open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Philosophical Health Check - the personal belief Tension Quotient test
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.16 01:05:00 - [1]
 


http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.php

Quote:
The Philosophical Health Check is designed to identify tensions or contradictions (a Tension Quotient) between various beliefs that you have.
The PHC does not aim to identify which of your beliefs are true or false, but where the set of beliefs you hold may not be compatible with each other.


The PHC report below lists pairs of beliefs which are identified as being 'in tension'. What this means is either that:
(1) There is a contradiction between the two beliefs
or
(2) Some sophisticated reasoning is required to enable both beliefs to be held consistently.


In terms of action, this means in each case you should either
(1) Give up one of the two beliefs
or
(2) Find some rationally coherent way of reconciling them.


It may help to think of the idea of 'tension' in terms of an intellectual balancing act.
Where there is little or no tension between beliefs, little intellectual effort is required to balance both beliefs.
But where there is a lot of tension, either one has to 'jump off the tightrope', by abandoning one belief; maintain one's balance by intellectual effort and dexterity; or else 'fall off the tightrope' by failing to reconcile the tension and holding contradictory beliefs.

This test only detects tensions between pre-selected pairs of beliefs - it does not detect all the possible tensions between all permutations of beliefs.
So there may well be additional tensions between beliefs you hold which are not detected by the test.




Or, how I like to call it, "The Hypocrisy Test" Twisted Evil
So... how high do YOU score ? And what got you "tensioned" ? Do you agree with their assessment after reading the explanation below each "tension pair" ? Why not ?
Obviously, they seem to think 50% is about average, and I doubt many reach 0%.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.03.16 01:47:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 16/03/2011 02:10:21
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
The paired beleif notion is off the mark imo. Life is triangular from the individual to the group(> 1 person). People are inclined to think between themselves and another thing. But that other thing is a person or beleif that in turn is conversly shaped by another beleif or person.

What is true though in a one to one relationship is language - We speak from ourselves about something else. How we want to leverage ourselves to another thing is a form of beleif. And so language has an intrinsic deceit in this. The art in communication from this is to seemlesly flatten the triangle between the advocate of a beleif and a willing reciepent.

As for 'beleifs' people want faith more than objectivity. And most of the time people will get so wrapped up in pursuing knowledge for its own sake they use beleif A as an unconscious binary against another belief. It is better to leverage values another beleif. So its better to leverage your own malleable values against dogmatic beleif structures.

27% on test

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.03.16 01:54:00 - [3]
 

Taking test now. I doubt that this bodes well for me, though.

nahtoh
Caldari
Brotherhood of The Saltire
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2011.03.16 01:54:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: nahtoh on 16/03/2011 02:32:09
link did not save my results, 20% was the outcome


Pretty much disagree with the genocide bit as they are trying to make a case that that in that culture genocide is ok. Not made.

Art? they are really reaching TBH.

the drugs one? Not all drugs have the same effect and they are equating them all to have the same effect/outcome and throughing driving in there makes no sense.


Over all? pretty pointless...

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.03.16 02:16:00 - [5]
 

27%

The results were entirely unsurprising, as I was well aware when an answer contradicted with a previous answer. I was mostly frustrated by the fact that there is no middle ground on some of the questions, but I guess this was necessary in order to make the test work out.

My "tensions"

Quote:

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible


I mostly agreed that an all-powerful, loving and good God exists because the alternative was the disagree. Thus to me, it seemed that the question was asking if I believed that God existed or if I believed that God does not exist. I would *ACTUALLY* like to reserve judgement on that until after I die (which will also simultaneously answer questions about the seat of consciousness, the existance of the soul and moral relativism), so I guess that would put me under agnostic. Although in hind sight, this question may be more about whether God is perfect and capable of no "evil" rather than God's existence.

Quote:

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead



I saw this one coming a mile away. The fact of the matter is that most people want to protect the environment, but they also love to drive their cars. It's great only having to spend 10 minutes to drive somewhere instead of walking for an hour.

Quote:

You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form



I also saw this one coming. One can not deny the fact that severe brain-damage has severe consequences with regards to our ability to perceive our own existence. Yet on the other hand, people have a general fear of the oblivion of death. So most of us hold on to the belief that death is not an end of our existence.

