Graded on an 11 point scale from 0 (completely straight acting) to 10 (nelly drag queen).

I score from 4 to 6 depending on when I take the test.

My dog scores a 2 (VERY straight, for a dalmatian!)

Economic Philosophy:

Liberal (Locke, Adam Smith, Madison, J.S. Mill, both Roosevelts)

Political Philosophy:

Social-Liberal (by score -- I self-identify as independent)

Myers/Briggs: INTJ Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging

I = Introverted vs. E = Extroverted

(Whether you draw your energy and purpose from yourself or others)

N = iNtuitive vs. S = Sensing

(Whether your ideas come from inside or outside)

T = Thinking vs. F = Feeling

(Whether you mostly figure stuff out or emote)

J = Judging vs. P = Perceiving

(Whether you mostly make decisions or revisit questions)

Feel free to blast me on my oversimplification of these criteria.

Religion:

Secular Humanism 100% (again, by score: I self-identify as Atheist)

Unitarian Universalism 98%

Theravada Buddhism 87%

Liberal Quakers 82%

Atheists and Agnostics 74%

Neo-Pagan 74%

Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants 65%

...

Roman Catholic 16%

I want to point out that these ratings are about what I believe or tend to agree with, not about what I respect.  I have a huge respect for the earnest and thoughtful followers of the great religions. I seem to find the most resonance with the oldest texts I find, and I am shamelessly drawn to men of the cloth. Pretty much anything religious after the 11th century or so is drivel.  Disagree? Let’s discuss it over coffee and Korean chess played with Mexican coins on a hand-drawn chessboard in the town square of Guanajuato at that little cafe called Pénquis.

Ethical Philosophy:

Rand 100%, Sartre 100%, Kant 98%, Mill 98%, Epicureans 77%

I gotta say, these scores surprised the hell out of me.  I think Rand is missing something Nash’s Nobel Prize (remember A Beautiful Mind?) pointed out: that pure selfishness does not magically lead by the Smithian Golden Hand to an optimal outcome for all. For that, you need Hobbesian selfishness tempered by a modicum of Lockean benevolence (never altruistically, rather strictly out of one’s personal surplus).  The rest of Rand is just reheated Spinoza, anyway.

As for Kant, he is unanalytically and axiomatically buried in an illusion that for every moral quandry, there is only one correct solution.  This idiocy is only partly explained by his similarly delusional notion that moral imperatives can never conflict.  I don’t get how I can disagree so emphatically there, and still match him 98%, except that like him, I proclaim the infinite value of each person (even though it’s lately unpopular to value the bad guys too).

Mill rocks (except for that 2% about majorities being more important than the rest of us - but am I conflating him with Bentham?).

Epicureanism is what you get to do with your time when your duties are met.  That duty thing blasts 33% off the top, I guess.

Guess I need to read some Sartre, considering that my score seems to say that I agree with everything he ever said, without ever having read any of it.

Metaphysics (SelectSmart.com)

#1 Paul Churchland

#2 A.J. Ayer

#3 W.V.O. Quine

#4 Immanuel Kant

These are my scores on various psychological and philosophical personality and belief inventories.  Many of them have links to websites where you can score yourself.   Note that I do not always self-identify in direct correlation to my score.

Do I need to point out that I’m not looking for a clone of myself? My last lover was a Myers/Briggs ESFJ, opposite on 3 out of 4 measures.

Social: 4.5

Romantic: 6.4

Manly Man : 5.8

73% Geek

D035 7h15 m4k3 53n53 70 y0u?

Yeah, I know the answers to score 83%, but that doesn’t mean I subscribe to ‘em all. I lose 10 points ‘cuz I don’t hate Microsoft. The remaining 17% is about routers. I think my socialist friends think I have an envy deficiency.  I’m pretty Randian about the whole “buy Brazil” thing.  If you want Brazil, and the price is right, I say plunk down the dough and go on about your life. (30 bonus points if you know the title and/or author of that prescient short story!).

TM