What Is Your Style of Rationality?

File: Capture.png (470KB, 767x653px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 767x653px

Why do they all look so androgynous?

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-01 at 2.06.50 AM.png (69KB, 838x691px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 838x691px

OP here to show my scores across the board.

>>8795814
explain to me why it is worth my time to even take this test

>>8795816
Explorer is definitely a dude. Same with Skeptic, Attorney and Executive. Free Spirit is the only weirdo.

>>8795819
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.

>>8795819
But if you want us to assume you're a Free Spirit...that's your call.

>>8795814
Got skeptic

File: Capture.jpg (105KB, 766x581px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 766x581px

>>8795854
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"?

>>8795882
Pretty sure there was a "No" option

>>8795872
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

>>8795888
>Pretty sure there was a "No" option
If the question is incoherent then the answer is neither yes nor no.

>>8795896
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?

>>8795918
Free spirit, explorer or speculator since you took all the test and the result is not even relevant

>>8795918
>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.

>>8795925
Fugg, I need to quit browsing the internet when I'm half asleep.

File: Capture.jpg (51KB, 794x607px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 794x607px

H-how did I do, /sci/ ?
The profile is detective

File: Capture.png (19KB, 813x492px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 813x492px

So how should I kill myself?

This is me >>8795933 and I got 39 on the total rationality score. Kind of confused. >>8795938

File: Screenshot_2017-04-01-12-29-45.png (99KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 720x1280px

>>8795934
You did better then me, fellow detective.

>>8795948
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

>>8795954
I don't know what went wrong there.

File: Skeptic.png (57KB, 925x663px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 925x663px

Master Race

>>8795814
Got Executive.

>>8795956
You now realized IQ tests(read: not IQ, the tests) are bullshit?

>>8795814
>intp-a
>got Journalist
the quiz acts like your typical buzzfeed shitty quizes really, not much freedom on choice is offered (from my view)

>>8795964
>talks shit about IQ tests
>takes this crap test seriously

Oh boy

>>8795968
Who said I took it seriously?

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

>>8795972
I don't think I did

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

File: fdfdfd.png (10KB, 954x95px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 954x95px

>>8795956

>>8795972
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.

>>8795978
I just find it odd that at 150+ IQ you could get such low scores and not ace the problems easily

But there again, >>8795977 is the answer

>>8795968
This is a very good point.

>>8795968
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

>>8795816
The website was made by feminists. Genders make them feel bad.

>>8795981
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

>>8795816
Because the target audience for self tests like that can identify with a bunch of fags

Rly makes u think huh

>>8795986
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.

File: retardedmathematician.png (17KB, 595x388px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 595x388px

>>8795986
>>8795990
Honestly, wtf was wrong with my reasoning?

>>8795986
>>8795990
>>8795993
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.

>>8795994
Well it was averaging around 50 million, but only one term went above 55 million and it was 60 million.

>>8795993
>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?

>>8795981
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.

>>8795882
The funny thing is that they treated "no way" as the irrational answer when it is the only justifiable one.

File: 2017-04-01 14_06_43-Rationality Test _ Discover Your Reasoning Style _ ClearerThinking.org.png (22KB, 784x539px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 784x539px

>>8795814
>mfw rationalist
>You scored better than 80% of past users!
This is some homo-ass test, my man.

>>8796012
Was 'No Way' the wrong answer?

>>8796012
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

>>8796034
You are skeptic, right?
Well, you are bro for detectives since it's our job to doubt everything

>>8796020
>math is flawed
Oh boy

File: Screenshot_2017-04-01-14-32-04.png (717KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 1080x1920px

fuck me...

File: Literally me the personality type.png (115KB, 466x428px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 466x428px

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.

File: 1485346222392.jpg (29KB, 279x365px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 279x365px

>>8795814
>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

>>8795816
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

File: 1482813983257.png (253KB, 1000x700px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x700px

>>8796266
>a grown man got this offended by some half-assed sketches

File: 1362711051564.jpg (40KB, 236x421px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 236x421px

>>8796320
Understand him, his jimmies must be quite rustled since /pol/ got merged with /mlp/

>>8795814
>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"

File: dc98c30c99715de33e49e71.png (24KB, 310x326px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 310x326px

>>8796371
Anon status: maximum jelly

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

not sure i liked this test, though.

>>8795814
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.

File: Screenshot_20170401-111246.png (154KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1080x1920px

Skeptic. Pretty average though.

>>8795814

Faggot

this test is shit, waht the fuck?

File: conjinative.png (11KB, 819x389px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 819x389px

Free spirit

>>8796618
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

File: 7c66a004cb8632457f19ba5a7e2280359d6345a5e2e2d266db5cee09a57b1ae6.jpg (56KB, 800x642px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x642px

>skeptic
>mfw I'm in engineering

>>8795814

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.

>>8796497
same

>>8795986
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.

>>8796712
"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."

File: ok.png (638KB, 771x908px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 771x908px

So far I'm either autistic or Hindu

File: ok.png (621KB, 771x908px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 771x908px

>>8796718
Or your boss

Apparently I'm a Skeptic. Started doing the Rhetorical fallacies exercise: http://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.

