Dear sci-chaners

Dear sci-chaners,

Here's an opportunity to help some science chug along.

I've come to test you -- but not with fake-ass tests for finding your soulmate among videogame characters, a real very scientific very advanced test to tap into the essence of your core values and compare them to the values of your peers.

Due to intricacies of statistical analyses that I intend to run on this data, I need shittons of participants (more than a thousand) that can be of dubious quality (so none is too worthless to participate). In return you get your own individual value profile and comparison anchors, and I get your anonymous data to violate with my statistical tools (and also help me test an idea that I've been thinking about for almost 10 years).

Here's the link: unipark.de/uc/personalvalues

>Here's an opportunity to help some science chug along.
but this looks like psychology, what does it have to do with science?

If you ever want to believe an AI that says it wants to fuck you to death with its robo-titties, you need somebody to figure out how abstract motivation works in humans.

...

...

>To one who accused him of living with a courtesan, he put the question, "Why, is there any difference between taking a house in which many people have lived before and taking one in which nobody has ever lived?" The answer being "No," he continued, "Or again, between sailing in a ship in which ten thousand persons have sailed before and in one in which nobody has ever sailed?" "There is no difference." "Then it makes no difference," said he, "whether the woman you live with has lived with many or with nobody."
(Diogenes Laërtius on Aristippus the Cyrenaic)

I approve this message but fail to see its connection to the brilliant survey at display here.

even ignoring all the psychological science of it, I think anyone would take a new hourse or boat over one that's been used as fuck

>"Why, is there any difference between taking a house in which many people have lived before and taking one in which nobody has ever lived?" The answer being "No,"
Huh? Did things not wear down over time back in Diogenes time?

Oh come on, I'm coming to you with an actual peace of very-likely-to-get-published research and you get baited by whether telegony works?

Fuck you Veeky Forums.

also, hourse

This analogy is wrong. The right analogy is "would you rather live in a house that hundreds of men have literally painted with sperm, they've cum the floors, furniture, walls, probably even the ceiling, it's everywhere, or would you rather live in house where other men haven't done that?

Any house where a man lived has been literally painted with sperm, and that man came on floors, furniture, walls, probably even the ceiling.

Don't pretend you don't masturbate. Don't pretend you never misjudge cum ballistics. Don't pretend you're the first resident in your room.

Floor is lava, bitch.

>Don't pretend you never misjudge cum ballistics.
>he doesn't catch his cum with his foreskin

that's disgusting, nobody does that.

>that's disgusting, nobody does that.
I do it every time, it prevents any cum on the walls at least

so in your world women never shower?

you know what, I don't even want to talk about it. Ew. Ew ew ew.

in your world women straddle the faucet when they shower?

>hourse.jpg
you went and found and saved that picture just now to respond to a typo in someone's post on a north-korean government propaganda forum?

women wash their vaginas yes
do you think everything that goes in stays in there forever? wtf?

In my time people used to draw a fucking oil painting, make a photo and post it in response to a typo somebody made.

Veeky Forums is long dead.

>Here's an opportunity to help some science chug along.
I have done the test for you.

>In return you get your own individual value profile and comparison anchors
That profile data was pretty much meaningless. It evidently did a lot of loose interpretation that does not fit with the wording of the questions I answered. For example, I answered that "it is important to him to develop his own opinions" is moderately important to me, which the survey clearly counted as a moderate contribution to the personality trait "importance of freedom of thought" or whatever it was called; and yet I find it much more important to have the FREEDOM to develop my own opinions, than I find it important that my opinion was not influenced by external factors in reality, which is a very different thing.

Now I don't really mind that the autogenerated profile data thing was just a very rough approximation. But I do hope that your real analyses will be a lot more careful than this pop sciency profile result at the end.

>For this question, please select the answer "Very much like me".
Oh you~ well played, user.

First, thank you a lot.
Second, of course -- the questionnaire there is a research tool, not a diagnostic questionnaire (that's why it doesn't take two hourses to complete, too). It is not meant to be used for precise descriptions of individuals, it's for finding regularities in large datasets. These individualized results are, just as you say, rough approximation, a gimmick for people who cared to invest the time.

Getting a survey response is nice, but getting an intelligent comment is nicer.

>These individualized results are, just as you say, rough approximation, a gimmick for people who cared to invest the time.
Fair enough. They still generally bug the hell out of me though, even knowing that the gimmick is almost certainly separate from the real analysis. My first instinct when I see results like these is always "well this was a waste of time, that faggot researcher is probably going to misinterpret the hell out of my answers". Probably a personal (and not entirely rational) quirk of mine.

By the way: given that this is a motivational study I understand you have undoubtedly written the questions to be exactly as ambiguous as you want them, but I had no idea how to interpret the "harmful -- beneficial" and "worthless -- useful" axes. As I understand it, "beneficial" and "useful" are relative to a particular goal or cause, and without a context specifying that part the words are quite meaningless. "good -- bad" comes with an implicit comparison criteria in my view, which is the global overriding sense of ethics or morality or motivation or what have you, but the other two do not.

