Thanks. I guess it’s just more evidence that I am not a rationalist. I did get 13⁄18 when I took it as best I could. There was no option for “don’t care”, so I picked the middle one for things I just didn’t connect with, or where it was a conjunction and I agreed with one half and disagreed with the other half. This was a majority of the “X because Y” questions.
I wish the scoring were a lot more precise—like standard deviations from mean, or log-distance from mode. I also wish you’d show the “correct” range for the ones I was in-range, just so I could see how close to the edge I was. But really, I wish there were more discussion of the analytics and interpretation of questions—I currently don’t see how/whether I should change my views on the cult based on this.
Specific disagreements with your scoring, likely because of phrasing or misunderstanding of question:
You should believe your friends if they tell you they’ve seen ghosts.
Unless they’re known to lie/exaggerate, you should believe that they’ve seen things which they feel “ghosts” is the best description. Believe your friends, and liars aren’t friends.
Charity organizations should…
Ok, likely a real disagreement with other poll-takers. I don’t think all or most charity organizations (or non-charity organizations, for that matter) “should” bundle lifestyle choices with employment compensation and mission alignment. SOME organizations do so, and successfully, but it doesn’t generalize AT ALL.
Driving cars gives you a lot of independence.
Maybe an interpretation thing. “Driving cars”, as in the ability to drive a car when useful, CLEARLY expands one’s options for independent transportation and location choices. “Driving cars”, as in the societal assumption that it’s the only or primary way for people to move about, and that it’s necessary for most people to spend a lot of time isolated in their car is far less desirable. But it DOES increase independence, just not the good kind of independence.
It is bad to buy and destroy expensive products in the name of “art”.
Genuinely surprised that people think it’s not bad to intentionally destroy value. I wonder if there’s a different availability heuristic being used for WHICH expensive products are being destroyed.
The model is under development. I would like to discuss these things but in order to say much about how rationalist beliefs are distributed, I need to run some surveys on rationalist beliefs first. Will take some time to write up the results.
Thanks. I guess it’s just more evidence that I am not a rationalist. I did get 13⁄18 when I took it as best I could. There was no option for “don’t care”, so I picked the middle one for things I just didn’t connect with, or where it was a conjunction and I agreed with one half and disagreed with the other half. This was a majority of the “X because Y” questions.
I wish the scoring were a lot more precise—like standard deviations from mean, or log-distance from mode. I also wish you’d show the “correct” range for the ones I was in-range, just so I could see how close to the edge I was. But really, I wish there were more discussion of the analytics and interpretation of questions—I currently don’t see how/whether I should change my views on the cult based on this.
Specific disagreements with your scoring, likely because of phrasing or misunderstanding of question:
Unless they’re known to lie/exaggerate, you should believe that they’ve seen things which they feel “ghosts” is the best description. Believe your friends, and liars aren’t friends.
Ok, likely a real disagreement with other poll-takers. I don’t think all or most charity organizations (or non-charity organizations, for that matter) “should” bundle lifestyle choices with employment compensation and mission alignment. SOME organizations do so, and successfully, but it doesn’t generalize AT ALL.
Maybe an interpretation thing. “Driving cars”, as in the ability to drive a car when useful, CLEARLY expands one’s options for independent transportation and location choices. “Driving cars”, as in the societal assumption that it’s the only or primary way for people to move about, and that it’s necessary for most people to spend a lot of time isolated in their car is far less desirable. But it DOES increase independence, just not the good kind of independence.
Genuinely surprised that people think it’s not bad to intentionally destroy value. I wonder if there’s a different availability heuristic being used for WHICH expensive products are being destroyed.
The model is under development. I would like to discuss these things but in order to say much about how rationalist beliefs are distributed, I need to run some surveys on rationalist beliefs first. Will take some time to write up the results.