about 2,-8

Very libertarian (no suprise there) and slightly right (not really accurate)

The problem with this was there was no "nuetral" and all issues are weighed equally, which isn't really the case for me at all.

Congratulations ^^ if anything, you've shown your own bias, not mine.

Dunno where you got the idea that I was dismissing anyone's views. I never said anything about emotional reasoning being a lack of reasoning, which is what your interpretation seems to imply. I suppose I can follow your lead though and try to analyze your stance, as you attempted to analyze mine.

For someone to consider emotional reasoning to be a lack of reasoning, I would have to assume that the person in question would be a rational person. If they were themselves emotional, it would be highly atypical for that person to dismiss their own reasoning.

However due to your negative reaction, it is unlikely that you are a rational thinker, as this would not then reflect badly on yourself. With this in mind, it is also possible that you are an emotional reasoner, who has been subject to rational thinkers who have dismissed your arguments based on their emotional basis.

But I myself am aware of the problem of assuming that emotional reasoning should be dismissed. As I've demonstrated in my results of the test(only one attempt, didn't redo any questions), and the pride I've taken in those results, I am for the most part neutral in my stances. So when considering this, it is also possible that you have managed to strike a balance between emotional reasoning and rational thinking, but have seen many people who claim to be 'rational' thinkers making the mistake of thinking that emotional arguments should be dismissed. This could possibly be enough to believe that I am merely another person who is making this mistake and should be informed of the error in that reasoning.

So for my analysis, I'm sorta 60% possibility that you would fall into the emotional category, and about 40% possibility that you're in the neutral area.

If you noticed, I got a .25, 1.08 on my political stance, closest to center except for epsilion72 (damn you, epsiliooooonnnn!!!! :P) and I owe that to the fact that I recognize the need for both types of reasoning, even though my natural tendency is towards the pure rational. It is through that rational reasoning that I have identified the need for emotional reasoning to be present as well. Society consists of people, and the way people act will generally be a combination of rational and emotional.

To further explain my reason for the emotional vs rational, I'll use a point to demonstrate left vs right and then a point to demonstrate authoritarian vs libertarian.

In Left vs Right, a big issue is gun control, I'm going to demonstrate the two extremes.

On the left side, you have the emotional reasoning that guns make it easier to kill people intentionally and also cause deaths either by accident or misunderstandings. We should get rid of guns.

On the right side, you have the rational reasoning that even if you try to get rid of guns, the only people you'll be able to successfully get the guns away from are the people who wouldn't have used them to kill anyone anyway. Everyone should have guns.

If we went with the left side, criminals and cops would be the only ones with guns. The criminals would also know that they don't have to worry about any citizen being armed, and all teh cops are wearing uniforms and are easy to identify.

On the right side, everyone would have a gun. This would include people that are not physically skilled enough to use a gun safely, as well as people who are not emotionally ready. This would also include people who do not have enough respect for life(cocky teens, drunks, etc) as well as those who would panick or freeze up under critical conditions.

Where the left side misses the rational problems, the right side misses the emotional problems, the correct solution comes from a balance between those two extremes. One where there are restrictions on guns, but intelligent restrictions that would only prevent improper ownership, and actually nurture those who would own and carry guns responsibly.  

As for libertarian vs authoritarian, this can be demonstrated by the amount of control the government has over the people.

On liberty's side, government should be gotten rid of, people should be free to make their own choices and regulate themselves.

On authority side, government should be able to regulate everything. Everything would be regulated to ensure that everything flowed smoothly.

the liberty misses the rational point that a mass amount of people cannot regulate themselves without some form of governing system. 100000 seperate people cannot come to a single decision in a reasonable amount of time, and then enforce that decision on that same group of 100000 people.

the authority side misses that people cannot live effectively and flourish as a society when everything is regulated by the government.

again the balance is in the middle, where people are able to manage their day to day lives individually, with the government is established to deal with larger scale issues.

these are just general examples, but demonstrate my basic views in the different types of reasoning. And I would like to point out that I said that this is a TENDENCY, not an absolute. Not all people in the right or authoritarian are the borg and not all left libertarians are hippy anarchists.

Hope that helps. 

