Political Compass

[Devari]

The amusing part is that none of those three labels apply to me.

[windhound]

"Good parents sometimes have to spank their children."
"It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents."
lol, srsly?

"There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures."
lolwat. If your primary method of cooking meat is over a wood-burning flame, and you attained said meat using knife or archery, then its a savage culture as compared to a civilized culture where you just microwave it for 5 min.
I get what they're aiming for, but the wording is aweful.

"Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support."
funny. Again with the wording. Does anyone agree society should have leaches?

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."
holycrap. Better with the wording, but still a funny question.

"It is important that my child's school instills religious values."
just... lol.

2010
Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90

2007
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

huh. havnt moved that much at all

[Shadow I]

Yeah, some of the questions are very strangely worded, and in some cases you need to choose one side or the other when they are both equally wrong, or the question completely neglects to consider some aspect of the situation.

It's a neat little tool, but I I think that a lot more questions would be needed to get an accurate rating.

[The Beatles]

Ahh, this thing never fails to be interesting.

people who would have put the opposite from me on all of those questions. For instance, I said that good parents don't necessarily have to spank, that it's natural for children to keep secrets, that there are savage cultures, that leeches shouldn't get money, that one-party systems suck, and that religious values are not important. But I have personally known people (sometimes several) who have said that good parents must spank, that children should not have secrets, that all civilisations have equal value, that everyone should be subsidised (to a bare minimum degree though), that one-party systems are efficient (that guy was Russian, no surprises, huh?), and certainly those that want the religious values. In fact at points in even Western history most of the contrary positions were at one point accepted.

[windhound]

I'm not sure how spanking kids relates to where you rank in the spectrum though... I've seen a rather liberal woman wallop her kid on the butt, and I've know a conservative family that wont spank. And visa versa.

Keeping secrets too... If you know anything about kids, you know they'll keep secrets. My little brother spilled a soda in the back seat of my car and never told me 'cause he thought I'd yell at him (in his defence, its prolly true). It was an absolute mess to clean up a month later when I found it. Same principle applies to about everything though, even for big people. If you think you can get away with it, you're not going to say anything. Even and especially to authority figures like parents. If you think little people dont keep secrets you're deluding yourself
So where do delusional people fall in the spectrum?

My point about the savage culture still stands, it looks like its mostly semantics...
If the question had been "do people of all cultures deserve respect" then I'd have said yes, sure they do. But to ask if a spear toting, hut dwelling, no plumbing culture is savage... there's really only one answer.
To ask if they should be evenly valued, the answer should be no. The culture that is going into space, curing disease, and advancing the state of humanity is more valuable than the hut dwellers. I'd like to see a reasoned argument to the contrary.

I dont understand the logic behind allowing leaches in society. If they can work, why should I be forced to support them with my tax dollars? Even at a bare min.

I guess I can see the mono-party thing as being more where you came from... the Chinese probably agree with it too. Still.

Religious values... I've run into some parents that insist on catholic school, and others that are just fine with teaching their children about religion at home. Infact, the vast majority of parents seem to be in the latter category, as church schools are very much in the minority.
I'm not positive how that's a spectrum-determining-question, especially as it doesnt specify -which- religion.

I donno. Some of the questions are pretty sound determining factors of what your ideals and beliefs are, others feel like bias knee-jerk stereotyping.

[Devari]

My issue with this test is that it tries to assign a numerical value to something that doesn't really seem... quantifiable. I mean, what is the baseline? What does a score of 0,0 actually mean? Is this test not influenced by current socio-political norms? Can it really claim to be "objective" in any way?

To a certain extent, I also have to agree with both of you on the strangeness of some of those questions. While I can actually see how physical discipline would fall under social authoritarianism/libertarianism (the liberal spanker vs conservative cuddler example doesn't really hold up, as pretty much everyone has nuances to their worldview), other questions just confuse me.

Take, for example, the question about modern art. How on earth does that have anything to do with your social or economic worldview? I'm assuming that the thought process behind that question goes along the lines of "Oh, people who don't like modern art must be traditionalist, and ergo Social Authoritarian", but that's ridiculously simplistic. Maybe I'm making a leap of logic in my assumption, but I can't honestly see any other way that such a question could be used. Furthermore, why would seeing astrology as bunk somehow affect your social libertarianism? The question isn't whether or not you respect the right of people to practice it (I do), but rather whether you believe that "Astrology accurately explains many things." Bizarre.

