Political Compass Open Thread

Here’s the quiz.

I scored a (Libertarian)/Authoritarian (-7.38) and Left/(Right) (.5) which puts me pretty far to the social-libertarian side of the spectrum, and just a tiny bit to the right. I don’t think quizzes like this allow for the full range of answers to what ought to be more nuanced questions, but it’s much better than some I’ve seen.

(Forgot to give a hat-tip for this! Russell’s post deserves a longer treatment, and I hope to get back to it soon…)

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

130 thoughts on “Political Compass Open Thread

  1. From a functional standpoint, the compass is pretty flawed. Nearly every political party of consequence is in a single quadrant. Not just the United States, either. Canada. Australia. The United Kingdom. Germany. Heck, almost all of Europe (the remainder contained to near the border in another continent). The NDP puts a chink in that armor, but only a chink.

    Why does this matter? Because if you take the test, and you’re adverse to extreme statements (“Abortion is ALWAYS wrong”) and hedge your answers with somewhat agrees/disagrees, you end up around the center. Some people – like me – do it a lot (thus, despite my various ideological shifts over the years, I’m never more than 2 points away from the middle). But most people do it some. It speaks more to a way of thinking about things than it does an actual political positions.

    (It’s also possible that they’re doing a poor job of placing people and parties. I’m not sure. But there’s something screwy about it. If this thing were more accurate, I would be somewhere between the two parties I choose between. Not between the Dems and the Greens.)

    From an investigative standpoint, there may be value in “See! Look! All of our government cluster together in this single area when things could be different,” I think that is outstripped by the problems above.

    Many years ago there was a book put out by a couple guys named Kamber and O’Leary (focusing on American politics). It’s dated now, but I think that at the time it was pretty accurate. It’s hard to gauge, though, the cause-and-effect. I didn’t really know what I was when I took the test, but after I did and I started paying more attention I noticed that it was, more or less, correct. But that could have been self-fulfilling.

    I wonder if this quiz is sort of meant to “guide” you into a realization, like that Libertarian Quiz is, with ill-selected and sometimes leading questions. But the nature of international politics is so complicated that I give them the benefit of the doubt.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • Yeah, my problem is that when I read “If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.”, I think “of course it should”.

      It’s like reading a sentence that says “if pregnancy is the result of sex, the mother should carry the child to term”, of course she should.

      Should the law be involved? No. Should “other options” be available? Of course.

      But that is not what they are asking.

      As such, I’m -2, +.5.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I had the same problem. I rated 5 on left/right and -5.18 on libertarian/authoritarian (so smack bang in the middle of the purple quadrant), but there were about a dozen questions where I answered agree but could have just as easily answered disagree (or vice versa).

        Personally I’d prefer to see a quiz that asked questions based on hypothetical policy proposals. I think that would help make things more concrete.

          Quote  Link

        Report

          • You may have me confused with someone else. I’m agnostic-to-opposed on the theoretical merits of fiscal stimulus, and I’m especially hesitant to recommend it for a country running significant structural deficits.

            I’m leery of the term “neo-liberal”, since I’m not entirely sure it means anything. But as a disciple of Milton Friedman I suppose it fits me as well as anyone.

              Quote  Link

            Report

        • “Personally I’d prefer to see a quiz that asked questions based on hypothetical policy proposals. I think that would help make things more concrete.”

          I wonder. I have a tendency to believe that political parties tend to take on policy positions based largely on what they think will garner them votes and influence, and worry about the square peg-round hole of how that fits in with their stated “values” later.

          Hence things like a Deep Passion about minimizing the Feds intrusion into your person life while supporting some national-level law disallowing same-sex marriage. Or, if you prefer, believing that Men Using Positions of Power to Sexually Harass Women is Evil, but if someone complains about your top guy doing it to a 22 year old intern, isn’t that just them playing Washington politics?

            Quote  Link

          Report

  2. I hate the first question so much it makes me reluctant to take the thing seriously. Its also been like that for years and in spite of the fact obviously better questions are available to solicit the answer they think they’re asking for, they’ve stuck with one that doesn’t.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  3. Libertarian/Authoritarian -7, Left/Right 3, somewhat close but to the right to Gandhi.

    Whenever I see tests like this I’m curious what assumptions the test makers are using. For example, what political stance to they attribute to liking abstract art, and why is that not a bullshit question for a test like this?

    I always come away thinking these things can tell us more about the people who created the test than the scores of those that took it.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • Mine’s similar to yours. And I completely agree with your last sentence. The questions seem to me to have a sort of right-leaning default to them… so that when I don’t completely agree it sends me to the left of the spectrum.

      That, and some of the questions are just poorly worded. And whilst I can’t be sure, I’m betting what they take away from my answer is not what I mean by it. Like, just because I hold an opinion on a topic doesn’t mean I think something should be *done* about it…

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • Exactly. And the explanatory apparatus at their website tells you a great deal, as well. They say in so many words that favoring free markets directly equates to “neoliberalism,” and both of them put you on the economic Right. And they strongly imply that a belief in free markets/free trade equates to a favorable stance on globalization, which equates to a favorable view on transnational corporations. So they basically write into the test, as an unstated assumption the conventional belief (shared by mainstream liberals and conservatives) that corporate rule is the natural outgrowth of the unregulated market.

      Oh, yeah–they also explictly mention Pinochet as the quintessential free marketer and resurrect the “economically libertarian and politically authoritarian” cliche about him. As if torturing labor organizers, hacking their faces off and leaving them in ditches didn’t basically deprive an entire factor of production of any bargaining power in the market. As if undoing land reforms that Rothbard would have endorsed (fer chrissakes), and restoring quasi-feudal titles of a landed oligarchy, was “economically libertarian.”

      I’m really starting to think the people who designed this test were just total idjuts.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  4. As a somewhat related aside, my wife is a professor of management and one of the things her old dissertation advisor works on is studying the predictive accuracy of Myers Briggs-type testing. Apparently, excepting studies that are done by the testing companies, these tests do not predict job performance any better than random selection. Also, independent studies show that the results of these tests – regardless of what the results are – are invariably used to “justify” initial knee jerk impressions of the hirers, not as a point of data in the hiring decision.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I had a former boss that made me take a psych profile test (not MBTI). I failed it miserably. He told me that according to the test, I would spend all of my time going around and chatting up the office and ignoring details looking me right in the face. When I objected (particularly to the extroverted part!), he asked if I had a degree in psychology and that the people that wrote the test had degrees in psychology so who knew more about psychology me or a bunch of people with psychology degrees?

      He hired me anyway. It didn’t work out. Ironically, I was fired (some two years later) involved my overlooking a detail. So the test got that right…

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • You need a good test and a good tester to get decent results out of Myers-Briggs.

      It’s not really any kind of a predictor of workplace success, though. All it’s really good for is giving a team insight into how to work together more efficiently. Firing (or not hiring) someone on the basis of M-B would be Exhibit A for Management: You’re Doing It Wrong.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • You’d think so, if management’s main goal was actually to promote productivity and efficiency rather than build a steel-reinforced concrete bunker around their own authority.

        But given that the latter is their real priority, it makes sense to exclude certain types. For example, I’m a stereotypical INTP. I view hierarchies and their authority-based rules as pretty much naturally stupid, and their interference with those actually doing the work as a form of irrationality to be routed around (like the Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it). But if I were taking the test for an employer, I probably wouldn’t go far wrong asking myself how an ESTJ would answer every question.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • > But given that the latter is their real priority

          That would be an uncharitable reading of the workplace. Not entirely inaccurate, though.

          I think the most fair way to put it is that an organization, as a social construct, very rapidly begins to formalize its social norms in the processes that add members to the organization. Typically, this means that the longer the organization has been around, the more likely it is to suffer from groupthink and the more likely it is that middle management (in particular) would have been self-selected to be the sorts of cats who self-select for more groupthink.

          I don’t think that all managers are power-paranoid morons. However, I think that many organizations are susceptible to creating managers who are functionally indistinguishable from power-paranoid morons through really bad organizational leadership. This gives many/most organizations a bad name (justifiably so).

          Blaming the bad managers is like blaming a symptom instead of the disease.

            Quote  Link

          Report

        • I’ve taken the MB test several times and I always come up the same as Hitler, Trump, and Darth Vader (ENTJ), but I also view hierarchies and their rules as fundamentally stupid. I’ve been told by a billion career counselors that it’s clear I should become a lawyer, but that’s probably the last career I would be comfortable in. But then again, I guess all I have to do to ensure my chosen career conforms to the test results is to stop talking to people. Also, I’ve heard that the two middle letters carry a lot more weight in career assessment. Anyone know if this is true?

