C4SS Quiz: Find Your Philosophy
Posted by Mike Gogulski on May 11, 2010 in Odds & Ends • 75 commentsDear C4SS readers, supporters and friends,
I am very pleased to announce the release of the Center for a Stateless Society’s “Find Your Philosophy” quiz. The quiz was developed by C4SS Advisory Panel member Gary Chartier, and turned into (hopefully working) software by yours truly, Mike Gogulski.
There is certainly no shortage of quizzes of this sort. I’ve listed a few we found below, along with my own results (WARNING: Taking quizzes of this nature can be addictive and waste broad swathes of otherwise productive time.)
The Find Your Philosophy quiz currently consists of 106 questions which aim to measure your views along five different axes: Economic Leftist/Economic Rightist, Civil Libertarian/Civil Authoritarian, Socio-Cultural Liberal/Socio-Cultural Conservative, Anti-Militarist/Pro-Militarist and Anarchist/Statist.
The quiz is also a work in progress, so Gary and I both eagerly welcome feedback on all of its aspects, from size to layout to results presentation to question content. Please leave comments here if you have any; the quiz page itself will not accept them for technical reasons, and since this is “Version 1.0″, there will be similar posts like this one in the future.
Enough introduction! Hop on over and find your philosophy!
Some other quizzes:
The Politopia Quiz, by the Institute for Humane Studies — 15 questions leading to a Nolan Chart-style two-dimensional result. I wound up just south of Ayn Rand, in the northwest, fortunately not on top of her.
The PoliticalQuiz.net Political Philosophy Quiz — 24 questions leading to scoring on four scales. I ranked as a “Hardcore Libertarian”, and got to view a picture of Ron Paul and some other politicians for my trouble.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press’s Typology Test — 25 questions, several of which betray a sadly common sort of binary thinking. I scored as a “Liberal”, whatever that is.
Bryan Caplan’s Libertarian Purity Test — Offline at the time of this writing, but accessed via Google cache. 64 yes/no questions with shocking images of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand embedded within. Fortunately the Rothbard at bottom was there to settle my tummy. (Update: It’s back online. I scored 155 of 160, making me a “nearly perfect libertarian” in Caplan’s eyes. My “blind spot” is that I’m not an anarcho-capitalist.)
The Pace News Political Compass — 62 questions in six sections. I ranked as a strong libertarian and weak economic right-winger.
The 3rd Party Central Party Matchmaking Questions, “Upsetting the political machine since February 1996″ — 25 increase/decrease/maintain questions. I’m a 100% match for the US Libertarian Party (*chortle*).
The GoToQuiz.com Political Spectrum Quiz — 53 5-valued questions, with a 5-valued importance scale for each. I’m described in two dimensions as a “far right social libertarian”.
Alex “Brainpolice” Strekal’s Politics Test — 160 questions. I’m a radical libertarian, and it seems I’ve joined a dating site as well.
The Advocates for Self-Government’s World’s Smallest Political Quiz — 10 questions, a breath of fresh air after the last few. I’m a slightly lefty libertarian.
imunimaginative’s What Political Party Do Your Beliefs Put You In? — 24 questions. According to the results, I’ll be joining the Anarchism Party any day now.
Samuel Rutledge’s Political Ideology Quiz — 36 questions, scored on six axes. I’m 100% libertarian, 90% anarchist, and a mere 3% fascist.
Stephane Dubois’s Moral Politics Test — 16 questions scored on two axes. There’s some “progressive neoliberalism” lurking within me, apparently, as well as an affinity for the Libertarian Party.
Mr. Fergy’s What is Your Political Ideology? quiz — 24 questions scored on eight axes. I’m a “centrist” and “liberatarian”, by his lights.
Leonstein’s Political Ideologies Quiz — 78 questions, judged on 13(!) axes. I’m 92% anarcho-capitalist, 75% anarcho-syndicalist and 71% Trotskyist(!).
My results:
63% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
75% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
71% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
74% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
60% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
Comments regarding the questions:
"Expressing opposition to the policies of a society’s dominant institutions is disloyal and should be actively discouraged."
I think that disloyalty to society's dominant institutions should be actively encouraged.
"It is a good idea for a government in today’s world to maintain a very large military establishment in order to be ready to mount a defensive war at any time."
Does this mean it is morally good, or just a practical idea for those who want to maintain government? I put "disagree" because I think that a smaller, nimble military would be more effective at defending a nation, but of course the real purposes of the military are to expand the power of politicians and increase the profits of war profiteers.
"It is important to try to keep assumptions about the group or groups to which a person belongs from getting in the way of seeing the person in her or his particularity."
Don't most people pretend to believe this?
"It is sometimes morally acceptable to use force (perhaps, if not necessarily, up to and including forcible exile or execution) to compel someone to follow the dictates of a government she or he does not accept—just because they are the dictates of that government."
Maybe the language could be more neutral here. When you say "just because" it sounds like the reason is not very important.
"Parents should be free to decide whether the education their children receive is provided by government-approved schools."
I put "disagree" on this one. I think that choice in education should depend on the maturity of the child and the quality of the family, and I do not think that there should be "government-approved schools" because I think there should be no government.
"People who work at a large corporation or non-profit should be entitled to take it over if it is primarily supported by tax dollars or if it is wealthy because of markets skewed in its favor by government-granted privilege."
"Markets skewed in its favor by government-granted privilege" is kind of vague. I guess it means a privilege directly granted to the company like eminent domain or a geographical monopoly. I wouldn't say that a company is illegitimate because of corporate status or a business model dependent on interstate highways. But I checked "agree" for this one.
"The masses are inferior: all the improvements in their conditions which they simply take for granted they owe to the efforts of people who are clearly better than they are."
Not very neutral language. I'm sure some would agree with this though.
"Where it occurs, the large-scale ownership of land reflects military and political effort—it is initiated and maintained by force."
I assumed that "large-scale ownership of land" meant "ownership of vast tracts of land" not "ownership of land by large numbers of people" and checked "agree".
I usually checked "strongly" agree or disagree based on either the relative importance of a question or how much the issue aroused my ire. Maybe I would have got more accurate results if I thought of the answers differently.
The wording of the quiz is rather left oriented, it really disturbed me. I will take it again and point out the exact questions if you wish.
Darian, Marquise, and everyone else–please feel free to suggest rewordings and new questions. This is v1.0 and we're trying to refine the quiz; your proposals can definitely make a difference as we work to improve our product.
Ok Gary, will do that
Ok…
I think you need to define what you mean by the designators (economic leftist vs. rightist) these are in some ways ambiguous terms, and a guideline of what c4ss really means by them would be helpful in determining the results for the person taking the poll. This would help identify potential confusions in the questions….
I will have to go through the questions again to get the exact ones I have an issue with, mainly because the options to agree or disagree really do not apply in MY opinion, though it may apply to others…
83% Economic Leftist
100% Anarchist
100% Anti-Militarist
92% Socio-Cultural Liberal
97% Civil Libertarian
…though this result was during development some weeks back, and before question 106 was added in.
Interesting approach. Here's what I got:
93% Economic Leftist
75% Anarchist
96% Anti-Militarist
63% Socio-Cultural Liberal
80% Civil Libertarian
The 4th score isn't as much of a surprise as some would think. For example, on #74 my reaction each part was "yeah, pretty much" on the first & "HELL NO!!" the other 2. That kids should listen to their parents isn't controversial to me, so I put disagree instead of strongly. As for the "government-approved schools" one cited above, I kinda subconsciously read "or not" after "whether".
Mike, could you consider adding elements on the text beside the radio buttons, so we can click the text rather than having to hit the radio button dead-on?
Sigh. That should say "could you consider adding LABEL elements on the text beside the radio buttons".
@Cheesechoker: Good thought. I'll make that happen in the next release.
56% Anarchist – Guess I'm just not gung-ho! enough about the answers to vague questions…
Shawn, your deviationism will be noted in your permanent file
Question 67:
>Should of my children marry a person from a different ethnic group, I would be uncomfortable.
I think you accidentally the sentence.
@Lewis: Good catch. I fixed!
What does question #92 mean? "True monopolies cannot exist in a free-market economy and ours is a free market economy, so no true monopolies exist in our economy."
I agree with the clause "true monopolies cannot exist in a free-market economy." But to state that "ours is a free market economy" is hard to believe, given the levels of regulation and taxation. So of course I disagree because this clause is false, and therefore logically the conclusion is false.
I still have the nagging feeling that what this question measures is not what it was intended to measure.
I like it. It's the best attempt I've seen to classify anarchist thought. I'd be curious to see how non-anarchists view it, however.
100% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
88% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
100% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
100% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
100% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
Didn't realize I was such a conformist…
I dislike:
"36. It is especially important that people have access to weapons to protect themselves against authoritarian violence by the state."
As Gene Sharp (for example) notes, violence is one of the least effective means available to the people and given the state's overwhelming power in comparison, having access to weapons is neither a realistic nor an especially important way for people to protect themselves. As such, I strongly disagree, which is troublesome as it's keeping me from the 100% anarchist position. How about the alternate wording: "It is morally legitimate for people to have access to weapons to protect themselves against authoritarian violence by the state," to which I can agree.
kittehs: #92 appears to measure economic left/right and accurately classifies disagreeing as a leftist position. I like the current wording of the question, but perhaps there should be a note at the top about how to answer multi-clause questions.
83% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
78% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
100% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
74% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
93% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
There may be some discrepancy in answering these based on moral vs. ethical vs. spiritual, etc.
Take, for example:
"There is no particular moral reason for me to help people who cannot help themselves."
One might say that there is not a moral requirement to do so, but there is an ethical, spiritual, or other reason that one ought to do so.
Semantics, perhaps.
Re. #22: nope. Saying that you have a moral obligation to do something has nothing whatsoever to do with saying that the state can force you to do it. This is a pretty basic libertarian point: if you're an NAP libertarian, you hold that force is appropriate only in response to force; but you don't have to hold, and surely shouldn't hold, that you only have a moral obligation to do something when someone can force you to do it.
Re. #56: yes–restitution and retribution are definitely not the same thing.
Re. #92: the point is that "vulgar libertarians" tend to make the false assumption that what we have is a free-market economy, and therefore, from the true premise that monopolies can't exist in a free-market, reach the false conclusion that they don't exist in our economy. This question is a test for vulgarity.
Re. #103: FWIW, this is an almost exact quote from Mises.
I'm 72 percent an economic leftist; an 84 percent anarchist; a 71 percent anti-militarist; a 96 percent social liberal ; and a 97 percent civil libertarian.
This is a pretty great quiz, quite thorough as well! I'm passing it around…
I have some suggestions for clarification of a few of the questions:
8. "Birth and breeding fit some people for positions of command and others for positions of service."
What is "breeding" in this context? I've seen it used for literal pedigree, as well as for "raising," or "upbringing." The former is more definitionally accurate, of course, but perhaps "bloodline" or "lineage" might be more clear.
22. "I should participate in and support social institutions that assist people who are poor, sick, or handicapped."
This sounds like a question of obligation. Would it be better to phrase it as something like, "It is best that I participate…" (or, like question #84, "There are good reasons for me to…")? Or is the point of the question, in fact, to determine thoughts about obligation?
74. "The authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple is an inherent part of reasonably ordered human society (even if it should be limited because of its potential for abuse)."
I think either "authority" needs to be better defined in this context, or the relationships mentioned need to be narrowed.
e.g., A parent would seemingly have the authority to physically prevent a child—against her will—from going into the street; but a husband would not have the authority to do the same with a wife.
Further, is the question referring to authority of knowledge, or of action upon that knowledge? In other words, if someone was an expert carpenter, would her opinions not hold more weight than someone who had never touched a hammer? That is often referred to as being an "authority" on the subject, even if the expert carpenter would never force anyone to use her methods.
97. "Were it not necessary to restrain the penchant to abuse power, patriarchal monarchy would be the only reasonable form of government."
Does "form of government" include no government, in this context? Or is this "if a government is inevitable…" question? In other words; is this a question about democracy being preferable to monarchy, or about monarchy being preferable to anarchy?
——
That's about all I have for now… Overall, I think it is a much better quiz than the ones I've seen to date. Thanks for putting it out.
BTW… here's what I got with my understanding of the questions:
• 92% Economic Leftist – (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
• 97% Anarchist – (Anarchist / Statist)
• 100% Anti-Militarist – (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
• 76% Socio-Cultural Liberal – (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
• 97% Civil Libertarian – (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
I'll be sure to re-take it if my understanding of the questions changes.
Gary Chartier on May 12, 2010, 3:41 pm wrote:
—————
Re. #92: the point is that “vulgar libertarians” tend to make the false assumption that what we have is a free-market economy, and therefore, from the true premise that monopolies can’t exist in a free-market, reach the false conclusion that they don’t exist in our economy. This question is a test for vulgarity.
—————
I guess I "failed" that test then. It must be the first time that I've failed to be properly vulgar. I'm losing my touch.
Ben: thanks.
kittehs: keep working on it.
How you scored:
60% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
69% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
96% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
63% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
83% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
It's impossible to create an entirely unbiased, objective test but for the most part this is a decent test.
Some questions that probably brought some of my scores down:
13. Collective bargaining is often a fair, appropriate way for workers to protect their interests in relation to managers and investors.
~~as an individualist 'collective' anything rankles me and as someone who went through a long strike 30 some years ago with the tire slashings, fist fights and arrests that go along with a long labor dispute I have to strongly disagree.
22. I should participate in and support social institutions that assist people who are poor, sick, or handicapped.
~~I should or what??
29. In the absence of privileges secured by the state (such as subsidies or monopoly or oligopoly privileges), the price of a product will frequently tend toward the price of the labor required to produce it.
~~The labor theory of value? Strongly agree that state privileges can cause prices to be higher than they would in the absence of such privileges, but strongly disagree with LTV. BTW, what is the value or price of labor???
46. Letting people fend for themselves without help from others is often appropriate because it will promote the efficient use of resources and weed out the unfit.
~~Letting people fend for themselves is much different than forcing people to fend for themselves or forcing people to help others. Do I strongly agree that people should be allowed to fend for themselves if that is what they want or should I strongly disagree with the notion of the implied social Darwinism of weeding out 'the unfit'?
62. Representing the conscience of a community, a jury should judge the law as well as the facts in a legal case.
~~I strongly believe in jury nullification, but strongly disagree with anthropomorphising a concept, i.e. endowing a community with a conscience.
84. There are good reasons for me to support arrangements in accordance with which people who can’t afford decent health care can obtain it anyway.
~~~What??
Thanks to Gary and Mike for taking the time to put this together.
99% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
100% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
100% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
100% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
100% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian
First and only try. I was always good in school. Where's my prize, Gary?
Ok…
I got this:
39% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
88% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
100% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
100% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
100% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
Many quizzes designed to identify your ideological commitments are available online. We catalogued some of them in the announcement for this one. But most of them fail to distinguish among diverse kinds of positions — ones related to war and peace, economic freedom, society and culture, civil liberties, and state power. A single-axis (“left” vs. “right”) categorization of people’s beliefs obscures many important distinctions. But even two-axis charts, like The Political Compass and the one used to represent results on The World’s Smallest Political Quiz lump clearly different kinds of positions together.
On-line political quizzes are particularly tough for anarchists: there’s often no way to distinguish between believing that a given state of affairs is desirable and believing that someone should bring it about by force — say, using state power. Thus, the typical online quiz makes it impossible to distinguish between people who oppose particular goals and people who oppose using the state to achieve those goals.
Economic Leftist 39%
Civil Libertarian 100%
Socio-Cultural Liberal 100%
Anti-Militarist 100%
Anarchist 88%
#7 “Big business and government ordinarily work hand in hand, though one partner is sometimes more powerful than the other.”
I disagree, government is normally owner in part or in whole of corporate entities, corporatist policy is not working together it is conjoining the two.
#11 “Children should generally be subject to the authority of their parents until they are economically self-sufficient.”
This is a “trick” question, as I have no opinion of anyone’s children but my own (that I have none of), but all in all I disagree with the notion that children are property until they reach economic sustainability.
#22 “I should participate in and support social institutions that assist people who are poor, sick, or handicapped.”
Should is a bad word, it implies obligation, as it stands I have to strongly disagree because it justifies the state robbing me of my wealth because I “should” be doing something.
#25 “If economic arrangements were significantly more just than they are at present, it would be much easier than it is now for people to work in partnerships or cooperatives or to work for themselves.”
You should define what you mean by just, for me it means a free market, for someone else that may mean social planning…
#30 “In today’s economy, managers often make agreements with workers on terms they would resent if their roles and those of the workers were reversed.”
I do not know if this is true, it is not true where I work as the average hourly employee can make more at the end of the week than management…
#34 “It is a good idea for a government in today’s world to maintain a very large military establishment in order to be ready to mount a defensive war at any time.”
I have a lot of severe issues with this question, government is not a good idea….
#44 “You are obligated to accept someone’s positional authority only if you’ve consented to it, and even then only if that person asks you to do something that is not immoral.”
I am looking at this in the respect of Contract law, in which case consent is explicit and the obligation is agreed to by both parties…
#45 “Laws and social norms protecting freedom of speech should safeguard only the expression of true beliefs.”
“True Beliefs” is subjective
#51 “Parents should be free to decide whether the education their children receive is provided by government-approved schools.”
This is incomplete there should be an “or not”
#56 “People who wrongly cause harm to others deserve retributive punishment.”
Retribution vs. Restitution these are completely separate concepts, are you using them as such?
#75 “The belief that people should be basically equal in social status is morally reprehensible—destructive of freedom and social authority.”
I think this question could use a little clarification, it seems to me to offer the option of syndicalism or statism…
#87 “Those in a typical modern society who are the wealthiest are also likely to be the most creative, gifted, dynamic, and achievement-oriented.”
Is this saying in the current environment?
#100 “When people have done wrong, it is appropriate to limit their freedom for the specific purpose of fully rehabilitating them and ensuring that they have adjusted to the challenges of life in society.”
