Notice: The C4SS Quiz is currently not rendering results. We appreciate any comments regarding the questions and how we can improve them. We hope to have the quiz fixed soon. Thank you for your patience.
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.
The C4SS Find Your Philosophy Quiz is an experiment designed to help make the distinctions between views about goals and views about ways of reaching those goals more clear and to enable anarchists to understand and highlight both their similarities with and differences from statists who may be their allies, adversaries, or conversation-partners. It’s designed to help place you along five separate spectra: Economic Leftist/Economic Rightist; Civil Libertarian/Civil Authoritarian; Socio-Cultural Liberal/Socio-Cultural Conservative; Anti-Militarist/Pro-Militarist; and Anarchist/Statist. There are 106 questions here, which aim to do so with a fine degree of granularity.
The Quiz is a work in progress. We welcome your feedback, and we look forward to working with you to improve its value as an analytical and educational tool. This is version 1.0, and you can leave feedback in the comments on the quiz announcement post.
Thanks for posting this questionnaire! Now I know where I stand — instead of just having a hunch I have a graphic display, and that's a good thing. Rush Limbaugh beware of my scores.
Understood. The unfortunate thing is that we don't want our quiz to become just another "political quiz." Just Another quiz that reduces nuance or fails to challenge paradigms.
I am sure there are more then a couple of questions that could be removed while maintaining our goals. We would like to work on improving the wholeness, harmony, and clarity (WHC) of the questions before we start removing them.
If there are any questions that you think we should remove or need a little WHC, please, lets us know.
You can list them here in the comments or email them to faq@c4ss.org
Well, this was not our intention. We would love the opportunity to correct any problems and improved the efficacy of the quiz. Any help you can give us, Matthew, would be appreciated. Feel free to email your comments and suggestions to faq@c4ss.org
Many of the questions are phrased in a way that suggests a bias and also philosophically may be correct, however ideals of global power politics don't often match up to what is pragmatic; these ideals only work if everyone believes in them.
We would like to improve this quiz. If you could email C4SS at faq@c4ss.org with the "oddly phrased questions," then we would love the opportunity to tighten up the language.
Hey. Thanks for making this quiz. I think it has the potential to be highly useful in many areas that other quizzes aren't. WIth that being said, I encourage you to take the time to read some of the concerns I have regarding this quiz. I suspect a lot of users may feel the same way. Thanks a head of time, and here are my concerns:
1. The lack of a "neutral stance" button.
Sometimes these questions address issues the test taker doesn't have a stance on, doesn't care about, or has a stance on it based on factors that are not addressed in the question, or at least, addressed clearly.
2. Ambiguous wording.
Words like "social roles", especially in the context of sensitive issues like gender, may mean drastically different things to different people. Social issues or gender roles in what? Politics? Business? Sex? Child raising? Context matters! Please use words and phrasing that more explicitly state what exactly the question is wanting an answer on. Many of these questions fail to adequately state a distinction as to wether the question is addressing a legal issue, a social issue, or both, making it impossible for the question taker to give a response that fully reflects their line of thinking. Remember that there is a difference between being a libertarian and being a libertine, and is quite possible to condemn the practice of something while ardently defending your right to do it. That is an example of a nuance that these questions make difficult to express. Naunce is very important especially in relation to issues like child raising, where one might believe that legal positive obligations and authority exist, independently of culture, in the relationship between parents and children, but NOT anywhere else, without being a "statist".
For example: child spanking and recovery of one's run away children. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it does not physically or mentally harm the child and actually helps them. Under these (certainly debatable) assumptions, I think it is safe to say that one can philosophically believe these things are politically just and morally sound without being considered either a statist or for that matter, a conservative; it's just a matter of inherent human dignity.
3. Loaded questions.
Some of these reflect loaded assumptions about the thing they are addressing. This is very dangerous when every questions is an either or scenario that forces you to be for or against something.
4. Not a clear distinction between explicitly political or explicitly social questions, or an explicit combination thereof.
There is a difference. Make it clear to the reader.
5. Not a clear explanation of what constitutes "left,right, conservative, etc."
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing feedback or and seeing changes!
