bloody stupid.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:18 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

ok so "most precisionists are ........" hows that?

Does not even have to be most.
Sizeable would be a better way of stating would it not?
Now do a sizeabe amount of perfectionists get irritated and even anxious over how others are not perfect in how they accomplish many things?

I think that perfectionists expect more of themselves than others. They don't even need to be perfectionists all the time, just in certain matters and in certain ways.

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:18 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

ok so "most precisionists are ........" hows that?

Does not even have to be most.
Sizeable would be a better way of stating would it not?
Now do a sizeabe amount of perfectionists get irritated and even anxious over how others are not perfect in how they accomplish many things?

note I said precisionist...not perfectionist

one is a career trait the other is a psychological problem

by Victorismyhero Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:25 pm

like i said a drawing of a concept on a "fag packet" is entirely different to a final draught for production

As an El Tech i need precise and wholey accurate drawings to produce a printed board for actual use
accurate to within 0.01mm

for discussing the idea the above would do fine

very very few people can freehand draw a circle with any degree of accuracy

another dumbass bit of pseudo scientific psychology, which draws inaccurate conclusions from wholey inadequate data...

ah well......

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:28 pm

Lord Foul wrote:like i said a drawing of a concept on a "fag packet" is entirely different to a final draught for production

As an El Tech i need precise and wholey accurate drawings to produce a printed board for actual use
accurate to within 0.01mm

for discussing the idea the above would do fine

very very few people can freehand draw a circle with any degree of accuracy

another dumbass bit of pseudo scientific psychology, which draws inaccurate conclusions from wholey inadequate data...

ah well......

So you could not answer my points.

ah well

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:30 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Does not even have to be most.
Sizeable would be a better way of stating would it not?
Now do a sizeabe amount of perfectionists get irritated and even anxious over how others are not perfect in how they accomplish many things?

note I said precisionist...not perfectionist

one is a career trait the other is a psychological problem

Both are pshycological problems.
You are entering a field and subject you know very little about

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:30 pm

Do does this mean that liberals are a bit sloppy and lazy in their way of thinking?

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

You can also explain your reasons as to why you either think it is or you think it is not.

The boundary is not equidistant from the centre. And therefore does not conform to Pi.

Not a fucking circle. Ever. Kill all those who disagree. tongue

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:32 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

note I said precisionist...not perfectionist

one is a career trait the other is a psychological problem

Both are pshycological problems.
You are entering a field and subject you know very little about

They're not necessarily problems, psychological or otherwise. If someone's job required a high level of accuracy and attention to detail, you wouldn't want someone who thought a wonky circle was "close enough".

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:32 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

You can also explain your reasons as to why you either think it is or you think it is not.

The boundary is not equidistant from the centre. And therefore does not conform to Pi.

Not a fucking circle. Ever. Kill all those who disagree.

You forgot to add Allah akbar at the end

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:33 pm

Don't start!

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Both are pshycological problems.
You are entering a field and subject you know very little about

They're not necessarily problems, psychological or otherwise. If someone's job required a high level of accuracy and attention to detail, you wouldn't want someone who thought a wonky circle was "close enough".

Do you get at times anxious or irritated over how some people do not perform tasks as you do?

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:35 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The boundary is not equidistant from the centre. And therefore does not conform to Pi.

Not a fucking circle. Ever. Kill all those who disagree.

You forgot to add Allah akbar at the end

Allahu Akbar.

Note your spelling, you touchy bigot.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:36 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not necessarily problems, psychological or otherwise. If someone's job required a high level of accuracy and attention to detail, you wouldn't want someone who thought a wonky circle was "close enough".

Do you get at times anxious or irritated over how some people do not perform tasks as you do?

That would depend on how it affected me. That also isn't necessarily a problem anyway - if people are sloppy they might need someone to tell them how to do things properly.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:37 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

You forgot to add Allah akbar at the end

Allahu Akbar.

Note your spelling, you touchy bigot.

So you claim to want to kill people and I add a the final part of what most extremists islamists say when they do and you get all touchy.
Think I hit a raw nerve

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:39 pm

This might indicate to people what kind of job would suit them actually. If they don't like sloppiness or imprecision, there are some jobs they might want to avoid, unless they don't mind chasing their own tail all day long.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Do you get at times anxious or irritated over how some people do not perform tasks as you do?

That would depend on how it affected me. That also isn't necessarily a problem anyway - if people are sloppy they might need someone to tell them how to do things properly.

