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

[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.

 

[stone0042]

This merely confirmed my understanding that my morals and beliefs are far from fully developed, and that I have a lot of reflecting to do.

 

[Kortney]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.

Well perhaps that means you do believe in objective moral standards?

 

[Superhyperactiveman]

snip.

To the first, true but then I'm just using an example to point out semantics and such.

To the second, you're sort of on the ball. It's really complex, but let me try to break down how I see it. I view people as having two "selves" essentially. One the one hand, there is the self of the soul. This is who you are at your very core. It's inherently part of your soul, not tied to your body and exists independantly of the physical world. It's essentially your "perfect" self, and it's the form you take when you die. But during life, you aren't aware of this "self". The "self" you are aware of is the self of the body. Essentially, this is who you are within the physical world. It's essentially the self of your soul run through the filter of your mind and it creates the person that you are. See, this is really hard to put into words because I've never had to before. I've only thought about it in abstract concepts and I've never had to vocalize it before.

Essentially, your soul has its own self which is a perfect self. But as a living human you aren't just a soul, you have a body, which is imperfect, and this imperfect body cannot comprehend your perfect self. So your mind interprets this perfect self and creates an imperfect self. But creates and interprets aren't the right words, becuase this imperfect self is a part of the mind, not a creation of it. Regardless, this imperfect self is essentially who you are in life, and if your brain is damaged, you lose that sense of self. But if you die, even if you lose that self due to your brain being as damaged as damaged gets, it doesn't matter, because now you no longer have a body and your perfect self tied to your soul becomes your new self.

Again, that explanation does not do justice to the actual idea in my head, but at the moment I lack the means with which to properly explain myself.

Edit: Actually, this is completely wrong. Forget I even said it. But don't because it's getting closer to the idea I'm trying to say. Except it's not. The first time I was closer. But they're both inching closer in their own ways.

 

[Raven's Nest]

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.

And they'll be called alternative medicines until proven otherwise.

If a loved one has a life threatening injury and a strange women walks up to you and says "Here, put this (ominous looking) dust into their wound and it'll save their life".

Would you?

If she claims that it's an alternative medicine would it be necessarily be a good idea to let her pour some strange dust into your partner?

Didn't think so, not because it's close minded to dismiss her claim, but because you are going to want an ambulance to come with some scientifically proven medication.

Perhaps if the dust is proven to be scientifically valuable then it wouldn't be called alternative medicine. Anyone can claim something is medicine, you agreed that until it's been proven there's no way to guaruntee it's value.

 

[PhiMuLady]

I was at 13% But I still have played mostly Chaotic Neutral characters in D&D So what does that make me?

 

[conflictofinterests]

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 &#8531; 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.

Uh...

I realize you consider morality to be subjective, but somewhere you picked an answer that indicated you believed otherwise. Or you believe there is at least ONE objective moral imperative, but then said all cultures have different moralities, which I would think a scientist would see the contradiction there.

I agree you have a point with some drugs, the question was poorly worded, but the sense the question was trying to convey was closely related to the legalization of marijuana which has been argued to be only as deleterious as or less deleterious than alcohol, which apparently falls under the heading "only hurts oneself"

For the art one, though it was poorly worded, it was checking for consistency with objective value in art. The statement was "Michelangelo IS" not "I think Michelangelo to be" or any derivation thereof.

As for your point on medicine, you appear to desire controls on medicine, and to ignore the fact that alternative medicine does not have to jump through the hoops mainstream medicine has to (or at least is supposed to).

Anyways, you have a superior air about you. Might I point out that science has never PROVEN anything. It only disproves things, and what is left is accepted as true FOR NOW.

 

[Raven's Nest]

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.

Felt like I was responsible for too much rage If I didn't haha.

I meant to single out physical harm in that question by the way.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Spoiler

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.

And they'll be called alternative medicines until proven otherwise.

If a loved one has a life threatening injury and a strange women walks up to you and says "Here, put this (ominous looking) dust into their wound and it'll save their life".

Would you?

If she claims that it's an alternative medicine would it be necessarily be a good idea to let her pour some strange dust into your partner?

Didn't think so, not because it's close minded to dismiss her claim, but because you are going to want an ambulance to come with some scientifically proven medication.

Perhaps if the dust is proven to be scientifically valuable then it wouldn't be called alternative medicine. Anyone can claim something is medicine, you agreed that until it's been proven there's no way to guaruntee it's value.

I didn't say it should be the only medicine used, just that it's worth further study.

 

[Zayren]

I'm not sure trickery and deceit really prove as psychological evaluation. "The thing here is the word unnecessarily." Well, no, I was thinking on the large scale businesses should not destroy the environment to make a profit, but I have no problems with people driving either.

Likewise, I think people should be able to do what they want but I am anti-drugs, mainly because the people I've met who use pot do so as an excuse for their lack of any personality. It pretty much takes over their lives. You shouldn't have to get high just to have a good time, come on.

