It flashes pictures and positive words about each of the four remaining candidates and you respond as to whether the words match the image for you. It measures the time it takes you to respond to the questions and develops the scale shown below.
It seems fairly straightforward but I think you'll find it's counterintuitive at times, adding to your response time when your associating two things that don't jive in your mind, and thus is the rationale behind the test.
6 comments:
Fascinating! Mine, of course, was almost identical to yours. Except Obama was even further up the scale and Huckabee even farther down. I think that may have been because I did it with a somewhat tired mind, and a few times when I lost concentration, I made errors that would have sent it in that direction.
I didn't get it. I quit after the first two things. Sorry!
I can just tell you how I would rank them. Obama, Huckabee, and then McCain. Where is Hillary? She is off my charts.
T-Clog: I have a question to ask you about your aversion to Hillary, and please don't take it as me putting you on the spot. It is purely a matter of intellectual curiosity.
Let me first say that there's a few things that bug me me about Hillary. But I feel like I know exactly what they are, and they mostly have to do with Clinton family connections and taking PAC money sort of stuff more than her actual personality), though I do find myself on the same side of political issues with her in most instances.
For some reason, though, about 46% of this country has a deep hatred of her that seems to me to transcend reason. Fair or not fair as that may be, I actually find it to be the most compelling reason not to support her candidacy. She would simply be a "divider, not a uniter." We are just coming out of eight years of that and it's the last thing our country needs right now.
The question, though, is: why the deep loathing? Is it a specific thing or two that she has done? Or is it just some thing you can't even put your finger on? Or what?
A part of me fears that she may have been a victim of one of the most persistant and effective (negative) marketing campaigns in the history of our country; so efficiently waged that 90% of the dirty work was actually done via word-of-mouth, with her first name effectively becoming a dirty word around watercoolers throughout the country. Help me understand what may or may not be at work here, and if I'm missing something, what you would say it is.
Let me first say that I don't hate her, I dislike what she represents.
Here is my take: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? Good Lord NO!!! I really want to see our country take a new direction and Obama fits that bill. I see that she has a ton of experience playing ball with the same corrupt gangsters that have their talons jabbed into Washington. I think a part of her wants to do good, but I sense bullshit would mostly prevail.
Things were good in the 90's and I think she could bring some of that back around, but she can't sell it to me. I don't know exactly what she has done to set me off except that she might have fallen onto some crazy negative trap that you are suggesting.
Now would she be better than Huckabee and McCain as president? Probably. But listen, she just rubs me the wrong way and does not inspire me one bit. McCain doesn't inspire me either. Let's HOPE that Obama wins.
Maybe some of it comes from the eroded respect that I have for Bill. After his affair and lying, I just lost my respect for him as president. It's hard to say my great friend. Thanks for asking about this.
I don't know if this helps or if it just appears to be a bunch of silly rhetoric from the Bear Cave, but that's it in a nutshell.
Thank you so much for the thorough response, as well as suggesting - in the midst of a lot of very valid stuff - that it is at least possible that you are somewhat influenced by prevailing negative winds.
Without a doubt, the Bill Clinton's was a shameful black eye on his presidency, as well as being a impediment to his ability to advance his own agenda.
To extend negative feelings over that to Hillary might seem like a bit of a stretch, but I will say that she seems to be exhibiting a serious streak of wanting to have her cake & eating it, too. She tries to claim the same "change" mantle as Obama, yet appears to be campaigning as though she actually was the president during the generally prosperous nineties.
Without actually coming out and saying it, she's basically saying to all Democrats, "Yeah, you know you want the Clintons back in the Whitehouse." For even the most ardent Bill Clinton supporters, this should send a bit of a chill down the spine. At least for anyone who has a shred of regard for such issues as the danger of nepotism & the sanctity of term limits, and a host of other issues related to the highest office in the land.
I also think you're onto the inspire/not inspire notion. Coming from a guy who is a serious policy and issue wonk, I would still say that you can't put a price on inspiration. This next eight years is make or break time for potentially the biggest issue in the history of human race. And nothing short of a supremely inspirational leader is going to be able to get enough of the country on board enough to tackle a challenge like putting our response to global warming on the same type of fervent schedule as the Apollo Moon Landing.
When you go into office with 47% of the country hating your guts (Hillary), it doesn't bode well.
Anyway - keep tuned in, dude. You're part of the informed electorate, and I salute you.
I also applaud the thoughtful response of the Clogged Bear. I asked a similar question of some coworkers and got bubkis. I'm not sure if that meant that they thought my question was foolish or that they'd never stopped to think why they had those feelings.
Post a Comment