Project "Assessment of state and political figures"
From the authorThe proposed publication is devoted to the development, testing and practical application of methods for assessing state and political figures. The material differs in style and content from the usual site publications, approaching applied research. Where possible, I have tried to do without special terms and definitions. And yet, I recommend readers to stock up on thoughtfulness, attentiveness and patience - they will definitely come in handy. At the end of the article, visitors to the Military Outlook website are waiting for an offer that will require a certain civil position in order to accept it. But this is today's time - decision time ...
INTRODUCTION
The pre-election passions of the Duma and the presidential elections of 2011-2012 have gone down, domestic political points are set over “e”, but, as in that joke, there were spoons, but the sediment remained ...
Politics is non-transparent by definition, the real motives of certain actions are hidden from the masses, and the words of politicians do not always coincide with their actions. As an example - the first post-election swallow from the current government. It seemed that anyone would doubt that the problem of corruption in Russia had grown beyond all imaginable and inconceivable limits. The country is suffocating in the grip of an infection that has hit all echelons of the state structure. All recognize this, including the current president. And now the mountain has given birth to a mouse - I mean Dmitry Medvedev’s bill on control over spending by officials (http://topwar.ru/12358-gostayna-korrupcii.html). Even in the Kremlin itself it is recognized that it will not be easy to track the illegality of the expenses of officials, guided by the law. Experts, for their part, frankly call this document a “half-measure,” from which corrupt officials are neither hot nor cold, but by and large, deeply “violet.” The fig leaf he is the fig leaf, his purpose is to cover the shame, and not to eradicate it radically.
This is just one recent example illustrating the fundamental principle of the work of some modern state-political figures - we say one thing and do another. Any unbiased observer can give other, no less expressive examples. What are the words and deeds of "effective managers" from the Ministry of Defense, the same "secret" Hero of Russia, NSG Nikolai Makarov?
That is why, for the majority of ordinary people, constitutionally referred to as the sole owners of power in the country, the question of assessing the “servants of the people”, whom they entrusted on their own behalf, to govern this country, is still relevant. Moreover, the assessments are not only the teams of the winners of the Duma and presidential elections, but also other systemic and non-systemic opposition members who form the fabric of political life, as well as other sovereign people occupying key heights in the wonderful field of power in the country called “Russia”.
PROBLEMS OF EVALUATION
The problem of assessing state and political figures does exist. Evaluate, say, the labor of a worker in some not very nanotechnological production, then there would be no problems. What could be the problem? Everything is extremely simple, right across Vysotsky: “Today I finished forging and condemned two plans, and landed a foreign mission from the plant.” Everything is clear and transparent - fulfilled, overfulfilled the plan - take a pie from the shelf, go abroad, share best practices with the Democratic brothers.
State political work is not so straightforward and simple, especially in our time. Row, say, sovereign people, like slaves in galleys, to a brighter future. And everything would be fine, but the Democratic Brothers, along with the liberals and globalists, came to visit them - it was their turn to share best practices. They climb under the arms, shout: “Left taban! Right row! ”, Strive to take away the oars. And here the homegrown oligarchs do not want to stand up in a stall, like snakes tempting money into the keyhole, seduce with villas-yachts, iPhones - every slave they have their own apple. So some rowers do not stand up, take and chew apples ... then they podtabanyat where it is not necessary, then they will rake where it should not. But at the same time, unlike Adam, they do not admit that they took and ate, but on the contrary, they all say the right words, expected by the people, as one. How can you evaluate a state or political figure?
But over time, the people inevitably develop an intuitive opinion about a particular actor, even despite the lack of objective information. Intuitive opinion is difficult to back up with evidence or facts, but it can be expressed through the means of the great and powerful Russian language. We will not touch on profanity here, although some leaders only deserve it. Let us stay within the framework of the lexicon of Tolstoy and Pushkin, since the Russian language provides the broadest possibilities for this - there are thousands and thousands of evaluative adjectives for all occasions.
But here another problem of assessment emerges - different people, by virtue of their understanding, use a different conceptual apparatus, as if they speak different languages. On this rake, we are here, on the website "Military Review", often stepping on, when, discussing the hero of an article, we operate with incompatible concepts. Some, say, say that the politician "X" is "green", others, pointing to the policy of "Y" - that he is "hairy", and still others consider the policy of "Z" to be "square". Although, in fact, it may be, to the waist "wooden."
I will immediately determine that the first designated problem - the discrepancy between words and deeds of politicians - is not of my level; but the second problem is to find a common language for assessing state political figures, with your interested help, I will try to solve it. The assistance of the visitors of the website “Military Review” is really needed, and not only in the form of comments, “pluses” and “minuses” (although, where can they go without them?), But in the form of participation in a planned project. But first things first.