"Some people are naturally unlucky." <- What? How does this have any relevance?

It's an interesting toy, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it. It's perhaps a little more valuable than "What Kind of Vampire Are You?", but I can't say that I'm overly impressed.

[Freenhult]

I think that sometimes a direct interpretation of the questions is wrong to do.

Like, the modern art one for example. It asks about how if its too abstract should be considered art. How many people would consider a cross in a jar filled with piss to be modern art? It was and went around museums for a good while.

Back to my point, if you feel that is art you're expressing a view that most abstract things are culture and should be perserved. That's has its own values away from somewhere like Nazi Germany and such. Whereas you think it is junk, people shouldn't waste time on that nonsense, you're showing another view. Maybe not as extreme as Germany in WWII but still. Its a step in that -direction-

These questions in my mind all make you take a baby step to the right or left usually. Its up to you to correct for that during the quiz.

[Shadow I]

I'd like to see a reasoned argument to the contrary.

The latter is sustainable in the long term. The former has potential to be, but is not, at the moment.

[Devari]

I still can't see how that's relevant to social views, though.

I mean, I see your point, but it's a bit of a leap of logic to say that considering something to be art equates to believing it is of cultural value to the point of requiring preservation. At least, from my point of view.

[Freenhult]

I still can't see how that's relevant to social views, though.

I mean, I see your point, but it's a bit of a leap of logic to say that considering something to be art equates to believing it is of cultural value to the point of requiring preservation. At least, from my point of view.

Its not a leap at all, I feel its pretty commonplace. If you see a nice painting on a wall, do you usually look at it and go huh, or just kinda go that's nice. If you're not shrugging it off, then its leaving an impression on you and you want it preserved. Maybe not forever and in the Louvre, but still. Somewhere you kinda hope it gets taken care of.

Its also running over stereotypes too. Its most likely the only way it can actually measure anything is by using norms. People who see it as art will want it kept around for its value to society. People who don't want it thrown into the dumpster and that joker to be kicked out of society for wasting time/money.

All and all, I know what you mean, I just think you gave it a quick thought.

[Devari]

Mm, I suppose I see what you mean.

(For the record, I don't actually think it should be thrown in the dumpster. But that's just me.)

[Gen. Volkov]

My point about the savage culture still stands, it looks like its mostly semantics...
If the question had been "do people of all cultures deserve respect" then I'd have said yes, sure they do. But to ask if a spear toting, hut dwelling, no plumbing culture is savage... there's really only one answer.
To ask if they should be evenly valued, the answer should be no. The culture that is going into space, curing disease, and advancing the state of humanity is more valuable than the hut dwellers. I'd like to see a reasoned argument to the contrary.

I suppose it really depends on your definition of "civilised" and "savage". if you see "savages" as being hunter gatherers, and modern city dwellers as being "civilised" then you have a point. But the hunter gatherers are often more humane to each other and care more about each other than the city dwellers. So who's the savage?

The question itself, taken in a certain way could even mean something completely different. In the modern world, there are few to none hunter gatherer cultures left. So if you read it in that light, it could just be a statement of fact.

Also, back in the 18th and 19th centuries, the "savage" peoples often lived longer, got sick less, and ate a more balanced, healthier diet than their "civilized" counterparts. The further back in history you go, the more true this becomes.

The whole question to me is just far to vague. Most of them are though.

[The Beatles]

So where do delusional people fall in the spectrum?

Depends on the delusion. In fact, since all possible opinions can't be right, the spectrum is largely a matter of scales and shades of delusions.

My point about the savage culture still stands, it looks like its mostly semantics...
If the question had been "do people of all cultures deserve respect" then I'd have said yes, sure they do. But to ask if a spear toting, hut dwelling, no plumbing culture is savage... there's really only one answer.

It's not a matter of semantics. It's a matter of identifying the particularly deluded. And I know many people who would cheerfully answer yes to the question as the Political Compass asked it -- in their defence, mostly young people.

And I wouldn't have said yes to the deserve respect one either. Very few cultures deserve respect. The West, grudgingly. Possibly the Arab world of the 11th to 14th centuries. Possibly some peaceful hunter-gatherer tribes (these are very few and far between, mostly only found in areas of great natural bounty like the South Pacific).

