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

I agree. I feel like I could/would get a completely different result each time I took the test...I took it again this morning and ended up in the green- must have been in a bad mood yesterday :)

In my mind I have supplemented authoritarian for violent and libertarian for caring. =)
 
IMG_3465.JPG pcgraphpng.png


Oh no, what will they say at my next meeting here?



They will take my NWO Library card away...
 
Last edited:
So, 'people that want liberty only care about themselves but people that condone the use of force care about others'?

Seems legit. :rolleyes:
Many Libertarians embrace the concepts of "do your own thing" and "non-interference" in the lives of others" and are willing to use violence to defend those ideals. There's more to being a Libertarian than just wanting liberty. Many see the defense of liberty as an integral part of the movement. As with any political philosophy it encompasses a broad range of ideas. Similarly most religions have an authoritarian element, that is how they maintain their doctrine, but does not necessarily mean they advocate violence in the promotion and maintenance of their doctrine. Alhazred's characterization is probably closer to the pure Libertarian ideal than yours. You seem to looking for a Pacifism movement and nothing on that scale reflects Pacifism vs Militarism.
 
I am really not sure how valid this test is. All the famous people in there have clearly not taken the test and someone else has interpreted what they would answer. Even if Obama, for example is in the top right based on his actual actions, I wonder where he would be based on his ACTUAL beliefs.
Does this mean he is a hypocrite? or does it mean that when actually in power he was faced with the realism of how the system works and perhaps real change is not possible without destroying the entire system and replacing it with something else?
It goes to show how all politicians seem to basically be the same. US Citizens seem to get as heavily divided on the Republican/Democrat line as if they are total opposites, when they are actually basically almost identical.
 
I am really not sure how valid this test is. All the famous people in there have clearly not taken the test and someone else has interpreted what they would answer. Even if Obama, for example is in the top right based on his actual actions, I wonder where he would be based on his ACTUAL beliefs.
Does this mean he is a hypocrite? or does it mean that when actually in power he was faced with the realism of how the system works and perhaps real change is not possible without destroying the entire system and replacing it with something else?
It goes to show how all politicians seem to basically be the same. US Citizens seem to get as heavily divided on the Republican/Democrat line as if they are total opposites, when they are actually basically almost identical.
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.
 
well that was kind of my point with putting world leaders on this scale based on what they actually DO, as opposed to asking them to take the test personally.
It is not really surprising then that they are in completely the opposite side of the compass to nearly all of us.
 
Even if Obama, for example is in the top right based on his actual actions, I wonder where he would be based on his ACTUAL beliefs.
You hit the nail on the head Efftup. Most Presidents don't operate based on their beliefs, but they surely do run on their beliefs. Eventually their beliefs are pushed aside for the safety of our nation. I think its impossible for us to presume what it would mean to be the President of this nation. I would imagine all leaders in the free world would probably live in that part of the graph, regardless of how liberal they are in their views. Which adds to actions speak louder than words. So does this mean the left/right divide only thrives in our words, but all actions will typically be far right or at least the majority of them regardless of who's in power.
And you bring up another good point. Should we decide who someone is based on their beliefs or their actual words and actions.
 
both. but actions have to be taken in honest and informed context.
What if their words contradict their actions? And more importantly why has this become the accepted norm in politics, to the point where people even joke about it instead of being outraged over it.
 
Last edited:
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.

On the contrary my friend, most Libertarians recognise the non-aggression principle and only condone violence when it is in self-defence or in defence of people that are having force initiated against them. Libertarians generally don't initiate original force/violence.

While on the converse, authoritarians/statists support coercion and initiating force. Mostly in the west that will be on the behest of the alleged 51% who dont like what the other 49% want to do. Although most of the time governments dont have a majority of the public that voted to put their party in power.

For example in the recent EU elections less than 40% even voted, yet we are still ruled/governed by the EU in some respects. Although that wasnt a vote for the EU as such it did elect people to represent the UK in the EU.

Where is the option for people that want nobody to represent them in the EU?
 
This thread is about the political compass, and how it differs between groups such as skeptics and alternative fans, not a thread in which to discuss politics or political theory.

If you wish to discuss politics with someone, then please PM them.
 
This thread is about the political compass, and how it differs between groups such as skeptics and alternative fans, not a thread in which to discuss politics or political theory.

If you wish to discuss politics with someone, then please PM them.
I took the test and landed in the green box, but honestly what is the difference between disagree and strongly disagree, or agree and strongly agree. I mean you either agree or disagree with something, right. And can a test like this actually predict if someone is a skeptic or an "alternative" (what ever that means). My point being how accurate are these test, and who came up with the test. Are there any biases in the test?

Point being, if we base the test on someone's beliefs they might be more liberal, but if we base it on their actions or words, as in the case with Obama it might be far to the right (not trying to have a political discussion, just using him as an example since he's on the graph). So how accurate is this test. And the test doesn't allow for you to be undecided, even if you are, you have to choose one or the other...
 
Yeah, it's not a very good test. But it's the best we've got :)
Do we have any charts with plots for those who are conspirators or believers to get a better idea of where they fall on the graph? I agree there's a distinction between the two, but there are more similarities between the two then most people like to admit.
 
I quite like it. Does it rate the answers relative to a persons answer to previous questions or is it more absolute?

Ie, if you strongly disagree with everything about a subject but mildly disagree on one (random example, question 7) it will judge that to be similar to mildly disagreeing with all of them and being fairly neutral about 'question 7' or does it take them all as absolute? Ie, if a person says they strongly disagree on all but one then it will really 'believe' that the person is strongly against all of them apart from one.

If that makes sense?

I am asking this as it seems to consider in an algorithm that people could be gaming it in order to get a specific result.
 
Do we have any charts with plots for those who are conspirators to get a better idea of where they fall on the graph? I agree there's a distinction between the two, but there are more similarities between the two then most people like to admit.

A year ago I collated it, and marked the four most "conspiracy" oriented people in red:
 
Ie, if you strongly disagree with everything about a subject but mildly disagree on one (random example, question 7) it will judge that to be similar to mildly disagreeing with all of them and being fairly neutral about 'question 7' or does it take them all as absolute? Ie, if a person says they strongly disagree on all but one then it will really 'believe' that the person is strongly against all of them apart from one.
It makes sense, but the questions are very specific
 
A year ago I collated it, and marked the four most "conspiracy" oriented people in red:
So in essence everyone associated with this site resides in the same quadrant except for SR1419 and Landru. So does this give us a good indication that "debunkers" or truth seekers are typically liberal. But Joe resides in the same quadrant, and I would've pegged him for being more to the right
 
So in essence everyone associated with this site resides in the same quadrant except for SR1419 and Landru. So does this give us a good indication that "debunkers" or truth seekers are typically liberal. But Joe resides in the same quadrant, and I would've pegged him for being more to the right

I think it more indicates that most people who post on Metabunk are in the green square. There is quite a random scattering beyond that.
 
Well, heck, I never even saw this...but here's me.


As well as the other test...


Post-Moderns
13% of the public

What They Believe
  • Generally supportive of government, though more conservative on race policies and the safety net
  • Strongly supportive of regulation and environmental protection
  • Most (56%) say Wall Street helps the economy more than it hurts
  • Very liberal on social issues, including same-sex marriage
  • One of the least religious groups: nearly a third are unaffiliated with any religious tradition
  • Favor the use of diplomacy rather than force
Who They Are
  • The youngest of the typology groups: 32% under age 30
  • A majority are non-Hispanic white and have at least some college experience
  • Half live in either the Northeast or the West
  • A majority (58%) live in the suburbs
  • 63% use social networking
  • One-in-five regularly listen to NPR; 14% regularly watch The Daily Show
Content from External Source
 


I am in the purple square.

Its a good quiz but there are few seemingly trick questions and it doesnt seem to consider that corporations and company's are not exactly the same things. That's not me being political. Just stating an observation. It made some questions have answers that didnt apply to me at all.

I may make one of these as a Facebook app if there isnt one already. =)
 
Any time I take these kinds of tests, I snap answer. If I think about it (other than understanding the question) I know I have a tendency to answer as I think I am, not how I really am. I actually considered taking it again to try to be right in the crosshairs. If they had more questions about firearms, personal responsibility, bratty kids, etc...I'd probably move further to the right.

The other test is funny...I'm a post-modern? I'm 25 yrs out of the largest age group.
 
even the very first question: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations

its unanswerable as written. are they saying "communism is the way to go, even if it causes global economic collapse" ?

they need a none of the above answer or 'pass'.

I took one test on FB (yes, neutral, or no) the question "do we spend too much on welfare and education" well yes welfare, no education so I put neutral , like a lot of the questions and ended up being a progressive liberal something or other ; (
 
Well - all the usual problems of "force the decision" style questioning but here I am.


I've done the test several times in the past.

Always ended up in the green. Cannot remember exactly where - never kept records.

For info - British born AU resident since age 11 and de jure AU citizen for a long time - civil and military engineering career - decode the age from the econ41 ;)
 
Back
Top