I agree with the previous commenter that a short description of the terminology as understood by the test creators would be extremely useful; terms like left/right and liberal/conservative can have vastly different connotations depending on political or historical contexts, and probably explains some test-takers' confusion at their results.
on the political compass they explain which postition are which. This is missing here. you give a chart without any further explanation what it actually means to be socially libertarian or not. .
An explanation of what it means to be economically left/right would be very beneficial, I think. To most people, the difference is more/less (respectively) state intervention in the economy. Further, some distinction between whether we want co ops to exist because we hate hierarchy or because we think they are more economically sound or because we think they would be the result of free market forces. Personally I would strongly suport hierarchical workplaces if I thought they were the result of a genuinely free market, yet I came out as economically left because I happen to believe that a free market would happen to give birth to more equal work relations.
I am uneasy about the questions about feeling uncomfortable about family memeber marrying outside the family religion etc. as it is not clear that this is a political stance, if someone feels uncomfortable around Mormons, no amount of political virtue will necessarily overcome that. I take it that a premise of the quiz is that the persona IS the political, fair enough, but that itself is a political view, one that should be extrapolated out of the person taking the quiz.
Hi,
Great quiz, the one thing I take issue with is that there is no middle ground, that there are some things I neither agree nor disagree with, perhaps it is just me, but I would probably obtain more accurate results if there were a neutral 5th option.
I'm rather confused about the economic left rating of 19% I received. I'm very right-wing on economic issues … I may not believe the business is always right, but I do believe the government is almost always wrong! Perhaps unsurprising in that light, I produced 47% for both Civil Liberties and Anarchism.
Not related to the left/right part, there were some questions that would vary greatly depending on how I chose to read the question.
Example: "A member of a particular cultural or religious group should accept most or all aspects of the group’s identity as a package: at least in general, she or he should neither ignore them or seek to change them."
I flipped on this one four times. First, the question reads on an initial pass like its asking about one of the most destructive forces in western civilization … the concept of special rights for various "victim" groups. Then, a careful study of the wording shows the "should neither ignore them or seek to change them" clause Here we have a problem that (in my view) its unacceptable for an individual to try to force change upon a collective … so I strongly agree on the change bit. But by the same token, it's also unacceptable for the collective to force change upon the individual, so the part about not ignoring the group identity is every bit as much of a dealbreaker for me.
Then I started asking myself what defines a cultural group. Certainly "mainstream America" could be said to be a cultural group – and then I found myself circling back to cultural assimilation of immigrants, which I believe should be viewed in a positive light (but never forced). I don't really think this was what you were intending to test for.
In the end I went with "Disagree", but find the choice wanting.
Another example: "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."
Given the current American debate on Obamacare, this reads like a query regarding the government's power to implement regulations such as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance — a provision that backed with the force of the government is completely unacceptable and incompatible with the Constitution, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
However, the problem is that the question says that everyone pays for "services" and "entity" is not defined as government. If "services" are in fact rendered by an "entity" that is not using alternative means of financing (i.e. tax monies) the production of the service, yes, of course the consumer has the obligation to pay. If the government worked like that more often instead of just taxing people, the net result would be a substantial positive vis-a-vis the status quo in most western countries. Despite my initial visceral negative reaction to the question, I ended up answering "Agree".
Sorry, but this is a poorly worded and constructed quiz. You confuse cultural and religious questions with political ones. You don't seem to recognize that some people can separate their personal morals from their politics. You also don't seem to recognize a distinction between the private individual and the state.
Many of the questions are so poorly worded so as to be inscrutable. For example: "You should not be subject to legal penalties just because you consume a chemical substance." Does this include drunk driving? Driving on meth? Let's say someone crashes into and kills a child after ingesting a potentially lethal dose of meth. Would answering "yes" to this question preclude increasing the legal liability of someone who acted so recklessly? Many other questions are similarly subject to varying interpretations that could produce different answers by the same person. This is a sure sign of a badly worded questionnaire.
Thank you for your feedback. I hope to clarify a couple of issues.
