23 replies to this topic

[rashlan]

political compass
compass

Edited by rashlan, 04 May 2010 - 09:39 PM.

[rashlan]

political compass
compass

[hotamali]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[.fonclea.]

[rwac]

here goes.

Attached Files

•  politicalcompass.png   2.73KB   2 downloads

[forever freedom]

Mine:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Sillewater]

Mine:
 pcgraphpng.php.png   2.72KB   3 downloads

[gregandbeaker]

 pcgraphpng.php.png   2.74KB   0 downloads

[EmbraceUnity]

Looks about right.

Attached Files

•  pcgraphpng.png   2.73KB   4 downloads

Edited by progressive, 09 June 2010 - 08:43 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13



No surprise to me, but I'm sure Alex will cry foul at my readout.

[Kutta]

Even if it's so far only a small number of data points, I predict that it'll mostly boil down to Libertarian Tranhsumanism vs. Democractic Transhumanism and the authoriatarian half will be left untouched.

I'm:

Economic Left/Right: 2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

I'd interpret it as a pronounced but for from absolute libertarianism. I agree with the results.

[Luna]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54



cool but I don't know what it even means at all

[chris w]

Even if it's so far only a small number of data points, I predict that it'll mostly boil down to Libertarian Tranhsumanism vs. Democractic Transhumanism and the authoriatarian half will be left untouched.

You're probably right, but then again there was this thing decade ago with Neo - Nazi Transhumanists, they may crawl out of their shit swamp from time to time, or some milder nationalists.


Me :
Economy : - 6.50
Social : - 5.64, turns out I'm around Dalai Lama, could've been worse.


Hey, has anybody else had second thoughts about "Parents with serious inheritable diseases should not be allowed to reproduce" ? I finally voted "disagree", but I think it was more emotional in the end than rational, no option was so obviously right to me here. What were your reasons for the vote with this, however you voted ?



Valkyrie Ice :

No surprise to me, but I'm sure Alex will cry foul at my readout.

Ya, Alex himself would probably crack the code and add some questions so that he could end up with +11 in economy

Edited by chris w, 13 June 2010 - 12:19 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Even though I'm easily annoyed by libertarian types, supposedly my views are representative of someone in the right/libertarian quadrant. I'm inclined to believe that this test is close to useless, and makes a mockery of more serious attempts to determine individual political orientation. Since I'm not a political agnostic, though, I'm in need of no such help.

[Rational Madman]

Even though I'm easily annoyed by libertarian types, supposedly my views are representative of someone in the right/libertarian quadrant. I'm inclined to believe that this test is close to useless, and makes a mockery of more serious attempts to determine individual political orientation. Since I'm not a political agnostic, though, I'm in need of no such help.

I would, however, be interested to know if anyone that took the test was placed anywhere near fascist territory, because I've always wanted to accurately call someone a fascist. Or, to see if a sound mind and fascism are compatible. Surely they aren't all hiding on the white supremacist websites?

[chris w]

Or, to see if a sound mind and fascism are compatible. Surely they aren't all hiding on the white supremacist websites?

Actually I've been pondering that from time to time, and lean to think that indeed such a figure is hipoteticaly possible. I have never yet met one ( and don't look forward to ), but can think of a model case.

Much here depends on the grace of our later birth and knowledge of the apparent empirical consequences in XXth century - but examples of Pound, Yeast and Italian Futurists perhaps show that, in certain circumstances, a sound, creative and sensitive mind may find at least some aspects of Fascism alluring. Think of an individual on one hand influenced and with a particular interpretation of some of the writings of Plato, Rousseau, Carlyle, Hegel, Nietzsche, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Spencer and on the other with anti PC tenets of today's sociobiology and evolutionary psychology ( Bell Curve learned by heart ), contemptous towards egalitarian liberal democracy and its shortcomings and in fact the whole of Enlightment's emancipatory project, plus some inclination towards Romanticism and you might in fact end with an intelectually well equipped fascist, no matter how wrong he is in the real world. A character like the one played by Billy Zane in The Believer comes to mind.
It's also important that racial supremacism is not an inherently essential element of this doctrine - Italian fascists ideologically were much indifferent towards the issue of race ( no more than it was convenient in order to justify imperialist colonialism ) with a not-insignificant number of party members of Jewish origin and Italy enacted racial discrimantory regulations ( that ommited the said members and their families ) just before the war, much due to pressure from the German ally.

