POLITICAL COMPASS

I did one of those political compass things today, just to see if my views had changed since the last time. Don’t worry, I’m not going to tell you where I landed, or what my views are - you know I don’t ever do that, and I’m deliberately careful about the subject.

What was interesting to me this time was the way the questions were stacked, and what impact they might have on the way we answer them. I assumed the algorithm was unable to factor in how a question made you feel, and therefore whether answering it impacted the way you answered the next one; I may be wrong - it could be smarter than I know. All I could think of though, was whether it would have been the same if I’d taken it backwards.

For example, one question might ask whether you think it’s important that people have jobs. My response might be, er, yes, I think it is. But then a few questions later it asks you whether you think the entire point of education is to train children for their future careers. Can I answer no? Can I separate one question from another? Can I believe both things?

Perhaps I can. Perhaps I’m thinking too deeply. If it were a person with a clipboard asking me face-to-face, I’d feel under immense pressure to be consistent in these things. It would be a proper test then, and I’d want to pass - which in that scenario would mean that the tester likes me as a person. And on the whole, we all appreciate consistent, honest people, I think.

“Our race has many superior qualities compared with other races...” asked the test, further down. “Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree?”

I know it’s trying to push all the card-carrying authoritarian racists into their despicable quadrant, but really? Are the closet jingoists and xenophobes out there going to agree with that? Or are they more likely to pretend they don’t? Or just unaware that they hold that view at all, because they’ve convinced themselves otherwise? Seriously, who’s ticking ‘Strongly agree’ there? Apart from Joseph Goebbels.

Anyway, I landed almost precisely where I was when I did it before, which is probably a tick in the box for the men in white coats with clipboards. They like consistency, apparently, those zany boffins.

Another entanglement is how faith interplays with our answers. A question on abortion for example, might push the algorithm a long way to the left if it’s worded so that you’re agreeing it shouldn’t be illegal under any circumstance. But it is possible to believe, I suppose, that faith and state should be separate, even if you’re a person of great faith - in which case your approach to the question might be different. There’s a lot to be said for good context. And a pithy survey online might not be fully reflective.

Well despite the quantum entanglements of a primitive algorithm, I ended up as I say, in the Political Compass quadrant I expected, where half the people I know might be waiting for me, and the other half might be shocked I ended up there and not with them on the diametrically opposite side of the chart.

And if that’s so, that’s great. In a system where we choose our leaders by secret ballot and have had hundreds of years of training ourselves not to bring it up in public, that seems like just the way I’d like it.