 |
| |
|
|
Pandemoniak
|
 |
of Xanadu, French Section of the Apolyton Must Crush Capitalism Party
Jul 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
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.
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. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AdamTG02
|
 |
Williamsburg, Virginia
Aug 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
Even a 3d graph is sojmewhat unwieldy. Let's go with five dimensions, as Pande said to begin with. Sure, Eudaimonia could be merged with Democracy, and Police State with Thought Control, but do we really want to simplify it that much? Let's go with the option that ascertains and stores the most information.
With five dimensions, it should be trivial to take out any two of them and make a 2D graph on those two axes, showing where everyone stands. We could even take three axes and make a 3D graph, if we had the software to support such a graph.
Even if we don't want Pande's originial five dimensions, that's fine. But let's have something a little more elaborate than simply a three-dimensional or two-dimensional graph. What about Demo vs. Police State, Planned vs. Free Market, Green vs. Free Market, Knowledge vs. Fundamentalism, Power vs. Wealth? That's five axes as-is, without pulling Future Societies into the loop, and none of them are repeats of the others. (As someone who thinks the environment must be protected from exploitation may nonetheless be strongly against a centralized economy. Take your average pro-Green Morganite.)
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like more complexity, not less. We can always limit our view to two criteria, and simply looking at the five ratings on sliders next to one another gives a pretty good view of where we stand and what we care about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lucky22
|
 |
Oregon
Aug 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AdamTG02
Even a 3d graph is sojmewhat unwieldy. Let's go with five dimensions, as Pande said to begin with. Sure, Eudaimonia could be merged with Democracy, and Police State with Thought Control, but do we really want to simplify it that much? Let's go with the option that ascertains and stores the most information.
|
You may be making a similar leap to my own dismissal of Pan's second suggestion of 2 or 3 dimensions in favor of the original set of dichotomies. The second set are more generalized pairs of values, incorporating information about our political, economic and social preferences. I failed to distinguish that at first. This wouldn't be the first time you and I demonstrated similar patterns of thinking (no insult intended).
quote:
With five dimensions, it should be trivial to take out any two of them and make a 2D graph on those two axes, showing where everyone stands. We could even take three axes and make a 3D graph, if we had the software to support such a graph.
|
I'm afraid we'd have to rely on intuition to relate the various 2d fields and a 3d graph would give us a cloud around the "Z" axis that wouldn't look like much at all. I suppose this is where what Drogue mentions about the original comes in:
quote:
originally posted by Drogue
You could do questions on those 5 and end up with a 3d axis. In the actual political compass there are 6 sections, all leading to a 2d result. |
We'll need to rely on a statistical solution to make sense out of more than two dimensions and even at two dimensions we'll probably want a concrete score of some kind, as in the original compass, which I recall gives seperate "X" and "Y" scores.
quote:
Even if we don't want Pande's originial five dimensions, that's fine. But let's have something a little more elaborate than simply a three-dimensional or two-dimensional graph. What about Demo vs. Police State, Planned vs. Free Market, Green vs. Free Market, Knowledge vs. Fundamentalism, Power vs. Wealth? That's five axes as-is, without pulling Future Societies into the loop, and none of them are repeats of the others. (As someone who thinks the environment must be protected from exploitation may nonetheless be strongly against a centralized economy. Take your average pro-Green Morganite.)
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like more complexity, not less. We can always limit our view to two criteria, and simply looking at the five ratings on sliders next to one another gives a pretty good view of where we stand and what we care about. |
Again, my thought is that we don't want to have to rely on too much intuition- hence a factor analysis to suss out factional leanings. Don't worry- such a process will be PLENTY complex.
Last edited by lucky22 on 06-12-2002 at 04:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Main_Brain
|
|
Economic World Center
Jul 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
I wouldnt oppose FM and Planned but instead FM and Green just as the AI's treat it in the Game.
P.s. Zeta9 hates Thought Control.. enhanced Brain vs controlled Brain would put Cybernetic vs Thought Control
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pandemoniak
|
|
of Xanadu, French Section of the Apolyton Must Crush Capitalism Party
Jul 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
After reading all your posts I had the idea of summing things up like this :
We can make a five dimensions test
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 ideologyFree 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.
That system sounds coherent to me. Feedbacks welcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pandemoniak
|
|
of Xanadu, French Section of the Apolyton Must Crush Capitalism Party
Jul 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
Well, first, we wont map 14 factions, but only 12, since we'd rather leave the aliens ideology out of the story. Moreover, I dont intend to give a "region" of the panel fo answers, to each faction.
To name the favourite factions, I was rather thinking of calculating one result (results being five values, Political, Humanistic, Education, etc...) per faction, and calculate the distance between the tester's results, and the faction predefined results.