Edited by chris w, 13 June 2010 - 04:17 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Or, to see if a sound mind and fascism are compatible. Surely they aren't all hiding on the white supremacist websites?

Actually I've been pondering that from time to time, and lean to think that indeed such a figure is hipoteticaly possible. I have never yet met one ( and don't look forward to ), but can think of a model case.

Much here depends on the grace of our later birth and knowledge of the apparent empirical consequences in XXth century - but examples of Pound, Yeast and Italian Futurists perhaps show that, in certain circumstances, a sound, creative and sensitive mind may find at least some aspects of Fascism alluring. Think of an individual on one hand influenced and with a particular interpretation of some of the writings of Plato, Rousseau, Carlyle, Hegel, Nietzsche, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Spencer and on the other with anti PC tenets of today's sociobiology and evolutionary psychology ( Bell Curve learned by heart ), contemptous towards egalitarian liberal democracy and its shortcomings and in fact the whole of Enlightment's emancipatory project, plus some inclination towards Romanticism and you might in fact end with an intelectually well equipped fascist, no matter how wrong he is in the real world. A character like the one played by Billy Zane in The Believer comes to mind.
It's also important that racial supremacism is not an inherently essential element of this doctrine - Italian fascists ideologically were much indifferent towards the issue of race ( no more than it was convenient in order to justify imperialist colonialism ) with a not-insignificant number of party members of Jewish origin and Italy enacted racial discrimantory regulations ( that ommited the said members and their families ) just before the war, much due to pressure from the German ally.

I agree that it's indeed possible with a lethal cocktail of influences that you listed, but with with combination of empirical evidence, and the absence of circumstances sufficient to give rise to the hysterical fears that cultivated and sustained fascism in the aftermath of the First World War, I find it difficult to accept that an educated individual of sound mind could consider the implementation of a fascist system to be a rational response---and thus, superior to competing alternatives---to policy dilemmas that a peaceful, affluent, and advanced society might face.

As for the racial supremacism tie---I was half-joking

Edited by Rol82, 13 June 2010 - 05:08 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Speaking from personal conversations with many libertarian and democratic transhumanists whom I won't name, there is a distinct longing for eugenic solutions, and indeed not just liberal eugenics, but outright sterilization schemes. I personally have some trouble with this issue as well, because we are smart enough to destroy ourselves, but not smart enough to recognize the creative solutions to problems that are right in front of our faces. Also, I am not so optimistic that significant cognition enhancement via gene therapy or nootropics will arrive soon.

Thus, although I am very averse to authoritarianism, I cannot deny that there is an allure in this domain. The movie Idiocracy implies the need for it, so it even has a significant appeal in mainstream culture. Julian Huxley, one of the founders of transhumanism, was an outspoken advocate of eugenics. He might be more interested in pumping out lots of geniuses than sterilizing lots of morons, but the thought processes are similar. Luckily, though, I can't think of any contemporary thinkers of any merit who advocate killing off those who fail to meet some arbitrary metric.

Secondly, there are also a bunch of people, both transhumanist and non-transhumanist, who have quite critical and sensitive minds and yet still think that "population control" is a solution to problems. Including people on ImmInst. One of the recent guests on the Daily Show, Spencer Wells, was clearly intelligent and was actually making all the standard Paleo Diet arguments, but at the end of the interview he mentioned a need to keep population levels down. With perfect comic timing, Jon Stewart immediately took out a pencil, put it down to a piece of paper, and asked "ok, who should we eliminate first?"

