Moral Foundations Test

[Ronaldo_]

So, I'm sick at home with the flu, I'm bored, and I stumble on this test: https://moralfoundations.github.io/

It promises to be a more accurate test than the political compass test. Which, given the lack of astrology questions, I'm inclined to agree with.

Anyway, took part, got the following results:

Overall, I'd say that describes me well enough.

Anyway, take part if you want.

 

[McElroy]

Copypasting the image only gives the bars, lol. I'll leave it like that for style points. Anyway, I mostly agree with the Nordic model that's more or less followed in Finland with maybe a bit of in-group preference as seen in the green bar.

 

[Satinavian]

 

[Chimpzy]

 

[Summerstorm]

Ah, like most of these tests (For example IQ) "IT'S NOT THAT EASY"

One would need hundreds, thousands of data-points. Days of interogation to find out WHO that person approximatly is.

But i like doing those tests, even simple questions might make you think about yourself and what you are about in this world. It can be meditative, reflice. Assuring or chalanging. It's in my nature to always have contrary examples of circumstances which would weaken or attack my baseline position, so it is hard doing "extreme answers", because there are often contradictions and "What-If scenarios" messing that up.

Apparently i am very fair though (and a fuck purity-variety), which i think is accurate to a point.

 

[JoJo]

I find it kinda funny that as the mod, I have the lowest respect for authority score so far.

 

[Ag3ma]

I find it kinda funny that as the mod, I have the lowest respect for authority score so far.

Didn't last long though

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

View attachment 10714

I find it kinda funny that as the mod, I have the lowest respect for authority score so far.

*ominous ambience begins*


you've tasted the power. seen how easily it corrupts.


*ominous ambience ends*

 

[McElroy]

I wondered how I got so many purity points and noticed I didn't read the caveats to the couple of statements where nobody but the offender is around. Also lmao at the inheritance statement. Many tests have it just as a variation of "people deserve the wealth they inherit" instead of loading it with "deeply flawed society".

 

[Ag3ma]

Many tests have it just as a variation of "people deserve the wealth they inherit" instead of loading it with "deeply flawed society".

That is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be spotted and heavily scrutinised in assessments (I'm thinking in terms of university exams), because when trying to predict how students will respond to a question, sometimes that sort of thing can cause large discrepancies by significantly changing how the question is perceived.

I would generally hold that the best tests have applied this sort of scrutiny: that loading is there because it is designed to be, and the interpretation in the "mark scheme" is based around it. The problem is that as a rule you have no idea whether this has occurred.

I'd also suggest 48 questions is on the short side. A good questionnaire would probably be much larger (like, 100+), but if it is then it is likely to not be accessible because users will get fed up / bored and not do it. (Many good ones also appear to ask the same question multiple times in slightly different forms - this is often an intended design choice to increase reliability.)

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I wondered how I got so many purity points and noticed I didn't read the caveats to the couple of statements where nobody but the offender is around. Also lmao at the inheritance statement. Many tests have it just as a variation of "people deserve the wealth they inherit" instead of loading it with "deeply flawed society".

I'm fine with people getting everything from their family as an ideal. However, the fact that someone can have as much money as a Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos demonstrates flawed systems. I liked the wording of the question as it allows for the belief you can keep things in the family but also against the fact that some people essentially get free rides based on where they are born (much like royal blood).

 

[McElroy]

I would generally hold that the best tests have applied this sort of scrutiny: that loading is there because it is designed to be, and the interpretation in the "mark scheme" is based around it. The problem is that as a rule you have no idea whether this has occurred.

Makes sense. I found this one weird because if large inheritances are "a sign of a deeply flawed society", then to me that reads as a general dislike of individual wealth (should one Agree or Strongly Agree).

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I guess I'm the caring sort.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Seems about right. My authority score is a bit higher than I expected, especially given the liberty score, but that's mostly down to the fact that I do think a large amount of the population are stupid and do need to be controlled somewhat for the public good.

Like I'm all for people doing whatever they want to their own body, but I think restrictions need to be in place if what they're doing can affect others and society at large. Like I don't care if people smoke, but if people smoke around kids that should really be treated as child abuse and the government should get involved, things like that.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

View attachment 10726

Seems about right. My authority score is a bit higher than I expected, especially given the liberty score, but that's mostly down to the fact that I do think a large amount of the population are stupid and do need to be controlled somewhat for the public good.