>>8795814
>please give us your e-mail address

DIE DIE DIE

>>8796797
What, you don't have a spam email?

>>8796801
that's right, I don't. Also, the maneuver of putting this request at the end of the whole questionnaire infuriates me.

>>8796823
Yeah, it's pretty gay. But honestly, how can you not have a spam email in this day and age?

>>8796797
You can put in a fake email and still get results at the end.
[email protected] here

>>8795882
Nope, I put no way and they gave me 100% on that section. Sound like a butt hurt free spirit.

>>8795918
you can enter any old bullshit for the email; it doesn't even have to be real.

>>8796830
>>8796833
also this

>>8795960
lmfao you are qualitative faghet tho

>>8796823
It says you can leave it blank

>>8795996
that's okay, if the whole world were rationalists, there'd be no one to pejoratively label as a brainless.

>>8796051
It's okay desu

>>8796112
strong, STRONG, free spirit vibes from this one. I bet you're also an ISFP.

>>8796265
One can never be rational enough, unless one is a rationalist :3

>>8796371
Anon is so jellin

>>8796435
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.

>>8796656
time to transfer into philosophy, desu.

>>8796840
>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.

>>8796874
No April fools joke. The test is designed by the statistician master race.

File: 1484708569552.jpg (84KB, 576x576px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 576x576px

hmmmmm

>>8796860
The last point refers to the questions of the form "how much do you plan ahead?", "how often do your plans succeed?", etc.

>>8796934
ahh. yeah those are dumb.

File: IMG_4667.png (187KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1242x2208px

skeptic coming through

I'm a skeptic.

>>8796797
For the technically incompetent: https://temp-mail.org/en/

>>8795814
How the fuck am I meant to know what your stupid temperature scale means?

>>8796991
I don't believe you

meditator :3

>>8796994
You don't have to give an email. Just click submit with a blank email field.

>>8797002
kek

>>8795934
A defective detective...interesting

File: 1491085162737.jpg (116KB, 720x1201px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 720x1201px

Journalist. I tend to trust my guts when the task is not very serious, like scheduling school project. That's why i chose 2 weeks instead of two 3.

Got rationalist.

Not a big surprise.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-02-00-39-45.png (290KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1440x2560px

Rationalist. Well, I think that I'm quite pragmatic

>>8797177
shit tier quant score though. #biologyBrainlet

what the fuck was up with those delay reward questions?
>food now, or double food later
>50 today, or 100 one year from now

The correct answer is now right? why wait, who knows what will happen in 1 year. The chef could die, or the value of $ drop

>>8797728
it all depends on your previous answers, desu.

>>8796012
but that's wrong anon.

i theorize that, 1 minute ago, you did whatever you did 1 minute ago.

Someone post the answer to the question about Bill the Firefighter.

>>8795823
It is not "rational" to employ falsifiability because the very concept trips on itself. Still, we use it (along with a bigger abstraction called "scientific method"), because it's somewhat useful. Ergo, everyone is an unrational pragmatic.

>>8797918
Many possible answers: smoke inhalation, equipment malfunction, burns, section of the building collapsed.

>>8796112
Who is this girl on your picture?

>>8797948
As the results said, the question is intentionally worded to lead your intuition into thinking the cause of death was smoke inhalation. I did think about the burns though, but I answered smoke inhalation thinking you were supposed to figure it out from the problem and there was only one correct answer.

This is pretty contradictory as a way to test if you have "Explanation Freeze", if ever it tests if you are careful to what you are reading(since a friend of mine actually thought it was section of building collapsed and didn't even notice about all the implications of smoke inhalation until the test didn't point it out) and generally wrong since I always make at least 2 different theories to explain something, starting with the most likely to waste less time, since it's the likeliest to turn true
That aside, does it even read what you type? Apparently it only depends on how many different scenarios you thought before writing an answer

File: Screenshot_2017-04-02-10-02-57.png (345KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1920x1200px

>>8797918
>>8797973
pic related
>smokiest fire
>didn't have his respirator with him
>The smoke from the fire made it especially difficult for Bill to see where he was going
>Bill was killed by a specific cause

>>8797984
>>8797948
>>8797973
thats what it sounded like but it was set up so much like a trick question that I didn't know.

>>8797984
In an isolated system, entropy can only increase.

File: baconationgarbage.png (35KB, 785x597px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 785x597px

What a load of garbage. Whoever wrote these questions in incapable of correctly evaluating the evidence they provide themselves. In the BacoNation question, it was clearly stated that the holidays were about to begin, meaning that people have more time to spend outside. Obviously that alone will be enough to increase the overall sales. If we then consider the overall fluctuation of the sales during the years before (reaching up to 59M), it is not very likely at all that the advertising campaign had any major impact on the sales. That is the sole correct answer.

It's somewhat likely that their evaluation and reasoning is not quite on point on various other questions either. In other words, it's absolute garbage.

>>8797984
>building crashes, completely destroying Bill's body
>Bill burns to death
>implying an autopsy is necessary
The question is trash.

