Try answering some questions on the Political Compass web site and see how you compare to some leaders both past and present. The four points are Authoritarian/Libertarian for social issues and Left/Right for economic issues. The site is geared toward an international audience, but does include a rating of the 2004 US primary participants. Click on the link along the left side - some folks may be surprised to see how their candidate rates. Enjoy!
Interested in how you compare politically?
- Thread starter darryld13
- Start date
- Status
Looks like I'm there too. -3.5 Economic, -2.67 Social.
The Pope and Arafat end up close together? Note, although I am a Christian, I disagree with the Catholic Church on many issues and feel the Pope is part of the problem in some cases.
By the way I ended up 1 to the right and up 2.
By the way I ended up 1 to the right and up 2.
I ended up right next to Friedman, about where I expected to be. There are no politicians in that quadrant. No wonder. Politics is about control. Control the money and/or "moral" behavior of others is the motivation. I have no desire to enter politics.
My only slight disagreement is where the right-left economic dividing line is placed. The UK point-of-view it probably why.
My only slight disagreement is where the right-left economic dividing line is placed. The UK point-of-view it probably why.
Quite entertaining. About as useful as astrology, which oddly enough, was one of the questions.
I came out very near Friedman (free market, slightly liberal on social issues). There are worse things than coming out near a Nobel winning economist.
I agree with what was said before - some of the question are posed as do you want A or B, but A and B are not mutually exclusive. Totally bogus test!
Anybody bold enough to tell us if they score near Stalin or Hitler? LOL.
Keith.
I came out very near Friedman (free market, slightly liberal on social issues). There are worse things than coming out near a Nobel winning economist.
I agree with what was said before - some of the question are posed as do you want A or B, but A and B are not mutually exclusive. Totally bogus test!
Anybody bold enough to tell us if they score near Stalin or Hitler? LOL.
Keith.
This was mildly amusing but the way the questions were worded made me make choices which I was not comfortable with ... they didn't accurately reflect how I felt.
Also, it doesn't allow you to change the weighting of the questions/issues.
I ended up right next to John Kerry ... but I'm actually to the right of George W. Bush.
Maybe I'll make up my own test using continuums and score modifiers?
--- Bror Jace
Also, it doesn't allow you to change the weighting of the questions/issues.
I ended up right next to John Kerry ... but I'm actually to the right of George W. Bush.
Maybe I'll make up my own test using continuums and score modifiers?
--- Bror Jace
I'm slightly to the right and below the Dalai Lama, according to this, but I agree, the questions require you to make choices that you don't really agree with.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
I'm also right by the side of the Dalai Lama:
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
It seems that the author has his own thoughts on what it means to be right or left. I guess it's hard to make a survey like this without working in your own thoughts.
I came in Economic Left/Right: -1.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28, which I'm not sure if I agree with. But it doesn't seem too far off base. I don't agree with any of the presidential candidates when it comes to their economics, and I definitely don't agree with the "far left" candidates on their social issues.
The Author says that the candidates seem to fit into a narrow ideological range. This may be true, but they are also total opposite on a number of key issues. These issues are important enough to swing many voters.
I do have a couple of problems with the questions though. While I may disagree with a candidate on an issue, I may also feel that the end result will still be better with that candidate.
Here's a couple poorly worded questions:
-T
I came in Economic Left/Right: -1.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28, which I'm not sure if I agree with. But it doesn't seem too far off base. I don't agree with any of the presidential candidates when it comes to their economics, and I definitely don't agree with the "far left" candidates on their social issues.
The Author says that the candidates seem to fit into a narrow ideological range. This may be true, but they are also total opposite on a number of key issues. These issues are important enough to swing many voters.
I do have a couple of problems with the questions though. While I may disagree with a candidate on an issue, I may also feel that the end result will still be better with that candidate.
Here's a couple poorly worded questions:
I agree with this statement, this is an advantage. However I don't think that a one-party system is better overall.
No I don't think they are. Does this mean that it's because tax rates are too low for rich people? No I think it's because of too many loopholes and dishonest rich people who don't pay the proper amount.
-T
I sent that link to my co-workers. Most of the people in my office took the test and ended up very near the middle ... with one person splitting the crosshairs perfectly.
One woman in the office gasped in nervous surprise as she ended up between Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton.
I was glad to see no one in Saddam Hussein territory.
Speaking of which, how did they get results for world leaders? Obviously the makers answered for them ... and they didn’t do a very good job. How can Margaret Thatcher, who I’ve heard defend socialized medicine, be so far to the right??
Anyway, I just need to find the time and I’ll make my own self-test/questionnaire, probably in a RTF format I can send to anyone who wants it.