But it does effect you at times and to certain degrees also.
So would you agree that the same aniexty can be found in some people how they view groups of people as less than perfect?
Not saying you by the way, but to me this is very much connected.
I mean how many times have we seen some on here view homosexuals as abnormal.
That stems from an irrational fear and anxiety of homosexuality.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:43 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Allahu Akbar.

Note your spelling, you touchy bigot.

So you claim to want to kill people and I add a the final part of what most extremists islamists say when they do and you get all touchy.
Think I hit a raw nerve

This Dick has no sense of humour.

Why so cantankerous?

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:46 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

So you claim to want to kill people and I add a the final part of what most extremists islamists say when they do and you get all touchy.
Think I hit a raw nerve

This Dick has no sense of humour.

Why so cantankerous?

The child failed to see mine.

Why so stupid?

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:49 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That would depend on how it affected me. That also isn't necessarily a problem anyway - if people are sloppy they might need someone to tell them how to do things properly.

But it does effect you at times and to certain degrees also.
So would you agree that the same aniexty can be found in some people how they view groups of people as less than perfect?
Not saying you by the way, but to me this is very much connected.
I mean how many times have we seen some on here view homosexuals as abnormal.
That stems from an irrational fear and anxiety of homosexuality.

Oh yes, it does affect me in some circumstances and to certain degrees. As I said, at times I have to be very precise and attend to detail to a very large degree. I would not be happy with myself if I didn't. On the other hand, in other circumstances that's not possible, and I can be as sloppy as the next person. However, if I organise something and someone else messes it up, I get irritated then. That's why I don't bother very much. Laughing

A severe degree of perfectionism at all times could be a problem. It leads to OCD and other kinds of problems.

Some of the groups you mentioned were illegal immigrants, prostitutes, and drug users. It does irritate me if people constantly flout the law and nothing is done, and I don't have any sympathy for them. Then again, it depends on the law doesn't it? I don't have a problem with hunt sabs, for example.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:52 pm

Right as some seem to be struggling here, I will give you a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Religious people who do not take a literal view of the religious text they follow are less likely to be prejudiced, than those who would take a literal view of the religious text.
Not changing this debate to religion, but this is just one example of how something can create a perception of what to them would be a perfect Christian, Muslims, Jew, Hindu etc.
This is why there is much merit to what is being stated here.
You will have some who would view the perfect human, to be a White Anglo saxon, macho hetrosexual male, as their perfection point on how human men should be. Thos that deviate from this stance on a human male, would be seen as imperfect. Those who do not view others from this perception are again less likley to be prejudiced.

I hope this sinks in to some here and has nothing to do with bloody left politics

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:54 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Right as some seem to be struggling here, I will give you a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Religious people who do not take a literal view of the religious text they follow are less likely to be prejudiced, than those who would take a literal view of the religious text.
Not changing this debate to religion, but this is just one example of how something can create a perception of what to them would be a perfect Christian, Muslims, Jew, Hindu etc.
This is why there is much merit to what is being stated here.
You will have some who would view the perfect human, to be a White Anglo saxon, macho hetrosexual male, as their perfection point on how human men should be. Thos that deviate from this stance on a human male, would be seen as imperfect. Those who do not view others from this perception are again less likley to be prejudiced.

I hope this sinks in to some here and has nothing to do with bloody left politics

If you said: “Yeah, sure, close enough,” then you are probably politically liberal, and strongly support the idea of government aid for the homeless and unemployed. You are also likely to support same-sex marriage and legalisation of marijuana for recreational use.

If you said: “No, of course not,” then you are probably politically conservative, and strongly support the idea of protecting the rights of business owners and having a strong military. You are likely to take a particularly dim view of illegal immigration, and would come down strongly on even relatively low-level crime, such as drug use and prostitution.

I would say those issues are related to one's political leaning. That's what the test was designed to judge wasn't it?

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

But it does effect you at times and to certain degrees also.
So would you agree that the same aniexty can be found in some people how they view groups of people as less than perfect?
Not saying you by the way, but to me this is very much connected.
I mean how many times have we seen some on here view homosexuals as abnormal.
That stems from an irrational fear and anxiety of homosexuality.

Oh yes, it does affect me in some circumstances and to certain degrees. As I said, at times I have to be very precise and attend to detail to a very large degree. I would not be happy with myself if I didn't. On the other hand, in other circumstances that's not possible, and I can be as sloppy as the next person. However, if I organise something and someone else messes it up, I get irritated then. That's why I don't bother very much.

