Poll: What Typology are you?

First go here and take the Typology Test. Then report on your results. This is supposed to be for Americans so if you aren't just answer the way you would if you were from the U.S. The test had 9 types and there can only be 8 choices here so I combined "disaffected" and "bystander." Since I had to collapse two answers do you think I combined the right two? My answer was Liberal of course. I didn't need a test to tell me that.

It had me down as an Enterpriser, though it mentioned that I might not necessarily match every characteristic of the type, which is pretty accurate, since I don't agree with a good chunk of what would be considered social conservatism. I've come to describe myself lately not as a conservative, but more a neolibertarian.

-- Pauley

I think it tells everyone that they might not match every characteristic of the type. That makes sense since nobody totally follows any party line. So far you are the only one that didn't get Liberal. Good thing we liberals are accepting of diversity :-)

*snicker*  Yeah.  I'd considered myself conservative for a long time, then centrist, then back slightly conservative again, but then again, I never really understood what libertarianism meant.  I did some research on it, and realized that that was more what I was -- in favor of fiscal conservatism, but also social freedom.

-- Pauley

Yah, any time someone who I know is not very political says they are socially liberal but fiscally conservative, I ask them if they've heard about libertarianism.  I at least got a couple "moderate" friends to vote Libertarian this election given we're in a state that isn't really a swing state.

And curses to those sore-loser Republicans in DeLay's old district that just couldn't bring themselves to support the Libertarian who was on the ballot against the Democrat.  If they had, they may have defeated the Democrat and sent the first Libertarian to national office.

How did I not say this?

Are you an NCC 1701 Enterpriser Or a 1701A, B, C, or D?

What?  No E?  Where's the love Gordon, where's the love?

I'm in the same boat.  Because the quiz is totally slanted to only two sides of the political spectrum it's not very accurate.  I highly doubt that someone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative would be characterized well by this quiz.  That's where alot of non-party voters lie.  Unfortunately then they have to choose a square or round peg to fit into the triangle hole.

I thought I'd examine my results.

Enterpriser:

Basic Description
As in previous studies conducted in 1987, 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system (Yes) and social values that reflect a conservative agenda (Uh, no). Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy (My idea of an assertive foreign policy is "we leave you alone, you leave us alone, if you don't we'll shove a nuclear missile up your ass", I don't think that's what they mean here), which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq (hahahah, NO) and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act (I'd laugh here, but that's just not funny).

Defining Values
Assertive on foreign policy and patriotic (but not blindly); anti-regulation and pro-business (I'm pro-capitalism, which isn't necessarily the same thing); very little support for government help to the poor; strong belief that individuals are responsible for their own well being (ok, these are true for me, I'm a heartless bastard). Conservative on social issues such as gay marriage (uh, no), but not much more religious than the nation as a whole. Very satisfied with personal financial situation.

Media Use
Enterprisers follow news about government and politics more closely than any other group, and exhibit the most knowledge about world affairs. The Fox News Channel is their primary source of news (46% cite it as a main source) followed by newspapers (42%) radio (31%) and the internet (26%).

(Actually that's completely the reverse for me,  Internet, radio, papers, then new channels)

The test results can't even begin to describe my political stance, which is a bizarre chimaera of Libertarian and Socialist.

Wait, wait. Let me explain.

My beliefs are Libertarian in the social aspect of the philosophy -- Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they damn well please as long as they're not hurting anyone else. The government's role is not to babysit us or make decisions for our own good. (Before any of our in-house kneejerk-reactionaries get incensed, let me make it clear that I am not advocating total anarchy. My emphasis is on "consenting" and "not hurting anyone else.)

However, my Socialist side comes in when I consider what the government *should* be doing: providing health care for every citizen, providing publicly funded preschools and day cares, creating and maintaining a good policy for refugees and things like that.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Just curious, but how is believing that government should not "babysit us or make decisions for our own good", and also believe that government should provide free health care not mutually exclusive?  Isn't providing health care (and thus controlling what is provided) babysitting and making decisions for our own good?

Isn't providing health care (and thus controlling what is provided)

wait, that's a pretty big jump you've made there. very push-poll-esque, actually.

I don't think most advocates of government supported health care are suggesting that the government make all the health care decisions for the patients. Your Libertarian bias is showing.

Making it available is not the same as forcing the government's will on the people. Nor do I think that advocating such a program would eliminate the existence of private insurers. It would simply provide a low/no-cost option for people who simply have no other option.

But why do you suppose the government can provide what the free market cannot? 

The problem is that the advocates of government provided health care may not want government to make the decisions, but that's exactly what will happen.  Happened with Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.  The government dictates what will be covered and what won't what you can have and can't have under those existing programs, so why wouldn't universal health care be any different.  I'm talking the reality.  Any such program will be warped by those in power to provide them with the most votes to keep them in power.

And ultimately there is no such thing as free lunch. Universal health care will have to cost some people something somehow.  And it will be those that don't need to use it.

I guess the thing for me is we have universal health care provision and have done since the post-war time of broad political consensus and post privatisation on some of our services (notably the trains) we have seen the level of service suffer as some companies monopolise the service and as there is a basic need for these services people have no choice but to keep using them. 

People can get private health insurance but people like my sister who is on medication for the rest of her life gets her medication provided free by the governement.  The way I look at it people like her can't choose not to have that condition so why should she have to pay a price for having it?

The NHS has been brilliant.  I'm currenlty waiting with interest to see how the reforms and changes effect it as there  debate about allowing people more consumer choice but I know most people just want a service that works and will make them well again.  

Fotunately the nature of my work allows me to look into all this stuff but unfortunately the stuff I know (interviews with service users etc..) I cannot use to support my argument as it is confidential so sorry if there seem to be leaps in the logic.

We pay taxes and we get good healthcare when we need it.  A lot of people who complain about it still want the free healthcare when they need it, even though they could go private. 

I have a passing familiarity with the English health care system.  My grandfather and grandmother were both subject to it in their later years.  Problem is unless they had serious issues (like when my grandfather had a heart attack) getting timely care was problematic.  Now it's been about 7 years since I had second hand experience with the system so perhaps it's been reformed.

In the US, despite the high costs, you can pretty much have almost any procedure done almost immediately if you have health care, and even on our Medicare system.  Part of the problem our health care costs are high is that our health care industry is heavily regulated.  The government dictates what must be included in various health care programs instead of the consumer deciding what they want.  A single male does not need a health care plan with maternity benefits, but any plan he buys must have it as dictated by the government.  Also, they do not allow companies to shift the price burden accordingly (like charging smoker higher premiums).  So, the US doesn't really have a free market approach. 

Oh, and from what I remember from my uncles complaining about the trains, England did a half assed job of privatizing.  They let some companies own the rails, while others owned the train service.  So, you end up having a problem like we did here in the US with the "deregulation" of the phone industry.  One company provides my local service, but the physical infrastructure belongs to another company.  So, if I have a problem, they both blame each other and nothing gets done.

Am I saying a free market system would be perfect?  No.  But I believe it could better provide for people's needs than a government run one.

> Also, they do not allow
> companies to shift the price burden accordingly (like charging smoker higher
> premiums). 

Not true.  My company has separate smoker & non-smoker premiums for the health insurance.  Unless you're referring to what the insurance provider can charge the employer.  That may be a whole different ball of wax.

I'm learning a whole lot about health care at the new job. :-)

Media Use
Enterpriser's follow news about government and politics more closely than any other group, and exhibit the most knowledge about world affairs. The Fox News Channel is their primary source of news (46% cite it as a main source) followed by newspapers (42%) radio (31%) and the internet (26%).

Is it really possible to watch fox news and exhibit the most knowledge about world affairs?

Yes because statistics can be misleading. 58% use something else as a primary source and if they read and listen more intently than others that might be enough to make the group the best informed. In addition some of the 42% that list Fox as their prime still can correct Fox's misinformation from better sources. Finally even with its incredible slant most of what Fox says is going to be factual. It only takes a small amount of distortion to turn news into propaganda.

Actually, several independent studies have shown that Fox News is the most accurate and "fair" at covering NEWS.  Now, the opinion shows, talk shows, and shows that comment on news are not.  But when they are simply covering a news story, they tend to provide a more unbiased perspective.

Of course they make up for that with all their talk shows like the factor and hannity and colms.

I was shocked that that labeled me as "liberal".

Go figure.

Go hug a tree, y'dirty hippie!!

It labeled me a liberal.

Of course I was shouting "FALSE DICHOTOMY!!!" at the screen for most of the questions.

yeah, bottom line is that it's a total crap quiz.

there's gotta be a more realistic one out there... but... I'm too lazy to find it. :)

I think you are liberal, Gella. In the classic 19th century definition of the word, that is. From what I know of your politics.

I gave up on this quiz about five questions in. I was also yelling "FALSE DICHOTOMY" or "irrelevant" or "THIRD OPTION?" for much of the questions.

This seems geared to more mainstream American politics. And, um, as a radical marxist, yeah, not much pertinence to my beliefs and convictions.