I'm posting this for everyone's general interest. I recently stumbled across a site that posits that "left and right" are far too simplistic to accurately depict the intricacies of political thought, and that a 2-D grid system is more accurate. They provide a questionnaire that places you on this grid.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
I took the quiz and found the results very interesting, and agree that it is much more accurate a depicting my views than left-right.
I would discourage folks from sharing their scores though. I'm posting this so you all can check it out, not so we can all put up our results and get dragged in to some firestorm.
Enjoy.
I think it's a pretty decent, if overly simplified, way of getting a "ball-park" estimate of one's beliefs and politics framed in terms of common-knowledge political/social/economic theory. Anybody here who knows me at a deeper than "message-board-buddy" level can probably make a good guess as to where I stand on the political grid (now taking all bets!), and I was actually surprised at how well my standing on the grid reflected my own perception of my political/economic views.
I know the answer I'm gonna get (it's always the same) but it's entertaining nonetheless.
After the test...
I was right. No I'm not telling. ;) This one covers most of it's bases. I'm kinda surprised at what was omitted, but it endedup not making a difference.
I'm a freaking hippy! That could explain the underlying self-loathing. :P
This is an old, old quiz. It's been been around in very similar form since at least the mid-1990s.
And, I will quickly echo what UY said and what everyone should already know: discussing the specifics of the question topics or people's results isn't appropriate for this forum. There are a zillion other sites that encourage such discussion. If things move in that direction, it will be locked.
That said, from a testing perspective, my complaint about this sort of quiz is that its goal is to test political views but the questions often do not make it clear whether they are asking about someone's general opinion on a topic or about what someone thinks the government's policy ought to be about that topic. That latter bit is the political part. In other words, if they want your agree/disagree response on a statement like "Snorflegoobers and snorflegooberism are serious problems in modern society", a person may think that
- they are a problem, and the government should "solve" it
- they are a problem, but not one that government ought to be involved in because the government doesn't have the authority, is no good at fixing this kind of problem, can't do it without violating fundamental liberties, etc.
- they aren't really a problem, but government should regulate them to keep an eye on everything lest they get out of hand
- they aren't really a problem and the government should stay away from the issue
And it would be easy to come up with a dozen other nuances.
To me, failing to separate someone's opinions on X from their political opinions on X is a serious weakness in what is supposed to be a political questionnaire. BTW, for whatever reason, I have been phone polled several times recently and the same issue comes up. After finishing the poll, I often realize that my answers put me in a group that I would normally have little allegiance with, but the poll was not designed to capture my actual opinions.
I got a C.
I tend to agree with Stumpy on this. Polls like this are not designed based on issue but based on ball park opinion. The flip slide of that coin is that the "ball park" definition is how many people define themselves politically and not based on actually issues.
For example, there is a colleague of mine who when he first met me assumed because I agreed with him on one or two issues that I agreed with him on everything and that was not the case. People behave like this though. They have a knee jerk reaction that basically says if you agree with them on one issue then you must agree with them on all issues. Or vice versa.
I know a lot of people who can't grasp the idea that there is another way to things than "the left's way" or "the right's way" and that both "sides" can be wrong about the proper way to handle something. So goes life.
That's scary accurate. I'm quite pleased with the results.
And yes....no discussion of scores on this forum --So sayeth Thalaw2
Quote from: stumpy on January 03, 2008, 04:54:59 PM"Snorflegoobers and snorflegooberism are serious problems in modern society"
I thought we'd gotten rid of all those dirty snorflegoobers in The Great Snorflegoober Purge of 1874! I don't want to think that my great-great-grandfather sacrificed his left big toe only to have those snorfies come waltzing back in taking all our unchurned butter and angel-hair pasta. Not on my watch!!!
Not bad but it lumps people like me in with the dictators... in other words somebody who believes in both social equality but a strong standarized education system. Cant we be liberals in an intellectual way instead of a hippy way without being considered commie sociopaths?
Still pretty fun though, but I've seen better on OK CUPID back when I was looking for a date.
