The Political Compass, or Let's See How Long it Takes to Get This Thread Locked

[Uncle Yuan]

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.

[zuludelta]

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.   

[Midnight]

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.

[Kommando]

I'm a freaking hippy!  That could explain the underlying self-loathing.   :P

[stumpy]

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.

[captainspud]

I got a C.

[Mr. Hamrick]

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.

[thalaw2]

That's scary accurate.  I'm quite pleased with the results. 

And yes....no discussion of scores on this forum --So sayeth Thalaw2

[zuludelta]

"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!!!

[lugaru]

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.

[tommyboy]

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.

[Uncle Yuan]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.

[zuludelta]

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.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

:blink:

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Anarchosocialist (Apparently)

[doctorchallenger]

A 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.

[The Hitman]

"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.

[Alaric]

Several of the questions/potential problems raised here are actually directly addressed in the site's FAQ, which I strongly suggest people read.

[Cardmaster]

Huh.

[BWPS]

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.

[BentonGrey]

A 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.

[Alaric]

A 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.

[BentonGrey]

I'll have to do that.

[stumpy]

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...)

[GogglesPizanno]

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.  ;)

[HumanTon]

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.

[thalaw2]

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?

[BlueBard]

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.

[Alaric]

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.

[stumpy]

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.