SOLUTIONS
I'll start with a little background. For the first time, the American researcher Charles Osgood * seriously explored the question of using language expressions to assess the human environment. Working with a large array of evaluative expressions, he convincingly showed that the overwhelming majority of the words used by people to evaluate something or someone refer to one of the three fundamental features. He called them basic evaluative factors:
1. Factor "Emotional evaluation". This is the most powerful and significant factor. Its meaning is best conveyed by the opposition "good-bad", from the point of view of the evaluating person.
2. Factor "Strength". The second most important factor; represented by a number of evaluative expressions, such as "strong-weak".
3. Factor "Activity". The meaning inherent in it is accordingly conveyed by the opposition "active-passive".
Later, the main conclusions of C. Osgood were confirmed and refined by Soviet scientists on the basis of Russian-language vocabulary **.
All these studies were based on the use of the mathematical method of factor analysis (hence the word "factor" appeared in the name of the fundamental evaluative features). Since in our work factor analysis is also given a significant role, we will give a simplified view of it, without going into specific details.
Method of factor analysis. This method has proven itself to be an effective tool for processing and analyzing large quantitative information arrays with an implicit structure and hidden patterns. Factor analysis is based on the assumption that behind a large number of seemingly unrelated evaluative features lies a small number of hidden, implicit, deep-seated factors. The purpose of factor analysis is precisely to identify these deep factors and to move, when describing the objects of assessment, from the mass of the original "raw" signs to several more capacious internal characteristics. It is assumed that the most capacious characteristics will be at the same time the most significant, determining the essence of the objects of assessment.
From a mathematical point of view, factor analysis is based on the calculation of the correlation coefficients (interrelationship) between the initial estimated characteristics according to the rule “each with each”. According to the results of the calculation of the correlation coefficients, the estimated features are combined into several groups. These groups have the following properties:
1) Low intergroup correlations, i.e. groups are independent;
2) High intragroup correlations, i.e. the signs that form the group are related;
3) Each group has its own specific "weight" - a percentage in the total initial evaluation array;
4) Within each group, there are dominant evaluative features that create the largest "contribution" of their group (having the largest factor load).
As you may have guessed, the groups of initial evaluative characteristics obtained are just the personification of the desired deep factors. Now the task is to correctly identify the selected factors. It is solved on the basis of the content of the assessment of signs with the greatest factor load. For example, if such signs are “heroic”, “large”, “powerful”, etc., then the corresponding factor can be interpreted as the “Force” factor.
After a not entirely lyrical but necessary digression, let us return to the main theme. On the basis of the theory of factor evaluation, C. Osguda subsequently developed a number of applied techniques. Among them are both universal tools suitable for evaluating any objects, as well as highly specialized, “sharpened” under an assessment in a specific area - in psychiatry, marketing, sociology and, of course, in political technologies.
True, political technology techniques are not widely used even among specialists and are most likely used in chipboard mode (not to be confused with a similar term from the furniture vocabulary of Serdyukov). But, as they say, what one person has done can always be repeated by someone else. If only there were necessary resources and desire. In my case, all the necessary resources were, well, the desire was constantly growing, fueled by heated debates on political themes on the pages of the Military Outlook website.
Most of all in this debate, I am impressed by the fact that with the general dominant patriotic attitude of the site visitors, with the equal accessibility of Internet resources for all, sparks begin to jump, turning into thunder and lightning, it is worth touching on figures of some politicians. If we drink from one well, then why do some people say that the water is “cold” and others say that it is “salty”? Maybe because we use different criteria? So let's evaluate the “sovereign people” by the same, and moreover, adequate, criteria! And do not compare them, for example, by the amount of hair on the head or the athleticity of the figure, and draw far-reaching conclusions from this.
DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNIQUE
The preliminary hypothesis was that specialized evaluative signs for state and political figures would fit into the universal three-factor structure of C. Osguda, i.e. to belong to one of three factors - “emotional evaluation”, “strength” or “activity”. According to the hypothesis, an array of 100 evaluative attributes-adjectives or their derivative forms was chosen (dictionaries of synonyms and antonyms of the Russian language were used). For the purity of the experiment, some of the selected adjectives (of the order of 25%) were neutral, i.e. obviously did not relate to any of the above factors.
The second, no less important issue of the preparatory stage was the choice of objects for evaluation - government and political figures. It depended on this, to what extent the estimated indicators selected subsequently would really correspond to the specifics of political and state activity. Here it was necessary to observe two conditions. On the one hand, the list should have included “sovereign people”, known to most of us for their work, those about whom each had a definite opinion. On the other hand, the spectrum of such figures should be wide enough and diverse to take into account as many nuances of political behavior as possible.
