Enquirer Home Page | Twitter | Back to Improbable Island

 Forum Index > Off-Topic > Out-of-Game New Topic Post Reply
 Where are you, politically?
 |  Printable Version
Cousjava
 Thursday, April 22 2010 @ 06:43 PM UTC (Read 5334 times)  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 03/13/10
Posts: 244

Just wondering where players of II are on the political compass. Considering the game, I'd guess we're all probably liberals. You can take the test to see where you stand at http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

After you have taken the test scroll down to find where you are.

My result is: Economic Left/Right -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.72

After several people have posted I'll put them together ona graph and put it up for everybody to see, which I'll update when more people say what their result is.


A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a trombone; what else does a man need to be happy?
 
Profile Email Website
Quote
CavemanJoe
 Thursday, April 22 2010 @ 07:38 PM UTC  
Forum Admin
Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 02/24/08
Posts: 2281

Be very careful with this, mate. There are very few faster ways to divide a community than to bring up politics.

And no, Improbable Island isn't comprised almost entirely of liberals. We tend to see it that way because nobody talks about politics here, and we all get along very well, so we assume our fellow players are like us, thinking similarly. Those on the opposite end of the political spectrum probably have a similar experience.

EDIT: That said, and since for some reason I'm not locking this thread, here's where I stand:



At least, that's where I stand right now. I take this test (or one very similar) once or twice a year, and the results are always a bit different. It's interesting how much your political views can be affected by the environment in which you live. Or by having to put survival over principles. Confused


 
Profile Email Website
Quote
Hairy Mary
 Thursday, April 22 2010 @ 07:51 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/17/08
Posts: 1083

Yep. Done it.

Economic: -5.00
Social:-5.74

Edit. In the time that I did this, CMJ posted his reponse. Very similar.

By the way, there were some questions where my real response would have been: "Haven't a sodding clue." Or at the very least "Neutral", but these weren't options.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Xith
 Thursday, April 22 2010 @ 11:34 PM UTC  
Forum Contender
Contender

Status: offline

Registered: 04/18/10
Posts: 53

Mmmmk. So, I got left/right: +3 or so, authoritarian/libertarian +1.1

And yar, same has Hairy Mary, couple of places where I had no idea what to put, but had to put something, so it's probly slightly off.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Bakemaster
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 12:27 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 12/08/09
Posts: 226

Alright, let's go through this again... If I recall correctly, last time I took it I was slightly authoritarian and slightly-more-than-slightly to the left. Thinking about my personal movement over the last year or two, I expect I'll have moved toward the libertarian end and possibly toward the left as well.

And after taking the test, yeah. Right about -5, -5. Significant move away from the authoritarian side, less significant move toward the left.


Unofficial Improbable Island out-of-character chat is at irc.foonetic.net, channel #iisland - come on by!
 
Profile Email Website
Quote
Ada
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 12:59 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 12/07/09
Posts: 428

Quote by: Hairy+Mary


By the way, there were some questions where my real response would have been: "Haven't a sodding clue." Or at the very least "Neutral", but these weren't options.



Or the questions that were straight up facts. Wasn't really sure how to answer those. Do you strongly agree that the statement is correct? Or do you strongly agree that the statement is the way you would like things to be in the ideal world?
I also wish there was an option, "baffling", for things so far off the edge of "strongly disagree" that they no longer make any sense.

For what it's worth:
Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

I blame Canada.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Count Sessine
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 01:44 AM UTC  
Forum Moderator
Moderator

Status: offline

Registered: 08/16/08
Posts: 1402

Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

Hmm. Seems like every time I take this test I wander further into the lower left quadrant.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Skidge
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 03:35 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 159

This test does not have the right options on it. I looked for the tickyboxthingy that offers the opinion of "cheese is good" and could not find it anywhere! Therefore, I am not taking this test, as I feel it does not accurately represent where I stand on The Issues.

Skidge of the Gorgonzola Party


 
Profile Email
Quote
Adder Moray
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 05:37 AM UTC  
Forum Badass
Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/26/09
Posts: 114

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97


 
Profile Email
Quote
Reverb
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 01:20 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 448

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

Only three klicks to the right of Gandhi, not bad.

Of course, half of those questions were nonsensical in nature, either because they were badly worded or because i'm not a us citizen.. i collected my first responses on a few Twisted Evil

"Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence." Uhm. It isnt. Why is this a question? Razz

"All authority should be questioned." Well, obviously not. MY authority should be absolute! (Respect! Mah! Auhthoritay!)

"Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged." Whu, wait.. there is a difference?

"You cannot be moral without being religious." True, dat. I'm a-religious and completely immoral, too.

"No one can feel naturally homosexual." Oh, yes, the secret gay conspiracy indoctrinated me way back when i was like, seven. See also; immoral.

"Sex outside marriage is usually immoral." We've been over this three times now. Immoral. Ok?

