I scored a 31, but it's really meaningless, because for many of the questions, in my mind, the answer was "neither of the above," but that wasn't an option. Of course, one knew right out of the box that it was a stupid test, because it assumes that people can be put on a one-dimensional scale of "liberal/conservative." I'd like to know how Glenn answered differently from me to get a lower score.

I agree with him, in that I don't consider myself anything on that scale, and certainly not a "moderate." There's a cretin over at sci.space.policy who, whenever I inform him that I'm neither a Republican or Democrat, or Conservative or "Liberal," invariably says, "then you're a moderate?"

No. As Glenn says, I'm an extremist, but an eclectic one.

[Saturday morning update]

Volokh has more. Note the commenter who has analyzed the Javascript, and found liberal bias:

You start out as fully liberal, and whenever you give the conservative response, it gives you a certain number of points. Therefore, not answering a question is equivalent to giving the liberal answer. All responses give you one point except the first, which gives you two. If a liberal would check a checkbox, its value is ignored, so even if you don't check it, it doesn't affect your score.

So, if I'd done what I wanted to do in many cases, and left the question blank, because it was so mindless, I'd have probably scored as a "liberal." Note all the idiot stereotypes and false choices implied by the questions. As many noted, if I were teaching a political science (now there's an oxymoron) class, I'd flunk whoever came up with this thing.

Rand,

"No. As Glenn says, I'm an extremist, but an eclectic one."

Reminds me of Rick's (Bogart, of course) reply to Major Strasser's query as to his nationality:

"I'm a drunkard."

BTW: Just read "Media Casualties Mount." It holds up very well six years later. Came over via the A. Kling link - glad I did.

I scored a 33, and I agree about the need for a "none of the above" answer on most of those questions.

Volokh has a pretty good take on it here:
Link

My answers to more than three quarters of the test were none of the above. I didn't even bother sumitting it. Stupid test.

Who really cares though, there's millions of poorly concieved tests just like this on the internet.

A better test....

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I scored: 100 % economic and 80% on the personal issues area.

21, right between Colin and George. Go figure.

I got a nine.

I scored a 42.

Just kidding - my score was 37.

37, baby. But whoever wrote the thing should be slapped.

And anyone who scores below 20 needs to grow up and get an education (from somewhere other than a publicly-funded institution).

I don't think that liberal bias in the programming is incorrect--it's a voting predictor. If you sit out an election because you don't agree with Democrats or Republicans, you're helping the liberals...

27 here.

I think that puts me on the faaaar right here in NZ.

But there were so many questions hwre I was going "*both* options are evil ... but ... hmm ... maybe *that* one would do slightly less harm ..."

I got a 36, and I'm not very liberal, it's more a test of "how conservative are you on obvious issues" test, than a "liberal vs. Conservative" test.

It was either made by someone who wanted to make any libertarian minded individual feel guilty about being conservative, or by someone who wanted to stoke the conservative fires of "VOTE FOR THE NEXT REPUBLICAN"

It's a retarded test, I know obviously that the wording was a joke, cuz the questions were so off balance, and the answers were virtually without option.

I don't mind my 36, in those issues? I don't mind scoring high (and the abortion questions weren't even a second thought, even though I'm pro choic)