I do not like this question at all, it is vague as to what kind of wrong, if restitution is paid, and the method of “limiting the freedom”….
#103 “Where it occurs, the large-scale ownership of land reflects military and political effort—it is initiated and maintained by force.”
Yes and No, no in the event that large scale ownership of land does not necessarily represent state effort, but yes in the event of state effort it is initiated and maintained by force….
Damn, Neverfox. You've always gotta throw the bell curve for the rest of the class. Bastard!
You scored 99.8% (499/500)
I scored 92.4% (462/500)
*grumble* teacher's pet *grumble*
Whoa. Saint Neverfox gets a left-liberal-anti-militarist-anarcho-purity ring! *rummage* Where did I put those…?
My results on the first and only run through:
100% Economic Leftist
100% Anarchist
100% Anti-Militarist
100% Socio-Cultural Liberal
100% Civil Libertarian
What can I say, I'm "pure"! I purposefully gave nothing but "strong" answers and intuitively guessed the general spirit of where the questions would place me. There were a number of questions in which I may have wanted to go "that depends on what you mean" or in which there might be an exception, but since the choices were what they were I simply went with the most straight-foreward answers. This test might give some people disappointing results if they don't strongly answer.
Such tests should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I do like the fact that this test incorporates more than just two axises, which makes more distinctions that is not picked up even on the Nolan Chart. Nonetheless, no matter what spectrum a test uses, the phrasing of questions and the range of possible answers may skew it in a certain direction. That may be part of what makes some people displeased with their results.
Damn you, BP! I will have the Precious!
This is interesting. Having read Neverfox, Brainpolice and Gary for some time, I didn't really imagine that they all shared effectively the same degree of radicalism, and certainly not that the correspondence would be demonstrated by a test such as this. I suspect, therefore, that additional dimensions (twelve or so should do) and about 287 more questions will be necessary to draw out the essential distinctions.
61% economic leftist
91% anarchist
100% anti-militarist
83% socio-cultural liberal
80% civil libertarian
1. If those religious beliefs are of a group that advocates / demands certain actions based on those differing beliefs, I'd be very uncomfortable.
4. I had to read this question about five times before I understood it. At first I thought there was some sort of fraud being implied; maybe it's just me… anyway, I figured it out.
9. I strongly dislike this question and see it as a false choice. I longed for a "none of the above" option and regretted that it was impossible to uncheck my answer and leave it blank. Diffusion of decision-making responsibility is a recipe for disaster in the organizations I've interacted with. Although I dislike the implied blind obedience to few decision makers model, then as long as people are free to leave and aren't harmed, and as long as the decision making is clear and responsibility for consequences is taken by those few individuals, that model can work more effectively (for the organization at least) than a diffusion of responsibility where no one takes responsibility for anything. If the alternative to hierarchy had been clear decisions made by a variety of individuals in an organizations who take responsibility for the consequences of those decisions… then I would strongly disagree.
11. What do you mean by "subject to the authority"? Are they forced to do things against their will even in non-emergency contexts or in ways that harm them? If so, I would strongly disagree.
13. Who's doing the collective bargaining, and are people being coerced into the collective somehow? I assumed this is an all-voluntary collective.
16. What's a cultural issue? I would not support dissent regarding someone's ethnicity or racism. Dissent about which is the best movie this year is great. If not for the "cultural issues" in this question and my worry that could mean belittling someone's ethnicity, I would strongly agree.
27. Maybe for tyrants immediately after governments' dissolution! just kidding… no comments here. strongly disagreed of course.
29. Consider clarifying the context/ included costs.
32. What kind of surveillance? There are studies that show that security cameras on private buses, for instance, discourage crime. I think you mean TSA-type surveillance however, and if that is what you meant I would strongly disagree.
44. Obligated? I would strongly agree except for that word. Did I sign a contract with that person?
46. What do you mean by "weed out the unfit?" I don't want to weed anyone out if they simply have a disability that can be accommodated somehow. Strongly agreed, because I think you mean the unfit=incompetent assholes in management.
50. Depends on the size of the organization and what you mean by "ordinary". If you had defined this as a small organization or stopped this at "organize their work-lives" I would strongly disagree. However, it takes people with good management skills (as in project management/ leadership, not hierarchy) to organize large groups of people working on different aspects of a big project.
51. I wish this were worded the opposite way: Parents should be free to decide whether the education their children receive is provided without government involvement. I like the suggestion to include an "or not" in this question.
53. Do the traditions include initiation of violence? If this were ruled out, I would strongly agree.
55. Who decides how the organization became wealthy? This troubles me, even though I strongly agree with Q76. The first part I totally agree with (mostly funded by tax dollars).
56. When does the retribution occur? After the current threat is gone?
68. What do you mean "free to pollute"? What's the alternative? I believe there should be consequences to pollution, but I also don't think government should stop them. Confused by the question… I would strongly disagree if this were reworded to something like, "businesses should be free to pollute without consequences."
69. Was there a duly diligent title search done first? What's reasonably long? What if the original owner came back the next month?
104. What do you mean by control? And what circumstances? I would offer financial support to allow my kids to use contraception, for instance. I would probably not be able to talk without emotion if my 13 year old were to tell me she's thinking about having sex tonight. If the word "control" were changed to "influence" I would strongly disagree.
I suspect Alex S. did the "right" thing in only giving strong answers. I marked a few with not strong answers and hence fell from "purity" on all but my anti-militarism, which may actually be my strongest sentiment. However, I am 100% against the state. I think I know how to fix that from my "unpure" 91%.
+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+
How you scored:
83% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
91% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
100% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
83% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
93% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+
LOL @ Mike, why limit yourself to 393 questions?
Will you attempt to make this so complex that the GRE will compare favorably?
Well I got my anarchism to 100% without violating my beliefs… by being "strong"!
Stay strong, Tom!
78% Economic Leftist
100% Anarchist
100% Anti-Militarist
96% Socio-Cultural Liberal
93% Civil Libertarian
There are some questions where the wording is a little weird.
Like question 92:
"True monopolies cannot exist in a free-market economy and ours is a free market economy, so no true monopolies exist in our economy."
There are 3 different statements there.
1) "True monopolies cannot exist in a free-market economy" I would agree with that.
2) "ours is a free market economy", I would disagree with that.
3) "so no true monopolies exist in our economy.", I would also disagree with that.
So for the 3 statements in number 92 I agree, disagree, disagree. How should I answer? I put Strongly disagree, because I disagree with 2 out of the three.
This should be 3 completely different questions I think, worded something like:
1) True Monopolies cannot exist in a free-market economy.
2) The western nations have free-market economies.
3) No true monopolies exist in the west.
Also, as some others have said, there should be some description to go along with the results. "Economic leftist/rightist" needs some explanation. Many people would see "Economic Leftist" and think pinko-commie-fascist.
Eric, the question is supposed to be a compound question because lots of people seem to reason this way—they defend economic arrangements in our society by making claims about what might be expected in a free market, even though it's not close to being a free market. If you see things that way, as I do, then you'll respond to this question with "Strongly Disagree."
I think the compound nature of them causes us to be unsure of "strongly" or not. As in T/F, a even partial false is false, but if you agree with one of the "parts" it makes the "strongly" harder to come by.
Can one get a %% on the right-hand side? Or is it a 100%-0% scale, rather than a 100% to 0% to 100%.
@gyakusetsu: I'm not sure what you're asking for. The scale does run from 100% at left to 0% in the center to 100% at right. Actually I think a 0% result is impossible, since there are no "neutral" answers. Internally, the program accumulates answer values as -2, -1, 1, 2, and these sums are then divided by the number of questions per sphere to yield a percentage which is then displayed as an absolute value.
Because of rounding, though, it does seem as if someone could get a 0% figure. One was reported in the comments on my Facebook page yesterday. (It must have been, say, 0.33% to the right, since the quiz-taker reported that he was a 0% Rightist.)
I realize some here will think any input from me is worthless, but since I took the test and Mike asked for my feedback, here 'tis:
My results: http://attackthesystem.com/2010/05/c4ss-find-your…
My feedback:
There were only a few questions that might have skewed my results on the quiz:
“An entity that offers vital services to the public must be able to require everyone to pay for its services to keep some people from being “free riders.”
This does not necessarily imply a state per se. Such an “entity” could be a proprietary community, a syndicate, commune, seastead, etc. that charges its members dues to cover collectively provided services or even some kind of welfare system.
“Birth and breeding fit some people for positions of command and others for positions of service.”
This does not necessarily imply mere inherited privilege, like nepotism. Some people may have greater innate abilities or display greater merit than others.
“Children should generally be subject to the authority of their parents until they are economically self-sufficient.”
As the adage goes: “As long as you are living under my roof and I’m paying the bills….”; This doesn’t mean anything parents do to dependent children is justified. For instance, a father isn’t just in raping his daughter just because he buys the groceries.
“I should participate in and support social institutions that assist people who are poor, sick, or handicapped.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean a statist welfare system supported by taxes. There are all kinds of such “social institutions.”
“If there were no government, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
In some instances it might be, such as a state of civil war.
“People should be able to move freely around the world in search of work, not limited in their search for work by borders.”