So, yeah, entertaining, if not somewhat superfluous Razz


ps; Skidge, could you let the Pedant take this survey? I'm intruiged. Mr. Green


"Censure acquits the Raven, but pursues the Dove." "So, that means i'm -always- innocent, right?"
 
Profile Email
Quote
Cousjava
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 05:04 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 03/13/10
Posts: 244

This is what we have from the results so far:



Where the is the black circled one there are another two in approximatly the same place. (CMJ's, Hairy Mary & Bakemaster)


A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a trombone; what else does a man need to be happy?
 
Profile Email Website
Quote
loriel
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 09:14 PM UTC  
Forum Newbie
Newbie

Status: offline

Registered: 02/23/10
Posts: 13

Quote by: Ada

Quote by: Hairy+Mary


By the way, there were some questions where my real response would have been: "Haven't a sodding clue." Or at the very least "Neutral", but these weren't options.



Or the questions that were straight up facts. Wasn't really sure how to answer those. Do you strongly agree that the statement is correct? Or do you strongly agree that the statement is the way you would like things to be in the ideal world?
I also wish there was an option, "baffling", for things so far off the edge of "strongly disagree" that they no longer make any sense.

For what it's worth:
Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

I blame Canada.



I agree with the bafflingly worded questions. I mean, I agree that some of the questions were bafflingly worded.

"All authority should be questioned." Of course all authority should be questioned; the question of legitimacy should always be there: is this authority overstepping its bounds? For some people, that answer will always be no, but the question should always be there. Should you always obey authority? That's a different question.

"It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents." I can wish this weren't true, but... If you disagree with this, you've never been a kid before. Or you've never had parents. Or you really grew up in a wonderful environment. Or your parents could read your mind.

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." Well, duh. Are you trying to ask me if I want a one-party state? There's a better way to word that question. Are you asking whether the lack of differentiation in ideas outweighs the advantage the speed of a single-party state gives? Incorporate that into the question, then.

-5.25 -1.85


 
Profile Email
Quote
Ashtu
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 10:50 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 11/04/09
Posts: 440

oh, yeah, there I am, snuggled up between the Mahatma and Nelson. (Funny, don't feel that way.)


Thank you.
 
Profile Email
Quote
g_rock
 Friday, April 23 2010 @ 11:10 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 132

Quote by: Skidge

This test does not have the right options on it. I looked for the tickyboxthingy that offers the opinion of "cheese is good" and could not find it anywhere! Therefore, I am not taking this test, as I feel it does not accurately represent where I stand on The Issues.

Skidge of the Gorgonzola Party



You gorgonzolites will be the ruination of us all! Vote Parmesanian!



Also, I too noticed a major bias in the wording of the questions. Words such as "Always", "Never", "Above all else" have no place in completely independent research. These qualifiers sound good in survey results, but skew the results when asked.

That being said, I landed exactly where I thought I would, smack dab in the center.

+.12
-.41

I would list myself as more conservative than not on most scales


 
Profile Email
Quote
Hairy Mary
 Saturday, April 24 2010 @ 01:32 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/17/08
Posts: 1083

Reverb. Loriel. I completely agree with you, but there are those that don't. Wrong headed they may be in my opinion, but that's how they think, which is what this is trying to measure. You can have opinions about the advisability of legalisation of cannabis whether or not it happens to be illegal where you are. There are quite possibly people out there who think that children don't naturally hide anything from there parents bizaare as that may seem to us.

There are some people out there who think that if anyone is some way that they don't personally like (gay or whatever), then it must be because "they've decided to be like that" or because "they're easily influenced" or whatever. They'll consider this to be 'obvious' or 'everybody knows'. By which they mean everybody that they routinely chat with, people who all tend to think the same way as they do.

So yes, I agree with you, that's why we're both in roughly similar parts of the chart. Others don't that's why they're in different parts.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because something is obvious to you, that it's obvious to everybody else.


 
Profile Email
Quote
loriel
 Saturday, April 24 2010 @ 06:19 AM UTC  
Forum Newbie
Newbie

Status: offline

Registered: 02/23/10
Posts: 13

Quote by: Hairy+Mary

Reverb. Loriel. I completely agree with you, but there are those that don't. [...] There are quite possibly people out there who think that children don't naturally hide anything from there parents bizarre as that may seem to us.
[...]
Don't make the mistake of thinking that because something is obvious to you, that it's obvious to everybody else.



Thank you, Mary, for showing that my post was rather ambiguous. Let me try to show that I wasn't intending to make that mistake, though I see now that it could be read as such.

Here's why the question is flawed: in terms of the questionnaire, the statement "It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents" tries to pull you up or down the graph, and not so much side to side; it can only measure how strong you think parents are in terms of respect or authority, and has little to do with how far left or right you are. Given this, however, we can see the flaw in the question: people will either select that it's not natural for children to hide secrets from their parents, perhaps because of religion or because they had wonderful parents or no parents at all, or they will select that it is natural that children will keep things of which they're ashamed from their parents, which leaves the tracks from the authoritarian - libertarian binary in too many cases.

