How accurate is the political compass

[Spriggs05]

Just wondering, how accurate do you think the political compass (The Political Compass) is?

 

[Anagram]

Just wondering, how accurate do you think the political compass (The Political Compass) is?

Not very. I think many of its questions can't really be used to determine your political views. The abstract art question for instance. Also they use the term "always" too much, forcing me to answer that I disagree with something that I wouldn't have if they replaced always with often.

 

[roflpublican]

Not very. I think many of its questions can't really be used to determine your political views. The abstract art question for instance. Also they use the term "always" too much, forcing me to answer that I disagree with something that I wouldn't have if they replaced always with often.

my problem with it as well. it's like the site demands i either be a radical this or a radical that on many issues.

 

[gavinfielder]

I tend to agree with it every time I take it.
EDIT: I do take different ones every time, and the questions are different. Still, each one puts me between liberal and libertarian.

An issue might be that people don't realize their country operates on different mean values and the language means different things globally over locally.

 

[Paul Austin]

All I know is that it manages to plot me at the place I self identify as being.

 

[Spriggs05]

Not very. I think many of its questions can't really be used to determine your political views. The abstract art question for instance. Also they use the term "always" too much, forcing me to answer that I disagree with something that I wouldn't have if they replaced always with often.

Yes true, but if you read the FAQ's it's explained. The Abstract art is about freedom of expression. They do that to stop you avoiding dificult questions (Although i neither Agree nor disagree on some.)

 

[Helix]

i don't know of a short one size fits all quiz, but the political compass puts me about where i consider myself to be.

 

[Ontologuy]

Just wondering, how accurate do you think the political compass (The Political Compass) is?

The major problem with the "Political Compass" test is that it is a libertarian propaganda device, plain and simple.

It errors on the left-right saying that this is "economic" only, when the left-right has social issue aspects too.

It attempts to carve out a unique position for libertarianism, without mentioning liberal, centrist, or conservative, leaving the reader to "know" that liberal-radical is on the left and conservative-reactionary is on the right, ignoring the very existence of centrists which are the great majority in Amerca.

In creating its vertical axis, it labels the top "authoritarian" and the bottom "libertarian", but these two are not the proper opposition terms with each other. It should either be authoritarian v. anarchist or justicerian (a newly coined term) v. libertarian.

In creating the authoritarian v. libertarian erroneous polarization as they did, libertarians thus hoped to capitalize on the despot/dictator images associated with the term "authoritarian" to imply how "democracy-loving American" libertarians are.

So the political compass is biased, and it's subtext is simply a libertarian promotion.

Libertarians are about freedom in social issues and freedom in economic-fiscal issues, thus they're all about freedom, the foundational element of liberty .. ie. libertarian.

The problem libertarians face is that on the traditional political compass they are left-wing, therefore, on social issues and right-wing on economic-fiscal issues, thus they have this inconvenient "schzoid" ploting on both sides of the traditional political spectrum at once, so to avoid looking so strange and unappealingly or .. well, schzoid .. they had to concoct a new test and graph to make themselves look and feel better.

Since many libertarians have unresolved controlled-by issues experienced when they were growing up, they like to distance themselves from being either the controller or the controllee, and thus their erroneously presented authoritarian v. libertarian depiction on the compass.

Justicerians are about security in social issues and security in economic-fiscal issues, thus they're all about security, the foundational element of justice .. ie. justicerian.

Libertarians, however, have a problem with justice, as the libertarian over-emphasis on freedom comes at the expense of security, understandably, the foundational element of justice, and it bothers libertarians that they can't just do whatever they want even it harms, does an injustice to others .. and thus they delusionally erroneously see justicerianism as being the "authoritarian enemy" to libertarianism.

Clearly the Political Compass test is one big fat libertarian bias.

The overwhelming vast majority of libertarians are men, as libertarianism is basically the attitude of young, single males.

Women, on the other hand, have an historic tendency to identify with security and justice .. and that's why libertarianism, a deemphasis on justice, simply doesn't appeal to women.

Better is to simply plot libertarians on both sides of the traditional political spectrum at once .. or change the political compass test questions to accurately present a plotting of justicerian v. libertarian and rename the top and bottom labels correctly.

 

[Panopticon]

 

[Cephus]

Extremely innacurate, it's very biased, designed to tell people that they're libertarians even if they're not.

Political Compass - RationalWiki

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I disagree with the definition it uses for Left and Right-- economic control versus societal hierarchy-- but otherwise think it's fairly accurate. It's not like the World's Smallest Political Quiz that's designed to funnel everyone into a Libertarian position.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

I disagree with the definition it uses for Left and Right-- economic control versus societal hierarchy-- but otherwise think it's fairly accurate. It's not like the World's Smallest Political Quiz that's designed to funnel everyone into a Libertarian position.

Yes, it's instead designed to funnel everyone into the left-"libertarian" quadrant. I mean, really. Disliking abstract art boosts your authoritarian score because that means you want to burn gays at the stake? (No joke, they seriously argue in the FAQ that it's a valid question because opinions of abstract art and gays are correlated.)

But hey, what else would you expect from a couple of crackpot British sociology professors?

 

[Slartibartfast]

My problem with it is that there should be an "i don't care" option for the issues I have no opinion on and don't care about.

For example, the question about art. I don't care about abstract art one way or another. I think most of it looks silly, but I have no attitude on whether its should be considered art of not.

 

[Spriggs05]

Yes, it's instead designed to funnel everyone into the left-"libertarian" quadrant. I mean, really. Disliking abstract art boosts your authoritarian score because that means you want to burn gays at the stake? (No joke, they seriously argue in the FAQ that it's a valid question because opinions of abstract art and gays are correlated.)

I Find it shuffles me into the right authoratarian quadrant because i believe in more police and military than your average Libertarian (still a non-interventionist) but that cancels out all my Libertarian Tendancies such as drugs, civil liberties and others.

 

[Sonic]

I don't find it accurate. Over-classification of people as libertarians.

 

[Gina]

My problem with it is that there should be an "i don't care" option for the issues I have no opinion on and don't care about.

For example, the question about art. I don't care about abstract art one way or another. I think most of it looks silly, but I have no attitude on whether its should be considered art of not.

Me as well. Except for that quiz, I hadn't put abstract and art in the same sentence for more than a decade. I couldn't give two beans if someone thinks it's art or not.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

It seemed to plot me semi accurately...

 

[NoC_T]

It's not too bad, considering the restrictions.

 

[mpg]

It's lame.

 

[Goshin]

Dr. Jerry Pournelle was arguably one of the first to come up with a three-dimensional graph for politics, and to put economic liberty on one axis and social liberty on the other.
IIRC he put "totalitarian" on top and "anarchist" on the bottom, and mapped out the rest as "authoritarian", "social conservative", "moderate", "social liberal", "libertarian" and so on.

It makes far more sense than the simple "left-right" dichotomy, but like any graph of human behavior it is merely a representation and not a reality.


This particular test is, IMO, not the worst but not all that great either.

 

[LowDown]

The problem libertarians face is that on the traditional political compass they are left-wing

Well, no, that's completely wrong.

Since many libertarians have unresolved controlled-by issues experienced when they were growing up,

This kind of psychobabble is so tiresome.

 

[LowDown]

In creating its vertical axis, it labels the top "authoritarian" and the bottom "libertarian", but these two are not the proper opposition terms with each other. It should either be authoritarian v. anarchist or justicerian (a newly coined term) v. libertarian.

No, libertarians are not opposed to justice. What a sorry, sorry libel. Libertarians regard government as necessary and beneficial within its proper bounds, (unlike anarchists, who, as I understand it, barely tolerate any organization of society at all beyond syndicates and the like.) Libertarians regard enforcement of the law as necessary and beneficial as long as the laws are not excessive, unnecessarily intrusive, or unreasonable.

Against the argument that the test over emphasizes libertarianism I would say that it attempts to counter the tendency to marginalize libertarianism, especially by way of false characterization, i.e., libertarians are against justice or libertarians "over emphasize" freedom.