>>8797956
sigourney weaver

>>8797256
lel, nah man, I'm more into physics, I'll admit that math it's not my best field, but I'm working on it.

>>8796012
the current theory is that earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. exactly what kind of evidence could you fathomably find at this point of scientific advancement to disprove that earth orbits the sun?
there is overwhelming evidence to support the claim that earth isn't flat, yet you're still going to say 'no way!' when people ask if evidence in support of a theory can be so strong that it proves it true with absolute certainity?

File: cardsharp.png (38KB, 793x662px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 793x662px

I guess I can agree I did not bother to at least consciously consider too many other causes of death than asphyxiation or poisoning but

I still think the questions were sort of silly like assuming you prefer sun over a mediocre movie

>>8798199
>exactly what kind of evidence could you fathomably find at this point of scientific advancement to disprove that earth orbits the sun?
that your memories are false or that you have misunderstood what most people believe?

File: panic.png (36KB, 982x374px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 982x374px

but
what if my anxiety is because I think of too many possible horrible explanations?

>>8796712
>How could they possibly know an individual's preferences and thereby how much their time *should* be worth?
I think they compare it to your other answers and see how it scales etc

>>8798199
Spherical earth is not a scientific theory, it is a fact. Theories have predictive power and there always has to be observations that could potentialy falsificate said theory. Theory of gravity had overwhelming evidenec supporting it. But it failed at correct prediction of Mercury's orbit around the sun, and was eventually replaced by relativity which predictive power was greater than that of gravity.

Scientific fact in a observation which can be repeated and ruled out as true with great deal of certainity. But scientific theories should always have potential to be falsified. For instance, theory of evolution would be disproved if one spieces changing to other spieces within one generation would be observed and supported by great deal of evidence. Since theory of evolution predicts change in organisms over multiple succesive generations.

>>8798199
>>8798199
Just because you are not able to fathom possible evidence that would dissprove earth orbiting the sun, doesn't mean there cannot potentialy be one.

>>8798198
just trolling senpai. chase your dreams.

>>8798264
senpai, this is the truth.

>>8798084
More info than the problem gave you

>>8798084
poor brainlet. Don't worry, bro, you'll make a fine philosophy major.

>>8795817
This man is Jesus.

File: chrome_2017-04-03_10-50-54.png (26KB, 771x530px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 771x530px

>>8795814
Executive famalam

>>8799215
Interesting, thinking of making a study of this brilliant test.

I got executive
The tldr was: youre kind of retarded but good at planning

File: notfreespirited.png (395KB, 1037x685px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1037x685px

>>8795814
I'm satisfied. Although it's probably only because I got the preliminary math questions right. Really I'm not a fan of worshiping rationality as some kind of religion.

File: screenshot-programs.clearerthinking.org 2017-04-03 02-08-00.png (23KB, 753x599px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 753x599px

Executive

I got skeptic. Because I mean, who really trusts other people out there?

File: 1489905628384.jpg (177KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x820px

If you aren't a detective you're a brainlet

Funny that almost everyone in this thread is getting either skeptic or executive. Really makes you wonder.

>>8799593
To be fair, people who use 4chan are probably NOT the least biased focus group.

File: 2017-04-02 19_26_41-Rationality Test _ Discover Your Reasoning Style _ ClearerThinking.org.png (3KB, 604x42px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 604x42px

>>8795814
did a 9 year old make this test?

>>8795820
I want to cum inside free spirit

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-01 at 23.00.05.png (150KB, 983x244px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 983x244px

>>8796333
we enjoyed it

>>8796266
>ashamed of america's achievedments
>the left

Usually they are, but it's Trump who wants to dismantle our empire. It's more about maintaining American power despite anti-"globalist" sentiments rising as conspiracy theorists gain credibility with the left and the right.

>>8797948
Bill was poisoned by his coworker, John, who was upset with him, because Bill slept with John's wife.

>>8799811
o

>>8799571
lmfao, bitch ass. I got 100% and scored rationalist. Rationalist = GOAT

>>8798246
You and me both. Still, it's kind off similar, you still fixate on a few bad outcomes in spite of the multiple not bad ones along the way. The answer is to think less. Talking to others tends to help achieve this, as they usually consider your deep calculations absurd (they often are)

>>8800085
Nothing wrong with considering multiple possibilities as long as you can rank them by probability.

>>8800145
Of course, but before you can rank them on their relative occurance of probability, you must consider all 'reasonable options'. If I only look at all possible futures where the earth becomes uninhabitable in 50 years, I would conclude we're doomed, indepent of the rank I would assign them.

What I meant to say is that considering multiple possibilties doesn't help when they're all biased towards the same conclusion.

Of course, we need to make a selection of scenarios, which will be biased by human nature, but it is important to see multiple conclusions, not only multiple paths to the same conclusion.

>>8795816
>>8795814
Is there a Retard one?

>>8796051
Well you are a beautiful fairy, congratulations.

>>8800210
Free Spirit

>>8800211
I'm a fucking douche who likes conditional probability.

