I preferr to think of them fractally anyway, each quarter is itself quartered and so ad infinitum, or at least until a phase change

The theory explains the social engine of cultural and political change which are not directly dependent on economic factors. It is dependant on an individual’s perception of risk, and how we, as such individuals seek to co-operate together in groups.

It is something quite sophisticated, and something a direct mapping onto other 2×2 matrices completely misses. especially if one fail to notices that that mapping may shift over time as some values become re-aligned with regard their power in expressing/representing a perception of risk (to nature/morality).

In it one can identify one’s own preference, and so, perhaps, realise that other people’s preferences make some sort of sense, and that there is no need to fear them, no requirement to just tolerate them, but appreciate that their preferences are just as necessary as mine.

If only to maintain a pool of responses as situations changes.

I do not fear the madman, only their extremism, their singular desire to wipe out the other perceptions of risk as ever being valid. Fundamentalism is at root based in fear that there is difference at all.

Generally, political 2×2 matrices can act as a map, and allow teams to eye each other off, but these maps do not try to explain how they come about, nor how they change, nor, perhaps, how they require each other to even exist.

Socialists like to maintain the moral high ground of equality for themselves.

My counter to that is that libertarians are egalitarian in that they support the notion of equal opportunity for all (via free markets for e.g.), but accept that we weren’t born equal, and there will be unequal outcomes as a result of people’s abilities.

Socialists, on the other hand beleive in equality by force, regardless of people’s nautural abilities.

At the top point of the triangle, you’d have Authoritarianism; at the bottom left, Egalitarianism; and bottom right, Individualism. Fatalism, essentially being the absence of the others, would be the centre of the triangle.

Reminds me of the ethical system of the musical Into the Woods, where we have the ethics of Good, Nice and Right. This story picks up where all the other fairy tales left off (you didn’t really think they lived happily ever after, did you?) After Jack’s brutal murder of the giant, the giant’s wife comes for revenge. She threatens to destroy the village unless the people hand over Jack, which they refuse to do. The village witch makes the observation of the villagers, “You’re not Good, you’re just Nice!” – and attempts to hand Jack over to the giant, saying “I’m not Good or Nice, I’m just Right”.

“Nice” people don’t make hard moral choices, but do look out for the tribe – as long as it’s their tribe. In the above story, they ultimately band together and slay the giantess, even though they recognise Jack’s guilt.

“Good” people follow a moral system from an outside authority. If they existed in the above story, they might want to set up an agreement where the parties recognise each others right to exist, and set in place a procedure of due process to determine Jack’s guilt and any punishment involved.

“Right” people will try to make tough decisions – in the above case to minimise suffering – but aren’t as “personable” in dealing with other people as the Nice.

Though I prefer the political compass as a better continuum of political worldwiews.

A couple of issues I have with the cultural matrix:

- If it is 2×2 what do the dimensional axes signify (e.g. on the political compass one axis is your approach to economic management, the other your attitute to stae control vs invididual liberty)

- the diagonal opposites don’t seem to line up. According to the model, hierarchy is the diametric opposite of individualism (libertarianism?), and fatalism is the diametric opposite of egalitariansim. It doesn’t seen to fit as a grid, rather a list of four possible world views. Who’s to say there aren’t others?

- “fatalism” is really a bit of a nothing worldview. It should be in the middle rather on one extremity.