Where are you on the Nolan political spectrum?

[Silver]

Every time I take it, I'm always over there by Ghandi.

[Ranjr]

I've seen and lived too many to counterexamples to let "People get more conservative as they get older" slide without labelling it a glittering generality.

One is an old buddy who was a supply sider back in the 80s.  He told me back in the aughts, "We used to argue about that stuff.  I had that economics professor who explained it in a way that made sense, but it didn't work the way he said it would."  These days he's all about clean air, food and water, with a more than a little don't trust corporates asses on the side.

As for me, I'm ready for the young people to take control of their future.  Old people got them into this mess, which means old people can't get them out.  I'm not so uptight or prideful to think they can't find a better way.

[Sal]

I made a thread about its futility some time ago (goddamn I'm drunk). Doesn't matter what your political convictions are, they aren't easily mapped unto some stupid 2d graph or whatever.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Liberal and conservative aren't part of our nature or any nature.  They're a hasty imposition of ambiguous political claims and shifting mores.

I think they are both.

In my OP was trying to distinguish the political terms of conservative or liberal (perhaps I should've said progressive) from the literal meanings.

Conservative literally means resistant to change.  That is part of our nature, and NOT a political affiliation.  People get more conservative as they get older.  Young people have less roots in the way things used to be, and are more willing to find their own path.  Political parties know this and try to exploit it (and brand it).

-and yet, conservatism has been an agent of radical change.  

People don't get more conservative as they get older, I used to wonder about that one thinking it true, myself.  More accurately, whatever you are, today, will be conservative in 30 years.  We define it, and it moves, as we go along. The elderly conservatism of any given moment is the sum total of the political convictions of the surviving cohort. The conservatives of today still believe the same things they did in the 60's, 70's, and 80's - when they were politically subversive with respect to their conservative parents. Parents who would not recognize the conservatism of today.

But, on any particular issue, I was trying to say that I may be conservative -- i.e. resistant to change.  You believe in giving a guaranteed income to everyone?  Prove that isn't going to bankrupt the nation.  You want to change the government representation to be equal to proportional vote?  Prove to me that won't lead to wackadoodle parties getting the balance of power.

I am getting older, and I'm less likely to buy into someone's utopian bullshit (even if I'm wrong).  I like the devil I know, even with its flaws.  That is part of our nature, and it should be part of our nature.  That's being conservative. 

-right there, the devil you know.  

I also have my own progressive utopian ideas that I hope other people will treat with the same degree of skepticism.  This is how good change happens, with skeptical thought and tension between our conservative and progressive nature, hopefully moving in the right (or is that left?) direction.

We don't have any such nature.......

You may be conservative, but that's you, own it.  You like some set of ideas you call conservative. Nature didn't do that to you.  No more so than it made me a whackadoodle. Just imagine, my whackadoodlism is going to be conservative™ one day too. You'll be adrift in sea of whackadoodles like me, voting for the politician that yammers away about our traditional values - none of which seem relatable to you. Politics are the very definition of artifice. Even more fundamentally, no one wants to throw away things that work. That's not a genuine point of difference between conservation and progress as naked terms - and even less so in their political context. It's always been (and never been more than) a talking point that one side or the other used as a cudgel.

Consider the irony in waxing on about skepticism as you launch yourself into rote expression of jingoism, justifying your position by means of thematically misinterpreted data. For fun, for a laugh, for a giggle, I mean. I do get what you're trying to say, but at the same time the manner that you've expressed it explicitly declares a bias that is not - but probably feels like - skepticism. It's just an issue of framing. For example, a 2-axis graph is good at juxtaposing two values considered for purposes of the grid as diametrically opposed. Personal freedom and economic freedom, in this case. You seem to have at least some thought as to how these two wind themselves into each other, assuming that there a seperate thing - and there's the rub. If they're the same thing, a graph that assumes diametric opposition will get it wrong as a matter of it's function. What does it mean to say that a person should (or should not) have the freedom to fail, when we insist that they should have any personal freedom? What personal freedom could we possibly be referring to? The freedom to think about all of the things you are not free to do? Lets not worry too much about the answer to that, so that we can wonder something else. Does simply framing the two as opposite sides of a diagram set up a cognitive trap? Does it make us believe that there's some conflict between the two when there isn't, and what effects would that have on your ideas of other peoples utopias and what you expect them to show you? Are you sure that the criteria are coherent in their own respects?

If I say to you I think that we should live in a country where any person who wants food should have food - will you then insist that I show you that it won't bankrupt us? It won't, we already spend more money, but assume that it would bankrupt us. Do we let people starve because it's more costly to feed them? That's unlikely to be your takeaway, conservative or progressive. So why do we say things like that?

[Rank Stranger]

Not sure if I agree, but the quiz says I'm Liberal.  80% personal freedom, 30% economic freedom.

I'd clarify that where questions regarding economic freedom are concerned... I support WAY more than 30% economic freedom for individuals.

Corporations are another matter 

[no one]

Somewhere between Sid Viscous and Doctor X.

[Divinity]

Didn't see an option for 'Burn all the fucking churches down' so I'm not sure this quiz is accurate.

75% social
4% economic

[Fireball]

Somewhere between Sid Viscous and Doctor X.

I'm pretty sure Sid is far past viscous, by now.