>>8796536
Weak Troll

>>8799986
Seems to only mean that if the numbers are close enough you are balanced, therefore either a skeptic or a rationalist

Maybe you have to also get more than a certain amount to get rationalist insted of skeptic

>>8800210
No jokes, it's Free Spirit

The test gives you that automatically if your results are too low

>>8795814
This was literally made by reddit
I am an inventor/scientist and I already got ruled out halfway in
What the shit senpai

>>8800332
Nice, free spirit because I always chose to take the money before the long wait time. Seriously, it's 45 vs 90 dollars, how much of a retard would you have to be thinking waiting double the time for that little sum would be worth it.
I always chose 0 dollars to write in because I couldn't care less to wait in the shitty train and I'd rather do my own one hour work instead of get some machine to do it for me in 30 seconds
R E D D I T MADE

>>8798780
The beginning of holidays was a given information; ignoring information is a mistake. Unless you meant the assumption that the beginning of holidays indirectly fuels the increase of sales, in which case you're a brainlet. Just look at any fast food company's sales during holiday season and compare it to their average sales off-season.

>>8798809
It's okay, bro, just give me some fries with that burger. Thanks.

Executive.

However, I accidentally clicked randomly for two answers trying to adjust how I was holding my phone.

Can't be fucked wasting my time redoing the test because I still scored above average for everything as expected.

>>8800594
>thinks he's smart
>literally unable to complete a simple test properly

Never change /sci/

I don't get some of these questions.

>Your ability to think clearly and make accurate predictions about the future. For instance, the question you answered earlier about the high school term paper checked your Future-Based Reasoning. It tested your ability to realistically budget time for upcoming projects based on past experience with similar projects. Since the average past paper in the question took 3 weeks and it's exceedingly rare that such long-term projects take significantly less time than similar past ventures, the question awarded full points only if you chose to budget 3 weeks or more.

I answered 4 weeks, and it didn't like that. But why not? If you finish ahead of time that just means you finished ahead of schedule. I always assume worst case scenario in these situations because you won't be disappointed.

>>8800594
>Can't be fucked wasting my time redoing the test because I still scored above average for everything as expected.
Iamverysmart.png

>>8800648
Was watching a movie and doing it on a phone with a broken screen. Had to keep rotating it to read/answer.

>>8800671
Probably smarter than you :^)

>>8800678
What degree do you have buddy?

File: 106f9bc0f474e0d201dc7fc4bc344a9e.jpg (293KB, 1250x1429px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1250x1429px

>>8800668
>I answered 4 weeks, and it didn't like that.
it did

>>8800335
>Seriously, it's 45 vs 90 dollars, how much of a retard would you have to be thinking waiting double the time for that little sum would be worth it.
it adds up

>>8800335
>I always chose 0 dollars to write in because I couldn't care less to wait in the shitty train
you could at least have put minimum hourly wage so that your time is at least worth something

the machine asks for the same thing. How much is one hour of your time work.

If it is work you want to do, then clearly it is at least somewhat pleasurable?

>>8797918
>>8797948
>>8797973
>>8797984
>answer carbon monoxide poisoning
>how many other causes did I consider
>0
Not sure how to feel about this.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-03-11-03-55.png (809KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 1440x2560px

If you didn't choose 9 hours on the bacterial one, leave the hall.

Once in a lifetime reminder that if you got anything besides Executive and Skeptic you're a brainlet :^)

>>8800822
what is the difference between cardsharp and skeptic anyways

File: Screenshot_2017-04-03-11-13-10.png (210KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1440x2560px

>>8800822

File: Sketch.png (184KB, 1512x926px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1512x926px

>how can brainlets even compete

>>8800836
The former steals from everyone but the latter.

>>8797984
>implying bill didn't die from his heart stopping

brainlets PLEASE

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-02 at 12.31.05 AM.png (36KB, 290x391px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 290x391px

>>8800825
TFW you score perfectly and get rationalist

File: Screenshot_2017-04-03-13-12-24.png (139KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1080x1920px

Heh, fun test

>>8801138
I got intp

>>8801407
Interesting, I feel since these things are done on continuous scale, I kind of go by XNTX because by P and E scores are less than 15 percent from being J and I. All I know is I'm one of the guys on the first four rows.

File: reasoning.jpg (81KB, 981x675px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 981x675px

>mediator
>tfw brainlet
I thought i was doing well with those questions at the start. Like how it takes 150 machines only 2 minutes, or how it takes the bacteria 9 hours to fill half the petri dish.
But then at the end, there were some dumb questions like "do you want one meal now, or two meals but in one year". How stupid is that? of course i would want the meal now. In the first place, i'm not as much of a poorfag that i consider a meal something so expensive i have to wait a year to get one extra for free

>>8795993
Jesus how do you get that low and be a math major

>>8795993
>wtf was wrong with my reasoning
by the looks of your score, everything.

>>8801534
some math is cool as fuck (Probability, Calculus, Optimization, Combinatorics, OR). 0ther math is ghay as fuck (Abstract Algebra, Number Theory, Set Theory, Logic). I'm guessing OP is in the latter field.

