Umm.. I think non-members can see what's being posted here. And I have to agree with several failures leading to disatisfaction and potential productive members being turned off. I had to take the test five times and I often got 16s and 17s until finally I got an 18.

Here is my suggestion: reduce the pass mark to say.. 15

Well, I don't know. I got 16/20 and I have a pretty high level standing. What if there is a troll on the forum, you just give him/her the test instead? Or maybe a tougher one, and the newbies can have a lower grade test?

Thoughts?

That doesn't excuse the wording of the questions. Just because the test isn't about "your agreement with the material" and that it's about whether or not you have "taken the time to read the material", doesn't mean it's okay for your questions to be worded that way.

Actually, that is exactly what it excuses. It is a total qualifier making each question subjective from the standpoint of the external. Its called 'logic' ...and it will save us all.

But it sounds like you're trying to squash dissenting voices by saying this forum is for members only. One of the movements' tenets is openness and transparency, am I right? In my mind, that includes debate about the ideology of the movement itself. I just think it would add to the movement's legitimacy to be open to debate.

You wish I was squashing dissenting voices. The issue is: Nothing you have yet to present (that i have seen) here has been viable or intelligently accessed based on the tenets in our materials. You engage in mere blanket criticisms with zero supporting evidnce. You want to debate? The first step is to actually have something RELEVANT to debate. If you take a stroll through the forum there are diligent arguments being presented about various contexts, with many disagreements. If you actually had a productive disposition towards this Movement and you were actually here to improve and support it, you would understand what is relevant.

Also, as an aside, this statement is highly misguided:
"but not necessarily the specific direction towards an RBE, but that depends on the transition plan. "

Knowing where to "go" and the reasoning for it is not to be hindered by the difficulty (transition) of how to get there. That is like saying: "I want to eat, but I don't want to figure out the directions to the store, therefore I now don't think eating is important anymore."

The transition is based around the state of affairs in society- as time moves forward. Unless you are a prophet, neither you nor I can fully realize an empirical path. However, given the pending ecological and economic collapses which are occurring and growing, there is a developing instability that could reorient the public towards a new, sustainable social system. Everything in between is purely temporal and therefore undefined.
While I could write 100 pages on possible transition scenarios, it's relevance is fleeting at this point in time. It's better to get the info out about the structure, values, and operation of a new social order based on resources. One way or another that has to occur before any kind of real pressured move starts a "transition."

I'd like to add a few observations that i have made.

First, people come here, and find something of interest and join up, or make an account, to participate. But then they find that they have to basically answer 20 random (18 to pass) questions, which require, not understanding of the materials, but just being able to recollect those specific ones that has been picked for that test. Yes, theres the material, check-it up, google. Sure, so it's just those with enough endurance, or spirit to 'grinde' through an hour or so of more and more repeatedly answering the same questions over and over again. Not actually being sure which ones we're the correct ones, since some of them are open to interpretation. And this could be even further analyzed, but the simple fact remains that it will alienate people in it's present form.

Second, then theres the language barrier and the fact that even the veterans alike seemed to score around 15 in average.
Some good suggestions have been made so far on the subject here and this other thread, which should be read by those intrested in the matter. So possibly some form of workgroup to devise a new type of "troll"-filter could be an idea.

Oddly, this reminds somewhat of copyprotection, which really didn't affect their distribution, but people who actually hopped thru the hoops so to speak, and bought those music cd's or software, had sometimes trouble with the protection not working quite right or making things unnecessarily complicated. Just a odd thought.

Last, i would like to end it up on a quote from the other thread, a fact and thing to think about.

Trolls only hurt people with ego problems.

The test in itself is most likely technically flawed, unless it was also intentionally made to be solvable by technical means, as demonstrated by myself and apparently another person in the other thread.

So, if ingenuity to solve a given problem in this way, manifests itself best in this form, yet again. What kind of thinking does it reinforce?

Dom, like Peter said, if you don't agree with the general direction, why are you even here? Start a new movement with a direction that you actually agree with. Stop wasting your and everybody else's time.

