Greetings, /b/. I've come to test you -- but not with fake-ass

Also, the aggregated results will be posted in the /sci/ thread here 4chan.org/sci/thread/9156172

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-09 at 1.20.11 PM.png (47KB, 1516x246px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1516x246px

Also, gender composition so far

>>744649472

fuck off CIA.
Go look for Bane or something.

bumping for interest.
could this be stickied?

>>744650911
That'd be great, heh. The survey strives better on slower boards - it takes about 10 mins to complete, and then people post their results and come to chat. In /b/, the thread gets flushed by then.

>>744650581
Also, there's zero identifying information collected.
Of course, you have to believe me that I don't collect IP and browser data (but I don't).

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-09 at 1.42.05 PM.png (105KB, 1972x598px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1972x598px

And here is the religiosity. You guys strayed from God.

If you want to follow the survey though it's better to do so on /sci or in krautchan's /int.

File: hourse.jpg (129KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1280x720px

That's a hourse bump.

...This seems like an extremely shoddy test.

Your English is mediocre, Kraut.

File: IMG_0214.jpg (11KB, 270x186px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 270x186px

>>744649472

>>744652759
Most of the questions in the test were written by American academics tho.

But some are not - if you have specific corrections that'd be very helpful.

File: 1504673499833.gif (1022KB, 400x292px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 400x292px

Fuck you

Also off to do a little groceries (nothing works on Sundays in Germany). If somebody'd bump this a couple of times in the next hour, I'd be indebted.

bump, did your test

>>744652985

- Why the fuck are these written in second person when it's plainly obvious they are addressed to an individual first and foremost?

- Unusual word choices.

- Typographical errors.

- Needless quantification of what could only reasonably be expected to be binary answers.

- Outright telling respondent which choice to mark on two of them, presumably as a lame anti-rigging system. Did it ever occur to you some like me would chose to deliberately not comply?

>>744649472
Is he proposing to her on that picture?

Laddie.

File: scouts-same-core-values-around-world.jpg (105KB, 765x545px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 765x545px

Thank you a ton guys!

>>744653224
Thanks for the input.
1. Over the course of 15 years of use of this questionnaire, it became apparent that it's easier for participants to evaluate their similarity to an imaginary person than their relation to abstract concepts.
2. Sorry, have to reuse the questionnaire exactly as it was put together by the author.
3. If you could point out specific typographical errors that'd help a lot! I proofread it, but may have missed something.
4. Actually, all questions have good distributions of answers that would lose in meaning if collapsed into two options.
5. It did. That's fine.

A more lively discussion of this questionnaire and scores from different countries for comparison can be found here: http://krautchan.net/int/thread-41729248.html

>>744649472
>HTTPS for the survey
Props for taking privacy at least somewhat seriously.
Expect results from me in a few.

>>744659848
This survey engine is German quality. Unfortunately, it's visual design is also German.
Thanks mate!

>>744660000
As a hint for the final page: Also show the maximum possible values, not only the average you get compared against. It's fairly useless to know without being able to put the number into perspective.

One thing I wish you'd asked and would like to know is if there are any patterns for transsexuals, i.e. where gender diverges from sex.

>>744660597
Thanks. I can't really introduce major changes on the fly, but I will definitely keep that in mind for future renditions.

>>744660645
Well, I have "other" for gender and, predictably for an imageboard, have quite some answers in that category. The gender question could have been worded more smartly, in hindsight, as I'm also pretty interested in the differences. There are pretty strong (and predictable) gender differences in values, with females being higher on benevolence and security, and males being higher on achievement, power, and stimulation.

>>744655623
>3. If you could point out specific typographical errors that'd help a lot! I proofread it, but may have missed something.
On the story questions about the poo train, it asks
>How safe do you think is the Tejas Express?
when it is called the Tejal Express everywhere else

>>744655623
>>744661804
Also found a case of bias in the following page (about the call center supervisor)

In order to hire an immigrant (on a work visa) in the US, a company has to be approved for visa sponsorship. That fact isn't addressed in the question and could cause skewed results among americans.

Also, who the fuck whines about racism during a job interview. I wouldn't hire him on that fact alone.

>>744660000
quads checked faget

>>744661804
Thanks bro! Fixed.

>>744662249
>>744661804
>>744655623
>People high on humility vale recognizing their insignificance in the large scheme of things, stress modesty and acceptance of one's portion.
Change vale to value, and portion to something that makes sense in english (e.g. lot in life)

Aw yeah, lower than all averages except for self direction and hedonism.

>I suck.

>>744655623
Last one is more curiosity that critique. Why use a 6 choice Likert Scale? It seems like a neutral choice would be good for this kind of survey.

>>744662473
Really grateful for the comments. 260 people passed the survey, you're the first to point out these typos.

Quit about half way through - you're in a shithole and want to travel to another shithole - do you take slow ass train full of sweaty indians or faster uncomfortable train full of sweaty indians - no option to not take a train full of sweaty indians, and BTW, 240000000000 sweaty indians a year die on trains - fuck that, I'm flying

>>744662675
>That's a huge issue. The value part of the questionnaire is actually a hugely popular scale in psychology, I'm using it as is.

It's not an easy scale to fill - 57 questions about important stuff - and people are too tempted to just choose the midpoint instead of thinking if they have the chance. By using a forced-choice scale you make people make a decision that they're more comfortable with - at the cost of introducing some artificial distinctions. It annoys people, but eventually produces more meaningful data.

>>744662685
I laughed out loud.

>>744662837
ah, that makes sense

>>744662837
but what if it's actually in the middle? It's not unimportant for me, but it's not especially important?

>>744649472
Finished mine.

Results seemed to reflect my personality well, the questions were interesting as well.

>>744665398
Huge thanks, bud!
It's not a personality test, it's a personal values questionnaire - while there is some correspondence between personality traits and values, it's far from perfect. They also predict different things - for example, values are good at predicting political orientations, while personality traits aren't. But happy you enjoyed it!

Googling your email shows results to archives threads from /pol/.

How long do you think it'll take to get all 1000 when you're hopping boards like this?

>>744665740
archived*

>fuck

>>744665740
A couple of days. I've started yesterday and it's at 304 atm.

But yeah, I am hopping boards. An alive thread in /b/ though gives a lot of respondents (to each and every of whom I'm very grateful btw).

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-09 at 6.24.22 PM.png (146KB, 1968x1076px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1968x1076px

That's some fat participation going on here.