4 ms·

Wow, I think I got 100% on the test! Admittedly, after going through all the questions I noticed what contradictions it was trying to trigger in my thinking, a

Wow, I think I got 100% on the test! Admittedly, after going through all the questions I noticed what contradictions it was trying to trigger in my thinking, and I had to go back and audit my decisions to make them more consistent, but I think that is within the spirit of the quiz (and I appreciate that it did let you go back and change your answers before submitting them). Even fuller disclosure, I did change the wording of a couple of the options I picked (by editing the DOM) because I felt they used some leading or misleading language, which they could have avoided without undermining the validity of the test. To pick an example of a question that I felt was a bit ambiguous (but not enough for me to bother editing it), the news anchor one said "The news network decides they disagree with this kind of behavior" which I interpreted as meaning "they have a policy of neutrality, requiring their anchors not to be seen to hold partisan or controversial views". I think it's acceptable for a news network to have such a policy, but I would object to them firing someone for holding political opinions which go against the network's own partisan biases.

ChadNauseam 4y ago
Hah, going back is allowed :D Some of the questions are imperfect. As I mention at the bottom, I mostly stole them from Scott Alexander. The problem with the wording of many of his questions is that the answers assume you have a principle. For example, question 3's answer is: > This is acceptable; the Supreme Court should be zealous in its duty of defending constitutional rights against potentially extremist states. I didn't change it because I couldn't figure out a way to reword this that I was happy with, but the problem here is that both answers involve you "agreeing" with a principle about the supreme court, so it's kind of weird if you don't agree with either of the principles given. I wonder if that's what you were referring to?
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > both answers involve you "agreeing" with a principle about the supreme court Yes, that's exactly the problem! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that was a limitation of how the options were worded. > so it's kind of weird if you don't agree with either of the principles given. In fact, I think for one of the questions I found myself agreeing with both of the principles given, since they didn't seem to be in conflict. I can't remember how I resolved that conflict.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  One of the things that I found challenging about the quiz was that some answers were offering opinions about what should be allowed (whether the government should or should not stop a behavior) but others were offering opinions about what is good (is it 'acceptable' or 'outrageous'). I might find it outrageous, for example, that an important media organization behave in some fashion while also believing that it would be very wrong and bad for those of us who find the behavior outrageous to be permitted to use force (or force of law) to stop it. For several of the questions, I struggled to pick an answer for reasons like you describe, as well -- for example, I might agree that SCOTUS should/should not act in a given case, but maybe I don't agree with the specific principle named.

ChadNauseam 4y ago

Hah, going back is allowed :D Some of the questions are imperfect. As I mention at the bottom, I mostly stole them from Scott Alexander. The problem with the wording of many of his questions is that the answers assume you have a principle. For example, question 3's answer is: > This is acceptable; the Supreme Court should be zealous in its duty of defending constitutional rights against potentially extremist states. I didn't change it because I couldn't figure out a way to reword this that I was happy with, but the problem here is that both answers involve you "agreeing" with a principle about the supreme court, so it's kind of weird if you don't agree with either of the principles given. I wonder if that's what you were referring to?

dane-pgp 4y ago
> both answers involve you "agreeing" with a principle about the supreme court Yes, that's exactly the problem! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that was a limitation of how the options were worded. > so it's kind of weird if you don't agree with either of the principles given. In fact, I think for one of the questions I found myself agreeing with both of the principles given, since they didn't seem to be in conflict. I can't remember how I resolved that conflict.
codefreeordie 4y ago
One of the things that I found challenging about the quiz was that some answers were offering opinions about what should be allowed (whether the government should or should not stop a behavior) but others were offering opinions about what is good (is it 'acceptable' or 'outrageous'). I might find it outrageous, for example, that an important media organization behave in some fashion while also believing that it would be very wrong and bad for those of us who find the behavior outrageous to be permitted to use force (or force of law) to stop it. For several of the questions, I struggled to pick an answer for reasons like you describe, as well -- for example, I might agree that SCOTUS should/should not act in a given case, but maybe I don't agree with the specific principle named.