A better classification system.

[minarchist]

Some of you guys have probably already seen this. But I have for a long time hated the left-right political spectrum for its naive simplicity and inability to accurately classify political ideologies and individual's stances. For instance, how can Stalin be "far-left" but Gandhi also? How can Hitler's command economy be "far-right" and we also call Laissez-Faire capitalism "far-right"?

What makes more sense is that two scales are used. The horizontal scale (left-right) measures the positions between a communal economy (left) and a completely open/free market. The second, vertical scale (up-down) measures the positions between brutally strict authoritarianism/totalitarianism (top) and totally unrestricted freedom (total libertarianism or anarchism). This, in effect, creates four quadrants. There is an authoritarian left-right and a libertarian/anarchist left-right. And this gives us a much better, but not perfect, means of classifying ourselves and political beliefs.

Some people decided they've got a pretty good test to give you a general idea of where you stand. And they've also performed the test to try to rank individual politicians (from Hitler and Stalin to Bush, Pope Benedict and Obama) and entire countries. It's not perfect, again, but WAY better than just calling everything left-right, black or white. Here is where you can find it:

politicalcompass.org

(Sorry, forums won't allow me to post a link so copy+paste it...)

I see a few flaws in the test, but overall, I like it. For instance, I think they have assumed that racism == heightened authoritarianism. But one can be ardently racist and an anarchist (though I haven't seen any, lol). So you might see some problems with it. But the test shows some good results. For example, it shows what I've been saying for years, that Hitler is economically a moderate or moderate-right, but he's off the charts in wacko totalitarianism. So he's slightly right in the right-left scale, but way up high towards total authoritarian.

If you have any criticism of it, check out their FAQ which explains why a lot of things are the way they are. If it doesn't satisfy you here, then speak up! :)

I'd like to see how some of us rank on the chart, so if you would, post your results here. Try to be honest and don't answer politically-correct. No one will know your individual answers to questions, and the website is totally anonymous. Also don't give false answers to appear more "super awesome radical", just be honest. I think this will be fun!:lol:

[GPDP]

I don't like the political compass, or any test that tries to map political ideologies for that matter, because in the end, they pretty much presuppose liberal principles and ideas. Such tests imply the difference between ideologies lies in degrees rather than substantive differences and breaks.

Whenever I take that test, I inevitably fall in the bottom-left corner. But what does that really mean within the context of the test? How is someone who scores in that area really that different from someone who scores a bit more to the right? Most liberals I know score around the middle of the bottom-left quadrant, but their political outlook is vastly different from mine, yet by the test's standards, they're not all that far off from me.

So no, even a quadrant system has this problem. Ideologies within the quadrant only make sense relative to the precepts of liberalism. If you score in the bottom-left, all it really means is you're a kind of liberal who wants extensive government intervention in the economy and lots of social freedom. If you score in the top right, it means you're an extremely conservative liberal who wishes for the utmost economic freedom of the market (and by extension, the bourgeois), while at once possessing a penchant for authoritarian political structure and nigh-feudal social views.

Yes, both are very different, but both are ultimately liberal because they ultimately are likely to accept private property in princple, as well as some form of representative government. Where they differ is in the specifics of the implementation and enshrinement of those principles, and the differences can certainly be extreme, but again, only by degrees.

As a socialist, I fall very much outside that framework. I can tell, because despite the ideological gulf that exists between leftist ideologies, such as, say, anarchism and Leninism, I often see people on both camps score pretty much on the same place: the bottom of the left quadrant. On one hand, it could mean both ideologies are more similar than they admit (something I disagree with, and you'll find most people here will as well). However, what I think is really going on is because they, as socialists, presuppose and value much more different things than liberals do, it translates as both ideologies being essentially very similar within the context of a liberal scale. After all, neither one respects private property, and both ultimately disagree with liberal political structure.

So yeah, this is the conclusion I've come to after years of trying to make heads and tails of the effort to put ideologies on a map. When the differences are qualitative rather than quantitative, it becomes futile to talk of a universal "left-right" spectrum between ideologies, even when expanded into two dimensions. What there is, instead, is a left-right spectrum within ideologies. Thus, for liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism are on the right, while social democracy would be on the left. For socialism, anarchism is on the left, while Leninism would be on the right. I would imagine fascism would also have a spectrum of its own, instead of being relegated to the far-right in a conventional spectrum.

