+.5 Moral Order, -8. Moral Rules.
"Ultra-Capitalism", half a point away from "Ultra-Liberalism". Both are being defined as "Minarchism".
Huh. Go figure.
The answer choices were far from adequate. Worse, if you opened up the "hints", the new definitions varied somewhat from the original definitions, so I don't know how accurate this is as a depiction of myself.
But more importantly: The results read like a fiscal/economic chart, not a moral chart. I'm thinking the writer doesn't quite grasp the difference between "morals" and "duties", or "laws", or social-contracts".
I was in the same neighborhood. I assume they are using the traditional definition of Liberalism (pro-liberty), not the current definition (socialist / statist).
Huh. Either the labels don't mean what I think they mean, or the questions don't mean what I think they mean, or I'm not who I think I am.
I took it twice, with somewhat, shall I say, more conservative answers the second time. It made little difference on the chart.
I'm rated in the lower right edge of "Capital democratism".
Tip-off: I don't particularly feel an affinity with any of the labels anywhere on the chart, and I felt that many of the answers offered didn't really show a spectrum on a given issue.
-1 Order, -8 Rules....I saw "Ultra-Liberalism" and my eye started to twitch. Given how these folks define their terms, however, they're pretty much correct. Fancy me being an ultra-liberal. I should call Soros and tell him the good news.
1.5 Moral Order and -6 Moral Rules. Conservative NeoLiberalism? On some of the questions I was torn between 2 answers so I took the test again and changed them. And got a 1.5 Moral Order and -4 Moral Rules. Capital Republicanism.
Meh. It defined me as a Conservative NeoLiberal, but I also left half the answers as "none of the above", and it said that only 1% of the test takers were more conservative than I am.
I'd say..... well, I don't have to say anything, those results say all that needs to be said.
I resolutely ignored "none of the above," and the best (for given values of best, there were some howlers in there) put me at -0.5 on Moral Order and -6.5 on Moral Rules. How the heck I didn't get -8 on Moral Rules I'll never know.
Whenever I take one of these, I'm always looking for and thinking about the "codewords" embedded in it that are an artifact of the political persuasion of the author of the test.
When I read the question and the possible answers, my first instinct is "OK, this answer best fits my philosophy" immediately followed by: "but is that what they actually MEANT by that answer".
This one actually seems to have been pretty balanced in that respect at least.
I agree that this test has nothing to do with morality, but rather political/economic principles. Unless, of course, they're trying to say that it's immoral to be in some particular category, but they don't define which.
The most disturbing thing to me is that my results said 64% of the respondents are more socialist than me. I hope that's just an artifact of this not being a random sample.
BTW: I only answered "none of the above" to one question. Most of them had an answer that was reasonably close to my feelings on the matter, even if I'm still not real sure that the answer meant the same thing to the author of the questions as they did to me.
As far as I can tell, this test is yanked directly from the ass of its creator, without basis on any recognizable theory of ethics or morals other than George Lakoff's fatuous bonfire of the strawmen.
Geek wins the kewpie doll! Have you read Lakoff's book? I think I may have to pick up a copy. From what little I've read about it, it apears that he's on to something, but he applies it far too broadly.
It's funny that most of the people here seem to be pretty much the same, regardless of how goofy the questions were worded (I was .5 moral order, -7 moral rules).
It's funny though how 'capitalism' is put on the other side of Liberalism, which is.... wrong. In fact, capitalism IS liberal. You want to buy product X? You want to trade your sexual experience for cash? You want to give cash for a substance that is frowned upon by polite society and then ingest it so that you can have hallucinations of Betty White slaying dragons? That's all based on capitalism.
The bastards accused me of voting for John McCain.
Well, maybe, were I a US citizen; but they do not include a category "John McCain, holding your nose tightly".
Just on the border between Capital Republicanism and Conservative NeoLiberalism. There a few other chaps in the UK like that. We stand, each on a high hill, and wave to each other from 40 miles off.
If you check the other categories, he shows where he puts the presidents going back to Carter. Reagan was Conservative NeoLiberal and I'm proud to say that my spot was in the identical space. Other than that, not enought choices. Answering none of the above did not seem to affect it much differently.
The inventor is French and admits that his world view probably biases the quiz. I think that the quiz is off though, in the aggregate because its not random.
Huh??? ... I ended up being -0.5 on moral order and -5 on moral rules ... and my 'system' was liberalism and my 'ideology' was capital democratism, progressiver neoliberalism AND the killer is that my party is DEMOCRATIC !!!!!!!!
The thing I hate about tests like this is that they patently ignore the base principles of federalism.
I don't think we should have ANY national level welfare. I do however thing state and local governments can and should have safety nets (not hammocks, but safety nets) as the local societies see fit for their areas. Get too many safety nets that get used as hammocks and you run into the problem of people moving there to lay about as it were.
Except for Reagan being my president (I would have gone with Coolidge) I'm not surprised by any of the rest. Though I guess they mean classical liberal.
Jon Haidt's theory of moral reasoning makes so much more sense than Lakoff's and while he admits to being liberal, Haidt really does take the differences in how conservatives and libertarians make moral decisions seriously.
On the other hand, Lakoff comes up with a nice theory - and then spends all of his time talking about how his theory proves conservatives are evil / brain-damaged / whatever, just better at 'framing' than liberals.
For me, -1 Moral Order, -3.5 Moral Rules - which actually is not too far off from what I consider to be my basic political/philosophical base. However, he was way, way off on the elections - no chance I would ever vote for Slick Willie Clintoon for any public office!
The devisor of this little deal has his head lodged somewhat up his fundament when it comes to who's what in American political life, that's obvious...
When the chart shows "Progressivism" right next to "Libertarian Capitalism" you know that freedom isn't included in the calculations.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/10/heres-interesting-test.html (39 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Libertarian Socialism? WTF?
+.5 Moral Order, -8. Moral Rules.
"Ultra-Capitalism", half a point away from "Ultra-Liberalism". Both are being defined as "Minarchism".
Huh. Go figure.
The answer choices were far from adequate. Worse, if you opened up the "hints", the new definitions varied somewhat from the original definitions, so I don't know how accurate this is as a depiction of myself.
But more importantly: The results read like a fiscal/economic chart, not a moral chart. I'm thinking the writer doesn't quite grasp the difference between "morals" and "duties", or "laws", or social-contracts".
Then again, maybe I don't either.
I was in the same neighborhood. I assume they are using the traditional definition of Liberalism (pro-liberty), not the current definition (socialist / statist).
+1,-7.5, "Ultra-capitalism" Which is odd, because as a self defined anarchist, I'd have put myself over in "Libertarian Capitalism". *shrug*
Though it did correctly pick my voting choices for the '04 and '08 elections. (Badnarik and Paul) So... maybe it's just that his labels are wierd.
0 Moral Order, -7 Moral Rules
Capitalism! Woooooo!!!
Huh. Either the labels don't mean what I think they mean, or the questions don't mean what I think they mean, or I'm not who I think I am.
I took it twice, with somewhat, shall I say, more conservative answers the second time. It made little difference on the chart.
I'm rated in the lower right edge of "Capital democratism".
Tip-off: I don't particularly feel an affinity with any of the labels anywhere on the chart, and I felt that many of the answers offered didn't really show a spectrum on a given issue.
Meh.
-1 Order, -8 Rules....I saw "Ultra-Liberalism" and my eye started to twitch. Given how these folks define their terms, however, they're pretty much correct. Fancy me being an ultra-liberal. I should call Soros and tell him the good news.
I got -0.5 on "moral order" and -6.5 on "moral rules", which apparently indicates "progressive neoliberalism".
1.5 Moral Order and -6 Moral Rules. Conservative NeoLiberalism? On some of the questions I was torn between 2 answers so I took the test again and changed them. And got a 1.5 Moral Order and -4 Moral Rules. Capital Republicanism.
What was your result, Kevin? (If I missed it, I'm still pre-coffee.)
I didn't give them. That's why I said the test was "interesting," not "good."
It placed me at -0.5 on the Moral Rules scale and 0.0 on the Moral Order scale.
-2.5 MO x -6 MR
Apparently Bill Clinton lives in the area but it also recommended Michael Badnarik and Ron P@ul.
What does it mean when Jimmy Carter is the only modern president to be positive on "Moral Rules?"
Meh. It defined me as a Conservative NeoLiberal, but I also left half the answers as "none of the above", and it said that only 1% of the test takers were more conservative than I am.
I'd say..... well, I don't have to say anything, those results say all that needs to be said.
I resolutely ignored "none of the above," and the best (for given values of best, there were some howlers in there) put me at -0.5 on Moral Order and -6.5 on Moral Rules. How the heck I didn't get -8 on Moral Rules I'll never know.
Whenever I take one of these, I'm always looking for and thinking about the "codewords" embedded in it that are an artifact of the political persuasion of the author of the test.
When I read the question and the possible answers, my first instinct is "OK, this answer best fits my philosophy" immediately followed by: "but is that what they actually MEANT by that answer".
This one actually seems to have been pretty balanced in that respect at least.
I agree that this test has nothing to do with morality, but rather political/economic principles. Unless, of course, they're trying to say that it's immoral to be in some particular category, but they don't define which.
The most disturbing thing to me is that my results said 64% of the respondents are more socialist than me. I hope that's just an artifact of this not being a random sample.
