Political Compass

ibis

I'm sure a few people here have done the Political Compass test, which measures your political orientation (admittedly on a US scale).

What I've done is to collect the results of posters' scores as summaries here. Currently that shows politics.ie and Machine Nation results - Boards.ie is down the bottom. You can add your result by clicking on "Add Yourself".

Obviously this isn't the least bit scientific - if you're interested, though, it's there.

billy the squid

Id doesn't say what your supposed to put into the last two boxes. kinda rubbish isn't it?

ibis

billy the squid wrote: »

Id doesn't say what your supposed to put into the last two boxes. kinda rubbish isn't it?

You need to take the Political Compass Test first. Your scores from that go in the boxes.

mountainyman

I can't add myself but if someone else can be bothered to I am -7.48 economically and -0.78 in the authoritarian one.

MM

ibis

mountainyman wrote: »

I can't add myself but if someone else can be bothered to I am -7.48 economically and -0.78 in the authoritarian one.

MM

Fixed a display issue! You should all be able to see yourselves now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

It's seems to have placed me pretty much where I would have placed myself. Centrist on economic issues and liberal on social issues.

mountainyman

Donegalfella you are highly consistent in your outlook. Are you a devotee of the Austrian School?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stabshauptmann

How are you supposed to take a test seriously when the first question is:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

And what has "Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence." got to do with authoritharian vs libertarian. Its scoring is biased based on the authors opinion.

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." Agreeing doesnt make you anti democratic, if the question was is a one party state better because... then maybe. The question is do you think one party states make quicker decision - they probably do. Doesnt teach you anything about my political leanings though.

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." again, the relevance?

"If you got through that okay, you'll find these propositions on religion a breeze." WTF, again, relevance?!

And ofcourse, the results are completely wrong. The self proclaimed point of the site is to show people that they are more left wing than they think. Its a load of BS. I know how I feel about the market and economics - I studied business and work in the financial sector, I am not left wing. In fact, I dont see how they gathered any info on my economic leanings.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stabshauptmann

On the economics page

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality
Tells you nothing about whether someone is left or right wing. Yes its clearly a bit of Marx, but so what, what can you tell from the answer?

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment
1

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation
Basically that the invisible hand cant always efficiently allocate resources because it doesnt take the full cost of environmental damage into consideration. I dont see this as a failing of capitalism, I think true capitalists would accept that externalities need to be priced.

If you said that rent caps are necessary to stop landlord exploitation, then you have an actual economics question, and Id give a very different answer

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea
2

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product
This is very loosely an economic question, see below

Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold
Not really. Land belongs to the state and shouldnt be private property, thats an economic question

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society
Thats even worse than the previous two, no thats not an economics question. Why, because those people do contribute.

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade
3

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders
4

The rich are too highly taxed
Well theres a fantastic question that stands the test of time and nationality :rolleyes:

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care
5~

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public

Even in a free market there are rules, there must be fair competition. People who harp on about the evils of capitalism fail to realise that.
Thats a Lib V Auth question IMO

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies

6

The freer the market, the freer the people.

And the word free means what?

I think less than half (6/14) of the questions on the economics page actually deal with economics

molloyjh

I felt a few of those questions I could have gone either way on so the reality is I'm probably a little bit more centrist on both fronts than appears here (I would have said anyway). Interesting test all the same.

Jaysus donegalfella, talk about throwing a monkey in the wrench!

Stabshauptmann

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But by serving their own interests they are serving the interests of their shareholders. Basically its people serving their own interests which is what humanity is. Cooperation is even in ones own interest ultimately.

Someone of an authoritarian mindset would be more likely believe that the state should determine whether citizens should be permitted to inhale a particular substance. A libertarian, by contrast, would argue that smoking pot is an individual choice; it doesn't harm anyone other than the smoker, and it is none of the state's business.

But its the particular substance Im having the problem with, the question could have been more objective. It relies on the perception of pot as a soft drug. If the question was "the state should not be allowed to ever dictate what people can and cannot consume for recreational purposes" then it would be a fair question. Or "sometimes the state interfers too much in what people can and cant do" but then you have the problem of relevance and nationality I mentioned earlier. Its a very poor question based on the authors opinion of a certain drug.