[#FF0000]

I'd say the compass is still pretty lacking, because the vast majority of Marxist-Leninists ("Stalinists") still score in the bottom left corner of the spectrum. I remember as an anarchist, there were a ton of Marxists who took the test who ended up somewhere around my point on the chart.

[GPDP]

I'd say the compass is still pretty lacking, because the vast majority of Marxist-Leninists ("Stalinists") still score in the bottom left corner of the spectrum. I remember as an anarchist, there were a ton of Marxists who took the test who ended up somewhere around my point on the chart.

Precisely. Because the test is built around liberal principles, socialists of all stripes, from the most insurrectionary of anarchists to the most tankie of Leninists, end up looking quite similar in comparison to liberalism. Our views and ideals are alien to the liberal world, so in comparison to liberals, we're pretty much the same, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I like to think in terms of "ideology" and not "left-right", "up-down", etc. There are just too many ideologies that are not so easily categorised. If you put your mind to it, I'm sure you could think of about a hundred things the graph doesn't account for: revolutionary/reformist, strategic differences, differences regarding the structure of the constitution, republican/monarchist/democrat/anarchist, etc. I just think in terms of a list of all the things I believe in, which ideology matches that list the best, the similarities between my ideology and other ideologies, etc.

That said, it helps people to realise that socialism =/= totalitarian government, so the graph definitely has its good sides.

[Red Commissar]

I never under stood why we still use a left-right convention that dates back to the seating arrangements of the old French assembly to this day.

Grossly over simplifies things.

[Havet]

I've said it before and i'll say it again:

If your beliefs fit on a sign, think harder

[minarchist]

Hmmm, the test, I think, accurately pinned me. It put me in the bottom-right quadrant... I'm about 1/2 way down and about 1/2 way right. I think that makes sense because, well, I'm a Libertarian-minarchist who acknowledges the need for a very limited government run by the populous.

The FAQ has a question where people accuse the questions of being slanted. They are, and it's intentional. They'll only seem unslanted to you if they agree or insinuate that you're correct. They slant in different directions, and try to get you to think. And the people you're saying are "liberals" yet rank close to you guys are probably voting for the wrong people (Democrats) because they've bought into the two-party system. This is gauging your inner-most beliefs, rather than who you vote for and what policy you support today in your home country. You can't presuppose the test is wrong because it doesn't match what you think a person is.

Sure, it's NOT perfect. No political spectrum can be, because politics is not a hard science. We simply "make up" things like this to TRY to measure and quantify things the best we can. You must admit, this is VASTLY superior to just assuming everything is black or white, using the dimwitted left-right linear spectrum. In real life, none of us are "left" or "right" because none of this really exists. ;)

[RGacky3]

Heres the problem, you as a minarchist want little government control, but you'd have no problem with corporate control, take an example like the pullman palace car company situation, where the comany owned pretty much everything in the town, you'd have no problem with that company having total control on their property (most of the town), and thus have control over everyone who lives there's life, because your a propertarian.

So really its not liberty that your FOR, what your against is democracy, thats the difference between a giant corporation and a public agency, one is democratically accountable the other is not, one is accountable to the people, the other is accountable to profits (nower days its not even the owners really).

So its not right to say Market propertarians like yourself are about liberty and free markets, because there is no free market, markets are always mostly controlled to work for the wealthy (because money controls the markets), what you guys are essnecially for is plutocracy and what your against is democracy.

It has nothing to do with liberty vrs state or any of that stuff. Its simply you are for rule by the rich, we are for rule by the people.

[revolution inaction]

i can't answer the questions on the political compass quiz without lieing because a lot of them doe't make sense.

[minarchist]

Heres the problem, you as a minarchist want little government control, but you'd have no problem with corporate control, take an example like the pullman palace car company situation, where the comany owned pretty much everything in the town, you'd have no problem with that company having total control on their property (most of the town), and thus have control over everyone who lives there's life, because your a propertarian.

