By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What's your political typology? (Quiz)

JackHandy said:
sundin13 said:

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

Look at it this way.

Suppose you have three people in a room. One is hard right, one is hard left, and the other is an a-political moderate. The hard right is going to stick to their party's talking points, and believe everything they say is utterly infallible. The hard left is going to do the same. But the moderate, on the other hand, he or she will be able to see the validity (and fallacy) of both their positions, equally. So instead of getting nothing done, they can take what works on the right, what works on the left, and disregard what doesn't work and make real, positive, pragmatic decisions based on facts and not dogmatic propaganda.

That is why I believe the in the moderate position.

Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics.

What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. 



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
JackHandy said:

Look at it this way.

Suppose you have three people in a room. One is hard right, one is hard left, and the other is an a-political moderate. The hard right is going to stick to their party's talking points, and believe everything they say is utterly infallible. The hard left is going to do the same. But the moderate, on the other hand, he or she will be able to see the validity (and fallacy) of both their positions, equally. So instead of getting nothing done, they can take what works on the right, what works on the left, and disregard what doesn't work and make real, positive, pragmatic decisions based on facts and not dogmatic propaganda.

That is why I believe the in the moderate position.

Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics.

What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. 

I didn't say moderate people get things done. I said taking what works from both sides, disregarding what doesn't and forming an official position based on that allows for things to get done.

But I know how things are. Red team. Blue team. Pick a side and fight! It's sad.



The quizzes have some issues. I think that alot of them didn't have enough options to truly express someone's feelings. But overall, I think its likely close to my feelings. 



     

Check out my lastest games review: Fast RMX and  Snipperclips: Cut it out Together

JackHandy said:
sundin13 said:

Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics.

What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. 

I didn't say moderate people get things done. I said taking what works from both sides, disregarding what doesn't and forming an official position based on that allows for things to get done.

But I know how things are. Red team. Blue team. Pick a side and fight! It's sad.

That only works under the assumption that both sides are equally likely to have a position which is supported by evidence. I have seen little evidence of that. 

Further, again, being moderate is a political position in and of itself. It is not simply an empty vessel, there is moderate policy and moderate politics that exist outside of simply looking elsewhere and seeing what works. 



JackHandy said:
sundin13 said:

Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics.

What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. 

I didn't say moderate people get things done. I said taking what works from both sides, disregarding what doesn't and forming an official position based on that allows for things to get done.

But I know how things are. Red team. Blue team. Pick a side and fight! It's sad.

You are right. It's just red Vs blue and you either believe this whole blue list of things or this whole red list of things.

Having two sides is ridiculous.



Around the Network
Ryuu96 said:

Hmm, I think I can see where you're coming from, I do think that American politics is definitely more fiery than British politics, in the UK there is certain topics that no major party would openly support, and for good reason, from cutting NHS funding, to cutting welfare, I think most of the parties are in favour of COVID policies, we're pro-abortion, we don't have a death penalty, folk aren't wondering around openly kitted out like they're in the military so we don't need gun debates

But in this case I would take boring over "oh god he's a psychopath"

These are definitely some issues that I could see major parties openly supporting in USA while if someone in UK wanted to say, kill the NHS and openly stated that in UK they would be absolutely slaughtered by the public, I also find that all of the major parties support action on climate change, some simply wanted quicker action on it, it helps that UK is in a better position to act on it too since we're an island, I would guess that most of the public are in favour of climate action or don't really care (so won't fight action on it) and I gotta stan for the legendry David Attenborough who is adored by UK.

SNP has a distinct cause but I doubt they'll be able to vote on it anytime soon, I also think we will revisit the EU debate in the distant future, a side rant though, I absolutely despise the question that is asked in every single UK debate of "would you launch a nuke" it's such a f*cking stupid question.

Our last president openly threatened to use nuclear weapons on more than one occasion. I think it's a good idea to know just how insane someone is before you elect them.

But yeah, the SNP's cause of course isn't something I see happening in the near term either. But it's something distinguishing about them and a good cause, IMO.



Eagle367 said:

They went more the pop quiz route rather than the actual nitty and gritty. I am for "big" government as long as the government is serving the people and not causing wars. The "big" government argument is stupid to begin with because it matters what the government does, not how "big" or "small" it is. 

Almost none of the questions are worded the way I would word them and the one you cite, the very first question of the quiz, is a perfect example. Nobody on the left actually cares about "the size of government". That's a conservative, right wing framing of the matter that's intended to make public welfare sound like a scary, Orwellian thing. What those of us on the left actually care about is what governments do and how well they do those things. Of course though, I also understand what is meant by the question and answered according to that knowledge. The same principle applies to lots of the questions.

What I like about the quiz more the questionnaire itself, which often SEEMS silly itself on the surface level, is the believability of its results. I can fully believe the categorizations everyone has gotten so far. It's not shocking to me that we get lots of "progressive left" and even more "ambivalent right" (the libertarian category) here when you consider that like the hardcore gamer demographic on this forum, if not in general, is composed disproportionately of relatively young, affluent, highly-educated white men from North America and western Europe. That is indeed the general range of debate I'd expect from that demographic. Outside of the color of my skin, there's very little overlap between those characteristics and my own, which might help explain why my result contrasts with the dominant sorts of opinions.