Quote:

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists



WTF is this one even doing here. It's beyond easy to reconcile these beliefs: Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste. It just so happens to be that the vast majority of people rate Michaelangelo highly on their lists, and thus he gets recognized as one of history's finest.

Cpt Placeholder
Posted - 2011.03.16 02:16:00 - [6]
 

I got 7%
The conflict was at 1/27, and I would object to that. I do not require that my judgement is objective in this case.

Ari Chu
Posted - 2011.03.16 02:47:00 - [7]
 

I got a 0%. Some of the questions were interesting, but I might have been more impressed if it broke down the percentages of test takers who answered certain questions in certain ways.

defiler
Mad Hermit
Wayward Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.16 03:18:00 - [8]
 

Got exactly the same results as nahtoh did above. Also, mostly agree with his remarks, so I've haven't really got anything to add.

I am however quite pleased with myself for spotting and justifying my tensions before hitting submit. Smile

Sturmwolke
Posted - 2011.03.16 03:42:00 - [9]
 

Meh, nothing more than word play, ignoring the bigger context.

I guess, you can theoretically get 0% by just interpreting the questions literally at face value.
Makes me wonder if a score of 100% indicates that the individual's thinking process is more complex.

33% Mad

Zindela
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2011.03.16 05:01:00 - [10]
 

13%. 1/27. and 24/3.

Igualmentedos
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.16 05:48:00 - [11]
 

7% which Surprised me.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

If there are no objective moral standards and IN MY OPINION genocide is wrong, how do these two create tension? I agree morality is not objective, but I can't have an opinion on morality at all??? Really?

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2011.03.16 05:51:00 - [12]
 

Quote:
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil


well yes, because genocide is "evil" in my culture, ffs some people eat people, I'd call that evil too.

Quote:
You agreed that:
Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise
And also that:
The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny


well yes they could have made the other choice but they didn't, anyways free will/fate are just two sides of the same coin.

Quote:
You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

my beliefs and my tastes are different things. or maybe my tastes are an indication of my beliefs?

there is a subset of people that don't like Michaelangelo's work, and there is a subset of people that do like Michaelangelo's art work. to say I belong to one of those subsets and that works of art are matters of taste is pretty much a non point.

Olleybear
Minmatar
I R' Carebear
Posted - 2011.03.16 06:12:00 - [13]
 

4 of the questions I did not even bother answering. Just 2 I didnt answer below and why:

1) The second world war was a just war. WTF is that supposed to mean? You dont know what they are trying to get at until you go further down the list and start reading a question about the holocaust and genocide.

2) Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists. Where is the, I have no opinion on his work option?

With the other questions I did answer, I ended up with a 7%.

Quote:
You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead


I dont think a person is damaging the environment unnecessarily if they choose to drive over walking or any other option. The test givers try taking the stance that unnecessarily means you are driving when it isnt "essential to survival".... WTF?

Was looking forward to the test until I took it. 'Word play' and trying to 'trick question' people on tests are simply going to get you inaccurate results. Gotta love when people try to get the truth through deception.

Daxel Magmalloy
Posted - 2011.03.16 07:57:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Daxel Magmalloy on 16/03/2011 08:11:36

7%

'You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised'

Well anyone who thinks that overdosing on ****** (or a drug of similar illegality) is not going to effect anyone else is simply wrong. Their friends, family and anyone they mug for drug money will all be affected. Ofc relatively very safe drugs like doobage is another matter.

Anyway, interesting survey. Thanks for the link, OP. I have to say I was surprised and a bit dismayed to see how many questions were linked to religion (which I personally view as pretty much irrelevant) ... I know I shouldn't be though. Maybe not a completely scientifically written survey but nice attempt and good food for thought.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.16 08:48:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 16/03/2011 13:24:13
Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 16/03/2011 08:52:42
Tension Quotient = 7%

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead


I guess my thoughts about electric cars was not factored into the test. So I clam 0%.

Edit: I answerd all the questions.

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.03.16 12:26:00 - [16]
 

27%

Quote:
You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world


Two completely different things, and borders on the lowest form of logic - reduction of the ridiculous to prove a point.

Quote:
You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised


This is a contradiction, as by using drugs a person is contributing to crime by providing income to criminals and therefore is indirectly causing harm to others. False logic.

Quote:
You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God


This I found interesting, again because of the falsity of the logic. It's using a 50% Agnosticism statement with a 50% Atheism statement. I chose the second part of the statement "it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God" as the basis for my answer as that was the only part that I can have an opinion about.

