MoraI Foundations Theory test, by Johnathan Haidt

[Ronaldo_]

This test is based on moral foundations theory, a psychological theory that claims to explain pollitical differences. I've no real opinion on how accurate or useful it is, but I'm interested in hearing the results of y'all, especially since all of you are interested in psychology and share similar personalities.

These are the six 'foundations' of morality that purportedly determine one's pollitics.
My results (and the link) and can be found here:

 

[onesteptwostep]

Oh it's inspired by Johnanath Haidt. A bit misleading but that's okay.

It's a bit of a western-centric test but that's okay.

 

[Cognisant]

Yeah that's about what I'd expect, although my position on things tends to swing a lot based on certain factors.

For example zero negotiation with terrorists because the intent of negotiation may be to minimize harm but the precedent only encourages more terrorism and thus more harm, to truly minimize harm terrorism needs to be stamped out HARD even when it is justified. For example if someone wants to make a political point by standing on the highway to block traffic I think anyone who runs them over would be entirely justified in doing so, zero negotiation, but it also emphasizes their point. Because if someone does that knowing anyone can run them down and suffer zero consequences (other than having to clean their car) then the act takes on a lot more significance than a bunch of entitled twats blocking traffic knowing full well that nobody would dare harm them.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

 

[ZenRaiden]

 

[birdsnestfern]

Moral Foundations Test

moralfoundations.github.io

 

[The Gopher]

 

[Old Things]

 

[Old Things]

Ronaldo_ = 65.67
onesteptwostep = 62.83
Cognisant = 68.83
EndogenousRebel = 53.17
ZenRaiden = 51.83
birdsnestfern = 52.17
The Gopher = 60.5

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

For example zero negotiation with terrorists because the intent of negotiation may be to minimize harm but the precedent only encourages more terrorism and thus more harm

maybe not

a policy of "kill the hostages" isn't going to prevent terrorism

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Moral Foundations Test

moralfoundations.github.io

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

also,


in chrome you can take a full page screenshot of any webpage by hitting

ctrl + i

then

ctrl + p

and type the word "screen" in the search

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

updated

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I've no real opinion on how accurate or useful it is

 

[birdsnestfern]

On question #14, I keep thinking about locally there is a home school fad where the parents teach very limited indoctrination (mostly it’s to drill into them Christian values and even in local schools are out of touch with worldly culture so the ones in home schools are going to grow up even more naive and indoctrinated with local values. When society keeps getting dumber, now you know why. They think they are learning but are trapped in their environmental bubbles.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

indoctrinated with local values

"kind and lowly" might be considered "christian values"

but it doesn't describe the christians i've met

 

[ZenRaiden]

The problem with these questions is they are of particular mindset and they are kind of misleading almost manipulative.
Hardly objective questions.

Id say I am anarchist in sense, but I still believe in governmental structures.
I don't believe in politics. Which might make people scratch their heads, but we can have governing bodies without the outside influences.

That structure would be no different than having a centralized idea of institutions.
Ergo wealth is scalable and civilization has compound structures.
We can see this comparing rich and poor nations.
Haiti is clearly not a failed democracy. Its a badly influenced state sabotaged from the outside.
Its also a state that has no governing body de facto. De jure it has governing body, but it really is just a split of entity enabling corruption and downfall of overall state.

I believe governing body is not there to tell people how to behave or whether their bodies or morals are right or dictate culture or value. Governing bodies are there to put forward rules of state in order for people in state to know how to conduct themselves as not to impede freedom of others.
In such sense the greater amount of people there is the more advanced the governing body must be.
But governing bodies are not there to string people along to an common end.
They are there to enable people to be as free and autonomous as possible.
It is not democracy or even in interest of republic, to be head by anyone.
All state planning should be done by direct voting, and direct planning, that is a plan is followed by all participants willingly and is enacted only if it does not impede the freedoms of others in state, and the returns of said plan are transparent and enacted with full responsibilities that are outlined by planning. And in all cases of state planning trust vested in planning of state can be by vote recalled and people who deviate from planning can be fully held accountable.
Today in western world we have no politicians accountable at all.
Neither did Soviet Union.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The problem with these questions is they are of particular mindset and they are kind of misleading almost manipulative.

that's why i'm examining them one at a time

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Haiti is clearly not a failed democracy. Its a badly influenced state sabotaged from the outside.

