Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
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.
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.
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.Baneat said:
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.
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.Chrinik said:
Also, most trains in the US run on diesel.
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.Raven said:
My Tension Quotient is 20%.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll update the OP.Chrinik said:
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....TheDrunkNinja said: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.
See, I dislike tests that only allow two options. Strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree and strongly disagree works much better.
0% anyways.
0% anyways.
13%. Pretty good?
(Also: "None - I am the chairman of the Vulcan Ethics Committee" made me laugh a bit. )
(Also: "None - I am the chairman of the Vulcan Ethics Committee" made me laugh a bit.
)
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.SideburnsPuppy said:
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...
[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.
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.
33%, which is a low rating. That test was absolute bollocks anyway, so I'm not caring too much.
Yes they are, but that doesn´t matter.Catalyst6 said:
If the test asks you "Is moral subjective?" And you say "Yes, it is.", and then afterwards say that "Genocide is a testiment of humans ability to do great evil.", then that contradicts itself, because YOU said, there is no objective morals...
The test doesn´t find out if you are right or wrong, it simply tells you if you contradict yourself in your views, if there is tension. This doesn´t mean that there is a problem with you or that your answers are correct.
I don´t get it, the test tells you what it means with it´s answers, and how they are contradictory, and people still don´t get it.
"The PHC report below lists pairs of beliefs which are identified as being 'in tension'. What this means is either that: (1) There is a contradiction between the two beliefs or (2) Some sophisticated reasoning is required to enable both beliefs to be held consistently. In terms of action, this means in each case you should either (1) Give up one of the two beliefs or (2) Find some rationally coherent way of reconciling them."
Meaning it is generally possible to be in tension, when you have a rational and logical explainaition of WHY...
Reading this thread, most people seem to have...or just misunderstood the test. But critisized it anyway on the basis it is "wrong"...it is not. You just told the test what you think is right or wrong, not what IS right or wrong.
"The PHC report below lists pairs of beliefs which are identified as being 'in tension'. What this means is either that: (1) There is a contradiction between the two beliefs or (2) Some sophisticated reasoning is required to enable both beliefs to be held consistently. In terms of action, this means in each case you should either (1) Give up one of the two beliefs or (2) Find some rationally coherent way of reconciling them."
Meaning it is generally possible to be in tension, when you have a rational and logical explainaition of WHY...
Reading this thread, most people seem to have...or just misunderstood the test. But critisized it anyway on the basis it is "wrong"...it is not. You just told the test what you think is right or wrong, not what IS right or wrong.
I read the questions, and answers, and didn't bother taking the test. Why? It's so flawed it's pointless. There are no absolutes in the real world, every question is dependent on undefined parameters (using question no8 as a perfect example: "It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence"-define suitable evidence for a start) and, basically, the test is pointless. Is this supposed to be an Atheists tool for proving that religious people are stupid, and don't think straight? Because it's a fucking joke if it is.
Oh, and OP: Atheism is a belief, like Agnosticism, Theism and suchlike. Is it a faith? Atheists commit themselves to a belief based on texts, other peoples teachings, and a conviction. To me, that sounds like a religion. For people who don't care or know, I think the term "apathetic" is more relevant.
Oh, and OP: Atheism is a belief, like Agnosticism, Theism and suchlike. Is it a faith? Atheists commit themselves to a belief based on texts, other peoples teachings, and a conviction. To me, that sounds like a religion. For people who don't care or know, I think the term "apathetic" is more relevant.
I can agree that you might not like michealangelo, but to the question of whether or not he's one of history's finest artists I agree.
I fail to see the contradiction.
ah, explanation is forthcoming on the site, but they are not asking if I think EVERYONE thinks he is, surely the widespread appreciation is a show of largely overlapping tastes between people rather than saying it is objectively good.
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
As I believe that we all arrive at the afterlife (of whatever sort it takes) in the state we die, this is not a contradiction.
You agreed that:
Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise
And also that:
The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny
this more calls into question the idea of onipotence - with perfect knowledge, you know what someone will do - so the future can both be fixed, yet it be a choice you made.
You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised
This could have been solved by a "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" scale.
Regardless of the fact that you can proove the detrimental effects of people taking drugs on society as a whole.
I have put a fair amount of thought into these.
27%
This was rather elementary but the last part of it is one they completely missed the boat. It says:
Non-physical existence comes in all type of flavors. They define existing as "being alive/conscious" which is wrong.
What I actually believe is that we continue to exist after death in people's memories and in the signs we've left on the world. It isn't an eternal existence either, which seems like what this question was aiming at (souls and whatnot) but it is an existence and it is after death.
This is basically something philosophy 101 would have you do.
This was rather elementary but the last part of it is one they completely missed the boat. It says:
Non-physical existence comes in all type of flavors. They define existing as "being alive/conscious" which is wrong.
What I actually believe is that we continue to exist after death in people's memories and in the signs we've left on the world. It isn't an eternal existence either, which seems like what this question was aiming at (souls and whatnot) but it is an existence and it is after death.
This is basically something philosophy 101 would have you do.