It might be the case that we have confused or conflated issues that ought to be separated into non-overlapping cultural, religious, and political spheres. We also do not deny the existence of individuals that aspire to or value a compartmentalized, disintegrated, or Constantian separation of these spheres, but we are not concerned about them and neither are tyrants or warlords. We are also not convinced of the actual existence of such a stoically or heroically enlightened person (which is different from one who aspires or values, but fails nonetheless) or the Archimedean point for them to stand.
If they hold to their commitments, great. If they do not, then we would like to discuss the implications and ramifications of the interplay of their positions. Culture and religion paradigmatically and dialectically inform and constrain political considerations, preferences, and positions – just as we expect politics to inform and constrain cultural and religious considerations, preferences, and positions. In other words, we are not interested in keeping culture and religion politely out of political discussions, because they will and it would be odd to think that they wouldn't be an important part of explaining the social world that we inhabit and participate.
Take for example the inscrutable question, "You should not be subject to legal penalties just because you consume a chemical substance." It does not specify any story or contextual elements other than "just because".
You chose, based on your cultural and religiously informed values and concerns, to place our hypothetical person behind the wheel of a car speeding through a five year old's birthday party lethally blitzed on Wild Turkey and Meth, "just because". But you could just as easily had our hypothetical person be a ninety year old Grandmother begrudgingly smoking a joint for her glaucoma in the privacy of her own home two hours before her weekly Bridge Game that she responsibly hosts at her house so she wouldn't have to drive potentially under the influence, "just because".
With regard to answering, "yes," and increased liability, well this is not in the question. Should we add a separate question to deals with theories of punishment vs. theories of reconstitution? We certainly and enthusiastically can.
We do not deny that this questionnaire could be the most poorly worded document – ever. We are not aspiring with it peer reviewed reproducibility, instead we are interested in challenging preconceived links or alliances in the social system that makes up our shared social environment.
Well, that was frustrating… went through the entire quiz only to submit it and get no results… hit the back button and there were my answers, resubmitted and still no results. FYI Google Chrome 20.0.1132.57 m
Apart from that, some of the questions were ambiguous, and the post from "Liberty Love" two weeks ago makes some excellent points.
Ugh, like Scott above I went through the whole quiz just to have it not work at the end. I even wrote down my answers and tried again in Internet Explorer to no avail. Will you fix this soon?
I spent quite a lot of time to carefully and thoughtfully answer all 106 questions, but when I submitted my responses, I was directed back to a blank sheet of the same questions! Then I read the last comment in the forum, and realized the site administrators had already been aware of this issue for at least three days, but had not bothered to take down the quiz while they fix the problem! Please temporarily remove the quiz, so you do not continue to waste the time of your visitors!
I answered the questions, hit done, and..no results. What's going on here? Does anarchism equal 'I know my quiz has been broken for several weeks, but I'm going to sit around on my butt and do nothing about it because I'm an anarchist.' ? If you're going to create and maintain a website or quiz, then fix it if it's broken…the very minute that you discover it's broken. Otherwise, shut the website or quiz down permanently.
Sorry, the first sentence tried to warn you: Notice: The C4SS Quiz is currently not rendering results. We appreciate any comments regarding the questions and how we can improve them. We hope to have the quiz fixed soon. Thank you for your patience.
Liberal left is a modern, american political party stance. This political stance is actually Left-Authoritarian, with some Libertarian views, such as pro-choice, though they are usually pro-gun-control, pro-communism (in the non-radical sense, as in taxing the rich to bring them closer to the wealth of the middle class), and pro-welfare (bringing the poor up to the wealth of the middle class). Statism is in the Authoritarian spectrum, and as you get more authoritarian, you become more fascist (totalitarian). So, according to your political philosophy, you verge on a fascist communist, though only in the sense that you believe in equity and mandates, instead of efficiency and choice. In conclusion, if you believe there should be laws that require us to pay taxes for welfare, and laws that require us to love each other, you are a statist. If you believe it should be up to us, not the governemnt, to provide charity and freindship, then you are not a statist, and according to your stance as a liberal leftist, you are a statist, with some libertarian views.