I read a book called "Rethink" by Gordon .....somebody.....some twenty years ago that posited that in addition to left and right we add another axis from "hard" to "soft". The idea was that whether left or right, those on the hard end thought it worth killing people (or at least making them miserable), whilst those on the soft end didn't. It adds much needed depth to describing people where it can seem like Hitler and Stalin had more in common with each other than with their "softer" left and right wing counterparts.
Quote from: lugaru on January 03, 2008, 05:25:54 PM
Not bad but it lumps people like me in with the dictators... in other words somebody who believes in both social equality but a strong standarized education system. Cant we be liberals in an intellectual way instead of a hippy way without being considered commie sociopaths?
Still pretty fun though, but I've seen better on OK CUPID back when I was looking for a date.
The dictators are referenced only to give a readily recognizable point of comparison. Although, I'm not sure Nelson Mandella and Ghandi could be called dictators.
And I essentially agree, Stumpy. More than once I found myself thinking something like "non-issue" or wishing for more nuanced options. And it does draw some fairly broad generalizations of its own in terms of political theory/philosophy. Still, I think as a discussion point it has merit.
Very interesting, I'm almost PRECISELY where I thought I would be, and I actually laughed about how accurate it was. However, I agree, a lot of those questions were really tough and perhaps even misleading.
Quote from: tommyboy on January 03, 2008, 05:39:58 PM
I read a book called "Rethink" by Gordon .....somebody.....some twenty years ago that posited that in addition to left and right we add another axis from "hard" to "soft". The idea was that whether left or right, those on the hard end thought it worth killing people (or at least making them miserable), whilst those on the soft end didn't. It adds much needed depth to describing people where it can seem like Hitler and Stalin had more in common with each other than with their "softer" left and right wing counterparts.
Part of the problem is that we're so used to seeing the "left" and the "right" presented in terms of extremes that we tend to forget that most people probably fall closer to the centre with regards to their political and economic views and probably have much, much more in common with their counterparts on the opposite side of the left-right fence.
:blink:
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Anarchosocialist (Apparently)
QuoteA significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
This is a problematic statement, as it works logically, but I can still be against a one party state.
Quote from: zuludelta on January 03, 2008, 05:14:15 PM
Quote from: stumpy on January 03, 2008, 04:54:59 PM"Snorflegoobers and snorflegooberism are serious problems in modern society"
I thought we'd gotten rid of all those dirty snorflegoobers in The Great Snorflegoober Purge of 1874! I don't want to think that my great-great-grandfather sacrificed his left big toe only to have those snorfies come waltzing back in taking all our unchurned butter and angel-hair pasta. Not on my watch!!!
Careful... my great- great- uncle (twice removed) was a Snorflegoober.
Seriously, I ended up exactly where I thought I was. Good stuff.
Several of the questions/potential problems raised here are actually directly addressed in the site's FAQ, which I strongly suggest people read.
Huh.
That seems about right. Some of the stuff, like the death penalty, I just don't care about one way or the other. I took a similar test a few years back and I was further from the center than I was before, though I won't say which direction. What suprised me was the direction I went in the up/down direction.
Quote from: doctorchallenger on January 04, 2008, 08:29:17 AM
QuoteA significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
This is a problematic statement, as it works logically, but I can still be against a one party state.
Yeah, that one really gave me trouble, because a one party state definitely DOES have that advantage, but the real question is whether or not it's worth it.
Quote from: BentonGrey on January 04, 2008, 10:12:31 AM
Quote from: doctorchallenger on January 04, 2008, 08:29:17 AM
QuoteA significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
This is a problematic statement, as it works logically, but I can still be against a one party state.
Yeah, that one really gave me trouble, because a one party state definitely DOES have that advantage, but the real question is whether or not it's worth it.
Again, read the FAQ. It specifically adresses this question.
I'll have to do that.
The FAQ is okay (although some of the responses are too simplistic to be valuable). But, it never addresses the more fundamental issue I raised above regarding the distinction between agreeing or disagreeing with a statement about issue X and a statement about government involvement in X. Not distinguishing between opinions and policy opinions is a very serious weakness in this sort of survey.