@ Grey Acumen

The way you treat reason makes it appear like you are stuck in a 18th century rationalist/positivist view of the world. Even your arguments on your centrist positions leans towards this world view. Ever considered to think about the ontology and epistemology behind ay notion as reason? Oh, that last sentence probably made me even more irrational and emotional in your eyes. ;)

Actually, it just makes you seem like you're trying to be a pain in the butt, and that you didn't really bother reading everything, or you interpreted everything word for word even if the use of my wording made it obvious that there was an entirely different intent. My linguistic skills are reasonable, but I never bothered remembering specific terminologies.

As I have pointed out, emotional reasoning is just as important as rational thinking, but you still seem to be getting hung up on this idea that if I'm putting rational on one end and emotional on teh other, that emotional must equal irrational.

If anything, my viewpoint extends much further back than just 18th century. Try going all the way back to Taosim for the concept of yin and yang. The western take on this had originally interpreted the two halves as Good and Evil, but really, it represents that the best results come from a balance between the two sides, while the complete lack of one or the other is actually the worst possibility.

For a more modern look at these concepts, you can easily be pointed towards Frued's basic conceptualization of Id, Ego, and Super Ego. Where Yin and Yang and the equivalent of Id and Super Ego, and Ego is our ability to control the balance between the use of these two halves. Where if we operate entirely on Id, we become selfish at the expense of everyone else, if we operate only on Super Ego, we become totally selfless and end up sacrificing ourselves. A healthy mindset is usually found close as possible to balancing these points.

In American politics, you have voters typically broken up into Democratic and Republican. If you look back over the history of elections, you've typically seen a constant swing roughly 10 years or so for each from Democratic to Republican and back again. In this case, you again have a yin yang setup, where general society is attempting to find a balance between the stances of the two parties.

teh first half of the 10 years typically gives a chance for whichever party is in power to balance out the stance of the previously elected party, but the second half is the point at which the political policies can be seen as leaning back away from the balancing point and people see the need to elect someone in the opposing party to bring balance back to the political environment. At which point the process repeats.

The same duality can be found just as easily in these forums. Typically, any debate in VGChartz ends up revolving around only 2 consoles at a time, even though there are 3 to consider. You either have the PS3 vs the Wii, in  which you are comparing graphics and processing power vs controls and simplicity, or 360 vs PS3, where people compare total sales vs selling rate since launch, and game library vs reliability, or you have Wii vs 360 comparing the sales and hardcore vs casual gamers.

These duality concepts exist in practically every possible point over which there can be any type of debate, and any type of debate naturally tends towards two opposing factions, where the correct answer is actually in the middle.

Left vs Right, Selfishness vs Selflessness, Pride vs Humility, type A vs type B personality, man vs woman, young vs old, freedom vs safety, science vs art, so on and so forth.

It is this dichotomy that fuels debate, as if one side was clearly correct, the debate would soon be won by one side or the other, but if both sides came to a consensus on that middle stance, then the debate would again be over. Therefor any lasting debate will almost always stem from a constant state of two extreme views that have a roughly identifiable balance point.

 I get what you are trying to say and I understand your reasoning, but, I have a problem with this part. Please define rational to me. Id define it something like "most effective way to do what you want to do with least trouble if trouble is not what you want to have". Everything above this needs some kind of axiom, thus I find it hard do define some reasoning as rational and some as emotional.

ah, yeah, I figured that was what people were having trouble with. I suppose instead of rational, logical might be a better choice, but I figured people would have the same issue as that.

Basically, the easiest example I can think of is picture some one's dog dying.

Purely rationally, the dog is gone. Everything dies sooner or later. It's death means that you no longer have to worry about paying for food, vet checkups, nor the time necessary for maintainence such as grooming, walks and other activities. Now you have time and money to pursue other forms of leisure.

Purely emotionally, there is an utter void because your best friend has died. It was someone you were able to rely on, to keep you company and to play with, and also someone who would protect you to the best of its ability. The dog counted on you to provide for it, and now you are only left with memories of good experiences and the knowledge that you can no longer continue making more memories.

does that clarify things at all?

@ Grey Acumen

Ok, I get your point but for me its very hard to apply this concept on the political alignment, and if you still want to apply it, I see more emotional justifing politics on the right side, neocons, nationalists, religious people etc are more concerned to have absolutes than left - and some moderate right - libertarians.

If you are considering neoclassical economic liberalism its not more tied to some higher truth than a system based on the Quran or the teachings of Marx. They are just different belief system which has different impacts on the societies based on cultural hegemony and leading discourses.


Now... let us see where The Moderators are :)

Mine: 

Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.31

Go figure.