MoraI foundations test, by Johnathan Haidt

[EgonSpengler]

That was shorter than I expected. I scored higher on Liberty than I thought I would. I thought Care and Fairness would be about equal, and In-Group and Purity are both a little higher than I thought they'd be.

---

Question 20 is an example of one where I have myriad questions, but since I'm unable to ask them, I just have accept its every premise and presume a value for every undefined variable: "Responsible citizens who are not members of the military or police force should have legal access to basic firearms for self defense." It specifies responsible citizens adhering to the law, but doesn't specify what those laws are; and it doesn't define what a 'basic' firearm is or what constitutes 'self-defense.' It's leaving the reader to fill in those blanks and define those things, in which case I feel I have to agree with the statement (but I didn't choose 'strongly agree' - why not? I really don't know, maybe just a general discomfort with being too strongly for or against anything).

 

[Gori the Grey]

Question 20 is an example of one where I have myriad questions, but since I'm unable to ask them, I just have accept its every premise and presume a value for every undefined variable

That's my problem with all these kinds of surveys: If you mean X by this, I would answer A. If you mean Y, I would answer B.

 

[Farm Boy]

Fine. I finally took one of these. I still don't think they produce particularly accurate or useful results.

 

[Gori the Grey]

C 81
F 85
L 62
I 62
P 67
A 44

So, for example, on the treatment of prisoners: discipline, yes. suffering, no. So how'm I supposed to answer a question that asks whether I think prisoners should experience "discipline / suffering"?

I won't pretend to have had such reservations about every question, but a lot of them.

 

[Farm Boy]

The vaccination one ruined it for me, too. So hamhanded to fit into the format.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It is wrong to treat someone differently on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or caste.

Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Another thing that's unclear to me about these sorts of questionnaires is whether "strongly disagree" is taken to mean strong agreement with the reverse or inverse of the statement. Sometimes it's a distinction without a difference, but sometimes it's two different things.

 

[GenMarshall]

I haven't taken the test yet, but based on the descriptions posted above, I predict that I'll lean strongly towards Care and Fairness; with a balance of Liberty and Authority; and almost no value placed on Ingroup-Loyalty or Purity. We'll see.

That was shorter than I expected. I scored higher on Liberty than I thought I would. I thought Care and Fairness would be about equal, and In-Group and Purity are both a little higher than I thought they'd be.

Spoiler :

View attachment 684043

When I was taking the test, I was expecting to score high on liberty and fairness. Care is a mixed bag since I don't feel exactly merciful at this point of my life (I'm lately more nihilistic and pessimistic about humanity and that Rousseau was wrong, as the kids today would call it, been black pilled). The high In-Group ranking left me confused on what is going on there that doesn't involve a reaction to the toxic political atmosphere of the last 10 years or so by loud mouth toxic activists saying how I'm evil and crap because of my characteristics.

I think I have to interpret these questions as being about uncompromising individual liberty, at the expense of other considerations. If a question lumps two things together, then the question is asking whether I accept both of those things, not one or the other. That's how I feel I have to understand it, at any rate. If one of the two things seems to push harder against individual liberty (or freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government - whatever I think the crux of the question is), then that's the one the question is really interested in, and the one I ought to think hardest about. imho.

That's the thing that gave me issue on that question since I place war and pandemics on two separate issues and not on the same playing field as the question presents almost as a gotcha to see if you're some sort of Qanon supporter (They're notoriously anti-vaccination).

Question 20 is an example of one where I have myriad questions, but since I'm unable to ask them, I just have accept its every premise and presume a value for every undefined variable: "Responsible citizens who are not members of the military or police force should have legal access to basic firearms for self defense." It specifies responsible citizens adhering to the law, but doesn't specify what those laws are; and it doesn't define what a 'basic' firearm is or what constitutes 'self-defense.' It's leaving the reader to fill in those blanks and define those things, in which case I feel I have to agree with the statement (but I didn't choose 'strongly agree' - why not? I really don't know, maybe just a general discomfort with being too strongly for or against anything).