I posted this quiz over on another forum I go to that's dominated by older Americans (as in mostly people over the age of 60) rich enough to flip out over the prospect of an estate tax hike and there the overwhelmingly dominant result so far is "committed conservative", which, as you can see at the link, as basically the Reaganist neocon category. That result for them also makes perfect sense when you consider the demography of this group described at the bottom of the article. It also aligns with their relationship to Trump, which has been a supportive one, but also one of...you know, not volunteering the subject.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 24 November 2021

Jaicee said:
Eagle367 said:

They went more the pop quiz route rather than the actual nitty and gritty. I am for "big" government as long as the government is serving the people and not causing wars. The "big" government argument is stupid to begin with because it matters what the government does, not how "big" or "small" it is. 

Almost none of the questions are worded the way I would word them and the one you cite, the very first question of the quiz, is a perfect example. Nobody on the left actually cares about "the size of government". That's a conservative, right wing framing of the matter that's intended to make public welfare sound like a scary, Orwellian thing. What those of us on the left actually care about is what governments do and how well they do those things. Of course though, I also understand what is meant by the question and answered according to that knowledge. The same principle applies to lots of the questions.

What I like about the quiz more the questionnaire itself, which often SEEMS silly itself on the surface level, is the believability of its results. I can fully believe the categorizations everyone has gotten so far. It's not shocking to me that we get lots of "progressive left" and even more "ambivalent right" (the libertarian category) here when you consider that like the hardcore gamer demographic on this forum, if not in general, is composed disproportionately of relatively young, affluent, highly-educated white men from North America and western Europe. That is indeed the general range of debate I'd expect from that demographic. Outside of the color of my skin, there's very little overlap between those characteristics and my own, which might help explain why my result contrasts with the dominant sorts of opinions.

I posted this quiz over on another forum I go to that's dominated by older Americans (as in mostly people over the age of 60) rich enough to flip out over the prospect of an estate tax hike and there the overwhelmingly dominant result so far is "committed conservative", which, as you can see at the link, as basically the Reaganist neocon category. That result for them also makes perfect sense when you consider the demography of this group described at the bottom of the article. It also aligns with their relationship to Trump, which has been a supportive one, but also one of...you know, not volunteering the subject.

The quiz is very broad so it's good at measuring that. But it's framing is troublesome for a leftist for sure. There is also no distinction between socdem and socialist. I guess liberal is the democrat mainstay. Plus I hate when centrists pretend they are in the middle and the most reasons people. Enlightened centrists are annoying. There can be extreme centre positions as well such as refusing to take any action on many matters of importance.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

JackHandy said:
sundin13 said:

Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics.

What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. 

I didn't say moderate people get things done. I said taking what works from both sides, disregarding what doesn't and forming an official position based on that allows for things to get done.

But I know how things are. Red team. Blue team. Pick a side and fight! It's sad.

You are making a lot of assumptions. First of all, how do you know where the good ideas are? Pretending they are always in the middle is stupid. They can be slightly right or more right or they can even be extreme left. And your example ignores that there can be extremist centrist positions as well. Being militantly centrist is only stoking your own ego. It also assumes you are smarter than the right and left wing person and can be the judge on what is right or wrong. And if someone has the best position which is on the left or the right, all you end up doing is diluting things and making them worse by trying to meet in the middle. Centrism would only truly work in a world where the system was mostly perfect but rough around the edges. That is not our world. We need fundamental changes to how things are run today. 



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:
JackHandy said:

I didn't say moderate people get things done. I said taking what works from both sides, disregarding what doesn't and forming an official position based on that allows for things to get done.

But I know how things are. Red team. Blue team. Pick a side and fight! It's sad.

You are making a lot of assumptions. First of all, how do you know where the good ideas are? Pretending they are always in the middle is stupid. They can be slightly right or more right or they can even be extreme left. And your example ignores that there can be extremist centrist positions as well. Being militantly centrist is only stoking your own ego. It also assumes you are smarter than the right and left wing person and can be the judge on what is right or wrong. And if someone has the best position which is on the left or the right, all you end up doing is diluting things and making them worse by trying to meet in the middle. Centrism would only truly work in a world where the system was mostly perfect but rough around the edges. That is not our world. We need fundamental changes to how things are run today. 

You don't dilute anything. You just look at what makes sense, regardless of its right or left position, and apply it. That's it. Which, oddly enough, would be exactly what you're calling for: fundamental change. Because when was the last time we had a leader who didn't adhere to his/her party's policies? It's always one or the other. One or the other. You may get the occasional leader or politician who is slightly more moderate, but you never get one who is completely outside the reach of the two, overreaching, fundamental power structures. So if you cherry picked from both, took what worked and threw out the BS, you'd have your change. Hell, you'd have a revolution, actually.