3 ms·

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 w

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.

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.