it means you are a moderate when it comes to economics, which for all intensive purposes, means you are an american. that 1% is insubstantial, and you are essentially 50% left, 50% right. if you believe in the free market, then of course you are right, but if you believe in protecting the free market, it brings you closer to the middle, because then there is government regulation that protects against exploitation. also, if you believe in regulation on air pollution, it brings you further left, even though it may be the most responsible thing in order to ensure our social freedoms, and so sometimes society and economics can intermingle. the main point, is that you can believe in a free market, that is protected from being exploited into monopolies which prevent the free market, you see what i am getting at? there should be a balance, whihc you seem to understand.
libertarianism is a social philosophy, not an economic philosophy…. modern politics usually applies the word to the economic right, as a sort of economic libertarianism, which makes sense in that it highlights more economic freedom. if you believe there should be some minor regulations on the economy in order to protect individual rights to pursue economic interests, then you will move further left, even though you are libertarian (non-statist). it is more complicated then just saying "i am a libertarian," because you have to apply both a social and economic spectrum to the equation.
I read the first sentence and I was pretty upset. I really want to know what my results are. I really want to take this quiz, but I can't. When do you suspect that it will be fixed? Looking at the comments, it seems it has been like this for 2 months, maybe more. That is too long.
Chip In to get C4SS and Markets Not Capitalism to Libertopia!
Markets Not Capitalism
Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty
Ed. Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson
Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists.
By C4SS Advisory Panel member Gary Chartier. A compelling case for a stateless society.
Anarchy happens when people organize their lives peacefully and voluntarily, without state aggression. This simple but powerful book explains why the state is illegitimate, unnecessary and dangerous, and what we can do to begin achieving real freedom. Paperback, 129 pp.
Thanks for posting this questionnaire! Now I know where I stand — instead of just having a hunch I have a graphic display, and that's a good thing. Rush Limbaugh beware of my scores.
Ok, I guess. A shorter version would encourage more participation.
I found some of the questions difficult to parse, blind to nuance. I'm not sure how accurate it is.
Dear Amy,
Understood. The unfortunate thing is that we don't want our quiz to become just another "political quiz." Just Another quiz that reduces nuance or fails to challenge paradigms.
I am sure there are more then a couple of questions that could be removed while maintaining our goals. We would like to work on improving the wholeness, harmony, and clarity (WHC) of the questions before we start removing them.
If there are any questions that you think we should remove or need a little WHC, please, lets us know.
You can list them here in the comments or email them to faq@c4ss.org
All the best,
–James
My recent post “A left-libertarian approach is to build from the bottom…
Well, this was not our intention. We would love the opportunity to correct any problems and improved the efficacy of the quiz. Any help you can give us, Matthew, would be appreciated. Feel free to email your comments and suggestions to faq@c4ss.org
All the best,
–James
I don't like that label of left and right was attached.
Many of the questions are phrased in a way that suggests a bias and also philosophically may be correct, however ideals of global power politics don't often match up to what is pragmatic; these ideals only work if everyone believes in them.
Well, unsurprisingly I'm a member of the liberal left. But due to a couple of oddly phrased questions, I'm apparently a statist (just).
I prefer to think that, unlike the quiz, I can distinguish between State and government.
Dear Lev,
We would like to improve this quiz. If you could email C4SS at faq@c4ss.org with the "oddly phrased questions," then we would love the opportunity to tighten up the language.
All the best,
–James
My recent post Tulsa GMB IWW: A Dull Title for a Serious Problem
Hey so I got 51% Economic Leftist. Strange considering I am strongly libertarian in the Austrian Tradition. Any thoughts on this?
A staunch libertarian friend and I (I'm also a hardcore libertarian) are coming up as economic leftists. Wth?
Hey. Thanks for making this quiz. I think it has the potential to be highly useful in many areas that other quizzes aren't. WIth that being said, I encourage you to take the time to read some of the concerns I have regarding this quiz. I suspect a lot of users may feel the same way. Thanks a head of time, and here are my concerns:
1. The lack of a "neutral stance" button.
Sometimes these questions address issues the test taker doesn't have a stance on, doesn't care about, or has a stance on it based on factors that are not addressed in the question, or at least, addressed clearly.
2. Ambiguous wording.
Words like "social roles", especially in the context of sensitive issues like gender, may mean drastically different things to different people. Social issues or gender roles in what? Politics? Business? Sex? Child raising? Context matters! Please use words and phrasing that more explicitly state what exactly the question is wanting an answer on. Many of these questions fail to adequately state a distinction as to wether the question is addressing a legal issue, a social issue, or both, making it impossible for the question taker to give a response that fully reflects their line of thinking. Remember that there is a difference between being a libertarian and being a libertine, and is quite possible to condemn the practice of something while ardently defending your right to do it. That is an example of a nuance that these questions make difficult to express. Naunce is very important especially in relation to issues like child raising, where one might believe that legal positive obligations and authority exist, independently of culture, in the relationship between parents and children, but NOT anywhere else, without being a "statist".
For example: child spanking and recovery of one's run away children. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it does not physically or mentally harm the child and actually helps them. Under these (certainly debatable) assumptions, I think it is safe to say that one can philosophically believe these things are politically just and morally sound without being considered either a statist or for that matter, a conservative; it's just a matter of inherent human dignity.
3. Loaded questions.
Some of these reflect loaded assumptions about the thing they are addressing. This is very dangerous when every questions is an either or scenario that forces you to be for or against something.
4. Not a clear distinction between explicitly political or explicitly social questions, or an explicit combination thereof.
There is a difference. Make it clear to the reader.
5. Not a clear explanation of what constitutes "left,right, conservative, etc."
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing feedback or and seeing changes!
Where is the neutral button? How can I tell which questions are related to politics and which ones are related to culture?
I agree with the previous commenter that a short description of the terminology as understood by the test creators would be extremely useful; terms like left/right and liberal/conservative can have vastly different connotations depending on political or historical contexts, and probably explains some test-takers' confusion at their results.
on the political compass they explain which postition are which. This is missing here. you give a chart without any further explanation what it actually means to be socially libertarian or not. .
An explanation of what it means to be economically left/right would be very beneficial, I think. To most people, the difference is more/less (respectively) state intervention in the economy. Further, some distinction between whether we want co ops to exist because we hate hierarchy or because we think they are more economically sound or because we think they would be the result of free market forces. Personally I would strongly suport hierarchical workplaces if I thought they were the result of a genuinely free market, yet I came out as economically left because I happen to believe that a free market would happen to give birth to more equal work relations.
I am uneasy about the questions about feeling uncomfortable about family memeber marrying outside the family religion etc. as it is not clear that this is a political stance, if someone feels uncomfortable around Mormons, no amount of political virtue will necessarily overcome that. I take it that a premise of the quiz is that the persona IS the political, fair enough, but that itself is a political view, one that should be extrapolated out of the person taking the quiz.
Still, the best political quiz I've ever taken.
My recent post The internal contradictions of Libertarianism
Hi,
Great quiz, the one thing I take issue with is that there is no middle ground, that there are some things I neither agree nor disagree with, perhaps it is just me, but I would probably obtain more accurate results if there were a neutral 5th option.
Agreed!
We are working on upgrading the quiz. We just need more feedback and suggestions like yours.
ALL the best,
–James
My recent post c4ss:
Capitalism has facilitated democracy, fascism, state…
I'm rather confused about the economic left rating of 19% I received. I'm very right-wing on economic issues … I may not believe the business is always right, but I do believe the government is almost always wrong! Perhaps unsurprising in that light, I produced 47% for both Civil Liberties and Anarchism.
Not related to the left/right part, there were some questions that would vary greatly depending on how I chose to read the question.
Example: "A member of a particular cultural or religious group should accept most or all aspects of the group’s identity as a package: at least in general, she or he should neither ignore them or seek to change them."
I flipped on this one four times. First, the question reads on an initial pass like its asking about one of the most destructive forces in western civilization … the concept of special rights for various "victim" groups. Then, a careful study of the wording shows the "should neither ignore them or seek to change them" clause Here we have a problem that (in my view) its unacceptable for an individual to try to force change upon a collective … so I strongly agree on the change bit. But by the same token, it's also unacceptable for the collective to force change upon the individual, so the part about not ignoring the group identity is every bit as much of a dealbreaker for me.
