Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Goldengirl

Political Compass - Round Infinity

Recommended Posts

With the onslaught of the typical demographic polls and surveys coming out, it's time for a return of the Political Compass that circulates through the boards every now and then. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Political Compass, it is a very short and simple test that plots your political opinions on economics versus social positions.

 

Economic Left/Right: -4.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13

 

Someone will dig out the old community charts that show how people have changed over time, mapping current scores against older ones. I've forgotten mine, but I know I've definitely moved further to the right economically. Actually taking economics classes made me take many of the more philosophical positions I hold and replace them with ones that abandon ideological purity for actual functionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this again? heh

 

Economic Left/Right: -1.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: 8.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.67

 

The Political Compass chart for SW is stored at ermarian, which is down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, that time of year again?

 

Economic Left/Right: -10.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow it pegs me at

 

Economic Left/Right: 7.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.72

 

I'm a little dubious about the accuracy of that placement, but whatever.

 

Dealing with broad generalizations is always so difficult. They're so...messy and imprecise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: -9.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.62

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: -0.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97

 

pcgraphpng.php?ec=-0.50&soc=-0.97&foo.jp

 

(Requisite complaining about poll options in 3... 2... 1...)

 

Though, as always, most of the time it's me reading a statement and thinking, "Hmm, there's an aspect to that that I disagree to," and clicking Disagree. Is anyone else clicking Disagree far more often than Agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a lot more. I also chose to "Strongly" disagree rather than just merely disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, whereas I almost never Strongly Agree/Disagree with anything.

 

The goal of this game is to get the closest to the bullseye, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
The goal of this game is to get the closest to the bullseye, right?

Yes, but at SW the bullseye is at (-10,-10). tongue

Dikiyoba's score this time was (-7.18, -7.12).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have disliked the Political Compass test for its lack of nuances more and more the older I've gotten. Pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have continued my steady march toward the bullseye, myself. I'm still way behind Dinti, though.

 

Economic Left/Right: -1.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to me that the majority here seem to land in the lower left quadrant. Is there something about Jeff's games that attracts people of a certain worldview? Or is it something more specifically connected to these forums? Perhaps Slarty's poll will reveal insights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a very quick preview, so far, responses are split almost down the middle on economic views, and there is a similar phenomenon on social views except the bell curve is shifted a bit to the left - we have no authoritarians so far. This would put the dot on the center line, probably about 2 boxes down from the origin. So, that looks different, but I'm nowhere near ready to analyze the data yet.

 

EDIT: my political view questions were not perfect, as has been pointed out, however, I attempted to make all the views sound palatable and avoided specific arguments for people to get hung up on -- which is pretty much the opposite of how the political compass does things. so there is that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Triumph
It is interesting to me that the majority here seem to land in the lower left quadrant. Is there something about Jeff's games that attracts people of a certain worldview? Or is it something more specifically connected to these forums? Perhaps Slarty's poll will reveal insights.


I'd like to think that we're just all intelligent and lovely, and are drawn here because we have to actually read to enjoy our games. It's probably not entirely right, but it makes me feel warm and fuzzy about my fellow forum-goers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Triumph
Or is it something more specifically connected to these forums?

Most of the active members here are fairly young, well educated, and/or not very involved in organized religion. All those factors are correlated with more liberal political beliefs and hence the lower left quadrant.

Dikiyoba doesn't know how those trends got started or whether Jeff's games have anything to do with it, but now that it's started it's probably something of a positive feedback loop. The people who stick around for a long time are more likely to share similar traits with the already established community and less likely to be radically different, and having a lot of lower left quadrant people around in debates but only a few in other quadrants probably shifts opinions down and left some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: -2.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38

 

Edit: A lot of these questions feel a little hard to understand what it is asking. The example that comes most readily to mind is whether it is asking ideally or realistically, as in I might think one is what would be ideal, but it will most likely have to be the other choice based on the way things are and tend to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Mod.
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38

Edit: A lot of these questions feel a little hard to understand what it is asking. The example that comes most readily to mind is whether it is asking ideally or realistically, as in I might think one is what would be ideal, but it will most likely have to be the other choice based on the way things are and tend to work.


Well, it's a question on your political beliefs -- that is, your beliefs as they relate to the public sphere. So if it helps, ask yourself whether you'd be more likely to vote for someone who agreed or disagreed with the proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently at (-0.88, 6.05), which means I've slipped out of the personal quadrant that I had all to myself last time around.

 

I am now apparently becoming both more liberal and less authoritarian. I blame the ongoing economic crisis, although I would have expected that would make me move up and to the left, not down and to the left. Clearly I am going soft in my old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: 1.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

 

I suppose the low magntude is because I never stongly agreed to or diasgreed with anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of those questions are either poorly phrased, heavily weighted towards the Fascist end of things, or just plain stupid (like the astrology question).

 

That said, it seems to me that you'd have to be a bit of a sociopath to give mostly conservative-type answers. And I don't think that's necessarily a reflection on the test, as poor a test as it is.

 

P.S. I got -7.88 Economic, -5.90 Social, though some of my answers don't really fit into the framework of the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Clearly I am going soft in my old age.


you can get a prescription for that now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Clearly I am going soft in my old age.


you can get a prescription for that now

My friends and I would reward this comment with a round of high fives and beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Excalibur
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Clearly I am going soft in my old age.


you can get a prescription for that now

My friends and I would reward this comment with a round of high fives and beer.


That's funny, I was given to understand you were a Libertarian in real life too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first time I did this, I got quite close to Stalin, and was one of very few as well. Not this time though.

Economic Left/Right: -7.12

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: -6.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

 

I don't remember what my previous answers have been, but I think they were pretty similar to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Actaeon
Do libertarians not have friends?

Dantius thinks that because I don't support universal health care that I must not believe doctors should ever hand out prescriptions, or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Excalibur
Originally Posted By: Actaeon
Do libertarians not have friends?

Dantius thinks that because I don't support universal health care that I must not believe doctors should ever hand out prescriptions, or something.


??

Nobody was talking about healthcare in the thread. Why would you bring it up now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I didn't think it had anything to do with stereotypes, but heck if I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Miramor
That said, it seems to me that you'd have to be a bit of a sociopath to give mostly conservative-type answers. And I don't think that's necessarily a reflection on the test, as poor a test as it is.



I beg your pardon if I'm misunderstanding you, but the way I'm taking this comment of yours is that, even compensating for wording flaws in the test, those would who take "conservative" positions are sociopaths. I'd like to gently suggest that's not a...particularly tolerant or kind thing to say. I strive not to get into arguments on here for a variety of reasons, and I think Jeff's games are something people of many political views can enjoy, but as a stray more-or-less "conservative" who frequents the forums, I'm taken aback at being called a sociopath. Again, I apologize if I've misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it isn't a particularly tolerant thing to say. Maybe "sociopath" isn't the right word, though I've met some conservatives who definitely put on a good show of it... My point is, some of the answers associated with a modern conservative viewpoint require at best gross and willful ignorance, and at worst a callous disregard for other people's suffering.

 

e.g. that people who can pay for it should receive a higher standard of medical care. Which implies that people who cannot produce the money should receive a lower standard of care. That is fundamentally messed up.

 

One gets tired of tip-toeing around such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I plan to ignore the present conflict, simply record my results:

Quote:

Economic Left/Right: -1.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

and duck back out of sight again, before the next missile comes over.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Left/Right: -6.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

 

I'm fairly certain that I drift further into "radical liberal" territory each time I take this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that my political leanings are generally defined in opposition of those around me. If I spent a lot of time in the South, I'd probably get more radically liberal. In the various yuppie enclaves I've been exposed to, my inherent liberalism is undermined. I don't know if it's knee-jerk rebellion or simply that fact that nearly ever platform is rife with hypocrisy, and it's easier to see it when it's in front of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Tyranicus
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

I'm fairly certain that I drift further into "radical liberal" territory each time I take this.


Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26

... Yep, I can definitely say the same.

I don't know if that's a reflection of my own beliefs evolving, or if they're just wording the questions at more of a slant.

Some of these questions seemed very loaded to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Miramor (my underline)
some of the answers associated with a modern conservative viewpoint require at best gross and willful ignorance, and at worst a callous disregard for other people's suffering.

e.g. that people who can pay for it should receive a higher standard of medical care. Which implies that people who cannot produce the money should receive a lower standard of care. That is fundamentally messed up.

