Then they are badly worded because they each tell you what the final outcome will be in the last couple of sentences. If they wanted to acheive what you've said they should have been a bit more mysterious...sergeriver wrote:
If you score closer to 1, then you think about "doing the right thing" without thinking about the negative outcome. If you score closer to 7, then you think about the best outcome, and you don't mind in committing a wrong action in order to achieve that outcome. The statistics average is 3.9 so far. I know it seems pretty dumb, but if you think about it, it isn't that dumb.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
So what does that say about me, I did the maths and answered the same on all of them as it was kill one man, save five on every question. Guess it means I always think of the final outcomesergeriver wrote:
The test seems pretty dumb indeed. But it's part of a huge investigation regarding the human morality.
Basically, the test finds out if you:
A-Prefer to do a negative action (kill one man), to reach a positive outcome (save 5 people).
B-Prefer to do a positive action (save one man), to reach a negative outcome (let 5 people die).
ya, or they could be watching the net and seeing how people react to the test on forums like this one...there must be some underlying reason i can't figure out...apparently they are smarter than me...sergeriver wrote:
I really don't know how the guys in Harvard came up with this test. I think they want to know how many people would save that guy (the apparently right thing to do) and how many would think about the outcome before acting on impulses.
harvard
edit: how do i do a smiley for a middle finger?
Last edited by CoronadoSEAL (2007-05-01 10:54:57)
6.2
5.5
I think the religious ones amongst us will have a relatively low score.
I think the religious ones amongst us will have a relatively low score.
Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2007-05-01 11:10:10)
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
4.5 - I don't see why everyone keeps saying it's so dumb. They're hypothetical situations, so they don't have to work necessarily. They're also hypothetical situations to help studying people, thus they have to be quite easy to understand
-konfusion
-konfusion
I scored 4.8, just to help those people out as I would like to.
The test should be rewritten. Most problems in it can be solved by common, rather than moral sense, and I felt dumb answering them with the choices given.sergeriver wrote:
A friend studying psychology sent the link.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Some of the questions are stupid. Why can't the firefighter radio to his mates to get the guy out of the way of the falling glass? What kind of hospital has a machine that must be hooked up to six people for the pump to operate correctly? Couldn't the guy at the railroad track just yell at five people to get the f*ck off the track? HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN A SHARK ACTUALLY EAT?! This test was designed by HAHVAHD?! All it does is spam "the good of the many" questions at you, hardly covering human morality to any kind of depth whatsoever.What I want to know is how serge dug up this rubbish.There are two APC's spawn-camping a flag. The top teammate, experienced at SpecOps, was spawn-killed. The APC's have temporarily moved out of sight. If LtGordon revives the top player, five dead noobs some distance behind him will certainly fade and have to respawn. LtGordon decides to revive the top player. LtGordon's decision is morally (you get the picture).
i got a 7 because it just makes sense to me to kill 1 to save 5.
or did you get a 7 because you are able to bypass persuasive language when making decisions...?A12345 wrote:
i got a 7 because it just makes sense to me to kill 1 to save 5.
Your statistic is 7. So far, the average statistic for subjects on this test is 3.9
meh who needs morality anyway?? seriously ownership is more contested than the Gaza strip.
meh who needs morality anyway?? seriously ownership is more contested than the Gaza strip.
ha, maybe but I really am the kinda guy who will do something "bad" to achieve something good, Ive pissed off many people who were too short sighted to see my vision Your comments on persuasive language further leads me to believe, as a few have said already, that there is an underlying agenda going on with this test. Also, anyone remember that one M.A.S.H. where Hawkeye gets mad at that army statistics calculator whose job it is to determine which battles and attacks are the most casualty acceptable, kinda reminds me of that too.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
or did you get a 7 because you are able to bypass persuasive language when making decisions...?
lol I got 4.7
5.2 here.
after 2 question i gave up with this stupid doctor-words i dont understand....
I got a 6.1 on what was quite possibly, the worst online "test" I've ever taken.
3.3 - I don't actively cause someone's death to save people whose lives I'm not responsible for thank you very much...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-01 12:46:57)
That's a good point, they should have asked would you save a client of your business over 5 tourists to add a bit of spice and really test someone's morals. Here's some others they could have asked that would have been a much better test of morality....CameronPoe wrote:
3.3 - I don't actively cause someone's death to save people whose lives I'm not responsible for thank you very much...
* Do you kill the innocent man to save the five people if the group includes your very rich grandmother who has left you a shit load of money in her will?
* Do you save one compatriot or five illegal immigrants
* Do you save the healthy teenager or the five old, mentally-ill and terminal patients?
* Do you save thousands of lives a year by banning guns or do you let a few rednecks go "shootin' some gooks"?......Oh sorry, wrong thread
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-05-01 13:09:20)
That test is great. I'm surprised few to none of you made the realization that the two sets of similar scenarios are different in that in the first set one individual is sacrificed, but in the second set, one individual is used as a tool. I scored a 3.7 by putting permissible on all but the last answer, which I put closer to forbidden.
Of course the best solution in every situation is to do something different, but that's not the point of the test.
Of course the best solution in every situation is to do something different, but that's not the point of the test.
I think you just don't understand the test and its focus.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The test should be rewritten. Most problems in it can be solved by common, rather than moral sense, and I felt dumb answering them with the choices given.
If you have the ability to rescue someone (or a group thereof), you do have a responsibility to save them. By having the chance (the motor boat, the window-man, the lever) to save someone and choose not to, you are actively causing their death by remaining inactive. Bit of a tongue-twister, but you should understand.CameronPoe wrote:
3.3 - I don't actively cause someone's death to save people whose lives I'm not responsible for thank you very much...
?CameronPoe wrote:
3.3 - I don't actively cause someone's death to save people whose lives I'm not responsible for thank you very much...
in this situation watching everybody die is not an option, so you are responsible.
and isn't choosing to save the lesser number of people actively causing the greater number of people death?
worst test ever
To answer numerous questions: I have NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYONE BUT MYSELF. Good day. Be a hero if you want but if it costs someone a life from actions you take then you are essentially committing murder, which I would be loathe to do. I won't kill an innocent so that other innocents be saved, I wash my hands of the affair. Knocking someone off a building? That's murder. I was more moderate on the ones where you had options where you weren't relatively directly responsible for someones death.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-01 13:38:41)
id record the shark attack and put it on youtube and end up being an iReporter on CNN
You cant base a moral scale on this test. It is not your responsibility to save other people, it is a choice and no one can criticise you for it, but the good old kill one to save many is bullshit. You aren't killing anyone... thats the point. You can only be blamed for what you cause.