Hattip to Dale Price. The above are my results. Fairly accurate except where it says that I am a civic statist. Actually, on most domestic issues, I am very much live and let live. Of course the survey focused on abortion, drugs and gay marriage, and my positions against all three were thought statist, although I would contend that allowing all three requires more state intervention. When mores and laws are being changed, state intervention is going to happen, usually for a very long period, and the state rarely stays neutral if the mores are important enough, as opposed, for example, as to whether leisure suits are neat, or an abomination before the Lord, or whether lovers of disco are a sign of the End Times.
Calling what I am neo-conservative, go here to view, is a hoot, since adherence to tradition is not usually regarded as an element of neo-conservatives, that much misused label.
Go here to take the test.
Here’s my score: Economic–71.2% Market (free market); Diplomatic–65% Nation (Patriotic); Civil–52.8% (Moderate); Societal–64.7% Tradition (Traditional)… More or less accurate.
I know too much political science, I could see too many nuances in most of the questions.
There should have been a choice for “the question is nonsense” or “this is distinction without a difference.”
Yeah, I think the third one is off. I agree with the outcome I got on the Civil Axis — “Moderate”. My views on Ordered Liberty are always going to show a balance between classical liberalism and law and order. But they have me too heavily weighted toward the “Authority” end of the spectrum. I think you’re right that they are translating some stances on traditional values as a desire for the state to impose those values. And, yes, they’ve probably given too much weight to my desire to see abortion restricted and “marriage” mean MARRIAGE.
Overall, I got a rating of “Conservative”.
I could see too many nuances in most of the questions.
More than a few questions I left with the marker in the middle because circumstances would govern my response. As Edmund Burke noted, the circumstances of the time govern in political matters far more than pure theory.
I got right wing populist. I don’t agree with that label. I also found the questions too vague and setting up false dichotomies.
I’m a right-wing populist though my scores aren’t that different than Don’s. I have the same problems as others above mention with Civil Axis.
Some of the questions were badly worded and the conclusory remarks (in my case) stupid. The producer of the test is an outfit that appears to be run by psychologists.
My scores:
40.4%
83.3%
29.0%
81.6%
For which they tell me the closest match is ‘fascism’. I should note that I have a 1st degree relation who is a psychologist. Listen to his table talk and it occurs to you that psychology does not provide decent tools to understand public life. His wife is also a psychologist; she makes it a point to discuss almost nothing that’s abstract from her daily life, which makes her much more pleasant company.
setting up false dichotomies.
Bingo. Remember, they’re psychologists. The pigeon-holes they use are commonly rubbish.
Sorry. I rarely take such tests as they tend to be Kobayashi Maru tests.
For which they tell me the closest match is ‘fascism’. I should note that I have a 1st degree relation who is a psychologist. Listen to his table talk and it occurs to you that psychology does not provide decent tools to understand public life. His wife is also a psychologist; she makes it a point to discuss almost nothing that’s abstract from her daily life, which makes her much more pleasant company.
I had twenty hours of psych courses for my undergrad degree in the teaching of social studies. I found them simple and rather enjoyed them, but quickly realized they were 95% BS and 5% science. I was most attracted to Freudianism because Freud could write gracefully and, at bottom, its firm belief that talking could help, and I have always been able to gab with the best of them. Plus Freudianism seemed to be a game where once you knew the rules, you, too, could play, and I have always been a gamester.
My left side scores were:50.6%, 61.7, 36.9, 63.9
This evidently classifies me as a Right Wing Populist.
I agree with this assessment.
Surely the results would be different if agree/disagree was replaced by, say, an intensity scale like 1-5.
Question 41: “Reason is more important than maintaining our culture.”
That doesn’t even make sense!
Their axes are all messed up. Economic should be planned vs. free markets, for example.
Anyway I scored Market [Oriented] (67.3%), Patriotic (66.1%) Statist (62.7%) Traditional 74.7%)
Which they tell men means I’m a Conservative.
Capitalist Fascist.
Economic Axis = 82.1% –> Capitalist
Diplomatic Axis = 82.2% –> Nationalist
Civil Axis = 79.4% –> Authoritarian
Societal Axis = 82.9% –> Very Traditional.
Apparently because I believe in no abortion, no sodomy, no illegal immigration, strong national defense, no social welfare, free market economy, patriotism and God Almighty, I am a fascist.
Interesting – unlike fascists, I actually distrust govt and want as little of it as possible. As I see it, liberals are fascists because they use govt to enforce their sexual perversion and infanticide on the rest of us, and they use social media to censor our free speech.
