Total Point Results:

0=Economically and Socially Liberal Far Left Democrat.
1=Economically and Socially Liberal Independent (bordering communist.)
2=Economically Liberal and Socially Conservative Democrat (bordering neolib.)
3=Economically Liberal and Socially Conservative Republican (bordering neocon.)
4=Economically Conservative and Socially Liberal Moderate Democrat.
5=Economically Conservative and Socially Liberal Moderate Republican or Libertarian.
6=Economically and Socially Conservative Independent (bordering anarchist.)
7=Economically and Socially Conservative Far Right Republican.

Which statements best describes your beliefs?

Question #1:
A. I don't believe the majority of people know what's best for themselves.
B. I do believe the majority of people know what's best for themselves.

Question #2:
A. The best possible lessons have already been learned and forgotten by all.
B. The best possible lessons have yet to be learned by anyone.

Question #3:
A. Competition solves most problems.
B. Competition causes most problems.

If you chose "A" for question #1 give yourself 1 point. If you chose "A" for question #2 give yourself 2 points. If you chose "A" for question #3 give yourself 4 points.

Okay, I'm not used to being happy about a zero on a test....

0=Economically and Socially Liberal Far Left Democrat.


But, I guess this is right on the money.

Interesting.

Most of the political test I've seen ask too many questions and make too many assumptions about why one would choose a particular answer. The reason they have to ask so many questions and make so many assumptions is because the questions are too relative to current or localized issues. They also question the vote rather than the motive or belief behind the motive, and then assume the motive or belief. For example, the test may assume that a pro-choice vote means that the voter is OK with abortion under any circumstance, when the person may be against abortion under every circumstance, but more against government intervention in the matter. The reduced accuracy of each question requires more questions to be asked in order to get a more accurate average response.

This test is based on a theory that core beliefs shape motives, which then shape how one would vote on a particular issue. It bypasses the issues and even the motives and cuts to the core beliefs by asking rather than assuming the core belief. The core beliefs are less likely to change based on a persons mood or personal feelings about a current or localized issue.

These are the most significant beliefs effecting the most distinguishing aspects of a political alignment.

The belief in question 1 is the most distinguishing yet least discussed difference between a true Democrat and a true Republican. This doesn't assume that you are a member of either party, but that you favor the values which the party name should represent. In rare cases one might choose the party that represents the opposite of what they believe is ideal because they think that party may know the best way to move the real closer to the ideal. A person may believe that the majority doesn't know what's best for themselves and yet believe that it's better to educate the majority than to trust an educated minority.

The belief in question 2 is the most distinguishing difference between conservative and liberal on social issues. Social issues are based on what most people feel is the ideal rather than the real. If one believes that the ideal social policy has been learned and forgotten, they will tend to conservatively oppose change in the direction of unexplored policies. Liberals, by definition, are more willing to try the unexplored. One may vote the opposite of what they believe in this case also. For example, a person may believe that the best lessons have yet to be learned while believing that it's not possible to learn them without revisiting lessons of the past.

The belief in question 3 is the most distinguishing difference between a conservative and liberal on economic issues. Unlike social issues, economic issues are based on what most people feel is realistic. People tend to think of economics as mathematical and timeless. More emphasis is on finding the mathematical formula that is most compatible with the laws of nature than the ideals of humanity. The base of most of these formulas are either competitive or collaborative. Where most people are divided is in there belief in the best way to facilitate progress, either through competition or collaboration. As in the other questions, one may vote opposite of what they believe here as well. For example, a competitive person may believe that competition causes more problems than it solves, and yet condone competition for personal gain over the interest of the majority. They may vote against these beliefs based on their own willingness to collaborate or compete. This would more likely be the case if the person believes that the majority is not worthy of what the majority wants or needs.

This test does not assume how you would vote in any particular issue, but does give a good indication of what will be the most determining factor in any particular vote. If you did vote the opposite, it may be an indication that you are either in denial of where you really stand, or that your ideal expectations are not compatible with your realistic expectations.

