Political Litmus Test
-
Take the Political Compass Test, if you dare, and post it here.
Here is my result:
You might learn something about yourself.
-
Many of the questions are stupid, though.
-
Many of the questions are stupid, though.
Eh, it's very simplified (is "libertarianism" the anarchist defiance of authority, or the opposite - acceptance that not everyone's a winner?), but I guess as a simple personality test it kinda works.
-
I wanted to be agnostic on some of these questions. But mostly, they felt well balanced on the whole.
-
BTW, I'm looking forward to @fox and some of the local republicans doing this, just to see the outliers.
-
-
Huh, expected to hit closer to center on the basis of questions. I hit barely any "strongly" points, most of the questions made me go "yeah, but... damn it, NUANCE!".
Oh well, nothing unexpected in general, just surprised about it given the answers I clicked on.
-
I'm the most neutral so far:
-
Interesting how everyone's libetarian leaning so far. I wonder what @fox would get?
-
-
-
You might learn something about yourself.
Or about such tests, of course.I have one in a PDF where I'm just between the feet of Fidel Castro.
-
huh..... not the result i expected.
given that i merely answered "StronglyDisagree" to every question in an attempt to break the "quiz" i expected to be pinned to at least one of the rails, or to be dead center.....
this was not an expected outcome..... and no, i'm not going to take the test seriously, but i may take it again and attempt to break it some more.
-
Looks like the questions are balanced between left and right, but biased towards agree = authoritarian. Hopefully strongly agree to each would be a mirror image of that, if not then there's something dodgy going on
Edit
Looks about right. They could make it dead centre by negating some of the statements
-
A few dodgy questions in there.
-
Great... I'm a cross between Ghandi and Ron Paul.
-
Agreed; many of the questions required you to first take a stance on several issues before you could summarise it to the lest painful answer to give to the test.
-
You might learn something about yourself.
A lot of those questions are stupid and difficult to answer. But here you go...
Economic Left/Right: 3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28
-
Unsurprising.
-
-
Whoa, @PJH is bigger republican than @boomzilla. Still no one above the authoritarian line, though.
-
-
Still no one above the authoritarian line, though.
To be fair, many of the questions really needed an "I don't care" or "neutral" option. I'm not sure how those skewed my results.
-
Joining the green crowd…
To be fair, many of the questions really needed an "I don't care" or "neutral" option.
Yes. Also some of the answers really depended on precise wording and sometimes I suspect I agreed or disagreed for somewhat different reasons that the author might have had in mind.
-
These could be the most non-descript avatars ever. If we were still allowed on meta.fail it would be a fair trolling oppertunity.
-
-
[img]https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=0.63&soc=-3.03[/img]
Unsurprising for me.
I was always floating around center. When I took that same test a few year ago, it was closer to (0;0), although I didn't try to break anything. I also believe people who go too far in either direction are too young, delusional, or both. And those who are close to any extreme of the graph are totally bonkers.
-
I also believe people who go too far in either direction are too young, delusional, or both. And those who are close to any extreme of the graph are totally bonkers.
And you also believe in Myers-Briggs?
-
This has actually been one of my favorite political sites for several years, and I usually retake it every few years. I can post my most recent result when I get home tonight (I bookmark them, just as an interesting way to see how my opinions change over time), but I'm pretty solidly in the green (around -3 to -4 on both axes, I think).
-
So apparently I'm literally Ghandi...
-
-
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
-
Whoa there @Polygeekery. You should have taken a left turn in Albuquerque.
-
To be fair, there were some questions in there that really deserved a neutral response but that was not an option.
Try #2
-
To be fair, there were some questions in there that really deserved a neutral response but that was not an option.
+1
I think what nudged me into the authoritarian side was the questions' failure to distinguish between personal beliefs and political beliefs. My moral/belief system has a lot of "I don't agree with that personally, but it should probably be legal as long as nobody is hurting other people" stuff in it. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I want to toss them in prison...
-
My moral/belief system has a lot of "I don't agree with that personally, but it should probably be legal as long as nobody is hurting other people" stuff in it. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I want to toss them in prison...
Same here.
