Tópico: Teste de orientação moral

[Dr. Manhattan]

O seguinte site: http://www.yourmorals.org  tem alguns testes interessantes sobre orientação moral. É em inglês, e coloquei isso
na área de ciência porque se trata de um estudo científico (por isso sugiro que a quem se interessar que responda com sinceridade).
Um aviso: em "americanês", liberal seria o que chamamos no Brasil de "progressista", o oposto de "conservador".
Descobri, para minha surpresa, que sou mais suscetível a sentir nojo do que a média .

P.S. Vi esse endereço num artigo da Nature sobre a moralidade. Depois vou tentar colocar uns trechos desse artigo aqui.

[Worf]

Eu tembém, mas sou meio obsessivo-compulsivo. Marquei 3.2 na parte do teste que era sobre contaminação. (average = 1.1)

[Diegojaf]

Eu estou abaixo da média no quesito sentir nojo…

Minha média total ficou 1.2

Bom…

[Dr. Manhattan]

Nojo: total 2.0. Core: 2.2, Animal Reminder: 2.4, Contaminação: 1.6.
Depois que fiz o teste é que percebi que realmente tenho certas frescuras, principalmente no que se refere a comida.
Na parte de "Social Dominance" fiquei com meros 2.2 (média: 3.8).

[Diegojaf]

Social Dominance: 4.3

[Diegojaf]

No de Moral Foundation eu fiquei com: 3.4, 4.0, 3,1, 2.8 e 1.8...

[n/a]

Nojo: 1,7
Meu problema, segundo eles, é um pouquinho mais com "contamination" do que com "animal reminder". Mas fiquei quase na média geral.

Minha "social dominance" deu 2.8

E, no primeiro, me importo bem menos que a média com "autority" (1,3 de uma média 2.4) e com "purity" (0.5 de uma média 1.7).

Bem legal o teste!

[uiliníli]

Código: [Selecionar]

          Eu    Média
Harm      3.0    3.6
Fairness  3.9    3.3
Loyalty   2.3    2.1
Authority 2.6    2.4
Purity    1.6    1.7


[Worf]

Código: [Selecionar]

Moral Foundations Questionnaire

          Eu    Média
Harm      2.6    3.6
Fairness  3.4    3.3
Loyalty   0.5    2.1
Authority 3.9    2.4
Purity    2.6    1.7

Eu me preocupo com autoridade e pureza, omg.

Social Dominance = 4.3 (média 3.8)

No Schwartz Values Scale, o mais alto foi Self direction, 6.4 (média 5.2)

Disgust Scale: Total 2.7 (média 1.5).


Nice.

[Felius]

Meus resultados:


]

[rizk]

No de Moral Foundation eu fiquei com: 3.4, 4.0, 3,1, 2.8 e 1.8…

E eu com 3.9   4.1   1.8    1.9    1.0.

Quanto ao teste judeu, fiquei quase um ponto abaixo da média em "self direction", e um ponto a mais no "achievement" e DOIS E MEIO pontos no "power". O resto foi ligeiramente acima da média. Já previa isso.
O esquisito é que o teste de dominância eu fiz 1.4 pontos, mas imagino que o meu problema não é com grupos, mas com os indivíduos mesmo.  :S

No de nojo, como previsto, eu tive pontuação bem baixa em contaminação. Cheguei no geral de 1.8, quando a média é 1.5.

Ia mandar os gráficos em anexo, mas "A pasta dos anexos está cheia. Tente enviar um arquivo menor e/ou contate o Administrador."

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Welcome to YourMorals.org, where you can learn about your own morality, ethics, and/or values, while also contributing to scientific research. We are a group of professors and graduate students in social psychology at the University of Virginia, The University of California (Irvine), and the University of Southern California. (See us here.)

Our goal is to understand the way our "moral minds" work. Why do people disagree so passionately about what is right? Why, in particular, is there such hostility and incomprehension between members of different political parties? By filling out a few of our surveys, you'll help us answer those questions We, in return, will give you an immediate report on how you scored on each study, quiz, or survey. We'll show you how your responses compare to others and we'll tell you what that might say about you.

