With all respect, useful is a term subjective to our own reasoning however.
You could have 5 uses for a hammer, I could have 3 or 207, another person could see no use at all for a hammer.
I'm not saying that "from one's relationship or definition of god, we can gain insight to their relationship or definition of government." (or vice versa)
^^^^ That's not what I am saying.
Can a school determine how a child behaves toward their parents based on a test taken on a teacher-student relationship, no.
I think perhaps you misunderstood or perhaps my vagueness allowed space to infer I meant something like that.
I am saying the first chart reminds me of the second because the two share:
Graphing on a coordinate system vs. side by side comparison only
An axis describing SELF=SUBJECT, OTHER=External Force
An Axis describing Certainty, Uncertainty
Certainty Principal:
Conservative or Liberal to the belief in god(s)
Conservative or Liberal to a belief in "freedom for all"
[While some may posit that god need not be greater, it's also probable there are others who took the political test that perceive their government to be a benevolent created force by the people for the people; while others perceive the government as a malevolent force against the people with an agenda of its own. The belief of the qualities of the government is not addressed here and ones own beliefs about the government may influence their own opinion of the government and thence influence their relationship to the government.]
Digressing ...
What I'm saying is that we can "map" subject-object relationships in this format (on a graph) to understand and communicate our ideals regarding anything. As a consequence, we can identify how closely we share the specific ideals we mapped.
In this case, yourself and Diana both identify as Agnostic Atheist.
In the case of the religious chart, we just chose where we fit: 1-A, 1-B, 2-A, or 2-B.
In the other test, where we fit is determined by test.
We chose religious philosophy based on YES/NO of two qualities: Certainty and Belief and placed them on a 2x2 chart.
The Political Chart is 20 x 20 graphing: Statism to Libertarianism, and Liberalism to Conservativism.
(These are qualified by a multi-question Q&A on the site the graph was found.)
For the sake of explaining usefulness, another test could be created like this:
On a scale from 1 to 5, how much do you enjoy being controlled by your employer?
1 indicates you preference self-control and that your employer trust your self-guidance.
5 indicates you preference employer-control and that you trust your employer to guide you.
On a scale from A to E, how is accountability shared in the workplace?
A indicates you preference everyone holds peers accountable and you depend on being held accountable.
E indicates you preference everyone is self-accountable and you depend on everyone (including you) holding themselves accountable.
Placing these values on the two axis', we can form a field on which we can graph the coordinates of of all job applicants.
I may be at 1-C, you may be at 5-B, etc. And employer can use these scales to only hire those of us who apply and fall in 5-C.
Or a teacher, knowing themselves to be more of a 5 type of teacher (guiding and demanding obedience) can estimate possible "difficulty" with blind obedience from students who fall in the 1 range.
I was also saying that I like this format better than side by side analysis.
Here is a test for politics that uses a graph: https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php
And example of a side-by-side test would be: http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx
Note in the side by side type test, possibility isn't a field; it's particular. In side by side, while the possibility of a whole graph (for all qualities being determined) exists; here's only certain places we are allowed to fall on a side by side test. It's why I like the field version more.
As far as extrapolation; technically, we could make 1 superduper test that incorporates all possible sources and forms of force and get an average of how we relate to force in general. Our rebel quotient if you will
However, our averages could be similar in general, but different per source of force.
Breaking a big chart up into separate charts, we get a more accurate picture of each subject-object relationship within the subject-object relationship matrix of us to the everything else.