Then I started asking myself what defines a cultural group. Certainly "mainstream America" could be said to be a cultural group – and then I found myself circling back to cultural assimilation of immigrants, which I believe should be viewed in a positive light (but never forced). I don't really think this was what you were intending to test for.
In the end I went with "Disagree", but find the choice wanting.
Another example: "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."
Given the current American debate on Obamacare, this reads like a query regarding the government's power to implement regulations such as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance — a provision that backed with the force of the government is completely unacceptable and incompatible with the Constitution, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
However, the problem is that the question says that everyone pays for "services" and "entity" is not defined as government. If "services" are in fact rendered by an "entity" that is not using alternative means of financing (i.e. tax monies) the production of the service, yes, of course the consumer has the obligation to pay. If the government worked like that more often instead of just taxing people, the net result would be a substantial positive vis-a-vis the status quo in most western countries. Despite my initial visceral negative reaction to the question, I ended up answering "Agree".
Question number one is a psychological question. Not a political one.
My recent post >> Barnevernets hersketeknikker • Barnevernsstudent skryter av "kompetanse" i nettdebatt
Sorry, but this is a poorly worded and constructed quiz. You confuse cultural and religious questions with political ones. You don't seem to recognize that some people can separate their personal morals from their politics. You also don't seem to recognize a distinction between the private individual and the state.
Many of the questions are so poorly worded so as to be inscrutable. For example: "You should not be subject to legal penalties just because you consume a chemical substance." Does this include drunk driving? Driving on meth? Let's say someone crashes into and kills a child after ingesting a potentially lethal dose of meth. Would answering "yes" to this question preclude increasing the legal liability of someone who acted so recklessly? Many other questions are similarly subject to varying interpretations that could produce different answers by the same person. This is a sure sign of a badly worded questionnaire.
Dear Cato,
Thank you for your feedback. I hope to clarify a couple of issues.
It might be the case that we have confused or conflated issues that ought to be separated into non-overlapping cultural, religious, and political spheres. We also do not deny the existence of individuals that aspire to or value a compartmentalized, disintegrated, or Constantian separation of these spheres, but we are not concerned about them and neither are tyrants or warlords. We are also not convinced of the actual existence of such a stoically or heroically enlightened person (which is different from one who aspires or values, but fails nonetheless) or the Archimedean point for them to stand.
If they hold to their commitments, great. If they do not, then we would like to discuss the implications and ramifications of the interplay of their positions. Culture and religion paradigmatically and dialectically inform and constrain political considerations, preferences, and positions – just as we expect politics to inform and constrain cultural and religious considerations, preferences, and positions. In other words, we are not interested in keeping culture and religion politely out of political discussions, because they will and it would be odd to think that they wouldn't be an important part of explaining the social world that we inhabit and participate.
Take for example the inscrutable question, "You should not be subject to legal penalties just because you consume a chemical substance." It does not specify any story or contextual elements other than "just because".
You chose, based on your cultural and religiously informed values and concerns, to place our hypothetical person behind the wheel of a car speeding through a five year old's birthday party lethally blitzed on Wild Turkey and Meth, "just because". But you could just as easily had our hypothetical person be a ninety year old Grandmother begrudgingly smoking a joint for her glaucoma in the privacy of her own home two hours before her weekly Bridge Game that she responsibly hosts at her house so she wouldn't have to drive potentially under the influence, "just because".
With regard to answering, "yes," and increased liability, well this is not in the question. Should we add a separate question to deals with theories of punishment vs. theories of reconstitution? We certainly and enthusiastically can.
We do not deny that this questionnaire could be the most poorly worded document – ever. We are not aspiring with it peer reviewed reproducibility, instead we are interested in challenging preconceived links or alliances in the social system that makes up our shared social environment.
