BF2S Forums Moral Sense Test

^^ I just did it in FF. Make sure you have javascript enabled.
6.2... And I was kindly asked not to explain what this means..lol

5.1 as well.

OrangeHound wrote:

That's a crap test ... it asked the same questions 2X, and is only focusing on one moral issue.

Pretty much.

5.6
interesting test.
until i am in that situation, i do not know what i will do.

weasel_thingo wrote:

"If Casey moves towards the one swimmer, the one swimmer will live but the five swimmers will be eaten by the shark"

that wouldnt happen so i gave up on that test.

take the issues at hand without considering their probability of actually happening.

Last edited by CoronadoSEAL (2007-05-01 09:50:03)

Some of the questions are stupid. Why can't the firefighter radio to his mates to get the guy out of the way of the falling glass? What kind of hospital has a machine that must be hooked up to six people for the pump to operate correctly? Couldn't the guy at the railroad track just yell at five people to get the f*ck off the track? HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN A SHARK ACTUALLY EAT?! This test was designed by HAHVAHD?! All it does is spam "the good of the many" questions at you, hardly covering human morality to any kind of depth whatsoever.

There are two APC's spawn-camping a flag. The top teammate, experienced at SpecOps, was spawn-killed. The APC's have temporarily moved out of sight. If LtGordon revives the top player, five dead noobs some distance behind him will certainly fade and have to respawn. LtGordon decides to revive the top player. LtGordon's decision is morally (you get the picture).

What I want to know is how serge dug up this rubbish.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-01 10:06:50)

2.2

sergeriver wrote:

How do human beings decide what is right and wrong?

I scored 5.1

You just wasted 20 minutes of my life and I want them back, answered 6 to everthing as they were all the same question, i.e Would you kill 1 man in order to save 5.

ok...
i think the test is evaluating reactions to language used (way of death/objects vs people)

first set of highlights: the boat being used might influence people's decision thinking as objects

second + set of highlights: way of death (eaten by shark/down) produces different reactions/answers

Joe is drifting along in his motorboat at the mouth of a narrow channel when he notices a shark approaching.  Further down the channel he sees five swimmers. If Joe maintains his current position, his boat will obstruct the entrance to the channel, thereby preventing the shark from attacking the five swimmers.  However, Joe sees another swimmer drowning in the distance.  Joe can save the one swimmer by immediately moving toward him in the motorboat, thereby leaving the channel open to the shark.  If Joe moves towards the one swimmer in his motorboat, the one swimmer will live but the five swimmers will be eaten by the shark.  If Joe does not move toward him, the one swimmer will drown but the five swimmers will remain safe.  Joe decides not to move toward the one swimmer.

Joe is drifting along in his motorboat near the mouth of a narrow channel when he notices a shark approaching.  Further down the channel he sees five swimmers.  However, one other swimmer is positioned at the mouth of the channel such that the shark will attack the one first, giving the five the necessary time to escape.  Joe can save the one swimmer by immediately moving toward him in the motorboat, but saving the one swimmer would also leave the channel open to the shark.  If Joe moves towards the one swimmer, the one swimmer will live but the five swimmers will be eaten by the shark.  If Joe does not move toward him, the one swimmer will be eaten by the shark but the five swimmers will remain safe.  Joe decides not to move toward the one swimmer..

OrangeHound wrote:

I'll save you all some time .... here's the quiz in BF2:

Joe is the commander of your team.  One of your teammates is down to one bar of health, and is covertly pinned down behind 30 enemy troops.  The enemy has set an ambush for five medics who are rushing toward the teammate to get a healing point.  If Joe artilleries the enemy, he will kill the enemy troops and the injured player, but save the lives of the five medics.  If Joe doesn't artillery the enemy, the five medics will be ambushed & killed and the injured soldier will still stay alive.  Joe decides to artillery the position, killing the injured teammate.

Joe's decision was morally: 

(a) Very forbidden
(b) Forbidden
(c) Somewhat permissible
(d) Permissible
(e) Strongly permissible
(f)  Obligatory
(g) Strongly obligatory

e-Stongly permissible

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Some of the questions are stupid. Why can't the firefighter radio to his mates to get the guy out of the way of the falling glass? What kind of hospital has a machine that must be hooked up to six people for the pump to operate correctly? Couldn't the guy at the railroad track just yell at five people to get the f*ck off the track? HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN A SHARK ACTUALLY EAT?! This test was designed by HAHVAHD?! All it does is spam "the good of the many" questions at you, hardly covering human morality to any kind of depth whatsoever.

There are two APC's spawn-camping a flag. The top teammate, experienced at SpecOps, was spawn-killed. The APC's have temporarily moved out of sight. If LtGordon revives the top player, five dead noobs some distance behind him will certainly fade and have to respawn. LtGordon decides to revive the top player. LtGordon's decision is morally (you get the picture).

What I want to know is how serge dug up this rubbish.

A friend studying psychology sent the link.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

The test seems pretty dumb indeed.  But it's part of a huge investigation regarding the human morality. 
Basically, the test finds out if you:
A-Prefer to do a negative action (kill one man), to reach a positive outcome (save 5 people).
B-Prefer to do a positive action (save one man), to reach a negative outcome (let 5 people die).

So what does that say about me, I did the maths and answered the same on all of them as it was kill one man, save five on every question.  Guess it means I always think of the final outcome

If you score closer to 1, then you think about "doing the right thing" without thinking about the negative outcome.  If you score closer to 7, then you think about the best outcome, and you don't mind in committing a wrong action in order to achieve that outcome.  The statistics average is 3.9 so far.  I know it seems pretty dumb, but if you think about it, it isn't that dumb.

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

If you score closer to 1, then you think about "doing the right thing" without thinking about the negative outcome.  If you score closer to 7, then you think about the best outcome, and you don't mind in committing a wrong action in order to achieve that outcome.  The statistics average is 3.9 so far.  I know it seems pretty dumb, but if you think about it, it isn't that dumb.

meh. 
so... if you score closer to 7, you are a realistic thinker, and if you score closer to 1, you foolishly act on impulses. 

the second to last sentence sums up the entire story will limited persuasive language.  take the shark story for example:

If Joe does not move toward him, the one swimmer will drown but the five swimmers will remain safe.

If Joe does not move toward him, the one swimmer will be eaten by the shark but the five swimmers will remain safe.

^ i don't understand how "doing what is right" involves a decision where deaths are greater than need be.

I really don't know how the guys in Harvard came up with this test.  I think they want to know how many people would save that guy (the apparently right thing to do) and how many would think about the outcome before acting on impulses.