great example

 

[ZenRaiden]

that's why i'm examining them one at a time

Is it morally wrong to mistreat ones body.
-as you point out morality is between two and more people.
-I do believe that people should always do their best, but judging someone with self destructive tendencies is weird as it mostly is sign of not moral feebleness, but usually just psychological state often times caused by psychological trauma or stressors.
- however if my responsibility is to take care of other people or do a job, that job requiring my body fitness it is my duty to be strong enough and healthy enough.
Its should be common sense though, it should not be a moral question. More like duh.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Its should be common sense though, it should not be a moral question. More like duh.

i remember hearing a story about a guy in the army who spent his weekend at the beach and came back to base with a severe sunburn

and he was charged with "mishandling government property"

 

[ZenRaiden]

and he was charged with "mishandling government property"

lol

 

[birdsnestfern]

: ) ha!

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

updated,

 

[Old Things]

On question #14, I keep thinking about locally there is a home school fad where the parents teach very limited indoctrination (mostly it’s to drill into them Christian values and even in local schools are out of touch with worldly culture so the ones in home schools are going to grow up even more naive and indoctrinated with local values. When society keeps getting dumber, now you know why. They think they are learning but are trapped in their environmental bubbles.

That is not the way I read the question. I read it like this: "Would you rather have your child be poor and kind or rich and mean?"

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think the problem with 14 is that it sets up false dichotomy.
You cannot in real life decide whether a child just one or the other.
You can bring up children in a way that makes them cold hearted, especially with wrong parenting. The antidote to that is simply be loving and accepting of them and their faults.
On the other hand we live in society where the advantages of having money are massive, in terms of survivability. So I don't think any loving parent will try to keep their kids poor either.
Its kind of like asking would you rather have one eye or one hand. Its profoundly misleading and dumb.

 

[Old Things]

I think the problem with 14 is that it sets up false dichotomy.
You cannot in real life decide whether a child just one or the other.
You can bring up children in a way that makes them cold hearted, especially with wrong parenting. The antidote to that is simply be loving and accepting of them and their faults.
On the other hand we live in society where the advantages of having money are massive, in terms of survivability. So I don't think any loving parent will try to keep their kids poor either.
Its kind of like asking would you rather have one eye or one hand. Its profoundly misleading and dumb.

It's no different than any hypothetical dichotomous choice like those found in MBTI.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It's no different than any hypothetical dichotomous choice like those found in MBTI.

We can certainly make anything into dichotomy.
There is nothing wrong with that.
But my beef here is that most situation in life will not be presented as clear cut dichotomy dilemmas.
They will be presented as problems with random assortment of complex micro problems with tedious and uncertain outcomes with lots of unknowns.
Personality like MBTI set and stable according to definition of personality, but even here when personality meets world we really cannot predict our personality best and how it will dash into reality and make way by virtue of cog functions or four dichotomy model.

Or to put this more simply when are we faced in real life with dilemma of either you are poor or you are psychopath.
Well Id say rarely is either one of those categories one decision. Its 1000s of decisions that lead to variable outcomes.

 

[Old Things]

It's no different than any hypothetical dichotomous choice like those found in MBTI.

We can certainly make anything into dichotomy.
There is nothing wrong with that.
But my beef here is that most situation in life will not be presented as clear cut dichotomy dilemmas.
They will be presented as problems with random assortment of complex micro problems with tedious and uncertain outcomes with lots of unknowns.
Personality like MBTI set and stable according to definition of personality, but even here when personality meets world we really cannot predict our personality best and how it will dash into reality and make way by virtue of cog functions or four dichotomy model.

Or to put this more simply when are we faced in real life with dilemma of either you are poor or you are psychopath.
Well Id say rarely is either one of those categories one decision. Its 1000s of decisions that lead to variable outcomes.

Then you should feel the same way about all those types of questions including all the other ones you answered on the test.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Then you should feel the same way about all those types of questions including all the other ones you answered on the test.

More or less.

 

[Old Things]

Then you should feel the same way about all those types of questions including all the other ones you answered on the test.

More or less.

That's totally fair. I'm just trying to get people to be consistent.

I get the sense that this was not what @birdsnestfern's concern was. It seems like an uneven standard as an excuse to dislike (hate?) Christianity.