Mine was just about the average of everyone else's that I've seen. I didn't bother posting. A few others have suggested that the test itself is biased, which is almost certainly somewhat the case. Quantifying this bias? Hah, good luck.
It felt biased to me. I scored in the lower left, which I think is very accurate. However, I felt like the questions were worded in a way that made right-leaning answers sound stupid. It seemed to encourage left-leaning answers. Maybe I'm crazy though.
I agree. So far I'm one of two people who scored right-leaning and I definitely felt the test was biased. There were several questions that were leading, several questions that had no answer for persons of a more conservative bent, and several questions where I didn't agree with the initial assumptions.
That's the thing about bias. You can never tell if it's intentional or not.
Well... except when you're consuming any form of mainstream media...
I'm actually surprised. I don't believe there's an agenda here, because on 4chan green is much less common. Yes, I know I said 4chan, but still...
I wonder, do you think there's a correlation between the type of website this link is posted on and the results posted? I'd posit that centrally moderated websites attract members with more authoritarian leanings, and that more discussion-based websites attract members with more left-wing leanings. Since Hubski is non-moderated (libertarian) and interaction-based (socialist), it attracts members who fall in the green box. 4chan and Reddit are moderated by a select group, so I think they would attract members with more authoritarian views. I wonder if anonymity of the members also comes into play here somewhere.
Honestly, it's not worth the effort. It's somewhat fun, but in no way informing. The partisan links came after completion of the test if memory serves right.
I can't even take the quiz, the questions are silly. They lost me on page one with... "There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment." ?now? Myths, legends, holy books, good lord, does anyone thing the 200+ pages of nautical instruction in Moby Dick was an accident? "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified." I don't even know what that means, but I suspect that they mean "treaty" or "standard of behavior" rather than law. So I'm off the chart then, thanks very much. -XC
Some questions were one-sided. As always I wanted a "no qualified opinion" option for some of these
Hmm, seems we are all in the same quadrant. Seems fishy to me.
I'll take it then. I'll be shocked if I fall into libertarian. Shocked and suspicious. http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.50&soc=-7.23
Remember that libertarian means different things in different regions (and even cultures). Do they define the terms they use?
Here's me! I am very similar to most people on here it seems. I'm British if that has any bearing on it, I'm not sure.
We had about the same score. I'd have been on the far left border but I kind of agree that SOME criminals, regardless of fault, are too deeply fucked in the mind to rehabilitate. And inflation v. unemployment is tricky, even if you don't like the system we are in, it can still starve us all if we aren't careful.
That surprises me. The liberal I know is contradictory to libertarian (in the European sense of the word).
What does social-libertarian mean though? Libertarian socialist?
Hmm... I think I found a flaw with this model. I feel like left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism shouldn't even have the same axis. Their definition's are similar, but their associated narratives are like night and day!
I think one of the shortcomings is that it tends to measure what you believe, not why. So, a conservative in Europe might be labeled a liberal because the test uses American preconceptions.
Wow that's a bad quiz. A couple of examples: > If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. ... Biased question. It's not an exclusive-or. > Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. ... (Potentially) invalid premise. If one believes corporations can be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, but believe they should require regulation anyways, there is no way to say so. > It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. Question is biased. > Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold. Define "bought and sold". > Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. Define "mislead". > A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. Question is biased. > The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist. Define "more important". > Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. Question is... iffy. If by mothers one means women, disagree. If by mothers one means mothers, it's more up in the air. http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=4.38&soc=0.00
Just about centrist, can't say I'm surprised.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.25&soc=-4.92 I took another test this morning on the Pew Research Center's site, I got "Solid Liberal" which sort of surprised me.
Some of the questions made me think of how one could possibly answer them in any other way. I also really appreciate the distinction from neo-liberalism in the post script.
There's a bunch of fellow left-libertarians here? Never thought I'd see the day!