The PPPC

Pandemoniak · December 5, 2002, 10:55

The Planetarian Project for Political Compass

I have been thinking about that before, but now, Im on my way to do it. First, Id like to ask everyone if they are interested to help me. The objective is to provide something like a quizz which could give an overview of someone's position in a political compass, in the universe of SMAC.

Maybe it would be helpful to let me know if you're just ready to help, or really willing to work on it. Most of the work will be made by e-mails or conference chat on yahoo.

The first problem to solve is how the compasa will be made : I though about giving two kinds of "results" to the test :
- first a position in the compass,
- second the two or three closest faction according to the tester ideology.

The compass could be delimited by the social engineering choices, making something like that :
Democracy is opposed to Police State
Fundamentalism is opposed to Knowledge
Free Market is opposed to Planned
Power is opposed to Wealth
Eudaimonia is opposed to Thought Control,

which leaves Cybernetic opposed to Green : this is quite coherent if we consider cybernetic opposed to nature, but not coherent if we take it like it was meant to be, with the +2 Planet Rating for Cybernetic, leaving Planet unharmed.
As well, the Planned economics could be opposed to green, since Domai cant switch green -that sounds unnatural to me, you can be marxist and green, im the proof.
AS well, the free market could be opposed to green, seeing its ruins trhe environment, thus planned would have to be opposed to cybernetic, which is not very coherent either...

I also though about simply ignoring Cybernetics and Green.

Feedbacks and sign in welcome.

FrustratedPoet · December 5, 2002, 11:34

Am I the only person completely baffled by that post?

Alex · December 5, 2002, 11:36

You're not the only one, FP...

Pandemoniak · December 5, 2002, 12:08

Well, let me explain better then : I am looking for persons willing to develop a test to determine the tester position in a political compass in the Alpha Centauri universe.
Any other questions ?

Alex · December 5, 2002, 12:27

It's an interesting idea. Don't you think you could get more volunteers if you posted this in the AC forum?

Pandemoniak · December 5, 2002, 14:40

I did it in the SMAC DG, and I repeated it, cause I thought some people from the Poly community, not necessarly playing the DG but knowing SMAC could be interested.

DrSpike · December 5, 2002, 15:11

I would question those criteria for a political compass. Far more flexible is allowing the individual to vary along 2 more fundamental dimensions, such as personal and economic freedom. All main political positions can then be found in different segments of the diamond that is created by the 2-dimensional heterogeneity.

DarkCloud · December 5, 2002, 22:16

I suppose I'd be glad to hope- but before you start- perhaps you should create a limit on # of questions...

For example- in the Fundamentalism set- create 10 questions that determine a persons place on that scale... but some can overlap with questions on the other scales... then if each has ten questions each evaluated; you can create a ten by ten graph; 100 possible squares- or probably 96... I'm not sure... maybe 1000? Oh well, someone else will have to do the math... then people can be ranked in the areas....

The other problem is how to arrange the 5 categories- one possibility would be a pentagon... but somehow, I think that is hard to center... maybe there is a better way?

Good luck!

DrSpike · December 6, 2002, 05:26

You can't do the pentagon, that would be hard to interpret even if you could construct it. All of the facets of philosophy you want to analyse work within the diamond......if I have time later I will arrange the 7 factions as I think appropriate.

Buck Birdseed · December 6, 2002, 09:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
I would question those criteria for a political compass. Far more flexible is allowing the individual to vary along 2 more fundamental dimensions, such as personal and economic freedom. All main political positions can then be found in different segments of the diamond that is created by the 2-dimensional heterogeneity.

Bollocks.

There's absolutely no room for a definition of freedom that's not inidvidualist or collectivist. There's no room for feminism, environmentalism, civic republicanism... It expresses an extremely primitive liberal view of the world.

My system works using a triangle (the extremes being "Conservative", "Libertarian" and "Radical", with no economic dimention, only power-based ones). I'm determined to show it in action some time, I was going to do it earlier this term but decided against it. Maybe it'll be my christmas project this year...

DrSpike · December 6, 2002, 09:48

Didn't you say you were on course to fail your degree? Perhaps you should spend some time on that instead.

Dauphin · December 6, 2002, 10:19

That was b*tchy or honest, not sure which

Anyway, the more dimensions the better, but I have trouble visualising above 3 dimensions, and can't visualise more than 5.

Using triangles or tetrahedrons gives an extra-dimension to visualise in, but can reduce clarity.

Pandemoniak · December 6, 2002, 11:06

For any other discussion about this, please follow the link in my signature.

Thanx to all of you for your help and your interest.

DrSpike · December 6, 2002, 12:06

Can't we discuss it here as well? Not considering the inflammatory nature with which he started his post, Buck's contribution intrigues me. It cannot be a triangle, unless I am missing something. It must be a tetrahedron, as SD noted. I'm not sure what it buys you over and above the diamond structure, but it is interesting.

Dauphin · December 6, 2002, 19:02

Top: Fascism
Bottom Left: Democracy
Bottom Right: Communism.

(Say), you can replace with whatever markers you want.

As you go left to right you become more Communist, less Democratic, but remain constant in your Fascist nature.

As you move diagonally up-left you become more Fascist, less Communist but constant in your Democratic tendency.

As you move diagonally up-right you become more Fascist, less Democratic but constant in your Fascist tendency.

The model makes a 3-D map in 2-D space. The tetrahedron allows another dimension to be added. Fundamental Theocracy, say.

Dauphin · December 6, 2002, 19:10

Quote:

All main political positions can then be found in different segments of the diamond that is created by the 2-dimensional heterogeneity.

Its almost the same as this. But as the difference is that each edge of the triangle acts as a dimension marker, (economic, social, "radicalism" or whatever) it allows the 3-D data set to be viewed in 2-D, allowing for 4 dimension markers on a tetrahedron.

I find it easier to view 2-D maps than 3-D maps and definitely easier to view 3-D than 4-D maps!

Hope that makes sense.

DrSpike · December 6, 2002, 19:19

Hmm, yeah I don't like it. You can't represent different areas of the triangle as differing belief systems very well, since for any level of fascism a 1 unit change to the left constitutes a different relative movement towards democracy.

The beauty of the diamond is that it creates 4 neat areas, liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism and authoritarian say. What is more authoritarian to the left of the centre line represents communist beliefs (if the left side of the diamond represents personal freedom, and the right economic freedom) and to the right of the centre line it represents fascism.

So this setup is more flexible than you might think. And it is free of the criticism I levelled at the triangle.

DrSpike · December 6, 2002, 19:24

I've just realised the guy that started the thread wanted to do this for the SMAC universe.......I read it quickly and thought he wanted to use the SMAC social engineering stuff to construct the political compass for Apolytoners generally. Oops.

moomin · December 6, 2002, 19:52

Dr Spike, did you think of something along these lines? I posted it in OT long ago, to clarify a distinction I was trying to make between US/EU liberals.

It elicited a lot of comment very much like that which ol' Snappy saw fit to bestow on you ideas earlier in this thread, mostly from parties who were upset over having their pet excuses for collectivist envy clumped together in the third quadrant.

I still find it hilarious that people get so upset by simple ideologic positioning on two relevant axes... self-denial runs deep in some places.

As for the original post, I'd be an interesting exercise to try to place the SMAC/X factions in this scheme. Some candidates are easy, some require quite some thought.

DrSpike · December 6, 2002, 20:38

That is exactly what I had in mind. I cannot see why this structure is too limiting.....you can discuss much within it, and you could, with effort, arrange the SMAC factions.

I'm sure you could come up with more intricate devices, especially with another dimension added, but I don't see the point. Perhaps 'Snappy' (who cares for my opinions on university funding as much as he cares for my opinions on this topic

) will elucidate.

War4ever · December 7, 2002, 05:47

i am lost ......can you enlighten me DrSpike

Buck Birdseed · December 7, 2002, 09:20

How I'd do it, described using a silly diagram.

The three axes, each going from both of the other corners, represent ideological emphasis on the following types of freedom:

(a) Negative Freedom, "freedom from", ie. Liberty. The ideal would be no government interference in people's lives at all.

(b) Positive Freedom, "freedom to", the enablement of as large a part of the population as possible to enjoy a prosperous, fulfilled life according to their own specifications.

(c) Republican freedom, freedom of self-rule, the enablement of all individuals and social groups to get a fair share of the power in society.

Libertarians solely emphasise aspect (a) of freedom. They see everything else as government interference. Communists are at the opposite end of the liberty scale, and strive equally for the increase in power of "weak" social groups and for society as a whole to become more congealed and work together.

Fascists emphasise solely aspect (b), not caring about whether they crush individual freedoms or minorities in their wake. Extreme US liberals or Democratic Socialists would be at the opposite end of this scale, emphasising both purely liberal individual freedom and the increased power of weak social groups.

There's an increasing group of people*, me among them, that see (c) as the ultimate goal: to get as many groups and people as possible participating in the deicisions of society, and therefore be free, to give diverse groups a voice and a say in the way society is run. On the opposite end of this scale would be a US conservative, believing in communitarian values and liberty but not caring about non-strong social groups.

The only aspect I'm worried about is the place of the US liberals, who I believe do emphasise social cohesion and communitarianism occasionally. It obviously needs loads of fine-tuning, not least in terms of finding an acceptable term for my kind of feminist new pluralist civic republican, but I think it's a workable system and creating questions that would draw people to each corner wouldn't be too tricky. Almost every issue has one aspect that would benefit the weaker party, one that would benefit the already strong party and one that would commit to neither to allow for liberty. Take, for instance, Prostitution: Do you make prostitution illegal (less power to weak group), legal but with buying sex or pimping illegal (more power to weak group), or make it fully legal (liberty)?

*Litterature to read: "Democracy and Difference" by Anne Phillips, "Arguments for a New Left", Hillary Wainwright, "Parliamentary Democracy and its limits", Paul Hirst

Provost Harrison · December 7, 2002, 10:05

My view on your scale moomin

DrSpike · December 7, 2002, 10:26

Interesting Buck......and I see you get around my earlier criticism since all major positions are arranged on the exterior of the triangle.

Now where would you arrange the SMAC factions?

Buck Birdseed · December 7, 2002, 10:38

Good question!

I'm going to have to 'em up somewhere, I haven't played this game in ages.

Ah, I see.

To be honest, a lot of them seem to conflagate in the bottom-left corner.

They're not very nice people these faction leaders are they?

Pandemoniak · December 7, 2002, 11:05

Heres what we have for the moment :
First dimension would be
Political ideology :Police State against Democracy, using axis Z

Second dimension would be
Humanistic ideology:Eudaimonia is opposed to Thought Control, using axis Y

Third dimension would be
Education policy : Fundamentalism is opposed to Knowledge, that would be on Axis X

Fourth Dimension would be
Economic ideology: Free Market is opposed to Planned, represented by the colour of the dot in the cube, from dark red to bright red when in favour of planned, from bright blue to dark blue when in favour of Free Market.
I thought about making it only red/blue, with no "interference" with the white for center, but thought that would be more easily readable with the white.

Fifth Dimension would be
Sovereignty Policy Power is opposed to Wealth (taking wealth as internal prosperity, and power as aggressive behavior). This fifth dimension would be using a number varying from -100 to +100, for example, added on the dot.

-----------
Thanx for suggestions and keep going, though I think its useless to use too much real life political compass (especially the term "communist" sounds wierd to me, since it doesnt mean anything ( is it maoism ? trotskysm ? stalinism ? planned economy ? ).

This try to separate clearly the political compass in several areas, making it moire complex and therefore more precise, I hope.

Dauphin · December 7, 2002, 11:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
My view on your scale moomin

What a marvellous contribution.

Pandemoniak · December 7, 2002, 11:42

You guys really can t behave...

Buck Birdseed · December 7, 2002, 15:39

My suggestin wasn't really for this, more of a digression since someone asked for it.

I'm going to try to do mine by myself over christmas, although suggestions are appreciated.

(A little background on the triangle idea: Last year I tried to do a single-axis political compass based purely on the "power to the weak vs. power to the strong" idea, with questions phrased precisely so that no libertarian answers could be given. It didn't work, because libertarians ended up all over the place, some far "left", some far "right". Stefu approached me during the summer with the suggestion of making it a Liberty vs. power to the weak axis (with a personal liberty one tacked on, to make a 2d graph), but I quite liked the original axis so I thought a triangle would be appropriate as it would also include the classic C19th conservative to liberal scale.)

moomin · December 7, 2002, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
My view on your scale moomin

I seem to recall you managed to grace Poly with this... comment... of yours way back when I fist posted the chart? Well, nevermind, a good point is never lost. Let me just state my pleasure at seeing you eloquence - or is it pictoquence? - employed by the other camp.