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • I always end up INFJ, which is rather rare if I remember correctly. I think I’m told to be a therapist, writer, activist or social worker, and that MLK, Jr. and I would’ve been bosom buddies. I don’t know if the middle two are correct, but I do fancy myself as a writer-in-training…though I’m hoping to add lawyer to that one day rather than martyr.

              Quote  Link

            Report

          • If the second letter is “N” (iNtuitive), the third letter (Thinking of Feeling) is important. If the second letter is “S” (Sensing) the last letter (Perceiving or Judging) is important. The Introvert/Extrovert thing stands alone.

            Basically being “N” means you’re focussed on your mental model of the world, so its really important whether that model is focussed on how stuff works (T) or how people react (F). Being “S” means you’re focussed on the evidence of your senses, so its really important whether you process that evidence in a decision-making kind of way (J) or an oh-thats-interesting kind of way (P). In general iNtuitive people are rare in the general poplation – I think maybe 20% – but they’ll be the overwhelming majority of people reading this. And taking Myers Briggs tests.

              Quote  Link

            Report

          • To me, Trump screams S rather than N. He seems like a classic *S*J type — an over-the-top Type-A personality. The E, when combined with the other stuff, just makes him an obnoxious blowhard. Generally when you’re dealing with someone who’s an E**J, I think the “N vs. T” thing makes a huge difference.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • I would have pegged him more for a P. Agree on the S.

              In any event, Simon is looking more at the Kierseyan model for MBTI. Kevin is closer earlier models (that many still adhere to) wherein the E/I distinction changes everything (at least for some types). I think, anyway. It’s been a while since I read up on all of this.

                Quote  Link

              Report

  5. Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51, Left/Right: -5.62

    I felt as though some of these questions, particularly on the use of military force were almost impossible to answer. Do I give my gut reaction? Or my understanding of how the world works? For all of my issues with the questions asked, they plotted me on the graph in the location I self-identify.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  6. To update an old discussion:
    The carbon can be removed from coal– completely.
    I’m at the Edwardsport site these days; two coal-burners, 60 years old, the dirtiest power station in the US. They will be decommissioned soon due to a new power plant fueled by the wonder fuel– coal. 600 MW, roughly 3 1/2 times the amount of power.
    Not all of the AQCS structures here, but an ASO, a mini-refinery. The carbon is removed pre-combustion, in something like a giant espresso machine. The gases are separated in the evaporative column in the ASO. The boilers are fired by syngas.
    Working on the hydrogen lines to the HRSG’s and the air lines on the power block these days.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  7. I’m a damn hippie, apparently:

    Economic Left/Right: -8.25
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

    My problem with the economic questions is that they were phrased in moral language. Therefore, I was answering like a socialist because that’s what I’d *want* if the world operated like it does in my dreams, etc.; but that doesn’t mean that I also believe that what I want could be implemented successfully…

      Quote  Link

    Report

  8. I almost never complete these things because I get to a question that I simply refuse to answer at face value. Half the questions on that test reflected some tacit starting assumption that I disagreed with, with the result that I was unwilling to choose between the inadequate set of alternatives.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  9. Heh. There was a day, (hell some of the oldsters still do) when folx on dKos would put the results of their Political Compass test in their sigline.

    So tiresome. As Kevin observes, comes a point where the obviously begged question is so stupid it’s not worth answering.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  10. Seems like I’m in the same quadrant as almost everyone else here:

    Economic Left/Right: -3.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

    But while I lean liberal in terms of the society I think may be best, I don’t really have the right to foist my views on others, and I’m aware that government has a track record of poisoning the well, so I’d prefer to err on the side of giving the national government less power. Depending on how I interpreted the questions, I could have easily wound up in the libertarian right I think.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  11. Did you get the link to the quiz from me, Erik? It’s been around forever.

    I’ve taken it a few times before; it became a game after a while, as they change some of the questions here and there, to see if I could honestly get myself into the upper left-hand square, which is where I figure I belong (along with, apparently, Pope Benedict and Robert Schumann). I haven’t taken it in years, though, so I tried again:

    Economic Left/Right: -8.00
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31

    Close, but not quite there yet, I think.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  12. My Political Compass result:
    Economic Left/Right: -1.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46

    Just to the right of the Dalai Lama on the international chart. I’m not particularly familiar with his policy views though, so I wouldn’t be able to say how accurate that is. I identify as a left-libertarian these days.

    On c4ss.org quiz I got this:

    93% Economic Leftist
    75% Anarchist
    96% Anti-Militarist
    63% Socio-Cultural Liberal
    80% Civil Libertarian

    Not a surprise with the divergence, as there’s some things I’m kinda “old school” about compared to most of the respondents there, even though I’d still be a flaming leftwing nutjob in comparison to the general population on cultural issues.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  13. Oh c4ss…

    22% Economic Leftist
    13% Statist
    0% Militarist – how does one get 0%?
    46% Socio-Cultural Liberal
    57% Civil Libertarian

    Compared to everyone but Trumwill, I’m positively moderate…

      Quote  Link

    Report

  14. Let’s see. . .
    Economic Left/Right: -3.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

    42% Economic Leftist
    0% Statist
    82% Anti-Militarist
    70% Socio-Cultural Liberal
    50% Civil Libertarian

    I think these things way overweight any possible moderation on economic issues to the left, you either worship at the altar of John Galt or you’re a leftist. I should be slightly to the right on the economic scales but there’s really no questions that could weight you there on either quiz.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  15. Took the C4SS quiz. Interesting range of questions; certainly different from the Political Compass. I ended up with…

    57% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
    38% Statist (Anarchist / Statist)
    57% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
    13% Socio-Cultural Conservative (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
    23% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)

    …which makes sense to me, mostly. On the economic left; more a statist than an anarchist (but not an authoritarian); more culturally conservative than liberal (but not a fan of the military). That works.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  16. Here’s the howler for me, among a crop of highly objectionable questions:

    Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

    Is there anyone in the entire world who disagrees with this? I don’t think anyone can honestly assert it.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I mostly agree with this statement, except…

      When I here talk radio guys talk about past erroneous claims from fast food places or tobacco companies about the healthiness of their products, I here them talk about how its the consumers responsibility to make those decisions, not the corporation’s to be accurate.

      And before everybody starts dogging me for supporting all kinds of regulation I don’t, I don’t actually have a dog in this fight. Just pointing out that in these cases I do hear some version of this argument.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I’d say that we can’t trust corporations to be honest, and an honest corporation is one that tends to go out of business unless you have a scrupulous consumer base, so ultimately everything has to be consumer driven.

        That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t punish corporations for fraudulent activity, although it’s quite clear that these tiny slap-on-the-wrist fines which are the most popular way to punish corporations do more to help big business by driving out smaller entrepreneurial competition.

        So, even that one is nuanced. I would say have managers who are complicit in criminal negligence replace poor drug users in our prisons and let their companies rot regardless of jobs.

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • I’m an anarchist, so I don’t think governments “should” do anything (“I expect you to die, Mr. Bond.”). But I think local free juries or whatever other adjudicative bodies emerge in a stateless society should enforce damages for fraud, so I answered “Agree” in what I thought was the spirit of the question.

      But it’s pretty obvious the question implicitly treated penalties for fraud as a metric of anti-market sentiment from the “economic left.”

        Quote  Link

      Report

  17. “Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.”

    Well, *no*, not for economic reasons. It might be necessary for political or national security reasons, though. A whole slew of objections on these questions.

    They seem, to me, to be more of a measure of “what sort of political rhetoric you’re inclined to swallow”. I guess, in that sense, it’s somewhat useful because it can help calibrate your bullshitometer. And naturally, my results reflect this, in that I usually have to think about left-libertarian bullshit before I notice the smell, while I smell right-authoritarian bullshit on first sniff.

    Economic Left/Right: -4.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62

    The second test is bugging me too. Compare these two questions:

    > If a business pollutes the air I breathe or the water I
    > drink, I should be able to hold it legally accountable
    > by suing it for damage to my body or my possessions.

    > In cases in which people wrongly cause harm to others,
    > the primary focus of the legal system should be on
    > securing restitution for those who have been harmed.

    Wording is designed to encourage an answer. I mislike both questions.

    > In the absence of privileges secured by the state (such
    > as subsidies or monopoly or oligopoly privileges), the
    > price of a product will frequently tend toward the
    > price of the labor required to produce it.

