Political compass question #1

[Hatman 🍁]

Discuss. I may make more of these in the future.

[Gabu]

This question, I feel, is very badly worded.  To respond to it is to agree with the idea that the interests of humanity and the interests of trans-national corporations are completely at odds with one another and that only one of the two can be served at any given time.  If you don't agree with that idea, answering the question to the best of your ability is essentially impossible.  Furthermore, it blatantly elicits an "agree" response because to disagree with it makes it sound like you care nothing about humanity and are in bed with corrupt CEOs.

[Cashcow]

Oops, I pressed "strongly disagree." You reversed the order.

[Speed of Sound]

SA

[jokerman]

SA

[Ebowed]

Strongly Agree

[MaC]

Am I the only one who has no idea what this is asking?  Maybe I'm dense and never thought about this, but I think it's more likely that the Political Compass is a piece of garbage.

[Gabu]

Am I the only one who has no idea what this is asking?  Maybe I'm dense and never thought about this, but I think it's more likely that the Political Compass is a piece of garbage.

Well, it's basically asking whether economic globalization should benefit humanity or corporations.

And yes, it is an extremely stupid question.

[Max Power]

This is moronic. If corporations benifit, so does humanity. Dumb, very dumb.

[Emsworth]

I would agree that it is a poorly worded question.

When I take the test, I answer "Strongly disagree."

[jokerman]

I do think that that the Political compass is a bit distorted.  If focuses too much on corporate issues on the economics and personal values on the social issues.  I think the main reason it accurately represents all of the people here is that we consciencly or not, nudge our scores to the place we want them.  I probably inflates my social conservativism by asking about personal and moral values.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Strongly agree, but it's a somewhat loaded question.

[??????????]

Strongly Disagree

[dazzleman]

This question, I feel, is very badly worded.  To respond to it is to agree with the idea that the interests of humanity and the interests of trans-national corporations are completely at odds with one another and that only one of the two can be served at any given time.  If you don't agree with that idea, answering the question to the best of your ability is essentially impossible.  Furthermore, it blatantly elicits an "agree" response because to disagree with it makes it sound like you care nothing about humanity and are in bed with corrupt CEOs.

Excellent points.  The two are not necessarily completely at odds, and the question is like a push-poll that is meant to suggest something as fact that is a matter of opinion, and a dubious one at that.  If one does not accept the notion that the two are opposed, as you say, then the question is beside the point, and there is no right answer.

[skybridge]

This is moronic. If corporations benifit, so does humanity. Dumb, very dumb.

Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

[??????????]

Yes it is a good idea to be asking questions and having polls like this. But I do agree that this isn't the greatest question. If you are going to do these polls consider the idea of rewording/changing the questions more to what you would ask if it were up to you. (which of course it is)

and speaking of which, you can create your own tests like this at selectsmart.com -- I have made a few there a few years ago I think

I think the PC has a lot more credibility then selectsmart.

[Hitchabrut]

Strongly disagree, although this question is fairly slanted and its answer doesn't deserve the impact which it recieves on one's score.

[nclib]

Strongly Agree.

[AkSaber]

I would agree that it is a poorly worded question.

When I take the test, I answer "Strongly disagree."

^^^^^^^

[Gabu]

This is moronic. If corporations benifit, so does humanity. Dumb, very dumb.

Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

I must assume you don't, if you think that corporations and humanity cannot both benefit from something.

[Citizen James]

Interesting to consider the wording.   I agree it is poorly worded, an the two are not always at odds.  (sometimes, but not always.  Corporations vary in nature from highly ethical to sociopathic).  Assuming the question to be reworded as:

If economic globalization is inevitable, there should be safeguards in place to make sure that people and resources are not excessively exploited (with the test taker making their own assumption as to what qualifies as excessive exploitation).

I would agree in general, depending on the specific details.

[Phony Moderate]

Strongly agree.

[Alexander Hamilton]

How could you not agree?

[k-onmmunist]

Strongly disagree.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Strongly disagree.

Corporatism and libertarianism are inherently incompatible.