Conquer Club

Of course, the political spectrum is not quite so polarised. Actually, it’s more of a diamond shape, apparently. But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media – left wing vs. right wing, liberal vs. conservative, Labour vs Tory. And perhaps in our minds too…

Well, certainly in my mind. Researching this showed me that, despite my inevitable journalistic lean to the ‘left’, I am actually a bit more ‘right’ than I suspected.

This kind of visual approach to mapping concepts really excites me. I like the way it coaxes me to entertain two apparently contradictory value systems at the same time. Or, in other words, I like the way it f**ks with my head.

Dukasaur wrote:Very pretty poster, but not really useful, since it perpetuates the myth that Left and Right are meaningful definitions.

Of course, the political spectrum is not quite so polarised. Actually, it’s more of a diamond shape, apparently. But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media – left wing vs. right wing, liberal vs. conservative, Labour vs Tory. And perhaps in our minds too…

heavycola wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Very pretty poster, but not really useful, since it perpetuates the myth that Left and Right are meaningful definitions.

I quoted its designer in the OP. You must have missed it so i'll repost:

Of course, the political spectrum is not quite so polarised. Actually, it’s more of a diamond shape, apparently. But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media – left wing vs. right wing, liberal vs. conservative, Labour vs Tory. And perhaps in our minds too…

Dukasaur wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Very pretty poster, but not really useful, since it perpetuates the myth that Left and Right are meaningful definitions.

I quoted its designer in the OP. You must have missed it so i'll repost:

Of course, the political spectrum is not quite so polarised. Actually, it’s more of a diamond shape, apparently. But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media – left wing vs. right wing, liberal vs. conservative, Labour vs Tory. And perhaps in our minds too…

Well, I didn't fail to see that, but I'm not sure I understand the approach. You have that little paragraph saying, "it's not really like this" but then a gigantic graphic that screams "it's exactly like this." It's almost like having a little blurb in fine print that says "I love Chevrolet" and then having a huge Technicolor-and-Surround-Sound commercial for Toyota.

Maybe I didn't take enough Ritalin this morning, but I didn't know what to think after seeing those mixed messages.

heavycola wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Very pretty poster, but not really useful, since it perpetuates the myth that Left and Right are meaningful definitions.

I quoted its designer in the OP. You must have missed it so i'll repost:

Of course, the political spectrum is not quite so polarised. Actually, it’s more of a diamond shape, apparently. But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media – left wing vs. right wing, liberal vs. conservative, Labour vs Tory. And perhaps in our minds too…

Well, I didn't fail to see that, but I'm not sure I understand the approach. You have that little paragraph saying, "it's not really like this" but then a gigantic graphic that screams "it's exactly like this." It's almost like having a little blurb in fine print that says "I love Chevrolet" and then having a huge Technicolor-and-Surround-Sound commercial for Toyota.

Maybe I didn't take enough Ritalin this morning, but I didn't know what to think after seeing those mixed messages.

A broad brush representation of the major political divide "screams 'it's exactly like this'"? How on earth did you reach that conclusion?
Look - it never pretends to be comprehensive. But left and right are simple enough to be meaningful to most people, and are used as such by reporters and analysts and even politicians. I know what they mean, broadly, and so do you, even if people - and therefore politics - are really much more complex.

The point of this picture is not to polarise and classify everyone as either left- or right-wing. The point is to present the major political divide simplistically and dispassionately, to allow comparisons and perhaps a greater understanding on the part of those on either side. It's not a political science degree. Why is everything so difficult here? Why am I even explaining this?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Very pretty poster, but not really useful, since it perpetuates the myth that Left and Right are meaningful definitions.

I quoted its designer in the OP. You must have missed it so i'll repost:

Of course, the political spectrum is not quite so polarised. Actually, it’s more of a diamond shape, apparently. But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media – left wing vs. right wing, liberal vs. conservative, Labour vs Tory. And perhaps in our minds too…

Well, I didn't fail to see that, but I'm not sure I understand the approach. You have that little paragraph saying, "it's not really like this" but then a gigantic graphic that screams "it's exactly like this." It's almost like having a little blurb in fine print that says "I love Chevrolet" and then having a huge Technicolor-and-Surround-Sound commercial for Toyota.

Maybe I didn't take enough Ritalin this morning, but I didn't know what to think after seeing those mixed messages.

A broad brush representation of the major political divide "screams 'it's exactly like this'"? How on earth did you reach that conclusion?
Look - it never pretends to be comprehensive. But left and right are simple enough to be meaningful to most people, and are used as such by reporters and analysts and even politicians. I know what they mean, broadly, and so do you, even if people - and therefore politics - are really much more complex.

The point of this picture is not to polarise and classify everyone as either left- or right-wing. The point is to present the major political divide simplistically and dispassionately, to allow comparisons and perhaps a greater understanding on the part of those on either side. It's not a political science degree. Why is everything so difficult here? Why am I even explaining this?

From what I read, the underlined won't happen because the left-right dichotomy is false. Instead, you'd need a more specific economic-political spectrum, e.g.


Authoritarian<-------------------->Democratic
Individual Freedom<-------------------->Collectivism
Classical Liberal<-------------------->Progressive
Dove<-------------------->Hawk
Economic Freedom<-------------------->One Ideal Value


That info pic is just crap. It paints too broad a stroke, and its numbers on attitudes of "war" and "gay marriage" etc. don't seem trustworthy.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I understand, but the info pic is misleading, which could compound the problems of the left-right dichotomy.

At least it shows a more nuanced range of issues across the false dichotomy, but do most people, when viewing this believe the false facts? If so, the info pic becomes costly.

If most people look at a certain part, and say "Bullshit!", but then do some internet research, then maybe the info pic is less costly.


I admit that the info pic is a starting point, but those are my concerns, so I'm not jumping for joy over it.

heavycola wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I understand, but the info pic is misleading, which could compound the problems of the left-right dichotomy.

At least it shows a more nuanced range of issues across the false dichotomy, but do most people, when viewing this believe the false facts? If so, the info pic becomes costly.

If most people look at a certain part, and say "Bullshit!", but then do some internet research, then maybe the info pic is less costly.


I admit that the info pic is a starting point, but those are my concerns, so I'm not jumping for joy over it.

Spoken like a true Marxo-fascist.

The whole pic is one guy's opinion. You shoukd check his website out - some of his stuff is genius, mostly because of its stark simplicity. I think visualising concepts this way will have drawbacks, certainly, but it also activates a cool part of the viewer's imagination.

Take this, for example, probably my favourite of his (it's from 2007 though so little out of date): http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... llar-gram/

These numbers are bandied about a lot in the news, but who would have thought to relativise them like this? Its eye-opening, and i think the left/right pic can be too. Not to everyone, obviously...