Compare support for shared provision with support for a common civic life.
This reading describes a count pattern in two sets of hypothetical policy proposals: more economic-left choices and more communitarian choices. It does not identify a party, a moral character or a position in a real population.
Economic difference = right count minus left count. Social difference = liberal count minus communitarian count. Both differences are negative in this comparison. Each axis needs all eighteen valid choices; any NA leaves that axis unscored.
Two commitments, not one political identity
A negative economic count difference means that more of your eighteen economic selections favored the proposals this edition calls economic-left. These emphasize public provision, redistribution or a stronger collective role in economic decisions. A negative social difference means more selections favored common civic purposes, inherited public practices or shared obligations. Keeping these dimensions separate matters: a shared service can be organized in several ways, and support for cultural continuity does not determine a tax preference. Neither coordinate measures kindness, obedience or intelligence.
Read the policy instruments behind the counts
Look back at which instruments you actually preferred. Public rental housing, progressive taxation and employee representation are different interventions, with different intended beneficiaries and implementation problems. Similarly, a shared civic calendar and a service obligation place different demands on individuals. Selecting them in the same direction does not establish one underlying motive. You may favor one proposal because of access, another because of local continuity, and a third because of distrust of a particular alternative. The summary cannot recover those reasons from a two-option choice.
Work through a complete example
Consider a fictional attempt with twelve left and six right selections, plus eleven communitarian and seven liberal selections. The economic difference is six minus twelve, or −6; the social difference is seven minus eleven, or −4. Every axis has eighteen valid choices, so the point is (−6, −4). Changing one economic selection from left to right changes both counts: eleven left and seven right give −4. The social value stays −4. These arithmetic changes describe the bank, not a measured amount of ideological change.
Keep a tie and missing information distinct
Ten left choices and eight right choices give −2, a narrow count difference rather than a strong identity. If the social choices divide nine to nine, that axis is exactly zero and both left-side comparison guides remain relevant. If one social response is NA, however, there is no social coordinate or combined point. An unanswered question also differs from NA: the questionnaire cannot finish until every question has a selection. Do not replace uncertainty with a middle response merely to obtain a dot on the chart.
A similar economic choice can lead elsewhere
Someone may support broadly financed housing and education while opposing an expected civic ceremony and a common cultural quota. Their economic selections could resemble this pattern while their social selections point toward individual freedom. Conversely, a person may value a common civic ritual but prefer private financing of services. Neither is an inconsistent version of this comparison. The two axes deliberately allow these combinations. A real person can also accept public provision for one service and reject it for another without the summary exposing the difference.
Keep costs and minority interests in view
The proposals describe priorities rather than guaranteed outcomes. A public provider still faces budget limits and accountability questions. A community process may build belonging while making it harder for dissenters to participate on equal terms. Private alternatives can also fail people who lack resources or bargaining power. This guide cannot settle those empirical questions by adding up selections. Ask what safeguards, funding assumptions and opportunities to challenge a decision would be needed under each proposal. That inquiry remains relevant whichever side has the larger count.
Use one disagreement for closer reading
Choose one economic item and one social item you found difficult. Write what the missing third proposal would look like, whose interests it would protect and what evidence could change your answer. Then compare those notes with the actual two options. This makes the limitation of forced comparisons visible without requiring another test or a political recommendation. You can read all four guides, leave uncertainty in place or end here. Nothing in the result tells you which party, candidate, campaign or community to support.
Original edition and privacy limits
FermatMind Editorial wrote these thirty-six bilingual policy comparisons and the equal-count rule. Background discussions of distributive justice and the liberal–communitarian debate explain the vocabulary; they do not validate this instrument. This is not the IDRlabs bank, Political Compass, SECS or an 8values conversion. There are no population norms, party predictions or established language equivalence. The public guide contains no personal answers. Copying its link does not publish your point; optional saved progress remains in the current browser tab and is cleared on completion or retake.