>At first I had an issue with the wording of most of the questions until I realized that what they were trying to get at was a way of measuring the degree of your response using specific and somtimes subtle phraseology.
>
>IOW, in this case, they were checking to see if you believe that some criminals are beyond rehabilitation. Some people have the notion that rehabilitation is *always* possible and those people would -- hopefully for the purposes of the survey -- answer "no." Others who come to the same conclusion as you would answer "yes." These subtle differences in thinking are what put everyone into the proper section of their quadrant.

I wasn't bothered by the wording of the questions per se - most, if not all of the tests of this type I've taken use that type of ambiguous statement/question. Some are specifically designed that way, with the responses being cross-checked for consistency, to reduce or prevent manipulation (e.g. the Hare PCL-R, as I understand it).

It's just that in this particular case it seems to me there is a scientifically "correct" answer, contrary to what the site says. So what is the question testing:

- Whether someone is aware of the research?
- If they are aware of the research, do they have scientific reasons to disagree?
- If they are aware of the research, do they disagree based on personal or religious beliefs?
- Do they reject science in general, or in a particular field such as psychology (e.g. ElRonners)?
- Other?

I'm not sure how any of this relates to the aim of determining a "political compass". Without access to the methodology in analyzing the answers it's not much different from a Ouija board.



>
>>>http://politicalcompass.org/
>>>http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/libvsconserv.htm
>>
>>The first link was interesting. However, I have some doubts about the validity of its statements/questions.
>>
>>The home page says "there's no right, wrong or ideal response". However, one of the statements is "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals." My understanding, based on popular/lay synopses I've read of research by Robert Hare is that, in the case of certain psychopaths at least, this statement is literally true. So I'm not sure what this statement/question would be measuring.