My own self

Apparently, the second test thinks I'm Nelson Mandela.

I'm a little to the right of you (a square or so), but exactly on the same spot vertically. Go us.

Didn't have time for the first one this time around.

Cool. We're basically in agreement, then. Which is weird, as I always thought you were way more socialist than me. (In the Norwegian political spectrum, I've never seriously considered anything left of Ap, nor anything right of Vesntre. I've been under the impression you're solidly more left-wing than that?)

Thanks for the links! On the first one, I'm a little further left and a little higher (in fact, almost on the line, but OVER it) than you (coordinates -5.0214 left/right, +0.2209 pragmatism). På den andre er eg utruleg nok litt til høgre for deg, og ganske mykje lenger ned enn deg.

Heh. Glad someone enjoyed this, I wasn't sure if there was any point in making this post at all at first.

The second test is, as you could probably tell from the questions, much more USA-centric; I understand the first one as a more recent test made to try to make it more country-neutral.

It should be added that they described, in the first one, "idealistic" as also including values relating to religious thinking, whereas "pragmatic" was influenced by scores from atheist viewpoints. Which, you know, depending on who makes the test, could easily be different. While I'm pretty religion-neutral, I think a couple of anti-religion replies could send you soaring upwards on the first grid, whereas the second obviously has the vertical placement decided by other factors. The left-right, though, I think is more similar between them. But that's all my speculating.

While it's true that SV and Venstre are the only parties I would ever seriously consider voting for, it'd take something very weird for me not to vote for Venstre this year.

What's kind of funny is that I never even felt the slightest urge to vote for any party between those two on the left-right scale. I suppose I should be happy I have more than one option, though.

And yeah, atheist-delusional should probably have been the Z axis there (bad coffee cat! *wristslap*).

Nono, it wasn't just between atheist-religious, it was pragmatism and idealism too. It just counted religious belief as idealism and atheism as pragmatism. Hence my skepticism.

Atheism is just as ridiculous as religious belief, you know. You don't have any proof there aren't any higher beings that'd conform to some sort of human conception of divinity out there. You hear people tell you there are, and you don't see them yourself. This is much like my relationship with the continent of Australia. I've seen pictures people tell me are from Australia, and I've met people who say they've been there. I haven't. And yet, if I were to say there is NO such thing as Australia, suddenly I'd be the delusional one.

Unless you yourself have had a divine revelation, methinks agnosticism is the only sane way to go on this.

As for SV, I wouldn't vote for them, but I'm glad someone does. It balances out the nutjobs on the other side to have them there. Heck, I'd even like it if Roedt got a couple of representatives. The spectrum is veering far too much to the right for my tastes.

Ole writes:

Co-ordinates on the first one: -4.13 left, 1.01 pragmatic. I. e. a tad more to the left and a bit more pragmatic than you.

We're all amusingly close, aren't we?

Perhaps we should form a society.

I found out yesterday that I qualify, just barely (as in within the margin of error of the test), for Mensa membership. But it's not like I'm gonna join a society just to be the dumbest person there.

That's exactly what I've been thinking on the exact same topic. ;D

According to the first test, I'm further left than you, which I suppose is no surprise, but I actually scored as more pragmatic as well, which would not have been my guess. I ended up just to the right of Charles Kennedy, and just below the line. The upper left corner of my square pretty much touched his dot.

Oh, as a friend of mine is wont to say, I'm quite the reactionary. And those reactionary viewpoints tugs me towards what the grid considers idealism.

"The upper left corner of my square pretty much touched his dot."

OK, I give up. I just can't erase my initial interpretation of this sentence as being a metapfor for second base, if not third.

And I, honestly, can't see what "my square" and "his dot" would mean if that was the case. I guess I'm just not one-tracked enough.