When it comes to the issue of drugs, I am personally opposed to the idea of recreational drug use on a personal level. I don't want to do drugs, and my experiences with painkillers leads me to believe that it numbs you and dumbs you to the experiences of life.
But as long as a person does not break any other laws in the course of or because of their drug use I don't think it should be illegal. The act itself should not be illegal.
-
And you also believe in Myers-Briggs?
God I had a company that made us take that and do all this shit based on the results. Such crap.
Still, less shitty than the "reiki massage" person they brought in. It wasn't really a bad company, just got taken by a lot of hipster psuedo-science peddlers. I guess I should be impressed they were interested in (and spent money on) employee happiness, even if they went about it in the dumbest way possible.
-
Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I want to toss them in prison...
The test isn't a morality test, though. It's measuring your opinion on what government should be. It's measuring whether you think the government should protect people from bad choices or whether it should give people as much freedom as is humanly possible (authoritarian vs libertarian).
-
But the unspoken assumption is whether you think the Government should be aligned to your personal interests. What if you don't agree with that assumption?
And it's not like that mindset is strange or unusual. Hell, we have military generals who get up in front of Congress every year during budget-time and argue that the US should spend less money on the military.
I'd personally benefit a lot if the Government sent everybody who owns a Ford a $1000/month stipend. Do I think they should do that? Of course not. The survey has to be able to tell the difference.
-
But the unspoken assumption is whether you think the Government should be aligned to your personal interests. What if you don't agree with that assumption?
Then you are libertarian. Libertarians at their core do not believe that their morality should necessarily become law.
-
I guess? I'm just saying, if Mott read "The government should make marijuana illegal, agree/disagree", thought to himself "pot is bad; it shouldn't be illegal, but it's bad", and clicked "agree", the test is going to rate him inaccurately. The important part of the thought is "it shouldn't be illegal", not "it's bad". That's exactly what the test is trying to rate.
-
I'd have to retake the test to check, but I thought some of them asked whether I agree with something and others asked if I thought something should be legal.
-
Well I'm not taking the stupid test because I don't give a shit, but then the question is: is the test crystal-clear about what your answer means?
Because from the conversation here it sounds like it was not.
-
It's not great, but I didn't find it too hard to understand. There's a lot of compound questions: "If A, then B and C, agree/disagree", and you have to put aside your feelings on A to address the hypothetical situation.
Like question 1:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Putting aside the question of whether globalisation is inevitable or even desirable, the question is asking about whether human needs or corporate needs are the most important factor in making policy about it. If I had strong feelings about globalisation, that would be hard to answer I think.
-
There's also an implicit assumption that serving the interests of "trans-national" corporations is somehow not serving the interests of humanity, which is utter bullshit IMO.
Hey, guess what? If the corporation can make pots cheaper, more of humanity has pots and everybody's quality of life goes up. In any case, even if I wanted to support small business in, say, Namibia, I'd still need a large trans-national corporation to ship their merchandise from their warehouse to mine. That ain't happening via. Mom and Pop trucking companies. Only the efficiencies of a large corporation can support a container ship and the port facilities to use it.
-
There's also an implicit assumption that serving the interests of "trans-national" corporations is somehow not serving the interests of humanity, which is utter bullshit IMO.
Hey, guess what? If the corporation can make pots cheaper, more of humanity has pots and everybody's quality of life goes up.
Yeah, and a person who does not necessarily see corporations as evil is more likely to see things that way, and the test should rate them accordingly.
-
Right. So some of them are worded poorly.
If the corporation can make pots cheaper, more of humanity has pots and everybody's quality of life goes up.
If the corporation can make cheaper pots by enslaving 60% of the human race, to use a totally fictitious example, overall quality of life goes down, as the 60% suffer more than the 40% gain. But that example is grounded in a very utilitarian philosophy, in which total happiness is the goal, which itself has its own problems....
Anyway. Yeah, some of the questions suck.
-
There were other things with flawed assumptions baked in like if a "transnational corporation" benefits from something, it's bad for people.
-
... which would never happen. Unless people forgot Henry Ford's contribution to the world.
corporations as evil
Why don't they just ask if you're a Greenpeace member. Those are the only morons who think corporations are inherently evil.
-
Obligatory: