Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Political Compass
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="UPSNewbie" data-source="post: 515073" data-attributes="member: 17843"><p> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Some of the questions are slanted</strong></li> </ul><p>Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and <strong>these aren't questions</strong>. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.</p><p>Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy. </p><p>Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it. </p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Respondents are going to feel under pressure to be politically correct</strong></li> </ul><p>Not really, because we've assured them that not only are their identities unknown, but their responses totally unrecorded. So the only actual pressure will come from themselves. We've found that a lot of people aren't comfortable with the first result, so they go through the propositions again, changing some of their earlier responses. It's a bit like an overweight person stepping back on the scales after removing their shoes. </p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Some of the propositions are culturally biased</strong></li> </ul><p>Right. That's why the Compass is being promoted in western democracies. We don't pretend that, for example, the responses of a citizen of a rural region of China can undergo the same evaluation process.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="color: Red"><strong>In some cases none of the four possible responses reflected my attitude</strong></span></li> </ul><p><span style="color: Red">One expert in the field suggested that we restrict the responses to simply 'agree' and 'disagree'. But how many do you need? Ten? Twenty? If you choose the one that most nearly reflects your feeling, you'll get an accurate reading...even if it niggles. </span></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="color: Red"><strong>You should have a "don't know" option</strong></span></li> </ul><p><span style="color: Red">This makes it too easy for people to duck difficult issues. By forcing people to take a positive or negative stance, the propositions make people really evaluate their feelings. Often people find they wanted to select 'don't know' mainly because they'd never really thought about the idea.</span></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Why don't you collect statistics and report on test results ?</strong></li> </ul><p>It is important to us - and most of our respondents - that the test remains anonymous, and purely for personal information. If we were to log anyone's results, those results would have to be given voluntarily. This would mean that our sample would be self-selected, and therefore not statistically valid. </p><p>In other words, such data would tell us nothing about the political position of a particular population; it would only tell us about the type of person who volunteered to have their result recorded. </p><p>Trials have revealed that a wildly disproportionate number of visitors from particular cultures, and of certain age and socio-economic groups, were more willing than others to opt in.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Where would Jesus and/or Mohammed appear ?</strong></li> </ul><p>That one would be way too speculative for our purposes...and if we did engage in such speculation, we'd be even more inundated with correspondence . Most aspects of contemporary politics didn't impact on the times of Jesus and other religious teachers anyway.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="color: Red"><strong>How can you determine where politicians are honestly at without asking them ?</strong></span></li> </ul><p><span style="color: Red">How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We've relied on reports, parliamentary records, ... and actions that spoke louder than words.</span></p><p><span style="color: Red">We are occasionally asked about publishing the individual responses of politicians. We frown on this. The propositions are too vague to be considered statements of policy, and the individual responses are not significant in themselves. When summed to give an economic and social score, however, they provide an accurate profile of a mental state.</span></p><p><strong><em>Gripes About Particular Propositions</em></strong></p><p></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><span style="color: Red"><strong>Your proposition on globalisation suggests that corporations and humanity can't both benefit.</strong></span></li> </ul><p><span style="color: Red">This one sometimes ruffles feathers on right wings. What the proposition actually suggests is that humanity should be the <em>priority</em>. </span></p><p><span style="color: Red">Critics argue that there's no conflict of interest. Transnational corporations naturally and unfailingly serve humanity by serving themselves. In enriching business, the argument goes, globalisation will always subsequently benefit humanity. Prioritising humanity would only limit the ability of the corporations to inevitably do greater good. So advocates of this trickle down approach should simply click 'strongly disagree' We don't see the problem. </span></p><p><span style="color: Red">The record, however, makes clear that there have often been spectacular conflicts of interest between coporate enrichment and humantity. Halliburton, Enron and the tobacco industry's research cover-ups are perhaps the best known examples. Others are detailed at <span style="color: Blue">The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008</span> and <span style="color: Blue">Corpwatch.org</span> .</span></p><p><span style="color: Red">On the other hand, for the comparatively few who tell us that corporations can never serve humanity, <span style="color: Blue">Milton Friedman</span> argues the case for unfettered market forces.</span></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>What have attitudes towards things like abstract art and homosexuality to do with politics ?