Argue about the Political Compass and other political orientation tests here

To prevent the other thread getting derailed by discussion instead of posting scores, this thread now exists.

--------------

I think the Political Compass test is pretty good, although there's a few statements in there that baffle me slightly.

A lot of the conditionals they use mean that I am agreeing or disagreeing with the premise as it is specifically stated (ie this is virtuous) as opposed to whether I support that or accept it as a societal principal. And other times it's something that is potentially true (some people could be considered naturally unlucky) but makes no sense as a component in a political discussion.

I feel weird that I have the least-liberal number so far. (Which may have changed by the time I check that thread again.) I'm used to being the wild bleeding-heart leftie socialist uber-liberal when I'm online. I am also baffled by several questions, which either ask about things I know so little on that I want a No Opinion answer, and ones that seem to have nothing to do with politics at all.

I could agree, to strict discipline.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this question. It's absolutely true that dictatorships and other non-democratic states can make decisions and enact legislation faster because of the lack of government opposition. So in that sense, I strongly agree with the statement. However, I certainly don't support the idea of a one-party state by any means.

Fucking double and triple negatives messed with my head. I Disagree that someone should not be excluded from something. Are you sewious?

Same here.

Well, for that one I focused on what is meant by "significant advantage"; in general, I view friction and disagreement (as opposed to extreme forms of those) as features rather than necessary evils or any of the other platitudes that get lobbed at them, so that wasn't a difficult one to fit with an implicit "and I am also opposed to one party states in principle".

Yes, in many ways it's a patience x reading comprehension test at the individual question level. I'm sure there are more than a few that I answered something terrible because I skimmed. Most tests that do these kinds of layered questions tend to include built in mechanisms to correct for people getting the question "wrong" rather than giving honest answers, but the only ones that I know of that are successful in terms of reliability and validity are either "trick" psychology tests (where they are testing something the subject is unaware of) or ones where the questions have right and wrong answers and the results really matter to the participant in terms of the grade. I'm sure there are others, though.

I was given this one to take a wile back and my main complaint is the inability to say I don't care. Apathy is a major factor in one's political make up and should be accurately measured for tests like this. I also (in the process of retaking ..which I then stopped) found the questions leading. To what I can't say but the phrasing wants you to agree with whatever the statement is strongly, I suppose to move folk off the fence.

There are so many things in there that I either have no direct knowledge of or have no idea how it would play in what I want done that I end up just trying to find an answer. Peg me close to the middle leaning left because those few things I do not tolerate are often what the left wants to fix.

I'm pretty good at reading comprehension but I had to stare at the one about abstract art for awhile.

Do you consider that an advantage, though? That's what the question is.

Seriously. I didn't even need to finish reading the question after the opening 7 or 8 words before checking Strongly Disagree.

This one is really weird. I initially said "agree" to this because I figured that it was using the word "unlucky" as a simple descriptor for someone that bad things happen too just by chance, which is how I'd generally use the word. It wasn't until I realized how little sense the question made and went back and noticed that it was in the religion section that I figured out that it was talking about luck as a supernatural force. Answer amended!

I guess the test closely measures how often you are willing to strongly agree or disagree versus shrugging through them.

It would be neat if instead of actually taking your answers into account it only measured how long you spend answering each question.

To me the key word was progress. Simply enacting legislation isn't 'progress' any more than giving a tuxedo to each and every scruffy homeless man is progress.

Well to be fair, those arguments do delay actual progress in a democratic system. I don't think that's really up for debate. What's at issue is whether that amounts to a net advantage or disadvantage, and while it's a scale (we have way the fuck too much of this in the US for example), on the whole the concept of multiple parties arguing over things is a net benefit versus letting one party/guy rule by decree, I'm pretty sure.

I remember something niven said, about forming known space stuff and how the only believable government for many systems would end up being a monarchy empire setup. I don't have enough memory nor enough brain to argue yay or nay , but sometimes the only way forward may be behind a singular leader.