File: results.png (9KB, 753x338px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 753x338px

I got Free Spirit. I'm also an INTJ. And I'm dead center on the political compass. My major is computer science.

>Ubermensch
Free Spirit

>Rationalbros
Field Commander
Strategist
Detective
Rationalist

>Wagecucks
Inventor
Attorney
Executive
Coordinator

>Leftshits
Explorer
Introspector
Meditator

>tfw to smart for rationalist
Skeptic
Cardsharp

>Oh shit nigga what are you doing
Journalist

>>8801550
>set theory
>logic
>retarded

boy, we got a problem

>wanting $45 now instead of $90 next year makes me "irrational"

Nah senpai. Believing that you're rational because some online test designed to stroke a person's ego told you makes you irrational.

psychologist coming through

the psychometric validity of this test is non-existent

im a skeptic :^)

>>8801585
It definitely requires a strong ability for abstraction/intelligence, but it sure is uninteresting.

>>8801663
Why is it non-existent?

>>8801674
I'm going to take a guess as to how they made this test;

Considering they show us 4 categories of scores and 16 different "profiles", each category is divided by high or low along the mean (or some other, even more idiot method of dividing people). Low low low low is probably free spirit, high high high high is probably rationalist. Then they made up 14 other categories to slot people in based on their high/low score combination.

And that's not even getting into if the subscales are reliable. Based on the questions present, I guarantee the most they did was calculate an alpha coefficient above .7

>>8801708
"Considering they show us 4 categories of scores and 16 different "profiles", each category is divided by high or low along the mean (or some other, even more idiot method of dividing people). Low low low low is probably free spirit, high high high high is probably rationalist. Then they made up 14 other categories to slot people in based on their high/low score combination."

What's wrong with that?

>>8801724

They just made it up. It means nothing. You could replace their intellectual personality types with lovecraft mythos beings and it'd be about as useful

>>8801602
You actually should take the 45 now unless you're getting a one year return greater than (1+r)^t>2.00, where t is how many times you compound (protip: you won't find that anywhere).

Tfw sci doesn't understand the time value of money.

>>8801727
Not sure I follow. Would you have a different opinion of the test if instead of rationalist it just called that person x_1 > .9 x_2 > .9 x_3 > .9 x_4 > .9? The names bother you?

>>8801739

x_1 > .9 x_2 > .9 x_3 > .9 x_4 > .9; what does that mean, though? The conclusion I would make if someone scored around that level their first time taking the test, is that they have been introduced the concepts/questions previously. That is the most probable explanation given the data in lack of theoretical guidance.

>>8801745
Isn't rationality at least partially derived from experience though? If I have previous mathematics training that enables me to model situations correctly (e.g. the bacteria problem) does that make me less rational? They state in the test that what they're trying to test is very different from something like IQ. So why is a standard for a good IQ test being applied to a good rationality test?

>>8801757

Because the test is not actually able to tell you how rational you are.

File: 800px-Shoggoth_by_Nottsuo[1].jpg (179KB, 800x773px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 800x773px

>>8801727
>mfw I'm a Shaggoth thinker

Y'AI'NG'NGAH YOG-SOTHOTH H'EE-L'GEB F'AI THRODOG UAAAH

>>8801762
Why not?

>>8801775

How do I put this

I would expect more rational people to score higher on average for this test for similar reasons I'd expect them to score higher on a test of fine dining norms, or hours browsing the internet. Which is to say, the variance captured by this test (if any at all) is not due a direct examination of their rationality.

If we accept the notion of rationality as a real psychological construct, and we want to develop a test for it, we would require a theoretical explanation for that link that is more specific than a correlation between actual level of rationality and exam result. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the variance captured here is rather low, even if we had a good method of testing it and found significance.

If you randomly sampled the population and had them take this exam, such that I then had a standard distribution of scores, and then gave me any specific person's score and no other information, the ability this would give me to predict whether the person was rational or not (let alone their degree of rationality) would be marginal over just predicting using a normal curve of rationality in the population. If we define the cutoff fro rational/not rational at the top 10% of the normal curve, I would predict every single person to be non-rational and end up more right on average than if someone who used this test to predict rational/not rational.

>>8801797
>I would expect more rational people to score higher on average for this test for similar reasons I'd expect them to score higher on a test of fine dining norms, or hours browsing the internet.

Not sure I follow this example. Why would a more rational person be more polite or spend more time on the internet? I'm not even going to attempt the rest of the post till I get past this.

>>8801807

Socioeconomic status

>>8801809
So are you trying to say this test is testing your background more than anything?

>>8801812

Probably even less than that, but background (or a another variable like it) is one of the strongest predictions you could make and still be in the realm of realism

>>8801812

Just to clarify though it's not that test is actually testing background or whatever have you, but rather to the extent this test correlates with actual rationality is to the extent that background et al. would cause a result like that. Lots of alternative explanations for test results, you see.

File: after a long day at work you can undo your human costume and nobody's the wiser.jpg (29KB, 329x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 329x500px

>tfw cardsharp

this good or bad?

