No kidding!!

[chaos]

[Necrosis]

Is that like when you and Lurkingforboys follow each other around and dock your weenies together to talk about Trump?

meltdown.

[LurkerNoMore]

There you go.

I am not sure what you mean by this.  Because it agrees with the statement I made.

[LurkerNoMore]

Is that like when you and Lurkingforboys follow each other around and dock your weenies together to talk about Trump?

Dear GetBig,
 
Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay,

Signed
GAYoas.

[chaos]

Dear GetBig,
 
Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS, Trumpy TDS,

Signed
LurkingforBOYS

Fixed, Faggotforboys.

[LurkerNoMore]

Fixed, Faggotforboys.

TDS is MAGA for FACTS.

Your constant gayness is noted again.  You sound like someone that has been molested by numerous relatives and has a favorite.  Creepy ass gay vibes you give off.

[Dos Equis]

Again, are you dumb? the questionairre is clearly indicated in the paper. Are you unable to do a search? what do you think they just made shit up? I realize that's the world you live in but it's not how intelligent folks operate

I asked the question about someone's opinion, not a validated questionairre used to conduct political research as it relates to a paper.

What a dumb comparison, it's apples to oranges.

Back to the drawing board.

I say this with all sincerity:  you really have a problem engaging in discussions that involve logic and analytical thinking.  I always feel like I'm talking to a high school kid with you.  Especially your writing, which is atrocious. 

In any event, you posted a link that references a study that is based on conservative views.  The story you linked does not contain the actual questionnaire, nor does it define conservative views.  I was simply asking what definition of "conservative views" was used.  I get that you don't understand why this question is important, but for anyone else reading, the reason I asked the question is that the sample size is very small, it involves people in a foreign country, and we don't know whether those "conservative views" are the same views held by Americans.  Maybe they are, maybe they are not.  But it's a foundational question.

[chaos]

I say this with all sincerity:  you really have a problem engaging in discussions that involve logic and analytical thinking.  I always feel like I'm talking to a high school kid with you.  Especially your writing, which is atrocious. 

You're like a special ed teacher, you keep trying but you know it's going nowhere.

[Necrosis]

I say this with all sincerity:  you really have a problem engaging in discussions that involve logic and analytical thinking.  I always feel like I'm talking to a high school kid with you.  Especially your writing, which is atrocious. 

In any event, you posted a link that references a study that is based on conservative views.  The story you linked does not contain the actual questionnaire, nor does it define conservative views.  I was simply asking what definition of "conservative views" was used.  I get that you don't understand why this question is important, but for anyone else reading, the reason I asked the question is that the sample size is very small, it involves people in a foreign country, and we don't know whether those "conservative views" are the same views held by Americans.  Maybe they are, maybe they are not.  But it's a foundational question.

Lol. I feel like I am talking to someone about 3 standard deviations away from myself, which I reckon is about accurate. son, you think with your personal attacks and slander I am going to engage sincerely with you and answer your questions reasonably? lol.

I get why the question is important. I have already given you the means to investigate it yourself. It's an extremely weak criticism that is meritless. I indicated why.

Since you clearly can't piece it together let someone who knows more stuff help

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289625000893#bb0345



You can go to the methods and see what tests they used- you will then have to read up on the tests. However, it has been used quite often and mirrors numerous other tests, questionairres etc. There is a brief description there but thats not the point of the test. In the discussion there is more information.

It's simply a fact, it's required to understand complexity. I am not saying this shit because I want it to be true, it's simply true. There are negatives that come with that like emotional lability etc. It doesn't mean anyone conservative is stupid. I would also suggest that the smartest folks are neither left or right and absolutely do not ossify into political categories but keep a dynamic, iterative flow wrt positions never being held down yet never not being moored.

I doubt you understand what I am saying as your life is the opposite. Not that thats a bad thing.

[Necrosis]

You're like a special ed teacher, you keep trying but you know it's going nowhere.

Is he? is that how you see it?

how is your angular cheilitis from the beetus you got when you have his dick in your mouth?

serious question

[chaos]

Is he? is that how you see it?

how is your angular cheilitis from the beetus you got when you have his dick in your mouth?

serious question

Heads up, I see you quoted chaos, surely you meant to quote Lurkingforboys. I expect you will fix the error at the earliest practicable juncture. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

[Dos Equis]

Lol. I feel like I am talking to someone about 3 standard deviations away from myself, which I reckon is about accurate. son, you think with your personal attacks and slander I am going to engage sincerely with you and answer your questions reasonably? lol.

I get why the question is important. I have already given you the means to investigate it yourself. It's an extremely weak criticism that is meritless. I indicated why.

Since you clearly can't piece it together let someone who knows more stuff help

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289625000893#bb0345



You can go to the methods and see what tests they used- you will then have to read up on the tests. However, it has been used quite often and mirrors numerous other tests, questionairres etc. There is a brief description there but thats not the point of the test. In the discussion there is more information.