This is one of the main things that sets me apart from your camp, Mike, but while in a world of small nations and autonomous villages, perhaps free migration would be fine, in a world of massive nation-states and international plutocratic rule, “open borders” is a dangerous idea.
“People who wrongly cause harm to others deserve retributive punishment.”
I see nothing inherently wrong with retribution or revenge, but it shouldn’t be the main focus of a legal system. The legal system’s focus should be restitution and incapacitation of dangerous people.
“Rich societies should share wealth with producers in poor societies by allowing free entry to the goods and services they produce, rather than imposing trade barriers on them.”
“Free trade” is fine among neighbors, villages, communes, and small producers, but among nation-states it’s economic suicide.
“The authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple is an inherent part of reasonably ordered human society (even if it should be limited because of its potential for abuse).”
See above.
“There are good reasons for me to support arrangements in accordance with which people who can’t afford decent health care can obtain it anyway.”
This does not necessarily imply state health care.
“Tariffs and subsidies should be used to encourage people to buy the products of domestic rather than foreign manufacturers.”
Within the context of the system we actually have, yes.
“States have the right to control their borders and determine who does and does not enter their territory”
Not states per se, but peoples yes.
> 7. Big business and government ordinarily work hand in hand,
> though one partner is sometimes more powerful than the other.
The phrasing of thisd question is unclear – I think it’s a true statement, but I don’t think it SHOULD be a true statement.
> 11. Children should generally be subject to the authority of
> their parents until they are economically self-sufficient.
This one begs the question – Are children full individuals?
Anyone who has been parent can tell you that no. Children go from being loud footballs that eat and poop a lot to being adult individuals.
The question presupposes that Children should be under the Authority of theeir parents – when in fact this is a sliding scale. You have to provide boundaries for toddlers and young children or they could injure themselves. Also small children don’t know how to reason, they have little or no awareness of other people as individuals who have feelings of their own.
Their brains aren’t finished cooking yet. It’s normal for children to lack awareness ability to judge actions and consequences that we hope all adults have.
The hard part is sliding down the bar of authority appropriately to the child’s age, moving through the various stages, and being aware that you’re a caretaker, not a God.
Complicating this is the fact that people mature at different rates. one 16 year old may be mature and ready to take her role in society as an independent person while another 16 year old may be immature and unready to leave the nest.
So one measuring bar cannnot fit all children.
So, IMHO this question not only begs the question, it also contains a false dilemma. A child of 10 years old is not property, and is not ready to make contracts. They stand between the two states.
> 22. I should participate in and support social institutions
> that assist people who are poor, sick, or handicapped.
This is unclear. A charitable hospital that treats poor people is a social institution. If I had some money, I’d donate to this sort of hospital to help defray their costs.
But a coercive, mandatory system like Medicare? I don’t get to choose whether I support it. That’s not cool.
> 28. In cases in which people wrongly cause harm to others,
> the primary focus of the legal system should be on securing
> restitution for those who have been harmed.
Again, this question is unclear. I think a free market “dispute resolution organization” counts as a legal system, although it’s not promuglatings laws, but reasoning, predicedent and suggestions. So I think this statement is true.
Our current legal system is, again, compulsory, coercieve and generally uncool, so I don’t support that.
> 29. In the absence of privileges secured by the state
> (such as subsidies or monopoly or oligopoly privileges),
> the price of a product will frequently tend toward the
> price of the labor required to produce it.
This question assumes the Labor theory of value, which I disagree with. I agree with what someone over at the Mises Institute said. A truly free market is a system that drives the prices of goods and services down.
So I agree with the general sentiment of the question – Absent state driven coercion, prices will tend to fall (over the long term), but I don’t agree that the Labor theory of value is the floor they’re falling to.
> 32. Increased surveillance protects everyone’s security and threatens
> only those who wish to conceal inappropriate behavior.
Again this statement is unclear. I disagree with government ssurveilance. If someone wants to put cameras in to wwatch his own property, that’s his business.
Government surveilance camers may well deter crime, but they’re still wrong. This question isn’t clear if it means Joe putting up a camera to watch his store front, or those damned traffic cams going up every where. Joe property belongs to Joe, he has a right to look at it and look at me when I am on his property. I am not. however a piece of government inventory or live stock, and the government needs not to act like that. (The government needs not exist at all, for that matter.)
> 55. People who work at a large corporation or non-profit
> should be entitled to take it over if it is primarily
> supported by tax dollars or if it is wealthy because
> of markets skewed in its favor by government-granted privilege.
Again this is unclear. I disagree with people being dispossessed of property they own legitimately. So I don’t want to see stock holders dispossessed if the money they bought the stock with is legitimate, and the company is legitimate.
But this would be solved by removing government coercion because most corporations that depend on the government to survive (Lockmart, for example) would rapid deteriorate, collapse and disappear without the government supporting them. So Stockholders would be left holding pieces of paper anyway.
People who used stolen money, fraud or coercion to acquire the money with which they bought stocks. Screw them. They need to make restitution.
> 61. Professional managers are vital to the success of a
> typical for-profit or not-for-profit organization.
Again, this question begs the question – are managers a different class of people? I think “Management” is a labor specialization like being a machinist, a dentist or an engineer.
I don’t think managers are entitled to any more or any less status in society than any other specialized laborer. So, A professional Machinist is vital to the success of a machine shop, a professional dentist is vital to the success of a dentist office, and a professional Office person is vital to the success of any entity big enough to require someone to man the office full time, keeping records and managing information necessary for the entity to complete it’s goals (To make widgets, or give people clean. white, heealthy teeth.)
> 69. Someone should be able to homestead land and acquire
> title to it when the legal owner doesn’t cultivate or
> otherwise use it for a reasonably long period.
Okay, this question is unclear. Is this like salvage? Joe blocked out and registered a claim to this land 20 years ago, and then disapeared and no one has seen him since. We can’t find him. Bill wants to claim the land. So Joe’s old claim is voided, and Bill now has a new claim for that property.
Or is this like “Land belongs to the community as a whole and is to be dispensed and used according the values and desires ofthe community.”
The phrase “doesn’t cultivate it or otherwise use it for a reasonably long period” – Who decides what the reasonable time is? Who decides that the land has been abandoned? If I get on their Sh*t list, are they going to decide my house and property are voided because I didn’t mow my lawn for four days?
I think government claims to land is invalid, because I think the government itself is invalid. So were it up to me, all government land would be opened up to claims.
Large tracts held by Boise Cascade Lumber? Has the corportation injured anyone or benefoitted by government coercion? then that corporation needs to make resitution. But if it’s purchase and title are legitimate, I don’t support them being dispossed.
So I think the question needs to be rephrased to either make the Georgist “land can’t be property” point, or to be more clear if it;s about dispossessing illegitimate land holders or about salvage law.
> 84. There are good reasons for me to support arrangements
> in accordance with which people who can’t afford decent
> health care can obtain it anyway.
Same question and same flaw as Above. Is this asking about non-governmental charities or is it asing about coerced government programs?
> 85. There is no particular moral reason for me to help
> people who cannot help themselves.
This question is weirdly phrased. the idea that it is moral to help people who cannot help themselves is the basis for the moderate democrat POV that it’s appropriate to tax people and use the money to help poor people. If we aren’t going to “help” “enough” we’ll be robbed and the poor will be “helped” like it, or not.
For me, there is reason to help people who cannot help themselves – I like being the Jay who does this better than I like being the Jay who doesn’t.
But I am not entitled in any way to insist that you help anyone. So there is moral reason for me to help someone. There’s no moral reason for YOU to help some one and I cannot Morally insist that you do.
So I agree with this statement for you, but not for me.
I think refining what this question is actually asking. Is it moral for Society to insist that members help other members by coercion? Something like that. Because not only does this question have two right answers, the answers with ME as the subject have no bearing on my opinions about what you should do.
> 95. Vigorous social authority—embodied in the family, church,
> and other mediating institutions—is a bedrock of the good society.
If someone ELSE wants to subject themselves to the authority of their church and call that a goodd society, what right have I to tell them no?
> 97. Were it not necessary to restrain the penchant to abuse power,
> patriarchal monarchy would be the only reasonable form of government.
I am pretty sure that most of the people at whom this question is directed will answer “No.” We elect our Patriarchal Monarch via popularity contests every four years. Obvious a massively superior system to the one where the current Patriarchal Monarchs oldest male brat inherits the crown.
The people at whom this question is aimed will not parse the question down to the level you’re aiming at, I suspect.
Jay ~Meow!~
@Gary: You're right about the 0% possibility. One wee bug that I just detected is that someone with a 0% score will be classed on the right side of the scale, rather arbitrarily. The next version will need to eliminate that glitch.
The results were about what I thought. There was seemed to be a bias against corporate management structure. I'm no fan of forced top-down authority, however, having management structure in a large company is often a good thing compared to 100k employees and no structure. I'm sure the employees would voluntary form a structure so IMO those questions should be tweaked a bit. Other than that, good stuff.
Oh ya, I'd love to see the algorithm used.