So really its not liberty that your FOR, what your against is democracy, thats the difference between a giant corporation and a public agency, one is democratically accountable the other is not, one is accountable to the people, the other is accountable to profits (nower days its not even the owners really).

So its not right to say Market propertarians like yourself are about liberty and free markets, because there is no free market, markets are always mostly controlled to work for the wealthy (because money controls the markets), what you guys are essnecially for is plutocracy and what your against is democracy.

It has nothing to do with liberty vrs state or any of that stuff. Its simply you are for rule by the rich, we are for rule by the people.

No... And I can easily turn that strawman around on you, but we'll be taking this thread totally off topic (The Political Compass). :)

I'm going to start a thread soon and let all of you take shots at me and what I think. And I hope you do all punch some nice holes in my thinking so I can challenge my own beliefs and strengthen them. So don't worry, I will be presenting my ideology for attack very soon. :lol:

But I'd like to keep this on the subject matter...

[revolution inaction]

The FAQ has a question where people accuse the questions of being slanted. They are, and it's intentional. They'll only seem unslanted to you if they agree or insinuate that you're correct. They slant in different directions, and try to get you to think. And the people you're saying are "liberals" yet rank close to you guys are probably voting for the wrong people (Democrats) because they've bought into the two-party system. This is gauging your inner-most beliefs, rather than who you vote for and what policy you support today in your home country. You can't presuppose the test is wrong because it doesn't match what you think a person is.

Sure, it's NOT perfect. No political spectrum can be, because politics is not a hard science. We simply "make up" things like this to TRY to measure and quantify things the best we can. You must admit, this is VASTLY superior to just assuming everything is black or white, using the dimwitted left-right linear spectrum. In real life, none of us are "left" or "right" because none of this really exists. ;)



Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
assumes the existence of race



Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.


Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
assumes a market economy and a state


Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
assumes the existence of corporations


It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
no "consumer products" should exist


Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
nothing should be a commodity


It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
i object to the existance of money


Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
the is obvious true for a market ecconomy, but i'm opposed to a market economy


The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
thats part of there nature, its not them behaving badly


The rich are too highly taxed.
i'm against the existence of the rich, and tax



Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .
again assumes money


Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
assumes governments are independent of the interests of business rather than working for them as is acutely the case


A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
a genuine free market will inevatibly lead to monopolies and predatory multinationals.


Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
sort of agree with this, but in the opersit way to what i think they mean

[PoliticalNightmare]

No... And I can easily turn that strawman around on you, but we'll be taking this thread totally off topic (The Political Compass). :)

I'm going to start a thread soon and let all of you take shots at me and what I think. And I hope you do all punch some nice holes in my thinking so I can challenge my own beliefs and strengthen them. So don't worry, I will be presenting my ideology for attack very soon. :lol:

But I'd like to keep this on the subject matter...

RGacky's point was on topic. Basically there is a left and right scale and a libertarian and an authoritarian scale but when you get deeper into the ideology you can see that its not as clear cut as you say. (The left/right scale grossly oversimplifies everything, sure but the political spectrum you sight is not much better). For instance, the "libertarian left" can argue that the "libertarian right" are not actually libertarian because such a society would be rule of the wealthy (that's a fairly standard argument actually). The "libertarian right" usually counteract with "Well democracy is tyranny of the majority" or something along those lines (another fairly common argument). The "authoritarian left" also tend to dismiss the "libertarian left" as right-wing by using arguments along the lines of "there'd be no society to help the weak and vulnerable/the workers need the state to help them along, etc." The "authoritarian right" also tend to argue that the "libertarian right" are left-wing as well: "bah liberalism", "don't you know the state is needed to protect private property rights", etc.

Trust me, after many of hours of internet debating, you see that politics is really so much deeper than a four quadrant grid.

[minarchist]

"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."

assumes the existence of race


So you disagree with the statement.



Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

assumes a market economy and a state


So you disagree with the statement.



Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

assumes the existence of corporations


So you disagree with the statement.



It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

no "consumer products" should exist


So you disagree with the statement.

;) .......

You're not pointing out a flaw in the test, but just what you disagree with. None of them are really "questions", they're statements of belief. When you disagree with them, they're taken into account.

[PoliticalNightmare]

So you disagree with the statement.



So you disagree with the statement.



So you disagree with the statement.