I agree that this is a very poorly worded question. If one looks at the U.S. Constitution,it's clear that the founders intentionally wanted the various branches of government often to be at cross-purposes—they wanted to limit the power of the state by reducing the efficiency of the governmental process. The idea is that citizens are more free when the government has one arm tied behind its back.

I would answer yes to the above, but I would also argue that a one-party state leads ultimately to tyranny and despotism.

Same here. We agree, its a poor question.

Art that doesn't symbolize anything, or that doesn't reflect any values, can seem nihilistic or dangerously subversive—and thus threatens the authoritarian worldview. In the 1920s, Stalin decided that all artists must follow the school of socialist realism; the Soviets in this era banned all expressionist and abstract art, burned paintings, and sometimes executed artists.

Ok, never thought of it like that - but again Id have a problem with questions based on actions/quotes associated with certain people rather than objective questions.

Most of these sites do have an agenda, I agree.

Everyone always has an agenda

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mountainyman

You would have to be a nutter to cross the authoritarianism line. I am under it and I am authoritarian by inclination. I also think it skews left on the economy.

cavedave

Everyone I know comes out as the Dalai Lama.

Also I seem to have moved towards the center at an alarming rate. Must read that copy of the fountainhead I have lying around.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cavedave

Its interesting to look at where the Irish political parties are in relation to peoples views. I think you can interpret that virtual no one ends up near FG/FF as
1. The test is biased so people are not where they really are.
2. The judgement of where parties are is wrong
3. Boards.ie is full of wierdos outside the mainstream

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cavedave

I have read that American popular opinion is much tot he left of the major parties. Could it be that people vote different to their beliefs?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ibis

cavedave wrote: »

Its interesting to look at where the Irish political parties are in relation to peoples views. I think you can interpret that virtual no one ends up near FG/FF as
1. The test is biased so people are not where they really are.
2. The judgement of where parties are is wrong
3. Boards.ie is full of wierdos outside the mainstream

I'd say the zero point of the Irish norm is at about -2/-2 compared to the test. That makes FF/FG the centrist parties they are.

Cronus333

On the Boards group not one person is authoritarian.....

I've taken this test a few times. 2 years ago I was about -2 on economics, -2 on social stuff. Now I'm 4.83 on economics and -7.00 on the social side....

How times change.

nesf

It's really lonely out where I am. It's all those loonies to the left that worries me..

PurpleFistMixer

*waves from the buck-mad left* : p
I just stick in my results from the last time I did it, which was some while ago. Might have chanced since then. (I did it before I got interested in politics and was vaguely left. I did it after and... well...)

Húrin

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation
Basically that the invisible hand cant always efficiently allocate resources because it doesnt take the full cost of environmental damage into consideration. I dont see this as a failing of capitalism, I think true capitalists would accept that externalities need to be priced.

Why should externalities be priced when it's "not my department"? If my business decision affects people across the world who can't do anything about it, why should I care about the cost to them?

I expect this has been the dominant mode of thinking in the business sphere, especially given that nobody seems to have thought of considering environmental damage to be an externality until recent years. 'True capitalists' may price externalities, but actual capitalists don't.

Similarly, 'true communists' don't violently purge the bourgeoisie and send dissenters to gulags, at least so I have been told. :rolleyes:

nesf

Húrin wrote: »

'True capitalists' may price externalities, but actual capitalists don't.

Which is where the State comes in. The market won't price in externalities by itself very often so we need the State to come up with ways to deal with them. "True capitalists" recognise the need for State involvement in the markets precisely for these kinds of reasons.

Price in externalities into the equation and the market (or more accurately the market participants) will very quickly start coming up with ways to deal with the extra cost. The cost essentially creates or increases the value of markets in pollution minimising technologies and similar.

cavedave

The cost essentially creates or increases the value of markets in pollution minimising technologies and similar.

In case anyone is interested this is the work that won Coase the noble prize and is described here.

SligoBrewer

-5.12 economically and -4.41 socially for me. I's day it's just about right tbh.

evercloserunion

As it's an American site and they have different standards than us, the test seems to be clearly skewed towards producing a left libertarian result. Thus (0,0) would be a right-wing authoritarian view by our standards.