View Full Version : The Political Compass
I saw this mentioned in the "OMFG!! Election 2004!!" thread, and thought it would be cool to have a thread just for it.
The political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) gives a description of your left/right wingedness, as well as an assessment of whether you lean more towards authoritarianism or libertarianism.
I scored:
Economic Left/Right: -6.62 (i.e. pretty left-wing)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82 (i.e. pretty libertarian)
Not quite an anarcho-syndicalist, but I'm getting there!
How did other people go?
Econ: -1.0
Social: -5.03
Yup, about what I expected, with the possible exception that I figured I'd be farther right on economics. Okay, actually quite a bit farther right. Weird.
I usually don't don't do these online political test, but I went through an anonymous proxy. Here are the results:
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
So I'm a left leaning Libertarian.
:\
However, this test, as with all of these online tests, lacks the nuance that truly makes up a person's political beliefs. So this test and $2 will get you a MetroCard and a ride on the subway. Damn that sounded so much better when you could use tokens. :(
Yeah, hence my Econ: -1.0.
For instance, I do think most 'trans-national megacorps' go past the pale in their non-ethical behaviours. Does that mean I'm a leftist who thinks they need to be reigned in? Not really. It means that I think that information about those companies should be transparently available to an educated populace who can make conscious and informed free market decisions to promote companies who honestly better us all.
But that ranks politically up there with Barbie's "Math is haaaaaard!" so instead we get government getting up business' nose, and business having to throw cash at government to keep them at arm's length, turning the entire political process into an auction to the highest bidder. *fume*
So somehow I'm a leftist for thinking that government intervention has failed, and that education and a free market are the way out.
Odd.
For instance, I do think most 'trans-national megacorps' go past the pale in their non-ethical behaviours. Does that mean I'm a leftist who thinks they need to be reigned in? Not really. It means that I think that information about those companies should be transparently available to an educated populace who can make conscious and informed free market decisions to promote companies who honestly better us all.
You've got to admit though that that's a more sophisticated and subtle interpretation of free-market ideology than is usually trotted out... I think the phrasing adopted is a reasonable approximation of most of the discussion on the issue, and the general breakdown of responses to it.
Problem is, the general responses are really no better than those generated by a pack of monkeys on meth with impulse control issues.
Problem is, the general responses are really no better than those generated by a pack of monkeys on meth with impulse control issues.
To be honest, I genuinely think this is the level at which most people approach these issues. And there are some more subtle ones in there, such as:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
go to some pretty fundamental issues of attitudes towards collective good and human dignity against pragmatic/wealth-preserving views of the world.
Some of it's a bit blunt... I don't think it can all be tarred with that brush.
6 months ago (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34309)
9 months ago (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27740)
15 months ago (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23125)
(posted 04-14-2003 01:36 PM)
Left-Liberal
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 30%.
but as people have said the quiz is pretty simplistic and poo-poos many complex issues...
(posted 07-14-2003 06:10 PM)
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
oh, and here is the graph of well known world leaders...
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.jpg
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz/s100_030.gif
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 30%.
I don't really agree 100% with either... but no test is perfect...
I'll take it again in a few and post my score...
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54
heh, so i've gone further to the left after I stopped working :lol: I guess that makes sense :p :o .
Windswept
2004-06-11, 19:53
Economic left/right: - 1.50
Social Libertarian/authoritarian: - 2.46
I really had to think about some of those questions. It made me uncomfortable on some questions that there was no 'middle ground', so to speak.
I am a strange combination of liberal and conservative views.
I think I become quite conservative on the matter of people on the dole. I think everyone should work unless they are truly disabled or elderly. I may be wrong, but it sounds to me as if in Britain, a huge percentage of the population is molly-coddled and allowed to be on the dole. I think such policies create generations of slobs and losers. It's human nature to take the easy way out, if the dole is made easily available to them - with little stigma attached. People need to pull their own weight in society, and not be fed and sheltered by the rest of us so they can lie around and watch soap operas all day. :mad: You and I work. So should they! :grumble:
Two over, four up.
This is a bit different from the test I took in high school. Which was, what I was referring to when I noted a political spectrum test in the other thread that inspired this thread. (it's my fault, don't stone me.)
