Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology {PEW Research Report just out}

a reply to: BO XIAN

Steadfast Conservative here.......The options weren't wide ranging enough to get a good handle on someone's overall political leaning. Maybe for the overall picture it works, but not at the individual. There were many questions where I didn't like either answer.

It was like picking the lesser of two evils like some other poster mentioned.

With more answer options, and probably more questions, this would have been a very interesting poll.


Maybe someone here on ATS should create a more detailed poll..................nudge, nudge, wink, wink S.O.

a reply to: BO XIAN
Oh . . . And as I forgot to state it in the previous post . . .

The issue arises from the start, as before the respondents were even shown the sample questions, they know the objective is to place them in ideological groups. So, even if not consciously, they are critical of the options from the get go, in order cling to their individuality. Thus, influencing how they view the choices presented.

I can never even finish those sorts of quizzes...I absolutely cannot choose one or the other polar opposites on most questions, so whatever I answer I feel mis-represented by, and so stop taking it.

originally posted by: jacobe001
I found their quiz absolutely stupid.

I don't know how many of my posts of explanation, the last page or so, you have read.

To say that the quiz is "absolutely stupid,"

You MUST have some STANDARD that you are judging it by.

And, logically, you would want to connect your standard to THE GOAL of the quiz. I think you have not thought that connection through very well.

The GOAL of the quiz was to break the general population down into a few readily definable groups. And PEW research org's style is to LET THE DATA DEFINE THE GROUPS. So, people's CLUSTERS OF RESPONSES DEFINED EACH GROUP.

IF your GOAL AND STANDARD WAS

TO HAVE YOUR INDIVIDUALITY EMPHASIZED, then it was silly to bother with the quiz, AT ALL. Because the GOAL OF THE QUIZ was to cluster individuals into groups with others of a SIMILAR [NOT IDENTICAL--INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT IDENTICAL TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS--EVEN TWINS]

INDIVIDUALS--AGAIN--INDIVIDUALS CLUSTERED INTO GROUPS OF SIMILAR INDIVIDUALS.

That automatically MINIMIZES individual differences IN FAVOR OF group similarities, commonalities.

So, saying that the quiz was "absolutely stupid" is merely another way of saying that your goals and standards did not match or were opposite those of the quiz.

.
It's just as logical to say that taking a quiz DESIGNED to MINIMIZE individual qualities WITH THE HOPE OF HAVING THEM EMPHASIZED is not the most clever thing to do.

The options presented were full of loaded language, black and white and had no nuance whatsoever.

ABSOLUTELY. That was the GOAL of the quiz. That was the DESIGN of the quiz. That was the PURPOSE of the quiz--to MINIMIZE INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN FAVOR OF GROUP COMMONALITIES to make it easier to identify the groups individuals CLUSTERED INTO NATURALLY ACCORDING TO their individual perspectives that were SIMILAR to other individuals with similar perspectives.

I quit the quiz at question 10. Like you, the quiz was presenting questions in a black in white context with no shades of grey in between. The questions all seemed to be based on the status quo as if there are no other alternatives.

For example,

Government Regulation of Business is necessary to protect the public interests.
Government Regulation of Business usually does more harm than good.


I believe in regulations such as keep business in check from pissing in my rivers or skies, or keep Wall Street contained, but the majority of the regulations we have are actually harmful to the citizens that favor Big Business against Small Business competition.

The quiz was NOT DESIGNED to deal with that level of detail and nuance.

That would require a whole DIFFERENT QUIZ with DIFFERENT GOALS AND DESIGN. That does not mean that this quiz was bad, evil, poorly designed. It was actually well designed in terms of the goals related to the quiz.

That does not mean I want to throw the baby out with the bath water and get rid of all regulations.
Why not expand it to not just regulations pertaining to business but to everyone.

Because that was OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this particular quiz. That would have complicated the picture desired and made interpretation of the results more muddy and difficult to deal with in simpler terms.

Get rid of the regulatory bodies and policies of police, military and so on and see how well that goes.

That's a different level of detail, a different cluster of priorities and issues.
.

a reply to: TonyS

I definitely came in as a hard-pressed skeptic and I'm glad that makes up only 13% of the population because to the extent that group grows, the problems in this country will only get worse.

My prediction? Hard-Pressed skeptics will become and ever larger part of the population.

That's an interesting assertion. I think you are correct.

At least in the short term. Then the oligarchy and the fallen angel/ET critters will stage a huge dramatic demonstration and the whole world and reality will change overnight.

I don't know what the skeptics will do then. Do you have any guesses for that possibility?

My best guess is that they will fracture into a variety of responses.

Which ones, I don't know.

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: BO XIAN
Bo . . . it's not you. You have explained the goals and methodology just fine. The issue here lies in the respondents.

THANKS. I needed that. LOL.

You should know from your background in psychology that while we don't like to be "separated" from the group and have deep seeded needs for acceptance, belonging, etc.; we also refuse to admit that the group has influence on us. It's why people get mad at stereotypes. You see it on the boards in every religion thread. As soon as someone uses "Christian" and points out a negative about the ideology . . . every poster that defends or self-identifies themselves as "Christian" quickly asserts their individuality and claim "that's not me, though".

INDEED. Quite so.

And the influences of the group DO vary with the individual. But that's one of the purposes of such research . . . to explore the DEGREES of such group influences on individuals . . . and sometimes vice/versa.

Asch's studies in the 50's show very clearly that the individual will fight to retain individuality within a small majority. In this case, the respondents are being asked to complete this survey on-line . . . providing no confederates or group dynamic. It also presents a very simple task (almost too simple), which makes it easier to reject the options presented.

INDEED. Well put.

You are also seeing a good exercise in an individual's desire to maintain control, too much time to think about resistance, time to think about the legitimacy of the authority. I also think it's very telling that this thread is almost a case study in reactance . . . in fact, many have even stated that they "refused" or "could not" even complete the survey, in order to preserve their independence.

I think that's a very apt observation. Quite astute. Thanks.

I'm not sure of your geographic background, but this seems all too common for a site populated by "westerners", especially Americans.

Ask a predominantly Asian audience to "take the survey" and I bet you get very few, if any, of the reactions seen here.

(Should be noted . . . I'm talking about culture, not "ethnicity" above)

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Asians are quite USED TO categorizing individuals into groups. That's the FIRST priority on meeting someone new--what group--rank--authority category are you in compared to me so I know how to relate to you fittingly and successfully. It's a matter of course, of social reality.

They may then begin to try and manipulate the dickens out of the reality to their favor but they at least START with an understanding of what the fitting group label/authority label/ etc. is involved for each individual in the interaction.
.

Thanks for your great observations and your contributions to the thread.
.

a reply to: pavil

Wellllllllll, I'm probably more like most folks hereon, I want to throw everything INCLUDING THE KITCHEN SINK into a survey.

That's why my dissertation questionnaire packet included more than 1,000 variables. INCREDIBLE! I only had time to analyze 4 of them for my dissertation. LOL.

Have been carrying the data around with fantasies of looking at the other variables for decades. LOL.

This survey was well designed for it's well chosen limited goals and scope.

Sure, I'd love to see a more robust survey covering more territory and details. But that's really a different goal.

The drawback of such a larger scoped survey is fewer people are willing to answer such a longer survey.

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: BO XIAN
Oh . . . And as I forgot to state it in the previous post . . .

The issue arises from the start, as before the respondents were even shown the sample questions, they know the objective is to place them in ideological groups. So, even if not consciously, they are critical of the options from the get go, in order cling to their individuality. Thus, influencing how they view the choices presented.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

It's more than a little like going to a nudist colony and being outraged that people are running around with no clothes on.

Sigh.

originally posted by: TheJourney
I can never even finish those sorts of quizzes...I absolutely cannot choose one or the other polar opposites on most questions, so whatever I answer I feel mis-represented by, and so stop taking it.

There are plenty of people like you.

However, you never get to look more intimately at the cluster of people you'd most likely MOST identify with.

And, you never get to look with more understanding at the PARAMETERS of YOUR values COMPARED TO the parameters of the values of others very different or very similar to you.

You lose out on understanding yourself better, consequently.

And, consequently, you lose out on understanding the others better.

One way to deal with that is to take such a quiz slanting your answers to one side of your torn inclinations and then take it again slanting your answers to the other side of your torn inclinations. Then compare the two results and ask yourself which side FEELS MOST LIKE YOU.

Perhaps for some issues, it will actually be one side or the other. And for other issues it will be more in the middle. But at least, THEN you'd have some data to look at instead of vague, extremely imprecise FEELINGS or IMPRESSIONS.

Steadfast Conservative.

reply to: BO XIAN

I hear that but how does a steadfast conservative be for same sex marriage and other "non conservative" positions in that survey? It was an attempt to show how polarization of politics is occurring by asking polarizing questions. Like many other surveys, they found the answer they wanted by asking the "right" questions.

originally posted by: pavil
reply to: BO XIAN

I hear that but how does a steadfast conservative be for same sex marriage and other "non conservative" positions in that survey? It was an attempt to show how polarization of politics is occurring by asking polarizing questions. Like many other surveys, they found the answer they wanted by asking the "right" questions.

Here's the quote from that link about that group:

The new typology has eight groups: Three are strongly ideological, highly politically engaged and overwhelmingly partisan – two on the right and one on the left. Steadfast Conservatives are staunch critics of government and the social safety net and are very socially conservative.
. . .
.
. . .
.
Ideological Consistency vs. the Political Typology

The polarization study found that more Americans today hold consistently liberal or consistently conservative values across a wide range of issues, that Democrats and Republicans are further apart ideologically and that more partisans express deeply negative views of the other political party, with many going so far as to see the other side as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.”
.

Even so, most Americans do not view politics through uniformly liberal or conservative lenses, and more tend to stand apart from partisan antipathy than engage in it. But the typology shows that the center is hardly unified. Rather, it is a combination of groups, each with their own mix of political values, often held just as strongly as those on the left and the right, but just not organized in consistently liberal or conservative terms. Taken together, this “center” looks like it is halfway between the partisan wings. But when disaggregated, it becomes clear that there are many distinct voices in the center, often with as little in common with each other as with those who are on the left and the right.
.

The Pew Research Center’s Political Typology, launched 27 years ago, is an effort to look beyond “Red vs. Blue” in American politics, understanding that there are multiple dimensions to American political thinking, and that many people hold different combinations of values than the predominantly liberal and conservative platforms offered by the two political parties.

Color etc. emphases added as usual

Certainly the poll was designed to be a study of the POLARITIES and the similarities between people WITHIN THE SUBGROUPS of the polarities etc.

I doubt the study was stacked to yield a desired result in some specific direction. It's just not PEW researches bent to be heavy handed and stack the deck. They are an above average polling org.

I don't think the study shows that "steadfast conservatives" are for same sex marriage etc. It noted that they were socially very conservative.

a reply to: EverydayInVA

Thanks for your post and sharing the result.

Me too.

That quiz was ridiculous, it claimed me as a steadfast liberal which is nowhere near the truth. The options to answer the questions were ridiculous. "Government is always lazy and inefficient" vs "Government does a good job". My answer to such a question is that government is less efficient but some services in society shouldn't be offered solely due to a profit motive. Government despite being inefficient is great at these jobs because the goal isn't to be efficient. The blacks and their problems one was equally stupid, it was basically blacks cause their own problems or everything is fine. Everything is not fine but racism isn't the cause, it's because we have inner city hell holes and make no attempt to change the culture. Racially we're pretty balanced in the nation, but factors outside of race cause various ethnic groups to be at a disadvantage.

a reply to: Aazadan

OF COURSE your points have a truth to them.

It appears that you have not read my many posts about why the survey was designed as it was.

IT WAS DELIBERATELY FORCED CHOICE between starkly opposite options.

If you wish to read the above posts, you may discover the purpose of such FORCED CHOICE polls and why the options are so stark. I've said so much about it, I'm almost burned out trying to explain it further. Sorry.

a reply to: BO XIAN

That's fine if they were just trying to get a point across. I was just saying I don't fall into the preconceived polarized opinions. I don't think most people do. The reason we have politics the way we do is because we've turned the news into entertainment. Republicans and Democrats are teams to root on and support the way sports teams are. Our news organizations have turned them into that.

a reply to: BO XIAN
Really.....not a bad spot for a 30 something to be.....
Your best fit is...
Young Outsider
along with 13% of the public.

a reply to: Aazadan

Actually, I believe it's the globalist oligarchy who have turned it into a circus to distract from their under the table and not so under the table tyranny toward the global government.

The Poll was not per se to make a point.

It was to FIND OUT what SUB GROUPS the current general population would cluster into wherein the members of the sub groups would be MORE similar TO EACH OTHER than they were to members in the other sub groups.

THE BEST WAY to find that out is via a FORCED CHOICE poll like that one.

You might learn some interesting things to read my posts about the types of surveys and the goals involved vs individuality etc.

Thanks for your kind reply.

a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

CONGRATS.

I think young outsiders have more hopefulness going for them than those who are suck-ups to the globalist oligarchy hell-bent, literally, on global tyranny.

I still think of myself much as I did as an undergrad. LOL. Then I realize that my body is 60+ LOL.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

I don't think the study shows that "steadfast conservatives" are for same sex marriage etc. It noted that they were socially very conservative.

Thanks for the good replies Bo Xian.


Exactly, yet my more libertarian answers on many of the questions should have probably moved me out of the Steadfast Conservative banner. I was surprised that my answers still landed me in that group, especially given the "black vs white" type of answers they were soliciting.

It was an interesting survey and you seem to have much more nuts and bolts knowledge of them. I just wish they could have delved more in the the minutiae of each group, especially the center that doesn't seem enamoured with either party. I would think that one of the things would be to find the commonalities of the the center part of both the Democrat and Republican wings, I would venture to say there is a lot of room for the right third party candidate/party to make a run for it. For example, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, while vastly different, still had some commonalities with each other that if each were to focus on those, they would be a force to be reckoned with.