Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...

[Plurralbles]

I got 13%

I did not like it.

 

[LordSphinx]

Can't help but laugh at everyone feeling targeted and mocked because the test gave them a few possible contradictions in their answers. Stop taking it so personal, the site itself says that it doesn't necessarily means a contradiction when it highlights two statements. It says that either you are hypocritical, or your view on the subject is more complex. Complexity, in itself, is a form of tension, which makes it accurate. This is just an exercise to single out people like these stupid religious fundamentalists and/or relativists who can't think straight for a second.

 

[Jegsimmons]

what if i only agree to an extent?
what if my views arent so black and white like this test seems to think i am?

I thought the same, but I eventually rationalized things to myself so that it would work out.

What did you have issues with?

Example:
"Its always wrong to take a life?"
this is where it should have "depends" button
no one should kill, but then again sometime bitches got to die (im looking at you al-quadaffi)
so why it may not be RIGHT it may also be NECESSARY at the same time.

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence"
but what if there is evidence to support it, but its not recognized as valid evidence by some?

"Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise"
what the hell does that even mean? isnt that the point of 'a choice' the fact i could have chosen other wise? maby i'm missing the point, but im not exactly sure what these have to do with thinking straight.

and what if i don't "think straight" and i know i dont?
example: im against abortion, but pro death penalty. some people call that a contrition, i call it 'fair'.
maby part of my belief has a double stadard, maby its supposed to be contradictory.

this just reminds me on those "political test" even though it doesnt take every possible option, it goes by its own set standards.

 

[Craig Cameron]

I got 0%
Did I win?
Do I get a cookie for being consistent in my beliefs?

 

[conflictofinterests]

"You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead"


For me this was an issue of semantics. In general, the second one is a good rule, but it's not an absolute rule. One has to, within the context of their own situation, decide if it's important to take the train or whatever or not. There are cases where one simply needs to drive, even if it is not, within a certain context, "necessary". For example, perhaps the subway is available to someone for transportation, but the station is in a bad part of the neighborhood and one's safety is in danger when they use it. The option is available, but no one would call it immoral for the person to value their safety enough to take the car.

"You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical."

I view consciousness and self as non-physical aspects of the person, tied to their soul, not their mind or body. That said, we inhabit a body, and so long as we do we use our mind to understand that consciousness and self. Without it, we can no longer possess them in a full sense. Once we no longer have a body and exist as pure spirit, we will no longer require a brain to act as a filter between body and soul.

take that test!

To your first contradiction, I bolded and italicized the relevant information. Basically, you're citing an example where it is not possible due to safety concerns.

In the second one, those two beliefs are very hard to reconcile, as most people view one's soul as one's personhood, and in your response you indicated that this isn't entirely so. So, what you're saying to me indicates that brain death and bodily death have different implications on "self", each taking a bit out of the equation. Is that correct? If so, it's the first time I've heard of such a view, and I find it intriguing.

 

[Buccura]

I'm right inbetween low and medium, which sounds about right for me. I strive for rationalism but I'm still just as flawed as anyone else.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.

There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.

There shouldn't be ANY atheists that say there can be no God. It isn't possible to disprove the existence of God, but that doesn't mean He cannot exist, merely that He most likely does not. In a case where there can be no proof for either option, it is always a matter of faith.

There shouldn't also be anyone who claims that God does exist without proving that he exists. Yet many do... People are weird.

 

[Kanatatsu]

This test is total rubbish (I have a PhD in philosophy from a pretty great school, in case it matters to you).

 

[Mr Pantomime]

I got 20%. Some really interesting conflict there.

 

[Pyrokinesis]

Holy vague sticks batman! But seriously those things were worded so vague its incredibly easy to twist it to however they want to word it. All 3 of my "inconsistencies" were easily rationalized as consistent just because the test went off in 1 direction while i was already thinking in the other.

I love how one could be summed up as:

a+b=c but a-(-b)does not =c

 

[Sneeze]

A few did catch me out but with the questions being so damned black and white with no opportunity for justification it's a little silly if you ask me but theres a couple that where fundamentally flawed. The Religion/Atheism one that a few people have spoke of and this which I dunno if I've seen as much...

You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

Now, because these questions are so black and white I perhaps read into them to much, but on reading the second one I thought "Well you live in in peoples memories, you as a person" - Any teachings or influences, heck even any habits or jokes people might have picked up from you just stuff you've passed onto people around you, surely thats a way to continue to exist in a non-physical form if you ask me. Again maybe I'm reading far to much into it but thats only natural with a question this vague.

And nothing in the brain damage one says anything that this could apply to, ergo, I agreed. Sounds fair to me.

 

[KefkaCultist]

40%!
Do I win something?

 

[Ciran]

The problem with me taking a test like this is that I know how I think and then how the world has to work and I take those in two different views (i.e. I believe that there are objective moral standards, but I realize that for the world's civilizations to work we, as a people, can't take that view).
The other problem that I have with this test is that it is a simple agree/disagree when people beliefs and outlooks are much, MUCH more complicated. Neither of the "problems" presented to me by the tests are actually problems in my world view.
The last problem I have is that this test seems to take the contradictory view of both assuming that the answers are both subjective and objective and the test takes assumptions to try to reconcile this contradictory nature.