There were about seven questions that I would've preferred to answer Neutral, i.e., neither agree nor disagree, either because of the way they were worded or because I didn't feel like taking one side or the other. However, the page forced me to answer all questions in order to provide a score. I think this ought to be changed, either by providing a Neutral option or by adjusting the score for unanswered questions.
I understand the categorizations except for "Economic Leftist" and "Economic Rightist," perhaps because I never encountered those terms, used together, before. It may help if you provided examples of those categories or an explanation of what you mean.
Up through comment # 49, I largely agree with all of the issues mentioned. In particular, I was troubled by question 92. I’ve seen the justifications for the wording and believe them inadequate.
If the goal is to produce as ‘objective’ a measure as possible, then no question should be at all vague or ‘subject to interpretation’. Ideally, each person should feel that there is no other answer they could possibly give to each question and, barring some significant change in their philosophy, should get exactly the same score on each repetition of the test.
To this end, each question should be ‘crystal clear’. (And, no doubt, were this the case, one could complete the test in less time.) Most questions should probably be true/false/no opinion.
This test scored me in the high 90′s as an anarchist; close, but — no cigar. I ‘should’ have scored as a 100% anarchist by any ‘anarcho-capitalist’ definition. That I didn’t is, I’m quite sure, an artifact of the test rather than an ‘error’ in my philosophy. (Although I concede that there are awkward edge cases and definitional issues, I don’t hold with the ‘initiation of force’ by any person, group, or alleged ‘government’.) We all wish others would do what we want; that to accomplish this end, we restrict ourselves to persuasion and abjure force is the first, and most important, mark of civility.
I don’t at all understand what it means to be ‘left’ vs. ‘right’ on economic issues. I scored something like 46% left; I have no idea what that means. I suspect it has something to do with notions of how property is justly acquired (and justly held?)
I had no score that was a 100% but came closest on “anti-militaristic” and “civil-liberties.” This clearly fails to account for my utter willingness for a (voluntary) group to defend itself (and prepare to defend itself) using major military force. I’m not ‘against’ a military; I’m against the “initiation of force.” The distinction between defensive and offensive uses of a military seems to be missing. Where seemingly present, the questions invariably propose offensive uses under a defensive pretext.
As to the ‘civil-liberties’ score, I’m not at all sure whether mine is deserved. I am completely OK with ‘discrimination’; it absolutely needs to be done. The important consideration is whether it’s done for stupid or irrelevant reasons. Frankly, my only legitimate response to ‘stupid’ discrimination by others is education/persuasion or to treat it as a ‘market opportunity.’ (Note that a boycott of (some) stupid discriminators is itself a form of discrimination.
)
And, as for ‘prejudice’, what does it mean except to form or have some sort of opinion about someone based on very preliminary information — such as their membership in some group, known achievement (or failure), score on a test, or whatever? Prejudice is not ‘bad’ of itself; what’s ‘bad’ is our failure sometimes to reevaluate our judgment in light of new or more immediate information. And that’s not so much ‘bad’ as stupid.
Some of the questions break-out ‘not for profit’ organizations. I suggest that this is spurious and largely an artifact of government. All organizations exist to ‘profit’ someone. A better distinction might be ‘non-commercial’ or ‘charitable’.
How people organize their activities in groups is — none of my business. Hierarchical, or whatever; some forms of organization work better for some activities, individuals, or purposes. The question is, are people able to join/not join, experiment, or otherwise choose what seems suitable for them.
The questions that in some way reference ‘equality’ give me hives. Equality. NOBODY is ‘EQUAL’. Everyone is unequal to someone else — perhaps everyone else — in some way. Enforced ‘equality’ is just as bad as enforced ‘inequality.’ “Equal rights under the ‘law’” is about how individuals are ‘equally’ subject to the the same rules; not about the equality of those individuals.
Neither is equality about status. Humans aren’t chickens but we do insist on our pecking orders. We want to be respected by (some) others, valued for our abilities, our appearance, how often we mow our lawns, how much we give to, and how publicly we give to certain charities, etc. ad infinitum. In numerous acts, throughout each day, we do that which we fondly believe will increase our status. Seems like some of the questions were more about status than equality.
It seems to me that this whole ‘collective bargaining’ issue is — so last century. I disparage the whole (artificial) labor vs. management dichotomy and believe it too is more an artifact of (bad) government than anything else.
Ditto the small business vs. big business distinction. It is artificial and government created.
Would either dichotomy exist absent coercion?
–
In general, I think if your quiz is to have multiple dimensions, it should be possible to score 100% in _all_ dimensions. I believe someone demonstrated this was, indeed, possible. But, if the quiz is to be considered valuable, it should be clear what each dimension measures. Virtually every person who takes the quiz should feel, subjectively, that their ultimate score is closely representative of their position. I was reasonably comfortable with all except the economic left/right dimension and that, possibly, because I have no idea whatever of it’s intended meaning.
G.
I would like to see how my answers correlate to your calculation of my final score.
For one example, see my blog post about your quiz:
http://kenneth.lefebvre.us/index.php/2010/05/24/f…
Another example of a result that surprised me is that I would consider myself 100% anti-militaristic, yet the quiz results don't bear that out, so I'm curious to know which of my answers reveal a 14% militaristic viewpoint. Maybe I'm not as peaceful as I think I am, or perhaps I misunderstood your questions!
My results:
70% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
95%% Anarchist (Anarchist / Statist)
95% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
90% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
95% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
ok!
Question #8: Birth and breeding fit some people for positions of command and others for positions of service.
This question makes an empirical claim that is, demonstrably true; only ignorance of the facts can make this question, as written, seem plausible. Perhaps a less descriptive form would work better: Birth and breeding
Question #9: Business organizations and non-profits are more effective when headed by powerful leaders who are readily obeyed by their subordinates than when responsibility for making decisions is widely shared.
The word “effective” is both vague & ambiguous; effective always implies an end, or goal — in terms of what are we to judge effectiveness? Perhaps simply qualifying effective “in terms of X” would sharpen this question.
Question #11: Children should generally be subject to the authority of their parents until they are economically self-sufficient.
Again, a bit of vagueness and ambiguity, here on the word “authority”: does this mean simply obedience of the child come what may (blind obedience), or
Question #29: In the absence of privileges secured by the state (such as subsidies or monopoly or oligopoly privileges), the price of a product will frequently tend toward the price of the labor required to produce it.
This question is a bit technical, and many without some knowledge of economics will not understand it; since they will no doubt have an opinion (educated or otherwise) is they understood the question, perhaps a less technical rendering: “the cost of a product will often tend toward the cost of production.”
Question #34: It is a good idea for a government in today’s world to maintain a very large military establishment in order to be ready to mount a defensive war at any time.
The obvious answer to this question is “strongly agree”; but this assumes a certain definition of “good” as “prudential”. It is certainly a matter of prudence *in today’s world* to be prepared for defensive action, esp. if you are a prime cause of offensive action in the first place. Whether it is, in principle, a good idea (again, a matter of prudence and not morality) to maintain such a military force is another question, whose answer I would suggest is “strongly disagree.”
Question #36: It is especially important that people have access to weapons to protect themselves against authoritarian violence by the state.
This could be better conveyed in its implied prescriptive character by simply saying “People should have access to weapons to protect themselves against authoritarian violence by the state.” “Especially important” is an emotional appeal to make the prescription seem more forceful.
Questions #35 & 38: It is appropriate for someone to pick and choose from among the elements of a cultural or religious tradition with which she or he decides to affiliate.
It is morally appropriate to attack noncombatants in order to hasten the end of an otherwise just war.
Especially since they are placed so close together, the shift b/w “appropriate” and “morally appropriate” invites confusion and uncertainty: appropriate implies either “prudentially” or “morally”, since it involves what one “ought to” or “should” do in the sense of obligation/duty and/or best interest (of oneself or all affected, etc.). But in Qu #35, the meaning is clearly implies as “moral”, as in one should be allowed to do so, not it is in one’s best interest to do so.
Recommend adding “morally” to Qu #35, or dropping it from Qu #38.
The same goes for Qu #39, with the emotional use of “perfectly” appropriate — it is either appropriate or it is not, on moral and/or prudential grounds.
Qu #40 also falls under this critique: Legal restrictions on media content are appropriate if they are designed to protect children.
“Appropriate” here seems to mean something like “permissible.” Yet another use of the same term. The word itself means “proper”, so some consistency in its usage would greatly improve the flow of the quiz: “proper” has the sense of right, correct, and thus what “ought to” or “should” be done or not done. Perhaps “Legal restrictions should be placed on media content if they are designed to protect children.”
Question #41: It is reasonable to restrict people’s access to accurate information during war-time for their own good.
Does “reasonable” here stand as yet another usage of “appropriate”? Are we asking if it is appropriate (in the moral sense) to restrict access; or are we asking if it is appropriate (in the prudential, i.e., consequentialist, sense)? Are we asking yet something else; perhaps that it is something which most normal individuals can agree would be acceptable (and in this sense, “reasonable”)?
Qu #42 also faces this worry: Threatening to use weapons of mass destruction against noncombatant populations is reasonable if doing so seems likely to prevent war.