--- Bror Jace
One woman in the office gasped in nervous surprise as she ended up between Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton.
I was glad to see no one in Saddam Hussein territory.
Speaking of which, how did they get results for world leaders? Obviously the makers answered for them ... and they didn’t do a very good job. How can Margaret Thatcher, who I’ve heard defend socialized medicine, be so far to the right??
Anyway, I just need to find the time and I’ll make my own self-test/questionnaire, probably in a RTF format I can send to anyone who wants it.
--- Bror Jace
I just took the political compass test. I'm right there next to Tweaker, MarkC and the Dalai Lama. Fine company in deed.
I agree with everyone who has mentioned how the questions don’t let you answer with what you really believe.
Way too many absolutes in the questions. "Always", when what I feel is "Usually" so I have to say "Disagree." And "Never" when my answer is "Sometimes."
There needs to be a broader range of answers. Get rid of words like “always” and “never” and let the answers be more along the lines of “Always agree” “Usually agree” “Sometimes agree” “Rarely agree” and “Always disagree” “Usually disagree” “Sometimes disagree” “Rarely disagree” I was pleased with the fact that there are no cop-out answers like “no opinion” and “neither agree nor disagree”
And as Bror said, the answers need to be weighted as to what is important to you. For instance, do you consider “The growing fusion between information and entertainment is a worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span.” or “It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.” as important as “Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.” or “Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.”
I had some trouble answering ““Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.”. Because imho, the question should read ““Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be mothers.” ‘Homemaker’ is a different job entirely and has very little to do with the job of raising well adjusted kids. I had to disagree with this question as stated, but whole-heartedly feel that people who have children ought not to leave their raising to other caregivers if it is at all possible.
My favorite question is “All authority must be questioned.” Do you know how much trouble this attitude has gotten me in over the years? Especially those times when I’ve pointed out to school principals that unless SOMEONE was willing to think about questioning authority and protesting when those in charge have overstepped their bounds, we’d all still be paying 3 pence a pound tax on tea.
ALL authority must be questioned.
99.9999% of the time, you’ll find that authority is justified, but it’s the 0.0001% that needs attention.
Side note to any U.S. Marines reading this. Before you signed up, somewhere in the back of your mind, you questioned the right of the USMC to have complete authority over you.
When you joined and took your oath, you said, ‘Yes, they do have that right’. And after that there was no need to continue questioning.
Want to have some fun with this? Go thru and answer the questions as you think Hitler would and see how close you come to the ‘real’ Hitler. I came pretty close
I agree with everyone who has mentioned how the questions don’t let you answer with what you really believe.
Way too many absolutes in the questions. "Always", when what I feel is "Usually" so I have to say "Disagree." And "Never" when my answer is "Sometimes."
There needs to be a broader range of answers. Get rid of words like “always” and “never” and let the answers be more along the lines of “Always agree” “Usually agree” “Sometimes agree” “Rarely agree” and “Always disagree” “Usually disagree” “Sometimes disagree” “Rarely disagree” I was pleased with the fact that there are no cop-out answers like “no opinion” and “neither agree nor disagree”
And as Bror said, the answers need to be weighted as to what is important to you. For instance, do you consider “The growing fusion between information and entertainment is a worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span.” or “It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.” as important as “Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.” or “Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.”
I had some trouble answering ““Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.”. Because imho, the question should read ““Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be mothers.” ‘Homemaker’ is a different job entirely and has very little to do with the job of raising well adjusted kids. I had to disagree with this question as stated, but whole-heartedly feel that people who have children ought not to leave their raising to other caregivers if it is at all possible.
My favorite question is “All authority must be questioned.” Do you know how much trouble this attitude has gotten me in over the years? Especially those times when I’ve pointed out to school principals that unless SOMEONE was willing to think about questioning authority and protesting when those in charge have overstepped their bounds, we’d all still be paying 3 pence a pound tax on tea.
ALL authority must be questioned.
99.9999% of the time, you’ll find that authority is justified, but it’s the 0.0001% that needs attention.
Side note to any U.S. Marines reading this. Before you signed up, somewhere in the back of your mind, you questioned the right of the USMC to have complete authority over you.
When you joined and took your oath, you said, ‘Yes, they do have that right’. And after that there was no need to continue questioning.
Want to have some fun with this? Go thru and answer the questions as you think Hitler would and see how close you come to the ‘real’ Hitler. I came pretty close
"... It's simply a measure of attitudes and inevitable human contradictions to provide a more integrated definition of where people and parties are really at."
