|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
that was interesting and a bit fun...
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 that was interesting and a bit fun...Please note that this isn’t a survey, and these aren’t questions. They’re propositions. Propositions are a very different proposition! To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are moderate. That’s how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass. Your responses should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy. All of them are necessarily biased, but we have a careful balance of biases! This is something that most of our critics simply don’t understand. Now try the test: www.politicalcompass.org |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Spring... "Your responses should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy. All of them are necessarily biased, but we have a careful balance of biases!" |
||
|
Voci <Their purpose is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.> Which is exactly what annoys me when people talk politics. So many work from 'feelings and prejudices' rather than workable, coherent policy. In one of my books I have a conversation:- {“So all who know what they are talking about say 'We can't see how it could possibly go wrong, but no guarantees are possible', while one crackpot who knows nothing in the field says she can guarantee a disaster. So they believe the single crackpot instead of the consensus of experts?” “Yes. The ignorant always have complete confidence in what they assert,” Heida agreed. “It makes them more persuasive.”} If there had been a pair of options labelled "usually" and "not usually", I think I would have hit one of those 75% of the time. As it turned out, I was about a third of the way from the centre to the 'libertarian' and 'left' boundaries. So perhaps it's reasonably accurate overall. |
||
|
I am also sceptical about claims to reveal whether you are an extremist or not, as extremism is in the eye of the beholder. My 2c. And I know this was posted in a spirit of fun and I am perhaps taking it too seriously. |
||
|
Mr. Lodbrok... You are seriously funny... |
||
|
Vocihc Perhaps the problem is that the whole mental framework for these things is binary. As the linked article says itself, everything tends to be seen as 'left' or 'right', 'conservative' or 'progressive', 'authoritarian' or 'libertarian'. Historically these have all been considered components of each other. That a 'conservative' has always been assumed to be more 'authoritarian' than a 'progressive' would be. The test designers have attempted to show that a second axis exists, and that the same person can be inclined one way along one set of categories but the other way on other categories. In reality, I would argue that even this refinement is too coarse to be of serious use. An optimum schema will include components of several different approaches because Reality is more complex than our theories. In my own mind I see that a 'good society' will have some components that are market-driven, but these should be subject to law and regulation; in other words, subject to 'social' control. Does this make me a 'centrist', or a schizophrenic extremist advocating both ways at once? I would suggest it makes me more rational than either extreme, but more critical than an unreflective 'moderate'. |
