Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Political Compass mega thread 2011

12345679»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭DEVEREUX


    pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.38&soc=-2.67


  • Registered Users Posts: 867 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    I'm not sure I agree with the definitions of libertarianism and authoritarianism on which the test seems to operate. "Authoritarianism" appears here to refer to one's general attitude to life, rather than one's political views.

    In theory, I could be a libertarian yet promote a very authoritarian parenting style. I might say that only the parents / legal guardians may infringe on the rights of their children, and nobody else (ie the State) may restrict their freedoms. My parenting might involve hitting my children and constantly invading their privacy, yet at the same time if somebody tried to force them to go to school I would be mighty pissed off. Then when the child becomes an adult I would acknowledge that they own themselves and cease aggression against them. Similarly, if I were an employer I could treat my employees like mindless sheep yet still consider myself a political individualist.

    The poll also seems to consider racism a form of authoritarianism. If I think my race is superior to others why does that mean I can't believe in strong individual freedom?

    Basically a lot of the questions are kinda irrelevant to politics and you need to be a douchebag to score high on the authoritarian scale

    I think they expect a person's political opinions to be consistent with their general thoughts. If you don't like the idea of government but still wield a great deal of authority on your children, then you're only rejecting a particular form of authority; not all authority on principle.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Thought I'd update this. I feel that I've taken a strong lurch to the left in the past year, and decided to give the political compass another wheeze to see where I stand. And this is where I got:

    Economic Left/Right: -7.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49




    There is some huge flaws with this though, there is no way that myself and Robert Mugabe share the same views on economic policy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Before I post my compass I would like to point out that this website is a left-libertarian hack website that is designed to convince everyone of how left wing they are, and to know the extent of their hackishness you need only look at their US 2012 compass. The questions are completely loaded and many of them irrelevant. Anyway here's my compass:

    pcgraphpng.php?ec=4.12&soc=-6.36

    I must say though that I strongly disagreed with a clear majority of the statements. Not sure how I got an economic score so far to the right, even though I would be even further to the right I remember answering most of the economic questions like someone on the left.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    matthew8 wrote: »
    this website is a left-libertarian hack website that is designed to convince everyone of how left wing they are, and to know the extent of their hackishness you need only look at their US 2012 compass. The questions are completely loaded and many of them irrelevant.

    [...]

    Not sure how I got an economic score so far to the right, even though I would be even further to the right I remember answering most of the economic questions like someone on the left.

    Need I even say anything?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Kinski wrote: »
    Need I even say anything?

    What do you mean? It asked whether corporations exploited third world countries and I said they are because it is what it is. It asked whether there should be environmental regulations and I said yes there should be. It asked whether what's good for corporations is always good for people and I strongly disagreed. Those were the 3 that stuck out in my mind. I don't have a left wing position on any of the actual issues pertaining to those questions though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    matthew8 wrote: »
    What do you mean? It asked whether corporations exploited third world countries and I said they are because it is what it is. It asked whether there should be environmental regulations and I said yes there should be. It asked whether what's good for corporations is always good for people and I strongly disagreed. Those were the 3 that stuck out in my mind. I don't have a left wing position on any of the actual issues pertaining to those questions though.

    You claim the test is designed to trick people into thinking they're left-wing, yet even though you claim that you responded to many propositions in ways which you consider left-wing, the test still placed you on the right. Doesn't really back up your claim that it's trying to falsely identity test-takers as leftists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Kinski wrote: »
    You claim the test is designed to trick people into thinking they're left-wing, yet even though you claim that you responded to many propositions in ways which you consider left-wing, the test still placed you on the right. Doesn't really back up your claim that it's trying to falsely identity test-takers as leftists.

    The fact that I answered any economical questions in a left wing way means the questions are loaded.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    matthew8 wrote: »
    The fact that I answered any economical questions in a left wing way means the questions are loaded.

    No, it doesn't; it just means your "inner Communist" is struggling to get out. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    I'm stuck right in the middle of left-and right economically (when I first took the test I was actually on the line... now I'm just a tiny piece to the left :eek:)

    And naturally moderately libertarian.

    I do not know how they have labelled the Socialist Party or Sinn Fein as Libertarian. Not. At. All. :pac:

    Of course, one has to distinguish between those who say 'question authority' and those who say 'question authority... until such a point that we are in power and then do as we say.' There have been plenty or liberating revolutionaries who swept away the old order only to be far more authoritarian than those who came before.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭HalloweenJack


    pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.62&soc=-7.08


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    I'm stuck right in the middle of left-and right economically (when I first took the test I was actually on the line... now I'm just a tiny piece to the left :eek:)

    And naturally moderately libertarian.

    I do not know how they have labelled the Socialist Party or Sinn Fein as Libertarian. Not. At. All. :pac:

    Of course, one has to distinguish between those who say 'question authority' and those who say 'question authority... until such a point that we are in power and then do as we say.' There have been plenty or liberating revolutionaries who swept away the old order only to be far more authoritarian than those who came before.

    My biggest problem is with the economic questions. It asks you where you stand on principle, but not in practise. As a matter of principle, I think commodities like bottled water (Whose brands differ in only the most superficial ways) are a bit of a joke and that its a shame that we pay one euro fifty for 500mls (The markups are ludicrous)

    That said, my loathing of bottled water (And to a lesser extent the speculation of land for profit) are comparable to my loathing to going to the dentist. In the end, I'll still go to the dentist, because I recognise I won't have any teeth left if I don't. The questions need to be less about ideals and more about what you actually think works in practise. Which is why I emerge further to the left than Lenin!


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 Histie


    dannny1 wrote: »


    That has a bias to place people in the "Libertarian Left" quadrant. Here's another one: http://www.edwardgaffney.com/political-compass.html.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Histie wrote: »
    That has a bias to place people in the "Libertarian Left" quadrant. Here's another one: http://www.edwardgaffney.com/political-compass.html.

    Hmm....100% of people are closer to the centre than me? That's almost impressive.

    ix9t02.gif

    Needs an easy way to do that. A generated image taking in the coords of the user's result would work.

    Political Compass (current) for comparison:

    Economic Left/Right: -6.25
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 Histie


    Yes, it doesn't work as well visually as the other political compass, but it is innovative in treating less directly political views separately, rather than lumping them all together (that website isn't mine, by the way).


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Histie wrote: »
    Yes, it doesn't work as well visually as the other political compass, but it is innovative in treating less directly political views separately, rather than lumping them all together (that website isn't mine, by the way).

    One of the interesting things is that there is no unoccupied space on the diagram - every combination of left-right/inward-outward seems to happen - which suggests the independence of the axes is real.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    20. Homosexuality is always justified.


    justified? What a way of putting it


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    216161.png

    Interesting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Histie wrote: »
    That has a bias to place people in the "Libertarian Left" quadrant. Here's another one: http://www.edwardgaffney.com/political-compass.html.
    I don't like that one... most of the questions aren't ones which can be answered with specificity. "Immigrants"? Legal or Illegal, do EU nationals count? Asylum seekers? Legally recognised seekers of asylum or undocumented "refugees"? etc. etc.

    Very poorly written and thought out IMO.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭HalloweenJack


    I think the worst statement is something along the lines of "Religious values should be taught in schools".

    Very ambiguous as a lot of my moral values are ones that are found in various religions and I would encourage them to be spread but I'm totally anti-religion and against indoctrination so it would depend entirely on the way that these "religious values" are being taught.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40 Histie


    I don't like that one... most of the questions aren't ones which can be answered with specificity."Immigrants"? Legal or Illegal, do EU nationals count? Asylum seekers? Legally recognised seekers of asylum or undocumented "refugees"? etc. etc.