(Of course, some might assume that the distinction would be minimal, but that assumption itself embodies a very particular political view...)
In a broad sorta generalization, my problem with these things (ignoring the fact that they can be fun to do) is that when all is said and done its like a horoscope. You read into it kinda what you want. If it tells you what you already believe about yourself, its seems very accurate. If it tells you something that you find conflicting with some belief or idea you hold, then its inaccurate or the question didn't reflect the nuances of your true opinion etc...
Thats said, it totally got me right. ;)
My problem is that that many of the statements incorporate logical fallicies. E.g. they'll say, "Because A is true, B should be done"--when in fact A isn't true (even if you agree B should be done), or B doesn't logically follow from A at all. But there's no "This does not compute" option.
I like the fact that the survey only allows you to agree or disagree. No fence riding or not caring. If you really know yourself and (to some extent) are comfortable with who you are and where you stand then there are no problems. Perhaps some people have a problem with the questions because they are not willing to admit certain things about themselves to themselves. If you really have to "pull the trigger" and peoples lives or social welfare are stake...then where will you go?
I believe it didn't accurately reflect where I'm at. I'll call it the 'nuance' factor.
To really be accurate, a test would need to ask clarifying questions to attempt to determine why you answered a certain position in a certain way. This doesn't do that.
If I'm tolerant of certain issues, the quiz assumes I tend to the left. If I'm intolerant of others, the quiz assumes I'm authoritarian.
So really, it's not much better than 'right' or 'left'. It's gone from 1 dimensional to 2 dimensional... but people aren't 2D. I'm not even sure you could quantify a person's politics even in 3D, or what the 3rd dimension would even be.
Quote from: BlueBard on January 04, 2008, 06:20:12 PM
I believe it didn't accurately reflect where I'm at. I'll call it the 'nuance' factor.
To really be accurate, a test would need to ask clarifying questions to attempt to determine why you answered a certain position in a certain way. This doesn't do that.
If I'm tolerant of certain issues, the quiz assumes I tend to the left. If I'm intolerant of others, the quiz assumes I'm authoritarian.
So really, it's not much better than 'right' or 'left'. It's gone from 1 dimensional to 2 dimensional... but people aren't 2D. I'm not even sure you could quantify a person's politics even in 3D, or what the 3rd dimension would even be.
I agree with that. I also have a problem with the way it seems to view the "center", as simply "not tending strongly in any direction". I think these days there are a lot of people with strongly-held centrist views, who believe, for example, that there needs to be an even balance in our society between one thing and another (not the same as not having strong oppinions about those things). For that matter, this quiz would likely place someone with a lot of strong opinions that go equally in opposite directions the same way it would place someone with no strong opinions, while in fact these two people would have very different views. (Note- I defintiely don't see myself in the center, at least, in many respects, and wasn't placed there, but it still bugs me.)
I do think the 2D appraoch used at this site is a bit better than the usual 1D approach, though. I also think it came pretty close to placing me accurately, within the limited confines of the approach used, and I appreciate that part of the intent is to get people to think about these things in new ways. I do think people often make assumptions about which politicians they agree with based on the political labels attached to those politicians, or their understanding of the politicians' personalities, rather than really paying attention to what that person actually stands for. Anything that tries to get people to examine where politicians actually stand, or at least to look at them without the usual assumptions, is a good idea, in my opinion.
I agree that, though it is not a new idea, the 2D approach is much better than the simpleminded left-right approach that still dominates in media (and probably in general).
And, I think it put me sort of where I would guess myself to be, as I understand their scales.
But, there were still plenty of questions where the quiz' statement was just not clearly political. By which I mean that a participant could agree or disagree with it and there is simply no way to know what implication the answer had for the participant's position vis-a-vis social or economic policy. I know that the site refuses to disclose its grading rubrik, but I can only conclude that they are making their own political assumptions in order to assign meaning to some of the answers.
