The Political Compass (Nov. 2nd)

    Today's class kicked off with all of us determining our political stances with The Political Compass. Throughout the long questionnaire, there were a plethora of questions I did not understand. The question was asking whether we agree with the quote “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. First, I struggled to comprehend what the quote meant, but more importantly, it was hard to decide on which side I am on. Other questions were also pretty difficult, consisting of complex ideologies and vocabularies that required contemplation. Nonetheless, there was a broad range of questions, and apart from a few, they were all specific, provoking several thoughts within my teammates and me. The class was predominantly in the green section of the graph, although my friends and I do not frequently converse about politics, I think I would get along much better with those who have a similar political alignment as myself. For example, when seeing videos of people who support the opposite political party on Twitter, I can tell that I would not get along with them. Regardless, discovering where you are on the political spectrum was very intriguing and helpful to be aware of the bias I may have. Due to the elections in Japan, I have accumulated information on politics and had researched politicians’ views, so it is a hot topic for me. Furthermore, the process of answering these questions resulted in further realizations within me and my political views on diverse topics. 

    Subsequent to the survey, my friends and I were discussing how we could land outside of the left-bottom green box. In order to be on other areas of the graph, we would have to answer in a completely opposite way. Having this realization really made it clear that I will be able to relate to the people who answer “Strongly agree” for questions I “strongly disagree”. A prime example of people with an opposite political bias is politicians. Politicians would be more right and authoritarian than me. In other words, this quiz showcased how unrepresented citizens are. This also shows that although there are politicians who have a similar political alignment, they belong to such a small party. If the public had better known these politicians, their chance of winning in the elections may have slightly escalated, but still, due to systematic issues and preferences of the rich, things do not seem like they will change anytime soon. This may be the case for most countries like the US, but countries like France’s politicians were very widespread. This is crucial in running a government, so copious voices can be heard. Contrarily to most politicians, professors, and advocates that have been interviewed in the documentary on corporations, such as Chomsky were in the green quadrant but extremely close to "libertarian". Although their ideas and values are much more relatable, compared to extreme politicians, it reminded me that everyone has a bias and in the end, we have to individually hold our own opinions and accumulate reliable information for ourselves. On a separate note, there was an interesting pedagogical choice in the questionnaire. Since there were a few questions I did not completely understand, I wanted to answer, none, or middle, but according to Mr.Paterson, omitting the middle choice is on purpose. Although it could be slightly inconvenient to have to choose a side, the results are certainly more accurate that way. This idea is something I would like to imitate as well. 

Notes: 

• the quiz was given to high schoolers during the cold war. people thought this comes from the bible, but it actually comes a communist manifested idea. 
• politicians are on a different part of the spectrum. most people are not in the blue box. the people in the green box are in tiny parties that do not have a chance of winning. 
• they deliberately took out the middle option. a common method in research. it does not give valuable information. more accurate data. take away the choice of always being in the center.