ALL the best,
–James
My recent post C4SSdotORG: The Longest Con
Well, that was frustrating… went through the entire quiz only to submit it and get no results… hit the back button and there were my answers, resubmitted and still no results. FYI Google Chrome 20.0.1132.57 m
Apart from that, some of the questions were ambiguous, and the post from "Liberty Love" two weeks ago makes some excellent points.
Ugh, like Scott above I went through the whole quiz just to have it not work at the end. I even wrote down my answers and tried again in Internet Explorer to no avail. Will you fix this soon?
We apologize for any inconvenience. The problem is being fixed.
My recent post C4SSdotORG: The Longest Con
I spent quite a lot of time to carefully and thoughtfully answer all 106 questions, but when I submitted my responses, I was directed back to a blank sheet of the same questions! Then I read the last comment in the forum, and realized the site administrators had already been aware of this issue for at least three days, but had not bothered to take down the quiz while they fix the problem! Please temporarily remove the quiz, so you do not continue to waste the time of your visitors!
this quiz is still broken. . ..105 questions and no results is not good.
Quiz results not working using IE9, Windows 7/64 bit. Take the quiz down until the bugs are fixed!
hahaha i guess i should've read the first paragraph before carefully answering this. Oh Well.
I click on the "I'm finished" button and nothing showed up.
This fucking sucks. I wasted so much time on this.
Sorry. The first sentence tried to warn you.
I answered the questions, hit done, and..no results. What's going on here? Does anarchism equal 'I know my quiz has been broken for several weeks, but I'm going to sit around on my butt and do nothing about it because I'm an anarchist.' ? If you're going to create and maintain a website or quiz, then fix it if it's broken…the very minute that you discover it's broken. Otherwise, shut the website or quiz down permanently.
We are sorry. The first sentence at the beginning of this quiz tried to warn you.
it's all part of the plan… your if you do 106 questions to find out your philosophy then… yeah…
Sorry, the first sentence tried to warn you: Notice: The C4SS Quiz is currently not rendering results. We appreciate any comments regarding the questions and how we can improve them. We hope to have the quiz fixed soon. Thank you for your patience.
Liberal left is a modern, american political party stance. This political stance is actually Left-Authoritarian, with some Libertarian views, such as pro-choice, though they are usually pro-gun-control, pro-communism (in the non-radical sense, as in taxing the rich to bring them closer to the wealth of the middle class), and pro-welfare (bringing the poor up to the wealth of the middle class). Statism is in the Authoritarian spectrum, and as you get more authoritarian, you become more fascist (totalitarian). So, according to your political philosophy, you verge on a fascist communist, though only in the sense that you believe in equity and mandates, instead of efficiency and choice. In conclusion, if you believe there should be laws that require us to pay taxes for welfare, and laws that require us to love each other, you are a statist. If you believe it should be up to us, not the governemnt, to provide charity and freindship, then you are not a statist, and according to your stance as a liberal leftist, you are a statist, with some libertarian views.
it means you are a moderate when it comes to economics, which for all intensive purposes, means you are an american. that 1% is insubstantial, and you are essentially 50% left, 50% right. if you believe in the free market, then of course you are right, but if you believe in protecting the free market, it brings you closer to the middle, because then there is government regulation that protects against exploitation. also, if you believe in regulation on air pollution, it brings you further left, even though it may be the most responsible thing in order to ensure our social freedoms, and so sometimes society and economics can intermingle. the main point, is that you can believe in a free market, that is protected from being exploited into monopolies which prevent the free market, you see what i am getting at? there should be a balance, whihc you seem to understand.
libertarianism is a social philosophy, not an economic philosophy…. modern politics usually applies the word to the economic right, as a sort of economic libertarianism, which makes sense in that it highlights more economic freedom. if you believe there should be some minor regulations on the economy in order to protect individual rights to pursue economic interests, then you will move further left, even though you are libertarian (non-statist). it is more complicated then just saying "i am a libertarian," because you have to apply both a social and economic spectrum to the equation.
I read the first sentence and I was pretty upset. I really want to know what my results are. I really want to take this quiz, but I can't. When do you suspect that it will be fixed? Looking at the comments, it seems it has been like this for 2 months, maybe more. That is too long.
FIX THE QUIZ ALREADY!