Thursday, September 6, 2007

Say whuut?

In a "what type of politician are you" test at aftenposten.no, you are given a choice between six answers for a set of 10 questions. The objective of this test is to find out which leader of the major parties profile best matches your response set. So far so good - I've taken the test several times in moments of severe boredom. What's quite interesting - or disturbing, depending on how you look at it - is the list of alternatives you're given in question seven (you can only choose one):

What does it take for you to change your opinion in cases or issues that are important to you?
  1. If I'm subjected to massive pressure
  2. If I realize that I've been wrong
  3. If changing my opinion is the only way to achieve power
  4. I do not change my opinion in important cases
  5. If I can benefit from it
  6. If the premises change

Now I don't know how y'all feel, but I strongly feel that if you choose anything but option 2, I sincerely hope you never get in a position of power anywhere, in perpetuity, throughout the universe. If you're saying that realizing that you've been wrong doesn't make you change your opinion, then please don't consider a career in science. And while you're at it, please don't procreate - one of you is one too many.

11 comments:

Anders said...

Even more interesting, what party is favoured if you choose option 2? I have a strong feeling that the person who made this test votes on that party...

But I think this test is not to be taken serious. Like the question about which part of your body your most happy with? Yeah, that should say something about how I'll vote...

Wilhelm said...

Good point, bro. I know the test isn't to be taken seriously, but that question was way more stupid than the bodypart one.

Besides, they didn't even have "lats" or "guns" as options...

8-D

Kjerstin said...

To me, answer #6 also seems like a valid option. Change in circumstances should allow for a change in opinion, no?

Wilhelm said...

It's potentially a valid option. The problem is that even if the premises change, that does not necessarily mean that your previous opinion is wrong. Or rather; the new premises might not necessarily negate your previous conclusions. On the other hand, if you find out that you've been wrong, that's the be-all end-all one-stop answer to that question. And when you can only choose one option, one being certain and one being conditional......

Anders said...

Yes, depending on the circumstances, all the options could be valid in one or more situations. But I'm with W-master on this one. If you're wrong and know it, you should always change your opinion.

And I also noticed some obvious options were missing on the body part question...

Wilhelm said...

You didn't find "beard-growing potential" on that list?

Anders said...

Is a potential a part of your body?

Despite not being able to chose beard growing potential, I still came out as Erna Solberg...

Wilhelm said...

Not what I got........

Anders said...

Øystein Djupedal?

Well, with options and questions as relevant as "Do you prefer to be...
a - Punched in the face?
b - Kick it the gut?
c - Kneed in the balls?"
combined with the fact that I have a high score on several of the politicians, I'm coming out with slightly different results each time I take it.

Wilhelm said...

Actually, I came up with the same politician each and every time, but I didn't change much for every time I took the test.

Ready for the battle tomorrow?

Anders said...

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!
;-)

Somehow, I didn't. But I changed my selections, since I many are more or less suitable for me.