Wouldn’t the failure to acknowledge all the excitement nuclear war would cause be an example of the horns effect?
I immediately answered no and rated everyone who said yes as completely undateable
I can understand answering no for emotional or political reasons, but rating the epistemically correct answer as undateable? That’s… a good reason for me to answer such questions honestly, actually.
So they have a mechanism for you to write an explanatory comment, right? But they don’t allow you to filter on the existence of an explanatory comment, which would allow someone to explain their thought process—which I think is really necessary because “exciting” does strongly connote “good idea” the way “awesome” does. In which case, I would expect a person trying to avoid the horns effect to just refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it’s misleading as a moral compass gauge because answering “yes” might cause them to get filtered out because you can’t condition on the existence of an explanation. So I expected most “yes” answers to be generally unaware people. I don’t think that question was intended for rational arguments for or against nuclear war; I think it was intended for … morality. I admit “completely undateable” is an exaggeration, but I think I decided engaging that question was a red flag for immaturity.
But that’s why I’m really confused why that question was there in the first place because it doesn’t distinguish those two groups of people—the ones that are thinking really really carefully and the ones that aren’t thinking at all. It’s bad for morality!
Wouldn’t the failure to acknowledge all the excitement nuclear war would cause be an example of the horns effect?
I can understand answering no for emotional or political reasons, but rating the epistemically correct answer as undateable? That’s… a good reason for me to answer such questions honestly, actually.
So they have a mechanism for you to write an explanatory comment, right? But they don’t allow you to filter on the existence of an explanatory comment, which would allow someone to explain their thought process—which I think is really necessary because “exciting” does strongly connote “good idea” the way “awesome” does. In which case, I would expect a person trying to avoid the horns effect to just refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it’s misleading as a moral compass gauge because answering “yes” might cause them to get filtered out because you can’t condition on the existence of an explanation. So I expected most “yes” answers to be generally unaware people. I don’t think that question was intended for rational arguments for or against nuclear war; I think it was intended for … morality. I admit “completely undateable” is an exaggeration, but I think I decided engaging that question was a red flag for immaturity.
But that’s why I’m really confused why that question was there in the first place because it doesn’t distinguish those two groups of people—the ones that are thinking really really carefully and the ones that aren’t thinking at all. It’s bad for morality!