I don't agree with the underlined statement either. However, agreeing with it does not imply willful ignorance or callousness, let alone sociopathy. What it implies is a different value system, and likely different assumptions about the interactions between money and society.

For example, someone might hold the general philosophy that rewarding financial achievement has such a net positive effect on society that we should support it even when in individual circumstances it appears to have a negative effect. This is clearly not a callous view, since it is concerned with the greater good for society as a whole, and whether or not the principle of society benefitting from individual rewards applies so absolutely, it is clearly true at least some of the time. I'm not going to argue the economics as I'm not an expert, but I don't think it's fair to call others willfully ignorant for holding a view like this. If you want to say you think they are missing some important economic nuances, that would be a more reasonable criticism — and also, importantly, not a personal attack.

So, no, people who hold opinions that seem crazy to you are not willfully ignorant, callous, sociopaths, or fundamentally messed up. And I will say that launching ad hominem attacks on entire categories of people with different opinions sounds closer, to me, on both the "willfully ignorant" and "callous" fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being rich is inevitably going to make your life longer and healthier and more pleasant in most ways. If we don't want to go all the way to socialism by abolishing wealth entirely, we can decide that some particular level of health care is somehow a different form of benefit from having a nice car or house, and redistribute just this particular form of wealth. This is what countries that have two-tier systems do. In Germany, for instance, there is a basic coverage for everyone, and it's quite good. But you can pay extra for private insurance that entitles you to things like more privacy, or being examined by higher-ranking doctors.

 

The bottom line is that we just may not be able to set the universal level of care at the maximum that is technologically possible at any given time. The maximum is always too expensive. We could prevent rich people from buying their way above the universal level, by legislating that extraordinary medical means had to be applied by lottery. I might be willing to go along with that, myself. But it's not the banner I'm going to raise first, because I'm pretty sure that dying from rare medical conditions that are just barely becoming treatable is far from the worst tragedy of poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if allowing impoverished/poor people to see the doctor regularly would help prevent them from flooding 911 systems and emergency departments with non-emergent issues. Do you guys living in countries with socialized medicine know anything about the state of your hospitals and emergency services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Necris Omega
...or if they're just wording the questions at more of a slant.

It's the same exact set of questions it's always been. The questions don't change.

Dikiyoba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith
I wonder if allowing impoverished/poor people to see the doctor regularly would help prevent them from flooding 911 systems and emergency departments with non-emergent issues. Do you guys living in countries with socialized medicine know anything about the state of your hospitals and emergency services?


Throwing my two-cents in on this issue. In the United States, and probably in many other parts of the world, doctors can't turn away emergency cases. As a result of this, illegal immigrants are forced to self-medicate, "tough it out", or in many other ways get less than optimal treatment. Sometimes this works out, but it also means that many sicknesses that could be nipped in the bud early escalate into emergency room situations - at which point the illegal immigrant cannot be turned away. As far as I know, Obama's healthcare reforms did not alleviate this in any way.

Illegal immigrants are an extreme case of this, as they are at legal risk of deportation if they go in to a hospital for a non-emergency, but I imagine that the same analysis could be extrapolated to poor people in general. Their barrier is just different.

@Miramor - one thing I've learned over the years is that everyone has different experiences in life that shape their worldview and value systems. Just because someone was raised one way and thus does not value the same things as us doesn't mean that we ought to exclude them from rational discussions by calling them sociopaths. Rather, I believe it is important to listen to them, and to try to find out as much as we can from them, even if we disagree. That's how democracy works.

Obviously, you are someone who values the lives of all people and feels that we shouldn't let money get in the way of protecting lives. That's a noble sentiment, but ultimately it is just as arbitrary and subjective as someone who believes that competition should be incentivized through more privileges - including better healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Miramor
Sorry, I should have kept my mouth shut. If we're going to roll out the old "all viewpoints ultimately being equal" line, then consider me done with this thread.


It's worth remembering that this forum ultimately exists to help sell video games to people, not to change their minds about politics. If one gets in the way of the other by driving away potential customers, guess which one's gotta give.

I mean, there are some customers we can afford to drive away, if their actions are offensive enough. But there's a difference between stopping fights and starting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a leftist libertarian similarly to Gandhi so I hit

Economic Left/Right: -5.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10

As expected

plus the question about protectionism stumped me, no idea what that means, and the test wouldn't let me skip it.

Another thing is that both the lower part and the far right of the chart are considered libertarian, what gives? Are there not enough words in the English language to distinguish those two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problems with people getting care for medical problems that have become urgent rather than preventing them before they do goes deeper than just insurance and the use of emergency rooms as primary sources of healthcare. Primary care providers in general make far less money than specialists. Thus, many aspiring doctors choose not to be primary care providers, increasing the difficulty.

 

But that is, admittedly, a small part of the problem. Liberal or conservative, everyone should agree that people should have access to primary care because giving everyone treatment is much cheaper than covering the emergencies of the people who can't get regular checkups—and who go to the emergency room because they don't have a primary care doctor to help them when they have a sore throat, or a minor fever, or a cough. Those visits cost a ton in taxes. It would cost less to use taxes to fund good primary care.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think anyone seriously advocates for the alternative of turning the uninsured away from emergency rooms. Well, no serious people seriously advocate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Miramor
Sorry, I should have kept my mouth shut. If we're going to roll out the old "all viewpoints ultimately being equal" line, then consider me done with this thread.

There is a big, big difference between saying "all viewpoints are equal" and "two very different viewpoints can both be rational." There is also a difference between disagreeing and making ad hominem attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Miramor
Sorry, I should have kept my mouth shut. If we're going to roll out the old "all viewpoints ultimately being equal" line, then consider me done with this thread.


Just to toss my two cents in, all viewpoints are obviously not inherently equal- just compare the efficacy of treating disease with antibiotics versus crystals. All (or at least, the vast majority) of viewpoints are logically consistent with themselves if you accept their starting premise, which in some cases are correct and in some cases are. The trick, then, in separating viewpoints that are "correct" from viewpoints that are "wrong" in to try and winnow them down to what their central claims are, and then try to evaluate those for veracity.

Or at least that's what I think people should do. But, then again, I said that people with more money should have access to better medical care as a way of essentially creating additional incentives for new medical research with private funds, thus leading to new treatments that might be then applied to the general population for everyone's benefit. So what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative to letting sick rich people fund advanced research is to do it with tax money. That's probably feasible, too; but I'm honestly not sure which is better. The tax route involves getting mostly healthy people to pay for developments that won't benefit them, so past a certain point people just become reluctant to pay. Sick rich people, in contrast, are happy to pay. Actually getting taxes out of people isn't as easy as you might think, it seems to me. You've got to keep them from cheating on their tax forms, or going black market, or just slacking off at work because their prospective after-tax benefit from working harder isn't worth it. So there's a lot to be said for a system that efficiently administers itself, the way charging sick rich people for advanced care does.

 

Against that, of course, is the basic sense that there's something wrong with money letting you buy life itself, so directly. To me, it's the Alien Overlord issue. Nobody wants to live in a world ruled by bug-eyed aliens who share none of the basic, biological problems that we humans have. Even if the aliens treated us decently, and let enough of their advanced technology trickle down to us that our material lives became better than they had ever been before, at some basic level it just doesn't seem fight that we should all be subservient to a different species. But if rich humans can buy their way into a sufficiently different biological category, in the sense of having a lot of medical options that no-one else enjoys, then they start to seem more like a different species from the rest of us.

 

Even if the medical research that was indirectly funded by private health care were more efficient, it might be worth accepting a somewhat slower rate of medical progress overall, in order to maintain a minimum level of biological solidarity in human society.

 

I think that's a significant point, and for me it slightly outweighs the other argument. But I'm only inclined to favor it by about a 60/40 split in my own mind. The thought that sustains my 40 is this: If biological solidarity really is bought with slower medical progress, then it ultimately boils down to letting some sick children die so that the rest of us will feel less envy of the rich. It doesn't sound as good when you put it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Teleological Redoubt
The problems with people getting care for medical problems that have become urgent rather than preventing them before they do goes deeper than just insurance and the use of emergency rooms as primary sources of healthcare.


I do believe that's depending on what country you live in. I was talking to one of my nephews that live in California the other about this, and he was shocked to find out that Most Australians don't have to pay insurance if they earn roughly under $50 000 a year, and if they do earn over that, insurance doesn't normally cost much over $10 a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...