I had that similar feeling as well. Also, I don't live too far off from rural areas and hunting grounds so firearms are typically used for wild game hunting like deer and ducks, as long as they have a hunting license and a set amount of allowed kills as to not affect the animal population to the point of not able to recover or engage in the sport of target shooting at the range. I went in presuming that the "basic" firearm would be a revolver, pistol, semi-automatic (eg. Magazine fed rifle that only fires once with a pull of a trigger, like the M1 Garand for example) or bolt action rifle, and a shotgun and military grade hardware are left only to the military (full auto & selective fire rifles (the assault weapons), machine guns, sub machine guns, and machine pistols). The self-defense I've interpenetrated it as defense against a criminal and/or home intruder and/or defense against aggressive wild animals like wild bores.

 

[Samson]

That's my problem with all these kinds of surveys: If you mean X by this, I would answer A. If you mean Y, I would answer B.

Another thing that's unclear to me about these sorts of questionnaires is whether "strongly disagree" is taken to mean strong agreement with the reverse or inverse of the statement. Sometimes it's a distinction without a difference, but sometimes it's two different things.

These seem less of a problem in the context of the first line of the paper intro: Moral foundations theory was designed to explain both the variations and ubiquitous aspects of moral judgements across cultures.

Perhaps the differences really come out when people are made to make these distinctions. It could be that the core difference is how many people in the culture assume you mean A rather than B, or if the "opposite" is the reverse or inverse. They are not trying to say something about you, but about your culture. Are they asking about what we think, or how we think?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

ok

 

[Samson]

ok

View attachment 684058

You managed a 100% and a 0%! Did you cheat?

 

[GenMarshall]

You managed a 100% and a 0%! Did you cheat?

He used haxors

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

You managed a 100% and a 0%! Did you cheat?

I did not! Took it last night one time and just took a screenshot and shared it today. Didn’t spend a particularly long time on it or anything, tried to just go with first blush answers.

 

[Gorbles]

To be fair, my lows would've been even lower and my highs higher had I not downgraded the strength of some answers based on what I felt was poor phrasing in the questions r.e. the weight of examples vs. principle.

In short, I probably spent too long thinking about each one

 

[fy00sh]

To be fair, my lows would've been even lower and my highs higher had I not downgraded the strength of some answers based on what I felt was poor phrasing in the questions r.e. the weight of examples vs. principle.

In short, I probably spent too long thinking about each one

same here, tho clearly i still felt strongly enough about authority questions that i matched GoodEnoughForMe's authority score of two

 

[amadeus]

It’s interesting that some are objecting to the drugs/vaccination question, arguing the latter impacts other people; true or not, it is still regulating behavior. I’m pro-compulsory vaccination anyway, but I accept this is probably a ding on the armor of the “liberty” score.

My assumption is the strongly/slightly distinction on the questions is just to weight them on the final scores, but I answered them in how much I agreed or disagreed with the premise.

 

[The_J]

Test results as expected, I guess.

This one I have quite a delema since I reserve the death penalty for murderers, et even they shouln't be subjected to cruel and inhumane

I quickly thought about this one, and then concluded that I'd not want to have anyone e.g. publicly flogged etc, and therefore agreed with the whole thing.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Another psychological profile of forum members.



Looks like my respect for authority continues to decline each year.

The bars are usually all roughly equal for me.

Fairness has also crept up over time.

[RD] - Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations test

This test is based on moral foundations theory, a psychological theory that claims to explain political differences. I've no real opinion on how accurate or useful it is, but I'm interested in hearing results of people on CFC. Take the test here. These are the six 'foundations' of morality...

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[Arwon]

Question 20 is an example of one where I have myriad questions, but since I'm unable to ask them, I just have accept its every premise and presume a value for every undefined variable: "Responsible citizens who are not members of the military or police force should have legal access to basic firearms for self defense." It specifies responsible citizens adhering to the law, but doesn't specify what those laws are; and it doesn't define what a 'basic' firearm is or what constitutes 'self-defense.' It's leaving the reader to fill in those blanks and define those things, in which case I feel I have to agree with the statement (but I didn't choose 'strongly agree' - why not? I really don't know, maybe just a general discomfort with being too strongly for or against anything).

This question just serves as a tell that the author is American, every political compass quiz has to have one, it's like an artist signing their work or Tarantino putting feet shots in everything so you know who did it.

 

[BenitoChavez]

That's my problem with all these kinds of surveys: If you mean X by this, I would answer A. If you mean Y, I would answer B.

That is exactly how I feel about this test.