Holy Jesus these questions are infuriatingly condescending and wordy
then the piece of garbage asks for an email address
Kill yourself OP I wasted a good 5 minutes on this

>>8801919
use a fucking fake email dumb dumb

>>8801875
It's whatever you decide it is

Detective.

>You are Reflective: You dislike jumping to conclusions quickly. You’re adept at reflecting on your own thoughts. When it looks like your intuitions might be leading you astray, you don’t have a problem overriding them — instead, you take the time to re-evaluate the situation and figure out the wisest course of action.

>You are Quantitative: You’re good at working with numbers. Not in a schoolbook way, necessarily — you’re adept at putting this skill to use while solving problems in all manner of real-world situations.

>You are Carefree: You tend to live in the moment. You don’t waste a lot of emotional energy fretting about the future. Instead, you focus on getting the most out of life right now.

>You are Skeptical: You treat new information and ideas with caution and skepticism. Spurious arguments rarely fool or confuse you, and your beliefs are based on foundations of hard logic. You possess a fine-tuned BS detector.

Somewhat accurate, but the test can't really be expected to approximate actuality. The way my mind and awareness works is a bit of disjointed, variable, wide spectrum mess. I found the answers hard to figure, and as usual, chose the least incorrect.

Supposedly I'm 63.89% "rational", by some metric.

>>8801992
that's not on rationalists level, but good job. If it were that 16personalities quiz, you're on the NT plane, which is good.

>>8802047
The lower score is very likely because they were trying to get at the susceptibility to the sunk costs "fallacy", in a number of questions, as well as how you perceive the relationship between probability of events over time. I don't actually think these are rightly considered fallacies, and more see them as heuristics that can often be right, but must be measured. They probably said I was less "rational" as a result. Really I'm both saner, and more rational.

>>8802055
shhh...shhh...it's going to be okay

>>8802073
NO IT'S NOT. IT GAVE ME A LOW SCORE. IT'S ALL OVER.

>>8802077
If you take the 16 personalities quiz and get INTP, you should be alright.

OP is amazed at how big this thread got. Jesus.

>>8795819
Yeah to me it just looks like another MBTI test. Clinical psychologists dont really care about that anymore and focus on Big 5 personality traits now.

>>8802156
16personalities.com actually models their approach on big 5 (Hence why they added the A\T dimension, to mimic neuroticism)

File: 2017-04-03 23_15_35-Rationality Test _ Discover Your Reasoning Style _ ClearerThinking.org - Micros.png (88KB, 372x413px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 372x413px

>Asshole who just doesn't believe anything told to him
Great.

>>8802231
Don't worry, desu.

>>8802231
more like septic lmao

get rekt cunt

>>8795814
Official Rankings

>Superior

Rationalist

>Above Average

Field Commander, Executive, Detective, Strategist

>Average

Attorney, Cardsharp, Coordinator, Skeptic, Introspector, Inventor

>Below Average

Journalist, Explorer, Speculator, Mediator

>An Hero

Free Spirit

>>8801875
See >>8802283

>>8797893
What if he doesn't exist?

>>8802400
ayy de la lmao. Fucking tell that Free Spirit what's up.

>>8795938
anon was found dead with deep cuts in both wrists? How many reasons did you consider before arriving at your conclusion of his death.

>>8801809
So socioeconomic status and education =/= rationalism?

>>8800668
I answered 1 week, why would I devote so much time to a book report?

>>8800668
It gives you full marks if you answered 3 or more weeks

>>8795814
Coping method is what this and that is.

Whe should be in nature already and not think not a a some shit we have already done.
In terms of generalizing it's from emotion and one mood.

For example the Sum of Expected X-Rays is not very rationalisable thought in a set of humor only in a biological set only or in a logical set only.

>thinking at being rational when you live your life
>if it's not in a way of story of logic
>copy paste

What's with the "wait to get more payoff" questions? Would anyone really choose not to wait?

>>8802730
>what is discounting?

File: Unbenannt.png (240KB, 810x808px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 810x808px

Yeah I'm an engineer by profession...

>>8802726
???

>>8802822
Ouch, that puts you in the average rankings.

>>8802730
It all depends on how you answered the questions about "how much would you pay to take a task you're indifferent to and compress it into 30 seconds".

>>8799811
gay man or straight transsexual?

>>8796051
respect for having the courage to post this.

>>8801583
I got journalist. Why am I "oh shit nigga" tier? Is my question here why^

>>8803922
That shit is unscientific as hell, look at the results here >>8802283 for the academic consensus

>>8803954
Kek ok what should I do? And I'm intj does that matter or is that unscientific as well?

>>8803960
Hmm, according to the official rankings, INTJ does put you in unbermensch tier for 16personalities. I guess you rank somewhere between a 2.4 and 4.33 on the GPA scale. I'll give you a 3.4, which gives you the same credentials as the Above Average tier, with slightly less professional respect. Things could be worse.

>>8803973
Fucking topkek my gpa was 3.4 in ha. you're p smart. Thanks for this post. Where can I find the rankings for the 16 personalities? Or should I google it?

>>8803984
It was in the 16personalities thread that died out awhile ago. Not sure where you could find it today.