You get all the props on the expect/want/intend distinction, though.

Too long, confusing questions.

Is Ege Yalcin going to molest all the female employees? Or was he fired for saying "dongle"?

were those "please select not like me" questions a method of judging personality or just to make sure someone isn't just giving random answers?

on one of them I willfully selected a different answer cuz im not pert uv ur sistum

Sorry guys, on a train home from work - will be back in the thread in about 40 mins.

Tests like this do not provide true emotional context, and are superficial at best. They may gauge how we'd like to think about ourselves, but they only give shadowy outlines that will often prove topologically inaccurate in real-life situations. In short, you're participating in a new astrology/tarot cards/psychology experiment that has absolutely nothing to do with science.

See "Theseus' Boat".

You'd like to think you're smart and know what you're talking about, but that's inaccurate, unfortunatelly.

It's an anagram for "le nice gay" in which case he will most certainly not be molesting anyone, least of all women. I think he may frequent [s4s].

...

...

>innovating in religion

Enjoy burning in Hell forever kuffir animals.

Everything is evolving, ma friend. Radical islam is also a recent variation on the old theme.

Bullshit. Early Islam was a bloodthirsty conqueror's religion.

Regardless of whether this is true, modern radical Islam is an inferiority-complex reactive troubled identity religion that has roots in 16th century texts but is actually less than a hundred years old.

high self-direction.
moderate stimulation.
low hedonism.
high achievement.
low power.
low-moderate face.
moderate security.
low-moderate tradition.
low-moderate conformity.
low-moderate benevolence.
high universalism

low ego high drive masterrace reporting in

are you Canadian?

Strayan

Pretty similar though. God save the queen

...

...

145 complete responses. Thank you, guys!

Also, gender composition so far:

well 22% lied about their gender, this wont pass peer review

It's not intended for peer-review, it's a pretest; but yes, these numbers worry me as well.

I also got an email from an attack helicopter.

>implying Veeky Forums didnt die the second it started

What do you mean in the question about religion? I value true values in religion, but that's what actually makes me an atheist because traditional religious legacy dilutes those values. Should I identify as religious or non-religious?

It's a very broad question, but I'd answer "somewhat religious" in your circumstances.

t. cuck

I will just marry a 13 yo

sometimes living in the third-world has it's pros

>37 women

this can't be right

Also meaning of universalism looks to be reversed. Equality is pluralism and scores low on universalism scale. Universalism would usually take one social group like nobility or faggots to prioritize at the cost of others. That's what uni- root means - one truth to protect at the cost of alternatives.
Nature protection is pluralism too following from proposition that there are two values - humans and nature, while old good universalistic humanism would suggest that humans are the only value and nature must serve them unconditionally.
Universalism has zero tolerance to alternatives. Marxism, fascism and christianity are canonical examples of universalism. Every time you hear someone was censored, fired or burned for thought crime, you can be sure it's old good universalism in action of protection of its single truth. Tolerance is pluralism and would get low score on universalism scale.

That's a nice thought, I guess. But for the purposes of this questionnaire readiness to tolerate other points of view and listen to others you don't agree to is coded as Universalism-Tolerance and correlates very strongly to Universalism-Nature and Universalism-Concern.

This survey made me cry. I'm not emotional, but that if profoundly sad.

bump

>image search for something
>copy link
>click post number
>click choose file
>paste link in file name
>click open
>click post
not difficult tbqh

maybe you are 3rd world because you keep doing shit like that

All the progress done in the 1st world happened in a time when marrying 13 year olds was normal, you people are just living off their work.

It's seriously amazing though - I've posted this questionnaire to several boards, and almost everywhere I'm having intelligent discussions, exchange book recommendations and send out paywalled research articles over e-mail except for here.

Here we're discussing if it's okay to have sex with a woman who had sex before.

I mean, whatever rocks your boat (and brings me responses), just saying.

I mean even in /b/ a guy took the time to proofread the questionnaire and write up some styling suggestions.

Did you make the questions or are you an anagram savant?

>proofreading a questionnaire and giving suggestions
>discussing the loli alternative path

You're brainlet if you can't tell which one is the most intelligent.

Progress was made by civilized Anglo-Judaic bourgeois folks like these. The same group who decided maybe it is time to do something about the child prostitution problem in immigrant slums even though they have no moral obligation to help the poor.

marriage isn't child prostitution sweetie

Child marriage in the 3rd world inevitable leads to child sex abuse, you'd have to be pretty naive not to see that coming. Efforts to stop child prostitution are what led to high age of consent laws and laws against child marriage. I thought the connection was obvious, guess not.

I don't support age of consent laws anyway because they are a waste of police time and money. It is sad when subhumans rape their own offspring, however Thomas Malthus said money is wasted on the poor and ought to be put to better use elsewhere. Until the time comes when they need to be genocided there is not much we can do.