I mean, take a statement like "When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things." Regardless of the answer to that question, where it places you on the quiz' political axes says far more about the quiz-designers' politics and the political assumptions they are making than it does about the quiz-takers'. BTW, it turns out that going from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" on that statement moves one further toward the libertarian end of the social scale. Go figure. (And, I am not saying there is no way to rationalize that interpretation. There are many ways. I'm just saying that they've taken something that doesn't have a clear implication about one's politics and decided that it does.)
Further, the lack of an "I don't know" and (more importantly) "I don't care" answer can be very distorting. Without them, the quiz cannot distinguish between someone who agrees with a statement and someone who has no opinion about it. Admittedly, in this quiz, merely agreeing or disagreeing (but not strongly) doesn't necessarily move one far along the axes.
Quote from: thalaw2 on January 04, 2008, 06:15:52 PM
I like the fact that the survey only allows you to agree or disagree. No fence riding or not caring. If you really know yourself and (to some extent) are comfortable with who you are and where you stand then there are no problems. Perhaps some people have a problem with the questions because they are not willing to admit certain things about themselves to themselves. If you really have to "pull the trigger" and peoples lives or social welfare are stake...then where will you go?
Mmmm, no, I have a problem with some of the statements because they're not logically consistent as a whole, and yet I'm asked to respond as if they make some kind of sense.
For example, take this statement: "Because puppies are adorable, Marvel fans are superior to DC fans." You probably agree with the first part about puppies being adorable. You may or may not agree with the second part of the statement. Even if you agree with *both* parts of the statement, though, the statement makes no logical sense: the alleged superiorty of Marvel fans just doesn't follow logically from the adorableness of puppies. So if you respond based on the statement as a whole, you'd be forced to disagree even though you agree with its component parts.
In some cases the authors seem to be thinking, "Hah! If you disagree with this then you've shown that you hate puppies!" when in fact what you're trying to say is the authors are engaging in fuzzy thinking when they wrote the statement.
A lot of these 'Net quizzes have similar issues. Of course, flaws in the questionare design don't seem quite as important when you're trying to determine which one of the Smurfs you are.... :)
Quote from: HumanTon on January 04, 2008, 09:54:13 PM
For example, take this statement: "Because puppies are adorable, Marvel fans are superior to DC fans."
but i don't agree with either of those statements.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on January 04, 2008, 10:11:02 PM
but i don't agree with either of those statements.
Then clearly you are Grouchy Smurf. :P
Quote from: HumanTon on January 04, 2008, 09:54:13 PM
Quote from: thalaw2 on January 04, 2008, 06:15:52 PM
I like the fact that the survey only allows you to agree or disagree. No fence riding or not caring. If you really know yourself and (to some extent) are comfortable with who you are and where you stand then there are no problems. Perhaps some people have a problem with the questions because they are not willing to admit certain things about themselves to themselves. If you really have to "pull the trigger" and peoples lives or social welfare are stake...then where will you go?
Mmmm, no, I have a problem with some of the statements because they're not logically consistent as a whole, and yet I'm asked to respond as if they make some kind of sense.
For example, take this statement: "Because puppies are adorable, Marvel fans are superior to DC fans." You probably agree with the first part about puppies being adorable. You may or may not agree with the second part of the statement. Even if you agree with *both* parts of the statement, though, the statement makes no logical sense: the alleged superiorty of Marvel fans just doesn't follow logically from the adorableness of puppies. So if you respond based on the statement as a whole, you'd be forced to disagree even though you agree with its component parts.
In some cases the authors seem to be thinking, "Hah! If you disagree with this then you've shown that you hate puppies!" when in fact what you're trying to say is the authors are engaging in fuzzy thinking when they wrote the statement.
A lot of these 'Net quizzes have similar issues. Of course, flaws in the questionare design don't seem quite as important when you're trying to determine which one of the Smurfs you are.... :)
While I can't speak to other net quizzes, whether or not you agree with such statements is the entire reason they are in this one.
Quote from: Uncle Yuan on January 05, 2008, 04:23:59 AM
While I can't speak to other net quizzes, whether or not you agree with such statements is the entire reason they are in this one.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
But
which statement? The puppies statement? The Marvel vs. DC statement? Or the overall statement, which is nonsense no matter how you slice it?
