"FBG Research" Political Typology Project (1 Viewer)

[Captain Cranks]

I think it would be helpful and fun to create a typology quiz similar to the Pew Research quiz. Then we could run the political identities polls again and have a better idea of where everyone stands since the labels will be somewhat defined. 

The first step is to determine the "types". I'm thinking there should be at least 6 and perhaps as many as 10. The extreme left side of the spectrum would be identified as "1" and the extreme right identified as "6" (or however many types we have).

Second step would be to create a list of political topics to create questions.

Third step is to create a question for each topic and identify how each type would answer. Extreme left answers get 1. Extreme right 6.

Each person takes the quiz and averages their score over the number of questions. 

A new public poll is issued to collect the results. 

Any ideas on how to improve this process?

 

[Rich Conway]

I'd suggest you need more than a single axis, fully recognizing that this complicates matters quite a bit.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'd suggest you need more than a single axis, fully recognizing that this complicates matters quite a bit.

Conceptually I understand what you mean, but how would we implement that in practice?

 

[Ilov80s]

Conceptually I understand what you mean, but how would we implement that in practice?

My initial thoughts would be an X axis that represents fiscal views and a Y axis that represents social views. However, I think that is still missing another dimension or 2. 

 

[Rich Conway]

My initial thoughts would be an X axis that represents fiscal views and a Y axis that represents social views. However, I think that is still missing another dimension or 2. 

Yeah, I kind of think there's more to it, too.  For example, there are folks on both the left and right with authoritarian views.  Maybe start by defining what we want to measure, such as fiscal views, social views, role of government, etc.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

If it's relying on self assessment, you're wasting your time.

 

[The Commish]

I think you'd be far better off creating polls about various topics...similar to the "What is normal" threads in the FFA.  Over time, a pattern emerges.  Of course, they'd all need to be public with this crew, but it could be done.

"On a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being 'no abortions ever under any circumstance' and 10 being 'all abortions all the time', where do you fall on the spectrum?"

Or, you could ask the questions in a way of "which best describes your position on X?" providing 5 options on the spectrum....I suggest the first one merely to get rid of the whining about none of the 5 options fitting a person best etc.

 

[Captain Cranks]

If it's relying on self assessment, you're wasting your time.

You wouldn't be putting yourself into the buckets. You'd be answering how you feel about certain topics and the score would be a function of those answers. Crude example, but "What play should be called on 1st and goal from the 5 with a minute left and down by 4?"  Six options are provided. Your answer is then scored on a spectrum of passive or aggressive. 

 

[Captain Cranks]

I think you'd be far better off creating polls about various topics...similar to the "What is normal" threads in the FFA.  Over time, a pattern emerges.  Of course, they'd all need to be public with this crew, but it could be done.

"On a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being 'no abortions ever under any circumstance' and 10 being 'all abortions all the time', where do you fall on the spectrum?"

Or, you could ask the questions in a way of "which best describes your position on X?" providing 5 options on the spectrum.

Yeah, but how do you categorize a person in general? I may be moderate on average but have an extreme view about a specific topic. The thought was to have 10-20 questions like your bolded and then categorize a person with the average of those answers.

 

[Rich Conway]

You wouldn't be putting yourself into the buckets. You'd be answering how you feel about certain topics and the score would be a function of those answers. Crude example, but "What play should be called on 1st and goal from the 5 with a minute left and down by 4?"  Six options are provided. Your answer is then scored on a spectrum of passive or aggressive. 

Can I ask Pete Carroll what he thinks?

 

[The Commish]

Yeah, but how do you categorize a person in general? I may be moderate on average but have an extreme view about a specific topic. The thought was to have 10-20 questions like your bolded and then categorize a person with the average of those answers.

Being completely honest and candid, I couldn't care less how individuals are categorized in general.  I care about where they're at on specific topics.  But, as I said, over time a pattern emerges.  To get there, it requires keeping a hand count.  You'd need to make sure that all the question answers going in the same direction....1=most conservative/liberal 10=most liberal/conservative or I guess you could do 0 as completely neutral and minus numbers going towards one side and positive going to the other.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think you'd be far better off creating polls about various topics...similar to the "What is normal" threads in the FFA.  Over time, a pattern emerges.  Of course, they'd all need to be public with this crew, but it could be done.

"On a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being 'no abortions ever under any circumstance' and 10 being 'all abortions all the time', where do you fall on the spectrum?"

Or, you could ask the questions in a way of "which best describes your position on X?" providing 5 options on the spectrum....I suggest the first one merely to get rid of the whining about none of the 5 options fitting a person best etc.

This would also help people break the habit of thinking of ideological issues as falling into a "right" bucket and a "left" bucket.  This is hardly an original observation, but it's stupid that knowing a person's views on abortion tells you quite a bit about their views on climate change.  It would be better for people to look at issues on their own terms and less on tribal terms.

 

[The Commish]

This would also help people break the habit of thinking of ideological issues as falling into a "right" bucket and a "left" bucket.  This is hardly an original observation, but it's stupid that knowing a person's views on abortion tells you quite a bit about their views on climate change.  It would be better for people to look at issues on their own terms and less on tribal terms.

 This would be a heavy lift for this place for sure.  It's some serious dogma to break through when one is convinced a fiscally conservative, pro-life, keep the gov't out of most of my life, white dude is a "leftist" and or "radical left". 

 

[Joe Bryant]

This would also help people break the habit of thinking of ideological issues as falling into a "right" bucket and a "left" bucket.  This is hardly an original observation, but it's stupid that knowing a person's views on abortion tells you quite a bit about their views on climate change.  It would be better for people to look at issues on their own terms and less on tribal terms.

Yeah, sure @IvanKaramazov. But then how are we going to play the "Someone that says they're in the same party as you said something dumb so that means you are exactly like them" game? 

 

[Herb]

Yeah, sure @IvanKaramazov. But then how are we going to play the "Someone that says they're in the same party as you said something dumb so that means you are exactly like them" game? 

Oh, please. If we've proven nothing else in the PSF, it's that we'll keep playing the game no matter what the evidence to the contrary is.

 

[Mister CIA]

Ambivalent Right, standing by.

 

[Mister CIA]

Need to distinguish between radicals and disrupters.  The Squad members are radicals, and that's okay. Out of 435 Reps, they are the farthest left members but they fall with acceptable boundaries. On the other hand, the likes of MTG, Gaetz, Boebert, and Gohmert:  THEY ARE NOT RADICALS. Their purpose is to disrupt and distract.  Whatever spectrum you define, disrupters are worthy of distinction.

A lot more deserves to be said about this, but essays are not my thing.

 

[jon_mx]

Need to distinguish between radicals and disrupters.  The Squad members are radicals, and that's okay. Out of 435 Reps, they are the farthest left members but they fall with acceptable boundaries. On the other hand, the likes of MTG, Gaetz, Boebert, and Gohmert:  THEY ARE NOT RADICALS. Their purpose is to disrupt and distract.  Whatever spectrum you define, disrupters are worthy of distinction.

A lot more deserves to be said about this, but essays are not my thing.

That is the typical response.  Our whackos on the left are good natured people whose motives are pure.  Your whackos are evil.  

Like it or not, there are two teams.   Sure every player is different and has different roles.  Even when the coaching staff changes and it looks like their goals are different and the flavor and rhetoric changes.  It is still the same general principal.  Either you favor going towards an elitist collectivist world or you favor where individual rights and freedom trump elitist collectivism and things are controlled more locally or even family level. 

Many on the team elitist collectivist will object and point out many examples where their team support the individual rights.  But the reality is, they are still enabling the team elitist collectivist's goals.  These individual rights are typically aimed at the destruction of the traditional family.  The enablers may even sincerely believe they do not buy into the ideology of the elitist collectivists.  Despite the apparent diversity of team elitist collectivists views and an asortment of numerous pet issues that seem unrelated, the foundation and ultimate goal of these disjointed movements are the same.  