I dont understand the logic behind allowing leaches in society. If they can work, why should I be forced to support them with my tax dollars? Even at a bare min.

It's an argument from compassion. I can see the logic behind giving even people who refuse to work some very minimum standard, just enough to support life. And indeed in no Western country will you be denied emergency treatment or food stamps even if you refuse to work. So I partly agree with that, but only partly, which is why I answered Disagree (not Strongly) to the question.

I actually think the modern art and astrology questions were meant to identify people at the extremes. And believe you me, people at the extremes do exist. At a guess, if you believe in astrology, you will be pushed toward the more extreme end of the social direction you were already tending to. I don't know about the modern art one, but it might be to identify extremely socially liberal people; after all, most ultra-left people at universities that I've met enthused about modern art without having any idea that it ought to mean anything. Assigning value to something without requiring value from it demonstrates at least gullibility (like astrology), and possibly simply social laxness.

0, 0 is just an arbitrary centre, I think. It isn't stated that the centre is a good thing. It's just a scale, and obviously some answers push you in one direction and some in the opposite, so it's natural that there will be some centre point, artificial though it may be.

Again the natural luckiness thing I just think goes toward the gullibility / lack of rigorous thinking angle. Probably just pushes you in whatever extreme you were already inclined to (totally a guess though).

Also, Shadow -- the hut dwellers, sustainable? If your idea of sustainability is one out of ten children making it to adulthood, disease and pestilence crippling and killing people great swathes of the population at regular intervals, and the rest dying before maturity in bloody, violent and constant internecine warfare -- in a word, living like animals -- then I could see your point. But scale the hut dwellers or the nomadic American aboriginals up and they'd have hunted the buffalo and other species to extinction.

I'd have agreed with the dumpster before the Internet. These days it's cheap to preserve anything, so why not? I don't care for it, but there's no harm in archival. For all that, I gave the Righty answer to the modern art question.

[The Beatles]

On the topic of civilisation vs savages... I was talking with somebody about the settling of the Americas and happened to say that the Indians were on the whole worse than the Nazis. He corrected me, saying, surely you mean the settlers? I replies that no, I meant the Indians. One of their regular pastimes was wiping out every man, woman and child of a fellow tribe (sometimes keeping some women as a prize). The Nazis were less barbarous than that, they just set about their own brand of barbarity with efficiency and organisation.

[The Beatles]

I suppose it really depends on your definition of "civilised" and "savage". if you see "savages" as being hunter gatherers, and modern city dwellers as being "civilised" then you have a point. But the hunter gatherers are often more humane to each other and care more about each other than the city dwellers. So who's the savage?

The question itself, taken in a certain way could even mean something completely different. In the modern world, there are few to none hunter gatherer cultures left. So if you read it in that light, it could just be a statement of fact.

Also, back in the 18th and 19th centuries, the "savage" peoples often lived longer, got sick less, and ate a more balanced, healthier diet than their "civilized" counterparts. The further back in history you go, the more true this becomes.

The whole question to me is just far to vague. Most of them are though.

The hunter-gatherers may be more humane to those in their immediate tribe in the day-to-day side of things, but they are not above occasionally going out and killing all the men in a tribe from babies to elders and taking the women as loot to rape. City-dwellers may be unkind with each other, and they may sometimes vote for brutal wars and inhumane programmes, but on the whole they have a greater sense of decency, and if their own soldiers are caught doing brutal things, they will be outraged. This was true even going back many centuries, it's just that standards of squeamishness have changed. The majority of nineteenth-century Germans thought nothing of driving Jews out of Germany, or of invading and looting France -- but I didn't call them civilised either!

You forget something. Those "savage" people who weren't killed in internecine warfare (and that was a terribly high proportion of them in almost all places) may have lived healthier lives due to a more active lifestyle. But on the whole I'd certainly not swap with them. In some areas like the South Pacific, where resource competition was very low, there were occasional exceptions to this rule (which is a promising sign for humanity, I think). But science is better for health than a native lifestyle, and education and rule of law and stable government better guarantors of social stability than an abundance of resources.

I wouldn't call most of the questions vague, but many of them are certainly more than simplistic.