Fortunately (or unfortunately?), There were no problems with this, because story and the modernity of our country is rich in figures of various kinds, who are remembered or heard by everyone. The list of state-political figures and objects of evaluation included famous figures from the recent past of our country (USSR, XX century), as well as “heroes of our time” (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, XXI century).
In addition to real state-political figures, so-called typical characters were included in the evaluation list - generalized images with a fixed and equally understood reputation. These characters played the role of peculiar reference points, relative to which one could analyze the assessments of real state-political figures. Finally, the list was supplemented with a special character called “The ideal, from your point of view, state and political figure” (abbreviated to “Ideal”). This character was evaluated on an equal basis with others, which, in the future, made it possible to see how close the real politicians or far from Ideal.
The final list, which included 38 evaluation objects, looked like this:
the USSR |
Russia |
CIS countries |
Players |
| Joseph Stalin, Lavrenty Beria, Georgy Zhukov, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin. |
Dmitry Medvedev, Gennady Zyuganov, Sergey Mironov, Mikhail Prokhorov Vladimir Putin Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Leonid Ivashov, Dmitry Rogozin Anatoly Chubais, Sergey Lavrov, Anatoly Serdyukov, Alexey Navalny, Boris Nemtsov Garry Kasparov. |
Victor Yanukovich, Alexander Lukashenko, Nursultan Nazarbayev |
"Ideal", "Hero", "Scoundrel", "Master", "Amateur", "Creator", "Destroyer", "Master", "Temporary worker", "Dictator", "Democrat", "Patriot", "Traitor". |
The evaluation procedure was attended by 17 people who rated 38 objects on 100 estimated features using the 5-ti scale:
5 - the estimated attribute fully corresponds to the object;
4 - more appropriate;
3 is hard to say;
2 - rather does not match;
1 - absolutely no match.
As a result, the estimated array 100x38x17 = 64 600 was obtained, which was further subjected to the factor analysis procedure. As a result, 5 independent factors were singled out. The first three accounted for 79,8% of the total weight, while the last two accounted for 10%. The remaining 10,2% are small “tails” in the amount of several dozen. We confine ourselves to the first three factors that have the greatest total weight.
The first, most powerful factor (weight - 32,9%), formed by the following estimated features with a high factor load (the load is shown in parentheses):
Positive pole |
|
Negative pole |
|
Active |
(0,922) |
Spineless |
(-0,587) |
Leading |
(0,895) |
Slave |
(-0,721) |
Vigorous |
(0,893) |
Uncertain |
(-0,805) |
Resolute |
(0,828) |
Spineless |
(-0,828) |
Sure |
(0,811) |
Passive |
(-0,856) |
Hard |
(0,769) |
Sluggish |
(-0,905) |
Rod possessing |
(0,620) |
Indecisive |
(-0,908) |
The factor has a symmetrical bipolar structure. At one pole there are concentrated signs with a positive value, while on the other - with a negative one. Based on the meaning of the signs contained in it, it is rather a kind of “slip” of the factors “Strength” and “Activity” according to C. Osgod.
Accordingly, it can be called “Active Strength” - “Passive Weakness”. The fact that such a combination has the right to exist is well illustrated by the story of the hero of the ancient Russian epic epos Ilya Muromets. As you know, the first 33 of his life, Ilya sat on the “seat”, unable to move his arm or foot (the state of “passive weakness”). After the incoming elders forced him to bring and drink water, he acquired a powerful force and the ability to actively move to destruction for the enemies of the Russian land (the state is “active power”).
The second most powerful factor (27,2%) accumulates such highly loaded signs as:
Positive pole |
|
Negative pole |
|
Light Coloured |
0,942 |
Disappointing |
-0,719 |
Close to the people |
0,932 |
Destroying the country |
-0,794 |
His |
0,929 |
Suspicious |
-0,890 |
Net |
0,906 |
Far from the people |
-0,894 |
Trustworthy |
0,843 |
Dirty |
-0,917 |
Hopeful |
0,810 |
Alien |
-0,918 |
Strengthening country |
0,762 |
Dark |
-0,934 |
On closer examination, it resembles an airplane answering machine. Its purpose is to classify the objects of evaluation into “friend or foe”, in terms of the interests of the country and the people. By and large, the signs that fill this factor belong to the moral category, therefore we will call it this way: the factor “Morality - Immorality”.
Third factor (19,7%) combines attributes related to ability, professional skills, experience and skill. The most appropriate name for it is the factor “Competence - Incompetence”:
Positive pole |
|
Negative pole |
|
Far-sighted |
0,815 |
Mediocre |
-0,515 |
Competent |
0,752 |
Incompetent |
-0,630 |
Skillful |
0,725 |
Empty |
-0,640 |
With the king in mind |
0,716 |
Unsophisticated |
-0,642 |
Looking at the root |
0,686 |
Unskillful |
-0,649 |
Опытный |
0,655 |
Surface |
-0,665 |
uncommon |
0,621 |
myopic |
-0,702 |
Let's summarize the preliminary results:
1. The key criteria for evaluating domestic state-political figures have been determined. They were three factors: "Strength / Activity", "Moral" and "Competence". In that order of priority. Apparently, the results obtained reflect the internal political situation in the country as if in a mirror. She, darling, at this historical moment, is in dire need of strong and active, moral, and, finally, competent "sovereign people."
