Again, the problem isn't justice. The problem is agreeing on when to seek it. And that had been perverted and distorted by political leaders on both sides of the isle to fit their means in the moment. And then you have Fox News telling its devotees that the left are evil-doers and out to destroy the country. And on the other side, you have MSNBC telling their devotees that the right are the evil-doers and out to destroy the country. But the truth of the matter this is: they are the evil-doers themselves. The media and the politicians who are masquerading behind one extreme or the other and using it to further their own agendas, which is mostly (surprise!) power and greed. And it's both sides doing it. The right, and the left. Both of them, equally. And that's why I said a moderate position is what's needed. Very rarely do you hear people these days talk about context, and yet context is the key to just about everything. It's the missing ingredient here; the door to people getting along again and justice truly being served; our salvation, if you want to get super dramatic about it. 

But unfortunately, the media on the right and left are losing the battle to the internet for revenue, so they're forced to drum up this ridiculous extremism where you're either a foe, or an enemy. So there's very little hope for our society finding context and subtlety in anything right now.

And that's just a shame.

I am a bit confused about your conclusion.

This test is pretty well calibrated to American voters (being based on voter ideology data), and you still get Ambivalent Right.

Since American politics are to the right of Australian politics, wouldn't that mean you are even more likely to be on the right in Australia since on the American-calibrated test you still get "Ambivalent Right" and not something on the American center-left/left?

I believe "Moderation Bias" is a very real thing first of all, and I think you are describing it pretty well. A lot of people see being a moderate or a centrist as a virtue, so they will either over-estimate how well they fit into that category, or assign some non-inherent value to middle of the road positions. As such, I would disagree that you remove biases when you stand in the middle. You just hold onto a different bias than those who stand on either side of you.

Further, I think we've seen in American politics lately that your second point isn't really as true in practice as it may seem in theory. Progressives and people on the left such as Bernie Sanders may not like to compromise, but they have accepted a lot of compromise within the Build Back Better bills (both the infrastructure bill that has passed both chambers and the social infrastructure bill which has only passed the House). On the other hand, those who seem least willing to compromise are those who stand in the middle. They are pretty clearly stating "Do it my way or you get nothing" (assuming "their way" isn't just doing nothing in the first place).

I also disagree with your final point that being a centrist is about merit based policy making. Much of the time, a centrist is just someone who fears change, even if that change would be beneficial. "Radical Moderates/Centrists" really aren't much of a thing, which is what you seem to be implying. Centrists largely favor either keeping things the way they are rather than making large or sudden changes, regardless of whether evidence indicates that those large changes would be beneficial. Like I said before, the centrist position holds no inherent value, the same as any other position. 

Just did the quiz. "Ambivalent Right" No idea what that means. I find reasons to strongly dislike both right and left. I go on Neogaf and I hate the right, I go on Resetera and I hate the left. That's why I go on neither.

Ok, that's funny. I thought Neo was a "leftist" paradise before the scandal. Did it really change that much? 

Because in life, the truth is always in the middle. 

Oh, and because only Siths deal in absolutes.

The media is unethical therefore moderate policies are best (to paraphrase) is a pretty terrible argument. 

Do you have to be "Siths" to be able to do basic math? Or make logical deductions of any sort? Or support a conclusion of the evidence? Or is it :

vs ?

"Because in life, the truth is always in the middle. 

Oh, and because only Siths deal in absolutes." So therefore the truth is probably: