What Is Your Style of Rationality?

RATIONALIST MASTER RACE. Take the test to find out if your time spent in university was worth it.

programs.clearerthinking.org/how_rational_are_you_really_take_the_test.html#.WN9tBzuleL8

Other urls found in this thread:

programs.clearerthinking.org/rhetorical_fallacies.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Why do they all look so androgynous?

OP here to show my scores across the board.

explain to me why it is worth my time to even take this test

Explorer is definitely a dude. Same with Skeptic, Attorney and Executive. Free Spirit is the only weirdo.

Because you may be smart, but you might not be rational. Think of all your views, is there a study to justify all of them? Can't be the case. You have some theories, but are they correct? Are there biases you don't know you have? Are your own theories bullshit or the product of a rational mind? Take the test to find out.

But if you want us to assume you're a Free Spirit...that's your call.

Got skeptic

And I indeed detected BS.
I am pretty sure I answered all the questions about organization in the opposite of carefree, as I am generally a very planning person

>Can evidence in support of a theory be so strong that it proves said theory true with 100% certainty?
Where's the option for "this is a stupid way of describing certainty"?

Pretty sure there was a "No" option

On a second thought, the description is accurate because I indeed don't waste many "emotional energy" since I am naturally good at managing my time and I can enjoy the moment because I don't struggle in following the schedule

>Pretty sure there was a "No" option
If the question is incoherent then the answer is neither yes nor no.

Take it as
100% = Literally mathematical
less than 100% = Probabilistic with 1~99% repeatability

Or just answer nope?

Made it all the way through, but didn't feel like giving them a throwaway email to get my results since I'm not that interested.
What does that make me?

Free spirit, explorer or speculator since you took all the test and the result is not even relevant

>If you would prefer not to receive email, leave the box blank. Either way, you can view your report on the next page.
Not detective.

Fugg, I need to quit browsing the internet when I'm half asleep.

I'm a meditator

What the fuck does this mean? I'm a relatively successful graduate mathematician by the way

H-how did I do, Veeky Forums ?
The profile is detective

So how should I kill myself?

This is me and I got 39 on the total rationality score. Kind of confused.

You did better then me, fellow detective.

Do you trust evedense too much?
I have been trained by Ace Attorney and Danganronpa to always doubt evidence a lot and never say for sure they can only be interpreted in one way

>IQ 154

I don't know what went wrong there.

Master Race

Got Executive.

You now realized IQ tests(read: not IQ, the tests) are bullshit?

>intp-a
>got Journalist
the quiz acts like your typical buzzfeed shitty quizes really, not much freedom on choice is offered (from my view)

>talks shit about IQ tests
>takes this crap test seriously

Oh boy

Who said I took it seriously?

But there again, to get such a low score you probably fucked up the math/probabiliy questions

I don't think I did

I wonder if the questions were on a timer because I have a habit of being very scrupulous

...

I'm not the guy with the low scores. And the fact that you think getting low scores in this test is reflective of overall intelligence means you take it at least more seriously than IQ tests.

I just find it odd that at 150+ IQ you could get such low scores and not ace the problems easily

But there again, is the answer

This is a very good point.

No, what you said seemed like a clever reply, but in fact you are undoubtably using this test as a way to debunk IQ tests

The website was made by feminists. Genders make them feel bad.

Well for instance, with the burger question.

There was in fact fluctuation, but only one of the samples went near 60. All others were 55 or lower. Given that there was at least 9 samples I rated it as "very likely" the ads helped, since it seems there would of been a 15% chance or less that a random fluctation would go over 60

According to the test, this is wrong

Because the target audience for self tests like that can identify with a bunch of fags

Rly makes u think huh

I'm this person.

In reality the ads could of also only boosted by 5 million, whereas random fluctuation accounted for 5 more million. However it's very unlikely that the ads were of negliable significance in boosting the revenue.

Honestly, wtf was wrong with my reasoning?

For that I think you should have watched the other months as well to see how likely the ad itself was the cause of the fluctuation

I picked somewhat likely because I noticed a variance of 8~12milions$ was standard, but 16 was indeed higher than that

>Meditator
>47%

Guess I'm a fucking retard then.

Well it was averaging around 50 million, but only one term went above 55 million and it was 60 million.

>filename

Greetings, kindred spirit. Lmao, but I do honestly believe that I'm quite a disgrace for a math major

what is this board?
online pop-psych quizzes?

A lot of the questions were simplistic, for once the cook one doesn't consider the human factor. If you wait a year then you get two meals instead of one this year. But this doesn't take into account that your tastes might change over time or the cook might fall from grace and his services could be valued less. Or you simply don't want some cunt to cook for you, so you would choose the option with less obligations.

Or the mascot question. You can't really decide if the advertisement campaign is effective. The increase of income is not far off from the usual fluctuation, but the fluctuation is quite big and you would need to understand why it is happening in the first place. The 60 million is certainly not out of the ordinary, it wouldn't be an outlier if you plotted the results. You only have data for 10 months either, you don't know how the income behaves naturally over the course of a year. October might be a naturally high income month, the add campaign could have damaged the income actually.

The funny thing is that they treated "no way" as the irrational answer when it is the only justifiable one.

>mfw rationalist
>You scored better than 80% of past users!
This is some homo-ass test, my man.