Now, a more sensible person who is trying to keep global population levels down would understand that the Earth could support hundreds of billions of people if we used our resources efficiently. True, we don't seem to be making tons of progress with alternative energy, cultured meat, and so on... though I am optimistic. Yet, even if one thinks population growth urgently needs to be slowed, by far the most effective way to do this is promoting development of the Third World. No authoritarianism is required, just humanitarianism. Yet for some reason, the topic often seems to come back to population control.

There is a final issue, and it is regarding the connection between fertility rates and the distribution of wealth. Poor people have more babies, and rich people have less. This concentrates wealth and creates lots of suffering. I believe it is downright immoral for poor people who cannot even take care of themselves to knowingly create babies. Yet they do, by the millions. Furthermore, I basically believe it is a moral duty for those with a good amount of resources to raise lots of children, either through procreation or adoption. Though obviously procreation in that case could still be immoral if you are likely to pass on a terrible illness, etc.

I don't think government necessarily has a role, except insofar as to promote humanitarianism and science. Though I could see reasons why a sort of libertarian paternalist approach to the issue might be called for.

Edited by progressive, 13 June 2010 - 06:00 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62

[Rational Madman]

Speaking from personal conversations with many libertarian and democratic transhumanists whom I won't name, there is a distinct longing for eugenic solutions, and indeed not just liberal eugenics, but outright sterilization schemes. I personally have some trouble with this issue as well, because we are smart enough to destroy ourselves, but not smart enough to recognize the creative solutions to problems that are right in front of our faces. Also, I am not so optimistic that significant cognition enhancement via gene therapy or nootropics will arrive soon.

Thus, although I am very averse to authoritarianism, I cannot deny that there is an allure in this domain. The movie Idiocracy implies the need for it, so it even has a significant appeal in mainstream culture. Julian Huxley, one of the founders of transhumanism, was an outspoken advocate of eugenics. He might be more interested in pumping out lots of geniuses than sterilizing lots of morons, but the thought processes are similar. Luckily, though, I can't think of any contemporary thinkers of any merit who advocate killing off those who fail to meet some arbitrary metric.

Secondly, there are also a bunch of people, both transhumanist and non-transhumanist, who have quite critical and sensitive minds and yet still think that "population control" is a solution to problems. Including people on ImmInst. One of the recent guests on the Daily Show, Spencer Wells, was clearly intelligent and was actually making all the standard Paleo Diet arguments, but at the end of the interview he mentioned a need to keep population levels down. With perfect comic timing, Jon Stewart immediately took out a pencil, put it down to a piece of paper, and asked "ok, who should we eliminate first?"

Now, a more sensible person who is trying to keep global population levels down would understand that the Earth could support hundreds of billions of people if we used our resources efficiently. True, we don't seem to be making tons of progress with alternative energy, cultured meat, and so on... though I am optimistic. Yet, even if one thinks population growth urgently needs to be slowed, by far the most effective way to do this is promoting development of the Third World. No authoritarianism is required, just humanitarianism. Yet for some reason, the topic often seems to come back to population control.

There is a final issue, and it is regarding the connection between fertility rates and the distribution of wealth. Poor people have more babies, and rich people have less. This concentrates wealth and creates lots of suffering. I believe it is downright immoral for poor people who cannot even take care of themselves to knowingly create babies. Yet they do, by the millions. Furthermore, I basically believe it is a moral duty for those with a good amount of resources to raise lots of children, either through procreation or adoption. Though obviously procreation in that case could still be immoral if you are likely to pass on a terrible illness, etc.

I don't think government necessarily has a role, except insofar as to promote humanitarianism and science. Though I could see reasons why a sort of libertarian paternalist approach to the issue might be called for.

I can understand the low tolerance for the less enlightened or gifted, but assuming that a program of eugenics was implemented, what would be the methodology for quantifying intelligence or individual worth? What's more, what evidence do we have that a such a society would be superior? For sustainability, I believe an unequal distribution of intelligence is required, since the highly intelligent are not always suited for the majority of labor intensive occupations required for societal sustenance. Nor would they find these occupations to be palatable. This is just one technical problem in addition to multiple confounding factors that make the implementation of such a utopian scheme undesirable and unconscionable.