Quote:
You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine


Way out of my depth here as I do not know the process and I made an assumption that all medicines are approved, regardless of whether they are 'alternative' (which is a very loose term) or 'complementary'.

Interesting, but I think it needed more in the way of a grading system, instead of using positive and negative. And the way some of those questions were posed were unnecessarily complex grammatically.

Case in point: "It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits"
Why not "Individuals should be judged solely on their merits"

And "Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise"
Could be "People have the potential to change their minds"

AK

Netheranthem
Eve Engineering Finance
Eve Engineering
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:13:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:23:41
Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:14:07
Quote:
No tensions!

15481 of the 174593 people who have completed this activity also have no tensions in their belief system.

There are a number of possible explanations for the fact that you have no tensions in your beliefs:

1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You have very few beliefs - and consequently answered none or only a few of the questions!
3. You've done this test before!


I expected no less, but thing is that 10% of people is friggin low.
I also find it funny that some people here are faced with the truth and try to warp their reasoning a bit more to fit what they already believe.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:28:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 16/03/2011 13:30:32
Originally by: Netheranthem
Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:23:41
Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:14:07
Quote:
No tensions!

15481 of the 174593 people who have completed this activity also have no tensions in their belief system.

There are a number of possible explanations for the fact that you have no tensions in your beliefs:

1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You have very few beliefs - and consequently answered none or only a few of the questions!
3. You've done this test before!


I expected no less, but thing is that 10% of people is friggin low.
I also find it funny that some people here are faced with the truth and try to warp their reasoning a bit more to fit what they already believe.


Indeed. Somewhat guilty myself :D (tho I do see the contradiction in saving envrionment and using cars, but does not change the fact that were I live having a car is a neccesity, unless there is public transport to every scatterd house outside the city, and that is even more unrealistic. If only we had electric cars in mass production :/)

I guess having your belifs questiond is met with a defencive stance by defualt. Just look to religion.

Alpheias
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:42:00 - [19]
 

Akita, where did you find this? Scientology having a play here?Laughing

7%

Quote:

Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?

50281 of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised



Rolling Eyes

Netheranthem
Eve Engineering Finance
Eve Engineering
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:43:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:43:25
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 16/03/2011 13:30:32
Originally by: Netheranthem
Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:23:41
Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:14:07
Quote:
No tensions!

15481 of the 174593 people who have completed this activity also have no tensions in their belief system.

There are a number of possible explanations for the fact that you have no tensions in your beliefs:

1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You have very few beliefs - and consequently answered none or only a few of the questions!
3. You've done this test before!


I expected no less, but thing is that 10% of people is friggin low.
I also find it funny that some people here are faced with the truth and try to warp their reasoning a bit more to fit what they already believe.


Indeed. Somewhat guilty myself :D (tho I do see the contradiction in saving envrionment and using cars, but does not change the fact that were I live having a car is a neccesity, unless there is public transport to every scatterd house outside the city, and that is even more unrealistic. If only we had electric cars in mass production :/)

I guess having your belifs questiond is met with a defencive stance by defualt. Just look to religion.


Oh yeah, I just looked up your answer. Electric cars ftw :D
I live in Switzerland and we (I think) have the best train network in the world, so public transportation is no issue, but I understand how it could be.

Baron Agamemnon
Caldari
The Einherji
Supernova Federation
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:54:00 - [21]
 

I did all of them, got a 0%. If nothing else I am consistent it seems. Interesting quiz, beats all that facebook crap I see all the time.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.16 14:36:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Barakkus on 16/03/2011 14:38:30
Some of those questions are fundamentally flawed in the way they are presented honestly, fun though.

Quote:
You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world


Those really aren't related, imo. If the first question had been further qualified then maybe.

Quote:
You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists



The second is my opinion, has nothing to do with the first question.

Quote:
You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead


Well, whatever :P I do both, but I prefer to drive to work since my commute takes 3-4 times longer by bus/train. :P

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.03.16 14:38:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Netheranthem
Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:43:25

Indeed. Somewhat guilty myself :D (tho I do see the contradiction in saving envrionment and using cars, but does not change the fact that were I live having a car is a neccesity, unless there is public transport to every scatterd house outside the city, and that is even more unrealistic. If only we had electric cars in mass production :/)

I guess having your belifs questiond is met with a defencive stance by defualt. Just look to religion.


