Test Your Morality.

[Stupot]

Did anyone else do the BBC morality test?

I'm interested to see what other people's results were like compared to mine.

I'm reluctant to discuss too much now in case it gives too much away and affects your answers, so why not go ahead and take the quiz first and then come back to discuss your results.


Only read below if you have taken the test.

Spoiler

I apparently have a lower sense of what is wrong than most people, and I am apparently less easily dicusted than most.
It says that I get more angry about governments big corporations and bankers ripping people off than I do about individuals committing crimes etc.
I am also apparently more forgiving of people who fail to report wrongdoings by members of their own family or group.

All this apparently makes me less part of the "human superorganism".  Am I supposed to feel ashamed about this?  Because I don't.

[close]

[Corby]

I got the same results as you. 

[Igor Hardy]

Spoiler

I gave up on helping people the moment the website told me I need to sign up

[close]

[Ali]

Spoiler

I scored less than average for everything, most notably punishment. The test thinks that I'm emotionally disengaged and unlikely to object to wrongdoing.

I find that a bit annoying, because there wasn't a "say or do something about it", only an option to punish. So it thinks I don't care when I actually care with a passionate intensity!

Ah well... I guess this is what life is like when you're not part of the human superorganism.

[close]

[Baron]

Spoiler

I can't help but feel that there are better places online to have a human super orgasm

[close]

[Babar]

I've been suckered into signing up for the Borg Broadcasting Corporation! :o

Spoiler

I scored lower than average for everything, most of all in my sense of anger, but least of all in my desire to punish.
The punish questions were weird, so I just assumed it meant that if I was in a position of power or authority where it would be my job, and answered them like that.

I scored medium (i.e. similar to everyone else) for disgust in boundary offences and distribution offences, and medium for avoidance in boundary issues- I had chosen not avoid at all for most of the answers.

[close]

Weird test.

[Snarky]

My scores were similar to Ali's. The test claims that I'm tougher on people closer to me (family members, friends, locals) than bankers, politicians etc., but I think that's an artifact of the test (since most of their infractions were non-crimes, and I wouldn't be in a position to censure them informally, while I could at least scold people I know). I agree that it underestimates levels of passion and offense felt, and most of all proves that I don't get much worked up over hypothetical situations.

The categorization of offenses makes no sense to me, for the most part.

[Nikolas]

I'm very reluctant to blame others... and quite tolerant as well...

Well guess what: I'm fucking Greek so it comes with the package!  How else would I be able to survive in Greece and everything happening around me? Either by bombing the parliament/government/something or by ignoring everything!

[Babar]

Nikolas. Suck my balls.

[Intense Degree]

Babar's balls aside...

Spoiler

I was similar to most here in being less than average on everything.

Apparently my low anger and desire to punish actually show that I have no strong moral views and do not care whether justice is done, rather than, say, patience and a desire to help people?

Overall, the description given at the end is someone I do not recognise or share much in common with and I feel that the conclusions drawn in the survey are so skewed in the direction they want that it is useless.

[close]

[monkey0506]

I agree that the way the survey is presented is somewhat (mis)leading, and the available choices create somewhat of a bias. I answered the "punish" questions as myself, not as some fictitious authority figure. It did say "Given the opportunity," but that could mean a whole number of things (physical violence, reporting them to the proper authorities, legal action, etc.), so what exactly did it mean by "punish"??

Given that, my "lowest" point of the test was my anger, which I don't feel is an accurate reflection. I did try to answer the questions appropriately, but I feel that few of the situations presented targeted anything meaningful to me personally (not that I don't care about other things, but it's hard to give a candid response without any experience).

The next lowest point was the desire to avoid people. There's very few people that have ever actually made me so angry or upset that I didn't want to ever encounter them again, so that might be a reasonably accurate depiction.

From there it's the desire to punish. I think it would have been much higher if the question had been posed as "How much do you feel this person deserves to be punished?," rather than, as it were, how much I would personally punish them.

From there it's my sense of disgust. I tend to be disgusted more by other things, but the scenarios presented, not so much.

The final point, I actually rated higher than average, in my sense of wrongness. I think that might be fairly accurate in that, generally speaking, I think people are stupid prats that are horrible to each other. I do look for the good in individuals, but as a whole, I feel that most of what people do in relation to each other is pretty wrong.

