One from the Vault: Joel's Political Test

My thoughts were wandering the other day, and for no particular reason I remembered this political test I made 4 years ago. That was back in the days before blogging, so at the time I just sent it to my friends via e-mail. But it is the kind of thing that I would have posted on the blog if it had been up and running back then.

So, I decided to rescue it from the vault and post it here. Fortunately the Yahoogroups list serve still has the all the archives stored on line, so all I had to do was copy and paste.

Many of you will remember this thing. But if you haven’t seen it yet, why not give it a try and see how you score on the “Joel Political Scale”? And let me know how you score and what you think.

At the end I've included as an addendum some of the original e-mails I used to send this out 4 years ago. First is the original (and more thorough) introduction to the test and the philosophy behind it.

There were some criticisms of this test, and so I'm also including some of my responses. I'm trying to observe good internet etiquette by reproducing only my half of the correspondence. This might make it a bit confusing since it is ripped out of context, but I think it is still understandable though. [Update 2008: Actually I've gone back and added the original comments to help make this more coherent. Feel free to contact me if you want your comments removed.]

With that in mind I’m going to keep my introduction here very short, because the philosophy behind this test is explained in a lot more detail in the attached e-mails at the end. But by way of a quick introduction:

During the month right before I left for Japan, it had been popular among my group of friends to have fun with various political tests on the internet. I took a few of them myself, but was never really happy with the framework of any of them.

I was at the bar one night when my former roommate and frequent political sparing partner Rob announced that he had taken an on-line test, and had tested as a political moderate. “You are not a moderate Rob,” I said. “You are one of the most conservative guys I know.”

“Nope, I’m a moderate,” Rob said. “The test said so. You are just an extremist, so from your perspective I might be conservative. But from the perspective of the ordinary person, I’m just a moderate.”

“That test is flawed,” I said. But Rob refused to budge. “Fine,” I said. “I’ll make my own political test, and will see how you score on that one.” Because I was never really happy with any of the political tests floating around the internet, designing my own test had been something I had wanted to do anyway.

(Rob ended up scoring as an “Anarchist Communist” on my test. I accused him of not taking the test seriously. He replied that he was simply answering all the questions “as if we lived in an ideal world.” I didn't think that was fair, but what could I do?)

Anyway, a few other people took the test as well and gave me their feedback. Four years later, I can see a number of flaws in it myself. In order not to bog this entry down too much in the front, I’ll attach my own self-criticisms at the very end, after everything else.

Quick explanation: Go through the questions and choose the option that most closely represents your view. You must choose only one option, and you must answer all the questions, even if you feel like you are being boxed in or that your view isn't represented.

After finishing, go back and circle the 3 questions which you feel most strongly about.

Then, go to the key at the bottom and find out how you scored on each question, and which ideologies that corresponds to. Many of the options presented line up with several ideologies at once, so you may have several numbers for each question. Just keep track of them all. Keep a total of how many times you line up with each ideology, and give triple weight to the answers on the 3 questions that you circled. Then, see which ideology you end up corresponding to most.

(You might want to print this out and do it with paper and pencil.)



1. The Ownership of the means of production should be…
A. Privately controlled without government interference
B. Privately controlled with Government supervision to protect labor and environmental concerns
C. Controlled by the government, which operates in the best interest of the Nation
D. Controlled by the Government, which operates in the best interest of the workers
E. Controlled by the people, through elected representatives
F. Controlled by the community in which it operates
G. Controlled directly by the worker

2. Freedom of Speech…
A. Should be preserved no matter what
B. Should be controlled to make sure the morals of the community are not offended
C. Should be controlled to ensure the value of equality is not threatened
D. Should be controlled to make sure the government is not threatened

3. Gun Control
A. Guns should not be regulated
B. Guns should be regulated to protect society from anti-social individuals
C. Guns should be regulated to protect the government from society

4. Abortion
A. Legal
B. Illegal, except when the mother's life is in danger

5. Homosexuals in the work force
A. The government should ensure that homosexuals are granted equal employment rights
B. While the government itself should not discriminate against homosexuals,it should not interfere with the practice of private businesses
C. Homosexuals should not be guaranteed equal employment rights
D. Homosexuality is a deviation from the norms of society and should not be tolerated
E. Workers should control the means of production, and operate them in such a way as to ensure all have equal rights

6. Military
A. The military should be used whenever the nation's interests are threatened.
B. The military should be used whenever human rights are threatened
C. The military should be abolished.

