@pants It does?

Sounds to me like they read through policies and speaches and then just made their own personal judgement call... how does that in any way address their personal biases or allow for a objective measure? They would have to develop very specific criteria for how they tallied "points" to each person for it to be data driven, or at least some sort of objective system. None of what you pasted suggested they did anything of the sort.. it just basically says "We watched a bunch of videos of the guy and read up on their policies before we decided whatever our opinion was on where to place them"

@freemo i'd read through their faq. maybe even reach out to them about their methodologies, see what you think about it yourself, and keep an open mind. let me know what conclusions you draw.

@pants I wouldnt be opposed to that if i had the time for it.. I'm a professional scientist whose plate is already full on more rigorous stuff.

@freemo @pants if one wanted to be overly hypercitical then that is not possible because someone would just argue that while yes you can create a rubrick of "appears to agree" and "appears to disagree", map each candidate to the issue list, and run cosine similarities against prototypes of people in each quadrant, someone would then just complain that the prototypes weren't "real" libertarians.

@icedquinn

yes but at least then you have an objective measure and know what your measuring against.. they would have created an objective compass of some traits, whatever those traits being they defined up front, and showed rigour and objectivity in how they got there.

Most importantly because their process is dont scientifically and outlines it lets you do exactly that, review the process and determine if you feel it is a valid one, and yes people may determine it is not. But that is a far sight better than just making a personal judgement call and leaving it at that.

@pants