Does “reasonable” mean simply “makes sense”? Or are we probing deeper, intending it to suggest something about the moral nature of doing so? Again, this is only a question of consistency in asking questions. Such “causal” shifts affect the outcome of the quiz, and may lead some to sense a kind of bias or even sloppiness in the construction of the quiz.
Question #45: Laws and social norms protecting freedom of speech should safeguard only the expression of true beliefs.
I am very uncomfortable with the structure of this question. I certainly disagree that only true beliefs should be protected; the epistemological problem there is insurmountable, and would mount to the most extreme form of speech controls: who determines what counts as a “true belief”? What worries me is that it seems implicitly to leave open the door for forms of speech whose aim is, not mere offensiveness, but actual harm to another person. I am thinking here of certain forms of hate speech, whose sole aim is inciting violence against individuals and/or groups. Suffice it to say that free speech which incites violence against individuals and/or groups is not a form of speech I would want protected. Ultimately, the proximate cause of the violence is *not* the hate speech, but it is clear enough that in many such cases the violence would not have been perpetrated in the absence of such speech. Furthermore, independently of shaky consequentialist arguments against hate speech, the fact that the very aim of the speech is the inciting of violence against another is philosophically sufficient to limit its expression, in fact, to bar it from the class of speech called “free speech.” It’s aim is to cause violence against another, so whether or not it succeeds in doing so, it still embodies immoral activity, just as if my attempt to rob or kill you turns out unsuccessfully. Thus, I would suggest a revision that clearly makes this condition explicit.
Question #46: Letting people fend for themselves without help from others is often appropriate because it will promote the efficient use of resources and weed out the unfit.
Again, the use of appropriate is vague & ambiguous; here, tied as it is to “efficiency”, I am led to think in terms of prudence: it is good for those affected, everyone concerned, the general welfare (what “group” do we intend here, since it cannot refer to the good of an individual)… and what means “efficient”: efficient for whom? in what way efficient? to what end efficient? Do we mean the greater good of the greater number, society as a whole, etc.? The notion of “weeding out the unfit” seems a bit eugenical; do we really mean their elimination from the social pool, if not also the gene pool? This would seem a bit harsh, on any except a Spencerian position. Perhaps a little less “charge” in the statement: Allowing people to be responsible for their own livelihood without imposing on others is often a means to a more efficient allocation of resources.
Question #59: Preventive military action against a society or group not engaged in active preparation for an attack can be appropriate.
Again, the use of “appropriate.” Clarify the sense intended.
Question #61: Professional managers are vital to the success of a typical for-profit or not-for-profit organization.
The trouble here is whether we mean “in practice, as things are now” or “in principle.” I would say “strongly agree” with the former, but “strongly disagree” with the latter.
Question #86: There is no way effectively to provide goods and services like roads, lighthouses, defense, the prevention of pollution, and protection against economic insecurity without government.
The troubling term here is “government”; if by this term we mean “state”, then answer is “strongly disagree”; if we mean some system of rules and regulations by which ends (e.g., material wealth & order) is maintained, then the answer is “strongly disagree”. I take it that the word ‘government’ stands in for “state.”
Question #94: Using military force in far-away lands is often necessary to protect a society against future attack.
This, again, is a matter of “in practice” vs “in principle”; to the former, yes; to the latter, no. Needs to be clarified in the manner in which other questions have made this distinction clear.
Question #99: When it seems that someone else might react violently to something a public speaker says, the speaker should be forced to stop speaking.
While I answered “strongly disagree” (because i have a good feeling about the intended meaning), this question has the problem of hate speech I mention in an earlier question: if the speaker intends to incite violence, then the speech should be prevented. Here, the drift seems to be a negative reaction in opposition to what the speaker says, in which case, clearly the answer is “strongly disagree.”
Question #106: States have the right to control their borders and determine who does and does not enter their territory
Of course they do, on the assumption that their borders (and their very existence) are legitimate; but this is assumed in this question. And, to answer that state should not exist would entail they should not have such a right; but, by definition, the state has such a right. Perhaps what is meant is: Should a state have the right? But this would depend on whether there should be states; if so, then yes; if not, then no.
Excellent quiz!
My results:
88% Economic Leftist
78% Anarchist
86% Anti-Militarist
61% Socio-Cultural Liberal
80% Civil Libertarian
I think some of those percentages would be higher if the questions were phrased a bit differently.
I look forward to version 1.X or 2.0, whichever you consider it!
I began going through the quiz you have posted and noticed that on a good half of the questions you put up, I am so far out in the field, that nothing I clicked could actually reflect where I am at. There are simply too many commonplaces of this society that I don’t accept at all. But as a simply thing that may actually be useful to you, occasionally a single question will include to propositions, one of which I would agree with, the other of which I would not. For example, 17 reads: “17. Expressing opposition to the policies of a society’s dominant institutions is disloyal and should be actively discouraged.” I would agree that expressing such opposition is disloyal to that society, but since i don’t consider it a bad thing to be disloyal to a society, and consider opposition a necessary and worthwhile thing, I would not only disagree with discouraging it, but would promote encouraging it.
This one, called the Political Objectives Test, has worked pretty well for me, capturing my movement across the political landscape over the years, and a few friends with politics very different from mine thought it worked rather well for them, too. It's also hosted on that dating site, but can be taken manually.
http://politicalobjectivestest.blogspot.com/ http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-political-object…
I have several problems with the quiz.
First example: "Parents should be free to decide whether the education their children receive is provided by government-approved schools." assumes several things, and it is incredibly vague. Two questions were not addressed: Do the children get to decide their path of education? Should a state step in to defend "children's rights"? Also, should a parent be free to force their children to attend a government school, that by it's very nature indoctrinates them?
i got an economic leftist 88% even though i'm an anarcho-capitalist.
i think this quiz is skewed so that if you don't have a problem with socialism existing in an anarchist society you are counted as a socialist.
might want to tweak that a bit
or as i said on my FB "took the quiz guys, it thinks I'm a socialist because I'm not a jerk."
In several questions, you could help by clarifying whether you are asking if force should be used, or if we should pursue a stated goal voluntarily:
Q2. Of course, the US government cannot possibly justify killing millions of people by its attacks on other countries whose governments it disapproves. However, if most countries were free of coercive government in future, then a “police” action to remove a coercive regime might be justified, provided that fatalities were minimized, especially among civilians. This would be morally similar to our moral right to restrain a large brutal man from beating a small defenseless child. Moral societies will always need policing. If we achieve freedom and don’t police the law, then coercive, parasitic government will soon re-emerge.
Q19. I don’t agree with tax as tribute, or wealth redistribution by parasite government. But if you study natural (hunter-gatherer) societies, you will understand that any civilized society is based on a social contract to “do no harm,” and that contract must be policed, or it will immediately lapse. A society provides benefits, but it must be supported by all its members. Hunter-gatherers supported their societies by actively participating in the defense of the group against internal or external attack. In a modern mass society, we must also support our part of the cost of society, perhaps with a very low flat-rate subscription, for example. But there is no free lunch and anarchists who imagine that a society can exist without a (free market?) judiciary and police force are dreaming.
Q31. Of course, all business is persecuted by the state, in the sense that free contract is inhibited by a web of illegitimate restraints. But, on the other hand, the state discriminates in favor of large business and against small ones in numerous ways. For example, corporations have limited liability, and are legal persons, and have tax loopholes, and easy access to illegitimate intellectual “property” rights.
So the question is ambiguous.
Q46. Does this question means that the government should let people fend for themselves? If so, the answer is “yes” if you believe in a free market. But it could mean, should the individual let people in trouble fend for themselves. The moral answer may often be “yes” but you refer to “weeding people out” which implies that people may starve – in that case, clearly we have a moral duty to help our fellows.
Question is ambiguous.
Q53. “People should be expected to follow the established traditions of their cultures and acknowledge their value.” Do you mean: “Is it sensible to expect a Jewish person to read the Torah and go to the synagogue?” in which case, my answer is yes. But if you mean: “Should people be compelled to follow some prescribed cultural pattern,” my answer is no.
Q77. If you mean: “Is a coercive government likely to emerge in any particular society,” the answer is yes. But if you mean: “It will always be impossible to escape this kind of society even by collaborating to set up a free society,” then my answer is no.
Q85. “There is no particular moral reason for me to help people who cannot help themselves.” Do you mean help them with coercive taxation, which would be repulsive and criminal? Or do you mean: help them voluntarily with one’s own resources, which would be splendid?
Question 44 seems to leave out the idea that one has no true obligation to do anything regardless of previous actions, agreements, or any other factors.
Question 50 seems to make an "all or nothing" choice when considering an average laborer's managerial and long-term planning abilities. My own guess is that plenty could keep a business running (depending upon factors of competition at the given time) but the specialization of managerial and what are today ownership functions is probably optimal in many (most?) cases.