So you disagree with the statement.

;) .......

You're not pointing out a flaw in the test, but just what you disagree with. None of them are really "questions", they're statements of belief. When you disagree with them, they're taken into account.

One of the questions is "Do you believe the state should regulate businesses?" or something along those lines. Another is "Do you believe in progressive taxation?". Would it surprise you that left-wing anarchists, technically speaking, support neither regulation or taxation and yet we would be branded right wing if we answered honestly?

Again, the test is for mainstream liberals not us lot.

[minarchist]

Trust me, after many of hours of internet debating, you see that politics is really so much deeper than a four quadrant grid.


I totally agree with all of this. I just think this is a MUCH better step in the right direction (no pun intended, lol). The "left-right" thing is something many Americans think is a law carved in stone. And the misconception makes people never think about politics. They just accept whatever their "wing" spits out...they reject everything else. This spectrum gets people thinking, just like we are now, and that is the biggest success of it. The "left-right" spectrum is a way of not thinking for the majority of people who use it.

I've never defended this spectrum as "perfect" or even "correct". But "better" and a "step in a more realistic direction". That's it. And most of the criticisms pointed out here I think are not very strong. The biggest problem with it, imho, is the problem with all political spectrums: attempting to quantify emotions, convictions, beliefs and ideas.


One of the questions is "Do you believe the state should regulate businesses?" or something along those lines. Another is "Do you believe in progressive taxation?". Would it surprise you that left-wing anarchists, technically speaking, support neither regulation or taxation and yet we would be branded right wing if we answered honestly?

Again, the test is for mainstream liberals not us lot.

Ahhh... Now that's a good criticism. You might consider bringing that to their attention, as I think you're right. But as a software developer, I understand the general idea of how the code is working. And you can't really assume the code is going to quantify your answer as "right" without seeing the code. But maybe it does, and by looking at the "little black box" (the application itself, which we can't see inside of), as we call it, you're probably correct! :)

[PoliticalNightmare]

I totally agree with all of this. I just think this is a MUCH better step in the right direction (no pun intended, lol). The "left-right" thing is something many Americans think is a law carved in stone. And the misconception makes people never think about politics. They just accept whatever their "wing" spits out...they reject everything else. This spectrum gets people thinking, just like we are now, and that is the biggest success of it. The "left-right" spectrum is a way of not thinking for the majority of people who use it.

I've never defended this spectrum as "perfect" or even "correct". But "better" and a "step in a more realistic direction". That's it. And most of the criticisms pointed out here I think are not very strong. The biggest problem with it, imho, is the problem with all political spectrums: attempting to quantify emotions, convictions, beliefs and ideas.

All you say is true but in some ways I wish I hadn't stumbled upon it myself because now I tend to categorize everything according to "TEH HOLY GRID!!" I tend to go - right, Stalinism that's authoritarian leftism, right, Rothbardism that's libertarian rightism, etc. Again, it goes deeper than that. I say read over the explanation, take the quiz, get the general gist of it into your head and then just forget about it - that's my opinion.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Ahhh... Now that's a good criticism. You might consider bringing that to their attention, as I think you're right. But as a software developer, I understand the general idea of how the code is working. And you can't really assume the code is going to quantify your answer as "right" without seeing the code. But maybe it does, and by looking at the "little black box" (the application itself, which we can't see inside of), as we call it, you're probably correct! :)

I could bring it to their attention but then there would probably be about a million other things that go even deeper that I myself have probably not thought about (I am no guru and have no superior explanation. Again, liberals [of the left wing variety] and anarchists would go together or near each other regardless of the questions they asked.)

[revolution inaction]

So you disagree with the statement.



So you disagree with the statement.



So you disagree with the statement.



So you disagree with the statement.

;) .......

You're not pointing out a flaw in the test, but just what you disagree with. None of them are really "questions", they're statements of belief. When you disagree with them, they're taken into account.

a lot of them make as much sense as saying "god should reward people who do X", it doesn't make sense because god is not real. Likewise saying that the state should punish businesses that do "bad" things isn't a statement that makes sense because government works for the businesses.

[minarchist]

NOTE: I edited my last post above starting with the second quote block.

Good post, PoliticalNightmare. But forget it, and keep using the inferior spectrum?

[minarchist]

So what if they make a statement saying "God should reward people who do X.", because you disagree. That just makes no sense... You disagree if you don't agree with the statement or think it's incorrect.

That sort of criticism only holds some water if disagreeing with the statement might depict you as something you're not, as PoliticalNightmare's criticism did.

[PoliticalNightmare]

NOTE: I edited my last post above starting with the second quote block.

Good post, PoliticalNightmare. But forget it, and keep using the inferior spectrum?

As stated above, I'd say to think in terms of "ideology" than "left-right" spectrum. That will get you way deeper and way more involved. You need to be thinking, similarities and differences - materialism or idealism? Individualism or collectivism? Public sector, private sector or comunal ownership? Regulation or Deregulation? Corporatism, socialism or laissez-faire capitalism? Positive liberty or negative liberty (or both)? Equality or liberty (or both)? And so forth , not "Left?" "Right?" ... but the four quadrant grid tells me that...

[PoliticalNightmare]

That sort of criticism only holds some water if disagreeing with the statement might depict you as something you're not, as PoliticalNightmare's criticism did.

Or if there is just another answer to the question which goes way outside the box and simply just doesn't cover the restricted options they have provided you with.

Here's a scenario:

What's your favourite colour?

*Black
*White
*Grey
*Brown

And those are your only options - you can't say red, purple, orange, green, violet, yellow, etc.

Are you by any chance Revd. Mike from another forum?

[minarchist]

No, not Revd.Mark. :lol: Not sure who that is, but any reason you ask?

I never saw any such "questions", and again, they are not at all questions. It would have been more like:

"Orange is the most kickass color ever."

*Strongly disagree
*Disagree
*Agree
*Strongly agree

And note, this is software you're looking at. The code behind it, I assume from professional knowledge/experience, is taking an enumeration-type argument or just an integer value (which an enumeration is also an abstraction for; of positive constants). But we cannot make assumptions about what the inner "scoring" or "ranking" algorithm is going to do with your answer. It may very well account for the fact that answering "strongly disagree" does not imply you are an anti-orangeist -- then again, it may not. Whatever it is, the inner algorithm which is going to translate your responses into scalars seems to be much more complex than simple arithmetic (i.e., "he answered 'disagree', so subtract/add 1 point). It seems to evaluate combinations of responses which create a "lean" in different directions...I guess it's sort of "weighted" by some of the most important responses and manipulated in others. It's probably even using some very advanced sort of interpolation as responses vary between different poles.

And no one is going to answer everything to attain "perfect" score on anything. I just think we're making too many assumptions about what some code is doing that we can't see, and thinking that it works very transparently when I'm almost positive it doesn't. AFAIK, the algorithm is proprietary, and I know for a fact it's NOT open-source and closely guarded... so that further suggests it's pretty robust and well-written. No programmer would make a proprietary algorithm which simply took these responses and did something really simple/naive with them -- at least not a "normal" one. ;)

Also, no one shared their score. I can't post it here yet due to post count. Could it be some people are just unsatisfied with their result? You weren't so "revolutionary" or "leftist" as you wanted to be? I dunno, just asking.

[Manic Impressive]

There are better questionnaires out there, I took one ages ago which was a European based one which which showed you which European party your views most resemble. I got the Portuguese Communist Party:thumbup1:. Political compass is a bit of fun but it doesn't really tell you anything, Minarchist why don't you make a better one with our help and advice go to the conservatives/fascists/soc-dems and who ever else and ask their advice as well.

[minarchist]

There are better questionnaires out there, I took one ages ago which was a European based one which which showed you which European party your views most resemble. I got the Portuguese Communist Party:thumbup1:. Political compass is a bit of fun but it doesn't really tell you anything, Minarchist why don't you make a better one with our help and advice go to the conservatives/fascists/soc-dems and who ever else and ask their advice as well.

I have been trying for over a year or two (long before I found Political Compass) to create a new spectrum which can be somewhat "proven" by a mathematical theorum rather than emotions. It's only partially successful, and fails so miserably with certain inputs that it's rendered invalid. So a lot of corrections must be made. I also haven't revealed how it works yet because, well... it doesn't really work properly. But don't worry, I'm actually going to make it open-source and freely contribute it to mankind. :cool: If I decide to give up, I'll just release my work so others can learn from my mistakes.