Like I'm all for people doing whatever they want to their own body, but I think restrictions need to be in place if what they're doing can affect others and society at large. Like I don't care if people smoke, but if people smoke around kids that should really be treated as child abuse and the government should get involved, things like that.

I'm guessing my high authority score came from the question about people needing to have a leadership structure to properly work. I just know shit doesn't get done properly without structure in place whether it's at work or just a group of friends, people will kinda stand around doing nothing or people will team up on tasks that don't need a team to basically hang out or because they don't wanna do the other tasks. That's not to say you need someone ruling with an iron fist or anything, but you need a structure in place to allocate people and tasks properly.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

I think I broke the test. But really, the issue I had is with how frustratingly loaded and vague some of these statements were. The circumstances and “why” are completely ignored.

Examples:
12. It is important for families to stick together and uphold unity, even when its members do not get along.

What are we talking about here? Varying political beliefs or is one of them a pedo/wife beater/etc.? FFS.


18. Society should encourage children to be fully obedient to their parents and defer to their decisions until they reach maturity.

Again, it really depends, to the point of not having to explain why.


22. Pursuing the goal of raising a family, and a career that helps achieve this goal is more noble than pursuing a child-free life path.

In some cases the former could potentially be far more destructive in a myriad of ways than the latter. “The road to hell…”.


23. Citizens should never be denied the right to nonviolently assemble and protest in public spaces, even when it is likely to progress into rioting.

If it’s going to end in violence, it’s ultimately not a “nonviolent” assembly FFS.


30. All citizens charged with a crime, no matter how obviously guilty or problematic they are, should have the right to an impartial trial, fair representation, and due process.

FFS. If someone knowingly antagonizes a public square and ultimately shoots someone in broad daylight with witnesses, then case closed. They don’t deserve wasting the public’s time and money with a fucking trial.


41. Democracy, where leadership is determined by public election in which every citizen has a right to vote, is universally preferable to any method of state governance where leadership is appointed from the top down instead.

“Universally preferable”? Hmm…K, what if most of the populace are clueless idiots? *World points to U.S.*



46. It is unethical for the government to place restrictions on what ideologies, beliefs, and opinions can and cannot be expressed within social media and academia, no matter how dangerous they might be considered.
(Think of the worst, most destructive ideology you can imagine, then decide if you would have it censored).

…Preeeetty sure the most destructive ideology being allowed to spread winds up more unethical than the restrictions would be in preventing it.



48. It is preferable for the public to be aware of a hard truth concerning them and have it result in outrage/instability than it is for them to be kept under blissful ignorance.
(Ex: You become the new leader of a country and uncover that a previous ruling government many decades ago secretly experimented on its citizens, and if this information got out, the outrage would be taken advantage of by many radical groups who are ideologically opposed to you)

In theory the hard truth being known to all should be the blissful part. Maybe not so much for the guilty parties.

 

[McElroy]

I did it again while reading the statements better, their wording and so on. Well, the author has tweaked some of the statements. And so it's possible that some of the answers don't give or deduct the right amount of points. Y'know, the test has a bit of WIP written to it. Anyway, I got more points on almost everything, including purity xD.

 

[McElroy]

FFS. If someone knowingly antagonizes a public square and ultimately shoots someone in broad daylight with witnesses, then case closed. They don’t deserve wasting the public’s time and money with a fucking trial.

This is one of the few instances where even I would pull out the mental illness card.

All in all, the statements have degrees of agreeing or disagreeing, don't they? And also congrats on the high purity score. Another enjoyer of etiquette and elitism?

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

This is one of the few instances where even I would pull out the mental illness card.

All in all, the statements have degrees of agreeing or disagreeing, don't they? And also congrats on the high purity score. Another enjoyer of etiquette and elitism?

I’m a bit of a clean freak thanks to lingering remnants of teenage OCD I guess. I also grew up in a small, mostly conservative area where someone getting a divorce was a big point of gossip. The crazy thing was my family was still on the lighter side of it (my dad grew up listening to Aretha Franklin and was later in a rock band for twenty years or so doing mostly top forty rock stuff). There were a couple of hardcore religious variants that considered dancing or drinking to basically be blasphemous. They typically did pretty well for themselves but their lives were incredibly narrow by extension. A lot of them didn’t even believe in TV, though I did have a friend like that who’d come over to watch all kinds of R rated movies, play all kinds of videogames, etc.…yeah I probably wasn’t the best influence lol; kinda surprised his parents let him looking back. From what I hear he didn’t wind up “corrupted” though!

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Well gee, seems I'm one o' them dirty liberals.