Your Political Compass.

Mr.Bob · Post by **Mr.Bob** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:02 am

I think this chart is slightly skewed towards the bottom-left. I redid it choosing the most offensive positions I could take, and yet I still only managed to get
Economic Left/Right: 6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.44

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:17 am

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

Some of those questions were too complex for a simple 'Agree/Disagree' option. But I'm happy with my place.

NakedElf · Post by **NakedElf** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:08 pm

Mr.Bob wrote:I think this chart is slightly skewed towards the bottom-left. I redid it choosing the most offensive positions I could take, and yet I still only managed to get
Economic Left/Right: 6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.44

To me it seems more skewed toward the center--that is, there really weren't questions which would identify people on the faar left or the faar right.

For example, a lot of people favor legalizing marijuana--but there weren't any questions which proposed the idea of legalizing *all* drugs. Likewise, there are a lot of people who prefer to associate with their own race, but there weren't any questions which really got at stronger forms of racism.

Killbert-Robby · Post by **Killbert-Robby** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:40 pm

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59

Jackhass · Post by **Jackhass** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:32 pm

princess wrote:Nearly in the centre- I am so bland.

Heh, the person closest to the centre draws the filthiest comic around here...who'd a thunk it?

NakedElf · Post by **NakedElf** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:13 am

The world is full of surprises.

Princess · Post by **Princess** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:06 am

I'm always letting people down

Prettydragoon · Post by **Prettydragoon** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:09 am

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-5.13
Hm.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:31 am

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-5.74
Slightly left, rather liberal. Just as I thought so.

Rcmonroe · Post by **Rcmonroe** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:21 am

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

Funny thing is I think I'm pretty conservative.

I also think some of the questions were worded badly (as they always seem to be in these kinds of tests), and you often have to skew your answers to what you think the question is intending to ask rather than what it is asking. And since you may be guessing wrong, it can screw up your results.

But I only had to scratch my head at a few of the questions, as opposed to most, which is sometimes the case.

Jesusabdullah · Post by **Jesusabdullah** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:53 pm

While some of the questions are a bit strange, I'd say your answers deviate enough from your hypothesis that inaccuracies in the test are *not* enough to explain it. That is, I bet you're quite a bit more bottom-left corner than you think.

Edit: Part of it may be that you're considering an older definition of conservative. I'm no historian, but the concept of what's called conservative and what's called liberal has changed many times in recent history, as recently as Reagan, possibly as recently as Dubya.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:18 pm

NakedElf wrote:Not to mention that a lot of questions are a lot more complex than they appear at first glance. For example, the one about people who don't work when they could.

The actual statement you're being asked is:

"Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support."

This is the second time you mentioned this question, but I don't see what's so overly complex about it. You have to understand they're asking general questions. There's no way they could craft a question that would cover every possible contingency. There will always be exceptions - you have to be able to accept that this is a general question, and that a general answer does exist.

In general, would you consume milk that has expired? Well, no. Not in general. Unless it's cheese. Or it's just a day out of code and smells ok. But in general, no, you wouldn't consume expired milk.

Would you pet a kitten? Well, yes. Unless it was wild and psycho looking or I was told not to, or it was dead, or something else gross. But in general, yes I like kittens, and I would pet one.

Nanda · Post by **Nanda** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:17 pm

Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.90

Warren · Post by **Warren** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:54 pm

Noise Monkey wrote:....holy crap, I'm a lefty!

They've been calling me a hippie, but I didn't believe them. WHY DIDN'T I BELIEVE THEM?!?!

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-3.54

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54

OK, not total hippie... but I move more to the left the older I get.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:39 am

rcmonroe wrote:I also think some of the questions were worded badly (as they always seem to be in these kinds of tests), and you often have to skew your answers to what you think the question is intending to ask rather than what it is asking. And since you may be guessing wrong, it can screw up your results.

I noticed that too. When they say "I think that my race is superior in some aspects" do they mean it as "I think that my race is superior overall" or "I think that every race is superior in some aspects over the others"? Cause those are two very different things.
Also when they say "Rich people should be able to pay for better medical attention", what kind of attention do they actually mean? Do they mean that people who don't pay should purposefully get bare minimum, or just that rich people should be able to pay for some additional conformity or perhaps a different doctor or medicine...

NakedElf · Post by **NakedElf** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:42 am

rkolter wrote:
NakedElf wrote:Not to mention that a lot of questions are a lot more complex than they appear at first glance. For example, the one about people who don't work when they could.
The actual statement you're being asked is:

"Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support."

This is the second time you mentioned this question, but I don't see what's so overly complex about it.