I had twenty hours of psych courses for my undergrad degree in the teaching of social studies. I found them simple and rather enjoyed them, but quickly realized they were 95% BS and 5% science. I was most attracted to Freudianism because Freud could write gracefully and, at bottom, its firm belief that talking could help, and I have always been able to gab with the best of them. Plus Freudianism seemed to be a game where once you knew the rules, you, too, could play, and I have always been a gamester.
Actually, the psychologist in question is a neuroscientist, though he had some coursework in clinical subjects and tests-and-measurements long ago. He does have a clinical practice, but it doesn’t consist of talk therapy, just taking inventories. Psychologists are often conjoined to psychiatrists who write scrips for them, but I don’t think he has a particular association in his current employment. (He doesn’t have a stand-alone practice; he works for an institution). His wife is a clinician trained long ago; her particular book of business has varied over time. I would wager she’s most influenced by Carl Jung. The thing is, psychoanalytic thinkers have little influence in clinical psychology and psychiatry and have had little influence for a generation. Where I used to work, there was left on staff just one clinician who advertised his psychoanalytic training. That man was born in 1923 and died in 1996.
See Paul Vitz on psychology. He’s of the opinion that it will eventually dissolve into a mess of successor disciplines. BTW, the academic psychology department where I used to work had 13 faculty members, of whom 1 was a student of psychopathology. Child development, family relations, and psychopathology are modest sliver of what academic psychologists study. Several I’ve known could and did have joint appointments in other departments (biology, primarily).
I assume Dale Price is gaslighting us. When will we see the punchline?
The immigration question was another dud. It was just immigration, no mention of legal or illegal.
I’m Conservative, so, it worked.
There were a number of questions that were weird. Like, “my group’s goals should be pursued above others.” Meaning, what? That I want my party to win elections or I want a racial spoils system?
Or “the government needs to intervene to protect consumers.” Like, ever? Then, yeah. As much as it’s currently doing? Then, no.
Or “countries should be responsible to the international community,” well, yeah, because who else would hold evil empires (see the Axis powers) accountable? But should there be some formal world-government? no.
I got 71.2% Market – Patriotic 65.0% – Statist 65.1% – Traditionalist 62.8%
closest match Conservative
This is a lot like the cheap “which Lord of the Rings character are you?” polls. I’m not sure it’s even working right. I notice that Dr. Kurland and I got identical scores on the first two.
These kind of surveys have to be general if they’re going to have any relevance a year from now or in a different country, but that can make them a little silly. Some questions I can understand, but there were a few like “Regardless of your political positions, it is important to side with your country”. I chose the middle ground, but I can imagine situations where I’d choose any of the five choices. Does it mean signing up for Selective Service, or ignoring one’s country’s war crimes? Is it about protesting election results you don’t like, or the Declaration of Independence? How do you even write a general question about that?
there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This is one bad example of how factor analysis is used by academics with a satchel of statistical tools, especially if they’re into “political science.” They get to apply the labels to the factors, e.g. “capitalist fascist.”
I retook the test (I hadn’t realized you could put the slider in five different positions) and got the label right wing populalist, which is a bunch of hooey.
Factor analysis often amounts to using a statistical software package to find the factors, then having the researchers call them whatever the heck they want, then treating the factors as if they were a perfect measurement for what they were called.
I remember an analysis where answering “yes” to “Do you believe that we are visited by aliens from other planets” would indicate a higher “traditional religious belief.” The researchers saw a factor associated with a yes to “Do you believe in God” and called it “traditional religious belief” even though practically none of the other answers contributing to it were consistent with that label. But once they had that label, they were more than happy to use it as a perfect measurement for traditional religious belief which they then used to draw other conclusions (if I recall correctly, the main result was to find a supposed connection between traditional religious belief and low levels of generosity.)
These type tests always display the bias of the author.
I got “Theocratic Distributist.”
I can sort of see it, but as I said when I posted my results, I would be a pretty standard issue Cold War Catholic Democrat back in the 60s. The world has changed far more than I have. And the world asks us to answer some insane questions.
The test was flawed, and entirely too now-centered. Political views form in reaction to events, and are cumulative.
Got like four in and identified that I’m too suspicious of equivocation to take the test.
I’ve noticed that pitting “reason” against “our culture” tends to be mysteriously…ah… one-sided. Kind of like how “progress” involves an awful lot of regression.
The right/left paradigm always cited by leftists was created by leftists. It is, upon close examination, nonsensical. Both ends of their spectrum construct resolve to tyranny. GIGO