Was 'No Way' the wrong answer?

You sure? I am pretty sure my score changed positively when I answered "No way!"

It makes sense as 100% certanity is always false and even math is flawed

Just did the test twice, only changed one answer about the ability to deconstruct arguments, since i am aware of making ever so occasional mistakes. And my score changed from meditator to sceptic and my evidence evaluation jumped from 40% to 60%. I thought they would atleast base your evidence evaluation skills on something more than your personal opinion of yourself. It is equivalent of asking: Are you good with quantitative analysis? You answering somewhat but i make occasional mistakes. And then take it as evidence against all your scores from previous correct quantitative reasoning questions. I call BS

You are skeptic, right?
Well, you are bro for detectives since it's our job to doubt everything

>math is flawed
Oh boy

fuck me...

Cardsharp master race coming through!

I think this is accurate. My boss thinks I am a good scientist, but I also put a lot of effort into the 'artistry' component of my work, such as getting good at using my hands to master delicate tasks, and I try to turn things over in my head until I can get a subconscious feel for scientific models.

>another shit test, brought to you by sociology undergrad pseudosciencemonglers
No thanks.

who /meditator/

Executive Master race coming through in a clutch ~
>Rational enough
>Not a fucking machine

psychological subversion by the enemy (the new left). anti-american, ashamed of america's achievements and status in the world, doubting america deserves this place, having a condition where everyone has to be in "agreement" or not say anything that could be offensive to anyone, using "being offended" as a way to gain power, grade inflation in universities, feminism (women should act like men)

Detective and INTJ, those go so well together - I happen to like detective-related stuff.
Ironically it's a common pattern between INTJs liking detective stuff, so yeah, I guess they can guess at least a small bit of my persona and way of thinking

>a grown man got this offended by some half-assed sketches

Understand him, his jimmies must be quite rustled since /pol/ got merged with /mlp/

>RATIONALIST MASTER RACE
parading the results of an arbitrary "rationality test" on a traditional martian weaving forum isn't what I would call a "rationalist"

user status: maximum jelly

who here /detective/?
>reflective, quantitative, carefree, skeptic

not sure i liked this test, though.

I got rationalist, but the test is somewhat flawed and subjective in what it considers "rational." For example, it claims that the most "rational" answer to the term paper time budgeting question is 3 weeks since that is the average. However there is no downside to budgeting more time than you need, you just finish earlier, while there is clearly a downside to budgeting less time than you need. So the most "rational" answer should be 4 weeks.

Another problem is that several questions are based on self-evaluation which is clearly susceptible to biased answers, thus leading to a skew toward higher rationality scores.

Skeptic. Pretty average though.

...

Faggot

this test is shit, waht the fuck?

Free spirit

basically it says im have high anxiety, won't go all in on my time anmd highs sunk fallacy but thats cause i want to spend time with something that no one else did those are my emotions i cant help it if no one else enjoyed it i will pain myself to atleast give the man credit who created it

>skeptic
>mfw I'm in engineering

Says I'm more rational than 90% of people who took the test but I'm more gullible than anyone I've ever met.

This test is bullshit.

same

The dataset is really small, but it did fall outside of one standard deviation, almost two. That's why I said it had an effect. I have other objections to this exam too: for example, every question about how much money you'd spend to save time. How could they possibly know an individual's preferences and thereby how much their time *should* be worth?

I got the executive (4% of the population) for what it's worth.

"Executives tend to be people of vision. They consider their own ideas as carefully as they consider ideas that others put before them, and they're adept at organizing both types of thought into clear plans of action for the future. However, they often prefer to leave the nitty-gritty components of these plans to others. Approximately 4% of the populace are Executives."

So far I'm either autistic or Hindu

Or your boss

Apparently I'm a Skeptic. Started doing the Rhetorical fallacies exercise: programs.clearerthinking.org/rhetorical_fallacies.html
The second question on false dichotomies seems badly constructed to me. The two options presented can encompass any possible situation, depending on your interpretation of the wording. Since it is not specifically narrow I don't agree that it is a false dichotomy. This is the problem with soft sciences like this. Accurate only to a degree.

>please give us your e-mail address

DIE DIE DIE

What, you don't have a spam email?

that's right, I don't. Also, the maneuver of putting this request at the end of the whole questionnaire infuriates me.

Yeah, it's pretty gay. But honestly, how can you not have a spam email in this day and age?

You can put in a fake email and still get results at the end.
[email protected] here

Nope, I put no way and they gave me 100% on that section. Sound like a butt hurt free spirit.

you can enter any old bullshit for the email; it doesn't even have to be real.

also this

lmfao you are qualitative faghet tho

It says you can leave it blank

that's okay, if the whole world were rationalists, there'd be no one to pejoratively label as a brainless.

It's okay desu

strong, STRONG, free spirit vibes from this one. I bet you're also an ISFP.

One can never be rational enough, unless one is a rationalist :3

user is so jellin

I answered 4 weeks and got 100%. If you read the test afterwards, it says it awards full marks for budgeting 3 or more weeks. Elaborate on the last point, please.

time to transfer into philosophy, desu.

>It says you can leave it blank
I must have missed it. But I'm not redoing the quiz just to see whether you are playing an April's Fool joke on me.

No April fools joke. The test is designed by the statistician master race.