Brian Leiter and Larry Solum have been posting about the political compass test. Brian finds the rightist bias of law professors depressing and expresses hope that more of the blogosphere’s philosophers will take the test (including me). So here goes. And yes, unsurprsingly, there I am in the bottom left-hand quadrant . I’m not sure about the company I’m keeping, though. George Orwell, Tom Paine and even Joseph Stiglitz and the Dalai Lama I can live with, but Naomi Klein and Tariq Ali? This chart needs another dimension.
And Hobbes as on the authoritarian right?
Welcome to the neighborhood! :-)
Mike (-4.75, -6.46) Jones
Bottom-right but given the wording of the questions and the lack of a “N/A” option, I left about half of them blank. There were too many questions that offered a false choice or when neither “agree” nor “disagree” would accurately represent my views. I rather suspect that the creator(s) of the test were rather biased on the left (or probably just British) and it showed in the wording of many of the questions and no doubt in how the answers were scored.
I tend to prefer Bryan Caplan’s Libertarian Purity Test as a more accurate barometer of my own views (score 71), given that the questions have more of an actual relationship to how one perceives the proper role of government in different areas without forcing the test taker to make any false choices because of the wordingn of a question.
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi
Thorley,
I agree that this survey is poorly written. One of the worst features is the prevelence of compound thoughts which one is asked to agree/diagree to. I was not sure which way to answer, and eventually gave up.
Marc wrote:
I agree that this survey is poorly written. One of the worst features is the prevelence of compound thoughts which one is asked to agree/diagree to. I was not sure which way to answer, and eventually gave up.
That’s pretty much the problem I had although I just left the question blank and it still tallied my score. Some of them I purposefully left blank because I anticipated that my answer would be read in a manner which might distort my political views (such as the abortion question). It really was not a helpful survey IMNHO.
I was
Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
This is a point Matthew Yglesias has made several times, but it’s worth making again.
If you thought a 1D graph obscured things, you’ll probably think the 2D graph isn’t much better. I tend to have fairly extreme economic views, for instance. I tend to favour what are (at least by American standards) extremely pro-union, pro-worker positions (I think the minimum wage should be $8 to $10, for example), and I’m happier than most to resort to regulation at the first sign of market failure. But I’m also strongly free-trade, especially anti-tariffs. I don’t think a tax that discriminates between people who buy goods from other countries and people who don’t is morally defensible, whether or not it’s economically useful. (It isn’t, but that’s somewhat beside the point.)
But do I come out as an extremist here? No, my extreme views ‘balance out’ by their lights. (Though it’s not as if this is a particularly original position - I take it I’m just in the tradition of the pro-labour wing of the 19th century British Liberal Party.) So I turn out to be a ‘moderate’. C’est la vie.
I’ve never liked these tests. Not necessarily because they are inaccurate—though I agree with the criticisms made in these comments here—but because they always emphasize what I already know: that almost everybody, when put to the test, expresses libertarian rather than communitarian sympathies; and that almost nobody ever joins me in the upper-left hand corner. And then the test makes me feel even better by telling me that if I happen to believe that social cohesion and personal happiness requires a defense of both economic equality and civic morality, then I must be cut from the same cloth as Vladimir Lenin. Delightful.
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.56
(More on my view of these tests here: http://philosophenweg.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_philosophenweg_archive.html#106452049985483597)
I’m a little surprised by my result (I’m also in the bottom left quadrant):
Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54
I’m a pretty strong believer in the efficiency of markets and trade, so it’s a surprise to find myself on the left side of the economic spectrum.
Being an American, at first I thought this was just another of those common (around these parts, anyway) 2D libertarian tests; which it is, sorta. But there’s something funny, to my American sensibilities, about the economic axis. I’m guessing that on the libertarian test, I’d score farther to the “right”. Although I should hasten to add that there’s no guarantee of that, since in regards to economics, my libertarianism is not philosophically derived. It’s pragmatic. In this sense, libertarians and myself are fellow travelers, but very different creatures.
Anyway, I think this test reveals an important distinction between how Americans and Europeans (not sure how Canadians factor into this) think about the “left/right” dichotomy. Perhaps because Americans are so far to the “right”, economically-speaking, of Europeans, the left/right sorting principle here in the US is primarily social, not economic. I’m very far to the left on most social issues, and it’s for that reason I primarily self-identify to the left. And since my supposed rightward economic tilt is very much not built around what I sense is the conservative entitlement mentality that rationalizes inequity and fetishizes material wealth, I certainly don’t identify with them—and thus I don’t think of myself as a “rightist” on economic matters, either. I’m an odd duck (but comparable to people like Brad DeLong, I think) because I support markets and trade for social justice reasons. I mean, I want jobs to move from the US to developing countries.
I know there are social scientists here. And people with stronger analytical skills. I’ve been wondering for a long time why isn’t there (more) effort to empirically derive the “correct” dimensionality of socio/politico/economic clustering? Test a sample population on a large number of issues, and use analytical tools to find the dimensionality that shows the most distinct clustering.
For a while now, I’ve believed that the traditionalism/progressivism affinity is actually the first order political sorting principle. (Although that’s not really true in my case, interestingly.) Following that are the anarchism/authoritarianism and the cynical/trusting affinities.
Keith Ellis makes some good points. I posted a comment a year or two ago to a different discussion forum, suggesting that the economic dimension of this test conflates views about appropriate economic policies and views about distributive justice. Somewhat like Keith Ellis (I think), I place myself far to the left on distributive justice, but my economic training also means that I often favor market solutions to economic questions. (And like Keith, I am broadly pro-globalization in part because I think it has desirable redistributive consequences.) On average, this may make me resemble Naomi Klein, but the average is definitely misleading.
For what its worth the Political compass put me roughly where I thought I was (on 20/08/03 I was
Economic Left/Right -5.88/Libertarian/Authoritarian -4.97). As a matter of record this is posted in the About section of my Blog. I intend to update it from time to time - it does change)
Jerry Pournelle (not a name often mentioned over here) had a 2 × 2 breakdown on attitude to the state crossed with attitude to reason; scale ran from Hate to Worship, as I recall. His second dimension would be a nice third on this brealdown.
I thought those compound questions were deliberate. Force you to choose under pressure.
Keith, not all libertarians base their arguments or beliefs on moral claims. David Friedman, for example, is about as extreme a libertarian can get, yet he rejects most of the libertarian philosophical claims as either false or so based on personal intuition as to be useless for political discourse.
I’ve been trying to move away from arguing politics on philosophical grounds to focusing more on economics and pragmatism. I wish more people would do the same.
I also found the questions irritatingly loaded. My gut feeling was it’d put almost everyone in the bottom left quadrant, more or less (and that’s where it put me). Even though relative to the (wide variety of) people I communicate with, I’d put myself solidly in the bottom right.
Precisely why is the Dalai Lama less objectionable than Naomi Klein or Tariq Ali? Do you find yourself having cozy feelings about theocratic authoritarianism as well as empire?
Speaking of sci-fi authors and politics, here’s another questionaire:
http://www.davidbrin.com/questionnaire.html
TIWAGOS
Some of the questions are just as loaded (e.g. “right hand approach versus left hand approach”) as the original survey on this thread, but he does pose at least a few interesting questions IMNHO.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review