FWIW, the test did an OK job of identifiying me ... but only because I threw logic and my own nuanced opinions out the window and answered according to what the authors appreared to think were hot button issues
to them. In the above case that would mean agreeing, because clearly the author felt disagreeing with any statement about puppies being adorable meant I should be classified as a Grouchy Smurf. (Whereas to my mind disagreeing with the nonsensical overall statement ought to classify me as Brainy Smurf. :D )
A quiz about my beliefs that has me spending more time trying to outguess the author's intentions than thinking about my own beliefs isn't very well designed, to my way of thinking.
According to the test designers, believing that puppies being adorable has bearing on comic fandom is characteristic of a certain segment of political ideology, while rejecting the relationship is characteristic of another. I can see the merit of this point of view - all surveys are only an approximation of real views after all - although we can argue about the specific generalizations drawn.
One problem I have with this quiz is that it equates people's philosophical views with their political views, which may or may not be accurate. For example, if someone believes that the universe is controlled by pre-ordained forces, they may want as much free choice built into their political system as possible, to compensate in some way, or, if they believe that the universe is a random, chaotic place, they might believe that society needs a lot of structure to counteract that. The quiz doesn't seem to allow for these kinds of beliefs.
I also think the creators of the quiz underestimate how differently different people's minds can work- but, then, I think pretty much everyone has that problem.
(Note- when I came across a statement I thought was a logical fallacy, I simply disagreed with the statement, since even if I believed one or both of the statements involved was correct, I disagreed that one led to the other. I don't have a problem inherently with the quiz including statements like that- we're being asked to agree or disagree with a statement, not to mark our positions on issues.)
The less directly political the statement, the more assumptions must be made to attribute any political meaning to the response and the less confidence one can have that said meaning really applies to the respondent's political views. It would be far more definitive to actually get responses to direct statements rather than to make shaky inferences based on responses to tenuously connected statements.
Like I said, the way the quiz uses some of these responses to move a respondent along an axis implies as much about the political assumptions of the survey designers as it does about the respondent's politics.
Quote from: Uncle Yuan on January 05, 2008, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: HumanTon on January 04, 2008, 09:54:13 PM
Quote from: thalaw2 on January 04, 2008, 06:15:52 PM
I like the fact that the survey only allows you to agree or disagree. No fence riding or not caring. If you really know yourself and (to some extent) are comfortable with who you are and where you stand then there are no problems. Perhaps some people have a problem with the questions because they are not willing to admit certain things about themselves to themselves. If you really have to "pull the trigger" and peoples lives or social welfare are stake...then where will you go?
Mmmm, no, I have a problem with some of the statements because they're not logically consistent as a whole, and yet I'm asked to respond as if they make some kind of sense.
For example, take this statement: "Because puppies are adorable, Marvel fans are superior to DC fans." You probably agree with the first part about puppies being adorable. You may or may not agree with the second part of the statement. Even if you agree with *both* parts of the statement, though, the statement makes no logical sense: the alleged superiorty of Marvel fans just doesn't follow logically from the adorableness of puppies. So if you respond based on the statement as a whole, you'd be forced to disagree even though you agree with its component parts.
In some cases the authors seem to be thinking, "Hah! If you disagree with this then you've shown that you hate puppies!" when in fact what you're trying to say is the authors are engaging in fuzzy thinking when they wrote the statement.
A lot of these 'Net quizzes have similar issues. Of course, flaws in the questionare design don't seem quite as important when you're trying to determine which one of the Smurfs you are.... :)
While I can't speak to other net quizzes, whether or not you agree with such statements is the entire reason they are in this one.
Maybe I was dropped when I was a baby, because I don't see what's so hard about answering that question about puppies and Marvel fans. If I disagree then I don't believe that "Marvel fans are superior to DC fans, because puppies are adorable." If I agree then I believe that it is because puppies are adorable that Marvel fans are superior to DC fans...I see the question as a whole and not as separate unrelated parts. If you address the whole question then you don't have any problems with separate parts...in this case it's not asking if I believe that puppies or adorable or if I believe that "Marvel fans are superior to DC fans". It's about the relation of puppies being adorable having an affect on Marvel fans and DC fans. At least that's how I see it.