Thus see I can often think of a given situation where what is being asked , might be completely opposite and still fit within a given "political" leaning. It is a hobby of mine to find the what if point. I imagine it is folk with this hobby that slow down the democratic process even further by bringing up contingencies that may have no bearing on the immediate. Yet we have situation after situation where things were not planned for or anticipated getting further from what was originally intended. If we even know accurately what was intended in the first place.

I think once people need to start thinking about "Well what does the question really mean" your test loses all value, since everyone is now answering a different question from one another. There's a lot of that in Political Compass.

My interpretation of the question was to take it at face value, so I said yes. Had the follow-up been "And does this outweigh the disadvantages" I'd have answered "fuck no".

Each time I take this test, I slide lower (though not as rapidly as the left/right axis) and more to the left.

But I not so sure it my political sentiments that have changed much (though, oddly, on guns and immigration, I have moved leftward significantly but I do not thing those issues are represented in this survey, unlike corporatism, taxes, racism, justice system, etc.…) -- I believe it more so that the questions relative to present political climate and status. For instance, taxes on the rich -- might have a different sentiment if upper tax rate was 90%, 70%, unlike the condition today where the top 1% pay significantly less than working class people. Same with some of the other questions on corporate behavior/ethics…

I wish these tests were better at teasing out conflicts or tensions within one's political outlook. Being told where you (more or less) sit on the political spectrum is not particularly informative. I know that I'm liberal with strong socialist leanings, what I'd like to know is how consistent this position is with my broader ethical and social views.

Way to piss away your wishes.

Fascist

Better quizzes, some of which have been around here - I think most recently the "which US presidential candidate do you most agree with" - have an importance weight you can indicate by reach response. IMO it should be standard but the compass test is basically crummy-but-popular.

EDIT: Also my test scores looked all moderate but I think it was because of all sorts of "moderate answers to weirdly phrased questions." Wanting a heavily redistributive tax system and having economic/power inequality as my number one political worry has more to do with how "left" I consider myself than whether or not I hyperventilate Strongly about Monsanto exploiting the plant life.

EDIT2: Another poster pointed out that they're basically communist, and as there's no questions very "on the nose" about one's views on the dictatorship of the proletariat, said person came off left-lib with the rest of us.

Is it an "advantage"? I strongly disagreed.

The Political Compass site does provide a reasonably detailed FAQ, which provides commentary on a few of the difficulties we've already been talking about here.

In particular:

I don't really buy the logic there, and I do think the question is poorly worded; but that answer does clarify the issue if you bother to dig it up out of the FAQ.

It is a true statement but it is not (IMO) an advantage. The disagreement and friction is a feature not a bug.

I got confused at the first 'race' question, was it talking about human race as a whole, or like, the 'white' race or whatever race the person taking the survey is...

This test, and all tests like it, is not a valid approach to politics or even to an attempt to start a conversation about politics. It's pseudo-scientific bullshit.

From the FAQ again:

That's a pretty catty response, especially since it's not actually true. How about instead of getting all snarky in the FAQ, you change the wording of the question if it's coming up so often?

People who append the chart to their answers in the thread should be lined up and shot. There is no chance they can be rehabilitated.

It's intentionally designed so the only possible answers are "I want less state authority in the market/social interactions", which is why the questions are so strangely phrased.

My most favoritest thing about the "test" is that it labels me as a Libertarian and Anarchist, and more so than the rest of you at that!

Hah. That's a good one.

Graphist!

Authoritarian Graphist.

You're not a small-l libertarian more than most of us?

Basically. EVERYONE IS LEFT-LIB unless you intentionally try to game the system, largely because the questions are phrased to make for a very obvious "right" answer.

Considering that I'm rather fond of Socialist ideas like bank nationalization, socialized health care, affirmative action, public education, etc.? No.

The only angle from which I even begin to approach libertarianism is on gun control.