She likes to hang with the cool kids.

This is old fogies, you'll find the cool kids in the hall.

... smoking cigarettes.

My attitude's changed over the years, but to be fair, so have the questions on the test. Plus they've always been pretty reductive--a lot of the statements I viewed as "true, but only up to a point, after which definitely not"--but there was no button for that.

Plus, you know, spending an average of $20,000 a year in medical costs for a decade really tends to make a person believe in universal healthcare.

Economic Left/Right: -5.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Hey sexobon, the water is fine. Come on in! Post your results.

I haven't taken the test.

It doesn't let one read all the questions beforehand to check for leading questions and leaning patterns of questions. It's easy to make the first page look neutral; then, introduce direction. Comparing the content, context*, and structure of all the questions to each other helps determine the usefulness of the test; but, I'm not interested enough in the subject matter to bother putting mock answers in to first see all of it. This test just didn't seem like fun to me.

But then, I've been a test developer (and questions writer) in a formal academic setting. That included proctoring the administration of my tests to sample target audiences and statistical analysis, via software, for validity. YMMV.

*Even the sequencing of questions can affect the answers obtained.

Cop out. :rolleyes:

I'd rather hang with the cool kids.

I was gonna take the test but couldn't get past the first statement...

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

I know what I think the statement means but I don't know what they actually mean.

It might be interesting to discuss the questions too

"Agree"

For example, globalization will lead to deals with dictators who use slave labor camps. In this case, the trans-national corporations that are willing to make those deals have an advantage over those not willing to make those deals. Such deals should not happen.

On the other hand, you could say, it "just does" serve humanity when the deals are between trans-national corporations. The evidence is kinda in: it's lifted a billion people out of extreme poverty, and this is giving the world a path to become middle class.

So what you really want is for that trade to happen, but with enough oversight between trading partners so that basic human rights aren't violated.

And, uh, I guess, such a world could use economic sanctions if the wealth from these deals is used to gain political or military power. I guess

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

If transnational corporations inevitably increase economic globalization, their priority should be doing it without degrading humanity.

Transnational corporations are one of the means serving towards the end state of economic globalization. Economic globalization is a condition, not an entity that serves.

The original question can be seen as reversing the roles of cause and effect, making economic globalization the cause and the interests of transnational corporations an effect.

Questions causing confusion; or, open to multiple interpretations are poorly written. Some writers of such questions do it deliberately because it makes them feel clever or superior to the reader who's guessing at their intended meaning.

The question is straight forward if you don't try to pick it apart looking for hidden meanings as a cover for not wanting to reveal what a bastard you really are. http://cellar.org/2012/bwekk.gif

Economic Left/Right: -5.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Bein' a shameless bastid, I need no cover. No, the question sucks, plain and simple.

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

My translation: When all borders dissolve, state socialists rather than state capitalists ought to benefit.

State capitalism is only a little better than state socialism, but it is better, so I'd be inclined to disagree.

I'm thinkin' my interpretation isn't what 'they' had in mind.