But this is more of an "academic hobby" than anything. My job and other obligations come first, and I just work on it when I'm free. But your suggestions are noted, and they could in fact fix a big hole in classifying ideologies like yours. It could be my own lack of understanding which causes the problem when inputs to your views are given! ...and that could be why it works fine when you give inputs like me? lol... :blushing: Well, now you know one of the reasons I came here to learn, haha. And thanks for the suggestions. This is kinda the reason I made this post and rebutted to your criticisms also.

Maybe I'll need to sort of "interview" a range of you guys and have YOU suggest the statements/questions which agreeing/disagreeing with would swing someone your way.

NOTE: I'm not involved with Political Compass's development nor affiliated in any way. My little "intellectual pursuit" is something radically different too.

[Manic Impressive]

what other ones have you tried out? If anyone knows the European one I took please post a link as I've forgotten what it was called and it was definitely better than political compass.

[GPDP]

The FAQ has a question where people accuse the questions of being slanted. They are, and it's intentional. They'll only seem unslanted to you if they agree or insinuate that you're correct. They slant in different directions, and try to get you to think. And the people you're saying are "liberals" yet rank close to you guys are probably voting for the wrong people (Democrats) because they've bought into the two-party system. This is gauging your inner-most beliefs, rather than who you vote for and what policy you support today in your home country. You can't presuppose the test is wrong because it doesn't match what you think a person is.

When I said my political outlook is far different from that of the left-liberals that score somewhat near me, I did not mean it in the sense that they vote for Democrats well to the right of them. I meant their entire framework for looking at politics is not at all like my own. They see themselves as left-wing because they believe the government should give people welfare, regulate business practices, and uphold civil liberties and rights. That's very, very different from the way I perceive genuine left-wing politics to be, which are rooted primarily in revolutionary class struggle and anti-capitalism, not just a well-regulated capitalism with a smiley face. There is a fundamental gulf between the socialists that score on the bottom left corner, and the left-liberals who score near them, or sometimes even with them. They have completely different ideologies. Yet by the compass's standards, the only difference between them is that of degrees.


Sure, it's NOT perfect. No political spectrum can be, because politics is not a hard science. We simply "make up" things like this to TRY to measure and quantify things the best we can. You must admit, this is VASTLY superior to just assuming everything is black or white, using the dimwitted left-right linear spectrum. In real life, none of us are "left" or "right" because none of this really exists. ;)

I never said we should look at things in black and white. What I said is that such attempts at quantifying ideologies by degrees can only do those ideologies justice by applying said quantification within ideologies, instead of trying to shoehorn them all in within a single spectrum that, as I said, ultimately bases itself in liberal ideas, because both axes ultimately deal with the question of the proper role of government in society and the economy, questions that really only liberalism preoccupies itself with.

[Havet]

I see a lot of posts on how the two axis graph is inneficient. I agree with that, but nobody is offering any alternatives.

And if you do offer some alternatives, as GPDP mentioned, it cannot be seen through only one point of view. We need to form some sort of collaboration with people of all ideologies and work out an alternative. If it needs 3 axis, so be it

[ComradeMan]

I see a lot of posts on how the two axis graph is inneficient. I agree with that, but nobody is offering any alternatives.

And if you do offer some alternatives, as GPDP mentioned, it cannot be seen through only one point of view. We need to form some sort of collaboration with people of all ideologies and work out an alternative. If it needs 3 axis, so be it

It already exists and the 3rd axis is fascism.

Imagine things like a three-pointed star or a triangle....

[PoliticalNightmare]

No, not Revd.Mark. :lol: Not sure who that is, but any reason you ask?

I never saw any such "questions", and again, they are not at all questions. It would have been more like:

"Orange is the most kickass color ever."

