I remember when this contest happened I thought Teufel should have won.

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.

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.

Short Group

Ron Teufel
Tom Platz
Carlos Rodriguez
Tony Pandolfo
John Iacobelli
James Seitzer
Dave Mastorakis
Sammie Willis
Mike Arnold
Robert Jodkiewicz
Lionel Gaubert
James Gaubert
John Ruehlman
Ron Barrett

Medium Group

Tony Pearson
Larry Jackson
Richard Baldwin
Larry Gordon
Robert Reis
Ray Mentzer
Ron Mangum
Ron McBeath
Eddie Love
C. F. Smith
Don Ausmus
Doug Beaver
Fred Shandor
Sam Sanchez
Charles Thomas
Robert Klez
Keith Kephart
Gary Goss
James Nelson
Ron Buchanan

Tall Group

Manuel Perry
Clinton Beyerle
Gary Leonard
Rod Koontz
Frank Wainwright
William Nuckols
John Aldrich
Lou Perrotta
Subdivisions

Mr. America
Tony Pearson

Most Muscular Man
Tony Pearson

Best Abdominals
Ron Teufel

Best Arms
Manuel Perry

Best Back
Larry Jackson

Best Chest
Larry Jackson

Best Legs
Tom Platz

Best Poser
Tony Pearson

Mr. America
Tony Pearson

Shaken or stirred     

Straight from the tap brother and preferably later in the day so it's nice and clear