A better political alignment system
Since "liberal/conservative" by itself often runs into problems it can't describe very well, and even the combination of "authoritarian/libertarian" and "economic left/right" doesn't properly describe some things (it more so aims for describing top-level issue alignments rather than some more basic facets of human thinking), I figured I'd try my hand at making a system.
Some possible axes:
* stability vs. disruption
This is basically a measure of how quickly you want the world around you to change. Some people prefer reliable conditions that follow expectations while others want a more dynamic existence, becoming agents of change themselves through supporting social movements and aiming to create disruptive technologies. This is often closely related to one's opinion of one's own current "status quo".
Inspired by D&D's "law vs. chaos" scale.
* collectivist vs. individualist
This is vaguely similar to a classical left vs. right scale, but still different. This expands and changes the scale to a more philosophical consideration of one's place in the world -- is your outlook more about yourself and securing/advancing your identity and place in the world, or is it more about joining and/or accomplishing something larger than and less specifically about yourself?
* brutish vs. enlightened
This is a measure of how much you feel the world is a "dog-eat-dog" place ("brutish" comes from Thomas Hobbes's description of the "state of nature" -- "nasty, brutish, and short"), where it's advantageous to put down others so they don't take your spot/stuff/etc., versus a world where being nice to people and forming friendships gets you ahead. Probably needs a better name.
* competitive vs. cooperative
Pretty straightforward idea: whether you prefer working with or working against other people. I'm not sure how this and the two above it interact or are similar to each other. There seem to be some distinctions between them but I haven't yet figured out exactly what, or how best to tease them apart.
* involvement vs. noninvolvement
This is a measure of how much a person desires to engage in governance activities. This may vary based on the issue but can often be described by such things as "willing to get involved in most issues", "select issues only", "casual involvement", or "noninvolvement". Note that noninvolvement often means that people are willing to leave governance to others, such as experts.
* intuition vs. learnedness
This is a measure of how much you feel that the world ought to make sense intuitively and based on your own "gut feeling" versus being something more complex and to be understood by keeping an open mind and attempting to reconcile apparently contrasting perspectives on things (and perhaps even challenging oneself by creating them).
Some possible axes:
* stability vs. disruption
This is basically a measure of how quickly you want the world around you to change. Some people prefer reliable conditions that follow expectations while others want a more dynamic existence, becoming agents of change themselves through supporting social movements and aiming to create disruptive technologies. This is often closely related to one's opinion of one's own current "status quo".
Inspired by D&D's "law vs. chaos" scale.
* collectivist vs. individualist
This is vaguely similar to a classical left vs. right scale, but still different. This expands and changes the scale to a more philosophical consideration of one's place in the world -- is your outlook more about yourself and securing/advancing your identity and place in the world, or is it more about joining and/or accomplishing something larger than and less specifically about yourself?
* brutish vs. enlightened
This is a measure of how much you feel the world is a "dog-eat-dog" place ("brutish" comes from Thomas Hobbes's description of the "state of nature" -- "nasty, brutish, and short"), where it's advantageous to put down others so they don't take your spot/stuff/etc., versus a world where being nice to people and forming friendships gets you ahead. Probably needs a better name.
* competitive vs. cooperative
Pretty straightforward idea: whether you prefer working with or working against other people. I'm not sure how this and the two above it interact or are similar to each other. There seem to be some distinctions between them but I haven't yet figured out exactly what, or how best to tease them apart.
* involvement vs. noninvolvement
This is a measure of how much a person desires to engage in governance activities. This may vary based on the issue but can often be described by such things as "willing to get involved in most issues", "select issues only", "casual involvement", or "noninvolvement". Note that noninvolvement often means that people are willing to leave governance to others, such as experts.
* intuition vs. learnedness
This is a measure of how much you feel that the world ought to make sense intuitively and based on your own "gut feeling" versus being something more complex and to be understood by keeping an open mind and attempting to reconcile apparently contrasting perspectives on things (and perhaps even challenging oneself by creating them).
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
* brutish vs. elegant
Needs a better name. Sort of a cross between "brutish vs. enlightened" with a bit of "stability vs. disruption". Basically, do you prefer to do things politely and properly, or to do things bruquely and running roughshod over obstacles? When presented with a problem, do you try to weave your way through/around it, or do you try to force your way through? This is more of a personality trait, but like all personality traits, it could be translated into a political trait.
* a scale of localism/nationalism/internationalism
This is basically a scale of one's outlook on how the world's affairs should generally be managed, and how big one should conceive of one's "neighborhood", in a sense. For example, some people strongly oppose countries' intervening in other countries' affairs, and (in what's particularly popular with libertarians) may feel a strong sense of local "sovereignty" sometimes to the point of claiming that only local governments exist, while other people feel a sense of duty to address broad-scale issues (such as human rights) outside of their own community, such as around their country/region and even around the world, and feel that a number of problems (especially environmental and economic problems) could be ameliorated with larger-scale collective actions. Sort of a less specific version of "involvement vs. noninvolvement".