The Political Compass

[Criseyde]

Like the MBTI and Enneagram systems sometimes help our discussions in other areas of the site, I thought the political compass scale could help here. It tests economic left/right and social authoritarianism/libertarianism.

The Political Compass - Test

I'm a -3.12 on the economic scale (left) and -6.77 on the social scale (strongly libertarian). I'm hanging out with the Dalai Lama.

What about you?

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Like the MBTI and Enneagram systems sometimes help our discussions in other areas of the site, I thought the political compass scale could help here. It tests economic left/right and social authoritarianism/libertarianism.

The Political Compass - Test

I'm a -3.12 on the economic scale (left) and -6.77 on the social scale (strongly libertarian). I'm hanging out with the Dalai Lama.

What about you?

Economic Left/Right: -6.00 (left)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41 (libertarian)

Also chillin' with the Dalai Lama.

My results on these things tend to be extreme, because if I've thought deeply about something, I'm likely to put "Strongly Disagree/Agree". Rarely did I put the other options. There were statements like "First generation immigrants can never fully integrate into the other culture." where my reaction was "How am I supposed to know? And why is it important I, as a non-immigrant, have an opinion on this instead of simply accepting whatever the outcome is in a particular case?"

Or this number:

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

How do you define able? What if a person is able bodied and minded but can't find work? What if they can only find one McShift but it's not enough to support their kids?

And how do you define 'support'? Should we all moralistically tut-tut at the bums-by-choice crowd? Not at all, but I don't think we should give them welfare that could be going to Mr. McShift-Worker and kids.

Those were the questions I didn't answer with a "Strongly...".

Thanks for posting this quiz.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Economic Left/Right: -6.00 (left)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41 (libertarian)

Also chillin' with the Dalai Lama.

My results on these things tend to be extreme, because if I've thought deeply about something, I'm likely to put "Strongly Disagree/Agree". Rarely did I put the other options. There were statements like "First generation immigrants can never fully integrate into the other culture." where my reaction was "How am I supposed to know? And why is it important I, as a non-immigrant, have an opinion on this instead of simply accepting whatever the outcome is in a particular case?"

I put agree for that one. I know an awful lot of first gen immigrants (after all, I'm 2nd gen -- go Indian diaspora). I know what the question was getting at -- it's whether you're pro- or anti-immigration. A lot of anti-immigration people use "they never fully integrate" as part of their "anti" stance. However... I also didn't want to lie and say I disagreed.

Though now that I think about it again, I suppose you could probably find one or two people who did "fully integrate," which kind of kills the "never" part of that question. Oh well.

Or this number:

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

How do you define able? What if a person is able bodied and minded but can't find work? What if they can only find one McShift but it's not enough to support their kids?

And how do you define 'support'? Should we all moralistically tut-tut at the bums-by-choice crowd? Not at all, but I don't think we should give them welfare that could be going to Mr. McShift-Worker and kids.

Those were the questions I didn't answer with a "Strongly...".

I had trouble with that one too. But I decided to take the question completely at face value, while muttering to myself about how it doesn't really work that way in real life.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I put agree for that one. I know an awful lot of first gen immigrants (after all, I'm 2nd gen -- go Indian diaspora). I know what the question was getting at -- it's whether you're pro- or anti-immigration. A lot of anti-immigration people use "they never fully integrate" as part of their "anti" stance. However... I also didn't want to lie and say I disagreed.

Though now that I think about it again, I suppose you could probably find one or two people who did "fully integrate," which kind of kills the "never" part of that question. Oh well.

That's true, and it's part of the problem with how any of these quizzes are. Though this is a good one as they go. I put "disagree" while thinking to myself "How the hell could I know?" and that it wasn't a valid argument against immigration.

I had trouble with that one too. But I decided to take the question completely at face value, while muttering to myself about how it doesn't really work that way in real life.

Exactly. I put "agree", because it seemed like it was saying if someone could (in every way) work and chooses not to, they shouldn't expect welfare.

[Mariana Trench]

The religion section was interesting too, because I ended up putting "Strongly Disagree" on all but one. The only one I didn't was "Astrology accurately explains many things" to which I put "disagree", because while it's been essentially proven wrong in it's literal, predictive form--it's still an interesting archetypal and historical study and a tool in that way. And that question was -really- vague.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

The religion section was interesting too, because I ended up putting "Strongly Disagree" on all but one. The only one I didn't was "Astrology accurately explains many things" to which I put "disagree", because while it's been essentially proven wrong in it's literal, predictive form--it's still an interesting archetypal and historical study and a tool in that way. And that question was -really- vague.

Same here.

[aelle]

-6.75, -7.38

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Or this number:

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

The first thing that came to my mind with this example is my friends with law or engineering degrees who when signing up at the unemployment agency are offered jobs as cleaning ladies or pizza delivery guy. Yay. So of course they turn them down to look for better matches (which are out there, just not posted at the unemployment agency), and I do support that choice.