7. Structure of Government
A. People rule through elected representatives
B. Ruling party firmly in control
C. Hereditary ruler
D. Non-Hereditary ruler
E. Local Communes are self-governing through direct democracy

8. The impoverished
A. The poor should receive government assistance
B. Religious and private organizations should help the poor, but the government should stay out of it.
C. Wealth should be redistributed to ensure a classless society

9. Environment
A. Private industries should take it upon themselves to protect the environment, and the government should not interfere
B. The government should put reasonably restrictions of private businesses to protect the environment
C. Protecting the environment should take priority over industry

10. International Trade
A. Capital should be able to flow freely across international boundaries
B. Trade barriers should be erected to protect domestic industries
C. Trade barriers should be erected to protect international labor rights and the environment.
D. Ideally, there will be no boarders between worker's communes. However, until this happens capital should not be more mobile than the workers.

11. Affirmative action
A. Acceptable in the interests of creating an equal society
B. Unacceptable. It's reverse discrimination
B. Private businesses may adhere to whatever hiring policies they please, but the government should not encourage affirmative action

12. Prostitution
A. Should be outlawed because it is morally offensive
B. Should be legalized
B. Should be legal, provided economic policies are such that participants are not forced into the activity out of economic desperation.

13. Illegal drugs
A. Should remain illegal
B. Should be legalized

14. The Media should be
A. Controlled by corporate or private ownership
B. Controlled by the government
C. Controlled by the people through elected representatives
D. Controlled directly by the people
E. Controlled by the journalists

15. The Church
A. Should maintain a strict separation from the government
B. Should exert an influence on Government and government institutions
C. Should be subservient to the government
D. Should be outlawed.

16. Police
A. We should increase police funding and get more police on the streets
B. We should put more restrictions on the police to protect against police brutality.
C. Institutional police should be abolished. Local communities should police themselves.

17. Euthanasia
A. Legal
B. Illegal

18. Death Penalty
A. Not getting used enough these days
B. Reserved for the most appalling crimes
C. Reserved for Class enemies
D. Get rid of it completely

1=Conservative
2=Liberal
3=fascist
4=socialist
5=Libertarian
6=Anarchist-Communist
7=anarchist Syndicalism
8=Monarchist
9=Dictatorship
10=Communist

1 a(1,5) b(2) c(3) d(10) e (4) f(6) g (7) Not Offered (8,9)

2 a (5,6,7) b(1) c (2,4) d (3,8,9,10)

3 a (1,5) b(2,4) c (3,8,9,10) not offered (6,7)

4 a (2,4,5,6,7,10) b (1,3) not offered (8,9)

5 a (2,4,10) b (5) c (1) d (3) e (6,7) Not offered (8,9)

6 a (1,3) b (2,4,10) c (6,7) Not offered (5,8,9)

7 a (1,2,4,5) b(3,10) c (8) d (9) e (6,7)

8 a (2) b (1,3,5) c (4,6,10) Not offered (7,8,9)

9 a (1,3,5) b (2) c (4,6,7,10) not offered (8,9)

10 a (1,5) b (3) c (2,4,10) d (6,7) not offered (8,9)

11 a (2,4,10) b (1,3) c (5) not offered (6,7,8,9)

12 a (1,3) b (5) c (4,6,7) not offered (2,8,9,10)

13 a (1,3) b (2,4,5,6,7,10) not offered (8,9)

14 a(1,2,5) b(3,8,9,10) c (4) d(6) e(7)

15 a (2,4,5,6,7) b (1) c (3,8,9) d(10)

16 a (1,3) b(2,4,10) c (6,7) not offered (5,8,9)

17. A (2,4,5,6,7,10) B.(1,3) not offered (8,9)

18. a(3) B(1) C(10) D(2,4,6,7) Not offered (5,8,9)

Original Introduction Sent to List Serve

Joel's Political Test
(Alternate title for this e-mail: Does Joel have way too much time on his hands or what?)

Well, we had a great time at Z's last night (thank you Karen for setting that up, sorry for those of you who missed it). Unfortunately that damned political test came up again in the course of conversation. You know which one I'm talking about, the short one off the libertarian website.
Anyway, I had never been completely happy with that test before, because I had tested as a Libertarian and I don't consider myself a Libertarian at all. But, what really blew my top is Rob Patton apparently tested as a moderate. I tried to convince Rob that the test was off and that he was actually a reactionary, but Rob would not let go of his new found moderate status. So, I got him to agree that if I would design my own political test, he would take it, and we could see where he ended up on the “Joel Political Scale”. And, after all the work I put into it, I off course had to share it with you all as well.


Joel's Test
Schemata:It is of course hard to group political ideologies into a logically consistent framework. Everyone is familiar with the traditional left-right distribution. If your high School civics class was anything like mine, it read from right to left in the following order: Right Anarchism, Nazism, Fascism, Libertarian, Reactionary, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, Radical, Socialist, Communist, Left Anarchist.

Since we're all college educated people here, I think everyone is probably familiar with faults of trying to graph political ideologies on a one-dimensional axis. What one factor determines how far right or left an ideology is graphed? What does one do with the Libertarian Party, which is "socially liberal, economically conservative?" And if one takes a single issue and follows it along the graph, sometimes the results are ridiculous. For instance, Freedom of Speech is an absolute under Right Anarchism, then it becomes none existent under Nazism and Fascism, then an absolute again under Libertarian, then it becomes restricted under Reactionary and Conservative, and then grows under Moderate, Liberal, Radical, Socialist, and then becomes non-existent under Communism, and then an absolute under Left Anarchism.

A simple way of solving this is to move the discussion to a two dimensional schema, which is what the old test did. One axis represents government interference in the social realm, the other represents government interference in the economic. Conservatives like government interference in the social, but not in the economic, liberals are the reverse, and Libertarians favor no government interference in either. And I don't know what you would call someone who likes Government interference in both realms. My Calvin intro Poli Sci prof called it populism, so I'll just go with that.

Pater did an excellent job of exposing the libertarian bias of the old test, but does that mean the schemata itself is flawed? I think it is good for generalities, but if one presses it too far it falls apart. For instance, Gun control is an issue in which liberals favor more government interference in the realm of social affairs, and conservatives want less. And this can be an issue that decides how some people end up voting. Affirmative Action, and protection of civil rights is another example of how liberals can favor increased government interference in the social realm. As is the increasing tendency by some liberal groups to curtail free speech in favor of political correctness, or attempts to outlaw hate speech entirely. What's more, the schema doesn't allow for questions about the ownership of the means of production, the place of the military in society, and police conduct.

I once had a prof. who explained it to me like this: Conservatives will sacrifice freedom for the sake of maintaining law and order, while liberals will sacrifice freedom for the sake of equality. I like this definition, and used it a bit in creating my test, but of course we are now back to the one-dimensional schema, and all the problems it brings with it.The frustrating thing, I thought to myself, is everyone knows what the difference between a liberal and a conservative is, but try to explain it in a graph and everything gets screwy. It was at this point that I decided to drop the graph framework, and instead try and line the testee up with various political categories. It makes it a bit of a hassle to score yourself, but if I favored simplicity over accuracy I would have just gone with the old test.

Categories:There are ten possible categories in Joel's test: Conservative, Liberal, Fascist, Socialist, Libertarian, Anarchist-Communist, Anarchist-Syndicalism, Monarchist, Dictatorist, and Communist. Of course these overlap somewhat. One could easily have a Fascist dictator, or a conservative Monarch. Therefore, not every question will have options for every category. Although it was somewhat difficult at times to include Anarchist opinions in some of these questions which revolve around scope of government, I did not exclude political ideologies from any question because of the scope of the question. I simply added more options to make sure all views were represented. The only times I didn't include an ideological option under the question was times when the ideology seemed divided among itself. For instance, I could see a monarchy functioning under both pro-life and pro-choice, so Monarchists will not an option for themselves under that question. Similarly, I don't think anarchists as a whole have articulated any consistent theories about Gun control, so there is no Anarchist option under that question.

I have done my best to avoid equating Nazism with Fascism here, because I believe theories of racial superiority are not intrinsic to a fascist government. Instead, for the purposes of this test, Fascism can be described as a strong, authoritarian government which operates for the best interests of the State as a whole.

I also have decided to present Communism in theory rather then in fact. For instance, expressing a strong desire for human rights in this test could end up classifying you as a communist, even though Communist regimes in actuality have had some of the worst human rights records imaginable.
However, I have still went with the Leninist brand of communism, which even in theory is a very authoritarian kind of government and tolerates no dissent from the parties views.

Although the words Socialism and Communism have often been used interchangeably, the Socialist category here is patterned after the American Version of the Socialist party, which can be easiest described as a democratic version of communism.

And, as I alluded to above, I have still maintained some elements of the left-right distribution graph in placing some of these categories. For instance I have assumed that most Socialist share liberal views about abortion, environment, and affirmative action, and I have assumed that fascist will likely share conservative views on the same issues.

Oh, and one more thing, this test is geared towards an American audience, and the terms liberal and conservative are defined accordingly.

The Rules:
Go through, answer all the questions by picking one and only one answer. You have to answer for all the questions, even if you feel unrepresented by the choices being offered, just pick which one you feel closest to.

When you are done, go back and pick the three answers that you feel strongly about. (These will be given more weight in the scoring. Since there are a lot of single-issue voters out there, I thought this would be a good way to give a more accurate picture).

Scoring:
Okay, since unlike a certain other political test, I have not yet written a computer program which scores your results for you, this could be a bit of a pain in the ass, but bear with me. There is a key at the bottom of the test which lines up numerals with different ideologies.
Conservative=1, Liberal=2 and so on. So, for question 1, if you choose (A), you would get a score of 1 and 5, meaning you had answered the way a Conservative and a Libertarian would answer, so you just add those to your score. If question 1 was an issue you had marked as feeling strongly about, then you would triple your score for that answer (that is give yourself three 1s and three 5s). When the test is done, if you have a lot of 1s and 5s, you would consider yourself somewhere between a libertarian and a conservative. If you had more 5s than 1s, you would consider yourself more of a libertarian than a conservative.

Still with me? Okay, here's the problem. As mentioned above, there are a number of questions where not every ideology is mentioned. This could throw things off somewhat, but I'm hoping that by counter-balancing the scoring towards the 3 issues the testee feels strongest on, it will even things out somewhat.

A couple more things. I am looking for feedback on this before I give it to Rob, so tell me what you think. Is my understanding of Communism conditioned by class enemies? Did you turn out totally different than you thought? Is the wording on these questions slanted towards the left? (Oh, and in the interest of revealing my bias, I should acknowledge that I classify myself as Anarchist-Communist).

And, without further ado, here is Joel's Political Test.


Responses
Ok, I took the test and think it's a little skewed. Yes, I am a conservative(obviously), but fascism is close at my heels, which is ridiculous. Because of the overlapping numbers, I think that conservatism is placed much too close to fascism. For all the socialists out there who are too far from the right to make distinctions, fascism is a dictatorship, normally taken by military force.It is a centralized government that breeds extreme nationalism and elevates nation above individual. I would dare to say: "Scratch a fascist and you get a communist." These qualities (except for the dictatorship part) seem to be strikingly similar to the communist regimes of history. Amazing.

Since Communism and Fascism are both authoritarian regimes, they have tended to be remarkably similar to each other in practice. And no doubt Communist and Fascists share some ideas about the power of government over the power of the individual (and I think my test reflects that). Although there have been fascist dictators and communist dictators, I don't think dictatorship is necessarily a component of fascism (at least in theory).
The assumptions made about both Communism and Fascism in my test are that Communism is an authoritarian government that relies on leftist principles, and Fascism is an authoritarian government that relies on rightist principles. (And, as I alluded to in my introduction, left right distinctions are made along the "I can't give you a definition of either, but I'll recognize it when I see it principle"). Therefore a liberal may find him/herself uncomfortable close to communism in Joel's test the same way a conservative may find him/herself close to fascism. I hope the questions that allude to the structure of government and the rights of an individual above government will separate conservatives from fascists in the same way it will separate liberals from communists.
But, that's only my take on it, and I'm open to dialogue.


2.
In many ways you have captured it, but you have not done _exceedingly_ well in dividing Nazism from fascism. For example, an issue such as homosexuality was fought against by the Nazis, but that does not mean that a fascist would oppose it. Fascism does not necessarily want to uphold the _morals_ of the nation (as seen in Nazi Germany), it only seeks to retain its hold on society.

I tend to think of a fascist society as one where law and order are the primary good so much so that it over rides all other goods. Therefore, in making this test I thought that since Homosexuality was a deviation from the accepted norms, it would be a threat to the order of society and therefore not acceptable in a fascists regime. But again, I'm open to dialogue here.

3.
So this would not necessarily put a fascist on one particular side of issues like homosexuality, abortion, and welfare. As for welfare, it may be more accurate that the fascist government would get in it a small amount so they could control it.

Again, I am interpreting fascism here as an ideology which seeks a greater purpose than simply to keep itself in power (even if we don't agree with that purpose). In practice, I think you are right, a fascist regime might well take the "bread and circuses" approach to keeping the population content. I'm not sure if this is also true of fascism in theory.

