Expert Consensus / Political Bias Quiz

[shockkkk]

Interesting and quite challenging quiz. Might possibly ruffle some feathers. After answering a few questions based on your political stance, you'll be asked 18 questions. Each question has a correct answer based on near expert consensus. 8/18 is the average score. You also get a political bias score which is just based on how your wrong answers correlate to your self-reported political stance. Test is strongly US-centric.

https://www.guidedtrack.com/programs/iumboi4/run

I got 13/18, which makes me feel pretty good lol. 19.4% bias score.

Missed questions 4, 6, 10, 11, 15.

[Robin L]

Um, do you mean this one?

[shockkkk]

fml forgot to put the link. And no it's not that one.

[Kuebiko]

7/18, with a political bias of 0%

I'm pretty proud of the political bias thing but I don't quite trust it and i'll need to take other tests to confirm.

Otherwise, I can only attribute all my wrong answers to a lack of knowledge about politics because I'm not very interested in politics.

[poindexter]

I got 9/18 right - better than average, but still.. I don't live in the US and US policies aren't really covered in-depth here, so I had to guess some answers, which is maybe not ideal, but I guess it's all part of the test.

I got 0% bias.

[butterflydreams]

Interesting...but I felt like there were answers it was "expecting" that were matters of opinion that I disagree with. I also felt it was way too narrow a scope, kind of hitting very precisely on hot button issues but not really allowing for any breadth in the answers. And where did the "correct" answers come from? For each of the questions, I could've found a several legitimate sources for each available answer.

I answered "we don't know" almost everywhere that was an option, and that trashes your score. Plus, I'm pretty conspiracy-minded and distrustful of government authority and "official consensus" anyway, which I think also is missed by the test.

I'm sorry but "can we store radioactive waste safely for decades" and the "correct" answer is "yes"...what? What a flawed question all around. We have stored waste to some extent for not even a century. And that's not been without its problems. And who cares if we can store it safely for a few decades. That's meaningless. A better question would be can we store it safely indefinitely, or for thousands of years? That we absolutely don't know. I just wouldn't feel right answering "yes" to the decades storage version. If I did say "yes" it would be a very hand-wavy "yes".

Interesting concept, but I wouldn't read too much into it :)

[Rockblossom]

I had the same problems as Hadley167. Some of the answers were just too simplistic, so I went with the "don't know" option. I totally agree about the nuclear waste issue. "Safely" obviously means something different to them than it does to me, and I'm pretty familiar with the problems with storage.

0 bias, which surprised me a little, given the nature of some of the questions.

[Ruqiah]

I had the same problems as Hadley167. Some of the answers were just too simplistic, so I went with the "don't know" option. I totally agree about the nuclear waste issue. "Safely" obviously means something different to them than it does to me, and I'm pretty familiar with the problems with storage.

0 bias, which surprised me a little, given the nature of some of the questions.

Definately one that I struggled with. Sure we can contain the waste. But properly? I don't know, there have been instances of mishaps in the past, so I don't know if I would determine if we can "safely" do this. The survey itself had a strong left lean to it, so it seemed biased in itself. I wouldn't be surprised if a strong leftist company or group posted the survey. The bias score was mostly likely calculated from left leaning data.. so anyone who identified as left most likely got a higher "bias" score.. simply because of agreement. This is a guess, though. I do not know for sure, nor have I looked into it. This was just my first impressions.

I say "left leaning data" but in truth, I believe that data should just be data. Somehow, this is not the case in the world, and watching the two groups go at each other with their own "data" frankly confuses me. Call me uneducated or whatever, but this is what I believe. Which is why I don't pay attenton to polititions.

[poindexter]

Interesting...but I felt like there were answers it was "expecting" that were matters of opinion that I disagree with. I also felt it was way too narrow a scope, kind of hitting very precisely on hot button issues but not really allowing for any breadth in the answers. And where did the "correct" answers come from? For each of the questions, I could've found a several legitimate sources for each available answer.

I answered "we don't know" almost everywhere that was an option, and that trashes your score. Plus, I'm pretty conspiracy-minded and distrustful of government authority and "official consensus" anyway, which I think also is missed by the test.

I'm sorry but "can we store radioactive waste safely for decades" and the "correct" answer is "yes"...what? What a flawed question all around. We have stored waste to some extent for not even a century. And that's not been without its problems. And who cares if we can store it safely for a few decades. That's meaningless. A better question would be can we store it safely indefinitely, or for thousands of years? That we absolutely don't know. I just wouldn't feel right answering "yes" to the decades storage version. If I did say "yes" it would be a very hand-wavy "yes".

Interesting concept, but I wouldn't read too much into it :)

Agreed - what's the point of a discussion on nuclear waste that only looks at the next few decades? The main argument against nuclear waste isn't usually about decades, it's about safety/sustainability over a much longer period of time. So even if we accept that we can store nuclear waste for decades, I have a hard time figuring out how that explains one's view of nuclear power, whether we give the right answer or not.

[-1=e^ipi]

15/18, 0% political bias.

I'm sorry but "can we store radioactive waste safely for decades" and the "correct" answer is "yes"...what? What a flawed question all around. We have stored waste to some extent for not even a century. And that's not been without its problems. And who cares if we can store it safely for a few decades. That's meaningless. A better question would be can we store it safely indefinitely, or for thousands of years? That we absolutely don't know. I just wouldn't feel right answering "yes" to the decades storage version. If I did say "yes" it would be a very hand-wavy "yes".

It's not a flawed question. There are just lots of anti-science anti-nuclear beliefs around. And yes there are ways to store nuclear waste safely for thousands of years; most people don't realize exactly how little waste there is from nuclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

And it's not so much waste as it is nuclear energy that isn't economical to use yet. If it's radioactive, it's still possible to get energy out of it by causing the atoms to decay into non-radioactive elements/isotopes.

[butterflydreams]

15/18, 0% political bias.

I'm sorry but "can we store radioactive waste safely for decades" and the "correct" answer is "yes"...what? What a flawed question all around. We have stored waste to some extent for not even a century. And that's not been without its problems. And who cares if we can store it safely for a few decades. That's meaningless. A better question would be can we store it safely indefinitely, or for thousands of years? That we absolutely don't know. I just wouldn't feel right answering "yes" to the decades storage version. If I did say "yes" it would be a very hand-wavy "yes".

It's not a flawed question. There are just lots of anti-science anti-nuclear beliefs around. And yes there are ways to store nuclear waste safely for thousands of years; most people don't realize exactly how little waste there is from nuclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

And it's not so much waste as it is nuclear energy that isn't economical to use yet. If it's radioactive, it's still possible to get energy out of it by causing the atoms to decay into non-radioactive elements/isotopes.

Sure, and I've done lots of research into nuclear and the whole lifecycle involved there. Nuclear is great, but there is just too much risk in so many different ways. Ramping up nuclear could be fine if it were 100% non-political and totally science-based, but I just don't see that happening. It's the human element that messes everything up. I lived near a decommissioned nuke plant growing up, and am watching another one nearby get decommissioned right now. It's a mess.

I just think there are problems that get downplayed or are not fully understood when it comes to long long term storage.

[iff]

I got 10/18 but on the bias rating I scored 0%

[shockkkk]

I had the same problems as Hadley167. Some of the answers were just too simplistic, so I went with the "don't know" option. I totally agree about the nuclear waste issue. "Safely" obviously means something different to them than it does to me, and I'm pretty familiar with the problems with storage.

0 bias, which surprised me a little, given the nature of some of the questions.

Definately one that I struggled with. Sure we can contain the waste. But properly? I don't know, there have been instances of mishaps in the past, so I don't know if I would determine if we can "safely" do this. The survey itself had a strong left lean to it, so it seemed biased in itself. I wouldn't be surprised if a strong leftist company or group posted the survey. The bias score was mostly likely calculated from left leaning data.. so anyone who identified as left most likely got a higher "bias" score.. simply because of agreement. This is a guess, though. I do not know for sure, nor have I looked into it. This was just my first impressions.

I say "left leaning data" but in truth, I believe that data should just be data. Somehow, this is not the case in the world, and watching the two groups go at each other with their own "data" frankly confuses me. Call me uneducated or whatever, but this is what I believe. Which is why I don't pay attenton to polititions.

Not really sure why you think the survey had a strong left lean to it, when answers to questions 2,10,11,14,17, and 18, are likely correlated with right wing beliefs. I would describe questions 1,5,6,8,9,12, and 13 to be the questions likely to be correlated with left wing beliefs.

[chromanebula]

9/18 with 0 bias...woohoo!

[Zerο]

8/18 with 66.67% bias

I got exactly half right in 3 of the 4 categories lol

0/2 Crime

4/8 Economy

3/6 Environment

1/2 Immigration

Kinda burned myself with the EU comparison questions because I forgot to take the southern and eastern countries into account and mainly focused on the "core" countries, but other questions just tripped me up period. Following on the nuclear waste issue, I always hate questions that are framed in a "can" scenario. In my opinion, "can" doesn't add much value to a topic, rather I think a better more question is "Is it"?

Is nuclear material stored safely for decades? - In this way the number of times stored and the success/failure rates can be measured.

Can nuclear material be stored safely for decades? - A bad question to me, because with enough money most things can be accomplished, but that doesn't mean it's a reflection of what's occurring in the real world.

[Sleepy Skeleton]

I got 4 out of 18 and a bias score of 47.14%

I think it's less of a problem with me being biased than it is with me simply not knowing the answers.

"3) By how many percentage points did renewable energy’s share of US electrical generation grow from 2009 through 2013?"

What does that even mean?!!? This quiz made me feel stupid, not ~aware~ of my political bias.