 

[Baneat]

0%

But I've studied normative and meta - ethics, as a result I'm always ironing out any contradiction.

 

[Vykrel]

0%...

Is that good?

i got the same thing and am wondering as well x.x i mean, it SOUNDS good. especially, considering it says you might have cheated on the test if you get this score lol

im just going to assume that i am perfect ^^

 

[conflictofinterests]

what if i only agree to an extent?
what if my views arent so black and white like this test seems to think i am?

I thought the same, but I eventually rationalized things to myself so that it would work out.

What did you have issues with?

Example:
"Its always wrong to take a life?"
this is where it should have "depends" button
no one should kill, but then again sometime bitches got to die (im looking at you al-quadaffi)
so why it may not be RIGHT it may also be NECESSARY at the same time.

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence"
but what if there is evidence to support it, but its not recognized as valid evidence by some?

"Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise"
what the hell does that even mean? isnt that the point of 'a choice' the fact i could have chosen other wise? maby i'm missing the point, but im not exactly sure what these have to do with thinking straight.

and what if i don't "think straight" and i know i dont?
example: im against abortion, but pro death penalty. some people call that a contrition, i call it 'fair'.
maby part of my belief has a double stadard, maby its supposed to be contradictory.

this just reminds me on those "political test" even though it doesnt take every possible option, it goes by its own set standards.

As for your first question, if an action is necessary, how can that action not be "right", at least in a relative sense (Not taking that action is less right than taking it)

As for the second, evidence is typically taken to mean objective/verifiable proof, therefore if it is neither of those things, it's not really "evidence".

For the third, it's a question on whether or not, given a situation with a number of options, a person could choose differently. In the extreme, a mother is given the choice to watch one of her children die or have sex with the potential murderer. Is it possible for the mother to choose to watch her children die? It goes to whether or not one believes in fate or agency. if one believes in fate, then no. The mother would choose to have sex with the potential murderer every time. If one believes in agency, then the mother could conceivably choose to watch her child die.

 

[Raven's Nest]

"Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise"
what the hell does that even mean? isnt that the point of 'a choice' the fact i could have chosen other wise? maby i'm missing the point, but im not exactly sure what these have to do with thinking straight.

and what if i don't "think straight" and i know i dont?
example: im against abortion, but pro death penalty. some people call that a contrition, i call it 'fair'.
maby part of my belief has a double stadard, maby its supposed to be contradictory.

this just reminds me on those "political test" even though it doesnt take every possible option, it goes by its own set standards.

For the first "Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise?" It's pretty simple, if you couldn't choose between two options, you clearly didn't have a choice. I think the test is just determining your ability to forsee various outcomes, i'm not really sure.

When I say thinking straight, I mean to say that someone actually understands what they are thinking about. If you recognise that you have a conflict of ideas, you are able to think clearly about them.

It's not the end of the world to have a conflict of ideas, all people do even if this test doesn't pick up on them. I certainly do, and it's the reason we see so many of the same arguments pop up all the time "Does God Exist?", "Is Piracy Bad?", "Valve or Bioware?"
Someone just hasn't come up with a definitive answer for those questions.

Ideas are incredibly complex things that it is often insufficient to properly explain them to another person with language...

It's also the reason we take Philosophy and Ethics classes at school and the reason we employ people to sit around and think all day.

 

[Eroen]

Okay, so now I have dismissed a (semi-)long list of statements as false, as they were based on false dichotomies and false absolutes, whereupon I'm told that further false dichotomies are present in my answers, indicating "tension."

Not impressed. Also, about ⅓ of the questions (presumably) only make sense from a North American POW.

Specific problems (from my list of "tensions," as it is ready at hand) which nullifies the specific "tensions" I was presented with:
- I consider "evil" to be an expression of cultural values. I recognize this might be different from the common opinion.
- I don't believe prohibitions by law to necessarily stop me from doing anything, they only control (potential) consequences. A lobotomy on the other hand, might stop me from accomplishing my goals.
- The consumption of "drugs" in the general sense includes (empirically observed) "harm to others." Simple examples: Increased government spending on healthcare. Unpleasantness, especially in the case of needle heroin.
- When questioned on matters of taste, my best/only resource for answers is *my* taste.
- In order for a procedure to be classified as medicine (alternative or otherwise), I believe it must be provably more effective than placebo. This is the case for some "alternative" procedures and not for some "mainstream" procedures. In the both cases this is generally simple, albeit controversial, to test by experiment.

Some of these points are lampshaded in their accompanying texts, but none are justified. However, there is an abundance of hand-waving.

I believe this demonstrates part of the reason I regard certain academic disciplines as "lesser" than others. Some of us actually (rigorously) prove our hypotheses, rather than state them as facts and wait for believers.

 

[Xenetethrae]

0 % no sweat. Still, this test feels like its lacking a great deal

 

[WolfThomas]

Tension of 13% but that was only because of questions where I would have answer a maybe or I don't know.

There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

I see what they were trying to do there, but as a Deist (I personally believe in a divine scientist of sorts) whose faith often varies on mood, I only really believe "There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God". So perhaps I should have put disagree.

Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

Again this one varies on my mood, whether I believe in the concept of an afterlife.

Neither of this are really anything I'm going to be getting into arguments over so I think they're fine.