2. Select the features that are most suitable for assessing state-political figures (having the highest factor load). In general, there were 42 such evaluative features, 14 for each selected factor. Within each factor, the identified signs form antonymous (opposite in meaning) pairs, for example, “hard - soft-bodied”, “friend - someone else”, “with a king in his head - empty”, etc., 7 pairs for each factor.
The latter circumstance greatly facilitated the further development of the evaluation methodology, which, in its final form, looks as follows (a fragment is given):
number |
Pole "A" |
Severity |
Pole "B" |
||||||
strongly |
medium |
poorly |
Neither |
poorly |
medium |
strongly |
|||
1. |
Hard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spineless |
The technique contains a pair of antonymous evaluative traits for 21 relating to the three identified factors. For each pair, a person evaluating a particular state-political figure should determine which of the two signs best suits the object of assessment and note the degree of manifestation of the chosen attribute (gradation is weak-medium-strong). If the appraiser thinks that neither one or the other sign in the pair is appropriate for the appraisal object, then he makes a mark in the central column “Neither one nor the other”.
APPROBATION OF TECHNIQUE
The same group of people (17 people) took part in testing the methodology. Submission and return of completed evaluation forms was carried out by e-mail. After rejecting the spoiled evaluation forms, the 12 estimates of the respondents were allowed for further processing. The same state-political figures and typical characters as at the preliminary stage (see the previous section “Method Development”) became objects of evaluation.
Omitting the procedure of processing results that is of little interest to the general public, we proceed directly to presenting the results. The results of classical factor methodologies are usually presented in the form of so-called semantic spaces, where each object finds its own, strictly defined place. Since we used the three-factor appraisal method, the corresponding semantic space populated by state-political figures and typical characters should be three-dimensional. In practice, due to the complexity of the representation and perception of three-dimensional figures in the eye, two-dimensional projections (maps) are used, formed by an alternate combination of two factors out of three. In our case, these are such combinations as "Strength / Activity - Morality", "Strength / Activity - Competence" and "Morality - Competence".
A few words about the topographic features of semantic maps. Given that each of the factors has two poles, then two-dimensional maps are symmetrical - the factor axes intersect at the zero point, in both directions from which the values of the opposite poles increase. Each pole has three degrees of expression: 1 - weak, 2 - medium, 3 - strong (maximum value). State-political figures and model characters are located on maps, depending on the factor estimates they receive, which serve as coordinates. When “reading” cards it is recommended to take into account the following points. First, look at which square of the map the object is in and what are its absolute coordinates (factor estimates), secondly, take into account the relative position of objects relative to each other, in particular, the distance of real state-political figures from the Ideal also their location relative to the nearest reference points - typical characters.
The following symbols are applied on the semantic maps presented below:
Red circle - typical characters, including "Ideal";
Yellow circle - state-political figures of the USSR;
Black rhombus - modern state-political figures (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan).
Another significant caveat. Taking into account the small size of the experimental sample of evaluators (a total of 12 people), it is impossible to speak about any reliability of the results obtained. Therefore, for ethical reasons, the names of current state-political figures are encoded in Latin letters, and the results themselves should be taken as a demonstration of the capabilities of the developed methodology.
FIG. 1. Map of politicians in the coordinates "Strength / Activity - Morality"
We begin the journey on the map "Strength / Activity - Morality" with an analysis of the position of typical characters (red circles). The position “Ideal state-political figure” (in abbreviated form - Ideal) is expectedly located in the upper right corner and is characterized by high marks for both factors. Directly next to the “Ideal” are such typical characters as “Hero”, “Patriot”, “Master” and “Creator”. From the point of view of the people who took part in the assessment, these concepts are adjacent. The “Master” character is also in the same region, but differs from “Ideal” by more moderate estimates by the “Moral” factor.
The character “Dictator” is as strong and active as the “Ideal” with the “Master”, but qualitatively differs from them in the “Morality” factor, moving to the area of negative values, closer to the opposite pole “Immorality”. The characters "Destroyer" and "Scoundrel" are characterized by extremely low marks on the factor "Morality" (in fact, they are as immoral as possible), but "Destroyer" is stronger and more active than "Scoundrel."
