Yeah, or else how would you know how to answer? You were supposed to rate those things on "how much they affect your judgment of how moral an action is", or something like that.

Well yes, but I figured out what to do without reading them; they were pretty intuitive. I read them anyway for good measure. Which is fine, really. But not reading the instructions and then failing to understand what to do exactly is a bit silly.

Sacrieur wrote this test, obviously.

I will do it momentarily.

I figured there wasn't any information that was important. I figured it was just "which of these is most relevant to how you think"... Which is what it is, right?

Alright, I can't really take this test seriously, and I'll explain why in a moment. Here are my results.


My "harm" was much lower than either of the averages shown. My "fairness" was higher than either average as well.

As for the test itself, the way it works is a little too simple for my liking, and is biased by the survey creator.

To start with, you start with a 0 in every category. Each question is tied to a single category and is worth 0.8 points towards it. If you answer "Strongly Disagree" you get no points for the category, if you answer "Strongly Agree" you get 0.8 points. Every interval up to that is worth 0.16 points, which gets rounded up or down at the end of the test.

That, by itself, means the results aren't worth much. There are MySpace surveys that used a more thorough scoring system than that five years ago.

However, it really discredits itself with some of the bias present in the questions. For example:

"I think it's morally wrong that rich children inherit a lot of money while poor children inherit nothing."

This question is tied to "fairness". You gain 0.16 points of fairness for every interval of agreement you have with this (as it is with every question), maxing out at 0.8 points for "Strongly Agree".

So, let's break it down to the basics of what the person writing this question is stating, which they consider objective enough to use as a yardstick in measuring subjective answers related to it.

FAIR: Government-enforced redistribution of wealth targeting private citizens.

FAIR: Stealing assets from people which they rightfully earned without any recourse available to them.

FAIR: Denying people the right to use their own life savings to better the lives of their children.

UNFAIR: Everyone has the same right to pass on their property to their own children.

Figured I should clarify those points, because you have to strongly agree with these statements in order to be worthy of the full 0.8 points in "fairness".

After I saw this, I sent them a comment in their "things that were unclear" box at the bottom, saying I thought it was very unclear how they could consider that to be an acceptable question. I am sure there are other questions which are just as poorly thought out though.

There is nothing remotely fair about supporting the radical notion of seizing and pooling every citizen's property at the time of their death. I'm sure someone could argue for it, but it's just that, something to be left for debate. There shouldn't be a test saying "oh you think everyone should have the same rights regardless of their financial state? WELL I HAVE TO GO TO SCHOOL TO GET A CAREER TO MAKE MONEY, ITS NOT FAIR THEY GOT THEIRS FOR FREE AND IMMA HAVE TO WORK FOR MINE, NOW AGREE WITH ME OR YOU OBVIOUSLY DONT VALUE FAIRNESS AT ALL!!"

Sorry, but I strongly disagreed because I value fairness. Less bias in the questions would make this survey a little more fair in general.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 24 2011, 12:03 am by Azrael.Wrath. Reason: Formatting.

Yeah there are definitely weaknesses in the test, but I found it interesting all the same. Kind of like personality tests (which I think are preferable tbh).

This was how SEN members stacked up on the test I ran: http://www.staredit.net/topic/13658/