It sounds like you're doing exactly what the test makers advised against doing: overthinking it. Did you notice the word "should" in there? A proposition is being put to you. Do you think that globalisation should primarily serve humanity, or that it should primarily serve the interests of trans-national corporations? Or don't you understand the question? Did you notice the word "primarily" in there? A proposition is being put to you. I agree with your assessment. You're not qualified to take the test. You have the wrong idea about who is being whiney and controlling. The people who post in the thread only to say "This is a stupid thread. I have no interest in participating in this. Why is this even on the forum?" are the ones who are trying to be whiny and controlling. What makes you think that? Are you just trying to feel good about your own results? It is very likely the case that a person who lands in or near the centre of the diagram is inconsistent in their own political views, which means they are lacking in nuanced thinking (or perhaps thinking in general). That could be the "knee jerk" kind of reaction you mention.
which is considerably interesting when the "liberal" name/label is not only used in general terms, but self identified publicly by millions of Americans. do you think the test designers trying to make a statement about "liberalism" ?
"Do you primarily love your son or your daughter?" (Don't overthink it) Feel good about my own results? I think I may have to agree with Rainbow for once and label your comments as transference. Your other comments are similar to "We have to play basketball by my rules or I'm going to take my ball and go home".
definition of the concept of creating a "premise" as a conceptual base reason inside absolute concepts of philosophical moral construct the either/or is the or thus the question is "do you love either one of them" thus the logical answer would in a nice world yes your intended meaning of loving one and not the other or loving one more than the other is implied by your thought toward where you think it is going when the literal meaning is something different so its a matter of perception of reading and comprehension of terms inside certain frameworks of science as literature which is not very well taught in any school as a general rule and barely understood in common language "love" is "primary" not the "primary love" for which do you have primary love, your son or your daughter?
I see little value in seeing where my politics allegedly sits, on an American scale, using American criteria, when these bear little relation to the political environment I occupy. Recent events have shown the world how crazily unique US politics has become. Also I've done this test before, and found it amazingly one-dimensional and idiosyncratic. For example, it equates conservativism with free market liberalism. WTF?
I don't know why you think that is a comparable question. Do you think that the interests of trans-national corporations are identical to (or at least indistinguishable from) the interests of "humanity"? If so, why? Actually, I'm not sure how you got results, since you said you didn't complete the test: You're the one who started off by whining about the test being "loaded" and said his was taking his bat and ball and going home. You didn't even complete the test, you said. And you thought it was important to tell us all.
You didn't actually say why you think the test has an American bias. If you take a look, you will see that the website has analysed the policies of various parties in recent elections in countries other than the United States, and put those parties' positions on the compass. Obviously, the makers of the quiz don't think it only applies to Americans. I'd like to know why you think it does. What's the political environment you find yourself in? Does it not have left and right, authoritarian and libertarian players? This quiz is not recent. It predates Trump by many years, for instance. I don't see how you draw that conclusion. Conservatism, I think, would fall in the top right quadrant of the political compass, whereas free market liberalism would fall in the bottom right quadrant.
Obviously I later went back and took the test. Business isn't based on "humanity". It's not just limited to profit but economics isn't directly concerned with the general subject matter "humanity". Is Chris Rock a better singer or a better farmer?
I'm really not interested in these Mickey Mouse reductions of political views to a Boston Grid. I'm out.
Snowflakes!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Me: Economic Left/Right: -4.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31 Perhaps it should, given a sufficiently large sample. But if you dip into a bag of mainly white balls, you've got to expect for most of what you pull out to be white balls. And this site is mainly white balls. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why? Fine. So.... Do you think that globalisation should primarily serve humanity, or that it should primarily serve the interests of trans-national corporations? I don't know enough about him to venture an opinion on that. On the other hand, I do know what globalisation is, what humanity is and what trans-national corporations are, so I can certainly answer the question above. Can't you?
Well, I'm glad you got your annoyance off your chest, I guess, for what it's worth. Another option would have been just to read a different thread, or whatever. I notice that you still couldn't or wouldn't tell me why you think the test has a US bias, and you chose not to reply to anything I wrote to you in my last post, but never mind. Something about this has obviously got your back up.
Not if the major political parties (e.g. in the United States) fairly reflect the opinions of a majority of the population. According to the political compass site, the major parties don't straddle the middle of the graph, which means that the general population probably doesn't, either. Minor parties tend to differentiate themselves from the major parties by locating themselves away from where the major parties are on the graph, but the minor parties' positions are not equally distributed on the graph either, and not necessarily in opposite quadrants to the major parties. To take one example: I looked at the graph for the most recent Australian federal election. Both major parties are located in the top right quadrant (authoritarian, right), based on their published policies. The next largest party, by voter support, is in the bottom left quadrant (left, libertarian), but it gains only about 10% of the vote across the nation, on average, with the majors taking up most of the other 90%.
In a two party system such as the US, the two parties probably aren't close to the politics of the general public. I may be wrong but it just seems too tribalistic, especially at the moment: you follow your party rather than your party follow you. Imagine if the most common view in the US was an actual third way (i.e. not Democrat, not Republican)... I remain convinced that they would fare badly in any election, and it would still be contested between the Rs and Ds. But you are right in that "thoughtful, nuanced thinking" would not necessarily cluster around the centre. I mistook Seattle's comment to be a comment on the non-averaging around the centre (most of us seem to be bottom-left quadrant), whereas my point was that across a large enough sample one might (should?) perhaps expect the average to be toward the centre. But then for that you might need to include more than people from Western 1st-world countries in the poll.
Don't be silly. You are exhibiting more of a kneejerk reaction with your claim than anyone answering the poll. To-wit: "It's virtually impossible that anyone is fairly strongly Libertarian and Left, therefore they must be answering falsely." You have no basis for such a claim. It speaks more to our own ego and resultant prejudices than anyone else.