Well, I got 12/20 which is rather strange. Then I realized it was a semantics test, not an actual test of knowledge. A semantics test is about what words you use, not the meanings of those words and the phrases they are within. A semantics test just leads to rigid language, or even dogmatic ideology, which is not necessarily a good thing. I think it will hurt the Movement in the long run, to resist a minor problem with a few ignorant people. How the ZM members react or interact with the more interesting trolls is actually a better test of the members, imho.

I'm not going to take it again.

peterjoseph wrote:
That doesn't excuse the wording of the questions. Just because the test isn't about "your agreement with the material" and that it's about whether or not you have "taken the time to read the material", doesn't mean it's okay for your questions to be worded that way.

Actually, that is exactly what it excuses. It is a total qualifier making each question subjective from the standpoint of the external. Its called 'logic' ...and it will save us all.
No, read what the disclaimer says carefully. The disclaimer said the test is about whether you have taken the time to read the material - that in no way makes the questions subjective - it still implies the answers are to be taken as fact. Look, I get what you're trying to say with that disclaimer. I'm just saying it's not exactly clear and could use rewording. Either that or the questions could be reworded. It just looks cultish to me otherwise.

But it sounds like you're trying to squash dissenting voices by saying this forum is for members only. One of the movements' tenets is openness and transparency, am I right? In my mind, that includes debate about the ideology of the movement itself. I just think it would add to the movement's legitimacy to be open to debate.

You wish I was squashing dissenting voices. The issue is: Nothing you have yet to present (that i have seen) here has been viable or intelligently accessed based on the tenets in our materials. You engage in mere blanket criticisms with zero supporting evidnce.
That's a lie. When I make arguments, I support them with evidence and/or step-by-step reasoning. But mostly I'm busy deconstructing the arguments of the movement and attempting to get clarification, which unfortunately, I haven't been able to get. I guess I'll wait for the third movie.

You want to debate? The first step is to actually have something RELEVANT to debate. If you take a stroll through the forum there are diligent arguments being presented about various contexts, with many disagreements. If you actually had a productive disposition towards this Movement and you were actually here to improve and support it, you would understand what is relevant.
I have been making relevant threads. I made threads about the philosophy of science, cognitive biases, critical thinking, and logical argumentation, among other things. Surely those subjects have value?

What is relevant for me first is an in-depth understanding of the movement. If I can't get that (due to lack of coherent arguments and supporting evidence), I can't in good conscience offer anything to the movement. I think I've read more material than you think I have. Just because I said one time that I haven't read everything, don't assume that I've read nothing. Just because I ask questions doesn't mean I haven't thought deeply about the topic at hand. I'm just trying to find the underlying reasoning behind the movement's ideology and I'm coming up empty a lot of the time.

Also, as an aside, this statement is highly misguided:
"but not necessarily the specific direction towards an RBE, but that depends on the transition plan. "

Knowing where to "go" and the reasoning for it is not to be hindered by the difficulty (transition) of how to get there.
I guess if you're idealistic and impractical (by definition), then yes.

That is like saying: "I want to eat, but I don't want to figure out the directions to the store, therefore I now don't think eating is important anymore."
Well, what I'm really saying is I can support an RBE if the transition is gradual, legal, and not subversive. The ends do not justify the means. You can't just look at the ends. The means are important as well, if not more important. That's all I'm saying. I'm not implying your transition plan is subversive, but I've seen a lot of subversive ideas presented on these forums.

The transition is based around the state of affairs in society- as time moves forward. Unless you are a prophet, neither you nor I can fully realize an empirical path.
This is why I favor gradualism.

However, given the pending ecological and economic collapses which are occurring and growing, there is a developing instability that could reorient the public towards a new, sustainable social system.
Agreed, but I'm highly doubtful something as radical as an RBE will take root anytime soon.

Homo Cyberneticus wrote:
Dom, like Peter said, if you don't agree with the general direction, why are you even here? Start a new movement with a direction that you actually agree with. Stop wasting your and everybody else's time.
I agree with the general general direction, yes.

I'm sure someone could earn a little being paid to help pass the test for others..

Oh look at me, I@m talking, shouldn't be doing that..

When people are disagreeing with each other on this forum it seems to me like they are standing around on the Titanic and arguing about how comfortable the lifeboats are going to be.