</strong></li> </ul><p>On the social scale, they're immensely important. Homophobia has been highly politicised by leaders like Robert Mugabe and betrays a tendency to condemn and punish those who disregard conventional values. Hitler's pink triangles reflected similar authoritarian hostility. </p><p>Likewise, authoritarian régimes frequently attack highly imaginative and unconventional art, music and literary works as a threat to the rigid cultural conformity they uphold.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Why don't you include a scale for religion?</strong></li> </ul><p>Amongst the western democracies for which The Political Compass is a universal tool, it is only in the US that religion plays a significant role in politics. Had the test been some kind of questionnaire or survey profiling a particular personality it might have a place, but for a purpose such as ours it has little relevance.</p><p>Even in the US religion reflects the whole gamut of political opinion - from Quakers, Unitarians and, to some extent Episcopalians, who support gay marriage, the right to choose etc. and oppose, for example, capital punishment and the invasion of Iraq. At the other end of the religious spectrum, there are fundamentalists who hold opposite beliefs. Our social scale already covers these political/social attitudes, whether or not the individual belongs to a religious organisation that reinforces them.</p><p>More significant for our purposes is whether or not the individual believes in mystical determinants of fate, hence the astrology proposition. There is a psychological linkage between determinism and authoritarianism . The astrology believer may hold very liberal social views in other areas, but this does not alter this more authoritarian aspect within his or her cluster of attitudes.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>It's true that a one party state has a significant advantage; even so I wouldn't support it. So how can I respond ?</strong></li> </ul><p>From classical Greece onwards, discussion and, inevitably, argument, has been viewed by democrats as essential for considering all viewpoints and consequently reaching the best informed and most representative decision. For such people, the replacement of polemics with speedy dictates would definitely not be seen as any sort of "significant advantage" or "progress".</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Does "our race has many superior qualities" refer to my particular race or the human race?</strong></li> </ul><p>"Race" can only refer to the human race or to one of its subdivisions. The proposition, in comparing one's race with other races, can therefore only be referring to the latter.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>The orginal intention of "An eye for an eye" was that the punishment should not exceed the crime</strong></li> </ul><p>That's right, although it's commonly used to argue for the punishment being as severe as the crime. In any case, it means treating offenders as they have treated their victims; no more harshly, in the case of the original stricture, and just as harshly in the retributive sense. Either way, the proposition remains unambiguous in its call for punishment that approximates the crime.</p><p><a href="http://politicalcompass.org/faq#top" target="_blank">top</a></p><p><strong><em>The Political Compass Definitions</em></strong></p><p></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>There have to be other measures for a political compass</strong></li> </ul><p>Great. Tell us about them so that we can consider adding them. But surely our two axis arrangement is a vast improvement on the single one that you've put up with for more than 2 centuries ?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="UPSNewbie, post: 515073, member: 17843"] [LIST] [*][B]Some of the questions are slanted[/B] [/LIST] Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and [B]these aren't questions[/B]. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass. Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy. Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it. [LIST] [*][B]Respondents are going to feel under pressure to be politically correct[/B] [/LIST] Not really, because we've assured them that not only are their identities unknown, but their responses totally unrecorded. So the only actual pressure will come from themselves. We've found that a lot of people aren't comfortable with the first result, so they go through the propositions again, changing some of their earlier responses. It's a bit like an overweight person stepping back on the scales after removing their shoes. [LIST] [*][B]Some of the propositions are culturally biased[/B] [/LIST] Right. That's why the Compass is being promoted in western democracies. We don't pretend that, for example, the responses of a citizen of a rural region of China can undergo the same evaluation process. [LIST] [*][COLOR=Red][B]In some cases none of the four possible responses reflected my attitude[/B][/COLOR] [/LIST] [COLOR=Red]One expert in the field suggested that we restrict the responses to simply 'agree' and 'disagree'. But how many do you need? Ten? Twenty? If you choose the one that most nearly reflects your feeling, you'll get an accurate reading...even if it niggles. [/COLOR] [LIST] [*][COLOR=Red][B]You should have a "don't know" option[/B][/COLOR] [/LIST] [COLOR=Red]This makes it too easy for people to duck difficult issues. By forcing people to take a positive or negative stance, the propositions make people really evaluate their feelings. Often people find they wanted to select 'don't know' mainly because they'd never really thought about the idea.[/COLOR] [LIST] [*][B]Why don't you collect statistics and report on test results ?[/B] [/LIST] It is important to us - and most of our respondents - that the test remains anonymous, and purely for personal information. If we were to log anyone's results, those results would have to be given voluntarily. This would mean that our sample would be self-selected, and therefore not statistically valid. In other words, such data would tell us nothing about the political position of a particular population; it would only tell us about the type of person who volunteered to have their result recorded. Trials have revealed that a wildly disproportionate number of visitors from particular cultures, and of certain age and socio-economic groups, were more willing than others to opt in. [LIST] [*][B]Where would Jesus and/or Mohammed appear ?