It's very easy for me to agree or disagree...it doesn't mean that I'm right, but I know about my beliefs with respect to puppies and comic fans.
Quote from: thalaw2 on January 05, 2008, 09:08:00 PM
Quote from: Uncle Yuan on January 05, 2008, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: HumanTon on January 04, 2008, 09:54:13 PM
Quote from: thalaw2 on January 04, 2008, 06:15:52 PM
I like the fact that the survey only allows you to agree or disagree. No fence riding or not caring. If you really know yourself and (to some extent) are comfortable with who you are and where you stand then there are no problems. Perhaps some people have a problem with the questions because they are not willing to admit certain things about themselves to themselves. If you really have to "pull the trigger" and peoples lives or social welfare are stake...then where will you go?
Mmmm, no, I have a problem with some of the statements because they're not logically consistent as a whole, and yet I'm asked to respond as if they make some kind of sense.
For example, take this statement: "Because puppies are adorable, Marvel fans are superior to DC fans." You probably agree with the first part about puppies being adorable. You may or may not agree with the second part of the statement. Even if you agree with *both* parts of the statement, though, the statement makes no logical sense: the alleged superiorty of Marvel fans just doesn't follow logically from the adorableness of puppies. So if you respond based on the statement as a whole, you'd be forced to disagree even though you agree with its component parts.
In some cases the authors seem to be thinking, "Hah! If you disagree with this then you've shown that you hate puppies!" when in fact what you're trying to say is the authors are engaging in fuzzy thinking when they wrote the statement.
A lot of these 'Net quizzes have similar issues. Of course, flaws in the questionare design don't seem quite as important when you're trying to determine which one of the Smurfs you are.... :)
While I can't speak to other net quizzes, whether or not you agree with such statements is the entire reason they are in this one.
Maybe I was dropped when I was a baby, because I don't see what's so hard about answering that question about puppies and Marvel fans. If I disagree then I don't believe that "Marvel fans are superior to DC fans, because puppies are adorable." If I agree then I believe that it is because puppies are adorable that Marvel fans are superior to DC fans...I see the question as a whole and not as separate unrelated parts. If you address the whole question then you don't have any problems with separate parts...in this case it's not asking if I believe that puppies or adorable or if I believe that "Marvel fans are superior to DC fans". It's about the relation of puppies being adorable having an affect on Marvel fans and DC fans. At least that's how I see it.
It's very easy for me to agree or disagree...it doesn't mean that I'm right, but I know about my beliefs with respect to puppies and comic fans.
They are two separate questions, though. Assigning a correlation between the two is where things get really dicey. The question of A does not and should affect B. Consequently, your answer to B should bear no effect on A. However, the two questions are put together in very "Cause and Effect" type manner. "Because you feel this way about question A then you must feel this way question B." You're not actually answer question B, your answer for B is filled in because of how you answered A.
:doh: :huh: :huh::huh:
It seems to be simple logic...if not A then not B...if A then B
For this B does not equal not A and A does not equal not B
The possibilities are endless.
You can't reverse the question to ask if B then A...that's not what was given. As my music teacher used to say "Play the music as it's written"
Quote from: thalaw2 on January 06, 2008, 12:20:26 AM
:doh: :huh: :huh::huh:
It seems to be simple logic...if not A then not B...if A then B
For this B does not equal not A and A does not equal not B
The possibilities are endless.
You can't reverse the question to ask if B then A...that's not what was given. As my music teacher used to say "Play the music as it's written"
However, you can lead you to believe that A must ALWAYS equal B even if A does NOT ALWAYS equal B. The way the quiz is set up is based on certain stereotypical logic and principles. They even acknowledge this in the FAQ but try to write it off as "just one side saying they are biased toward the other side". There is a difference between being biased and having a logistical flaw. Or for that matter a flaw in the way you set up the equation.
For some reason the political compass link just doesn't work for me, so I did an Ask.com search and found THIS SURVEY (http://politics.beasts.org/), which tries to improve upon the Political Compass one. They even list the questions which I found to be fairly well written. TAKE A LOOK (http://politics.beasts.org/). Is it better?
