Where you stand on the political compass..

Well, I was right. I redid it, taking the Strong options where I actually had a strong-ish opinion and reserving the normal options for when I was unsure or only halfway agreed with the statement, and I went from a (-2.88,-5.74) to a (-2.38,-6.51). Seems more accurate now.
 
Blasphemous said:
I do however agree that the test is far from perfect. Some of the statements were very confusing to me (especially economical ones) and worst of all there were times when I pretty much equally agreed and disagreed, so I had to pick the side that seemed right to me even though I agreed with both sides almost equally (and "Agree" was too strong a way to put how much I agreed with them)...
I would have loved a no opinion or don't care option. That said, I've moved a bit lower left, as I was about -1 and -1 before, give or take. Or that might just be my "Who cares?" philosophy.

I should run for office on that. The "Who Cares?" platform!
 
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10

people should have economic and social freedom
 
Economic Left/Right: 5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.18

I'm more authoritarian than the last time I took this.
 
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

I'm right next to the Dalai Lama! :D
 
North King said:
I beg to differ... :)

You were posting your scores from memory. I actually retook the test for the umpteenth time.

[/trying to cover up her error]
 
Might as well post mine:

Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.51

I've actually zigzagged from Left to Right the past several times I've taken it, but at least my Social score's stayed the same.
 
Cuivienen said:
You were posting your scores from memory. I actually retook the test for the umpteenth time.

[/trying to cover up her error]
Alright! Lefty fight! :p
 
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

I pretty much agree with this.
 
Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.87
 
The Political Compass Quiz, aka the Nolan Test or The World's Smallest Political Quiz, was devised by a libertarian named Charles Nolan. This quiz asks a set of leading questions to tempt you to proclaim yourself a libertarian.

The most obvious criticism of this quiz is that it tries to graph the range of politics onto only 2 axes, as if they were the only two that mattered, rather than the two libertarians want the most change in. For example, if marxists were to create such a test, they would use a different set of axes.

The second obvious criticism is typical of polls taken to show false levels of support: the questions are worded to elicit the desired response. This is called framing bias. For example, on a marxist test, you might see a question such as "Do you believe people should help each other?" Most people would answer "agree" to this question; the problem is the "but"s that are filtered out by the question format.

Many libertarians use this as an "outreach" (aka evangelism) tool. By making it easy to get high scores on both axes, subjects can be told that they are already a libertarian and just didn't know it. This is the same sort of suckering that cold readers and other frauds use.
 
YNCS said:
The Political Compass Quiz, aka the Nolan Test or The World's Smallest Political Quiz, was devised by a libertarian named Charles Nolan. This quiz asks a set of leading questions to tempt you to proclaim yourself a libertarian.

The most obvious criticism of this quiz is that it tries to graph the range of politics onto only 2 axes, as if they were the only two that mattered, rather than the two libertarians want the most change in. For example, if marxists were to create such a test, they would use a different set of axes.

The second obvious criticism is typical of polls taken to show false levels of support: the questions are worded to elicit the desired response. This is called framing bias. For example, on a marxist test, you might see a question such as "Do you believe people should help each other?" Most people would answer "agree" to this question; the problem is the "but"s that are filtered out by the question format.

Many libertarians use this as an "outreach" (aka evangelism) tool. By making it easy to get high scores on both axes, subjects can be told that they are already a libertarian and just didn't know it. This is the same sort of suckering that cold readers and other frauds use.

That's great to know, but this isn't the same quiz.

Renata
 
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

My economic views are straying toward the left side, I see. Must be because I'm so close to Santa Monica.
 
I was almost right in the middle but i guess a leftish libertaian.

This was real surprising since in most of my opinions i am more totalarian. but i think it is because for the business questions i stated how i belive in a strong market. But i dont belive in free market (that wasnt a question) long live goverement controlled monopolies
 
Blasphemous said:
1. Actually, I would rationalize that progress without argument is not progress at all, or at least not the kind of progress that a government should have (which is thoroughly implicit here.) So I disagree with that statement logically (and morally as well.)
If a dictator seizes power and institutes measures which raise the life expectancy of a nation by ten years while silencing any opposition, one could call it progress. I am not saying unequivocally that the ends justify the means, but after the fact, progress (with a narrow interpretation) has been made. Your belief that it is "not the kind of progress that a government should have" coupled with your contention that "[it] is thouroughly implicit here" proves that certain suppositions are necessary to answer the question to have it graded/tallied in the expected way. I am not interested in discussing whether or not a democratic system is necessary for progress; I am simply pointing out a flaw in the question, and that is all that is needed.
Blasphemous said:
2. The word "excessively" is key here. If you believe it's not excessive, you disagree with the statement.
Point taken.
 
@bad_ronald:
Thing is that both of your examples are essentially the same thing, except example #2 is more explicit about requiring a value-judgement ("excessively") and #1 is more implicit about it ("progress"). No such test can be completely scientific and cold, it will always require personal value-judgements and that's really the point. Also, believing that a one-party system will breed more efficient progress is a legitimate opinion for a supporter of democracy. It does not negate other arguments for democracy. For instance, you may believe that having just one party is more efficient but still prefer multi-party democracy, perhaps because it allows minorities to express themselves or because it leads to broader support of the government. The "one-party systems are more efficient" statement may indicate that those who agree with it have a certain autocratic bent, but it doesn't necessarily mean they would prefer an autocracy to a democracy.
I totally agree, by the way, that arguments get in the way of efficiency... I just don't think it's really progress if there's no argument involved... The real progress is when people change their minds and agree to a solution that would be broadly acceped in society at large. The problem and the solution themselves are insignificant in comparison to this kind of progress.
 
*Can't believe I took the test again*

Economic Left/Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
 
Top Bottom