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

[Chrinik]

I also think the test is somewhat flawed, but I sort of like the idea. I was 27% and most of my problems came from the questions using double negatives. I wouldn't prefer if it did not not do that. The other thing is the utter lack of relative relationships. I said it's okay to drive a car when you could walk, but I also said we shouldn't destroy the environment without good reason. The single act of one man driving one car to make his life slightly more convenient is not the same thing as tearing down the tree of life in Avatar.

I also said there are no objective moral standards, but also said genocide was bad. The former just acknowledges that genocide exists, not that I think it's okay. One is an opinion, the other is fact. A lot of the questions are like that.

See, that´s the thing. You gotta look at how the questions are written.
You didn´t say "Genocide is bad!" you agreed that Genocide is a TESTIMENT to the human ability to do great evil...which is contradictory if you believe there are no objective moral standarts, because evil differs from culture to culture, even from person to person, and therefore, if you believe that, genocide must not be a testiment to humans ability to do great evil, because that would mean that EVERYONE agrees it is evil...
I for instance, say that genocide is a great way to battle overpopulation and resource consumption.
I also said that "The second world war was just a war", because, it was<.< Apart from the Holocaust which made it famous, genocides happened in alot of wars (they sometimes are the REASON), so yeah, it´s just a war.
And that the Holocaust is no historical fact and happend as the history books proclaim, because even these differ from each other, not because I think it didn´t happen!
See what I mean? There is no universal truth, when you agree to that, you can´t say that Genocide is evil...it contradicts itself.

You also didn´t say "one person may drive a car" you said "It is okay to drive a car if you could walk", which makes it okay for EVERYONE...so when everyone is allowed to drive a car to their mail-slot, then that contradicts your statement that the environment should not be unnecesarly damaged...

But yeah, trains are "less" enviromentally damaging, but it seems like they don´t require fuel...they do, it is just not used in the train, but in the Power Plant that makes the energy for the train to run.

 

[Optional Opinion]

Too many big words.

 

[Olrod]

I got 7% because all cars damage the environment whereas trains never do, and people should be able to carry all of their grocery shopping home by hand at all times with no exceptions.

Yeah, what/ever.

0%.

 

[beniki]

47%

Yeah that seems accurate. As a contradictory person who is both logical and wilfully irrational at times, it seems about right.

I think some flexibility in the way I think is just as important as being a smart arse

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

The effects of one persons drug use is rarely contained to just one person. What do they do when they run out of money for their drugs? or what they do when there high? Drugs don't just effect the user...

Yeah, the test seems to be a little less than perfect in considering all the ramifications of some of the statements.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Considering that a child witnessing someone injecting heroin is unlikely to either know that it is heroin nor is particularly likely to start injecting themselves I don't see how witnessing the act can cause physical harm.

The response of the typical adult would most likely be one of disgust, again not exactly harmful in a physical sense.

The question is about personal freedoms however. If you agree that people should do what they want so long as they don't harm others (physically), you should also agree that drugs should be legalised for personal use. If you don't there is a conflict between your understanding of freedom and personal responsibility.

Oh, you misunderstood me. I was just rambling on again about emotional and psychological harm again. Physically harming oneself can cause just as much, if not more, emotional or psychological harm to another, regardless if they are present during the specific act. Physically harming oneself is almost always due to and continually causes psychological or emotional issues (and I'm not referring to tastes in sexuality or of that subject). Our psychological and emotional state partially defines our behavior to other people. And the fact that behavior is such a sporadic, unpredictable thing, I feel it is best to minimize our mental stress as much as possible. There are so many factors as to how behavior of a person is defined to the point where behavior defines behavior. Acts that I do in the world will always have an impact on other people, whether good or ill (depending on the perspective) such acts may lead to such extreme feelings as guilt or even feeling a boost or drop in morale. That alone will effect how we act and treat people.

But now I'm over thinking this far too much. Far too many factors for anyone to analyze and connect for there to be a conclusive answer.

Oh, also, this thread was awesome. I always enjoy a little intellectual stimulation in my day.