It's simply a fact, it's required to understand complexity. I am not saying this shit because I want it to be true, it's simply true. There are negatives that come with that like emotional lability etc. It doesn't mean anyone conservative is stupid. I would also suggest that the smartest folks are neither left or right and absolutely do not ossify into political categories but keep a dynamic, iterative flow wrt positions never being held down yet never not being moored.

I doubt you understand what I am saying as your life is the opposite. Not that thats a bad thing.

I don't take you seriously.  You're not smart enough.  You're not funny enough.  You're just an internet troll, who also happens to be a simpleton. 

But I digress . . .  Thank you for providing the link.  I do not see the questionnaire in the link.  Where is the questionnaire?  You said "the questionairre [sic] is clearly indicated in the paper."  No it isn't.  At least I don't see it.  It is referenced in the link you just provided, but I don't see the actual questionnaire. 

It does have this excerpt, which again is too vague to know the precise conservative views used as part of the study's foundation, and whether those views are parallel to American conservative views:

For example, the Political Ideologies Questionnaire (POLID; Ulrich, 2021; see below) used in this study consists of four scales: economic libertarianism, conservatism, socialism, and liberalism. Economic libertarianism emphasizes individual and market freedom, viewing merit-based inequalities as justified (see also e.g., Duckitt, 2001). Conservatism is rooted in societal cohesion through shared culture and tradition, advocating for stability and security (see also e.g., Jost et al., 2003). Socialism focuses on reducing inequalities by addressing exploitation of disadvantaged groups, promoting equality of outcome (see also e.g., Lipset, 1981). Liberalism is characterized by valuing individual autonomy and freedom (see also e.g., Jost et al., 2009). Importantly, the multi-dimensional political orientations of different conceptions, as exemplified in POLID (Ulrich, 2021), do not necessarily align closely (neither conceptually nor empirically) with the singular left-right dimension. Sociocultural and economical conservative orientations are typically associated with the right pole, while sociocultural and economical liberal orientations align with the left pole (Jedinger & Burger, 2022). In conclusion, the single-dimensional conception and the multi-dimensional conceptions differ substantially concerning the theoretical approach for political orientations. Depending on the survey setting or research question, researchers can use the one or the other conception, or a combination of both.

But I can see that you cannot keep up.  Not surprised.  It's really funny how you try to sound smart, but end up exposing yourself.  Dumbest genius ever.   

[LurkerNoMore]

Heads up, I see you quoted chaos, surely you meant to quote Lurkingforboys. I expect you will fix the error at the earliest practicable juncture. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

No, pretty sure he meant you just from the unchecked gayness alone.  No one else on this board gives off queer vibes like you do GAYoas.

[AbrahamG]

Lol. I feel like I am talking to someone about 3 standard deviations away from myself, which I reckon is about accurate. son, you think with your personal attacks and slander I am going to engage sincerely with you and answer your questions reasonably? lol.

I get why the question is important. I have already given you the means to investigate it yourself. It's an extremely weak criticism that is meritless. I indicated why.

Since you clearly can't piece it together let someone who knows more stuff help

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289625000893#bb0345



You can go to the methods and see what tests they used- you will then have to read up on the tests. However, it has been used quite often and mirrors numerous other tests, questionairres etc. There is a brief description there but thats not the point of the test. In the discussion there is more information.

It's simply a fact, it's required to understand complexity. I am not saying this shit because I want it to be true, it's simply true. There are negatives that come with that like emotional lability etc. It doesn't mean anyone conservative is stupid. I would also suggest that the smartest folks are neither left or right and absolutely do not ossify into political categories but keep a dynamic, iterative flow wrt positions never being held down yet never not being moored.

I doubt you understand what I am saying as your life is the opposite. Not that thats a bad thing.

Shit dude.  I don't even think Lurker owns Chaos that badly.   

[Necrosis]

I don't take you seriously.  You're not smart enough.  You're not funny enough.  You're just an internet troll, who also happens to be a simpleton. 

But I digress . . .  Thank you for providing the link.  I do not see the questionnaire in the link.  Where is the questionnaire?  You said "the questionairre [sic] is clearly indicated in the paper."  No it isn't.  At least I don't see it.  It is referenced in the link you just provided, but I don't see the actual questionnaire. 

It does have this excerpt, which again is too vague to know the precise conservative views used as part of the study's foundation, and whether those views are parallel to American conservative views:

For example, the Political Ideologies Questionnaire (POLID; Ulrich, 2021; see below) used in this study consists of four scales: economic libertarianism, conservatism, socialism, and liberalism. Economic libertarianism emphasizes individual and market freedom, viewing merit-based inequalities as justified (see also e.g., Duckitt, 2001). Conservatism is rooted in societal cohesion through shared culture and tradition, advocating for stability and security (see also e.g., Jost et al., 2003). Socialism focuses on reducing inequalities by addressing exploitation of disadvantaged groups, promoting equality of outcome (see also e.g., Lipset, 1981). Liberalism is characterized by valuing individual autonomy and freedom (see also e.g., Jost et al., 2009). Importantly, the multi-dimensional political orientations of different conceptions, as exemplified in POLID (Ulrich, 2021), do not necessarily align closely (neither conceptually nor empirically) with the singular left-right dimension. Sociocultural and economical conservative orientations are typically associated with the right pole, while sociocultural and economical liberal orientations align with the left pole (Jedinger & Burger, 2022). In conclusion, the single-dimensional conception and the multi-dimensional conceptions differ substantially concerning the theoretical approach for political orientations. Depending on the survey setting or research question, researchers can use the one or the other conception, or a combination of both.

