My word, SM, this has been a fascinating series. I am as well, impressed by the quality of the give-and-take. Even the challenges to the test itself have provided chances for discussing how we view things. Even when we complain that on X or Y question we desperately wanted an “indifferent” or “NOTA” option, we are after all recognizing it’s not all black and white. Well done, crew.
My scores have generally stayed within +/- 0.5 of my first-test coordinates (-2.5, -3.0) as time has passed.
I’d like to add my own thanks to SentientMeat for this excellent series of threads. Always a pleasure to read, though I didn’t always feel the need to post in them (my position was generally already being advocated by the time I got there).
Having just taken the test again, I got (4.25, -7.23), so I moved right and down. More right than down, though that’s probably partially because I started out (and remain) much more extreme down than right. I don’t know how much of that movement was due to these threads themselves, though I can recall at least one time when my interpretation of a question turned out to be flat wrong.
Just another content-light kudos post SentientMeat. Sorry 'bout that ;).
As is probably obvious I tend to avoid discussing politics on this board most of the time ( though I’m just as opinionated as most and probably more than some ), primarily due to a strong dislike for partisan bickering/whining. But while I haven’t participated in your threads either, as a lurker I have followed them closely. An excellent series.
Others have suggested that this is perhaps because Dopers are not representative. I don’t think that is the whole story, in fact I’m not sure it is even a significant part of the story.
Firstly, people like the idea of freedom because when you ask them the question, they think about it in terms of themselves. And everyone’s in favour of freedom for themselves. But when they vote, they think more in terms of what politicians will do to control others, which people don’t mind so much.
Secondly, the system is flawed because people who want to lead want to control. Leaders who have a desperate power hungry desire to get to the top so they can refrain from doing anything are pretty few and far between. I’m exaggerating for effect, but dilute my rhetoric down and you will see where I’m coming from.
I got in on it a bit late, and didn’t join in anything much beyond the grunt poll nature of the threads, but certainly a fun exercise.
I would nominate this thread be stickied for a month or so.
Many thanks for all the kudos, props, nominations, confectionery and imaginary prizes - high praise indeed.
Just to answer **Debaser[b/]'s point, I only (as John guessed) have reservations about certain aspects of the US Constitution, which I suggest might be most cleanly addressed by starting a 21st Century one from scratch, incorporating parts of teh 18th century one if necessary. I find the charge that this impugns democracy rather unfair - I am criticising only a single document from a single historical period in a single nation. If anyone criticised British parliamentary democracy with its quaint old lady in a metal hat, I would certainly not suggest that they “came close to rejecting democracy”. (In fact, I’d agree with their criticism).
Also, it’s strange that even those who think that the test is fatally flawed still seem to consider that it places them roughly accurately on the two lines. For example, based solely on his discourse and general positions, I’d place Debaser roughly halfway between Authoritarian and Libertarian, and further over towards the economic Right than the Left, which is where I suspect he would place himself. Voila, the test had him at (+3.5, +0.5). Again, I suggest that the precise form of the questions aren’t really important in gauging us roughly accurately (there is often not really a “progressive” answer either, which is why I added a lengthy caveat so often), since there are so many questions that small errors balance out.
Finally, it is certainly true that few who seek office do so to reduce the power of government. It is probably also true that Dopers are not really representative of the hoopleheads swayed by power chords and slow-mo flag fluttering. Many positions have been advanced in this series which simply don’t find their way into the zeitgeist of mainstream media. If the orientation of an entire nation is ever to turn, those positions must be discussed until what was first greeted with outrage becomes merely debated with reason. Only then will the South, where most of us reside, rise again.
I thought the threads were much better then that actual test, Sentient. The questions were vague, which was done on purpose I understand, and on another day it’s possible that I may have answered a bit differently. The best thing I can say about the list of questions is that it served as a springboard to discuss those issues.
Marc
I quote an email from one of the originators of the Compass:
So, any questions or comments for David?
Actually, David has just asked me for a single list of questions which he’ll try to deal with all at once due to time constraints. So post them here (as concisely as possible) and I’ll send him a bunch tomorrow, or whenever.
Note that I might have to absent myself rather suddenly for a while in the next couple of days so apologies if everything goes quiet - I’ll get back to it when I can.
Well, the main question I have is this: Are you supposed to overanalyze or go with your gut? Take the “the freer the market, the freer the people” question, for example. Extremely few would tick “agree” if they overanalyzed and assumed the question meant precisely what it says, while many would if they went with their gut.
