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

[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.

 

[conflictofinterests]

33%

I blame the fact that the test used big words in ways that made my brain hurt.
I'm saying that I'm stupid. Although I did understand a few in order to form some sort of rebuttle.

Spoiler: Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

59392 of the 172790 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.

The holocaust did happen. There are multiple reports from soldiers, survivors, and the Nazi's themselves that show it did happen. Its, well, a fact. Of course the name could be debatable, but saying that 12 million or so people weren't killed by the Nazi's during WW2 is just wrong.

Spoiler: Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70670 of the 172790 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.

Had I known that most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine, I would have answered differently.

As for the absolute truth question, if there is ANY absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. You say the Holocaust did happen, you are saying it is objectively true that the Holocaust happened, therefore there is at least one objective, absolute truth.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Mine was fairly high, but in all of the cases there were other matters to take into consideration. They were too complicated to be answered by a 'yes' or 'no.'

Spoiler: Example

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70506 of the 172162 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

If alternative medicines are tested, I don't see a problem.

"You know what they call alternative medicines that actually work?... Medicine" - Tim Minchin

And there was a point in time when vaccines were considered insane and not worth testing.

We won't know what works without lab testing.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

snip

Keep in mind, "harm" can be both physical and psychological and emotional.

If someone injected themselves heroine in from of my young, easily-impressionable kids, I'd kick his ass all the way down to the police station. Reason? Paternal instinct to protect my children from anything that could harm them. In this case, it's the psychologically scarring effects of watching an unpredictable grown adult sticking a needle into their raw flesh and pump themselves up with drugs to get high.

In the case of emotionally harming anyone else, this one usually can never be avoided in life. In fact, I only condone it if the emotional stress and harm being done will eventually lead to the dissipation of that emotional harm between loved ones (example, a gay child asking for his fundamentalist parents to accept him. It may emotionally harm all parties in question, but doing so may tear down any walls that separate them as a family). This is why I rarely have pity for some people who commit suicide (in the case of, say, a parent not wanting to live after a spouse left them, DESPITE having their children to love and care for. This is usually very circumstantial). It always feels like people shirking their responsibilities to the people who love and care for them in their lives. Again, I don't feel this way about every suicide victim; it's very circumstantial.

EDIT:
Just took the test. 13% contradiction quotient. Though, I must wonder if part of that is due to the fact that I was partially prepared in such a way with your original post.

 

[Galloglasses]

33%, low Contradiction

 

[Irridium]

33%

I blame the fact that the test used big words in ways that made my brain hurt.
I'm saying that I'm stupid. Although I did understand a few in order to form some sort of rebuttle.

Spoiler: Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

59392 of the 172790 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.

The holocaust did happen. There are multiple reports from soldiers, survivors, and the Nazi's themselves that show it did happen. Its, well, a fact. Of course the name could be debatable, but saying that 12 million or so people weren't killed by the Nazi's during WW2 is just wrong.

Spoiler: Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70670 of the 172790 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.

Had I known that most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine, I would have answered differently.

As for the absolute truth question, if there is ANY absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. You say the Holocaust did happen, you are saying it is objectively true that the Holocaust happened, therefore there is at least one objective, absolute truth.

I see. After re-reading it seems I mis-read. Silly me.

 

[Baneat]

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.

You make no sense whatsoever

It is always right to take a life - true or false statement to you. There is no grey here, Morally right or wrong. There is no "depends" feature of this. Basically he's asking if you follow the Kantian school of thought or Bentham's.

I'd like to clarify what you were wondering about

"Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise" <= This refers to the belief that we are either free or simply a mechanical result of everything that happened before. If it was mechanical and the circumstances didn't change, then it follows that the choice wasn't a choice.

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence"

This addresses scepticism mainly, since to them, there is *no* valid evidence to believe anything whatsoever, definitively.

im against abortion, but pro death penalty. some people call that a contrition, i call it 'fair'.

Contradictions show that you are making a mistake, mainly in the principles with which you judge things. Your reasoning for anti-abortion is possibly, that life is sacred, and at the same time you feel that it is not. 1 = 2, you kinda have to be wrong. I'm pro-abortion, anti-death penalty, and I do not contradict my principles for believing in both of these.

My reasoning for pro-abortion is that the right to decision still lies with the adult, that a foetus isn't actually a rational being. This differs from a human life which is rational, and also features some consequentiality for good measure.

Ethics is a fascinating subject, and it gives you clarity if you examine it.

 

[Vault101]

27% hmmm that seems higher than average

 

[Sporky111]

I got 27%, but 3 of the 4 contractions were things I've already thought over and constructed my own opinions about.

I can't really say this is a good test. The explanations of contradictions aren't really well made, and right at the start it gives itself a built-in fail-safe by saying "If you get this result it's either because you haven't been paying attention to your beliefs, or you have been and you've already reconciled the differences".

A nice diversion for a little while, but not really scientific. The questions were far too complex to really answer "agree" or "disagree" on anyway.