I find the questions on this test to be... well... not great at all. Most are worded so it makes me want to answer with what people expect me to say, and not what I feel. It's like the question makes you feel bad for thinking that way.
on the political spectrum test I took in high school, I scored 78 out of 80. The scale went from 0 (left wing) to 40 (center) to 80 (right wing) and my teacher told me that I was the most right winged person she has ever administered the test to. It's scared her.
That test made sense, and did not offend me like this one did. It was simple and direct.
EDIT:
And the funny part is, I fell short of being the right age to vote this year by less then a month. But if I could, despite my right views, I'd vote NDP, I just like their image.
eventhorizon
2004-06-11, 20:29
Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.05
I keep drifting south every time I take it.
Windswept
2004-06-11, 20:51
Two over, four up.
I was two over, two down (left side).
I find the questions on this test to be... well... not great at all. Most are worded so it makes me want to answer with what people expect me to say, and not what I feel. It's like the question makes you feel bad for thinking that way.
As I said, I felt uncomfortable having to answer 'agree or disagree'. My 'actual' answer on quite a few questions might have been: "Well, it depends on the circumstances". Being forced to say basically yes or no was tough. The choice 'did' make me confront the difficulties of not being able to sit on the fence. I would make a *terrible* judge, I'm afraid. I would agonize endlessly over every decision, and take forever to make up my mind. Sigh.
on the political spectrum test I took in high school, I scored 78 out of 80. The scale went from 0 (left wing) to 40 (center) to 80 (right wing) and my teacher told me that I was the most right winged person she has ever administered the test to. It's scared her.
That *IS* pretty scary, actually. ;) The unfortunate thing about 'some' right wing people is that they frequently seem to get around to foisting 'their' views upon others. I get to make that comment, because I have one or two fairly conservative views myself (mostly wrt economics (eg. welfare), but not entirely restricted to economics). Socially, I'm pretty liberal. So, I end up with a weird combination of beliefs, I guess. I *like* being that way though. I like having diverse viewpoints. :)
Edit: Hey, cool! My 200th post. :)
Social = -7.3 (Libertarian)
Economic = -0.25 (almost dead centre)
The social is what I expected, but I thought I'd be far right on economics.
As I said, I felt uncomfortable having to answer 'agree or disagree'. My 'actual' answer on quite a few questions might have been: "Well, it depends on the circumstances". Being forced to say basically yes or no was tough. The choice 'did' make me confront the difficulties of not being able to sit on the fence. I would make a *terrible* judge, I'm afraid. I would agonize endlessly over every decision, and take forever to make up my mind. Sigh.
I understand compleatly. A netural answer would be need for some (if not all) of the questions. But it's deeper then just that, the way some questions were worded made me think a very opinionated person wrote them.
Gee, if you would make a terrible judge, better hand in your mod badge and thread locking gun. hehe.
That *IS* pretty scary, actually. ;) The unfortunate thing about 'some' right wing people is that they frequently seem to get around to foisting 'their' views upon others.)
About three months after the test she finally had the currage to tell me. We had a good laugh about it after class one day. She was so ruffled at the time that she even told her "partner" and they don't talk about their work days (for some reason).
Well I guess I do project my views on other people, but never about politics or how things should be run. Mostly just stuff about computers and whatnot, where my pride takes over and I can't help myself. No, I'm not talking about being a Mac zealot or even a Linux zealot (some of the worst technical zealots around)... just general tech and business related suff.
Do you find that your personal views on society and modern government spill out to the people that look up to you?
oldmacfan
2004-06-11, 21:34
I fall into the lower left close to horizontal zero and on par with Mandela and the Dali Lama for vertical position.
Took the test again, got 0.62 (tiny bit right of center) for economics and -7.03 (libertarian) for social. That's not much of a movement, in both cases "right"-wards. Ah well, I guess I'm not a veritable Ayn Rand after all ;)
Barto
eventhorizon
2004-06-12, 00:12
I really had to think about some of those questions. It made me uncomfortable on some questions that there was no 'middle ground', so to speak.
That's precisely the point of the quiz. The designers feel that having a "don't know" or middle ground response allows people to get away without making tough decisions.
Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28
Not quite as extreme as I imagined myself. Maybe more of my answers should have been Strongly (agree or disagree).
Windswept
2004-06-12, 07:12
To be honest, I genuinely think this is the level at which most people approach these issues.