So please join us and begin exploring your morality. Registration takes just 2 minutes, and it will allow us to hold your scores for you so that you may return at any time and continue to build up your "morality profile." This site is a non-profit academic venture, with no fees or advertising. We will guard your privacy carefully.

http://www.yourmorals.org

O que fiz até agora:

In the graph below, your scores on each foundation are shown in green (the 1st bar in each set of 3 bars). The scores of all liberals who have taken it on our site are shown in blue (the 2nd bar), and the scores of all conservatives are shown in red (3rd bar). Scores run from 0 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that foundation) to 5 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that foundation and build much of your morality on top of it).




To learn more about "Moral Foundations Theory" and political psychology you can read this paper: Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, p. 98-116 or visit www.moralfoundations.org.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

The idea behind this scale is that politics in the United States has grown less civil in recent decades, and we are interested in understanding the psychological factors that underlie this trend. Some of our preliminary findings and past research suggest that extreme conservatives and extreme liberals tend to be more similar to each other, at least in terms of their psychology and their approach toward each other, than they are to moderate people. Developing an understanding of how political incivility arises may eventually allow us work on promoting greater political civility.







The second graph shows your preference for Yin-Yang politics. Here, scores ranges from 1 to 5 where higher scores mean that you view bipartisan compromise as a good thing. The scores of all Democrats who have taken it on our site are shown in blue (dark blue for those who identify as "strongly Democratic," and light blue for those who identify less strongly as "Democratic"), and the scores of all Republicans are shown in red (dark red for those who identify as "strongly Republican," and light red for those who identify less strongly as "Republican").




To learn more, you can visit CivilPolitics, a hub of academic research on political polarization and civility. 

[Geotecton]

Já fui chamado de marxista pelo DDV e de extrema-direita pelo _Juca_.

Então eu acho que não vou fazer este teste não.

Eu poderia descobrir que sou um nazista, um frade franciscano ou até mesmo um ET deixado à sua própria sorte no planeta Terra.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

The scale you completed was the "Free Will and Determinism Scale," developed by Delroy Paulhus and Jasmine Carey at the University of British Columbia.

Liberals and conservatives seem to disagree in their basic understandings of the causes of human action, particularly of immoral action. Liberals are more likely to believe that social forces, poverty, childhood trauma, or mental illness can serve as valid excuses. Conservatives are more likely to reject such excuses and want to hold people accountable for their actions, including a preference for harsher punishments. At least, that is the way things play out in many disputes in the legal world. We want to see if we can look at this stereotypical difference in more detail. We want to find out WHICH kinds of free will and determinism show a correlation with politics, and with other psychological variables.

The Paulhus scale measures people's attitudes about four constructs related to freedom vs. determinism, which we have graphed for you in the four green bars below.

The first graph shows your score on two measures of belief in determinism:

Fate: the belief that individuals cannot control their own destinies
Scientific causation: the belief that people's actions are fully explained by a combination of biological and environmental forces
The second graph shows your score on two subscales about belief in NON-determinism, or freedom:

Randomness: the belief that some events are truly random, that chance plays a role in human affairs
Free Will: the degree to which people can truly decide upon their behaviors and are personally responsible for their outcomes.
In the graphs below, your score is shown in green (the first bar in each cluster). The scores of all people who have taken the scale on our site and who described themselves during registration as politically liberal are shown in the blue bars. The scores of people who described themselves as politically conservative are in red. Scores run from 1 (the lowest possible score, least belief in that construct) to 5 (the highest possible score).

[Buckaroo Banzai]

The first graph pertains to arguments in favor of the death penalty. It shows your evaluations (in green) of each argument type along with the average liberal's (in blue) and the average conservative's (in red) evaluations.

If we are correct in predicting that agreement with the arguments' conclusion will be a strong predictor of evaluations, conservatives scores should be higher on average than liberals (assuming the typical conservative is more in favor of the death penalty than the typical liberal). If we are correct that different types of arguments will be differentially appealing, liberals should give more positive evaluations of harm and fairness arguments than do conservatives.

Pro Death Penalty Argument Evaluations




The next graph is like the first, but this time it shows evaluations of the anti death penalty arguments. