Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Political CompASS
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #1
The Political CompASS
Good morning little birdies!

Let's all take this political compass quiz and post our results!

https://www.politicalcompass.org/
07-16-2019 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,281
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2
RE: The Political CompASS
Right-Libertarian
Economic 3.63
Social -2.36

But you (and I) knew that.
07-16-2019 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #3
RE: The Political CompASS
[Image: chart?ec=-5.13&soc=-4.26]

Left-Libertarian
Economic -5.13
Social -4.26
07-16-2019 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #4
RE: The Political CompASS
[Image: chart?ec=-3.75&soc=-5.03]

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
07-16-2019 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,673
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
RE: The Political CompASS
Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2019 11:40 AM by Rice93.)
07-16-2019 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #6
RE: The Political CompASS
Economic Left/Right: 3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46

Looks like I am the closest to an anarchist so far on this board 03-wink
07-16-2019 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #7
RE: The Political CompASS
(07-16-2019 11:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Economic Left/Right: 3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46

Looks like I am the closest to an anarchist so far on this board 03-wink

Power to the people.
07-16-2019 12:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #8
RE: The Political CompASS
Lawyers for Anarchy!
07-16-2019 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
illiniowl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,006
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 54
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #9
RE: The Political CompASS
[Image: chart?ec=2.38&soc=-1.03]
07-16-2019 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,077
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 117
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #10
RE: The Political CompASS
[Image: chart?ec=-4.13&soc=-5.44]
07-16-2019 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #11
RE: The Political CompASS
So far:

overall anarchist == tanq (i.e. closest to SE corner)
overall communist == illini (lol) (i.e. closest to NW corner)

highest level economic freedom == tie between Owl#s and tanq (3.63)
highest level social freedom == 93 (-6.67)

lowest level economic freedom == Wayne Graham (-5.13); amongst regular posters 93 (-4.63)
lowest level social freedom == illini (-1)
07-16-2019 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12
RE: The Political CompASS
It's interesting to see where they put the US political candidates on this spectrum. Pretty much everyone is in the upper right quartile.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
07-16-2019 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,281
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
RE: The Political CompASS
(07-16-2019 03:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's interesting to see where they put the US political candidates on this spectrum. Pretty much everyone is in the upper right quartile.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020

Looks like the closest to me is Williamson. I did say that she made more sense to me than anybody else at the first round of debates.
07-16-2019 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,967
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #14
RE: The Political CompASS
I got dead center on the left-right scale, and about halfway below center on the vertical scale.

In general, it looks like the conservatives here are much closer to center on the left-right scale that the liberals are.
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2019 04:37 PM by georgewebb.)
07-16-2019 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,967
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #15
RE: The Political CompASS
But man, many of these test questions were terrible!

1. There were a lot of questions where I might have agreed with the general idea, but the questions was phrased as an absolute ("always" or "never") which is almost impossible to agree with. Conversely, there were a lot of questions phrased permissively ("sometimes" or "may") where I might disagree with the general idea, but could not say that there are no exceptions. Here are two really bad ones:
- Absolute: "No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." First, what does "independent content" really mean? Independent of what? Second, one could be the staunchest small-government absolutist and still believe that might be ok to, for example, provide public funds for broadcasting weather alerts or air raid warnings. Changing "No institution ... should" to "Institutions generally ... should not" would make a better question.
- Permissive: "Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade." Even a staunch opponent of protectionism is unlikely to say is could not ever be needed. Changing "sometimes" to "often" would make a better question.
I mostly disagreed with the absolute questions and agreed with the permissive ones, which I'm not sure is what the test writers had in mind.

2. Questions that were too vague to answer: e.g. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I can't agree or disagree with that: sometimes it might be true, sometimes not, and the devil is very much in the details. But that was not an answer choice, so I had to pick either "agree" or "disagree". I essentially flipped a coin.

3. Unnecessary negatives: e.g "Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory." There is no need to phrase this in the negative. It would have been better to state "Schools should make classroom attendance compulsory" and ask people to agree or disagree with that. As a matter of question-writing, this one bugged me.

4. Questions that didn't make much sense at all. For example, "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." What does this mean? To agree, does one have to believe there is no such thing as civilization? To disagree, does one have to believe there are no different cultures?

Here are two questions that I thought were good:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
"Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence."
These are well-written and (I think) somewhat useful in discriminating among political leanings. These questions, by their quality, stand out as outliers.
07-16-2019 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #16
RE: The Political CompASS
(07-16-2019 04:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  But man, many of these test questions were terrible!