Question 51: "Parents should be free to decide whether the education their children receive is provided by government-approved schools"
Assuming that by government what is meant is something containing the common characteristics of everything we call government today, I disagree, but not at all for the reasons that more mainstream types would – I oppose a parent having the choice of utilizing a service which is funded by extortion (in truth, it is not the ability to use the service I object to – if the money is on the ground, grab away – but the extortion, but take away the extortion and there will be no government school and therefore no option to use one)
Question 69: does anyone disagree with this? Sure one person's "reasonably long period of abandonment" may seem unjustly long to some, but would any support truly perpetual absentee claims? I suppose the question of what constitute "use by the owner" comes in here as well. If the owner allows others to utilize the land, is that to be considered abandonment by the owner, or actions undertaken by the owner? that doesn't seem clear either – a pro-capital/rent and an anti-capital/rent reader would probably understand that question to be saying somewhat different things.
I also echo the observation that the measurement of left/right economic stance seems skewed to the left. I think only a Neocon or an Objectivist could consider me 71% left-wing in economic matters. Perhaps some questions on the utility/disutility of capital structures of ownership and the investor class in general would allow a more even reading?
Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist
Result: 68% Leftist
I think that Economic Hierarchy Vs Heterarchy would be a better way to measure this particular scale. However, considering the implications of decentralization and the positive social aspects of individual capital-control I would consider myself more on the left in this regard. I stated in the questionnaire specifically that I only disagreed with the need for hierarchy. As this is also relative to the current system, the results of a market system are henceforth unknown, even on a small scale.
Anarchist / Statist
Result: 78% Anarchist
This is the scale which I have the main issue with, and is rooted in the way questions are phrased in the quiz itself.
I stated that parents should not be able to control their kids any way they see fit until they are "self sufficient". This is an ambiguous and relative term, and as such needs to be elaborated on. "Parents should be free to decide whether the education their children receive is provided by government-approved schools." I do not hold that parents should be able to decide whether their child is subject to psychologically debilitating monotonous brainwashing and institutionalized coercion. I took the questions in their entirety, as "thick" statements.
I also stated that businesses should not be allowed to pollute a common water supply. For example: when other options are off the table and there are no other market providers when one's life depends on it; it is a matter of self defense to remove the businesses' means to do so. This could be done by an affinity group or voluntarily militia. I did not phrase it in a manner that demanded a government or state utilize force, but as a means of self-defense when one is all out of other options. Nonetheless, the likelihood ofoccurrence of polluting a vital resource in a free market is extremely thin.
Anti-Militarist / Militarist
Result: 100% Anti-Militarist
I am 100% against having states utilize force against individuals (redundancy), so this is obvious.
Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative
Result: 96% Socio-Cultural Liberal
I am surprised I did not get 100% on this one as well. I may have misunderstood the intent of " people should stick to those of their own background". I said disagree, however I avoided strongly disagree. This is because "background" could either be defined as a voluntary position and belief system, a coerced publicly stated "belief", or the most likely in this case; an arbitrary and irrelevant trait such as race, ethnicity, economic status, or geographical area of birth and/or residence.
Cultural relativism as well as a rejection of all irrational forms of psychological oppression and exclusions for an individual's preferences are a pre-requisite to a truly free society. I am defining "irrational" in this context as issues that do not effect an individual's performance on a job or which could be detrimental to another person.
Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian
Result: 100% Civil Libertarian
This was expected, as no individual has any legitimate or consistent "right" to agress against another's ability to live as they see fit. This is the difference between Anarchy, and what I call "Stateless" Panarchy, at least in my book. Anarchy relies on a lack of rulership, and that demands a lack of external control over an individual. Anarchy demands an adherence tothick libertarianism, and consistent rational ethics. Panarchy simply denies the role of an "involuntary" state by embracing "statelessness". With the state being defined as "any entity that has a monopoly on force within a geographical area", this becomes problematic. Land is limited, and even if governments could be voluntary, they would be exclusive and controlling. They may not have a monopoly on where you live, but they could utilize force to keep you in line within an area or an agreed cultural boundary, regardless. You can choose to move with your feet, but not to live as you please. In essence, it becomes a state itself. The rights of an individual must be the foundation for property, and that demands the Non-aggression Principle.
Nevertheless, no human being should be prevented from expressing his or her own wants and living their livestyle in any way whatsoever. Cultural relativism and acceptance of oppression of an individual's freedom are a direct barrier to a remotely free society. This is an issue of the foundation of personal freedom and cannot be bypassed or marginalized.
I have gotten through 10 questions and my impression is they are almost one of two kinds:
Subject so broadly described as to almost lack meaning, form of verb 'to be' , adjective or verb so broadly described as to almost lack meaning.
So far, it appears to be an exceedingly verbose form of the nolan chart
I finished the quiz, and am no more enlightened than I was before. The terms describing me had very little meaning to me. What exactly is an Economic Leftist?. A lot of questions I answered B or C because "all generalizations are false, including this one", and a lot of questions were in the form All or Every X should/ is / Y. I tend to be skeptical of statements like that, especially when X and Y are undefined, or the concept to which they refer is so broad as to defy meaning.
Really, several people need to rework this thing from top to bottom, possibly with a lot of links clearly defining the meanings of the terms used.
You missed enumerating Jerry Pournelle's two-axis two-"On a Scale from 1 to 5"-question system described at http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
This is the most rigged fucking garbage, even in the rigged-fucking-garbage world of libertarian political recruiting quizzes. Nobody outside of your little circle-jerk is ever going to give this even the slightest credence. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your souls.
Okay, I know you jokers are all going to say, “Gosh, what an unhelpful comment,” so let me lay some specifics on you.
General criticisms: The questions use far too general language; the whole point of asking a large number of questions is that it allows you to be very specific, and the law of averages will smooth out any idiosyncracies of the specific questions. By asking a long barrage of vague general questions you’ve achieved the worst of both worlds.
Question by question: (to be generous I’m ignoring the many stylistic flaws)
#2 is phrased in such general terms that it could encompass everything from humanitarian intervention to prevent an ongoing genocide to the settlement of petty theological squabbles by force. Presumably you want this question tuned to get a reasonable number of responses on either side, so you should ask something like: “Humanitarian intervention is sometimes justified in international affairs, even absent an immediate military threat.”
#3 is again too general, biasing the answer. It should be, “It is the responsibility of immigrants to assimilate into our culture, rather than our culture changing to accomodate them.”
#6 completely misunderstands the nature of public goods. (Why is it that libertarians always seem to disagree most intensely with shit they don’t actually understand?) Obviously there are many “vital services” which are not public goods and entail no free rider problem. A better question would be, “Some services, like national defense, are best provided universally and funded through taxation, rather than being treated as private concerns.”
#8 balances precariously between commonsensical “some people are more capable for some tasks than others” and highly questionable genetic elitism. Honestly no idea where you’re going with this one.
#9 is highly leading; better to say, “Groups function better when individuals are placed in positions of responsibility, rather than putting all important questions to a vote.”
#12 is again leading; better to say, “The threat of terrorism may require us to compromise some of our traditional concern for civil liberties, the better to maintain security.”
#14 is again leading and like the “public goods” question presents only a strawman argument. Better to say, “Governments should use subsidies and taxes to reward activities which benefit society and discourage activities which impose social costs.”
#17 is leading; nobody thinks this way generally but some people do think this way about their own particular societies. Better to phrase it as a specific question about “our society,” and invoke genuinely despised groups like commies or religious fundamentalists, to make it a real test of committment to the open society.
#21 again is ridiculously leaning; better to ask, “The system of patents and copyrights fairly ensures that creators are rewarded economically for productive work.” What the fuck is the point of all of these absurdly leading questions? What do you guys think this proves?
#24 is an odd question because absolutely nobody disagrees with it, so what’s the point? Better to ask a question about whether the tort system is really the most effective way to deal with externalities like pollution…
#25 is just unintelligible
#27 is hopelessly general. obviously there are examples of un-governed societies wherein life was pretty good, and in that sense, any informed person would “strongly disagree.” but the overwhelming majority of people also “strongly disagree” with any form of anarchism as a practical system for modern society, so which answer are they suppsoed to pick? it’s equivocal.
#32 again leading
#33 is a very odd question. antifeminists will surely disagree, but anyone who is not deeply invested in a whacko ideology (cough cough, present company thus excepted) would have difficulty interpreting the question, since there is no actual possibility of doing anything “without regard to gender expectations.” you might as well ask a question about whether we should act without regard to gravity.
#34 leading as ever; boy you guys love your leading questions
#38 & #42 more strawmen; it has been argued that attacks on industrial and economic targets of military importance, even if they will kill many civilians, can be a legitimate means of hastening the end of a war. nobody says, “go out and fucking spear babies on pikes, for peace!” better question: “The noncombatant deaths inflicted by Allied bombing in World War II were the necessary price of ending that war more quickly.”
#41 is a bizarre question since obviously no-one believes otherwise. even in whatever fantastical Heinlenesque scheme of private armies that you fanatics have dreamed up, it is obvious that the private defense companies will not go around announcing their plans in detail. a better question: “Journalists and the media should respect sensitive military information and not pry too deeply during war-time.”
#43 god fuck you people have dropped even the pretense of asking fair questions
even in your absurd fantasy world of privatized everything, there will be property rights. they will be enforceable. ergo, people who do not “obey the dictates” of your proposed system of property rights will be restrained by force. i really don’t care what fruitcake theological justification you assholes can invent to paper it over; that looks an awful lot like a system of government backed by force.
the idea of this question seems to be that if you say THE GOVERNMENT and FORCE enough, people will magically assent to your bullshit ideology. pathetic.
