No quadrants. No identity verdicts.
Your answers form a profile across 24 dimensions. That profile is compared directly with 35 structured ideology profiles, with extra attention paid to doctrines that distinguish traditions. The output is similarity, not a diagnosis.
Questions & answers
The full assessment has 72 statements; the quick version selects 30 for broad coverage. Each answer ranges from strongly disagree (−3) to strongly agree (+3). A question contributes a signed, weighted effect to one or more dimensions. Some questions also measure defining doctrines. Skips are excluded, not counted as neutral.
Several dimensions are asked in different ways to check whether a position holds across abstract principles, concrete policies, and institutional preferences. A spread of answers lowers the consistency estimate; uncertainty is not treated as wrongdoing.
When your leading matches stay close together, the result page can offer a few extra statements — chosen because they separate those traditions on the dimensions your profile measures least. Answering them is optional, and completion is recalculated with the added questions so extra effort does not masquerade as a perfect score.
The dimensions
Dimensions are independent descriptive continuums, not a pair of master axes. Each measured value is normalized from −1 to +1. An omitted ideology dimension is not silently scored as neutral.
Political economy
Support for private ownership of productive assets.
Preference for markets in coordinating production and exchange.
Preference for coordinated economic plans.
Support for narrowing income differences through public policy.
Support for direct worker governance of workplaces.
Support for government ownership of major industries.
Support for formal state coordination of employers and labor.
Extent to which class conflict shapes political priorities.
Institutions
Support for open competition between political movements.
Preference for concentrating decision-making in central institutions.
Support for binding citizen or assembly decisions.
Priority given to expression, association, and due process.
Preference for expert-led policy decisions.
Support for regional and local decision-making.
Society & identity
Acceptance of durable social rank and unequal authority.
Preference for national autonomy over supranational authority.
Importance of ancestry or ethnicity in defining national membership.
Support for international cooperation and solidarity.
Support for welcoming immigration and plural membership.
Culture & change
Support for religious principles guiding law and institutions.
Preference for preserving established social customs.
Priority given to ecological limits in economic decisions.
Preference for fundamental breaks rather than gradual reform.
Foreign affairs
Willingness to use military power as a political instrument.
Similarity is not certainty
For each ideology, we calculate the mean absolute distance between its modeled dimensions and the dimensions measured in your answers. We convert that distance into a broad similarity score, then apply penalties for strong contradictions with defining doctrines — half the weight sits on the single worst conflict, so violating one defining position cannot be averaged away by agreeing with the rest. Unanswered doctrine questions receive neither credit nor a penalty. No two-dimensional political coordinates are involved in this ranking.
The result page also shows an economy and an authority coordinate, because readers ask for them. That pair is a projection of the already measured dimensions, computed after classification: it never changes a match score, and an axis with too few measured dimensions stays empty instead of defaulting to the centre.
The same projection is drawn for your closest traditions and politicians so you can see what sits nearby. Those models are deliberately sparse, so a marker appears only when at least three positions exist on both axes, and it says nothing about the conflicts the two lines cannot express.
Confidence is a separate estimate based on how many questions you answered, coverage across dimensions, answer consistency, decisive doctrine responses, the gap between the top matches, and whether you took the quick or full test. Differences of a few points should be read as near ties—not precise measurements.
Encyclopedia coverage and test coverage differ
The explorer also indexes the named entries in two Russian Wikipedia articles. Those lists contain political movements, historical variants, institutions, strategies, and terms that are not necessarily independent ideologies. Inclusion in a source section does not establish a numerical political profile or imply endorsement.
Only the researched profiles in our model can appear in test results. Reference entries link to their source and are explicitly marked as unscored; inventing hundreds of unsupported scores would make the classifier less reliable. Wikipedia excerpts are attributed and linked under CC BY-SA 4.0.
What this test cannot tell you
Ideologies evolve across countries, eras, and thinkers. One numerical profile cannot capture every variant or historical government.
Question wording and editorial decisions shape outcomes. The model is educational and has not been validated as a scientific instrument.
A high similarity does not imply endorsement of every doctrine or historical action associated with a movement.
Traditions with similar scores may be meaningfully different. Always inspect the agreements, disagreements, and close-match comparison.
Private by default
No sign-up or server-side profile collection. Calculations happen in your browser. Local progress can be deleted on the result page. The optional share text contains only names and rounded match scores—never your answers.