I’d like to invite furt, Debaser and anyone else who might consider themselves a “US conservative” (and apologies if that is itself a mischaracterisation) to set forth to David why thy think the test is “biased” against US conservatives. I really cannot see how this is the case, myself, so I’m not sure how David is supposed to improve the Compass in your eyes. Could you think of a couple of questions which set this our clearly?
…set this out clearly, sorry.
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
I am finding on these boards and taking this little test something new about myself. I don’t completely agree with the survey but I have moved quite a bit to the left from my youth.
I voted for Reagan in 84 and found myself distastefully voting for Kerry just past.
I am anti-religious right and a lifetime environmentalist and I believe this moved my number too far to the Left.
Why weren’t there questions like, do you believe in the Military Draft? Do you believe in the US & UN being the police force of the world. Are you in favor of one world government? Is the right only the home of the religious & anti-gays now? Is it that the right has shifted much further to the right?
I also would have wished for a fifth answer in the middle of agree/disagree.
Nothing on Flag Burning either, I am surprised.
If I may say, jfranchi, those are all specifically US issues which this international test justifiably avoids (see the FAQ), but I’ll put a couple of your questions to David anyway.
I am a US conservative. Here is an example of a question that I view as a problem.
We are voting on whether the stipulated situation is regrettable or not. I, and probably many others, dispute the stipulated situation. I don’t know exactly what the question intends to mean by “simply manipulate money”. Bankers? Currency traders? Any investors? Stock speculators? Most of these groups do, in my opinion, contribute to society and to the economy, not just to themselves. So I’m stuck with a question that I could answer in a number of ways. If there were many fortunes made in the manner described, I would consider that regrettable. Since I don’t think the stipulation is true, I end up choosing “Strongly disagree.”
Another one:
This is either ignorant or deliberately mis-worded. Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to deliver a profit to the stockholders; this is not a social responsibilty. Many companies recognize social responsibilities concerning the environment, the economic well-being of the communities in which they operate, et cetera, but delivering a profit is not a social responsibility. Refering to it as such is confusing.
Having said that, I think that the way I ended up answering these questions probably contributed to a fairly accurate assessment of my politics. I would say that the wording of the questions reveals the politics of the writers, but doesn’t detract from the ability of the test to accurately gauge one’s politics.
My thanks to you, again, for all you ahve done with these threads. I got here late, so I’m still reading through them.
I’m only a conservative in the Goldwater tradition, which is to say a practical Libertarian. I had no major issues with Clinton’s policies, and I’d vote for a bag of horse manure over Pat Robertson. (Actually, a bag of horse manure over Pat Robertson is a pleasing mental image.)
IMO there are two problems: the first, and greatest, is an inherent “simplistic bias” built into a multiple-choice question format. Additionally, many of the questions are quite vague. Any anti-conservative bias is quite secondary to that. Nonetheless, I’ll give it a whack:
**If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.**It assumes the two are in contradiction; it allows no room for the idea that what’s good for trans-national corporations is good for the poor. Not that I would necessarily put it that way myself, but I would say that free trade and international commerce are good for the world’s poor, and that in many poor areas a Nike factory may do more good than a million dollars in aid.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. WTF does “support” mean? I’ll always love and want the best for it … is that support? As near as I can tell, this sems to want to equate love of country or loyalty to conservatism, and I find that troubling.
**Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.**This is very fishy to me. It implies that one or the other political orientation out there that believes in the inherent superiority of their own race, and I strongly suspect clicking on agree here moves you toward conservatism. Assumption: conservatives are racist. There is no room for the idea that “Sure my race is better at some things. Other races are better at other things, though, so it all balances out.”
**Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.**A very clear example. I suspect very, very few economic conservatives expect corporations to “voluntarily protect the environment” out of the goodness of their hearts, which is what the question seems to ask. Rather, conservatives think they will do so because of public pressure and market forces. The phrasing of the question stongly suggests to me someone who is not really familar with conservative thought.
**It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. ** I assume a conservative is supposed to check disagree here; but the way it’s phrased seems to very much push one toward an “agree” answer. If it said that bankers or stockbrokers or insurance adjusters “manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society,” I would disagree and I suspect most people would. But the way it’s phrased is so vauge that one tends to answer “well sure, if you say that people are contributing nothing, I’d say that’s regrettable.”
I trust that’s a start; lots of people made similar suggestions in the threads. Actually, just as interesting is the FAQ, where they seem to go out of their way to argue against Libertarianism as a political philosophy.
As to what he could to to improve it, I’d start with using the threads here as a guide to making the questions less vague. Then I’d suggest he get a panel of people to read and approve of the questions. My $.02.