A severe degree of perfectionism at all times could be a problem. It leads to OCD and other kinds of problems.

Some of the groups you mentioned were illegal immigrants, prostitutes, and drug users. It does irritate me if people constantly flout the law and nothing is done, and I don't have any sympathy for them. Then again, it depends on the law doesn't it? I don't have a problem with hunt sabs, for example.

You see Rags you have a standard as to what you constitue as being normal.
In fact we all do to some degree, but it is froim this and how we either view others which is where this test really has found a correlation.
Thanks for your honesty.
I do think much can be learn from this

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:56 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Right as some seem to be struggling here, I will give you a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Religious people who do not take a literal view of the religious text they follow are less likely to be prejudiced, than those who would take a literal view of the religious text.
Not changing this debate to religion, but this is just one example of how something can create a perception of what to them would be a perfect Christian, Muslims, Jew, Hindu etc.
This is why there is much merit to what is being stated here.
You will have some who would view the perfect human, to be a White Anglo saxon, macho hetrosexual male, as their perfection point on how human men should be. Thos that deviate from this stance on a human male, would be seen as imperfect. Those who do not view others from this perception are again less likley to be prejudiced.

I hope this sinks in to some here and has nothing to do with bloody left politics

If you said: “Yeah, sure, close enough,” then you are probably politically liberal, and strongly support the idea of government aid for the homeless and unemployed. You are also likely to support same-sex marriage and legalisation of marijuana for recreational use.

If you said: “No, of course not,” then you are probably politically conservative, and strongly support the idea of protecting the rights of business owners and having a strong military. You are likely to take a particularly dim view of illegal immigration, and would come down strongly on even relatively low-level crime, such as drug use and prostitution.

I would say those issues are related to one's political leaning. That's what the test was designed to judge wasn't it?

It was and is. It falls flat on it's face.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Right as some seem to be struggling here, I will give you a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Religious people who do not take a literal view of the religious text they follow are less likely to be prejudiced, than those who would take a literal view of the religious text.
Not changing this debate to religion, but this is just one example of how something can create a perception of what to them would be a perfect Christian, Muslims, Jew, Hindu etc.
This is why there is much merit to what is being stated here.
You will have some who would view the perfect human, to be a White Anglo saxon, macho hetrosexual male, as their perfection point on how human men should be. Thos that deviate from this stance on a human male, would be seen as imperfect. Those who do not view others from this perception are again less likley to be prejudiced.

I hope this sinks in to some here and has nothing to do with bloody left politics

If you said: “Yeah, sure, close enough,” then you are probably politically liberal, and strongly support the idea of government aid for the homeless and unemployed. You are also likely to support same-sex marriage and legalisation of marijuana for recreational use.

If you said: “No, of course not,” then you are probably politically conservative, and strongly support the idea of protecting the rights of business owners and having a strong military. You are likely to take a particularly dim view of illegal immigration, and would come down strongly on even relatively low-level crime, such as drug use and prostitution.

I would say those issues are related to one's political leaning. That's what the test was designed to judge wasn't it?

Not just political Rags but how people view and set a standard of how people to them should be. People who are less bothered by how people are, look, behave, are very much less prejudiced towards people.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:01 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I would say those issues are related to one's political leaning. That's what the test was designed to judge wasn't it?

Not just political Rags but how people view and set a standard of how people to them should be. People who are less bothered by how people are, look, behave, are very much less prejudiced towards people.

But even then it's not as simple as that. Some people might be intolerant of things like drug use or prostitution on the grounds that any problems which arise from those things are self-inflicted. I do think that conservative people are more likely to have a sense of responsibility for their own actions, and so are perhaps less tolerant of self-inflicted problems that leftie liberals excuse.

That doesn't mean that a conservative person has no sympathy for disabled people who were born that way, or had an accident. It also doesn't mean that they think gay people are "wrong".

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:06 pm

It is that simple Rags.
Again someone less concerned by drugs being used, is less likley to be prejudiced against people, even those who abuse drugs. Again it is the standard people set and how much they keep to that standard that they have. You can use thisd methodology on anything really when you think about it. Its how we are ourselves set standards and how we apply them that can tell how prejudiced some people can be. Not saying its a full proof system, but it certainly does apply well to most situations. I mean its a no brainer that people less bothered by something, are going to be less prejudiced about it. I mean we are all very bothered about child abuse and would view child abusers with the ultimate prejudice woud we not?

by Sponsored content

Is the picture a Circle