They said that it "isn't rational" to only allocate one week for that one project.

Why the fuck not? If you're confident you can complete it in one week, then you can probably do it in one week unless you're an arrogant brainlet.

Also, what kind of autistic shit is the "how much extra money would you spend?"
If the local train cost one cent, i wouldn't spend 10 dollars more to get the fast train. If the local train costs 50 dollars, i might as well pay the extra 10, if I'm already taking on a huge expense
>Scientific test
Psychology brainlets need to find better things to do

>>8804033
check the archive desu

>>8798199
The 'no way' part comes from knowing that even the most assured facts require qualification.

Your example here ignores the fact that the sun *does* orbit the earth, if perhaps on a timescale of trillions of years.

>>8804067
Ugh
>>8804033
Ok. Thank you anon

>>8803973
>nerds and bookworms are u(((n)))bermensch

You mean mentally ill.

>>8804115
I don't make the rankings, I just enforce them.

File: IMG_0860.jpg (68KB, 749x971px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 749x971px

enjoy this useless post.

>>8804167
Decent, who is your avatar?

>>8795814
Part of the realised this is a pointless waste of my time master race

>>8804192
> I think my time is valuable
>browses sci

I got mediator. That doesn't seem right. Oh well lol.

>>8804212
It's okay, lots of painless ways to kill yourself.

>>8804221
The test has a lot of flaws. The fireman question is bad. The "how much are you willing to pay for the machine" question is shitty too because the only rational question is as much as you can afford. The reasoning behind what the "correct" answer for the marketing question is bad too.

>>8804229
reasoning was actually flawless. It's okay that you're a free spirit, apparently some people in this thread want to cum in your avatar.

I got mediator too but I closed my tab in the middle of the test maybe that's why.

I'm a team leader? Supposed to be in charge?

I'm in a pretty fucked up position at this point as I just graduated last year and am at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of experience, and yet am alpha as fuck and far better at leadership than most mid-level managers by nature. So no one will actually let me be in charge, because there are talentless beta old people who have been doing the same thing for decades who will get butthurt if I'm in charge of them, but at the same time it's impossible for me to truly be beta, no matter how deferential and respectful I act it is just impossible to change the fact that I'm the most dominant personality in the room.

I was fired from my first job for the reason, the dude who was supposed to be my mentor was this pathetic old beta dude who had been in the same job for the last 26 years, made no effort to actually help me out or train me, got butthurt when he realized I was smarter than him and started giving me the most inane useless tasks to waste my time with a stream of whiny needling criticism then talked shit behind my back to my boss about how I wasn't being productive (because the only work he would give me was useless). The boss wasn't actually an alpha, she was a woman with poor leadership skills so she just did whatever he said, she knew it wasn't right and couldn't even look me in the eyes when she had HR fire me but she's a woman and clearly didn't want to stand up for anything.

I tried to get a job at Pizza Hut and it was a similar situation, the manager was obviously intimidated by me and I tried to shut up and fit in because I just wanted to deliver pizzas but she wasn't comfortable having me around and never called me back.

I'd be fine if I could get into a situation where there's actually, like, a strong alpha male leader I can look up to but that's so hard to find in entry level jobs working under middle management.

>>8804240
The advertising campaign correlated to a jump in $16 million sales in one month. it is very likely it is the cause of the jump, the test makers argue it is not because because it is simply a return to peak sales. Doesn't that seem off?

>>8804254
Screen cap the question please.

>>8804229
>The "how much are you willing to pay for the machine" question is shitty too because the only rational question is as much as you can afford.
You're paying for one usage, moron.

>>8804269
Can't I'm on mobile
>>8804286
Was it only one use? Guess I misread it xD

The test is very meh, but I like the site because I got introduced to a fun way to evaluate evidence in everyday discussions. Applications of Bayes theorem were also fun.
Also I am in for their "argument-checking" along fact-checking since fallacies are incredibly deceptive if done well.

>>8800822
That's fucking basic math.
2^10 is the double of 2^9, no one on /sci/ should be this dumb

>>8801577
>INTJ
>wants to explore new things without giving them much thought living them with their feelings and appreciating their artisy nature
You most likely mistyped.
INTJs are either Detectives or Strategists, no fucking way they could get Free Spirit.

>>8804306
>You most likely mistyped.
Yeah or this test is bullshit (which is the correct explanation).
>INTP and got "Executive"
>It says I'm good at planning
PAHAHAHAAAHAHA

File: Screenshot_20170404-193132.png (169KB, 1200x1920px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x1920px

What did my brain mean by this?

>>8804310
Well hey, they say you should take at least 3 theories to explain something and value their confidence level

>Mistyped on this test - 15%
Hard that you can fuck up this badly since most people here seem to do okay

>Mistyped on MBTI - 30%
A lot more likely as it's based on your mood and favoritism and not your rationality

>This test is shit - 27.5%
>MBTI test is shit - 27.5%
Both tests have the same likelihood to be flawed since a lot of questionable points have been brought up (in case of MBTI is low repeatability and tests being pretty liberal on their interpretation of Jung) and give you bad results not fitting to your personality or rationality style

>>8804254
No that doesn't seem off at all. If sales get to that point randomly then there is no reason to suppose the ad caused it.