    I believe in this case, the answer is, “the price of the product will eventually trend towards the price of manufacture and distribution”… but “eventually” and “frequently” are rather dramatically different. If I say I agree with this statement as written, I’m a free market capitalist. If I say I don’t, I’m probably put in some other container. Or this one:

    > It is especially important that people have access to weapons
    > to protect themselves against authoritarian violence by the
    > state.

    Hell, I can build devices that are *way* more dangerous than anything I can buy legally, and so can anybody else with a reasonably cautious approach to chemistry. So is it, “especially” important? Not really. Does that mean that the state ought to be treated as something that can’t turn authoritarian? What, do I look stupid?

    If I’m at war with an authoritarian regime, I need raw supplies and food and water, most likely. How you answer this question probably also trends a lot depending upon where you live (I imagine someone who lived under Barre is going to be more likely to say, “Hells, yes!” than someone who lives in Sweden).

    Here’s another doozy:

    > It is morally appropriate to attack noncombatants in order
    > to hasten the end of an otherwise just war.

    That’s just horribly worded there, practically “how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?”

    Or this one:

    > Laws and social norms protecting freedom of speech
    > should safeguard only the expression of true beliefs.

    Well, yeah, of course, that’s what they *should* do. But there’s no way to know whether a belief is *true* or not. So, no matter what they *should* do, the only way for them to safeguard true beliefs is to safeguard stated beliefs. As a consequence, they’re going to safeguard random whacky crap, too.

    > People should be subjected to legal penalties for
    > distributing texts or images others find offensive.

    Well, uh, how are they distributing them? I mean, I don’t want billboards of latex and bondage fetishism next to my children’s school.

    Double-barreled questions throughout this thing. Doesn’t anybody take classes in survey instrument creation? Hm, does it say anything that disagreeing with double-barreled questions often makes you a Rightie? That seems to be a common thread in both questionnaires.

    Economic Leftist: 43%
    Anarchist: 43%
    Anti-Militarist: 79%
    Socio-Cultural Liberal: 72%
    Civil Libertarian: 52%

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I communicated with Gary quite a bit during his formulation of the FYP quiz, and I think his explicit purpose was to correct for the faults of the Political Compass. For example the questions asking you to agree or disagree that markets would have generally progressive effects on reducing corporate power, equalizing incomes, etc., are deliberately designed to identify people who are not only free market but also economically left-wing, as identified by two separate axes. Gary intended the test as an alternative to the Political Compass’s unstated assumption that anyone who favored free markets was a right-wing shill for Wal-Mart.

      And the belief that free speech should only protect true opinions is almost a word-for-word quote from survey questions on other tests intended to identify cultural authoritarians.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • > For example the questions asking you to agree or
        > disagree that markets would have generally
        > progressive effects on reducing corporate power,
        > equalizing incomes, etc., are deliberately designed
        > to identify people who are not only free market
        > but also economically left-wing, as identified by
        > two separate axes.

        Yeah. Don’t do that. That’s a double-barreled question. Because you can’t tell, when I disagree, if I’m disagreeing with one half of it or the other. You also can’t tell, when I agree, which half of it I agree with enough to “agree”, vs. “strongly agree”.

        I mean, I understand the intention, but the results are going to be dodgy. It might give you good results for clear-cut cases of economic and political philosophy, but I’m pretty sure that hard-core Lefties and Righties already know who they are. The middle is mushy, and not well served in either of these two questionnaires (although the second one is better).

        > And the belief that free speech should only protect
        > true opinions is almost a word-for-word quote
        > from survey questions on other tests intended to
        > identify cultural authoritarians.

        That doesn’t make it a good question, does it? Because I could honestly answer that question with both “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree”; there is an underlying assumption that it is possible to measure true opinions. Heck come to think of it, even if it were technologically *possible* to measure true opinions, I’m nowhere near agreeing that everyone should be tested for true opinions prior to getting to open their pie-hole.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  18. And the belief that free speech should only protect true opinions is almost a word-for-word quote from survey questions on other tests intended to identify cultural authoritarians.