This doesnt reflect my general position very well. I am too much of a flip-flopper so answering these general questions depends on too much sentiment at the moment with each of 3 carrying too much weight. On the other hand (see I told you I was a flip-flopper) I can look at the scale and tell you where I stand.

I'm a 1.5

The analysis is not a bidirectional scale. It's a binary combination. Which means 1.5 is not the difference between 1 & 2. If 1.5 were the difference between 1 & 2 it would mean that you were not sure about question #1 and question #3. But the binary analysis shows that questions #1 & #2 are uncertain.

Which question are you most indecisive about?

Im indecisive about 2 and 3 which I think gives me a swing of
six points.

Don't look at the results as a 1-dimensional strait line with 8 increments along the line, but instead a 3-dimensional cube with 8 extreme points and no middle.

The binary combination that the test yields determines which corner of the cube you are closest to. There is no 6 point difference. The numbers are not used as quantities as much as they are used as combinations in the same way letter combinations are used to spell a word. The point (quantitative) values are meaningless other than determining which one of the 8 directions the binary combination points to.

Most people like the strait line model because they like to know were they stand in reference to the middle. In this test, there is no middle. A result of 4 or 5 indicates corner #4 or corner #5.

By not answering 2 of the three questions, the test only shows which half of the cube you are on without showing which of the four corners of that half you are closest to, if that makes any sense.

According to the one question you've answered, you are of a Republican mindset. But that doesn't mean you are a true Republican. There are Democrats who believe that the majority of the population doesn't know what's best for themselves, but that it's better for the majority to make their own mistakes than a minority to make mistakes that effect the majority. There are also Democrats who believe that the solution for a foolish majority is to better educate them instead of having an elite minority to make decisions for them.

As for the other two questions, maybe I can help you decide by rephrasing the questions.

Question #2: Do you think that changing times require new rules and morals to match the new dynamics, or that things never really change enough to make the best old rules and morals obsolete?

Question #3: Do you think that competition does more good than harm, or more harm than good, even with a level playing field?

I guess I dont get it . The summary assigns a score to an ideological leaning based on a score

I would equivocate on both of these questions but I guess I would lean to change in Queston 2 and pro-competitions in 3. Those sentiments are very rough and not held with any conviciton

That makes you Economically Conservative and Socially Liberal Moderate Republican or Libertarian today at least until you change your mind.

The way it works is more like spelling than math. Your score is more of a combination than a point value. Your combination is 1-0-1 which is the same as BAB. Rather than make the list look like this:

AAA
AAB
ABA
ABB
BAA
BAB
BBA
BBB

...I just used binary to add up to an easy-to-remember single digit while looking up results. Each binary digit represents the answer to on of the questions. When you add up the points you are really just deciphering binary code:

000=0
001=1
010=2
011=3
100=4
101=5
110=6
111=7

There are 8 possible combinations, just like the 8 corners on a cube. This means that there is no middle and no end of the spectrum, only 8 equally extreme corners.

For #1, I believe A but, I believe the people need more education.

For #2, I believe B because I believe in progress and evolution, including the evolution of character. We may have to check out the past to learn, but the best solutions for us as a society, in my opinion, have yet to be learned.

#3 is the hardest question. For this one, I could go either way. So, that is why this test seems unsatisfactory. If I choose B, it makes me bordering on communistic (+1). If I choose A, I'm a libertarian (+5). I tend to choose A because I am trying to be realistic. People are naturally competitive. I know I am. But, I believe competition for resources is causing most of the problems we are having in the world.

I just realized my explanation was backwards in my last post. A=1 and B=0. You chose ABA. The results are still the same.

I don't think your a communist. My guess is that you are a true socialist. Socialism is the fine line between capitalism and communism. Communism was never meant to be an ideal, but rather a way to socialism, which is ideal.

Socialism also includes competition, but not for the basic needs. In socialism the basic needs are provided by the government. Those who want more than the basic needs are free to earn and complete for what is left, assuming there is anything left after basic needs are provided for all.