The reason I had such a struggle is that I generally see both sides of every issue. That's good in a way, but makes it really tough when it comes down to the actual 'yes/no' decision. Maybe the test was too cut and dried in some ways; but when push comes to shove, sometimes a yes/no answer is required (eg. voting). I realize that, of course; but I was surprised at the difficulty I had on some questions. (I guess I realized that my decision on a few things would really offend some people here. eek! haha)
And there are some more subtle ones in there, such as:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I couldn't help thinking that statement seemed right out of the Al-Qaeda training manual.
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
Okay, to put it in a slightly different context, let's take the example of American car companies. Back quite a few years, they realized they were losing market share because the Japanese made better cars. So, afaik, they started redesigning for quality, and also eliminated lots of jobs in the interests of streamlining and for increased efficiency.
These measures greatly improved the quality of American cars, and cut costs by eliminating/streamlining jobs. But lots of people ended up unemployed. This was tough on the economy for a while. But better cars mean increased sales. (The free market in action.)
In a *competitive* economy, laid-off workers should seek new training of their own accord, while they are receiving unemployment compensation to tide them over. My opinion wrt Britain, for example (and I could be wrong about this), is that these people, once on the dole would tend to 'stay' on the dole; whereas in the US, their unemploment compensation would eventually run out. *I* think it is to everyone's benefit if the newly-unemployed person sees the writing on the wall wrt to his employment future, and goes out on his own to seek re-training. That is a 'real world' solution; but perhaps not one generally found in European social welfare systems. (Again, just my impression.)
go to some pretty fundamental issues of attitudes towards collective good and human dignity against pragmatic/wealth-preserving views of the world. So what do you think about what I just said above? Too cut-throat? Too insensitive? I'd really like to know. I think 'life' is a series of challenges; and dealing with those challenges makes human beings strong. I am fully supportive of a social 'safety net' that helps people in the interim. But NOT a safety net that becomes 'a way of life' for perfectly able-bodied adults.
I couldn't help thinking that statement seemed right out of the Al-Qaeda training manual.
Actually, to me it read like a description of post-WWII U.S. foreign policy (particularly the U.S. efforts to stem the spread of communism by propping up some incredibly dodgy regimes).
Okay, to put it in a slightly different context, let's take the example of American car companies. Back quite a few years, they realized they were losing market share because the Japanese made better cars. So, afaik, they started redesigning for quality, and also eliminated lots of jobs in the interests of streamlining and of increased efficiency.
These measures greatly improved the quality of American cars, and cut costs by eliminating/streamlining jobs. But lots of people ended up unemployed. This was tough on the economy for a while. But better cars mean increased sales. (The free market in action.)
I can see how this works, although the downsizing/efficiency argument can be taken too far, such as the ridiculous inefficiences and institutional weaknesses that government outsourcing has caused in many cases.
(snippage of precis of 'British' model of unemployment benefits)
So what do you think about what I just said above? Too cut-throat? Too insensitive? I'd really like to know. I think 'life' is a series of challenges; and dealing with those challenges makes human beings strong. I am fully supportive of a social 'safety net' that helps people in the interim. But NOT a safety net that becomes 'a way of life' for perfectly able-bodied adults.
OK... I think there are a number of responses I'd make to that:
-- I think you're massively over-estimating the temptation felt by people in countries like Britain and Australia to stay on the dole. You have to realise that the dole is not a great deal of money. In Australia, it's around US $160/week plus a minimal rent assistance (perhaps US $40-50/week). I'm frankly amazed that anyone can live on that amount -- it really is a completely pitiful amount to live on, and will barely cover food and housing, especially if they have children to feed/clothe as well. Very very few people are willing to stay on this for any significant period, particularly when the mandated minimum wage is the equivalent of around USD$21,000 for a full-time job (over twice the amount of the dole). It's easy to appeal to cliches about dole-bludgers, but when you look at the long-term unemployed, very few of them really seem to want to continue to be in their position... and they lead a completely miserable existence. This would seem to be even more the case in the U.S., where there is no strong centralised guarantee of free comprehensive health provision comparable to the NHS or the Australian health system, and no strong system of government-provided housing for the poor.
-- I think you're also underestimating the difficulty of gaining employment -- when there's a stable unemployment rate of c. 5-15%, unskilled labourers in particular will find it particularly find a job if no work exists. They shouldn't be punished for this.
-- I think you're also underestimating the difficulty of retraining, especially where the government does not provide free training/education. This obviously has greater effects on older workers, the naturally less intelligent etc.
-- Very few modern welfare systems don't in fact contain requirements for the unemployed to seek work to maintain their benefits. It's certainly the case in Australia that benefits can be reduced or cut off entirely for infringements of the government eligibility requirements.
-- Moreover, well-designed welfare systems will encourage people to seek part or full-time employment by providing graduated phase-out of benefits as job-seekers find more income, strongly progressive income tax hierarchies, providing free training and reskilling, and enforcing disclipinary measures against those who don't cooperate with these systems.
-- Furthermore, strong social welfare systems have benefits beyond providing a safety-net in the case of unemployment. In particular, provision of income support to the indigent helps prevent property crime and development of concentrated areas of crime and poverty, which inevitably lead to serious social problems. It also helps prevent children becoming caught in the same poverty trap, by providing them with at least livable home conditions, and the ability to attempt to better themselves. Preventing extremes of poverty means that you don't get as many desperate people commiting crime simply to survive, or from anger at the obvious disparities in wealth evident in such a society.
-- Finally, humane societies don't let people starve on the streets.
Ultimately, I agree with you that the able-bodied should contribute to society. At the same time, many people face significant obstacles to finding employment, such as: structural labour surpluses; difficulties in retraining; age, gender and racial discrimination; and individual circumstances (such as the difficulties faced by widows and single parents). It's pretty harsh to punish these people, and justify it by tarring them with the brush of being "unwilling" to work, and simply taking a negative, "we'll strip you of all your benefits approach" isn't really very helpful. At the end of day, everyone, however lazy, has worth as a human being, and so the State should at the very least provide enough to allow them to exercise their right to life.
psmith2.0
2004-06-12, 12:02
That test CAN'T be right. According to it, ShawnPatrick and I should be in a committed, longterm relationship, and in the process of adopting our third child!
:lol: :p
But seriously, I wonder if the questions are worded in a way to make one appear more liberal than they are? I know for a fact I'm a raging hard-ass on matters of crime/punishment, getting off your butt and pulling your weight, not acting like an idiot and then blaming others for the messes you wind up in, etc. but I came out with an oddly tilted result.
I'm open on things like art and music being essential, homosexuality (in that I just don't give a damn, frankly, either way and care very little about who's fucking who - gay or straight - and why). I guess they all work to balance out. So I can't be called a 100% flame-throwing right-winger, can I? I hate big companies that pollute and kill bears and fish too!
:)
In short, I don't really care who marries who, OR what they might want to photograph or paint in their spare time. I just might not care to always hear about it or view it...or help foot the bill for it. And, for that, I don't think I should get called any names.
:)
DMBand0026
2004-06-12, 13:05
Economic Left/Right: 3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.31
I'm right around the same spot that GWB is. Not sure if that is funny, or slightly frightening.
I'm gonna go with funny though. Makes sense, I like the guy, agree with him...ect.
Windswept
2004-06-12, 15:26
Gee, if you would make a terrible judge, better hand in your mod badge and thread locking gun. hehe. Well, I warned them before I signed on that I was a liberal softie when it came to letting people express themselves. Having spent so much time around 13-yr-olds, I guess I'm used to cutting people a LOT of slack. :) heh.
Well I guess I do project my views on other people, but never about politics or how things should be run.
What I meant was that lots of right-wing types want to *pass laws* forcing the rest of us to live 'our' lives according to 'their' rules and beliefs. Many find it difficult to mind their own business. I'm all for letting people live their own lives, doing basically what they want, as long as they aren't harming anyone. I *do* draw the line if they act irresponsibly, and then the rest of us are expected to pay to clean up after them. Does that attitude seem unfair?
Do you find that your personal views on society and modern government spill out to the people that look up to you?
If you're talking about my students, I have to say that generally I *really* avoid inflammatory political/societal statements of any kind. I'd *love* to say what I personally think about a LOT of things; but I just can't do it. No matter what I might say, it will invariably offend 'some' parent, who will immediately put in an outraged, anonymous phone call to the principal complaining about what I have said. It's just not worth it. If I taught social studies, it might be different.
I once (humorously) mentioned something about the ingredients in baloney. Big mistake. Kids went home and refused to eat baloney ever again. Parents were outraged. *sigh* :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.