Tests that are foiled by ‘lying to them’ are bad tests.
Really? What test can you imagine that checks your ability at anything which can’t be foiled by intentionally attempting to foil it?
A test that measures your speed at running can be foiled if you don’t run as best as you can. A test that measures your ability to stand still can be foiled if you intentionally move. And a test that measures your intelligence can be foiled if you purposefully give it stupid answers. Which is what you did.
Perhaps you mean that this would be a bad test for someone to use to evaluate others, as people can also foil the test in an upwards direction, not just a downwards one.
Making a habit of engaging with them is detrimental to rational thinking.
Citation needed.
“Sincerity” is bullshit.
No, sincerity is the opposite of bullshit. I didn’t have much of a trouble typing the range I actually believed gave me roughly a 90% chance. You on the other hand chose to type nine ranges that gave 100% chance, and one range that gave 0% chance.
So I was measurably, quantifiably, more sincere than you in my answers
A test that measures your speed at running can be foiled if you don’t run as best as you can. A test that measures your ability to stand still can be foiled if you intentionally move. And a test that measures your intelligence can be foiled if you purposefully give it stupid answers. Which is what you did.
You are being silly. Self sabotage is not what we are talking about here and not relevant. In fact, if your definition of a ‘perfect score’ was actually what the test was talking about then you would be self sabotaging. See my previous support of the test itself and advocacy of a more nuanced evaluation system than integer difference minimization.
No, sincerity is the opposite of bullshit.
“Sincerity is bullshit.” is actually a direct quote a from On Bullshit. Those people here that use the term bullshit tend to mean it in the same sense described in that philosophical treatise.
I never reward people, even myself, for self deception.
Really? What test can you imagine that checks your ability at anything which can’t be foiled by intentionally attempting to foil it?
A test that measures your speed at running can be foiled if you don’t run as best as you can. A test that measures your ability to stand still can be foiled if you intentionally move. And a test that measures your intelligence can be foiled if you purposefully give it stupid answers. Which is what you did.
Perhaps you mean that this would be a bad test for someone to use to evaluate others, as people can also foil the test in an upwards direction, not just a downwards one.
Citation needed.
No, sincerity is the opposite of bullshit. I didn’t have much of a trouble typing the range I actually believed gave me roughly a 90% chance. You on the other hand chose to type nine ranges that gave 100% chance, and one range that gave 0% chance.
So I was measurably, quantifiably, more sincere than you in my answers
You are being silly. Self sabotage is not what we are talking about here and not relevant. In fact, if your definition of a ‘perfect score’ was actually what the test was talking about then you would be self sabotaging. See my previous support of the test itself and advocacy of a more nuanced evaluation system than integer difference minimization.
“Sincerity is bullshit.” is actually a direct quote a from On Bullshit. Those people here that use the term bullshit tend to mean it in the same sense described in that philosophical treatise.
I never reward people, even myself, for self deception.