I think it's on purpose that many if not most questions are really biased and incomplete. The one that infuriates me the most is "No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." What do you mean, however independent its content? It's the opposite!! The less you depend on big businesses and lobby groups the more independent your content!

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by aelle

The first thing that came to my mind with this example is my friends with law or engineering degrees who when signing up at the unemployment agency are offered jobs as cleaning ladies or pizza delivery guy. Yay. So of course they turn them down to look for better matches (which are out there, just not posted at the unemployment agency), and I do support that choice.

Huh, I didn't think of that. Most people I know who would make a point to say the original statement wouldn't count things like this as being willfully unemployed, but as looking for work. But, it's incredible vague and biased to work within certain dichotomies.

I think it's on purpose that many if not most questions are really biased and incomplete. The one that infuriates me the most is "No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." What do you mean, however independent its content? It's the opposite!! The less you depend on big businesses and lobby groups the more independent your content!

Oh I agree. I think there's a bit of US bias specifically here, as NPR and PBS, the public radio and TV stations here are constantly accused of being liberally biased by conservatives. They'll usually do this by pointing to something oh-so-super-liberal a contributor did in zir past, despite the fact that the station itself goes to great lengths to keep the on-air content free from bias, certainly more than any corporately funded news outlet.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Huh, I didn't think of that. Most people I know who would make a point to say the original statement wouldn't count things like this as being willfully unemployed, but as looking for work. But, it's incredible vague and biased to work within certain dichotomies.

Oh, I agree. People who would agree to the statement in the test would probably see it as applying to "welfare queens" or whatever they call happily unemployed people. In my experience though, there is no such thing as someone who is completely satisfied about being on welfare and not having an active, productive part in society in the long run. People who don't know how to get off and stay off welfare, yes, but it's not about refusing work, it's about being unable to stay employed simply because the world of employment is so far removed from their experience and the experience of their peers. And these people need all the more help and assistance, and not just financial, in my opinion. Anyway, I disagreed with the statement.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by aelle

People who don't know how to get off and stay off welfare, yes, but it's not about refusing work, it's about being unable to stay employed simply because the world of employment is so far removed from their experience and the experience of their peers. And these people need all the more help and assistance, and not just financial, in my opinion.

And that's not even in the highly publicized dialogue around the issue, in the US at least. And I agree.


On another note, I found this diagram particularly interesting in their analysis section:



That needs to be seen by the people convinced Obama is a socialist.

[aelle]

... Or that Ron Paul is a libertarian.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by aelle

... Or that Ron Paul is a libertarian.

Yeah. And he's seen as extreme. The fact that US politics barely scratches beyond the Authoritarian/Right sector says something, and those that do digress are seen as far left nut jobs. Even Mike Gravel, who's clearly on the right.

One note for accuracy though is that the above graphic centers around the '08 elections.

[Criseyde]

"Libertarians" in the US have very conservative fiscal views. And of course no politicians here can say things like "yes, gay people should be allowed to get married."

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

"Libertarians" in the US have very conservative fiscal views. And of course no politicians here can say things like "yes, gay people should be allowed to get married."

Or "I am not a Christian".

Hell, Obama got crap for mentioning "non believers" whiles listing off groups of people he hoped to unite. Bush didn't get much for saying he didn't consider atheists patriots or citizens.

[ZephyrusX]

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.62

I'm off in leftist land. Don't let me teach your children.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.62

I'm off in leftist land. Don't let me teach your children.

Oh, I'll let you teach my children all right... if you know what I mean.




(I don't know what I mean).

[Criseyde]

I can't believe that I'm the most right-wing person in this thread so far!!! There is something seriously wrong, here. It must be because I said land should be sold as a commodity. I mean, I don't like it either, but the alternative (according to the quiz) is government owned land, right..?


pinkos, all y'all.

[ZephyrusX]

I 'agreed' to that as well, actually. Though I had the Aboriginal idea of land running through my head all the while. Still, I just can't imagine a society where land is not a commodity. I have a hard time picturing the commons even. Water? Meh... It is sold in bottles. Air will be a commodity some day.

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I can't believe that I'm the most right-wing person in this thread so far!!! There is something seriously wrong, here. It must be because I said land should be sold as a commodity. I mean, I don't like it either, but the alternative (according to the quiz) is government owned land, right..?


pinkos, all y'all.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I can't believe that I'm the most right-wing person in this thread so far!!! There is something seriously wrong, here. It must be because I said land should be sold as a commodity. I mean, I don't like it either, but the alternative (according to the quiz) is government owned land, right..?


pinkos, all y'all.

I did too and I scored -6.50 and -8.00 respectively.