In the lower left square of the map formed by the poles "Weakness / Passivity - Immorality", the trinity of the characters "Democrat", "Traitor" and "The Provident" are located close to each other. Their positions are characterized by a high degree of immorality and moderately severe weakness and passivity. The “Amateur” has settled in the same square, but his position is distinguished by the weak expression of these poles.
Let us turn to the state-political figures of the era of the USSR (yellow circles). From the point of view of appraisers, Georgy Zhukov came closest to the “Ideal” point and the “Hero-Patriot-Master-Creator” family. His position is described by extremely high scores on the Strength / Activity factor and above average scores on the Morality factor. Yuri Andropov and Joseph Stalin found their place in the same square. They are more to the character "Master", rather than to the reference "Ideal".
Nikita Khrushchev, Lawrence Beria and Boris Yeltsin occupied the lower right square of the map, formed by the poles of "Strength / Activity" in combination with "Immorality." Their estimates roughly coincide on the “force” factor, but differ in the “Morality” factor — Beria and, especially, Yeltsin, more to the Pole “Immorality” than Khrushchev.
The hero of perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev, by the will of the appraisers, is directly placed in the Bermuda triangle "Democrat-Traitor-Provident", closer to the concept of "Traitor". Finally, Leonid Brezhnev registered in the most sparsely populated square of the map. His address is characterized by almost neutral ratings on the “Morality” factor and a weakly expressed “Weakness / Passivity”. Obviously, the participants of the experiment “our dear Leonid Ilyich” in the last years of his reign remember exactly this.
Modern state and political figures sowed the entire space of the map more evenly (black diamonds). They can be found in all four squares, so to speak, for every taste. There are highly active and, at the same time, moral. Among them, the “Q” and “H” politicians stand out in particular, the ones who came closer to the reference “Ideal”. In the same row is the politician “O”, who is infatuated to Yury Andropov’s reputation and, at the same time, not far from the position of Joseph Stalin himself.
A notable group of “heroes of our time” lodges in the “Strength / Activity - Immorality” square. Among them, the politician "C", claiming the laurels of "Dictator", politicians "E", "J" and "M", trying on the role of "Destroyer", policies "K" and "L", exactly fall into the position of "Rogue ".
In the lower left square, “Weakness / Passivity — Immorality,” where the “Amateur”, “Democrat”, “Temporary” and “Traitor” balls are held, and where Mikhail Gorbachev entrenched himself, the “R” politician found himself not alien to democratic ideas . The “N” politician is clearly not up to the follower of Gorbachev - he has enough immorality, but he has to add strength and activity to get into the desired Bermuda triangle. The same applies to the “D” policy - he has a certain share of immorality to go in for politics, but excessive weakness and passivity do not allow one to approach even the “Amateur”.
In the upper left square “Weakness / Passivity - Morality”, “dear Leonid Ilyich” found a neighbor - politician “B”, and much higher, at the limit of morality, policies like “G” and “I”, potential Illya Muromets. They would be dramatically charged with strength and activity and straight to the area of the reference “Ideal”, into the noble family of “Hero”, “Patriot”, “Master” and “Creator”.
FIG. 2. Map of politicians in the coordinates "Strength / Activity - Competence"
On this map, in comparison with the first, as in a kaleidoscope after a turn, there have been some changes. This is explained by the fact that the vertical axis changed the name and place of the factor “Morality” was taken by the factor “Competence”, while the horizontal axis (the factor “Strength / Activity”) remained unchanged. Now we are considering the semantic space of state-political figures from this angle.
Let's start with the upper right square of the map, the concentration of power and activity, supported by competence. Once again, as expected, the “Ideal” is located here, the character “Master” came close to him. The “Hero” somewhat lost ground and the “Patriot” became significantly distant due to lower ratings on the “Competence” factor. On the contrary, the character "Dictator", due to the increase in the assessment on the factor "Competence", approached the "Ideal". Of the Soviet state political figures, this square is occupied by Georgy Zhukov (again next to the “Ideal”), Joseph Stalin, Yuri Andropov, and Lavrenty Beria. Of the modern functionaries of this honor firmly honored policy of "O" and "H". Somewhat in depth, but also within the limits of the square under consideration are the policies of "A", "Q" and "J", although they have a clear lack of competence, and it would not hurt to add strength with activity.
The lower right square is an explosive mixture of strength and activity combined with incompetence. Of the characters, the “Destroyer” and the less obvious “Rogue” were noted here. Two leaders of the Soviet era, Nikita Khrushchev and Boris Yeltsin, even surpassed the “Destroyer” in both indicators - in strength / activity, and in incompetence. Among the modern "sovereign people", the politicians of "M" and "C" claim the role of headless figures. Other politicians of this square are less terrible because they do not reach the role of "Destroyer" in one of the parameters - or in strength / activity ("F", "L" and "K",), or in incompetence ("E").