*Strongly disagree
*Disagree
*Agree
*Strongly agree

And note, this is software you're looking at. The code behind it, I assume from professional knowledge/experience, is taking an enumeration-type argument or just an integer value (which an enumeration is also an abstraction for; of positive constants). But we cannot make assumptions about what the inner "scoring" or "ranking" algorithm is going to do with your answer. It may very well account for the fact that answering "strongly disagree" does not imply you are an anti-orangeist -- then again, it may not. Whatever it is, the inner algorithm which is going to translate your responses into scalars seems to be much more complex than simple arithmetic (i.e., "he answered 'disagree', so subtract/add 1 point). It seems to evaluate combinations of responses which create a "lean" in different directions...I guess it's sort of "weighted" by some of the most important responses and manipulated in others. It's probably even using some very advanced sort of interpolation as responses vary between different poles.

And no one is going to answer everything to attain "perfect" score on anything. I just think we're making too many assumptions about what some code is doing that we can't see, and thinking that it works very transparently when I'm almost positive it doesn't. AFAIK, the algorithm is proprietary, and I know for a fact it's NOT open-source and closely guarded... so that further suggests it's pretty robust and well-written. No programmer would make a proprietary algorithm which simply took these responses and did something really simple/naive with them -- at least not a "normal" one. ;)

Yeah but still there are categories on the actual political spectrum that are not covered and can't be covered by dimensions.

Ok, lets say we have a really "radical" social liberal who has extreme social libertarian values, opposes war, homophobia and other authoritarian values but also believes in government, regulation, progressive taxation, welfare and so forth. Then you have me - I am all those things but completely oppose government, regulation, etc. and would replace the welfare state with a system of free associations. On top of that, I advocate revolution - he advocates government reforms. We are both in completely different worlds but, but, "according to the four quadrant grid, we are both -10 (libertarian), - 10 (economic left)".

There are just so many dimensions not included, for instance Materialism v. Idealism, Dialectics v. Anti-Dialectics, Revolution V. Evolution and so forth and so forth. Again, think in terms of ideology, not "left-right" (which makes absolutely no sense, when you think about it).

Where would you put a Marxist? They want to create a stateless, classless society but the fact they want to grasp the state as a transitional phase and nationalise everything could be viewed as "authoritarian" by some. So you could put them in a range of different positions over the grid, which makes no sense whatsoever.


Also, no one shared their score. I can't post it here yet due to post count. Could it be some people are just unsatisfied with their result? You weren't so "revolutionary" or "leftist" as you wanted to be? I dunno, just asking.

Nah...I got - 8 (left), -9 (lib) or something (obviously I had to lie though about taxation, regulation, etc.)

[PoliticalNightmare]

I see a lot of posts on how the two axis graph is inneficient. I agree with that, but nobody is offering any alternatives.

And if you do offer some alternatives, as GPDP mentioned, it cannot be seen through only one point of view. We need to form some sort of collaboration with people of all ideologies and work out an alternative. If it needs 3 axis, so be it

The only alternative is to write an essay for every single question, send it off to a group of academics to analyse your results and have your result returned with a written description rather than a rough plot on a graph about your ideology. Politics can't be summarised by a graph, end of.

[Havet]

Politics can't be summarised by a graph, end of.

Nobody is trying to summarise politics, the point is that there is surely a way to place all ideologies (with a significant number of followers, to prevent over-representation) in a graphic. There must be at least 3 axis, the problem is with the axis, not politics themselves. The axis must be unambiguous, and it cannot be one-sided. It must represent as much ideologies as possible.

We must work incrementally until we can reach a graph that can describe as much ideologies as possible. Currently, the two axis graph (not the one described in this thread, this other one (http://www.google.pt/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stevetierney.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/british_parties.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.stevetierney.org/blog/%3Fp%3D641&usg=__ywSYHglo9CyEvFS-KkHAqmdktX4=&h=497&w=500&sz=11&hl=pt-pt&start=26&zoom=1&tbnid=cBVut-sr-CAMqM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bgraph%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dpt-pt%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D617%26tbs%3Disch: 10,1000&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=622&vpy=256&dur=126&hovh=224&hovw=225&tx=162&ty=121&ei=dokHTc_LNdCfOu-u4LMJ&oei=Z4kHTbizHo7tOYCxjJsJ&esq=3&page=3&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:26&biw=1024&bih=617)) is the one that best serves us, but even so we can clearly see its limitations.

