Nah, you're still a prudeYeah. Higher than expected. I'm dirty.
[RD] Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations test
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
Purity.
Same difference.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
That was surprisingly non-stupid despite the simplified US centric view on political ideology.
Some of the definitions seem a bit weird to me, but whatever. We all have our own definitions of words.
I do value loyalty and have some authoritarian leanings, I just think that loyalty and respect should always be reciprocal.
For example, if my boss calls me by my first name we're now both on a first name basis as far as I'm concerned because I'm an adult.
Care 89%
Loyalty 25%
Fairness 86%
Authority 28%
Purity 22%
Liberty 56%
The test itself is interesting, but the mapping to three American political parties seems kind of stupid. Even more so, when they take 2 big-tent parties and one single-value party.
I am not sure, whether 6 dimensions is actually correct. I feel like these are not independent of each other.
Loyalty 25%
Fairness 86%
Authority 28%
Purity 22%
Liberty 56%
The test itself is interesting, but the mapping to three American political parties seems kind of stupid. Even more so, when they take 2 big-tent parties and one single-value party.
I am not sure, whether 6 dimensions is actually correct. I feel like these are not independent of each other.
According to the test, conservatives should value liberty above authority and they should value it more than left-liberals do.
Of course. After all, those are US conservatives, who frequently believe they need to own grenade launchers to oppose government tyranny.
That word left in left-liberal seems to me with an European view awfully wrong.
The questions have imo nothing to do with socio-economic class and anything related to how a state should function.
If left-liberal is replaced by social-liberal the test makes more sense.
After all, being social can be rooted in socialism without yourself being a social person,
can be rooted in being a Samaritan Christian/Humanist/other philosophy while believing in free market capitalism.
After I analysed how the test ticks, it is I think very simple:
The test measures mainly two things:
1. Do you engage with an opinion (if any) on something happening around you ?
If not engaging by saying: "it is none of my business" . Which leaves open whether you had any morals at all on that situation, or an opinion. By lack of more precise info you get default 50% moral values.
2. Do you have morals or lack of morals, so compelling that you engage with an opinion on something social happening around you ?
A. If your engaged opinion is when spoken out corrective on what happens
, you get higher moral values...
B. If your engaged opinion is when spoken out supportive on what happens
, everybody encouraged to do as he/she pleases, whatever the negatives for the social group, you get lower moral values.
=> The test sees morals as interface factors between you as individual and the social group. Morals as social group glue.
But this test telling you what political preference you have is limited to detecting in how far you accept a state interfering in your life by morals of other people.
(assuming the reciprocal fairness that when you allow yourself to have/express a corrective opinion on someone else, other people have the right to have/express their opinion on you, and there is cause for the bargaining process to get to a common set of morals for the group expressed by encouraging virtues and if needed corrective rules).
But perhaps politics in the US does not go much further than this. The struggle between libertarians encouraging free individualism at the expense of the social group & the state against the social liberals encouraging a more strong social group and interference by the state. (The true conservatives in this test more the status quo moderates, closest to the 50% default values).
Believing strongly in the importance, the protection, the nurturing of a social group can be expressed in very different political choices like by much moral driven samaritan charity, by strong redistribution corrections on a capitalist system and by socialist structures.
=> this test gives me the uncomfortable feeling that it de-politicises for those national state structural left-right choices.
EDIT
It is like going back to medieval time where religion was the binding social group factor with sinns as corrections and.... free game for the nobility to control the worldly power.
In Renaissance basically the same with some more room for the individual and meanwhile merchants capitalism added in the worldly power system.
And what we have now is the social identity of the individuals overwhelming the political stage giving again free game for the neo-nobillity !
Opium for the people ?!?
Here in the spoiler the three tests I did with the answers:
The questions have imo nothing to do with socio-economic class and anything related to how a state should function.
If left-liberal is replaced by social-liberal the test makes more sense.
After all, being social can be rooted in socialism without yourself being a social person,
can be rooted in being a Samaritan Christian/Humanist/other philosophy while believing in free market capitalism.
After I analysed how the test ticks, it is I think very simple:
The test measures mainly two things:
1. Do you engage with an opinion (if any) on something happening around you ?
If not engaging by saying: "it is none of my business" . Which leaves open whether you had any morals at all on that situation, or an opinion. By lack of more precise info you get default 50% moral values.
2. Do you have morals or lack of morals, so compelling that you engage with an opinion on something social happening around you ?