As for the preference for fascism, I still think dreadful societal conditions are requisite, and have a pernicious influence on the preferences of the more intelligent. But again, in the absence of these necessary conditions, I find it difficult to believe that a thoughtful analysis will lead to the embrace of a fascist system---given its repeated failure and the correlates of such a choice.

Edited by Rol82, 16 June 2010 - 09:14 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

I can understand the low tolerance for the less enlightened or gifted, but assuming that a program of eugenics was implemented, what would be the methodology for quantifying intelligence or individual worth?

You are absolutely right to point out the non-objective nature of most forms of intelligence and personality testing. Yet, I do think they are reasonably good at identifying those who are extremely deficient in a particular area. Personally, my main concerns aren't all related to intelligence, but also the capacity for empathy, health, and so on.

What's more, what evidence do we have that a such a society would be superior?

I don't think there is any direct evidence of such a program producing measurable results, but there doesn't seem to be a reason why it wouldn't be able to achieve good results in theory. Just as reduced transaction costs, social capital, and positive externalities aid society in numerous ways, so does health, intelligence, and empathy. It seems to me the main issue here is the unintended consequences, abuse of power, and so on. The people who would craft these policies would not be the smartest and noblest among us, but the most opportunistic and narcissistic. This is why it should be avoided and the goals sought via other mechanisms. This is the purview of run-of-the-mill transhumanism.

For sustainability, I believe an unequal distribution of intelligence is required, since the highly intelligent are not always suited for the majority of labor intensive occupations required for societal sustenance. Nor would they find these occupations to be palatable.

This is an interesting hypothesis, and it reminds me of Brave New World, but I don't think it is true. Intelligent people do all sorts of menial things all the time, and often they are even more focused at it. Indeed, sometimes a little too focused and borderline obsessive. I know I personally have a thing where I always need to put things back where I found them. While it is a sensible rule of thumb, for me it is a minor compulsion that is done with little rationality behind it.

Furthermore, it isn't really intelligence per se that makes gifted people unsuited for normal work, but curiosity, nonconformism, anti-authoritarianism, and so on. These are related traits, but not always correlated. I know lots of incurious people with plenty of cognitive horsepower... indeed vast numbers of people fit this description. Nonconformism and anti-authoritarianism can be healthy, but the fact that these traits are disproportionately exhibited by gifted people has more to do with dysfunctional school systems than anything innate. Progressive education for gifted students might not produce the same anomic attitudes... and would likely spark curiosity among the aforementioned incurious types.

You are right that if more people were curious and so on that the current system wouldn't be able to function, but that is assuming that the current social system must remain fixed. With a more reflexive public, all our social forms would change. We would be more participatory citizens, more conscious consumers, and would likely find ways to gain more freedom in our work environments. Labor is indeed important, but mainly as a fuel for innovations which obsolete the need for it. (For instance, engineers need to eat, but farming isn't yet completely automated.)

Our current system is broken precisely because people have mixed up the means and the ends. Work is only a means. The end is happiness, freedom, and abundance.

As for the preference for fascism, I still think dreadful societal conditions are requisite, and have a pernicious influence on the preferences of the more intelligent. But again, in the absence of these necessary conditions, I find it difficult to believe that a thoughtful analysis will lead to the embrace of a fascist system---given its repeated failure and the correlates of such a choice.

Yes, I think your core argument here holds up under most circumstances, but I just meant to point out that fascism lurks just below the surface at all times. Even in the best of us.

Edited by progressive, 16 June 2010 - 10:09 AM.

[captainbeefheart]

http://grab.by/4Ynb there's mine, not much of a shock tbh

[Neurosail]

 pcgraphpng.png   2.72KB   7 downloads

Econmic Left/Right: 2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

Edited by Jimmy, 16 June 2010 - 07:00 PM.

[kurdishfella]

I hate these type of tests for anything. they are so VA-GUE (in my best french accent) . All politicians are just spinmeisters so regardless were your stance is your getting Fked. 

Edited by kurdishfella, 29 March 2021 - 11:06 AM.