I’m really confused about the how the creators of that website intended for the question to help in deciding whether a user should date a certain individual. I wouldn’t be able to tell if they answered “yes” because [...] or if they were saying [...]
I think this is a stock trick personality tests use: give test-takers a question where the denotation & connotation conflict; see how each test-taker resolves the conflict; people who resolve it in the same way (i.e. give the same answer) are presumably more similar in personality/weltanschauung than people who resolve it differently.
This seemed obvious to me. The problem is the lack of “meta” options; where’s the hidden checkbox for people who saw all six possible chains of reasoning, analyzed each of them, have probabilistic answers on four of those, along with an objection to the premises of the fifth and want to scream at the sixth for its stupidity? (bogus example)
Some of us don’t like limiting ourselves to only one possible interpretation of a statement or question. Some of us consider at least four different interpretations by default as a matter of convenience, and only then afterwards settle on the one most likely to have been “intended” within context.
This behavior is the one I prefer, not the behavior of automatically resolving to one specific preferred interpretation without noticing the others. The particular example question, like so many others on that site, provides no means of distinguishing between these behaviors, other than a very time-consuming reading of all the comments (which also requires time investment from the question-answerer by writing a comment in explanation, but this in turn requires a specific response, which partly defeats the point of going meta).
Other websites sometimes sidestep the issue entirely by first testing for traits that have these effects and often outright rejecting those (potential members) that would “question” the questions, thereby pre-filtering members for compatibility with their testing methodologies.
It seems to me that people who argue with questionnaires might have a good bit in common with each other, and likewise for people who don’t argue with questionnaires.
A crude approach would be to just match up people by the number of questions they argue with and the amount they write. It would be more sophisticated to just let people see each other’s comments on the questionnaire.
where’s the hidden checkbox for people who saw all six possible chains of reasoning, analyzed each of them, have probabilistic answers on four of those, along with an objection to the premises of the fifth and want to scream at the sixth for its stupidity?
You picked the answer among the first four for which your probabilistic answer is highest, mark all the first four answers as acceptable in a potential date, and explain your reasoning in the comment section.
Oh, no, I think you misunderstand what parts of the question-problem I was talking about. To better characterize the bogus example, let’s flesh it out a bit:
Q: Which is healthier? ( ) Bleggs ( ) Rubes ( ) Both ( ) Neither
Now obviously, the first four chains of reasoning go as follow:
In most specific cases, presented an arbitrary thought-experiment-style choice of being handed a blegg or a rube, neither is good. Owning either a Blegg or a Rube will make you less physically healthy. So among the four options, “Neither” is clearly better. This is pretty certain, though some crack scientists do claim conclusive evidence that owning both at the same time can be healthy. But I don’t put much faith in their suspicious results.
“But!”, screams the more logically-minded, “the question isn’t about which of the four choices presented is better—it’s clear that the fourth option is intended to mean ‘neither bleggs nor rubes are healthier’, not that you should pick neither. So the thought experiment implied means you have to pick one of the two, and in that case Bleggs are clearly marginally better!” Okay, fine. So Bleggs are most likely healthier if you have to choose one of the two—they’re unlikely to be equally unhealthy or healthy, after all.
But let’s take a step back for a moment. If you look at the grand scheme of things, at a macro scale, Rubes do reduce the total amount of Bleggs and Rubes, because each Rube will destroy at least five Bleggs. So in the grand scheme of things, having Rubes is healthier than having Bleggs, if we can’t attack the source! Clearly, both of the previous chains of reasoning are too narrow-minded and don’t think of the big picture. On a large scale, the Rubes are indeed healthier-per-unit than the Bleggs. Probably.
Ah, but what if it is implied that this is an all-or-nothing paradigm, and what if others interpret it this way? Then, obviously, the complete absence of both Bleggs and Rubes would be a Very Bad Thing™, since we require Bleggs and Rubes to produce Tormogluts, a necessary component of modern human prosperity! Thus, both are (probably) healthier than only having one or the other (and obviously better than neither).
...
On the other hand, Bleggs and Rubes are unnatural, unsustainable in the long term, and we will soon need to research new ways to produce Tormogluts. Most people who see you advocating for them will automatically match you as The Enemy, so you should pick “Neither”, even though that’s not what the question implies. But this is a shitty situation, and if someone reading my answer to this question interprets it this way, I don’t care to befriend them anyway. So I reject this answer.
And let’s not even think of what the Kurgle fanatics have to say about this question. The horror.
Assuming all of the above went through your mind in a few seconds very rapidly when you first read the question… what answer do you choose? Do you also put a preference filter for other people’s answers? Just choosing the higher or most confident probability from the above isn’t going to cut it if this question matters to you a lot.
I used to pick the “least bad” answer in such cases, but then I decided to clear all my previous answers, and now when I see a question to which the answer I wish I could give is “Mu” or “ADBOC” or “Taboo $word” or “Avada Ked--[oh right, new censorship policy, sorry]”, I just skip it.
“Avada Ked--[oh right, new censorship policy, sorry]”
looks baffled
Avada Kedavra is a spell trigger for a death spell. In the context implies the urge to a respond to a stupid, misleading or perhaps disingenuous question with the application of power, violence or killing rather than compliance with the form of the question. Since it isn’t specific or in reference to any actual people this doesn’t technically violate the new censorship policy but it is still close enough that I laughed at Army’s joke!
it isn’t specific or in reference to any actual people
I’d guess that “people who write match questions on OkCupid” is specific enough that actually advocating violence against them would be against the spirit of the policy. (I can’t imagine someone actually doing that, or imagine someone imagining someone doing that, but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve underestimated the validity of Poe’s Law.)
Yep, that’s the reasoning I followed in the earlier comment. A person who saw all six possible chains would decide the question wasn’t useful and would refuse to answer it, hopefully. ^_^
I think this is a stock trick personality tests use: give test-takers a question where the denotation & connotation conflict; see how each test-taker resolves the conflict; people who resolve it in the same way (i.e. give the same answer) are presumably more similar in personality/weltanschauung than people who resolve it differently.
This seemed obvious to me. The problem is the lack of “meta” options; where’s the hidden checkbox for people who saw all six possible chains of reasoning, analyzed each of them, have probabilistic answers on four of those, along with an objection to the premises of the fifth and want to scream at the sixth for its stupidity? (bogus example)
Some of us don’t like limiting ourselves to only one possible interpretation of a statement or question. Some of us consider at least four different interpretations by default as a matter of convenience, and only then afterwards settle on the one most likely to have been “intended” within context.
This behavior is the one I prefer, not the behavior of automatically resolving to one specific preferred interpretation without noticing the others. The particular example question, like so many others on that site, provides no means of distinguishing between these behaviors, other than a very time-consuming reading of all the comments (which also requires time investment from the question-answerer by writing a comment in explanation, but this in turn requires a specific response, which partly defeats the point of going meta).
Other websites sometimes sidestep the issue entirely by first testing for traits that have these effects and often outright rejecting those (potential members) that would “question” the questions, thereby pre-filtering members for compatibility with their testing methodologies.
It seems to me that people who argue with questionnaires might have a good bit in common with each other, and likewise for people who don’t argue with questionnaires.
A crude approach would be to just match up people by the number of questions they argue with and the amount they write. It would be more sophisticated to just let people see each other’s comments on the questionnaire.
You picked the answer among the first four for which your probabilistic answer is highest, mark all the first four answers as acceptable in a potential date, and explain your reasoning in the comment section.
Oh, no, I think you misunderstand what parts of the question-problem I was talking about. To better characterize the bogus example, let’s flesh it out a bit:
Q: Which is healthier?
( ) Bleggs
( ) Rubes
( ) Both
( ) Neither
Now obviously, the first four chains of reasoning go as follow:
In most specific cases, presented an arbitrary thought-experiment-style choice of being handed a blegg or a rube, neither is good. Owning either a Blegg or a Rube will make you less physically healthy. So among the four options, “Neither” is clearly better. This is pretty certain, though some crack scientists do claim conclusive evidence that owning both at the same time can be healthy. But I don’t put much faith in their suspicious results.
“But!”, screams the more logically-minded, “the question isn’t about which of the four choices presented is better—it’s clear that the fourth option is intended to mean ‘neither bleggs nor rubes are healthier’, not that you should pick neither. So the thought experiment implied means you have to pick one of the two, and in that case Bleggs are clearly marginally better!” Okay, fine. So Bleggs are most likely healthier if you have to choose one of the two—they’re unlikely to be equally unhealthy or healthy, after all.
But let’s take a step back for a moment. If you look at the grand scheme of things, at a macro scale, Rubes do reduce the total amount of Bleggs and Rubes, because each Rube will destroy at least five Bleggs. So in the grand scheme of things, having Rubes is healthier than having Bleggs, if we can’t attack the source! Clearly, both of the previous chains of reasoning are too narrow-minded and don’t think of the big picture. On a large scale, the Rubes are indeed healthier-per-unit than the Bleggs. Probably.
Ah, but what if it is implied that this is an all-or-nothing paradigm, and what if others interpret it this way? Then, obviously, the complete absence of both Bleggs and Rubes would be a Very Bad Thing™, since we require Bleggs and Rubes to produce Tormogluts, a necessary component of modern human prosperity! Thus, both are (probably) healthier than only having one or the other (and obviously better than neither).
...
On the other hand, Bleggs and Rubes are unnatural, unsustainable in the long term, and we will soon need to research new ways to produce Tormogluts. Most people who see you advocating for them will automatically match you as The Enemy, so you should pick “Neither”, even though that’s not what the question implies. But this is a shitty situation, and if someone reading my answer to this question interprets it this way, I don’t care to befriend them anyway. So I reject this answer.
And let’s not even think of what the Kurgle fanatics have to say about this question. The horror.
Assuming all of the above went through your mind in a few seconds very rapidly when you first read the question… what answer do you choose? Do you also put a preference filter for other people’s answers? Just choosing the higher or most confident probability from the above isn’t going to cut it if this question matters to you a lot.
I used to pick the “least bad” answer in such cases, but then I decided to clear all my previous answers, and now when I see a question to which the answer I wish I could give is “Mu” or “ADBOC” or “Taboo $word” or “Avada Ked--[oh right, new censorship policy, sorry]”, I just skip it.
Good idea, although it’s still useful to be able to choose in case you need to fill in all the questions.
looks baffled
Avada Kedavra is a spell trigger for a death spell. In the context implies the urge to a respond to a stupid, misleading or perhaps disingenuous question with the application of power, violence or killing rather than compliance with the form of the question. Since it isn’t specific or in reference to any actual people this doesn’t technically violate the new censorship policy but it is still close enough that I laughed at Army’s joke!
I’d guess that “people who write match questions on OkCupid” is specific enough that actually advocating violence against them would be against the spirit of the policy. (I can’t imagine someone actually doing that, or imagine someone imagining someone doing that, but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve underestimated the validity of Poe’s Law.)
Ah, right. That is pretty funny, actually.
Yep, that’s the reasoning I followed in the earlier comment. A person who saw all six possible chains would decide the question wasn’t useful and would refuse to answer it, hopefully. ^_^