[shockkkk]

Yeah I wouldn't read too much into the bias score. Really all it does is take your wrong answers and sees how they correlate with your political beliefs that you identified with in the first few questions, and with only 18 questions, I'm skeptical at how accurate the bias score will be.

FWIW I didn't know the answer to that question either, but I guest right. I was probably only sure of 6-7 questions in the test.

[Zerο]

Yeah it was 2%, with the options being 0, 1, or 2. Not a great question IMO since unless someone looked it up specifically, I think most people would just know it's 1 or 2%.

[Mr. Quickhands]

Pretty interesting test. 10/18 with 0% bias

Spoilers:

10/18 is still 85th percentile, but it was slightly frustrating that most of the answers I got wrong were slight differences or vague wordings: 1% instead of 2%, 5 of 8 companies instead of 7 of 8 (all I knew was that it must have been a majority), "Richer than most" rather than "Richer than almost all", things like that. I also answered "no correlation" rather than "we don't know yet" on the death penalty question because I was thinking in terms of common sense rather than studies. It seemed like a non-issue to me. From what little I've heard from pro-death penalty people, I don't think I've ever heard any of them argue for it as a preventative measure over, say, life in prison. I'd think that if you're the kind of murderer who expects to get caught, presence of a death penalty isn't going to stop you... I'll admit that one was on me, though, as I made the mistake of making an assumption instead of thinking in terms of the studies. Aside from that one, it feels like the only one I genuinely "missed" (rather than just not knowing the exact statistic) was the last one on more unemployment benefits correlating with unemployment. Somewhat surprised that it didn't give me a non-zero political bias score for that one, actually.

[Corretto]

Way too US-biased for me. I'll stick to 'House of Cards'.

[Guest]

7/18 with 89% bias...

Ouch.

[Mycroft is Yourcroft]

7/18 with 89% bias...

Ouch.

Got similar scores, I feel ya ;___;

[Yatogami]

9/18 with 0% biased... but this entire test was biased... If you post controversial questions, you cannot say someone is biased or not if the answers are unclear.

[shockkkk]

9/18 with 0% biased... but this entire test was biased... If you post controversial questions, you cannot say someone is biased or not if the answers are unclear.

Except the questions are not controversial among experts...

[Yatogami]

9/18 with 0% biased... but this entire test was biased... If you post controversial questions, you cannot say someone is biased or not if the answers are unclear.

Except the questions are not controversial among experts...

GMOs? Come on. All food is genetically modified, and has been throughout the history of humanity. It is how we get food that is resistant to things like insects and fungus etc. Literally all food is GMO, and the stuff they say isn't is a lie. We cannot just reverse selective breeding that started 100s of years ago. Then scientists have only recently started splicing DNA of other plants into other ones so that they gain that plants resistances. Without GMO, there would be massive starvation and famine. I cannot see how it is "Unsafe".

[Skycaptain]

I got 8/18 but, possibly due to being on mobile, I couldn't find a bias.

The whole survey is biased in favour of those who understand American politics, understandable given that it was created by an American institution

[shockkkk]

9/18 with 0% biased... but this entire test was biased... If you post controversial questions, you cannot say someone is biased or not if the answers are unclear.

Except the questions are not controversial among experts...

GMOs? Come on. All food is genetically modified, and has been throughout the history of humanity. It is how we get food that is resistant to things like insects and fungus etc. Literally all food is GMO, and the stuff they say isn't is a lie. We cannot just reverse selective breeding that started 100s of years ago. Then scientists have only recently started splicing DNA of other plants into other ones so that they gain that plants resistances. Without GMO, there would be massive starvation and famine. I cannot see how it is "Unsafe".

You do realize the correct answer to the GMO question was that they were not anymore unsafe than non-GMO food right?

[Sally]

9/18 with 0% biased... but this entire test was biased... If you post controversial questions, you cannot say someone is biased or not if the answers are unclear.

Except the questions are not controversial among experts...

GMOs? Come on. All food is genetically modified, and has been throughout the history of humanity. It is how we get food that is resistant to things like insects and fungus etc. Literally all food is GMO, and the stuff they say isn't is a lie. We cannot just reverse selective breeding that started 100s of years ago. Then scientists have only recently started splicing DNA of other plants into other ones so that they gain that plants resistances. Without GMO, there would be massive starvation and famine. I cannot see how it is "Unsafe".

You do realize the correct answer to the GMO question was that they were not anymore unsafe than non-GMO food right?

I'd guess that they did realize that.

[shockkkk]

Then what is their point? If their complaint is that non-GMO food technically doesn't exist, it's a pretty weak objection since there is a common understanding of what is meant by the terms 'GMO food' and 'non-GMO food'. But mostly it just seems like an argument as to why GMO food is not unsafe - which is what the test says as well.

[Guest]

To be fair, if food is genetically modified to be unsafe then it could be unsafe. Like if somebody decided to make poisonous carrots.

But as far as the concept itself goes, just because something is genetically modified doesn't automatically mean that it's harmful, it just depends on what modifications were made.