 

[Ontologuy]

No, libertarians are not opposed to justice. What a sorry, sorry libel. Libertarians regard government as necessary and beneficial within its proper bounds, (unlike anarchists, who, as I understand it, barely tolerate any organization of society at all beyond syndicates and the like.) Libertarians regard enforcement of the law as necessary and beneficial as long as the laws are not excessive, unnecessarily intrusive, or unreasonable.

Freedom and security are the complementary dynamic forces which are measured on the political spectrum with respect to the two types of issues.

In a given matter, when freedom is increased, security is decreased, and vice versa.

Libertarianism is all about freedom over security in social issues and freedom over security in economic-fiscal issues.

Freedom is the foundational element of liberty, and security is the foundational element of justice.

Thus Libertarianism is most certainly all about liberty over justice in social issues and liberty over justice in economic-fiscal issues.

You say that libertarians support enforcement of the law "as necessary and beneficial" as well as "as long as the laws are not excessive, unnecessarily intrusive, or unreasonable". This is libertarian hedge-speak for excusing injustice as the price of liberty.

Indeed, libertarianism supports the liberty of drug-pushers to sell pot like it was alcohol no matter the injustice that obviously does to pre-teens and teens, and libertarianism supports the liberty of business owners to pay illegals whatever they can get away with despite the injustice done to American citizens.

This is basic libertarianism 101 .. and denial is "F"utile.

Against the argument that the test over emphasizes libertarianism I would say that it attempts to counter the tendency to marginalize libertarianism,

That's merely obvious libertarian spin. :roll:

The Political Compass test is of, by and for libertarians to promote libertarianism, obviously.

It has a plotting of "libertarian" but no plotting of radical, liberal, centrist, conservative, or reactionary.

It erroneously presents libertarian in opposition to authoritarian, when those two are not valid oppositionals. The valid oppositionals are justicerian and libertarian or authoritarian and anarchist.

especially by way of false characterization, i.e., libertarians are against justice or libertarians "over emphasize" freedom.

False.

It is absolutely and obviously true that libertarianism promotes freedom at the expense of security, liberty at the expense of justice.

That's what distinguishes libertarians from both liberals and conservatives.

Liberals promote freedom over security in social issues, but security over freedom in economic-fiscal issues.

Conservatives promote freedom over security in economic-fiscal issues, but security over freedom in social issues.

Acceptance of reality is really for the best.

 

[LowDown]

Freedom and security are the complementary dynamic forces which are measured on the political spectrum with respect to the two types of issues.

In a given matter, when freedom is increased, security is decreased, and vice versa.

Libertarianism is all about freedom over security in social issues and freedom over security in economic-fiscal issues.

Freedom is the foundational element of liberty, and security is the foundational element of justice.

Thus Libertarianism is most certainly all about liberty over justice in social issues and liberty over justice in economic-fiscal issues.

It's one non sequitur after another with you. You appear to be pulling this out of your ass.

You say that libertarians support enforcement of the law "as necessary and beneficial" as well as "as long as the laws are not excessive, unnecessarily intrusive, or unreasonable". This is libertarian hedge-speak for excusing injustice as the price of liberty.

Only if you define "justice" as being exactly the amount of authoritarianism you want and no less. In other words, you beg the question of what justice is.

Indeed, libertarianism supports the liberty of drug-pushers to sell pot like it was alcohol no matter the injustice that obviously does to pre-teens and teens, and libertarianism supports the liberty of business owners to pay illegals whatever they can get away with despite the injustice done to American citizens.

Now you're just resorting to ugly libel. I don't know of any libertarians who would argue that children should not be protected from harmful drugs.

This is basic libertarianism 101 .. and denial is "F"utile.

Of course I can deny it. Your picture of libertarianism is an absurd caricature.

I've got no more time for this discussion. Good evening to you.

 

[Ontologuy]

It's one non sequitur after another with you. You appear to be pulling this out of your ass. Only if you define "justice" as being exactly the amount of authoritarianism you want and no less. In other words, you beg the question of what justice is. Now you're just resorting to ugly libel. I don't know of any libertarians who would argue that children should not be protected from harmful drugs. Of course I can deny it. Your picture of libertarianism is an absurd caricature. I've got no more time for this discussion. Good evening to you.

Admission and capitulation, by any other name ...