I guess 17% (or whatever it was, I forgot) isn't too bad, but I really don't think there is a clash of values when I can rationalize both sides for myself. Only when you distill it to a basic essence does it seem there is some major dissonance.

 

[KelsieKatt]

I got 20% Tension.

Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

76516 of the 172834 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?

I was simply expressing my own personal interpretation of Morality. In my view, genocide, in most cases would be wrong, although, there could be exceptions depending on the circumstance. Otherwise, I fully accept that this my own personal interpretation of morality, which is a subjective invention to begin with.

My beliefs on Morality are essentially just personal opinions. Not everyone is going to agree with me and there is no true standard, nor does morality technically even exist, it's a fictional invention of sentient thought.

This is not a contradiction.

Questions 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?

82389 of the 172834 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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

As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.

The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'. Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival. But you might want to argue that much of your use of cars or aeroplanes is necessary, not for survival, but for a certain quality of life. The difficulty is that the consequence of this response is that it then becomes hard to be critical of others, for it seems that 'necessary' simply means what one judges to be important for oneself. A single plane journey may add more pollutants to the atmosphere than a year's use of a high-emission vehicle. Who is guilty of causing unnecessary environmental harm here?

This question is an issue of extremes. I believe that people should try to make some compromises when it comes to avoiding damaging the environment, but there's a limit. I'm not going to do everything possible in my power to protect the environment and I don't expect others to either. I'm likely to promote the use of more efficient mean, such as more efficient cars, and won't condone heavy exploitation of the environment by factories and the like, but I don't expect people to flat out stop using every single little thing which may cause some degree of damage.

In short, both questions are too black and white for their own good, and I don't 100% agree or disagree with either one, I believe in compromising.

Questions 8 and 18: What is faith?

40668 of the 172834 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

In disagreeing with the first statement, you are acting consistently with the general principle which states that in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it. For example, it is not possible to disprove the possibility that there are invisible pink fairies at this moment circling the planet Pluto, but we don?t countenance it as a real possibility because there is no evidence for their planetary activities. This is not to be thought of as a matter of faith, but of sound reasoning. But asserting that atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God contradicts this principle. It replaces the principle 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it' with the principle, 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it requires faith not to believe it'. For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).

If someone told me there were invisible pink fairies circling around Pluto I would consider it unlikely, but I won't completely discount the possibility of it as I can't disprove it.

The majority of Athiests I've met bluntly assert the idea that there is nothing whatsoever possible that could be remotely religious, which I think is an irrational black/white extremist approach to looking at things.

I personally believe that most current religions are wrong as there are a lot of contradictions based around them, but I don't completely discount the idea that something out there could potentially exist, I just think it's unlikely. So yes, I think that Atheism to some extent is also a belief, as while some of it is based on evidence and it's certainly more rational than other mainstream belief systems, it's still partially based on belief as a large percentage of people seem to insist as fact that there can't possibly be anything out there despite not having 100% proof of such.

---

As a whole the biggest overall problem I have with this tests is the way it's designed is far too black and white and doesn't account for more in-between options. My general belief is that the majority of things in the world are more complicated than simple black and white, so asserting things in pure black and white extremes is inaccurate begin with.

 

[Naheal]

27%

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

The second statement is an example of a blanketed statement. What do you consider to be "personal use" drugs? I can make a case for pot, heroin, or any other manner of currently illegal drug being a personal use drug. The use of many of these currently illegal drugs do not affect just you, but also the family around you. If you can make a case to me that drugs such as these should be made legal, then feel free to do so.

I also include alcohol in this. I find alcohol to be an exceedingly dangerous drug and, after growing up in a family where drunken-ness was common enough and it affected the family as well. You can't just look at physical effects on others, you must look at psychological as well.

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

I believe in a soul, but I am aware of the fact that self-awareness does not develop until after birth. I do not consider someone who's in a coma, for example, to have their consciousness or "selfhood," as the question put it. Without knowing how a soul behaves, I cannot state for certain that a severe head injury can cause a person to lose all sense of self, but this question in and of itself raises an interesting complication: by what measure are you you?

Edit: I should point out that I believe that the soul itself can be destroyed, though I couldn't say how.

Also, this is a loaded situation. Example: Ancient Sumerian myth (specifically Gilgamesh) outright states that there's nothing that someone can do to remain alive forever, physically, but a person can remain "immortal" in a sense by creating a legacy. To them, the person's legacy was the person, themselves, not something that was left by them.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

The first is a statement of subjectivity. The second is an expression of my own opinion. There is no conflict here.

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

The destruction of a culture is a great evil and genocide is the manifestation of such wiping a culture out completely is to destroy both who they are, but who they were and any sign of whether or not they had existed in the first place. This is a destruction of fact and knowledge and is a horrible, horrible thing to do.

As the previous conflict, the first is a statement of what objectivity is. The second is a statement that represents the manifestations of my culture.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Zero percent. I'm surprised...I thought the test would require more in-depth thinking, but it was pretty easy to respond to all of the questions. It wasn't very long either. I'd bet that with a longer test (100 questions or so) people would have a higher tension.