#44 hopelessly general, not even sure where you’re going with this. the only possible answer is “it depends.”
#45 odd question; did you mean to ask about truth as a defence to libel, or what?
#46 odd question, it almost looks like you’re strawmanning _your own_ political views here.
#47 #50 what is this i don’t even? nobody believes this
#54 leading question again, better to test this widely held committment with an extreme example: “Even the most toxic ideas, such as racial supremacy, and the most shocking images, such as fictional depictions of child pornography, are deserving of protection as free speech.”
#55 is really bizarre, you seem to be referencing some obscure sub-sub-sub culture within your sad and deluded “movement.” who cares?
#60 vague; clearly this statement is absolutely true in many instances, but very few people will agree that it is universally or even generally true. again, the only good answer is “it depends.”
#63 oddly phrased, since nothing about eliminating trade barriers implies “sharing the wealth;” on the contrary, economic theory implies that both trading areas in the aggregate will be better off
#64 manages to be both leading and confusing. you can get any answer you want by making a dubious ceteris paribus assumption, but what’s the point?
#69 only makes sense within the perfervid and self-referential world you guys inhabit, and is of dubious value in a general purpose quiz. i don’t know of anyone who believes that genuinely abandoned property should just be left where it is, but “homesteading” is of nearly zero relevance in the real world.
#70 is again both leading and vague; obviously there are images and sounds and texts which everyone would agree are criminal. transmitting detailed images of a bank vault in the context of a criminal conspiracy to loot it is obviously a crime.
#78 is as usual leading and yet vague. very few people believe that gov’t central planning is a good way to produce tractors, but very few people believe that gov’t central planning is not a good way to produce external military defense. another “it depends” question.
#80 #82 come on, what is the point of these even supposed to be? the whole purpose of a quiz is defeated when you ask questions that are always going to elicit a certain response!
#88 again leading; you want to make this a question that actually tests people, like “It is legitimate to forbid direct, open propaganda on behalf of wartime enemies.”
#89 again leading; stop rigging these questions already! just ask “universal compulsory education is a good idea.”
#92 god you love these circle-jerk “questions” that aren’t even really questions; seriously what is the point? why not ask a question about antitrust, a major economic issue you’ve managed to completely ignore, you clowns?
#97 “if my aunt had testicles…”
#98 again with the questions that virtually everybody is going to answer the same way
#99 again, rigged. instead: “It’s appropriate to restrict free speech at places and times where it is likely to lead directly to violent disorder, even if the speech itself does not advocate violence.”
#102 rigged as ever. there is really no point in asking general questions about “generals” and “politicians,” because even the most fervent nationalist is happy to distrust foreign generals and foreign politicians. phrase it in terms of “our country.”
#103 don’t even know what this is supposed to mean; ofc there are cases of large-scale land theft, and there are cases of large-scale land purchases.
Welp, this has been a far more detailed critique than you nutcases deserve. Feel free to ignore it, gnash your teeth and wail about “collectivism,” or whatever. Cheers.
Is there a definition for Economic Leftist?
While I realize that the goal is make one take a stance on various issues, so no Undecided/Don't Know answer options, on many of the questions I had to make assumptions about the context before I could answer. I suspect the assumptions I made had as much impact on how I was classified as my answers did.
I don't have a firm political identity beyond "liberal" & I took this quiz. I scored into all of the left-leaning categories. Some feedback is that it would be good to be able to review answers after getting the results. It would also be good for the site to identify what questions were linked to what categories — for example, I'd like to know: if I want to be 100% socio-cultural liberal, what questions should I have answered differently?
That said, this is old old old post so maybe I am shouting into the void. But good resource, some thought-provoking questions there.
18% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
6% Statist (Anarchist / Statist)
21% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
33% Socio-Cultural Liberal (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
20% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)
There is no particular moral reason for me to help people who cannot help themselves.
- With this I think it is important to distinguish 'cannot' and 'will not' – the general jist of these questions tends to be how I feel about government benefits, welfare, et cetera. However, for me there is a BIG difference between 'actually can't help themselves' and ' too lazy to work' – I was hesitant to agree with this quesiton because morally, I do believe in helping people who CANT help themselves, but I am adamantly against giving a penny to people who WONT.
Few questions wording bugs me :
You are obligated to accept someone’s positional authority only if you’ve consented to it, and even then only if that person asks you to do something that is not immoral.
- I have a bit of a problem with this question, as the answers are only 'agree' or 'disagree' really. Nobody ever asks you if you 'consent' to be 'governed' , its taken for granted. Generally speaking, I believe that yes, nobody should have authority over me unless I've agreed to it – however – by living in society, using schools paid for by tax dollars, driving on roads put down by government, et cetera, I think that by utilizing the benefits that society gives us that I *am* consenting to its authority – but the entire thing is an unconscious process. Perhaps if it were worded more ' By living in a part of a society, you are obligated to accept the rules of that society'.
I think a distinction between what is practical or most beneficial and what is morally right may be obfuscating the intent of some of these questions. With that and some secondary concerns, I offer these examples:
56. People who wrongly cause harm to others deserve retributive punishment.
I think you will find almost universal agreement to this on a moral basis. But is it prudent for controlling state power? How much punishment? Are other goals (e.g. rehabilitation) more important?
43. It is sometimes morally acceptable to use force (perhaps, if not necessarily, up to and including forcible exile or execution) to compel someone to follow the dictates of a government she or he does not accept—just because they are the dictates of that government.
The the "just because they are the dictates of the government" part is vague and perhaps non-neutral. Seems like most people would disagree. More appropriately, I think, is to ask "What, if any, compelling reasons can the government produce for these dictates?"
37. It is important to try to keep assumptions about the group or groups to which a person belongs from getting in the way of seeing the person in her or his particularity.
As another commenter pointed out, almost everyone at least will say the agree with this. Not sure if there's some other way to get more directly at how much a person thinks collectivist ideological solidarity is important (what i assume the intent of the question is). Similar idea in questions 35 and 3, i believe.
34. It is a good idea for a government in today’s world to maintain a very large military establishment in order to be ready to mount a defensive war at any time.
Well, I don't know about a VERY LARGE military, but I only put disagree here, as being able to defend one's country is a good idea, even if the military now is extremely overreaching/interventionist.
30. In today's economy, managers often make agreements with workers on terms they would resent if their roles and those of the workers were reversed.
The question is fine, i'd just like to lol maniacally.
22. I should participate in and support social institutions that assist people who are poor, sick, or handicapped.
The dreaded "should" word creeping in again…
Also, see question 10 for this issue.
13. Collective bargaining is often a fair, appropriate way for workers to protect their interests in relation to managers and investors.
"Fair." Is this asking if this method is effective or just if it's reasonable?
5. A society whose leaders speak frequently about the importance of freedom need only fear attacks from those who hate freedom.
Confusing. I'm assuming this either refers to government hypocrisy or scapegoating.
BTW's I'm a "progressive" who has recently become interested in Mutualism, especially through Kevin's blog. I'm thoroughly leftist under the traditional, uni-dimensional political scheme, but am primarily concerned with consequences beyond that basic ideology, so I'm interested to see how non-statist policies might be able to contribute towards those ends. So, in closing, "Smash the State?!".
The display of the results is unnecessarily confusing, IMO.
For example, I scored as 16% anarchist. But then I look at the scale, and my pointer is clearly on the anarchist side of the spectrum.
What's going on? Is the pointer off? Is my percentage off? After a little thought, I decided my percentage (bizarrely) was probably being measured from the center of the spectrum. Meaning, by normal measurement, I'm 58% anarchist. (Mike, I saw that you confirmed this in an earlier comment.)
It seems to me that it would make loads more sense to measure with 0% on one side of the axis and 100% on the other. That way I'm 58% anarchist, or 42% statist. Not 16% anarchist and negative 16% statist (whatever that means).
At the least, if you want to keep zero in the middle, you should consider labeling the axes so that it's more clear that this is going on. I would guess that either of these changes should be pretty easy to implement.
My recent post Free Keene Fest This Weekend!
Clarity in the options for each question would be nice. The way they're all jammed into that little box is a bit disorienting, and I had to make sure I was clicking the right option for agree/disagree.
So many of these questions provoked the same "answer" I find myself with in so many such quizzes…
Compared to what? …all other things being equal." What "other things?" How would anyone know that?
Should we help others? Under what conditions and who decides? No indication of who defines such things as what is "just" or "moral."
How does "being uncomfortable" with an adult child's choices matter here? I can be very uncomfortable, yet not seek to force my will or even my opinion on them.
Interesting quiz… but still too many ambiguities.
I think there should be other answers available: "I don't know", "I'm not sure", "I neither agree nor disagree".
There should be no multiclause, contingent statements. One doesn't know which part to answer, and many times they become trick questions. Many of the questions assume a particular view, then modify that for the question. Do I answer based on the premise, the consequent, the whole? Each can have its own answer. Most of the questions are too complicated. Each part should be asked separately.