    See, I pondered that one for a while, though I eventually came down on what I presume was the “libertarian” side. I’m not a First Amendment absolutist, and I tend to see those who are–and thus, for example, would have voted with the majority in Phelps v. Snyder (probably the only time I’ve agreed with Alito!)–as opening the door for the reduction of what I accept as the social power and provenance of speech to an exchangeable commodity, an instrument to be used or disposed of as an individual wishes….and therefore, to Citizens United and other decisions that have titled the playing field of American democracy in favor of corporate power. I think it is both reasonable and right for communities to democratically recognize the power of speech in both its negative and positive capacities, and provide the means to put certain (non-prohibitive but nonetheless acceptably burdensome) limitations on that aspects they judge to be negative. Does that mean it should be possible for people to define “truth” and shape public discourse accordingly? I don’t think so. But if denying that the First Amendment only applies to “true opinions” means embracing an absolutism which would make impossible any kind of communitarian consideration about appropriate–and inappropriate–forms and places of speech, that would make me sad.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • Do you identify with The Board in charge of deciding what speech ought to be protected?

      Do you identify with the people who will be told by The Board what speech will be protected and what speech will not be?

      As someone who answers those questions “No, Yes”, I find it much easier to be a free speech absolutist.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I would like to think that, in a better, more equal, more democratic world than the one we have today, that we’d all, in different times and in different contexts, find ourselves both as members of The Board and as those receiving the decisions of The Board, and thus would always be in the situation of having to identify with both. Obviously we don’t live in that world, but using that reality as a reason to reject what seems to me to be nonetheless the pretty obvious fact that people put themselves together into communities, and those communities tend, for innumerable reasons both good and bad, to establish Boards, strikes me as unfortunate, to say the least.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I would like to think that, in a better, more equal, more democratic world than the one we have today, that we’d all, in different times and in different contexts, find ourselves both as members of The Board and as those receiving the decisions of The Board, and thus would always be in the situation of having to identify with both.

          Were this the case, the Board would be unable to reach many definitive, non-contradictory conclusions. During my stint? Might as well ban something, so I’m picking all those who don’t use the Oxford comma.

            Quote  Link

          Report

  19. Economic left/right: 1.00
    Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

    Pretty accurate. I mostly think free market principals applied in the absence of state-intrusion and corporate collusion allow for everyone to have a minimum standard of living that’s better than they’d have in a command economy.

    My C4SS results:
    50% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
    41% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
    36% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
    70% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
    57% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)

    I didn’t like this test mainly because so many statements were logically problematic. Some were of the form “I believe in A rather than B.” when I believe in neither one, and “Disagree” makes it look like I favor B. It was so clearly biased that it was hard not to choose against the bias that was under the question. There was less of that in the shorter first quiz.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  20. A long while back, I wrote a quiz with fictitious parties (that exist within a comic book framework I was working on). Basically, a bottom-up party (market-friendly, pro-diversity but in favor of local control) a top-down (technocratic, efficiency-oriented, church-friendly) party. A lot of people I know – liberal and conservative – took the test. Then, when they read the description of what they were, took the test again. Almost all of the conservatives ended up in the former party and the liberals in the latter. Once they knew where the fault lines were, they got into what we both thought was the more appropriate party for them.

    Anyhow, the lesson for me was (besides that my quiz-writing skills maybe needed work) that in the face of ambiguity (and almost all of these questions are ambiguous depending on what you mean by “should”, “often”, “never”, and so on) people will gravitate towards personas. The persona of the top-down party in the quiz was more liberal and so the liberals and Democrats veered their answers in that direction (and conservatives towards the bottom-up). The personas identified at the end were more mixed and fell more into a social order vs social freedom context (even though bottom-up was distinctly non-libertarian in some respects, and top-down quite pro-liberty in some).

      Quote  Link

    Report

  21. Economic Left/Right: -2.88
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

    While it’s better than the recent Pew test, the questions are still simplistic. But then so is the whole concept, I suppose. Meh.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  22. I hit almost dead center on the crosshairs. Which is quite a shock as I have always thought of myself as kind of a nonconformist. Turns out I’m Mr. Middle-of-the-Road. But in an age when everyone thinks they should be the star of a reality show or they can dance or sing better than anyone, or any thrice-bankrupt businessman can run for president, maybe being noncommittal and wishy-washy is a rebellion against the entire culture. Yeah, I’m the ultimate rebel. Fight the Power!

      Quote  Link

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *