What would a more scientific view of political leanings look

>>9132297
Definitely a Hilbert Space where each dimensi

>>9132297
>What would a more scientific view of political leanings look like?
invisible, since politics isn't scientific

>>9132335
If it was a fully social construct I would agree, but since it has a genetic components we should be able to make something more scientific. There's research on threat bias, taste, personality, body type, social-economic status, attractiveness that claim these traits make you more likely to support certain policies or end up on one of the political leanings.

>>9132335
The question is not whether politics is scientific (it's not, I agree), but that how can we describe people's thoughts, views, preferences, decisions in a scientific way, with scientific methods. Politology and Sociology tries and fails because they are retards, they don't study math and natural sciences, and don't see those disciplines as examples to follow.

File: 1503181743092.png (31KB, 468x379px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 468x379px

>>9132297
Something like this but with like a gazillion more sliders.

>scientific
blue category only allowed because we expect good results over the longer periods of time

>>9132379
>>9132693
Ugh this is why we in STEM fields get such a bad rep. Sociology didn't fail at this because they're retards, they failed because this shit it hard. Where on a political compass does one quantify the distinctions between Objectivist and Egoist political ideologies? What are the empirically measured distinctions between a leftist anarchist, a post-leftist anarchist, and an alt-right libertarian? What method of experimentation can be used to distinguish Mussolini's fascism, Hitler's nazism, and Franco's neo-feudalism, all in relation to something like fucking juche? At the end of the day you're trying to use the scientific method to quantify complex human behaviors and values, which have far, FAR more fucking tractable problems to resolve first.

>>9132842
You are right in that Sociology is much harder than Physics. I'm still right in that they don't even *try* studying/applying proper, rigorous Math to their problems. "This thing is too complicated to be handled by the same tools that brought success in every other discipline." they say, and give up.

>>9132866
I mean, they use statistics just like every other empirical field. But these aren't fucking rigid body experiments here. Even the smallest simplifications reduce the efficacy of any sort of model. You seriously think that someone who came up with a working model wouldn't be able to get published? Or are you seriously so arrogant as to think that literally nobody as smart as *you* has tried?

Political compass has two dimensions for it is simple to visualize two dimensions. The best visual representation you could do would be some sort of protection from from n-space onto 2-space or possibly 3-space and then, using bayesian statistics, map some region in either space to some general political ideology.

File: ideology.png (10KB, 363x484px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 363x484px

The vertical scale represents top down authority which is the most important indicator.

People care about numerous things besides economic policy, the horizontal scale represents more the variety of ideologies that are injected into politics when people get power. You see, a voter can vote any way they want and it won't (or is very unlikely to) affect the outcome because they are just 1 out of millions, politicians gain success through popularity, not by pushing for what is right, so the outcome will be the prevailing memes of that particular society.

To begin with politicians are corrupt and authoritarian like their despotic forebears and influence voters with propaganda, as people shrug off the propaganda the variety increases, then something interesting happens. Instead of believing whatever they want to believe, people start to practice self-discipline and try to believe in what is right and the variety narrows. The pressure increases until like the birth of a star, the überChad emerges and everyone follows the example progressing towards ascension.

>>9132842
OP here. I absolutely agree it is hard. And perhaps it is more a hypothetical than something that is actually possible. Maybe sociological descriptions are the best we can do.

Though your point is exactly why I think the compass is too simplistic. Classifying something as authoritarian should, it seems, not be so hard, but when is it 'right' or 'left'? Hence I think it should be visualized differently.

>>9132866
actually the earliest methodologies of sociology did try to follow the natural sciences. was called positivism after the philosophical idea. and even now there is some complicated maths and computational areas in sociology. you probably just dont know about it and it isnt very big.

>>9132895
its not always easy to do experiments on humans and even when they are done, these usually come under economics or psychology. the definitions of the field is arbitrary and inconsistent. you should also not think that there isnt good research or incredibly intelligent people in sociology. you should also note that some of the methodology in sociology is as rigorous or even more so than some areas of biology.

dont shit on things you dont have grounds to shit on.

>>9132895
why not shit on history as well?