Question #3 is no doubt the hardest for everyone. We can barely imagine a world where competition is not the law of the land. My wife rephrased question #3 to ask if you believe that collaboration has more potential to do good than competition. When it's put that way, I believe most of us would choose collaboration. This is a case where our ideals are not compatible with what we believe is realistic. Most of us think collaboration is better, but less likely to happen in reality.

The only thing you and I differ on is Question #1. I think most people know what's best for themselves, relative to themselves. Relative to society as a whole, know one person knows what's best for all. Either way, I think you and I agree that education for all is the solution. An educated majority democracy is better than an authoritarian republic no matter how smart the minority of rulers are.

What is needed is a system for balancing competition and collaboration to
achieve integrated Persons in integrated Communities in integrated social systems.

Bill, I can appreciate your model, as an excellent application of a non-parametric
approach to moddel building with major dependence on mathematics and Logic.
I generally prefer a Multi-variate statistical approach

To continue, please bear with me as this gets wordy.

Modeling is a way of making Explicit, what is going on. The Situation we are in
invokes the interaction of three models:

* Actual operations of Goverment and Culture as described and assessed by
the Ecologically oriented Sciences and Arts

* The Individual Person's perception and conception of what is going on

* The Perception and Conception of most powerful leaders of what is going on.

A Multi-variate, statistical approach seeks a comprehensive, reliable and valid
data base representing a particular level of the Social System (USA/National):
and using a multivariate statistical methodology, factor analysis the matrix of correlations between all combinations of variables in the Model. This calculation defines how many relatively indepent Factors are required to account for
the predictive power of the model. The Factors are listed in decending order of
power-to-predict and defined by a selected sub-set of items in the data base.
The user names the Factors (assigns a concept) that is semanically or logically
infered from aggregating the sub-sets of items.
In Multi-variate Models, Factors consist of a combination of linear variables,
combined into a linear distribution called axis which locates itself at whatever position through the sphere called factor space, as possible away from anyother
defined axis (most un-correlated) with the other factors found to be predictive.
I'll pick this up in my next post.

Bill, we seem to agree on the importance of modeling and being aware of
what conceptual models are being employed, though we might come with different models. Conceptual model building offers a good strategy for developing common understanding of what is going on and for the major political parties to convey
how they are alike and how they are different. Discussions on CGCS don't
generally indicate much understanding of political parties in general or specifically
what the purpose and goals are of the Democratic Party.
I believe the Democratic Party exist to:

** Promote Constitutional Democracy as a form of goverment and as a
way of life

** Recruit, elect and evaluate Democratic candidates

** Transform political slogans into proposed programs, through:

* Needs Assessment
*Program Development
*Program Evaluation

I would agree with these as the goals of an ideal Democratic party. But I would say the most basic ideal is majority rule. If the majority doesn't know what's best for itself, the ideal democratic solution is to educate the majority rather than think for the majority.

The most basic Republican ideal is to make sure that our most competent people have the most say. This requires ways to compensate if the majority doesn't know what's best for themselves. The ideal republican solution is to maintain power to override the majority.

I think both parties were founded on good will that was a counterbalance to the other's good will. Both have strayed from what they were founded on and have put more emphasis on gaining power by any means.

I think the, "Gaining power by any means" we see so prevalent today is more
a matter of cultural regression which so often interrupts society's positive emergent trends, whenever the leadership becomes more authortarian. Personally
I prefer to think of our system as the democratically regulated Capitalism of a
Constitutional Democracy which guarantees that each and every human being
coming under its protection is of equal value. I'm not will to grant "more competency" to self-proclaimed Republicans.

Yes, this is a top-down corrosive force that's hard to overcome. Fighting fire with fire is only making the fire bigger.

This clouds the political alignment of individual citizens in such a way that desperation hinders the innovation in liberalism and the conservation in conservatism.

I once took a leadership test that determined primary and secondary styles. The secondary style is used when the primary style fails. Similarly, a test could be made to determine primary and secondary political alignment. I'll bet such a test would yield more commonality in the secondary style. But I'd hate to see what that style was. It would probably be more self-destructive than any of the primary political styles.

Yes. Dogmatism comes to mind.