![ujX4EYX[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/htE2b4G.jpg "ujX4EYX[1].jpg")
Alright, so, I'm going to go against my better judgement and ask you people for advice.
As part of a project, I'm designing a survey, which asks a range of questions. This survey will later be taken by students at a local school, and possibly be compared to results from other locales (possibly /pol/).
As part of that, I was thinking I'd ask "If you had to choose between the options given, how would you describe yourself? Multiple options may apply and options may overlap, but you must prioritize one."
So far, the options are: Libertarian, Socialist Liberal, Liberal Socialist, Third Positionist, Conservative, Marxist, Anarchist, Capitalist, Objectivist.
Anything else I should add? Something that should be removed?
>>70117458
Nationalist should be there to, just as Globalist.
>>70117458
>no National Socialist
poor play sven
im a nationalist if you wanted to know
>>70117458
I don't want to jump in because im not qualified on statistics, but maybe instead of asking directly which political persuasion, you can ask questions to do with distribution of wealth, role of the government etc. It will make your project more interesting, and kids at schools won't know so you'll just get spam answers. This could actually be a really cool project if you phrase the questions properly and let the younglings address specific questions.
>>70117560
I was thinking Nationalist, but I wasn't sure I wanted it alongside Third Positionist.
It does happen that there are nationalists that aren't third positionists, though. It's rare, if they're actual nationalists, but I guess I should add it.
I added Globalist alongside Internationalist. I also added Democrat and Republican, for those that want to identify as that specifically (not necessarily associative with the U.S. parties, but nontheless).
>>70117458
incorporate this shit, mate
>http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>>70117771
>no National Socialist
National-socialists are third positionists, though. As a national-socialist, I specifically decided to not include it as a separate option.
>>70117783
I absolutely could, and I'm asking some other questions in relation to this, but that level of granularity just isn't relevant in this case. I'd love to do something like that, but it's out of the scope for this.
The school I'm going to is for adults, though, and all the students are going to be grown-ups. Not that that is going to change much in terms of political literacy, but it's worth mentioning.
I'm working towards becoming a teacher, though, and it'd be really cool to do surveys exactly like the ones you mention, especially if I can do it to the same students over a period of three years.
>>70118469
>third positionist
You're a goddamn Communist.
>>70118469
>National-socialists are third positionists, though.
>>70118014
As much as I think that the political compass can be useful, it's ultimately only marginally less shallow than a left-vs.-right political spectrum.
I'm going to lift some of the terms, though. Notably, I added Authoritarian, Fundamentalist, and Social Democrat.
>>70118613
>You're a goddamn Communist.
...say what?
>>70118953
You heard me. Hitler was a Commie. Don't believe me? Go check how many goddamn Commnunists there were in the NatSoc party. It was very definitely the Communist party of choice. Maybe a little bit less Communist/Russian/Judaic on average, but still utterly poison to the White, Scottish ideal of Capitalism.
>>70118814
>Notably, I added Authoritarian, Fundamentalist, and Social Democrat.
if they're teenagers who sit on their phones all day, they're going to go nuts over "Social Democrat" because sander clause wants to give free shit
>>70119045
you do know that the natsoc hated the communists with a flaming passion?
>>70119235
Yeah, and plenty of Trump supporters hate niggers. Could you try actually looking at the fucking economic policies of National Socialism instead of the rhetoric?
Oh right, NatSocs are eternally economically illiterate and think you can separate economics from social issues, when economics IS social issues.
>>70119045
>You heard me. Hitler was a Commie.
1/10 would not be trolled again.
>Don't believe me? Go check how many goddamn Commnunists there were in the NatSoc party.
There weren't any communists in the NSDAP. There were ex-communists in the NSDAP. If your idea of unifying the people is by alienating rather than converting them, you belong in a gas chamber.
>but still utterly poison to the White, Scottish ideal of Capitalism.
>White
>Scottish
>ideal of Capitalism
>implying there's any White Scottish ideal of Capitalism
Capitalism is the poison that drove workers into the open arms of the Marxists. It's just two different forms of materialist jewry.
As any national-socialist, I support "true capitalism" as much as I support "true democracy", but seeking to reinterpret failed dogmas based on No True Scotsman-arguments is a fucking fallacy.
>>70119235
>if they're teenagers who sit on their phones all day, they're going to go nuts over "Social Democrat" because sander clause wants to give free shit
They're not teenagers, though. I'm dealing with adults. That changes nothing in terms of your argument, but I just thought I'd point it out.
Many of these options are completely unnecessary, really. I'm dealing with politically retarded and philosophically illiterate people that couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag. They're going to go for some of the things they know and disregard the rest. I'm betting high on "Liberal Socialist", "Socialist Liberal" and "Social Democrat". I've specifically left out "Feminism" just so I can say "It's right there. Marxism." when they ask for it.
>>70119388
>Could you try actually looking at the fucking economic policies of National Socialism instead of the rhetoric?
I have, and you have no idea what you're talking about. I recommend you actually take some time to read Gottfried Feder and Alfred Rosenberg.
>Oh right, NatSocs are eternally economically illiterate and think you can separate economics from social issues, when economics IS social issues.
That is literally the opposite of national-socialism. All national-socialists are fully aware that economics are social issues. There's no separation, except in your head.
>>70119480
modern political econimic theory largely evolved out of the scottish enlightenment you dumb cuck
>>70119951
How the hell do they interpret feminism as a political ideology?
Putting capitalist and objectivist is redundant.
Just allow people to describe themselves. If someone wants to say ''I am a gender-fluid volleyball'' then let them have that shit.
Also have questions like
>How much do you agree with Nationalism?
1) No opinion 2)Strongly agree 3) agree 4) disagree 5) strongly disagree
Alright, so, so far I've got this: Anarchist, Authoritarian, Capitalist, Conservative, Democrat, Fundamentalist, Globalist, Internationalist, Libertarian, Liberal Socialist, Marxist, Monarchist, Nationalist, Objectivist, Socialist Liberal, Republican, Social Democrat, Third Positionist.
And I think I'm stopping there.
>>70120087
>modern political econimic theory largely evolved out of the scottish enlightenment you dumb cuck
Welcome, Captain Obvious. Now please fuck off back to Planet Oblivious.
>>70120214
>How the hell do they interpret feminism as a political ideology?
Because it is? It might be a shitty one, and it might be wildly incoherent, but modern feminism is definitely a political ideology.
It's on a level where I don't think that it needs to be represented as it's own ideology, and is essentially just marxism under a veneer of cross-ideological cooperation, but there's no shortage of principially non-marxist cucks that have adopted feminism and incorporated it into their own agendas like some form of ideological virus. But is it a political ideology? Absolutely. Technically.
>>70120881
>hurr durr theres no white scottish ideal of capitalism
>yes there is
>HURR CAPTAIN OBVIOUS
this is you right now
>>70117458
Split Socialist liberal and liberal socialist into just liberal and socialist. Or democratic socialist.
Lose Objectivist. That's a half baked attempt at philosophy not a political ideology. Although it is a school you're aiming this for I suppose.
If you want to get the best results add as many as you can think of. Otherwise you end up tainting your results with your own biases and get useless data.
An example of this is you not putting nationalist in because "third positionist" should suffice. That's just dumb. No one, outside of people into fringe ideologies and early 20th century history, knows what Third Positionist means let along subscribes to it.
Are you going to provide definitions? I would be surprised if people actually knew which one they were. And if they did know they'd probably be wrong
>>70119951
>NatSocs are eternally economically illiterate
>All national-socialists are fully aware that economics are social issues.
The don't seem to be aware of how fucked the economy was if it wasn't for the war.
>>70121533
that one is on my to road list. it as good as everyone says?
>>70121863
to read*
>>70120984
Except that's not what either of us said.
>There's no scottish ideal of capitalism worth considering.
>MODERN ECONOMIC THEORY SCOTTISH ENLIGHTENMENT KEK KEK KEK
>Yeah, well, that's completely beside the point.
>>70120570
>Putting capitalist and objectivist is redundant.
To a degree, yes, but a lot of people that would likely want to describe themselves as Capitalist would not do so into the level of Objectivist.
Also, the fact that Objectivist is even on there is almost entirely for the lulz. I wonder if anyone is retarded enough to go for it.
I could do the same with many other choices. Liberal Socialist and Socialist Liberal are both fundamentally Marxist.
>>70120690
Beyond the scope of this survey, really. I'd love to do that, but I'd have to go through a lot of work to do that in a meaningful way, starting with explaining basic definitions to people as part of the survey.
Generally speaking, people have no fucking clue what they think. Asking a question such as "How much do you agree with Nationalism" is like asking them what they think of skinheads and genocide. Everyone with an IQ below room temperature would just skew the entire survey with questions like that, since such questions assume they can understand the question to begin with.
>>70121049
>Split Socialist liberal and liberal socialist into just liberal and socialist. Or democratic socialist.
I deliberately avoid the blanket term "socialist" because people have a tendency to confuse it with marxism. This confusion may be understandable, but it is one I loathe.
I don't want to axe Liberal Socialist and Socialist Liberal, either, since they're relevant, in that the survey is not multiple-choice, and a lot of liberal marxists are likely unwilling to choose the option of Marxism.
>If you want to get the best results add as many as you can think of.
I don't want to clutter things too much, nor have the situation where everyone chooses this one thing that exactly conforms to them. I can "think of" a metric fuckton of options, but it'd result in survey-takers having to scroll through a massive amount of meaningless options that tell them nothing, until they find the option for which they will likely either be one of the extremely few, or one of the very many.
Leading to useless data. There'll be huge clusters around terms people understand, while there'll be single picks for some of the choices of the politically literate. If I did a survey on this on thousands of people, I would likely do it more like you suggest, but I don't think it's an option here. We're talking a pretty small sample size.
>An example of this is you not putting nationalist in because "third positionist" should suffice. That's just dumb. No one, outside of people into fringe ideologies and early 20th century history, knows what Third Positionist means let along subscribes to it.
Third Positionists know that they're Third Positionists, though. Either way, I did put "Nationalist" in there.
>>70121533
>The don't seem to be aware of how fucked the economy was if it wasn't for the war.
Other way around. The vast majority of criticism leveraged against the economy of national-socialism, such as being "communist" or other such nonsense, was due to wartime compromises.
>>70117458
ordoliberal
>>70117458
Third position conservative
>>70122904
>Other way around. The vast majority of criticism leveraged against the economy of national-socialism, such as being "communist" or other such nonsense, was due to wartime compromises.
source
>>70123723
>source
Me. It's pretty common nonsense to be thrown towards nationalists by the politically illiterate, especially by reactionaries.
>>70117458
>asking kids questions about words they don't understand
fucks sake.
use pic related as a guideline to devise a test
>>70120690
>Just allow people to describe themselves. If someone wants to say ''I am a gender-fluid volleyball'' then let them have that shit.
Fun fact: I'm deliberately forcing the choice between Male and Female, if only for the reason that one of the girls said that "Non-binary is a thing!" when we were discussing options in surveys.
Non-binary is indeed a thing. But so are unicorns. Doesn't mean I have to take them seriously.
