4 ms·
I also thought that agreeing with the item that was something like "it is wise to break the law to achieve your goals" is more of a sign of stupidity than 'dark
by mjfl 5y ago
I also thought that agreeing with the item that was something like "it is wise to break the law to achieve your goals" is more of a sign of stupidity than 'darkness'.
- SuoDuanDao 5y agoadmitting such beliefs to the authorities is certainly a sign of stupidity! Though maybe that's what the test is actually intended to measure. If I were running a large organization I'd want a way to identify 'low-neuroticism rule followers' more urgently than 'moral actors'.
- kstenerud 5y agoThe problem is that answers to such questions cannot give meaningful information without context. Is it wise to break the law by running a bunch of red lights to achieve your goals? Yes if your goal is to get your wife to the hospital before she bleeds out, no if your goal is to get to the game on time. Making the context unambiguous is extremely important in this field, so much so that entire industries have arisen for it.
- wruza 5y agoNarrowing the context narrows the relevancy for different people at different times. E.g. Which of my wives are talking about? What’s the game price? Which country I’m at? But they could frame it as “if in a hard situation that you could realistically get into in your life once in a couple of years, in a usual environment”.
- AstralStorm 5y agoThe question should be about frequency then. How often do you actually do this kind of behavior for light or typical transgressions, whether you care if anyone is looking and whether you care about scale of punishment. Rare situations are bit of a problem, people are notoriusly bad at predicting what they will do in rare circumstances.