 

[conflictofinterests]

SNIP

SNIP

1. The division was between morality being subjective and the (implicit) assumption that evil is objective.
2. 3. My main point was that most of the questions were sufficiently poorly worded to make the result hinge on the reader noticing the word "all," "always" or something similar.
4. The main disagreement here comes from an unclear definition of "medicine."
5. When I describe a method I believe to be better than some alternative and then proceed to do controlled measurements on the two, resulting in a quantified difference in performance with a known confidence value, it is said to be "empirically proven." If I ask a group of people poorly worded questions and count the answers I have something that can be used for analyzing reading comprehension and habits, not a valid psychiatric theory. The latter happens far to often.

Morality deals specifically with what is good and what is evil. If an act IS evil, then there has to be some objective form of morality, right? It isn't phrased as to say "I think this to be evil" but that an act "IS" evil.

I don't much care for poorly designed tests either, but you can't bag on whole disciplines for their nut-jobs. There are plenty of people who do try to control for as many variables as possible. And there are plenty of people in the physical sciences that fuck up pretty bad too. Pretty much everyone calls everyone out on everything they do wrong, at least if the results get published anywhere they can be critiqued.

In any case, and noting this will probably earn your ire, from a linguistic anthropological standpoint the questions are worded with sufficient accuracy to get their intended point across to at least some people, which are in all likelihood the intended audience. (That the wording was not designed for a broader intended audience is a problem in and of itself, but does not definitely indicate poor test structure on the authors part.) In any case, as was previously pointed out, the test is only meant to measure tension, not to declare that one's thinking is contradictory. As complexity is a form of tension, one could be a perfectly rational person, hold two simplistically opposite views, and still experience tension, because one has to think about more variables to reconcile them.

 

[Catalyst6]

While the idea behind this test is good, the issues listed are complex and covered in grey areas. There would have had to be many more choices in order for the test to have any kind of accuracy.

 

[latenightapplepie]

7%.

I'm happy with that.

People are boring without a little contradiction.

 

[MrHero17]

Originally had 20% tension but it came down to 13% when I read their explanation for the conflict between objective truths and the holocaust so I changed myself to disagree on "17. There are no objective truths about matters of fact; "truth" is always relative to particular cultures and individuals"

I had
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

And I'm happy to say that my thinking the Rwandan genocide is only evil from my cultures point of view.

Also had
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

Which is basically a question about what's "necessary", I had to think about the fact that I've been driving to school a lot this year when before I used to walk. I don't consider it too serious though since if I lived in a place where the culture isn't based around driving and there was good public transit I would have no problems giving up on driving my own car.

 

[Raven's Nest]

"High - I'm the leader of the Liberal Democrats"

Can you list some examples of contradictions the Lib Dems hold? just curious, haven't actually looked into modern political philosophies employed by parties yet.

I wonder how we could re-state the statements to be both more all-encompassing and more layman-friendly.

I wonder if there is a way to circumvent the words "objective" and "subjective" entirely...

Hm, "Matter of taste/opinion" and "Matter of fact"?

I see the issue here, the guy's reaching out to people with a layman's interest and blindsiding them with terminology that stretches into srs bsnss

Not contradictions, but hypocritcal behaviours. Nick Clegg assured potential voters that he would abolish the uni tuition fees if elected to power. He signed a declaration which was photographed by the press.

Few months later, Clegg is second in command and pulls a U-turn on the issue claiming he and his lib dem cabinet ministers never supported the idea in the first place... No Mr Clegg, of course you didn't.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

See, that´s the thing. You gotta look at how the questions are written.
You didn´t say "Genocide is bad!" you agreed that Genocide is a TESTIMENT to the human ability to do great evil...which is contradictory if you believe there are no objective moral standarts, because evil differs from culture to culture, even from person to person, and therefore, if you believe that, genocide must not be a testiment to humans ability to do great evil, because that would mean that EVERYONE agrees it is evil...

You also didn´t say "one person may drive a car" you said "It is okay to drive a car if you could walk", which makes it okay for EVERYONE...so when everyone is allowed to drive a car to their mail-slot, then that contradicts your statement that the environment should not be unnecesarly damaged...