BTW: I only answered "none of the above" to one question. Most of them had an answer that was reasonably close to my feelings on the matter, even if I'm still not real sure that the answer meant the same thing to the author of the questions as they did to me.
As far as I can tell, this test is yanked directly from the ass of its creator, without basis on any recognizable theory of ethics or morals other than George Lakoff's fatuous bonfire of the strawmen.
Geek wins the kewpie doll! Have you read Lakoff's book? I think I may have to pick up a copy. From what little I've read about it, it apears that he's on to something, but he applies it far too broadly.
Apparently I'm a conservative neoliberal/ultra capitalist. I had a problem with most of the choices, though.
It's funny that most of the people here seem to be pretty much the same, regardless of how goofy the questions were worded (I was .5 moral order, -7 moral rules).
It's funny though how 'capitalism' is put on the other side of Liberalism, which is.... wrong. In fact, capitalism IS liberal. You want to buy product X? You want to trade your sexual experience for cash? You want to give cash for a substance that is frowned upon by polite society and then ingest it so that you can have hallucinations of Betty White slaying dragons? That's all based on capitalism.
The bastards accused me of voting for John McCain.
Well, maybe, were I a US citizen; but they do not include a category "John McCain, holding your nose tightly".
Just on the border between Capital Republicanism and Conservative NeoLiberalism. There a few other chaps in the UK like that. We stand, each on a high hill, and wave to each other from 40 miles off.
This will confuse those in the Healthcare comments, for I score -3,-3.5
HA! I'm "progressive neoliberal".
And I'm Shirley Temple Black.
If you check the other categories, he shows where he puts the presidents going back to Carter. Reagan was Conservative NeoLiberal and I'm proud to say that my spot was in the identical space. Other than that, not enought choices. Answering none of the above did not seem to affect it much differently.
The inventor is French and admits that his world view probably biases the quiz. I think that the quiz is off though, in the aggregate because its not random.
Huh??? ... I ended up being -0.5 on moral order and -5 on moral rules ... and my 'system' was liberalism and my 'ideology' was capital democratism, progressiver neoliberalism AND the killer is that my party is DEMOCRATIC !!!!!!!!
Your scored 1.5 on Moral Order and -6 on Moral rules - Conservative NeoLiberalism, whatever that is.
The thing I hate about tests like this is that they patently ignore the base principles of federalism.
I don't think we should have ANY national level welfare. I do however thing state and local governments can and should have safety nets (not hammocks, but safety nets) as the local societies see fit for their areas. Get too many safety nets that get used as hammocks and you run into the problem of people moving there to lay about as it were.
One size does NOT fit all.
Conservative neoliberalism... only Ragin Dave and his 1% rank more conservative. And I DID NOT vote for McCain.
I will say though, for all it's shortcomings, this type of ranking system would be better than the one Netflix uses.
Your scored -0.5 on Moral Order and -7 on Moral Rules.
The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):
System: Liberalism Ideology: Progressive NeoLiberalism, Ultra Liberalism Party: No match. Presidents: Ronald Reagan 04' Election: Michael Badnarik 08' Election: Ron Paul
Except for Reagan being my president (I would have gone with Coolidge) I'm not surprised by any of the rest. Though I guess they mean classical liberal.
Jon Haidt's theory of moral reasoning makes so much more sense than Lakoff's and while he admits to being liberal, Haidt really does take the differences in how conservatives and libertarians make moral decisions seriously.
On the other hand, Lakoff comes up with a nice theory - and then spends all of his time talking about how his theory proves conservatives are evil / brain-damaged / whatever, just better at 'framing' than liberals.
Sadly, Professor Haidt doesn't have a handy-dandy quiz.
Actually, he does:
http://www.yourmorals.org/
He does, however - correctly - put Thomas Sowell in opposition to George Lakoff.
http://www.civilpolitics.org/civpol-resources.html
His TED lecture is good, too - especially when he takes his fellow liberals to task for stereotyping...
Conservative Neoliberalism. 4.5 on moral order and -6.0 on moral rules.
For me, -1 Moral Order, -3.5 Moral Rules - which actually is not too far off from what I consider to be my basic political/philosophical base. However, he was way, way off on the elections - no chance I would ever vote for Slick Willie Clintoon for any public office!
The devisor of this little deal has his head lodged somewhat up his fundament when it comes to who's what in American political life, that's obvious...
1.5 by -7.5. Ultra-Capitalism. I suppose that's a fair middling match for a Randian Anarcho-capitalist.
I had never even heard of a Progressive NeoLiberalist until the test told me I was one.
When the chart shows "Progressivism" right next to "Libertarian Capitalism" you know that freedom isn't included in the calculations.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>