So, I guess I agreed (to a reasonable degree) with 3 of the 5 results I was given, but I still feel that this type of survey inherently lends itself to biased and skewed results, and won't really tell us anything that we didn't already know.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

It's more of a 'test your conformity to global elite standards' than a morality test.

[Atelier]

It was very well presented, but that was its only merit. Some of the scenarios were too subjective. A woman burns her country's flag. If her country is not my country I couldn't care less. The polar opposite if it is my country.

I got: "Your low sense of wrongness is the most significant feature of your results". What does this mean?! I looked through the post-mortem and it all seemed very generated. Like a 'which tree are you' quiz. I expected better and I can't believe I signed up for that.

[Ponch]

I looked through the post-mortem and it all seemed very generated. Like a 'which tree are you' quiz.

I'm a Douglas-fir. The interwebs said so. 

[Phemar]

I scored low on everything.

The again, I don't really believe in morals. Morals are completely aribitrary and subjective, and can therefore not be used as a basis for behaviour as a universal set cannot be established. Morals can only come from one place, and that is from what you believe is right. Act as you will, but do not judge another man for doing what he believes is right, however insane and absurd you may deem him to be.
As for me, I will stick to my unique set of morals, which are uniquely expedient to myself.
To each their own, I say.

Edit:

A woman burns her country's flag. If her country is not my country I couldn't care less. The polar opposite if it is my country.

Really? May I ask why you feel so strongly about abritrary shapes and colors meant to symbolize an arbitrarily defined piece of land?

[Wyz]

Hmm counter to what I expected I score very on average. The only axis that differed was anger. I'm not a very angry person in comparison to the other testees. Well I guess that matches.
Interesting test but yes, it uses test results to draw a 'normal' and that is never really the best option if you'd ask me. But could still be useful when interpreted correctly.

[Atelier]

Really? May I ask why you feel so strongly about abritrary shapes and colors meant to symbolize an arbitrarily defined piece of land?

I don't agree, a flag does not just represent territorial boundaries, which is seemingly how you see them. The main purpose of a flag is to symbolise a nation's cultural identity. When I see the Stars and Stripes for example, I see what that flag stands for abstractly, such as personal freedoms and liberties. The flag of the old Soviet Union has symbols associated with communism because that was their ideology. The flag of France was inspired by cockades worn during the French Revolution. The Kenyan flag has black symbolising ethnic majority. The Nepalese flag is crimson red because the rhododendron is the national flower. The list goes conclusively on.

Nearly all flags of the world have a meaning deeper than geographical location (some flags do represent this exclusively, but not many). Vexillology is the dedicated study of flags and their structure and meaning. If England was in deepest Asia it would still be England and my country because of the culture that has become associated with it. Therefore if somebody burns my flag, I see them disrespecting my culture rather than the geographical location itself. How could they even possibly do that? A nation is not defined decisively by its land features but by its history and people.

[Khris]

Weird test, got the same like everybody else, less than average. My lowest was avoidance.

The again, I don't really believe in morals. Morals are completely aribitrary and subjective, and can therefore not be used as a basis for behaviour as a universal set cannot be established. Morals can only come from one place, and that is from what you believe is right. Act as you will, but do not judge another man for doing what he believes is right, however insane and absurd you may deem him to be.

That's called moral relativism and is one of if not the greatest evil(s) of our times.
I don't want to live in a world where it's a personal choice whether one believes that torturing infants is right or wrong. Or to take a less extreme example, that burning a book or flag is an equal or greater offense than killing somebody.
Unfortunately, I do.

Also, if somebody burned my country's flag, I wouldn't get upset or anything, I'd ask them why and if I liked the answer, couldn't care less.

[Stee]

Can't help but feel I wasted time on this

Spoiler

"Your high desire to avoid is your most prominent moral dimension. This is the area in which you differed most from the average person in our pilot study.

This suggests that you are likely to try to avoid people who go against your view of right and wrong. You may be more concerned than others about the possible consequences of interacting with moral ‘wrongdoers’.

By exploring the rest of your feedback, you’ll discover how this dimension of morality compares with your other results."

Not concerned. Just don't see why I would hang out with a c*nt

[close]

Spoiler

Your sense of wrongness is lower than average

You tended to rate the scenarios in the test as less ‘wrong’ than the average person in our sample study.

Your score suggests that you are less sensitive than average to actions that go against your personal view of what is right, and that you are therefore probably more tolerant of moral wrongs.

Different factors such as religious belief and personal wealth can influence our attitudes to the action and behaviour of others.

The Test Your Morality experiment is exploring the ‘Human Superorganism Theory’ of morality. This theory states that human society behaves like a single, huge organism. This organism has functions like reproduction, memory and waste removal that have parallels in individual organisms and even individual cells.

In other words, your personal morality may differ from that of other people because you fulfil a different role to them within the superorganism.

If the theory is correct, you are less likely to be one of the people who helps the superorganism deal with threats to its wellbeing by policing the ‘bad’ behaviour of others.

Your sense of anger is higher than average

You tended to rate the scenarios in the test as more likely to make you angry than the average person in our sample study.

Your score suggests that you often feel anger when someone goes against your personal view of what is right. This means you are more likely to react in a confrontational manner towards people who do not share your values.

Anger is thought to have evolved as a response to threats from predators. In a social context, anger is common where harm or injury was intentional rather than accidental, and may result in a desire to punish the perpetrator, either physically or by other methods.

Some psychologists think that ‘moral anger’ evolved to encourage retribution against individuals who did not support the wider community and attempted to damage society for their own personal gain.

Your sense of disgust is higher than average

You tended to rate the scenarios in the test as more ‘disgusting’ than the average person in our sample study.

Disgust relates to your feeling of revulsion against a person who commits a moral wrong. The word ‘disgust’ can also relate to something you find physically repellent.

Your score suggests that you experience a strong emotional response to issues of right and wrong. You may actually feel physically sickened by the immoral actions of other people.

Interestingly, the concept of physical disgust may play a similar role to moral disgust. Some psychologists believe that disgust evolved as a mechanism to help us avoid disease and parasites. Moral disgust may act in a similar way by causing us to avoid people who we perceive as causing society harm.


Your desire to avoid is higher than average

We also looked at your desire to avoid individuals who do things that you don’t agree with. You tended to be more likely to want to ‘avoid’ than the average person in our sample study.

The desire to avoid is thought to be a consequence of being disgusted by someone’s behaviour. Like disgust, avoidance is associated by some psychologists with perceived threats from infection and parasites.

Your score suggests that when you find the actions of others morally disgusting, you are more likely to have concerns about interacting with those involved. You may be less tolerant than others in terms of your desire to avoid.

Theories suggest that avoidance plays an important role in helping the human superorganism adapt to different kinds of threat, particularly those associated with ‘social parasites’, or people who try to cheat on their social obligations.


Your desire to punish is higher than average

Finally, we looked at your desire to punish individuals who do things that you don’t agree with. You tended to be more likely to want to ‘punish’ than the average person in our sample study.

Your desire to punish indicates how inclined you are to engage in active retribution against an individual who is doing something you perceive as ‘wrong’. This may be a result of the amount of anger you feel towards them.

Your score suggests that no matter how strongly you may react to moral wrongs, you generally feel a desire to see moral ‘justice’ done. You may be more inclined than others to challenge moral wrongdoers.

The Human Superorganism Theory states that actively punishing those who do not fulfil their social obligations is one means of regulating social conduct and thus increasing social cohesion.


Your personal moral response to each of the scenarios may differ from that of other people because you fulfil a different role to them within the 'human superorganism'. Find out more about this theory in the next section 'Are you part of the human superorganism?'.

[close]

so to sum up

Spoiler

I am really angry, disgusted and favour punishment. But to be fair I only really chose those extremes when politicians, thieves and benefits cheats (which are one and the same) were mentioned. Also I'd quite happily kill a rapist.

The whole test was unfair, if you took all the political crap out of the test the results would be very different

[close]

It's more of a 'test your conformity to global elite standards' than a morality test.

Don't worry Progz, they really are out to get you 

[Intense Degree]

Morals are completely aribitrary and subjective...

Logically that is an argument of course, unless you believe in an outside defining moral force of some kind. However, practically it is plainly wrong and utterly revolting. I suspect that if anyone you love is ever raped or murdered (and I seriously hope that will not happen) you will change that view.

Personally I don't want the world to be any more unjust than it already is.

Edit:

Quote from: Atelier on 22 Nov 2011, 20:22
A woman burns her country's flag. If her country is not my country I couldn't care less. The polar opposite if it is my country.


Really? May I ask why you feel so strongly about abritrary shapes and colors meant to symbolize an arbitrarily defined piece of land?

...but you're not going to judge him for that though?