I haven't done this in a while

[andrewducker]

I used to be a bit further to the left (I think about a -2), but I'm fairly sure I've been about that libertarian for a while now.

Looking on my friends list on FB, most of them are further left than me, and about 70% are more authoritarian (although the vast majority are in the bottom left corner).

Take the test here.

Comments

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

Lightfoot's principal components analysis finds only two important axes, of which one is much more important that the other. It's a neat study.

Disappointingly, however, the link I gave you in haste only seems to point to the initial version of the work. The 2005 version was more rigorous, and more interesting - but the link from the page I gave you doesn't seem to be working. Sorry about that, I didn't take the time to check.

The 2005 survey found two important axes. The less important one corresponded roughly to the traditional left-right spectrum - but was relatively weak. The main, much stronger axis was what Lightfoot dubbed the "axis of UKIP", with Eurosceptics who believe in retributive justice at one end, and Europhiles who believe in reformative justice at the other. You might imagine this is the same as the libertarian/authoritarian axis, but it isn't quite. It has much more to do with attitudes towards out-groups, which other psychological research has shown to be important in the formulation of political opinions.

So it seems that, to a first approximation, your attitude to people outwith your own group is what determines your political stance. To a second approximation, your attitude toward taxes and economic redistribution also play a part. And to a third approximation, we're all special snowflakes.

[matgb]

I'm a fan of both as tools, but neither can truly reflect anyone.

I had planned to get hold of the initial algorithms (Chris was very insistent they be open) and then get an updated data set.

But that means remaining on good terms with my YouGov contacts, and I think I've burnt my dridges there "your methodology is deeply flawed, your sampling system is deeply biased, your weighting system is obviously innaccurate and the only reason your polls are consistent is because of the flaws in the above, they're consistently wrong in a number of key indicators" was the summary of that position.

And becuase Chris based his data on YouGov data, I am less inclined to take the raw data as meaningful anymore.

If we could get the same sort of dataset out of ICM or MORI, that'd be very cool, but they can't really question at that depth over the phone :-(

[andrewducker]

While the stats might well be interesting, all they can tell is a cluster of opinions that go together. They can't tell you the root causes of those opinions. "The axis of UKIP" is pithy, but it's going to be based on deeper stuff.

I fully approve of datamining people's responses to things, but it's not nearly enough to give you a solid theory.

(I'd also argue that liberal/authoritarian were people's attitudes to people outside of their group. Do you want to stop them doing the things they like, or are you willing to let them be different? Everyone is in favour of free speech of the people who are just like them - it's their opinion of whether people have a right to say things they don't like that tells you whether they're actually in favour of free speech.)

[pete stevens (from livejournal.com)]

I've just stuck the 2005 version back up at

http://politicalsurvey2005.beasts.org/

where it can reside forever.

The analysis is at

http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20050415-my_country_right_or_left.html


Chris's initial objection was that politicalcompass was shit. He was right. Sadly he still his. A quick critique of some questions,

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

This seems to assert that the interests of humanity are not aligned with said corporations. Which is odd, because to a large extent the corporations exist to provide humanity with the products they want to buy.


Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

The obvious extremes are full employment as a policy paid for with printed money and hyper inflation, or printing money to force inflation and hiding it in banks irrespective of the effect. If I'm not in favour of either plan how do I vote?


It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

If I disagree am I preferring a society with no drinking water at all or a society with free drinking water everywhere?


The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

In what way is the social responsibility different to the other ones? Do companies even have social responsibilities? I own a large fraction of a company, I think it's responsibility is to do what I want. For a large company that's usually aligned with profit but the question isn't restricted to listed companies only.


The rich are too highly taxed.

Define rich. Most people define rich as people who earn twice what they do.


Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

Should this read 'those who pay should be able to purchase higher standards of medical care'? I'm training for a marathon and I hurt my knee. It's a ridiculous waste of NHS money to treat me immediately because I'm not a priority. If I disagree am I suggesting it should be illegal for me to privately pay for physio so I can complete the marathon? If I agree am I suggesting the NHS should give me priority treatment because I can afford to pay privately without actually making me do so?


it goes on....