This is why the question was bafflingly worded, not because I saw one answer as being immediately obvious to myself. That is why I added my caveats, though the last one might be a bit far-fetched, and thus it can be read as though I were denouncing the people who selected "disagree." I wasn't trying to.

A similar line of logic can show how the other two I chose were also badly worded, I think, but if anyone sees something wrong with my assumptions or logic, I'd love to hear your comments, because I'd like to believe that the test designers weren't making such oversights when designing it.


 
Profile Email
Quote
tehdave
 Saturday, April 24 2010 @ 09:24 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 12/17/09
Posts: 429

Taking the test as I write this, and putting down problem-questions:

"There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment." - What if I don't find it worrying? I'd say there's definitely an abundance of both, but I see it as a good thing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question?

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." - Inasmuch as it originally is supposed to mean "No more than...", yes. Which is why I'm bothered by the inclusion, since most people nowadays see it as a call to vengeance, instead of (as it should be,) a call for mercy.


"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." - Who says it's necessarily an advantage?


So, I land, as far as this (woefully inadequate, in my opinion) test is concerned:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33

Which lands me pretty much where I expected to, on the graph (though I wasn't trying to land there.)


Isn't sanity just a one-trick pony anyway? All you get is one trick: rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, the sky's the limit.
 
Profile Email
Quote
Ada
 Sunday, April 25 2010 @ 02:15 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 12/07/09
Posts: 428

Quote by: tehdave

Taking the test as I write this, and putting down problem-questions:

"There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment." - What if I don't find it worrying? I'd say there's definitely an abundance of both, but I see it as a good thing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question?

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." - Inasmuch as it originally is supposed to mean "No more than...", yes. Which is why I'm bothered by the inclusion, since most people nowadays see it as a call to vengeance, instead of (as it should be,) a call for mercy.


"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." - Who says it's necessarily an advantage?



I agree with you entirely, here. Just like I said, up near the top, I have no idea what I am supposed to do when presented with things that are facts or near-facts. Do I agree that yes, this is true? Or that yes, this is true, and I rather like this and wish the world worked this way?

The one-party state one in particular. Well, yes. Of course that is its significant advantage. But I'm hard-pressed to find any other ones, and I certainly wouldn't like to live in a one-party state. But because of the way the question is stated, I have to click "strongly agree". Sounds like that pushes a person further towards Authoritarian, even when all they are is realistic - they could be anywhere on the compass.

The info and entertainment one bothered me as well. Does "strongly disagree" mean "no, I do not find this worrying" or "no, there is no fusion of information and entertainment"?


 
Profile Email
Quote
Adder Moray
 Sunday, April 25 2010 @ 04:38 AM UTC  
Forum Badass
Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/26/09
Posts: 114

Quote by: loriel

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." Well, duh. Are you trying to ask me if I want a one-party state? There's a better way to word that question. Are you asking whether the lack of differentiation in ideas outweighs the advantage the speed of a single-party state gives? Incorporate that into the question, then.

-5.25 -1.85



Quote by: tehdave[p"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." - Who says it's necessarily an advantage?[/p]


I'm fairly sure that;s what the question was about. Whether or not that is an advantage.

I think that actually addresses a lot of the problems (though not all of them) people are having with this test.

If they're asking you something that is either factually true or false (in most case though not all) they aren't asking you whether it's true or false, they're asking about the details (like whether the merging of entertainment and news is worrying and whether or not avoiding the arguments is an advantage for example)


 
Profile Email
Quote
Hairy Mary
 Sunday, April 25 2010 @ 11:46 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/17/08
Posts: 1083

Well well well. It turns out that there was no danger of starting bitter arguments on political lines after all. Instead we're all agreeing about what a rubbish survey this was. Although it did seem to put most of us more or less where we expected to be.

Quote by: g_rock

Words such as "Always", "Never", "Above all else" have no place in completely independent research. These qualifiers sound good in survey results, but skew the results when asked.



Interesting comment there g_rock. Could you expand on it? I'm a mathematician, and we routinely use the word "Always". We even have a special symbol for it (an upsidedown capital A). I say this not to pick pedantic holes in what you say, you were clearly refering to the social sciences arena, not maths. More to illustrate that I'm rather naive on such matters, and having them clarified would be interesting to me. How do these words skew results?


 
Profile Email
Quote
Content generated in: 1.70 seconds
New Topic Post Reply



 All times are UTC. The time is now 02:38 PM.

Normal Topic Normal Topic
Locked Topic Locked Topic
Sticky Topic Sticky Topic
New Post New Post
Sticky Topic W/ New Post Sticky Topic W/ New Post
Locked Topic W/ New Post Locked Topic W/ New Post
View Anonymous Posts 
Anonymous users can post 
Filtered HTML Allowed 
Censored Content