I think the test is intentionally designed to be difficult. For example, what kind of rating or distinction could be made if the questions were "Do you think a country has the right to defend itself?" rather than "I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong." Of course everyone's response to the first statement would be strongly agree, but the second, while similar, introduces a moral variation. One can't accurately evaluate responses if the answers are the radical extreme full on or off positions. Are true false (easy) tests effective evaluators of our children's knowledge? Heck, no!
Intuitively, I suspect that weighting is integrated into the question designs themselves. For example, a response of strongly agree indicates that the question touched a value held dear while agree indicates an attitude more of yes, but no strong argument if someone differs. In fact, the difficulty experienced gauging how strong our response is indicates to me that these questions are well considered. They forced us to really reflect instead of providing reflexive responses.
Some may believe that these questions were not realistic, perhaps because they introduce shades of gray on issues usually considered to be black or white. I personally did not consider any of the questions unrealistic, at least in the Maxwell Smart sense of unrealistic where there has to be some fantastically unlikely confluence of events for the issue to occur in our lives. None of the questions seemed contrived or so unique that we would face a 0.000001% of ever needing to consider them in our personal lives.
As some note in several postings, the responses here and the tight grouping of the 2004 US primary participants may indicate that perhaps political differences today are not nearly as simple or great as the media or politicians sometimes claim.
I think the test is intentionally designed to be difficult. For example, what kind of rating or distinction could be made if the questions were "Do you think a country has the right to defend itself?" rather than "I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong." Of course everyone's response to the first statement would be strongly agree, but the second, while similar, introduces a moral variation. One can't accurately evaluate responses if the answers are the radical extreme full on or off positions. Are true false (easy) tests effective evaluators of our children's knowledge? Heck, no!
Intuitively, I suspect that weighting is integrated into the question designs themselves. For example, a response of strongly agree indicates that the question touched a value held dear while agree indicates an attitude more of yes, but no strong argument if someone differs. In fact, the difficulty experienced gauging how strong our response is indicates to me that these questions are well considered. They forced us to really reflect instead of providing reflexive responses.
Some may believe that these questions were not realistic, perhaps because they introduce shades of gray on issues usually considered to be black or white. I personally did not consider any of the questions unrealistic, at least in the Maxwell Smart sense of unrealistic where there has to be some fantastically unlikely confluence of events for the issue to occur in our lives. None of the questions seemed contrived or so unique that we would face a 0.000001% of ever needing to consider them in our personal lives.
As some note in several postings, the responses here and the tight grouping of the 2004 US primary participants may indicate that perhaps political differences today are not nearly as simple or great as the media or politicians sometimes claim.
"A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of globally known figures to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass."
From the FAQ:
How can you determine where politicians are honestly at without asking them?
How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We've relied on reports, parliamentary records, ... and actions that spoke louder than words.
Some of the questions are slanted
Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.
In some cases none of the four possible responses reflected my attitude
One expert in the field suggested that we restrict the responses to simply 'agree' and 'disagree'. But how many do you need? Ten? Twenty? If you choose the one that most nearly reflects your feeling, you'll get an accurate reading...even if it niggles.
The FAQ addresses more issues brought up, but these three answer the frequent ones I saw here.
[ August 04, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: darryld13 ]
Strange, but I got relatively - 3.62 and - 0.05. Don't know exactly what it means, but I'am pleased to be alone. But who knows the scale ? Think better be close to John Paule II.
My results are
Economic L/R: -6
Social Lib/Auth: -1.9
Seems like I'm very close to Gandhi and Mandela for whatever that's worth...
I did find however, that some questions were too simply stated (one sided answer yes or no) and need more careful consideration in particular cases.
Economic L/R: -6
Social Lib/Auth: -1.9
Seems like I'm very close to Gandhi and Mandela for whatever that's worth...
I did find however, that some questions were too simply stated (one sided answer yes or no) and need more careful consideration in particular cases.
I scored:Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.74
I am more or less in unknown land on the test,I am pretty much alone.
I have always considered myself a Conservative and am much closer to Bush.The test does however make you decide on a choice that you dont fully agree with.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.74
I am more or less in unknown land on the test,I am pretty much alone.
I have always considered myself a Conservative and am much closer to Bush.The test does however make you decide on a choice that you dont fully agree with.
Economic Left/Right: 2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36
I would make the same complaints about the questions as most of you have. I would say many of them lacked a suitable answer, the Homemaker one being a prime example.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36
I would make the same complaints about the questions as most of you have. I would say many of them lacked a suitable answer, the Homemaker one being a prime example.
wow i am right between stalin, hitler, arafat and hussein.
I got a 5.5 and .62
- Status