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on January 05, 2008, 11:23:45 PM
They are two separate questions, though. Assigning a correlation between the two is where things get really dicey. The question of A does not and should affect B. Consequently, your answer to B should bear no effect on A. However, the two questions are put together in very "Cause and Effect" type manner. "Because you feel this way about question A then you must feel this way question B." You're not actually answer question B, your answer for B is filled in because of how you answered A.
But again, the whole point is to force you to respond to an illogical question in the theory that it reveals something about your political views.
Quote from: Pyroclasm on January 06, 2008, 05:13:42 AM
For some reason the political compass link just doesn't work for me, so I did an Ask.com search and found THIS SURVEY (http://politics.beasts.org/), which tries to improve upon the Political Compass one. They even list the questions which I found to be fairly well written. TAKE A LOOK (http://politics.beasts.org/). Is it better?
I think the other one was much more accurate for me. I also noticed that some of the questions in this one were esentailly asked twice, worded a little differently.
Quote from: Alaric on January 06, 2008, 07:52:36 AM
I think the other one was much more accurate for me. I also noticed that some of the questions in this one were esentailly asked twice, worded a little differently.
Yeah, that is mentioned in the FAQ. It supposedly helps gauge what people REALLY think since sometimes opinions change depending on how the question is asked.
I feel the first is more accurate - on this one all my answers pretty nearly canceled out and I wound up very close to the origin of the graph. While I readily admit I have widely disparate views on politics, I strongly feel that I am not a centrist, which this test would tend to suggest.
I appreciate that the second survey is more open about its methodology and the eigenspace decomposition of the questions. The academic in me considers that approach to be more "legitimate", though I understand there are sometimes reasons for a black box approach.
The statements in this second survey were typically more directly political, which is good for a political survey. And, I encountered far fewer statements where I sort of had to "decide which part of the statement I was agreeing with" because I agreed with a conclusion but not the premise or vice versa or couldn't fathom a legitimate connection between them.
But, my reaction to the result was similar to Uncle Yuan's in that I wound up in a spot on their plot where either I am not really there or I am really there and practically no one in the general public is where they think they are.
Part of the problem is that they've effectively eliminated the main positive feature of the first survey: the separation of politics along social and economic axes. Looking at the statement grading rubrik, the second survey seems to have collapsed the economic and social axes of the first survey back into what the second survey is calling its left/right axis. In other words, one's view on taxpayer-funded art can cancel out one's view on drug legalization. That puts us back to the too-simple left-right categories endorsed by the media, which I find to be inadequate.
Of course, they've added to that a pragmatism/idealism axis which is interesting, but I am more interested in the first two axes.
Sigh. Both surveys suffer from significant weaknesses, IMO. And, although the issues of self-selection and representative sampling are very legitimate, I am still interested in what the aggregate political leanings of the survey-takers are. I mean, I don't need a survey to tell me what my views are...
I think a big problem with the second survey is that it makes a lot of assumptions about what is "pragmatic" and what is "idealistic". I think these terms better describe how someone arrives at their possition than what that possition actually is. Two people can hold the same view on a given issue, with one holding that view for idealistic reasons and the other holding it for pragmatic reasons, while a third and a fourth person will reject that view for idealistic and pragmatic reasons, respectively.
Not bad...it lumped me with some fine company. The problem is that many of the questions, I felt were too simplistic, or else needed more specifics. But I find this in any of these quizes.
Perhaps it would be better if the second test eschewed "pragmatism" and "idealism" and instead adopted something similar to the first test's "social" and "economic." Perhaps the addition of a third axis for pragmatism and idealism? Whatever the case, there should be two tests, or just one test taken twice: once to discern what you personally believe, but one what you think the government's policies should be. Personally, I lean towards one end of the political spectrum, but I don't want a government to adopt my views as they stand because I know that would create chaos for all the other people who disagree with me. That's something missing on both tests, although the second's pragmatism/idealism scale is an effort to resolve this problem.