The lower left square became a lot for both weak / passive and incompetent politicians. Of the characters here were noted "Democrat", "Provident", "Traitor" and "Amateur". Leonid Brezhnev and Mikhail Gorbachev are also in this company, and Gorby again has the character “Traitor”, and four times the Hero of the Soviet Union nevertheless proved to be the most competent in this company. The modern politician "P", according to these parameters, coincided with the character "Traitor". The other two policies, “N” and “D”, turned out to be the weakest and most passive among all, with weakly expressed incompetence.
The upper left square (competence burdened with weakness and passivity) is practically empty, only on its borders there are three modern figures - politician "B" in the region of zero values, which is called "neither fish nor meat", politician "G", moderately competent, with by a touch of weakness and passivity, and the “I” politician, very competent, but unfortunately not strong enough and active.
FIG. 3. Map of politicians in the coordinates of "morality - competence"
One more turn of the kaleidoscope and in front of us is the projection of state-political figures on the plane of "Morality - Competence". Here, mainly, the objects of assessment are concentrated in two squares: the upper right "Morality - Competence" and the lower left "Immorality - Incompetence."
All positive characters (“Ideal”, “Creator”, “Master”, “Master”, “Patriot”), as well as the leaders of the Soviet era George Zhukov, Yuri Andropov and Joseph Stalin, fell into the sphere of moral and, at the same time, competent figures. Among modern politicians, the most advantageous position, according to these criteria, is the politician "I". Also look good in this perspective policy "O", "H" and "G". Politicians "A", "B" and "Q", although they are in the same square, but they clearly lack either morality, or competence, or both, to enter the chosen circle.
The antipodes of moral and competent politicians have huddled into a tight heap at the bottom left, in the square defined by the concepts of "Immorality" and "Incompetence." Here you can see such characters as "Traitor", "Provident", "Destroyer", "Democrat", "Wretch". The tandem-type charge "Gorbachev-Yeltsin", which has ruined the Soviet Union, is also here, in close proximity to the listed characters. Completing this composition is a series of modern politicians - “K”, “M”, “P” and “L”, and the “M” exactly hit the “Traitor” point.
Nikita Khrushchev also showed up in this square, but a little apart from the listed company - he didn’t have enough immorality to enter this pool, but incompetence just right. In general, Nikita Sergeevich, rather, to the position of “Dilettante”, than to the note-book destroyers, traitors, villains and other democrats. To him, in turn, close the position of politicians "F" and "D".
"Dear Leonid Ilyich" already habitually occupied a separate niche on the outskirts of the adjacent square "Morality - Incompetence". He is very close to the position of Nikita Sergeyevich - a hand to move across the border, you can go to visit each other, only you need to solve the problem of morality, she then separates them.
Lavrenty Beria again appeared in the same company with the character “Dictator”, this time in the square with the parameters “Competence - Immorality”. True, Lawrence Pavlovich far surpassed the "Dictator" both in terms of competence and immorality.
* * *
After a separate presentation of the results of the evaluation of state-political figures in the form of two-dimensional projections, the question probably arises, is it possible to see the whole picture, in a complex of three factors - “Strength / Activity”, “Morality” and “Competence”? As I said, the three-dimensional model is difficult to read. Nevertheless, there is a solution, and it is again provided by mathematical methods for analyzing large information arrays. This time, we turn to the so-called cluster analysis.
Cluster analysis, as well as factor analysis, is based on calculations of correlations between the set of evaluation features and objects of evaluation. But, unlike factor, cluster analysis does not single out individual assessment factors, but processes the entire array as a whole, combining already related objects with similar properties into a common group (cluster means “cluster”, “grouping” in translation).
The results of cluster analysis are usually presented in the form of a dendrogram, a schematic tree, where objects with similar properties “hang” on neighboring branches, the branches are combined (clustered) into larger branches, which, in turn, into even larger branches, while the entire “crown »Objects will not close on a common" trunk ". The dendrogram is built step by step so that, at the first step, the most similar objects are combined into small groups (sometimes in pairs), at the next step these mini-clusters merge into larger groups, which also have common properties, etc. The construction of the tree is completed at the final step, when all the objects are combined into one common mega-cluster according to one formal feature - joint participation in the cluster analysis procedure.
Thus, the dendrogram successfully complements two-dimensional factorial projections, allowing at a glance to capture the general picture of the relations and relations between all objects of evaluation, in our case, state-political figures and typical characters.
Below are the results of cluster analysis of the same evaluation array (12 respondents, 38 assessment objects, 21 pair of antonymic evaluation features), which was obtained by testing the methodology. This is how this picture should be taken as the fruit of the work of the “collective mind” of 12 people.