 

[Captain Cranks]

Being completely honest and candid, I couldn't care less how individuals are categorized in general.  I care about where they're at on specific topics.  But, as I said, over time a pattern emerges.  To get there, it requires keeping a hand count.  You'd need to make sure that all the question answers going in the same direction....1=most conservative/liberal 10=most liberal/conservative or I guess you could do 0 as completely neutral and minus numbers going towards one side and positive going to the other.

We seem to be on the same page in terms of developing questions answered with numeric values. I think those values should be tethered to a description. How about we start off with climate change. What do we think the descriptions below should be to capture radical, moderate, and neutral positions? I started things off but am open to other ideas.

What are your feelings about climate change?

1. Radical Liberal - It's an existential threat to humankind and transition away from fossil fuels needs to happen ASAP no matter what the cost.

2. Moderate Liberal -  

3. Neutral - 

4. Moderate Conservative - 

5.Radical Conservative - Climate change is a hoax. We should continue our reliance on fossil fuels.

Indifferent/Abstain - I don't have an opinion about climate change 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would start by dropping the term "radical" from these categories.  The use of that term is skewing how people interpret this stuff.

 

[The Commish]

We seem to be on the same page in terms of developing questions answered with numeric values. I think those values should be tethered to a description. How about we start off with climate change. What do we think the descriptions below should be to capture radical, moderate, and neutral positions? I started things off but am open to other ideas.

What are your feelings about climate change?

1. Radical Liberal - It's an existential threat to humankind and transition away from fossil fuels needs to happen ASAP no matter what the cost.

2. Moderate Liberal -  

3. Neutral - 

4. Moderate Conservative - 

5.Radical Conservative - Climate change is a hoax. We should continue our reliance on fossil fuels.

Indifferent/Abstain - I don't have an opinion about climate change 

I'd make all of them scale of 1-9

1 - Radical Liberal
3 - Moderate Liberal
5 - Neutral
7 - Moderate Conservative
9 - Radical Conservative

0/10 - Indifferent/Abstain

Maybe consider "Party Line Liberal" and "Party Line Conservative" or just labeling 3,5,7

ETA:  What IK said

 

[Captain Cranks]

I would start by dropping the term "radical" from these categories.  The use of that term is skewing how people interpret this stuff.

I wouldn't include the category labels. They'd be assigned to the options beneath the surface.

 

[The Commish]

I wouldn't include the category labels. They'd be assigned to the options beneath the surface.

If this is the case, then I'd do examples for the extremes, like in your example and create a label for "neutral" and then let everything fall on the scale from there.

 

[Captain Cranks]

If this is the case, then I'd do examples for the extremes, like in your example and create a label for "neutral" and then let everything fall on the scale from there.

sounds good. So with these adjustments we'd see...

What are your feelings about climate change?

1. It's an existential threat to humankind and transition away from fossil fuels needs to happen ASAP no matter what the cost.

3. ____________________

5. Neutral  

7. ____________________

9. Climate change is a hoax. We should continue our reliance on fossil fuels.

0 - Indifferent/Abstain

 

[The Commish]

sounds good. So with these adjustments we'd see...

What are your feelings about climate change?

1. It's an existential threat to humankind and transition away from fossil fuels needs to happen ASAP no matter what the cost.

3. ____________________

5. Neutral  

7. ____________________

9. Climate change is a hoax. We should continue our reliance on fossil fuels.

0 - Indifferent/Abstain

yeah, with a 2.4.6.8 in there as options for more nuance if the poll setup allows.  And just for fun you can let the "sides" come up with what goes in 1 and 9 describe each other  

 

[Captain Cranks]

OK. So what's the moderate liberal and moderate conservative positions on this? I'll take a stab with the liberal in saying, "Climate change is an imminent threat and steps should be taken to transition from fossil fuels quickly although I acknowledge that fossil fuels will continue to play a part in our energy needs"

 

[IvanKaramazov]

sounds good. So with these adjustments we'd see...

What are your feelings about climate change?

1. It's an existential threat to humankind and transition away from fossil fuels needs to happen ASAP no matter what the cost.

3. ____________________

5. Neutral  

7. ____________________

9. Climate change is a hoax. We should continue our reliance on fossil fuels.

0 - Indifferent/Abstain

If I had to make some suggestions, it would be something kind of like this:

3. Climate change is urgently important, and we should significantly reduce CO2 emissions even if it means a significant decline in living standards.  

5. Climate change is an important issue.  We should invest in green energy and nuclear power to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels inexpensively. 

7. Climate change matters, but the fossil fuels are a cheap, plentiful source of energy that we should continue to utilize.  Technology will either fix the problem in the future or help us mitigate the effects.  (This is the one that I feel least sure would pass a Turing test).

The problem with "climate change" as an ideological issue is that it marries an empirical debate about surface-level reality (What are the costs of man-made climate change?) to a cost-benefit calculation (What should we do about it?).  I know how to sort people who are maximalists about climate change vs. people who want to bank on future technology like carbon capture.  I don't know how to sort any of those folks against people who deny that climate change is even real.  That last group doesn't share the same set of facts as the rest of us.  

 

[Rich Conway]

I'd say a key difference between left/right on this topic is the level of govt involvement and investment that one feels is appropriate.  More right = markets will figure it out as greener becomes cheaper.  More left = we can't wait that long, government needs to invest and/or mandate now.

 

[Rich Conway]

If I had to make some suggestions, it would be something kind of like this:

3. Climate change is urgently important, and we should significantly reduce CO2 emissions even if it means a significant decline in living standards.  

5. Climate change is an important issue.  We should invest in green energy and nuclear power to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels inexpensively. 

7. Climate change matters, but the fossil fuels are a cheap, plentiful source of energy that we should continue to utilize.  Technology will either fix the problem in the future or help us mitigate the effects.  (This is the one that I feel least sure would pass a Turing test).

The problem with "climate change" as an ideological issue is that it marries an empirical debate about surface-level reality (What are the costs of man-made climate change?) to a cost-benefit calculation (What should we do about it?).  I know how to sort people who are maximalists about climate change vs. people who want to bank on future technology like carbon capture.  I don't know how to sort any of those folks against people who deny that climate change is even real.  That last group doesn't share the same set of facts as the rest of us.  

Somehow you typed three times as much, somewhat similar to what I did, and still hit submit first!

 

[The Commish]

If I had to make some suggestions, it would be something kind of like this:

3. Climate change is urgently important, and we should significantly reduce CO2 emissions even if it means a significant decline in living standards.  

5. Climate change is an important issue.  We should invest in green energy and nuclear power to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels inexpensively. 

7. Climate change matters, but the fossil fuels are a cheap, plentiful source of energy that we should continue to utilize.  Technology will either fix the problem in the future or help us mitigate the effects.  (This is the one that I feel least sure would pass a Turing test).

The problem with "climate change" as an ideological issue is that it marries an empirical debate about surface-level reality (What are the costs of man-made climate change?) to a cost-benefit calculation (What should we do about it?).  I know how to sort people who are maximalists about climate change vs. people who want to bank on future technology like carbon capture.  I don't know how to sort any of those folks against people who deny that climate change is even real.  That last group doesn't share the same set of facts as the rest of us.  

In my experience, talking "climate change" never ends well and the bold is pretty much what I think.  So maybe, instead of "what do you think we should do to combat climate change" it becomes "what do you think we should do about sea level rise?" or "what do you think we should do about our droughts" etc.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Read this while the forum was down and thought of this thread - among other thoughts. While obviously you won't have access to fMRIs it seems that maybe you could figure out a question that might suggest a level of empathy and one that suggest a level of "reward" base thinking. Maybe. Won't give you right vs left but maybe moderate vs extreme.