Here are some education demographics

>sex abuse
If was like that for 10 million years to the point that women are not satisfied if they are not abused and look for alpha males because they will abuse them in worst possible ways. Good luck to give them new instincts.

If I were to marry a girl she would be from a nuclear family with on-par wealth as me.There's no power disparage here.

But power disparages are what makes it fun.

Everything is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.

>Implying I would get married if I wanted to have fun

I can have fun with sluts that take it up the ass, let your cum on their mouth etc.Marriage is about raising children.

You're in for one long boring life.

Pro tip: children get raised regardless of you having fun or not. You can't stop them.

>"the only way to have fun is through your penis"
>"raising children is just giving them food"

We will conquer your lands white man, and nihilism won't save you then because regardless of any mental gymnastics, pain is an objective truth.

but you have to admit there is a lot of fun that one can have with his penis.

I like buttsex and research, that makes my life meaningful and complete.

i bet you can have way more fun with a woman cooking a nice dish than gaping her asshole

unfortunately you whiteys fell for the jewish tricks again

Well, first order of business I do the Jewish tricks, I'm a Jew.

Second, the moment you have a 20 second orgasm from your wife's creme de mushroom soup you win this argument.

>I'm a Jew

typical

>Second, the moment you have a 20 second orgasm from your wife's creme de mushroom soup you win this argument.

You will never get real pleasure like this, your dopamine threshold must be shit, these degenerations like anal sex is just you trying to take milk out of rocks.Healthy people can have enjoyment out of subtle things like spending time with your girlfriend.

oh, the thread is still alive!

It's still here, but I wouldn't say it's particularly alive.

For my purposes "alive" means "brings responses to the questionnaire so that I can do what I need to do".

So yeah, it's alive now.

Tons of responses btw. I'll calculate the average 4channer's value profile and post it here soon.

We collected almost 400 responses yesterday, 302 of them were usable. So here are the averages from this Veeky Forums sample (consisting from /bant, /int, /sci, /adv, and yes, some /b/):

1.Self-Direction Thought - 14.25
2. Self-Direction Action - 14.02
3. Security-Societal - 13.04
4. Benevolence-Dependability - 12.96
5. Benevolence-Caring - 12.92
6. Security-Personal - 12.62
7. Achievement - 12.23
8. Universalism-Concern - 12.15
9. Hedonism - 12.11
10. Universalism-Tolerance - 11.39
11. Face - 11.23
12. Humility - 10.88
13. Stimulation - 10.72
14. Universalism-Nature - 10.68
15. Conformity-Interpersonal - 10.32
16. Conformity-Rules - 9.96
17. Power-Resources - 8.73
18. Power-Dominance - 8.36
19. Tradition - 8.06

>"muh serious discussion"

If you really wanted that you would've posted this on reddit or stackexchange

I don't want a serious discussion, I just found it curious that out of all boards, /sci was the most infantile.

But yeah, another version of this questionnaire collects responses from more sane sources, including reddit.

>/sci was the most infantile.


huhhhhhhhhh define infantile please

there you go:

ˈJnf(ə)ntʌJl/
adjective
of or occurring among babies or very young children.

Are you trying to determine how people chiose thair answers according to their wording? Because many quedtions seemed essentially the same but witj different words...

I'm sure the average age of men who would rather discuss about women than some survey is higher than the other way around

Checkmate

that post actually doesn't make any sense, disregard

the purpose is actually the opposite -- if you ask the same thing with different words, the average of answers would be relatively free from the influence of the wording (as compared to when you ask just one question).

And here's Veeky Forums straying from God:

I would suggest it's not voluntary tho, I want to believe in an ethical God, but the counter-evidence is just overwhelming.

Well, if God is setting the moral standards for humans, shouldn't he by definition be above the human ethics?

Even if there's some "superior" ethics out there that applies to human beings, it's impossible to prove logically that, for example, that child who got decapitated by CIA-funded terrorists deserved it in some way.I'm not really versed in philosophy, but I know no one ever came up with an ethical system which murder, theft and fraud are deemed "good". These seem to be axioms of civilization-building.

To the two questions that told me to pick specific answers, I intentionally picked the opposite. To the other questions, I attempted to answer honestly.

As long as other answers are honest, there's no problem. These questions are flags for compliance - about 80% answer as asked, the remaining 20% I manually check for other signs of garbage data.

Here, check this out, this figure is basically a summary of all correlations between different values (the closer they are to each other on the figure, the stronger is the correlation between them).

This two-dimensional shit above is sufficient to describe about 80% of the values data.

And here is what theory predicts (the direction in which the circle goes and its orientation is arbitrary, what matters is what is next to each other on the circle and what's on the opposing sides).

Pretty neat I say.

i just pinch the tip of my dick so no cum comes out, and then waddle over to the toilet and release it. Litterally no mess. ever.

Seriously, fuck you sci.