4.
So there's my rant (as quick and largely unreasoned as it may be). Here's some particulars, though. I didn't know how to answer on a few questions. For #3,most conservatives would not necessarily argue for unregulated guns, but instead for minimal regulation (such as no semi-automatics). And perhaps the answer should be added "Guns should not be regulated to keep society free from government," which would obviously be a libertarian response.

Yes, perhaps one of the flaws of this test is that it doesn't allow much room for moderation on a number of these issues. (Abortion and illegal drugs are also examples where the testee is supposed to choose between extremes). However, I do hear some rhetoric from some conservatives(although not all) that even minimal gun regulation is unacceptable. The test does unfortunately not allow for distinction between moderate conservatives and extreme conservatives, but you can imagine what a nightmare it would be to add a moderate and extreme category to all of the existing ideologies I try and sort through. If you feel like you are boxed in on any of the questions, just don't mark that question as on of your 3 to be given extra weight.

5.
For #5,is "private business" inclusive of religious organizations? This is a question we're facing now as congress wants to ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1960(which gives religious organizations the freedom to not hire someone that does not reflect their system of beliefs) and force religious organizations receiving federal money to be under state and local anti-discrimination laws.Private business should comply with equal rights laws, but religious organizations should not be forced to.

Ok, I agree with this. You’re absolutely right, I didn't make a clear enough distinction between Private associations and businesses operating in the public sphere. I'll try to fix this in the re-write.

6.
For #7, the answers really don't go together. It should be more like "republic," "direct-democracy," "monarchy,"etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I thought I did have options for all of the above

7.
"Strong ruling party" is not a form of government, but a characteristic of government.

As you can see, this option corresponds with Fascism and Communism. What I meant by this wasn't like West Michigan, where the Republicans are firmly in control, but a system where it is not allowed to vote for any candidate who does not espouse the accepted views.

8.
And what do police have to do with anything? If I think there is too much crime that is going unchecked, I will want more police. I think the same would go for any person despite political philosophy (except for anarchist or libertarian). That question is not an adequate reflector.

Again, this is a question where the testee is forced into choosing between two extremes. One might well argue that we need both more police and more protections against police brutality. However, by forcing the testee to pick, I think a value is transmitted in the answer. Choosing more police would highlight law and order as a higher value than protection against police brutality, and choosing the opposite would say the reverse. (And I do believe that law and order is an issue that at least some conservatives feel strongly about. These conservatives accuse liberals of coddling criminals, and that we need to get tough on crime). And of course, getting ride of police entirely would show a strong anti-authoritarian bias which would be Anarchist. (I didn't include a libertarian option on this question, because I don't think the libertarian party has a consistent view on this issue).


8.
Thanks for the quick response, Swagman. And sorry for going off the handle fora bit there, I just get really touchy when I'm bordering fascism in any test. I think our problem lies in that I don't think fascism is any more concerned with law and order than any other authoritarian-type government. A communist government would be just as concerned with law and order in order to keep peace and avoid revolution, rebellion, or anything else that would make the people in charge lose power.My question with #7 lies with a contradiction of terms (in my mind). Whereas direct democracy, republic, monarchy are all _forms_ of government, strong ruling party, repressive, and multi-party (to give added examples) are_characteristics_ of government. When you ask what type of government structure is more ideal, strong ruling party may describe a structure, but it is not in and of itself a structure. For example, you can have a strong ruling party in a republic and a constitutional monarchy just as you can have a strong ruling party in a fascist or communist system. Hope that clears up what I'm trying to get across.

I think in practice you are right. A communist government would be just as concerned about law and order as a fascist government would. I was trying to compare both ideals in theory though, rather than practice, and I think in theory a communist government would put equality as it's highest goal, and a fascist government would put law and order as it's highest goal. Though in practice, you're right, it's very hard to tell the difference between Stalin and Hitler.

If number 7 was changed to read Oligarchy instead of ruling party, would that alleviate your concerns?
And, included in this message, is my new revised test (in case anybody out their cares). I changed the question on Homosexuality so it only deals with hiring practices, I softened the question on Abortion to read "illegal, except when Mother's life is in danger", and in the interest of being comprehensive, I added a question about Euthanasia and a question about the death penalty (both of which must have slipped my mind in the original).
But, nothing is set in stone, so let me know if you see something you don't like.