I earned my, "don't blame me-I voted for Nader" shirt.

[supertom]

Bit surprise by my economic standing but that's what you get for being a economics student.

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28

[Peterw]

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

I only had one "strongly" answer which was to strongly disagree with this one:

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

I agreed with the 'bum by choice' question although in reality it would have to be on a case by case basis. For instance if someone is highly qualified ina field they should only be placed into temporary work until something more suitable comes up. How this would be implemented I don't know. Cloud copmputing and cloud labour has opened up the world of temping quite a bit.

[Brutha]

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

How do you define able? What if a person is able bodied and minded but can't find work? What if they can only find one McShift but it's not enough to support their kids?

There are people who have no work.
Should government come and say: "Look, apply to this job." If the person applies and doesn't get a job, no problem. The government supports the person with money.
If the person however refuses to apply they don't get full support from the government anymore.

The financial amount by which those people should be supported is a different issue.

[Beingist]

Thanks, Cris, for the link. This was rather what I trying to get at in that thread I started, which turned out to be a miserable failure. But, I live and learn.

Here's me:
Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

Typical me, I suppose--Libertarian to the core, but such a centrist politically, I'm like a deer in the proverbial headlights. Of course, I'm plotted down there with ... no one else in particular

Originally Posted by Peterw

I only had one "strongly" answer [...]

I only had a few, myself, and the reason why was because of stuff like this..

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

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

In many, if not most cases, a single word generates an unspoken caveat--as MT asks here, "what defines 'able' and 'opportunity'? -- If I have been making 40k/year doing IT work, I'm likely overqualified for a minimum wage for a dishwashing job. Now, if I ran out of unemployment, I might have to take the dishwashing job, if I'm at least to feed myself. But, these conditionals aren't in the question, so, you are forced to either agree or disagree, generally speaking.

Like others here, the only 'stronglys' in my case, dealth with the religious questions, and the one about marijuana decriminalization.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I can't believe that I'm the most right-wing person in this thread so far!!! There is something seriously wrong, here. It must be because I said land should be sold as a commodity. I mean, I don't like it either, but the alternative (according to the quiz) is government owned land, right..?


pinkos, all y'all.

I also said land should be sold as a commodity, but not strongly.

Originally Posted by Cado

I did too and I scored -6.50 and -8.00 respectively.

I earned my, "don't blame me-I voted for Nader" shirt.

[ZephyrusX]

I disagreed (not strongly) due to how work is defined in Canada and I think the question is talking about welfare. The last welfare population study I read listed single mothers as one of the core subgroups in that population. These single mothers often forego minimum wage jobs and opt for welfare as they prefer to stay with their children. They get off of welfare when they find more suitable childcare arrangements (most people leave the welfare ranks within a year despite popular conceptions).

As they are on welfare, most people I know would say they are not working. I disagree. Child raising and domestic work is a legitimate form of work that contributes both to the private and public sector (they are raising future populations). They are making the rational decision to forgo employment in order to prioritize their children.

There are people who abuse the system, which is why I didn't 'strongly agree', but most people don't. Most people leave the welfare system as quickly as possible as it is a dreary existence.

And I'm rambling again...

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

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

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

I also said land should be sold as a commodity, but not strongly.

I think my right-er(?? how do I say this) score is more a result of only putting "strongly" in front of a few social issues, actually, than any disagreements that I have with you, Cado, or aelle... you three are all people with whom I agree very consistently on political issues.

I don't know -- I'm *not* a communist, though, and that's what the scale is all the way over there on the left.

Beingist, I did think of you while I was posting the thread

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Beingist, I did think of you while I was posting the thread

Yes, I thought so. Thanks, Cris.

[russianrocket]

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Advantage to whom? To the government? To the people? To the people that subscribe to that parties ideas? Sure, having one party, avoids arguments, but only because there is no one to argue. We have Castro, who decides everything, and no one to argue against him, so it's an advantage to him..

This is an idiotic question to ask, and even worse one to try and answer. It doesn't give enough detail. And it's not the only one of it's kind, in this questionere.

[russianrocket]

Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

lol and this is why I can't be left or right. I'm always right in the middle. Which annoys the hell out of my left and right friends. I'm sure if I really thought harder about my questions, I'd be even further north.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Advantage to whom? To the government? To the people? To the people that subscribe to that parties ideas? Sure, having one party, avoids arguments, but only because there is no one to argue. We have Castro, who decides everything, and no one to argue against him, so it's an advantage to him..

This is an idiotic question to ask, and even worse one to try and answer. It doesn't give enough detail. And it's not the only one of it's kind, in this questionere.

Yeah, that's main problem with it. It's a poorly worded question. I said "Disagree" (perhaps strongly, I don't remember) because it seemed to be getting at "Do you think a one-party state is a good thing or not?". That's the way these quizzes are.