FIG. 4. Dendrogram of politicians and model characters
Purely visually, looking at the dendrogram, you can select 5 rather large, and independent clusters (marked with curly braces):
1 Cluster includes such positive characters as “Ideal”, “Creator”, “Patriot” and “Hero”. In principle, this is all the same stable association, which was recorded on the maps of factor projections. Expectedly there was also George Zhukov, whose position on the cards always appeared alongside these characters. Of all the modern politicians who previously found themselves in this group, only one remained - the “H” politician. Moreover, “H”, very early, at the 2 th step, was associated with Georgy Konstantinovich himself. At the same time, on the 2-th step, the tandem of the characters "Hero-Patriot" was formed. Even earlier, at 1, the notion of an “Ideal state-political figure” was combined with the notion of “Creator”. Obviously, the constructive beginning, according to respondents, should dominate among the virtues of the reference politician. At 3, the “Ideal-Hero” and “Zhukov-Politik N” couples merged into one group, and the final formation of the cluster took place at the 4 step, when the quartet “Ideal - Creator - Zhukov - Politik N” acquired heroism and patriotism.
2 cluster contains two characters - "Master" and "Master". At the same time, the concept of "Master" very quickly found its embodiment in the figures of Joseph Stalin and Yuri Andropov. "Master", a little later, on the 3-th step, formed a trio with modern politicians "G" and "I". Within this cluster, a separate triad also emerged from among modern politicians "A", "O" and "Q". All three triples merged into one cluster at the 4 th step. What is the peculiarity of this cluster? The presence of such characters as "Master" and "Master" gives the cluster the features of competence and mastery attitude. The presence of Stalin and Andropov does not contradict this conjecture.
The 3 cluster is defined by the presence of the characters "Amateur" and "The Providentist" in its composition. In general, this is a rather complicated cluster. The merging of the marked characters occurred only at the 4 step; at the same time the politician "D" got into this company. Leonid Brezhnev, previously paired with politician “B”, joined this group much later, at the last step, when the final formation of the cluster took place. What is so common in these figures, implicit and distant? Low competence, superficiality? Inability or unwillingness to delve into the essence of the problems? Maybe. At least it looks like the Brezhnev era of late stagnation. Let's not forget that modern F politician also belongs to this cluster.
The 4 Cluster is fairly simple to interpret due to the presence of such characters as “Traitor”, “Rogue” and “Democrat”. Yes, and Mikhail Gorbachev, knowingly falling into this community, has long been considered a common noun among people. Against this background, modern politicians ("N", "L", "M" and "K"), included in this cluster, look, if expressed more delicately, unshrimped.
The 5 cluster has two distinct subclusters. The first is determined by the presence in its composition of the character "Dictator" and the figures of Lawrence Beria. This is a subcluster of clearly authoritarian sense. The second subcluster has the key figures of the type “Destroyer”, as well as Nikita Khrushchev and Boris Yeltsin. Both have proven to be effective destructors. Almost everyone knows about the exploits of Tsar Boris, and even Nikita Sergeevich has many “merits”, for example, the collapse of agriculture, army reforms (the famous reduction of 1 200 000, the collapse of the Air Force), economic experiments (abolition of ministries, the introduction of economic councils). Having merged into one cluster, both subclusters gave it dictatorial and destructive specifics. From modern politicians under this roof settled "J", "C" and "E".
Going further along the branches of the dendrogram, we find that the 1 and 2 clusters are combined into one mega-cluster, which opposes another mega-union, which incorporates the 3, 4 and 5 clusters. The confrontation between the forces of good and evil in a single space of the once mighty power ...
CONCLUSIONS
In my conclusions, I will focus exclusively on the methodological aspects of the task, leaving behind the substantive interpretation of the results obtained. As already noted, the results should be viewed, in the context of the pilot study presented here, not as the ultimate truth, but only as a demonstration of the capabilities of the developed methodology.
1. The applied methods of mathematical analysis (factorial and cluster analysis) successfully solve the problem of processing large arrays of quantitative information with an implicitly specified, amorphous structure. Moreover, they allow, under the condition of a sufficiently large and diverse array, to reveal the trends and patterns hidden in it. With a high degree of probability, it can be argued that the determined patterns adequately reflect the objective picture that takes place in reality. In relation to domestic political realities, this means that, based on a large amount of various assessments of state-political figures, it is possible to identify the characteristics that they actually possess.
2. The developed methodology is based on the key criteria for assessing state-political figures. These are the criteria "Strength / activity", "Moral" and "Competence". These criteria correctly reflect the current domestic political situation and the demands placed on state-political figures by life itself. The selected evaluative features sufficiently fully reveal the content of each evaluation criterion. The applied bipolar form of constructing the methodology and the 7-point evaluation scale allow fixing various features of the objects of evaluation. The use of typical characters with unambiguously understood characteristics as objects of assessment facilitates interpretation and increases the reliability of the assessment results.