>>8804351
A 16 million recoup in sales is non random! This is basic stats!

>>8804413
Given the variance already present, I'm not seeing it as being highly significant. Basic stats. "Somewhat significant".

>>8804448
>Your ability to evaluate outside information and theories for accuracy. For example, the question you answered earlier about the fictional BacoNation fast food sandwich checked your Evidence Evaluation. The question reported that the BacoNutcase ad campaign produced a $16 million increase in BacoNation sales, but the sales of the sandwich had fluctuated by nearly as much in the recent past without an ad campaign. Since the connection between the ad campaign and the sales increase was dubious, the question awarded full points if you answered that the ads were only somewaht likely to have driven the sales up.
>fluctuated nearly as much in the recent past
The sales fluctuated over a several month period. After the advertising campaign there was 16 million change in sale in a single month. They're wrong here and fucking up.

>>8804472
It's significant, yes, but the cause for the fluctuations in the prior months remains unknown - without knowing the shape of that distribution you can't claim it's very likely that it's from the sales pitch. Assuming it's a random distribution would be just that, an assumption. Has to be less likely than "very likely", so, "somewhat likely".

>>8804317
Decent at math. Nothing else matters.

>>8804336
The 16personalities similarity to MBTI starts and stops at the fact that they use 4 letter acronyms. MBTI is garbage, 16personalties is actually decent.

File: clear-thinking.png (72KB, 569x920px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 569x920px

>>8804413
This test was so wrong, that even using basic statistics got you blown the fuck out from ever getting the rationalist ending. I overestimated the significance, because I saw that the October revenue was 1.7 standard deviations above the mean monthly revenue, so obviously it is "extremely likely" that the ad campaign was effective. Yet the "extremely likely" answer was actually meant to trip up people who thought that the "$16 million" increase from the September revenue was significant, even though it is a meaningless quantity due to the fact that the September revenue was well below the average monthly revenue. This test is badly designed, because the answer choices are so subjective.

>>8804750
Shhhh shhh desu, it's going to be okay.

>>8800822
but did you also test for INTP on 16personalities.com?

>>8800825
GTFO. Rationalist Masterrace.

>>8804882
I got skeptic and INTJ, I feel like this makes me the ultimate sperg lord.

>>8804060
>If the local train cost one cent, i wouldn't spend 10 dollars more to get the fast train. If the local train costs 50 dollars, i might as well pay the extra 10, if I'm already taking on a huge expense
how is this rational?

>>8804949
hmmm. I'm ENTP and Rationalist. I feel pretty good about myself. I have the socials skills, and I feel Rationalist takes me to the level of INTP. I have become god.

>>8804750
butt hurt free spirit detected

>>8804115
brainlet

>>8802231
could be a free spirit

>>8795817
genius

>>8799980
lmfao

>>8795984
Take your sexism out of here

>>8796003
mostly

>>8796380
this

>>8804243
Ouch

>>8795814
when will this shit thread die?

>>8796765
Then you fell for their trap.

>>8796765
Which one? The umbrella?
Yeah, it wasn't even a fallacy for me, just a very poorly worded affirmation

>>8805442
>>8796765
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
There are way more, but this list is fine to spot fallacious arguments

This test aside I found a problem in my thinking that isn't addressed anywhere - tried to google it but no results.

Basically, sometimes I dismiss my own certanity appealing to the unknown.
Say, I am sure of a certain result because all the evidence is suggesting it and there is nothing to dismiss it, yet I always feel like I should not be so sure and check it anyway... Only to get the result evidence was pointing to

To make an example... I am sure that www.[insert obvious clickbait here].com is a clickbait. The name of the site, the preview of its contents and the context I found the site point all at it being clickbait, but my mind just says "But I don't know yet, I could miss some unknown information" and give the free click - with bitterness and disappointment towards the results.

How is this error called, if it's even an error?
Am I just too skeptical about my own logic?

>>8800753
Literally the same answer, and I also answered 0.
Pretty surprised desu

>>8795814
even more pseudo science.
I trust this shit less than MBTI

>>8805771
stuff

>If it takes 2 such machines 2 minutes to make 2 doughnuts, how long would it take 150 machines to make 150 doughnuts?
>Assume each machine works independently, and at the same constant rate.
Isn't the correct answer 300 minutes, which is not even an option here. The example shows that it takes 2 minutes for one machine to make one doughnut.

>>8806500
How many doughnuts will you have in 2 minutes, since every machine made you one if you have 150 machines?

>>8806500
The answer is 2 minutes.

Idiot.

>>8806514
If I'm an idiot then how could Bill burn himself in the basement?

If you guys ever listen to Jordan Peterson you will know that being 'rationalist' is not by any means the ultimate genius. Some things are just irrational because we are human, and humans are limited.

Just trying to say that being rational is not equivalent to having wisdom.

>>8795814
the great thread is dead.

>>8807167
Next edition when?