[/B] [/LIST] That one would be way too speculative for our purposes...and if we did engage in such speculation, we'd be even more inundated with correspondence . Most aspects of contemporary politics didn't impact on the times of Jesus and other religious teachers anyway. [LIST] [*][COLOR=Red][B]How can you determine where politicians are honestly at without asking them ?[/B][/COLOR] [/LIST] [COLOR=Red]How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We've relied on reports, parliamentary records, ... and actions that spoke louder than words. We are occasionally asked about publishing the individual responses of politicians. We frown on this. The propositions are too vague to be considered statements of policy, and the individual responses are not significant in themselves. When summed to give an economic and social score, however, they provide an accurate profile of a mental state.[/COLOR] [B][I]Gripes About Particular Propositions[/I][/B] [LIST] [*][COLOR=Red][B]Your proposition on globalisation suggests that corporations and humanity can't both benefit.[/B][/COLOR] [/LIST] [COLOR=Red]This one sometimes ruffles feathers on right wings. What the proposition actually suggests is that humanity should be the [I]priority[/I]. Critics argue that there's no conflict of interest. Transnational corporations naturally and unfailingly serve humanity by serving themselves. In enriching business, the argument goes, globalisation will always subsequently benefit humanity. Prioritising humanity would only limit the ability of the corporations to inevitably do greater good. So advocates of this trickle down approach should simply click 'strongly disagree' We don't see the problem. The record, however, makes clear that there have often been spectacular conflicts of interest between coporate enrichment and humantity. Halliburton, Enron and the tobacco industry's research cover-ups are perhaps the best known examples. Others are detailed at [COLOR=Blue]The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008[/COLOR] and [COLOR=Blue]Corpwatch.org[/COLOR] .[/COLOR] [COLOR=Red]On the other hand, for the comparatively few who tell us that corporations can never serve humanity, [COLOR=Blue]Milton Friedman[/COLOR] argues the case for unfettered market forces.[/COLOR] [LIST] [*][B]What have attitudes towards things like abstract art and homosexuality to do with politics ?[/B] [/LIST] On the social scale, they're immensely important. Homophobia has been highly politicised by leaders like Robert Mugabe and betrays a tendency to condemn and punish those who disregard conventional values. Hitler's pink triangles reflected similar authoritarian hostility. Likewise, authoritarian régimes frequently attack highly imaginative and unconventional art, music and literary works as a threat to the rigid cultural conformity they uphold. [LIST] [*][B]Why don't you include a scale for religion?[/B] [/LIST] Amongst the western democracies for which The Political Compass is a universal tool, it is only in the US that religion plays a significant role in politics. Had the test been some kind of questionnaire or survey profiling a particular personality it might have a place, but for a purpose such as ours it has little relevance. Even in the US religion reflects the whole gamut of political opinion - from Quakers, Unitarians and, to some extent Episcopalians, who support gay marriage, the right to choose etc. and oppose, for example, capital punishment and the invasion of Iraq. At the other end of the religious spectrum, there are fundamentalists who hold opposite beliefs. Our social scale already covers these political/social attitudes, whether or not the individual belongs to a religious organisation that reinforces them. More significant for our purposes is whether or not the individual believes in mystical determinants of fate, hence the astrology proposition. There is a psychological linkage between determinism and authoritarianism . The astrology believer may hold very liberal social views in other areas, but this does not alter this more authoritarian aspect within his or her cluster of attitudes. [LIST] [*][B]It's true that a one party state has a significant advantage; even so I wouldn't support it. So how can I respond ?[/B] [/LIST] From classical Greece onwards, discussion and, inevitably, argument, has been viewed by democrats as essential for considering all viewpoints and consequently reaching the best informed and most representative decision. For such people, the replacement of polemics with speedy dictates would definitely not be seen as any sort of "significant advantage" or "progress". [LIST] [*][B]Does "our race has many superior qualities" refer to my particular race or the human race?[/B] [/LIST] "Race" can only refer to the human race or to one of its subdivisions. The proposition, in comparing one's race with other races, can therefore only be referring to the latter. [LIST] [*][B]The orginal intention of "An eye for an eye" was that the punishment should not exceed the crime[/B] [/LIST] That's right, although it's commonly used to argue for the punishment being as severe as the crime. In any case, it means treating offenders as they have treated their victims; no more harshly, in the case of the original stricture, and just as harshly in the retributive sense. Either way, the proposition remains unambiguous in its call for punishment that approximates the crime. [URL='http://politicalcompass.org/faq#top']top[/URL] [B][I]The Political Compass Definitions[/I][/B] [LIST] [*][B]There have to be other measures for a political compass[/B] [/LIST] Great. Tell us about them so that we can consider adding them. But surely our two axis arrangement is a vast improvement on the single one that you've put up with for more than 2 centuries ? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Political Compass
Top