The original question as stated is idiotic. The level of state support someone should *expect* to get should depend on the level of support which actually exists in their country. You live in Zimbabwe? You shouldn't expect jack shit. You live in Sweden? You can expect a lot more.

So then we have to guess at what the question is *actually* trying to ask.

But phrasing matters a *lot* in these sorts of questions. "Are there circumstances where society ought to support otherwise able-bodied people who could work?" is one possible phrasing. "Should society support people who refuse perfectly good jobs," is another. Given the same group of people, the two questions will elicit different answers.

My point in my recent comment was that I think the question as phrased (aside from being shittily phrased,) is going to bias people's responses away from their true opinions on the subject, just because they haven't thought it through. I would wager that a *great* number of people who would respond that society shouldn't support able-bodied people who refuse to work would support maternity/paternity leave, not consciously realizing that these are the same thing.

In other words, shitty question+lack of thought=inaccurate results.

Or to put it in other other words, in light of the other posts above mine, in general this is a test designed for people who *don't* think about political issues. The questions (such as the 'racially superior' one) should all be taken on the most superficial level possible, and are basically geared towards people near the American mainstream. Which gives broad, vaguely useful results, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss the questions in more depth and figure out what we *actually* think on those issues.

Sortelli · Post by **Sortelli** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:31 am

Huh, last time I took this I was just right of zero on both poles. Now I'm +2.56 and +0.56. I didn't think my free market ideals had gotten stronger, but I suspect it's got more to do with the kinds of questions they asked.

I think their questions on authoritarian/libertarian issues were completely screwy. Do you like being told what to do (y/n)

Of course not. I'll still pull over when there's a cop flashing his lights behind me, though.

I have a feeling that two people could put in completely opposite answers and still end up on the middle of both scales.

Edit: On second thought, I think their right/left economic questions were pretty screwy too, since it always seemed to boil down to Do you like big companies (y/n) No wonder everyone's getting double negatives. Which is a bummer, given how hard left economics tend to always lead to vicious authoritinarianism in practice (see all those times Communism didn't do Communism right).

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:17 pm

NakedElf wrote:
rkolter wrote:
NakedElf wrote:Not to mention that a lot of questions are a lot more complex than they appear at first glance. For example, the one about people who don't work when they could.
The actual statement you're being asked is:

"Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support."

This is the second time you mentioned this question, but I don't see what's so overly complex about it.
The original question as stated is idiotic. The level of state support someone should *expect* to get should depend on the level of support which actually exists in their country. You live in Zimbabwe? You shouldn't expect jack shit. You live in Sweden? You can expect a lot more.

They didn't ask a question. They made a statement and they are asking if you agree with it. Clearly, if it was an actual question you'd be right. They should expect whatever is currently covered. They are asking if you AGREE with the statement that they should expect society's support. This is not the same thing.

So then we have to guess at what the question is *actually* trying to ask.

But phrasing matters a *lot* in these sorts of questions. "Are there circumstances where society ought to support otherwise able-bodied people who could work?" is one possible phrasing.

No.... you see, you cut out the entire meat of my statement, where I explained they are making a general statement and are clearly not intending to cover every possible circumstance.

"Should society support people who refuse perfectly good jobs," is another. Given the same group of people, the two questions will elicit different answers.

The second question you asked is more on par, but again, they aren't asking a question, they are asking you to rate how a statement falls into your beliefs.

My point in my recent comment was that I think the question as phrased (aside from being shittily phrased,) is going to bias people's responses away from their true opinions on the subject, just because they haven't thought it through. I would wager that a *great* number of people who would respond that society shouldn't support able-bodied people who refuse to work would support maternity/paternity leave, not consciously realizing that these are the same thing.

No, see, they aren't. As I clearly showed, they are asking a general statement, and there will always be exceptions to the rule in general statements. That's understood.

If anyone actually tried to write an opinion based poll following your advice, each question would have thirty annotated pages.

It's a general statement, and they're asking for your general opinion. It's not that tough - what was your gut reaction upon hearing that statement - did you agree, and only afterwards find exceptions, or disagree immediately? And how strenuously?

Noise Monkey · Post by **Noise Monkey** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:48 pm

I hate surveys that ask not only whether I agree or not, but how much. I tend toward the middle on most things, so the few questions I care about usually screw up the results.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:07 pm

Noise Monkey wrote:I hate surveys that ask not only whether I agree or not, but how much. I tend toward the middle on most things, so the few questions I care about usually screw up the results.

I'd rather they had three options for each side instead of just two - there are a lot of things that I feel more than "I agree" but less than "OMFG I AGREE!"