1. There were a lot of questions where I might have agreed with the general idea, but the questions was phrased as an absolute ("always" or "never") which is almost impossible to agree with. Conversely, there were a lot of questions phrased permissively ("sometimes" or "may") where I might disagree with the general idea, but could not say that there are no exceptions. Here are two really bad ones:
- Absolute: "No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." First, what does "independent content" really mean? Independent of what? Second, one could be the staunchest small-government absolutist and still believe that might be ok to, for example, provide public funds for broadcasting weather alerts or air raid warnings. Changing "No institution ... should" to "Institutions generally ... should not" would make a better question.
- Permissive: "Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade." Even a staunch opponent of protectionism is unlikely to say is could not ever be needed. Changing "sometimes" to "often" would make a better question.
I mostly disagreed with the absolute questions and agreed with the permissive ones, which I'm not sure is what the test writers had in mind.

2. Questions that were too vague to answer: e.g. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I can't agree or disagree with that: sometimes it might be true, sometimes not, and the devil is very much in the details. But that was not an answer choice, so I had to pick either "agree" or "disagree". I essentially flipped a coin.

3. Unnecessary negatives: e.g "Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory." There is no need to phrase this in the negative. It would have been better to state "Schools should make classroom attendance compulsory" and ask people to agree or disagree with that. As a matter of question-writing, this one bugged me.

4. Questions that didn't make much sense at all. For example, "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." What does this mean? To agree, does one have to believe there is no such thing as civilization? To disagree, does one have to believe there are no different cultures?

Here are two questions that I thought were good:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
"Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence."
These are well-written and (I think) somewhat useful in discriminating among political leanings. These questions, by their quality, stand out as outliers.

I agree with some of your comments, especially that a few questions seemed to eager to use negatives, making them more difficult to understand than necessary.

I think the goal of using some of the absolute language is to make you decide on which side to come down on, if you had to pick, thus more adequately highlighting your tendency. I do agree and think that they overused that tactic, but I saw no issue with the public broadcasting absolute. There are people who don't believe any funds should be spent on public broadcasting - sounds like you disagree with that statement.

To question #4, it's trying to figure out if people think that certain cultures are inherently savage or civilized, or whether one thinks that this quality is more individualistic. If you think the former, it probably starts placing you on the more authoritarian track.
07-16-2019 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,967
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #17
RE: The Political CompASS
(07-16-2019 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 04:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  But man, many of these test questions were terrible!

1. There were a lot of questions where I might have agreed with the general idea, but the questions was phrased as an absolute ("always" or "never") which is almost impossible to agree with. Conversely, there were a lot of questions phrased permissively ("sometimes" or "may") where I might disagree with the general idea, but could not say that there are no exceptions. Here are two really bad ones:
- Absolute: "No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." First, what does "independent content" really mean? Independent of what? Second, one could be the staunchest small-government absolutist and still believe that might be ok to, for example, provide public funds for broadcasting weather alerts or air raid warnings. Changing "No institution ... should" to "Institutions generally ... should not" would make a better question.
- Permissive: "Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade." Even a staunch opponent of protectionism is unlikely to say is could not ever be needed. Changing "sometimes" to "often" would make a better question.
I mostly disagreed with the absolute questions and agreed with the permissive ones, which I'm not sure is what the test writers had in mind.

2. Questions that were too vague to answer: e.g. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I can't agree or disagree with that: sometimes it might be true, sometimes not, and the devil is very much in the details. But that was not an answer choice, so I had to pick either "agree" or "disagree". I essentially flipped a coin.

3. Unnecessary negatives: e.g "Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory." There is no need to phrase this in the negative. It would have been better to state "Schools should make classroom attendance compulsory" and ask people to agree or disagree with that. As a matter of question-writing, this one bugged me.

4. Questions that didn't make much sense at all. For example, "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." What does this mean? To agree, does one have to believe there is no such thing as civilization? To disagree, does one have to believe there are no different cultures?

Here are two questions that I thought were good:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
"Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence."
These are well-written and (I think) somewhat useful in discriminating among political leanings. These questions, by their quality, stand out as outliers.

I agree with some of your comments, especially that a few questions seemed to eager to use negatives, making them more difficult to understand than necessary.

I think the goal of using some of the absolute language is to make you decide on which side to come down on, if you had to pick, thus more adequately highlighting your tendency.