Oh yeah, I just looked up your answer. Electric cars ftw :D



Not to rain on your parade, but electric cars are only as clean as the fuel that produces the electricity you need to run that electric car. If you live in the US or China, this means that your electric car is really running on Coal. Even European countries haven't completely eliminated coal from their energy production.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.16 14:49:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: Netheranthem
Edited by: Netheranthem on 16/03/2011 13:43:25

Indeed. Somewhat guilty myself :D (tho I do see the contradiction in saving envrionment and using cars, but does not change the fact that were I live having a car is a neccesity, unless there is public transport to every scatterd house outside the city, and that is even more unrealistic. If only we had electric cars in mass production :/)

I guess having your belifs questiond is met with a defencive stance by defualt. Just look to religion.


Oh yeah, I just looked up your answer. Electric cars ftw :D



Not to rain on your parade, but electric cars are only as clean as the fuel that produces the electricity you need to run that electric car. If you live in the US or China, this means that your electric car is really running on Coal. Even European countries haven't completely eliminated coal from their energy production.


And if you live here in Norway, we use hydro electric dams a lot :)

But a fair point, and also why I think we should use more atomic power. All in all I like public trasnport, its easy, fairly quick and efficient. It is also cheaper than maintaining a car. If, and only if its built in a good way of course. 1 bus going through hyour neigbourhood each day is bad, 3-4 per hour like in the city I live is good (tho only inside the city, not so much on the outskirts).

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.16 15:43:00 - [25]
 

There's a huge bunch of text below each "tension pair"... some of you guys that complain about how unfair it is that they considered your choices as causing tension seem to have not even bothered reading that wall-o-text below, and stopped at what the tension was about.
Laughing

Igualmentedos
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.16 16:33:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Akita T
There's a huge bunch of text below each "tension pair"... some of you guys that complain about how unfair it is that they considered your choices as causing tension seem to have not even bothered reading that wall-o-text below, and stopped at what the tension was about.
Laughing


Do you feel that this is a perfect representation of one's tension quotient? I personally feel that the questions are worded in such a way to create tension. Art is subjective, but I cannot have an opinion on a famous artist? That literally makes zero sense. The quiz is enjoyable, but I feel as though you would be making a huge mistake taking it seriously.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:16:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Igualmentedos
Originally by: Akita T
There's a huge bunch of text below each "tension pair"... some of you guys that complain about how unfair it is that they considered your choices as causing tension seem to have not even bothered reading that wall-o-text below, and stopped at what the tension was about.

Do you feel that this is a perfect representation of one's tension quotient? I personally feel that the questions are worded in such a way to create tension. Art is subjective, but I cannot have an opinion on a famous artist? That literally makes zero sense. The quiz is enjoyable, but I feel as though you would be making a huge mistake taking it seriously.

More like, catching you while you're making use of literal shorthand to liberally adjust a question's meaning to what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.
Basically, in some cases, a bit of a trick question.
But then again, knowing how to properly express what you believe and to catch minor mistakes in a statement about your beliefs are quite important things to have a handle on, no ?

...

Take the art example, where answering "agree" to both is considered a tension:

"Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste" + "Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists"

Of course you can have an opinion on a famous artist, everybody can have an opinion.
However, the majority opinion does NOT make it a fact, it merely makes it the majority opinion.
So, for instance, if the first question would have said "Judgements about works of art are largely a matter of taste", or if the second question would have said "Michelangelo is considered one of history's finest artists" or maybe even "I consider Michelangelo to be one of history's finest artists", then there would have been no tension there.

Look at their take on the subject:

"The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless."

Pretty clear, wouldn't you say ?

Tegan Karus
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:23:00 - [28]
 

47%.This was interesting ty Akita T, as I am an admin on a Philosophy channel. I would get pulld up a lot for contradiction, so...hmm, interesting anyway.

Tegan Karus
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:27:00 - [29]
 

I would add, that to insist on "true, flase" answers to most of those questions relegates the results to an entertaining diversion.

Burnharder
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:29:00 - [30]
 

27%

However I don't agree with the analysis that certain beliefs are "in tension". For example:

Quote:

You agreed that:

It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war


I don't consider the taking of lives in the second world war to be what made it "just". From this example and many others I think the survey is ill-conceived and of zero value.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only