Responding to my recent post on trying to identify one’s own political biases and the 39 questions that everyone agreed left much to be desired in dividing liberal from conservative, an old friend from both law school and the stage has suggested another resource to try. He is a professor of telecommunications at a prestigious Midwest university, and pointed me to a site called The Political Compass. It has a more nuanced set of questions, and multiple choice answers that will place you on a Left-Right (economic)/ Authoritarian-Libertarian (social) grid.

The site is clearly British, and obviously hasn’t been tended for a while: it looks like it was set prior to the 2012 election. I have other problems with it, not the least of which that it places Barack Obama in the Right/Authoritarian quadrant. The site charts past political leaders, and it looks to me like the President is the ideological clone of…Margaret Thatcher. I’d say it needs some tweaking.

I haven’t taken the test again to check, but how the program scores the distinction between agreeing or disagreeing and strongly agreeing or disagreeing  intrigues me; in my case, which I chose was a toss-up. (Update: I just took the test again with all “strongly’s” checked. The result was virtually the same—a tad more left and libertarian. That’s my first test result above. )

As you will see if you take the test, some of the questions are phrased to create a false choice, like.. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations,  and All authority should be questioned, and Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

Then there are the questions that are just bad, like “All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.” If you disagree, which part of the sentence are you disagreeing with? Or Good parents sometimes have to spank their children: huh? They have to, or may? When the children are infants? In college? Does sometimes mean now and then forever, or during a specific age-range, for a particular kind of misbehavior?

Some of the questions make me suspicious about their intent. This one, for example: The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline. It’s essential for children to learn discipline, especially self-discipline. Is this a trap to get me to admit to being a martinet who thinks children should be in military school? Some of the questions are just mysterious. What does this one—When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things—have to do with ideology? And doesn’t it make a difference whether what troubles you is something you have some control over? The Red Sox starting pitching troubles me, and so does the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming President. I deal with these a bit differently.

Here’s my least favorite question: In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. Commanded? I won’t agree to that, but I believe that all functioning organizations need an effective chain of command or hierarchy of authority. But in a democracy, the people are theoretically “above,” no “below.”

I’m interested in your thoughts.