3. The forms used for presenting the results (two-dimensional factorial projections, cluster tree) are quite visual and understandable and, no less important, have a “built-in” capability for analysis at the level of perception.
In other words, a shotgun appeared on the wall, exclusively designed for visitors to the Military Outlook website. Shoot it or not - now depends on you.
SENTENCE
The method of adjustment has already taken place, I mean its approbation. But this cannot be considered a full-fledged “shot” for two main reasons: 1) the small size of the sample of participants in the assessment (total 12 people); 2) there is not enough variety of assessments, since the participants in the assessment are people of about the same circle, with similar views and beliefs.
The methodology was specifically designed for visitors to the Military Outlook website. There are several explanations for this:
First, almost a year since I am a visitor to this site. People come and go, but, in my opinion, the main thing is the spirit of sincere interest in the fate of the country, patriotism. Here I do not mean frank trolls or notebook guides of anyone's interests, these are not the main thing, and they do not make the weather on the site.
Secondly, regardless of the country of residence, there are many people among the visitors of the site who have their own, well-thought-out and well-reasoned judgments regarding domestic state and political figures. They can make a significant contribution to the required variety of assessments.
Thirdly, it is a phenomenon from the “obvious - incredible” series. Even being on a common patriotic platform, some visitors of the site call, for example, Vladimir Putin the hope of Russia, others - a thief and a scoundrel, still others - “though a son of a bitch, but our son of a bitch”. The ambiguity of some political figures leads to the fact that hot clashes, turning into “verbal murders”, often flare up between website visitors.
After assessing the state-political figures and getting a generalized picture, close to reality, we will remove some of the reasons for the clashes - there will be no need to “compare” with personal opinions, gaining enemies and saturating the site with negative emotions. In the end, we are not going here for this. It would be ideal if the generalized results of assessments served as the basis for further joint constructive discussion.
Fourthly, the ambiguity of some key political figures, their words and actions, causes discomfort and dissatisfaction, mixed with the ambiguity of the near and distant prospects. Surely, many have similar feelings. It is hoped that by joint efforts, visitors of the Military Outlook website will be able to remove camouflage from some of the modern "servants of the people" and determine who is who on the national power Olympus.
This project was previously discussed with the administration of the website "Military Review". We were looking for the possibility of filling in evaluation forms online and automated processing of results, as is done with ordinary surveys on the site. However, due to the non-traditional methods of processing and analyzing the results, this option turned out to be difficult to implement for purely technical reasons.
Meanwhile, when testing the method, another option was successfully used - sending and returning completed evaluation forms via e-mail, and the subsequent “manual” processing of results using special software - SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). It is this procedure that I propose to use in the project “Assessment of State-Political Actors”.
So, simultaneously with the release of this article, a special email address will be opened: [email protected]
Any visitor to the Military Outlook website, regardless of the country of residence, who is ready to take part in this project, should send a request to the above email address. In response, you will receive an Excel file containing evaluation forms and detailed instructions for completing. Fill out the evaluation form and save the file, you will need to return it back to the same address.
Upon completion of the distribution phase and collection of completed evaluation forms (approximately 1 week) based on the database obtained, the results will be processed and analyzed. The results of your collaboration will be published on the website "Military Review" in the form of the second article in this series. The deadlines for the completion of the project will largely depend on the size of the sample received. Previously, they can be evaluated in 3-4 weeks, unless force majeure circumstances occur.
I consider it necessary to warn malicious trolls and “sent kazachki” in advance - this project is not for you. The resulting estimated array will be mandatory checked for the presence of statistically extreme estimated emissions. If there are any, they will be excluded from the database.
If the size of the sample obtained is large enough, then in the second article the code Latin letters denoting modern politicians on maps and a cluster tree will be replaced with real names.
When discussing this article, please comment on the objects of assessment: who would you like to exclude from the list, or, conversely, add? This applies to both typical characters and real state-political figures (see the section “Method Development”). Now their 38, the average time for evaluating a single character or a politician is about 2 minutes, the total time of the appraiser’s continuous work on the entire list is just over one hour.
Finally, a request to the site administration is to accompany this article with a mini-survey on the readiness of site visitors to take part in the project (Will you take part in the project “Assessment of state and political figures?” Answer options: Yes, of course; Definitely not; Hard to say). This is necessary for a preliminary estimate of the number of project participants.
References:
* Osgood CE, G. Suci, and P. Tannenbaum. The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1957.
** Petrenko VF Introduction to experimental psychosemantics: a study of the forms of representation in the everyday consciousness. - M .: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1983.
** Shmelev, A. G. Introduction to experimental psychosemantics. M .: Moscow State University publishing house, 1983.
** Petrenko V.F. Psychosemantics of consciousness. MSU, 1988.
Information