But the effect is exactly the opposite of what you state: by asking the reader to agree or disagree with an absolute rather than a tendency, it MASKS the reader's tendencies rather than highlights them.

(07-16-2019 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do agree and think that they overused that tactic, but I saw no issue with the public broadcasting absolute. There are people who don't believe any funds should be spent on public broadcasting - sounds like you disagree with that statement.

Sure there are a few such people, but bifurcating between "never" as the (presumably) conservative view and "not never" as the non-conservative view seems like a trivial exercise. Surely the more informative distinction is not between "never" and "not never", but rather between "generally not" and "generally so". But as written, the question only discriminates between absolutists and non-absolutists on the topic, not between those who lean one way and those who lean the other.

(07-16-2019 04:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To question #4, it's trying to figure out if people think that certain cultures are inherently savage or civilized, or whether one thinks that this quality is more individualistic. If you think the former, it probably starts placing you on the more authoritarian track.

Are you sure that's what they meant -- and if so, how can you tell?
- The question counterposes "cultures" and "peoples", neither of which is an individualistic term. If they meant to distinguished between "cultures" and "individuals", why not ask about"individuals"?
- The two parts of the question are false opposites: one can believe (or not) that some peoples are more civilized than others, and also believe (or not) that cultures are different -- in fact, the difference in culture is probably the very thing makes one people more civilized than another!
The question seems like mumbo-jumbo to me. My hunch is that they expect "progressives" or whatever to agree with the statement because progressives are likely to feel that "civilized" is a dirty word, and the statement implicitly discredits that word (even if the statement doesn't make logical sense). But that's a test of reaction to the optics of the statement, not to its meaning.


Clearly they were able to write a few questions well; it's a shame they didn't work harder.
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2019 05:40 PM by georgewebb.)
07-16-2019 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #18
RE: The Political CompASS
(07-16-2019 04:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  But man, many of these test questions were terrible!

1. There were a lot of questions where I might have agreed with the general idea, but the questions was phrased as an absolute ("always" or "never") which is almost impossible to agree with. Conversely, there were a lot of questions phrased permissively ("sometimes" or "may") where I might disagree with the general idea, but could not say that there are no exceptions. Here are two really bad ones:
- Absolute: "No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." First, what does "independent content" really mean? Independent of what? Second, one could be the staunchest small-government absolutist and still believe that might be ok to, for example, provide public funds for broadcasting weather alerts or air raid warnings. Changing "No institution ... should" to "Institutions generally ... should not" would make a better question.
- Permissive: "Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade." Even a staunch opponent of protectionism is unlikely to say is could not ever be needed. Changing "sometimes" to "often" would make a better question.
I mostly disagreed with the absolute questions and agreed with the permissive ones, which I'm not sure is what the test writers had in mind.

2. Questions that were too vague to answer: e.g. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I can't agree or disagree with that: sometimes it might be true, sometimes not, and the devil is very much in the details. But that was not an answer choice, so I had to pick either "agree" or "disagree". I essentially flipped a coin.

3. Unnecessary negatives: e.g "Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory." There is no need to phrase this in the negative. It would have been better to state "Schools should make classroom attendance compulsory" and ask people to agree or disagree with that. As a matter of question-writing, this one bugged me.

4. Questions that didn't make much sense at all. For example, "There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures." What does this mean? To agree, does one have to believe there is no such thing as civilization? To disagree, does one have to believe there are no different cultures?

Here are two questions that I thought were good:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
"Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence."
These are well-written and (I think) somewhat useful in discriminating among political leanings. These questions, by their quality, stand out as outliers.

Agree completely with your view on the questions.

Except for one:

"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."

This is a 'depends' question. What would have been best for one type of financial 'point in time-space' is completely dependent on that time-space.

There can be booming full employment in which the superheated economy 'generates' massive inflation; the answer is 'inflation'.

There can be deflationary pressure that results in large unemployment; answer is employment.

Venezuela today has hyperinflation *and* massive unemployment.

I thought this a terrible question.
07-16-2019 06:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
InterestedX Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 521
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Oxford
Location:
Post: #19
RE: The Political CompASS
Economic Left/Right: -0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41
07-16-2019 11:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #20
RE: The Political CompASS
Couldnt figure out a good place to put this.

This has to be one of the best essays I have read in long time.

The Three Blind Spots of Politics
10-12-2019 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.