A. If your engaged opinion is when spoken out corrective on what happens
, you get higher moral values...B. If your engaged opinion is when spoken out supportive on what happens
, everybody encouraged to do as he/she pleases, whatever the negatives for the social group, you get lower moral values.=> The test sees morals as interface factors between you as individual and the social group. Morals as social group glue.
But this test telling you what political preference you have is limited to detecting in how far you accept a state interfering in your life by morals of other people.
(assuming the reciprocal fairness that when you allow yourself to have/express a corrective opinion on someone else, other people have the right to have/express their opinion on you, and there is cause for the bargaining process to get to a common set of morals for the group expressed by encouraging virtues and if needed corrective rules).
But perhaps politics in the US does not go much further than this. The struggle between libertarians encouraging free individualism at the expense of the social group & the state against the social liberals encouraging a more strong social group and interference by the state. (The true conservatives in this test more the status quo moderates, closest to the 50% default values).
Believing strongly in the importance, the protection, the nurturing of a social group can be expressed in very different political choices like by much moral driven samaritan charity, by strong redistribution corrections on a capitalist system and by socialist structures.
=> this test gives me the uncomfortable feeling that it de-politicises for those national state structural left-right choices.
EDIT
It is like going back to medieval time where religion was the binding social group factor with sinns as corrections and.... free game for the nobility to control the worldly power.
In Renaissance basically the same with some more room for the individual and meanwhile merchants capitalism added in the worldly power system.
And what we have now is the social identity of the individuals overwhelming the political stage giving again free game for the neo-nobillity !
Opium for the people ?!?
Here in the spoiler the three tests I did with the answers:
Spoiler results simple analysis of the test mechanism :
Last edited:
It seems the test labels as conservatives people who wants to oppose tyranny of US government, not their own oneOf course. After all, those are US conservatives, who frequently believe they need to own grenade launchers to oppose government tyranny.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I feel, as usual, that the test is flawed by not taking into account the reason why one answer is chosen. Most typically, chosing the "neutral" option can mean "I don't care", or "it's not my place to judge" or "I've no opinion about it". They are three very different points of view, but are still conflated together.
).
For example, there is no difference between "you shouldn't say that to someone" (because it's pointlessly hurtful) and "you shouldn't think that about someone" (because it's wrong), so there is no way to distinguish if I wouldn't say "you're too ugly to be a prom queen" because I'm not a jerk/respect social niceties or because I think that everyone is beautiful in his own way.
- Care 78%
- Loyalty 56%
- Fairness 72%
- Authority 39%
- Purity 58%
- Liberty 67%
).For example, there is no difference between "you shouldn't say that to someone" (because it's pointlessly hurtful) and "you shouldn't think that about someone" (because it's wrong), so there is no way to distinguish if I wouldn't say "you're too ugly to be a prom queen" because I'm not a jerk/respect social niceties or because I think that everyone is beautiful in his own way.
Last edited:
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Maybe it does.
Maybe even considering the contex of some questions makes you less authoritarian or "loyal".
I don't think so. You get high scores across the board (even liberty, although to a lesser extent) if you scream "This is WRONG!" at every issue. As soon as you start to apply reasoning why something might not be that bad, your scores start to drop. I think the idea is that if you have strong moral convictions these will most likely override whatever you reasoning tells you. That is what the theory is about in a political context: If you go against moral convictions of people, they are going to be immune to your reasons, no matter how good they are.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I never understood this kind of reasoning (which might be your point). It's basically saying "I don't get the point of fairness and deserved consequences" - that's some sort of utilitarian extreme, which amusingly is somehow the exact opposite of the political view of people who typically hold this reasoning.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
People look for the deterrent effect on the population it failed to work for, i.e., the people getting punished. It's not for them, it's for the fairness pole and it's for people everytime they don't speed, or for when they stop at a light, return a lost wallet, or just decide not be be a dick. People are picking at the biggest slams we have in order to question the value of slams, but I think they're getting lost. Long term incarceration, capital punishment. Most punishment is not so big. And a fair number of people who value highly "fairness" really do want people to "get what they deserve" and their low "authority" value is going to personalize their quirks on that scale, which can then be used to mistakenly argue they don't much see the merit in it(the way we do it, narrowly when we do it the hardest). And hell, I'd question the low authority coupled with low liberty too, I'd read in a guess that just means they think they should have more authority, or people who agree with them should have more authority, not that they have any super duper problem with authority in and of itself. If there is a fashion of the hour, all sorts will adopt a fashion.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I feel the same way.
