No, I'm furthest left. I didn't post my chart but it was three squares from the left and three from the bottom. Go me.
There's questions slanted to the left and to the right - I guess that's how it judges the responses! How the balance of thye questions seems overall may be to do with personal political opinions - I found it to have a Right-wing slant, which is probably why I got a Left-wing result.
Let me give you an example of questions I feel have a Left-wing slant (these are not in order): 1). Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. That's an absurd question, because if you control inflation you make products more affordable, thereby allowing people to purchase more, thereby maintaining or increasing demand, thereby producing a need for more employees, or at least preventing lay-offs. 2). It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. What the hell does that even mean? Someone got lucky in the stock market, so they are, by default, losers who contribute nothing? What about philanthropy? It's a question which may be valid if not posed in such an absurd manner. 3). Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. Isn't it possible that, in some instances, these companies are in fact helping these countries, too? I don't know, but I felt the test was rather slanted - and to the Left. In any event, to be respectful, I took the test: Economic Left/Right: 2.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31 That score indicates I'm a moderate conservative - which is true. So, while accruate, it's slanted, IMO.
No, this question is right, if you control inflation many times you will not able to control unemployment, choose your priority if for you with the inflation does that you're telling it is your option, choose for inflation. It goes directed if you find just that someone without doing anything productive can become rich, or not, just playing with the economy. I agree that is completely regrettable. So it has all the sense of the world. Again it shows a correct point of view, do you agree with that or not? If you don't agree you'll get one kind of points and if you agree like me, you will get other points. And not, I don't know any company that is helping other countries, they are exploiting their resources for their own profit, never for the good of the country. Tell me some company that isn't unethically exploiting resources of developing countries. I can tell you: None, Null, Zero. And this test is accurate for an American. With an European including the rightist European will be leftist . Many questions done in social, mainly in social questions the Europeans will be more leftist
Those questions, and the implicit assumptions on which such statement would be based, may have appeared left-slanted to someone on the right, so they would give a different answer about it to those given by someone on the left (answering by saying that they strongly disagree with them, presumably, where some on the left might have agreed with them). I agree some of them might seem a bit strange, but I suspect that people on the left and right would find different ones to appear more strange than others. I guess that's how the test works - the whole point is to see which statements individuals strongly agree with, or think are ridiculously 'slanted' against what they think to be reasonable ideas. The comments made to those particular questions are all fair enough, but they are 'political' in nature. People with a different political viewpoint might well find them to be perfectly reasonable statements based on reasonable assumptions. The same is true of other questions. One that springs to mind for me is the one that is something along the lines of 'My enemy's enemy is my friend' - to me that appears to be an utterly ridiculous statement that couldn't ever be logically supported in any way by anyone, but then that is me judging it from my political viewpoint - others may have a different opinion of it. It's never going to be a totally accurate test, of course - most people are humans with free will and a mix of opinions on different issues. Generally, though, I think it gives a fairly reasonable outcome for most people. If people on the right think many of the statements slant to the left by their assumptions and basis, they will get a result that puts them on the right - same thing in reverse for those on the left. The question really, after taking the test, is did the result come out as wildly wrong or inaccurate. If it didn't, it would seem to suggest that the test is working at least reasonably well!
The test isn't bad. I've seen many others tests and is one of the best. And also is nice to see the position of some politicians, and other people. For me was pretty accurate, although something too much statist in some questions, but good enough.
I've done this a few times myself and I self-report the results as roughly accurate, always in the area of -4, -6.
To senisble people, it does. If you are able to recognize the slant and answer the question accordingly - to take a risk that you may be regarded as heartless should your answer be revelaed - the test is quite accruate. Notwithstanding the spurious explanations of some, the first question regarding unemployment and inflation is a perfect example. If you say it's more important to control infalation, you sound like a heartless money-grubber; however, if you're able to reason that controlling inflation - to a certain extent - actually creates jobs (or, at least prevents loss), you can answer the question without feeling guilty.
That's my point, though - that is a right-wing way of looking at the statement, by taking that as the more important issue because of the opinion as to what the result of that would be. It's not designed to make anyone seem 'heartless', or anything else, and it's not about 'correct' or 'incorrect' answers - it's not suggesting that if someone picks one as the more important that means they they don't care at all about the other. Someone else may have a different opinion, and not assume that the result will inevitably be the same, so may prefer to answer that it's more important for the economy and population as a whole to concentrate on controlling employment. In the same way, saying that controlling employment is 'more important' doesn't mean anybody wants to see inflation running out of control - that's nobody's idea of a good thing for an economy in general, any more than anybody thinks that mass unemployment is a good thing. It's a question of priorities, and opinions on the priorities is an indicator of a generally 'left' or 'right' way of thinking about the economy. It's not suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive, or that either isn't 'beneficial', but just asking an opinion about what the priority is on the ground that 'left' and 'right' would possibly give different answers.
I understand your point, but the test then relies on the individuals' ability to reason the political and economic realities, which means the test is not exactly utilitarian. By that logic, it is slanted. By your logic, no, I guess it's not.
If sensible to you means retarded, sure. You can always fudge the figures you know. I'm just amazed how much you flew off the rails on this when it is so condensed it is naturally going to be vague and misleading in some cases.
Commie bastard. I seem to be more Dalai Lama Economic Left/Right: -6.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
Me too, and I am honoured to be in the corner I'm in, but I do not feel like a serious lefty. Economic Left/Right: -7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28 The economic questions skew things. Thinking that not all free trade is beneficial and that corporations need some regulations should not push me that far left.