My main point is that this thread, instead of an easy target of criticism, could work towards the building of a more inclusive representation of human political ideas

[PoliticalNightmare]

My main point is that this thread, instead of an easy target of criticism, could work towards the building of a more inclusive representation of human political ideas

I propose a series of graphs which account for various different ideas across the political spectrum. Alternatively, we could have a multiple choice questionnaire followed by a written description rather than a graph plot. I think that the system should work like a wiki as in anyone should be able to come along and just edit it so they can add on new things, new questions, extentions of the graph etc. but mistakes can be edited easily (like a wiki). Could work.

[Revolution starts with U]

I can summarize all human political ideals;
We are humans, we have free will (to an extent, a la, determinism). Nobody has ever, nor will ever, agree 100% with anyone else on all issues... ever.
Game over. There are no ideologies, there are no political positions, there are only people.
One will try to say Hitler was left wing, others that he was right, others that he was 3rd position, and still others that he was an alien, is still alive, and running the world bank...
These compasses, and "isms" are only good for generalizing, and they are barely even good for that.

<~~ My tendency is Human

[ComradeMan]

Nobody is trying to summarise politics, the point is that there is surely a way to place all ideologies (with a significant number of followers, to prevent over-representation) in a graphic. There must be at least 3 axis, the problem is with the axis, not politics themselves. The axis must be unambiguous, and it cannot be one-sided. It must represent as much ideologies as possible.

The whole problem is with a linear representation and the axes etc. No one, I think, pretends it to be how it really is.



We must work incrementally until we can reach a graph that can describe as much ideologies as possible. Currently, the two axis graph (not the one described in this thread, this other one (http://www.google.pt/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stevetierney.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/british_parties.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.stevetierney.org/blog/%3Fp%3D641&usg=__ywSYHglo9CyEvFS-KkHAqmdktX4=&h=497&w=500&sz=11&hl=pt-pt&start=26&zoom=1&tbnid=cBVut-sr-CAMqM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolitical%2Bgraph%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dpt-pt%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D617%26tbs%3Disch: 10,1000&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=622&vpy=256&dur=126&hovh=224&hovw=225&tx=162&ty=121&ei=dokHTc_LNdCfOu-u4LMJ&oei=Z4kHTbizHo7tOYCxjJsJ&esq=3&page=3&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:26&biw=1024&bih=617)) is the one that best serves us, but even so we can clearly see its limitations.

It already exists though.


My main point is that this thread, instead of an easy target of criticism, could work towards the building of a more inclusive representation of human political ideas

could work towards the building of a more inclusive representation of human political ideas

That sounds like we should all have one of those American business "group therapy" hug sessions with fascists et al.
:lol:
Fuck them.

[minarchist]

I'm getting some other people to take this existing Political Compass quiz, and trying to gather complaints on it. And I'm trying to come up with some statements/ideas of my own and a better system of responding to them in certain degrees. If anyone would like to help me by contributing ideas, please pm me or post here! It will be much appreciated! I want to represent your ideologies as honestly and accurately as possible. I worry that if I make everything up, I might unknowingly slant things a bit and encourage people to disagree. :blushing: lol

[PoliticalNightmare]

I'm getting some other people to take this existing Political Compass quiz, and trying to gather complaints on it. And I'm trying to come up with some statements/ideas of my own and a better system of responding to them in certain degrees. If anyone would like to help me by contributing ideas, please pm me or post here! It will be much appreciated! I want to represent your ideologies as honestly and accurately as possible. I worry that if I make everything up, I might unknowingly slant things a bit and encourage people to disagree. :blushing: lol

To reiterate what I said above, I think it should function as much like a wiki as possible. If people can freely add ideas to the system, it is more likely to grow.

[minarchist]

To reiterate what I said above, I think it should function as much like a wiki as possible. If people can freely add ideas to the system, it is more likely to grow.

How is it really going to work like a Wiki? It requires software development, and people who know what they're doing. The only way would be to create some sort of modular design system, which would take forever to develop and I think it would just get screwed up. :blink:

I think it would be best as an open-source software project. Go through something like SourceForge, and have an open SVN server. A Wiki would be best for the documentation/information stuff. Unless of course, the software is designed to incorporate changes through user actions (design) -- and that's no easy task.