    I would assume it spans all of those groups apart from asylum-seekers. There should be no issue in answering the question on whether or not there should be very strict limits on immigration as far as legality/illegality is concerned, because controls presuppose legality.

    I think very specific questions can be problematic when one tries to draw a general inference as to a person's political views, unless one asks an extremely large number of them, because there are any number of reasons why one might be of an opinion in relation to a very specific case. For example, if the test asked whether you agree with the last abortion referendum proposal, it would be of little assistance in determining whether you're pro-life/pro-choice, because there were both pro-life and -choice people on both sides. It is true that there could still be different reasons for agreement with such a statement as "abortion is wrong", but because it is broader, many are ruled out.

    I think the worst statement is something along the lines of "Religious values should be taught in schools".

    Very ambiguous as a lot of my moral values are ones that are found in various religions and I would encourage them to be spread but I'm totally anti-religion and against indoctrination so it would depend entirely on the way that these "religious values" are being taught.

    This should not be ambiguous, because it concerns the intent, rather than the content. I am sure that anyone’s set of values intersects with those of some religion to some degree or at some level; the point is not that they would be taught but that they would be taught qua religious values.

    Whilst one might agree that the Decalogue’s commandments against killing and stealing serve as good values to hold for normal conduct, they would lose their religious accretions if taught in isolation; they would need to be contextualised in terms of God, Moses and Mount Sinai for them to be understood as religious values. Therefore, if there is a mere coincidence between the values a school instils in its pupils and some of the values of religion X, that is not to be understood as a “religious value” per se.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Histie wrote: »



    I would assume it spans all of those groups apart from asylum-seekers. There should be no issue in answering the question on whether or not there should be very strict limits on immigration as far as legality/illegality is concerned, because controls presuppose legality.

    No, we currently have controls on movement of EU Citizens in and out of the country. That is immigration, legal immigration.
    I would favour strict illegal immigration policy but I think legal immigration policy is fine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 Histie


    No, we currently have controls on movement of EU Citizens in and out of the country. That is immigration, legal immigration.
    I would favour strict illegal immigration policy but I think legal immigration policy is fine.

    A "control" in a formal sense exists as a matter of policy, law, etc. Your issue is more to do with whether those controls are being enforced properly, because if a person is an illegal immigrant that means they are not living in this country in accordance with whatever controls there are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Histie wrote: »
    A "control" in a formal sense exists as a matter of policy, law, etc. Your issue is more to do with whether those controls are being enforced properly, because if a person is an illegal immigrant that means they are not living in this country in accordance with whatever controls there are.
    So... the question makes no sense then; glad we're agreed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 Histie


    So... the question makes no sense then; glad we're agreed.

    How exactly does that follow from what I said? The question deals with the idea that there should be limits on immigration; whether you agree or disagree with this depends on what you think of this idea. How does the fact that there are illegals, i.e., people who don't abide by the controls, alter the justification of there being limits on immigration as a policy, which is what the statement concerns?


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    The question states very clearly:
    There should be very strict limits on the number of immigrants coming to live in Ireland.

    There is not enough information there to answer the question. How do you define "immigrants"? Do EU citizens who technically "immigrate" to Ireland count? Or are you just referring to legal non-EU "immigrants"? Are we counting asylum seekers? How do we impose "strict limits" to control the number of illegal immigrants; some sort of honour system?

    Another problem one:
    Asylum seekers should have the same rights to social services as Irish people.
    Well, wouldn't registered asylum seekers have been granted a right to remain in Ireland and therefore automatically be granted state aid under international law?


    The list goes on... I have a problem with at least 90% of the questions on that site for lack of clarity and general vagueness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    One finds oneself either a) trying to look at the core value that is underpinning the ambiguity of the question or b) engaging honestly with the question, as it is stated, in order to preserve the integrity of its attempt to strip away our knee-jerk biases.

    I'm not a great fan of either approach tbh. :)


Advertisement