Debunkers, Skeptics and Conspiracists: Where are you on the political compass?

5772d1d484d871fd6dc0ff65d5859014._.png

Being further south than Friedman on the chart has me somewhat confused. After all, I'm a communist.
 
My Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77
b08a7683678e0264f171597731e6f258._.png

Just as expected! However, economically I'm in center by fully supporting free trade but with regulations on stressing moral and fair trade. I also think that most of well established people on power are "naturally" on authoritarian side in practice since this serves their direct interests, although they might think different. My conclusion is that political compass will change in most people considering their situation in society.
 
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.1
8aeb0a8a155a0c72988e0503ef0aa8ea._.png


External Quote:
Solid Liberals

Highly educated and politically engaged, Solid Liberals hold consistently liberal values. They back a robust role for government and are strong advocates of the social safety net. Large majorities view the current economic system as unfair and see economic inequality as a major problem. They take broadly positive views of immigrants, and fully 99% think being open to people from around the world is an essential part of the nation's identity. Most say more needs to be done to address both racial discrimination and obstacles to women's achievement. They support same-sex marriage and believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. Solid Liberals are the most Democratic of all typology groups: nearly two-thirds (64%) identify as Democrats, another 35% lean toward the Democratic Party.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-co...7/10/31115611/10-24-2017-Typology-release.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did mine few months ago, didn't think much of it until I came a crossed my score in my photos moments ago.this will be my first post even though I have been here for a year or more, guess you can call me a mute. Lots of pointless information, however enjoy.
 

Attachments

  • 6D21315F-1A48-41FE-B151-B558BF5E2EC3.jpeg
    6D21315F-1A48-41FE-B151-B558BF5E2EC3.jpeg
    25.4 KB · Views: 584
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44
2ffe81677606f2acaa5a6d81ec121359._.png


Did this test many years ago and ended up in about the same spot. Green is definitely the correct quadrant but I would have expected to end up a bit further to the right. Considering that this seems to be based on US politics it might still be accurate though (abortion isn't relly a political issue here in Sweden for example, I would say it would be political suicide to be anything other than "pro choice" here, not because Sweden is particularly left leaning but rather because Swedes are not very religious and in particular not catholic).
9a2aa854643459f62fc39c81f877a973.png


I agree with previous critics that many questions seems to be impossible to answer etc.

Like this one for example:
"Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified."​
Just like with national law, in theory sure, no law is perfect. But in practice it is almost certainly a bad idea (even if you disagree with the law), and those who do break the law seldom has a good reason for doing so. So should I pick strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree? And I'm not really sure how one should interpret the difference between "strongly (dis)agree" and just "(dis)agree" either.

It's also a bit surprising that almost everyone (here at least) end up in the bottom left, while politicians end up in the top right!
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
When you achieve an office like the Presidency/Prime Minister in any country your philosophical beliefs can be easily trumped by the realities of the situation and the potential consequences of your actions. If you are not willing to take the actions needed even if they are counter to your personal philosophies you are not going to be a very effective leader. To believe otherwise is naive. You may not see the differences in the American political parties but most Americans have no problem pointing them out. It's true we don't have the cacophony of parties splitting the vote that many countries have but that has both advantages and disadvantages that are to numerous to discuss here.
Click to expand...
Yes, and in a liberal democracy the president can't just do whatever (s)he wants. You have to listen to what your own party, the congress and many other power institutions are saying. The whole system is deliberately made to prevent a single person from getting too much power. And even if you had absolute power, you can't suddenly change all the laws you would like to over night, it takes time and energy to turn a large ship around.

If they base the plot on what people do rather than what they say I think the results would be misleading and everyone would end up in the same area, even if they were pulling in opposite directions. They also include other candidates that never got a chance to do something, so in those cases they must go on what they said. To use different methods for different people would seem rather dodgy.
 
These kinds of models are fun and interesting, I've seen a few under different subjects, but the problem is that where you have one definitive axis such as left and right, you can replace the words in the other axis and provide completely different context to the meaning and results of what it is you're trying to explain. It's quite novel and gimmick.

In videogames there is a website called mmcafe that uses the same thing, where ranking would be placed from top to bottom, however the other axis could be changed to whatever you like (in fact you can change any axis to whatever you want). This became a long running joke because of how inaccurate rankings would be come due to the obscurity of different parameters people would use, making it completely inconsistent and harder to understand.

Essentially in this model you could have left and right, and then KFC and McDonald's. Far left and far right does a good enough job at explaining your political position, however we could change the other parameters to "successful and unsuccessful" for example, then we'd have a chart that tells us who was left and right, but who was successful and unsuccessful in those positions.

So even though we can ask the question of "are you left or are you right?" and it answers a definitive question, the other parameters are still separate and can actually make it harder to really understand what your position means. What if you believe in an equal combination of both authoritarian and libertarian principles? Does that mean you're central? That doesn't really make sense as you've just cancelled both of those principles out.

I don't really like these axis charts, but for those who are curious I swing slightly to the right.
 
fmosm said:
These kinds of models are fun and interesting, I've seen a few under different subjects, but the problem is that where you have one definitive axis such as left and right, you can replace the words in the other axis and provide completely different context to the meaning and results of what it is you're trying to explain. It's quite novel and gimmick.

In videogames there is a website called mmcafe that uses the same thing, where ranking would be placed from top to bottom, however the other axis could be changed to whatever you like (in fact you can change any axis to whatever you want). This became a long running joke because of how inaccurate rankings would be come due to the obscurity of different parameters people would use, making it completely inconsistent and harder to understand.

Essentially in this model you could have left and right, and then KFC and McDonald's. Far left and far right does a good enough job at explaining your political position, however we could change the other parameters to "successful and unsuccessful" for example, then we'd have a chart that tells us who was left and right, but who was successful and unsuccessful in those positions.

So even though we can ask the question of "are you left or are you right?" and it answers a definitive question, the other parameters are still separate and can actually make it harder to really understand what your position means. What if you believe in an equal combination of both authoritarian and libertarian principles? Does that mean you're central? That doesn't really make sense as you've just cancelled both of those principles out.

I don't really like these axis charts, but for those who are curious I swing slightly to the right.
Click to expand...
You don't pick where you are you answer the questions which determine where you are.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
 
Lots of left-libertarians here.

e46071351dceda79fab1160bb189655e._.png

Chomsky calls himself a left-libertarian. I'm surprised to see where Obama lands. Would be interesting to see the current pope's coordinates.
 
A wee bit late to this (political) party, to be fair...
Political spectrum result.png

but, about what I would have described myself, if pushed to define my stance - if anything, perhaps a little too libertarian in the result. (While I think people are generally free to choose for themselves, matters like COVID required a stronger hand: I willingly accepted the restrictions, in the belief of a stronger, protected community.)

Given the age of this thread, it would be interesting to see if people's positions have changed, and by how much, in which direction. There have been some rather visible political events during the previous few years, in both Europe and US, and global events like COVID may have influenced/informed changes of personal opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top