***************************************
And from another friend:
OK, Swagman, what am I? and here are some complaints I have on the questions, though this is surely a better political test than any other I'm familiar with.
[Ed. note--I'm only reproducing the questions where there were comments/ complaints.]

#4. Abortion
A. Legal
B. Illegal
>>Whoah, whoah, whoah. Too simple here. It should be legal in the case of danger to the mother's life, including cases where the strain of having the baby causes loved ones to fear suicide. And it should probably be phased out as other safety nets for pregnant mothers are phased in, to save us from a sudden coat-hanger crisis. So I pick C.

#5. Homosexuals
A. The government should ensure that homosexuals are granted equal rights.
B. While the government itself should not discriminate against homosexuals, it should not interfer with the practice of private businesses.
>>Depends on the size of the business. A Baptist day-care shouldn't have to hire gay people if it's against their principles. But if you're the only employer in a small town, then it gets hazy.

#6. Military
A. The military should be whenever the nation's interest are threatened.
B. The military should be used whenever human rights are threatened.
>>I honestly can't pick

#9. Environment
A. Private industries should take it upon themselves to protect the environment, and the government should not interfere.
>>Yeah, in an ideal world where businesses were owned by responsible sane people.
C. Protecting the environment should take priority over industry

13. Illegal drugs
A. Should remain illegal
B. Should be legalized
>>depends which ones

14. The media should be
A. Privately controlled
>>(but people should raise their personal standards)

My response:
Ahh, you broke the rules. You opted out of answering some questions and you didn't chose the 3 questions you wanted given extra weight.
As for the abortion issue: I totally agree with you that the debate has gone to the extremists. I myself would have a hard time answering the question as it is framed, since I agree with abortion in the early stages but not in the last trimester. However, I had difficulty deciding how to gauge the moderates on this issue. Perhaps you could give me suggestions. Otherwise I'm counting on the assumption that those who feel uncomfortable in either extremes will not choose this question as one of their 3 that will be given extra weight.
As for illegal drugs, your right again that there are a whole lot of shades of gray not accounted for, but you can imagine what a headache this would be if every shade of gray were accounted for, and it would be difficult to correspond the gradations to political ideologies. So again, I'm open to suggestions, but as the test stands just swallow you reservations and force yourself to choose one, and then make sure it isn't one of the questions you choose to give special weight to.

Self-Criticisms
From the perspective of four years later, I don’t think there’s anything seriously wrong with this test. It does what it sets out to do.

On the other hand there is nothing really right with it either. Because I felt that political ideologies could not be graphed in relation to each other with complete accuracy, I just designed a simple system of statements matching up to corresponding ideologies. Quite frankly a monkey could have done that. There are absolutely no surprises in this test, and it offers nothing of value. If you’re old enough to understand the questions, you probably have a pretty good idea of where you fall politically anyway.

The genius of all the other tests is that they attempt to arrange this all in some sort of schemata. Of course some accuracy is sacrificed when they do this, but the appeal is in seeing the attempt to make sense of the complex even if it can’t be done with absolute perfection. My test, by contrast, was just telling people what they already knew, and brings nothing new to the table.

Also the test is designed for ideologues. The questions all assume that the testee has already formulated a position for each of the issues, and those kinds of people are the kind of people who have a pretty good idea of where they stand politically anyway. The tests that are of value are the ones that seek to ferret out the underlying values behind the positions chosen.

This test offers no space for moderates. That is partly by design because I thought that moderate wasn’t so much an ideology in itself as it was a compromise between other ideologies, and thus impossible to fit into my test. That is why I insisted that, even though questions like abortion and drugs were phrased to only either one extreme or the other, the testee must force him or her self to answer. Again, since the test seeks to differentiate between different ideologies, it is adequate for what it set out to do, but it assumes everyone is an ideologue.

And this leads into what is perhaps the major problem of the test is that it tries to do too much and be too comprehensive. It is almost ridiculous to put anarchism and monarchism on the same test as questions which seek to differentiate conservatives from liberals. Questions concerning the structure of society are mixed together with questions dealing with ideology. For instance it could be argued that the only questions that matter are question one (owner ship of the means of production) and question 7 (structure of government). These are the ones that ultimately sort the ideologies out from each other. All the other questions are simply matters of degree. And yet these two questions are given no more weight than the rest of the test. In fact, if they are not among the 3 questions the testee chooses to emphasize, they are given less weight than some of the other questions.
Oh well, if nothing else creating this test kept me out of trouble for an afternoon in the summer before I came to Japan.