For example, lets say Yang is
P, Political : -10 (totally pro PS)
H, Humanistic : -10 (totally pro TC)
E, Education : -3 (rather fundamentalist than knowledgeable)
C, Economic : +4 (planned better than Free Market)
S, Sovereignty : -8 (all your bases belong to yang, he thinks)
And a tester is :
P, Political : +8
H, Humanistic : +10
E, Education : -3
C, Economic : +2
S, Sovereignty : -2
After that, all we need is applying the results to know the square of the distance between them, according to the cartesian formula :
(PYang-PTester)² +(HYang-HTester)² +(EYang-ETester)² +(CYang-CTester)² +(SYang-STester)²
There, it would be 764, out of a maximum of 2000.
Such an equation could sometimes find some wierd results, but I think it would give better results most of the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lucky22
|
|
Oregon
Aug 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Well, first, we wont map 14 factions, but only 12, since we'd rather leave the aliens ideology out of the story. Moreover, I dont intend to give a "region" of the panel fo answers, to each faction.
To name the favourite factions, I was rather thinking of calculating one result (results being five values, Political, Humanistic, Education, etc...) per faction, and calculate the distance between the tester's results, and the faction predefined results.
For example, lets say Yang is
P, Political : -10 (totally pro PS)
H, Humanistic : -10 (totally pro TC)
E, Education : -3 (rather fundamentalist than knowledgeable)
C, Economic : +4 (planned better than Free Market)
S, Sovereignty : -8 (all your bases belong to yang, he thinks)
And a tester is :
P, Political : +8
H, Humanistic : +10
E, Education : -3
C, Economic : +2
S, Sovereignty : -2
After that, all we need is applying the results to know the square of the distance between them, according to the cartesian formula :
(PYang-PTester)² +(HYang-HTester)² +(EYang-ETester)² +(CYang-CTester)² +(SYang-STester)²
There, it would be 764, out of a maximum of 2000.
Such an equation could sometimes find some wierd results, but I think it would give better results most of the time. |
Solid.
There will not be a meaningful one-dimensional relationship between factions, though. That is to say no one faction will clearly occupy 764 on a scale of 0 to 1500 (or whatever). We will need to begin by getting a matrix of the covariances (mutual squared distances from the mean) between each pair of the 5 measures and proceed to relate the tester to the proper faction from there.
Have you worked out more than just Yang? As it is, I am in awe of your industriousness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pandemoniak
|
|
of Xanadu, French Section of the Apolyton Must Crush Capitalism Party
Jul 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
There will not be a meaningful one-dimensional relationship between factions, though. That is to say no one faction will clearly occupy 764 on a scale of 0 to 1500 (or whatever). |
That, I understand.
I also thought of putting barycenter to calculate distance.
IE, factions that have special agenda choices relative to one of the five categories will have a +0.5 coefficient for this category. IE: Yang hate Democracy and wants Police State, he gets a +0.5 coefficient for hating demo, and another +0.5 coefficient for wanting PS. Therefore, the formula between yang and the tester becomes [(PYang-PTester)²] x 2
If it had been for Deirdre, "economic distance" would have been doubled.
If it had been for Domai, both economic and humanitarian would have received a +50% increase.
Thus, the distance between a tester and the faction is subjective to the faction itself, unlike the position in the political compass. Like Children's Creche in a planned economy, it doesnt totally solve the problem, but it helps a lot.
quote:
We will need to begin by getting a matrix of the covariances (mutual squared distances from the mean) between each pair of the 5 measures and proceed to relate the tester to the proper faction from there. |
That, I dont understand. I dont know whats a matrix of covariances. 
quote:
Have you worked out more than just Yang? As it is, I am in awe of your industriousness.
|
No, but that shouldnt be too hard to make. Ill post a list really soon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
Personally, I would take out sovereignty, and combine humanistic and education, as IMHO, fundamentalism is virtually the same as TC, but to a lesser extent, in that it is trying to force people into a belief, and as such showing them what and how to think. So have FM vs Planned, Police State vs Democracy and Eudai/Knowledge vs TC. We can put questions on other topics, as most other ideals lie upon one of those lines. And hey presto - 3d 
I would also stick the first 7 faction leaders. In terms of politics, the other 7 have little to offer, save possibly the Drones. Data Angels would be covered by the University and Peacekeepers (freedom of info), Conciousness would be hard without Cybernetic, Pirates have little direct political ideals and Cult are covered by Gaians and Believers.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2002 19:49
So five it is. Should we make Eudaimonia / Thought Control use one of the later viewing schemes, though, since it's likely to collate pretty closely with Democracy / Police State?
|