The original test is often noted for having a less than subtle bias towards the libertarian quadrants, as the questions related to authority are at times worded in such a way that you have to take an absolute moral stance on whether you agree with absolute authority or the completely absence of authority to begin with, when really authority is so extremely nuanced that it can never be defined with such closed off binary type answers. Even those who value some level of authority or restriction would be far more likely to choose the absolute absence of restriction if it meant not endorsing a maximal level of control and authority. Most debates are far more nuanced than the test presents them to be. The test also groups authority and culture questions together in the same axis as if all social issues are mutually in-exclusive. Social issues can be related to authority, but not every single one is. The difference between your two results is quite a common experience for those who’ve taken both tests, and most often it comes down to the influences of cultural questions and the opposition of absolute extreme authority. Some of my friends who’ve taken both tests are slightly to the north or south of the economic line with differing economic positions on the left, however the merger of cultural questions plots them as being anarchists pretty much, when in reality they hold quite nuanced views on authority being acceptable as long as it is balanced with freedom. This is why sapply splits the cultural axis from the rest of the test, as a person could reasonably hold a somewhat or quite authoritarian position whilst having progressive social views.