But yeah, trains are "less" enviromentally damaging, but it seems like they don´t require fuel...they do, it is just not used in the train, but in the Power Plant that makes the energy for the train to run.

But if evil is relative, which I said it was, I would also say that I thought genocide was evil. Option A says "Morality is objective because genocides can happen" while Option C says "Genocide is evil." The question should state "everyone thinks genocide is wrong." No, obviously not everyone thinks genocide is wrong, otherwise it wouldn't happen.

Also, most trains in the US run on diesel.

 

[SideburnsPuppy]

The question didn't say "In my opinion, Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists"...

It may as well; the question is a matter of agreeing and disagreeing, not a matter of true and false. When I punched in that I "agree" with the statement "Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists", I am doing exactly that: saying that I agree with the statement. I am saying that I believe the statement to be true, not that the statement is objectively true.

My Tension Quotient is 20%.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Atheist - Meaning one who does not believe in Gods. This does automatically assume the statement "There are no Gods".

Fixed! There are a ton of hypothetical and possible gods...and most religious seem to be politheistic, so there.

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll update the OP.

Oh, you misunderstood me. I was just rambling on again about emotional and psychological harm again. Physically harming oneself can cause just as much, if not more, emotional or psychological harm to another, regardless if they are present during the specific act. Physically harming oneself is almost always due to and continually causes psychological or emotional issues (and I'm not referring to tastes in sexuality or of that subject). Our psychological and emotional state partially defines our behavior to other people. And the fact that behavior is such a sporadic, unpredictable thing, I feel it is best to minimize our mental stress as much as possible. There are so many factors as to how behavior of a person is defined to the point where behavior defines behavior. Acts that I do in the world will always have an impact on other people, whether good or ill (depending on the perspective) such acts may lead to such extreme feelings as guilt or even feeling a boost or drop in morale. That alone will effect how we act and treat people.

But now I'm over thinking this far too much. Far too many factors for anyone to analyze and connect for there to be a conclusive answer.

Oh, also, this thread was awesome. I always enjoy a little intellectual stimulation in my day.

Sorry I realised I misunderstood your tone shortly after I posted. And glad you enjoyed the thread. Hopefully I've helped broaden a few minds....

 

[InnerRebellion]

See, I dislike tests that only allow two options. Strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree and strongly disagree works much better.

0% anyways.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

13%. Pretty good?

(Also: "None - I am the chairman of the Vulcan Ethics Committee" made me laugh a bit. )

 

[Raven's Nest]

The question didn't say "In my opinion, Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists"...

It may as well; the question is a matter of agreeing and disagreeing, not a matter of true and false. When I punched in that I "agree" with the statement "Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists", I am doing exactly that: saying that I agree with the statement. I am saying that I believe the statement to be true, not that the statement is objectively true.

My Tension Quotient is 20%.

I think the question is the worst written in the whole test for sure. But I can only figure that the author wanted you to consider both the implicit and explicit meaning of a statement. Depending on how you read it will determine whether or not you got a contradiction.

As it can be seen as both an objective and a subjective statement, I guess you were supposed to consider the objectivity above all else.

And to be fair, it should have been an obvious set up given the previous questions...

 

[p3t3r]

27% not that good but i never considered myself a straight thinker

 

[GreigKM]

None.
I know what I think, even if they are all depressing thoughts.

 

[Eroen]

[wikipedia reference, Evil]
My criticism might have been somewhat blunt, but after recently having read a (select) number of texts on group dynamics and finding the closest thing to research (in published papers) to be "I haven't seen this in twenty years, so it can't exist" my doubt in certain prejudices is weakened.

I would assume the questions get their intended meaning across to native readers of English, if they don't study the sentence structure too much or too little. If it was targeted at a specific community with it's own norms on text; all the better.

I would like to present the view that complexity in beliefs is extremely individual and dependent on culture, since it is strongly connected with how one associates different concepts in groups. Compare with how cultures have different number of colors.