Take for example the guy and his doll that looks like his niece. My niece is 6 years old, so my frame of reference for this question is that the doll is a child. One's immediate response is that this is especially sick, right?
My moral response is, well, if this guy is a pedophile who is sexually attracted to his niece and is trying really, really hard to overcome his urge to molest her and spare her a lifetime of dealing with the ramifications of being molested as a child, is he not making a morally correct choice?
Making it an explicit test of morals makes it impossible to really answer the questions. Morality can be dependent on the circumstances of a given situation. If you posit even a simple moral code like "do the least harm," circumstances will often change the moral calculus. Something gross and harmful can nevertheless be morally right, or at least, intended as a moral good.
The counterpoint here would be that he is still objectifying the niece, which is still morally wrong. There are healthier ways to control one's urges, perhaps, if one has such destructive urges. And maybe his "solution" makes the situation worse and not better. But these are questions I can't really answer, so the scenario leaves me unable to really answer.
Akka
Moody old mage.
But the reason why you think something is ok or not IS part of the context.
If I say "it's okay" because some girl use the flag or her previous country as a makeshift bathrobe, is it because I don't see value in flags (=> low loyalty) or because I only put value in MY flag (=> high loyalty) ?
(yes it's an oversimplified example, but it's to illustrate the point)
No test is perfect. Again, I really recommend watching a couple of his lectures. No theory is correct, but a lot of theories give new insights. This was one of those, for me.
One criticism is that it creates categories, and then we're tempted to believe that the categories represent natural differences. And that these differences create the observed differences. It's a statistical trap that's really hard not to fall for. The best you get is that these are differences that correlate with an outcome. People will differ along any dimension you measure.
So, it means that you should be ready for evidence that there's another underlying cause other than 'urge for justice' that explains differences in justice scores between those who self-identify as conservative and those who don't. But that's an easy thing to realize, but it's still a statistical trap.
One criticism is that it creates categories, and then we're tempted to believe that the categories represent natural differences. And that these differences create the observed differences. It's a statistical trap that's really hard not to fall for. The best you get is that these are differences that correlate with an outcome. People will differ along any dimension you measure.
So, it means that you should be ready for evidence that there's another underlying cause other than 'urge for justice' that explains differences in justice scores between those who self-identify as conservative and those who don't. But that's an easy thing to realize, but it's still a statistical trap.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
I get that, but you're not supposed to think about it.
Just get instantly angry and click Very Not OK.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I'm not sure if you are joking but I thin that's the way the test is supposed to be taken. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to put a lot of thought and theorizing into each question - just go with your gut reaction.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Sounds like an interesting question in an era that criminalizes dirty cartoons under child pornography laws, then gets outraged when people complain about mockdrawing their sacred and holy. I don't have another assessment other than "bad person," but that's probably unfair.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
First question tells me I will hate this test. Will the kid actually use all the toys (OK, first come, first served), or is he just getting them to deny it from others "Timmy will be the coolest kid in the neighborhood because he has the newest toy that nobody else has" (Not ok, since the toys won't be utilized very well).
Rant:
Broken promises of visiting grave. Is it because of life situations (too far away, job, family, etc.) or because they want to sit on the couch and watch TV?
Kid wants to stay up late to go to party. How old is the kid? (even 'teenager' there is a huge difference between 13 and 17) How late? How much other 'freedom' and socializing opportunities does the kid get? I'll error on the side of the parents unless there is evidence the kid is being 'locked up at home like it's a prison'.
Singing other team's national anthem. Did he sing it properly, and not mockingly? Did he also sing his own?
Unlicensed medical practice. Is it clearly explained to them, or hidden in the fine print?
Guy says woman is too ugly, man says the homeless man is lazy, I'm assuming the question is whether or not it is OK/not OK to actually say those words to their face, and not just think it in his head.
Rant:
Spoiler :
Broken promises of visiting grave. Is it because of life situations (too far away, job, family, etc.) or because they want to sit on the couch and watch TV?
Kid wants to stay up late to go to party. How old is the kid? (even 'teenager' there is a huge difference between 13 and 17) How late? How much other 'freedom' and socializing opportunities does the kid get? I'll error on the side of the parents unless there is evidence the kid is being 'locked up at home like it's a prison'.
Singing other team's national anthem. Did he sing it properly, and not mockingly? Did he also sing his own?
Unlicensed medical practice. Is it clearly explained to them, or hidden in the fine print?
Guy says woman is too ugly, man says the homeless man is lazy, I'm assuming the question is whether or not it is OK/not OK to actually say those words to their face, and not just think it in his head.