But I can see that you cannot keep up.  Not surprised.  It's really funny how you try to sound smart, but end up exposing yourself.  Dumbest genius ever.   

So you are in fact stupid lololol.

You have never read an actual paper before have you? they don't list the fucking questionairres or indices you goof. They referencing the measurement used like saying we used a 2 way anova (I an sure you don't know what that is) and it's implicitly implied the person reading understands that. Holy fuck youre dumb hahahaha

I even said you will have to look the questionairre up yet you took it as a win because you have no clue how science works HAHAHAHAHAH.

you doubled down as well.

Chef's kiss you moron.

[Necrosis]

Shit dude.  I don't even think Lurker owns Chaos that badly.   

Ya he is a dummy that thinks he is intelligent but every time we engage he falters horribly.

I honestly feel bad because it's clear there is a huge gap here and I am sure he isn't a bad person at heart.

Chaos is the same way. Just not all that bright, likely a good fella to call if you want some cupboards installed.

[Necrosis]

I don't take you seriously.  You're not smart enough.  You're not funny enough.  You're just an internet troll, who also happens to be a simpleton. 

But I digress . . .  Thank you for providing the link.  I do not see the questionnaire in the link.  Where is the questionnaire?  You said "the questionairre [sic] is clearly indicated in the paper."  No it isn't.  At least I don't see it.  It is referenced in the link you just provided, but I don't see the actual questionnaire. 

It does have this excerpt, which again is too vague to know the precise conservative views used as part of the study's foundation, and whether those views are parallel to American conservative views:

For example, the Political Ideologies Questionnaire (POLID; Ulrich, 2021; see below) used in this study consists of four scales: economic libertarianism, conservatism, socialism, and liberalism. Economic libertarianism emphasizes individual and market freedom, viewing merit-based inequalities as justified (see also e.g., Duckitt, 2001). Conservatism is rooted in societal cohesion through shared culture and tradition, advocating for stability and security (see also e.g., Jost et al., 2003). Socialism focuses on reducing inequalities by addressing exploitation of disadvantaged groups, promoting equality of outcome (see also e.g., Lipset, 1981). Liberalism is characterized by valuing individual autonomy and freedom (see also e.g., Jost et al., 2009). Importantly, the multi-dimensional political orientations of different conceptions, as exemplified in POLID (Ulrich, 2021), do not necessarily align closely (neither conceptually nor empirically) with the singular left-right dimension. Sociocultural and economical conservative orientations are typically associated with the right pole, while sociocultural and economical liberal orientations align with the left pole (Jedinger & Burger, 2022). In conclusion, the single-dimensional conception and the multi-dimensional conceptions differ substantially concerning the theoretical approach for political orientations. Depending on the survey setting or research question, researchers can use the one or the other conception, or a combination of both.

But I can see that you cannot keep up.  Not surprised.  It's really funny how you try to sound smart, but end up exposing yourself.  Dumbest genius ever.   

The questionairre is clearly indicated in the paper. What are you looking for raw data you tard? do you know how long papers would be if they did that? this is a peer reviewed article, that's their job, you can see the rating of the journal as well.

I know this is all foreign to you and believing there is some fuckery going on helps keep your simple worldview intact but unfortunately us intelligent folks have things like systems to corroborate these things and actual spent time learning how to do this stuff.

Are you questioning the validity of the metric they used? Or are you melting down because they didn't rehash every detail about a well used questionairre? do you want them to explain the statistics used?

Should they explain what each formula means and break it down for you? or do you think they assume the reader (other professionals) already know this shit and they can avoid printing the raw data which the review panel reviews?

You are making a fool of yourself as per usual. You have a fetish of trying to prove how smart you are to me, just let it go man.

What is something you know a lot about? would you like to talk about that? it will likely make you feel better and you can impress the other mental midgets that scurry around here supporting a man who just said "everyone knows I am extraordinarily brilliant" lol.

I'll give you another helpful lifeline here. It's pretty fun doing this piecemeal as it shows how intellectual lazy you are along with how out of your depth you are

https://zis.gesis.org/skala/Breyer-Left-Right-Self-Placement-%28ALLBUS%29?lang=de

I can only respond to you a few times here and there, I can let this terrible behavior seep into my daily life as I generally prefer to help and teach folks rather then disparage them. However, you earned it!! and as one cannot have good without bad, hopefully something good comes from this beating.

[Necrosis]

here's another! pro tip, there's more!

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/metrics?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082131

Unfortunately its a fact lol big mad your side is the dumb one.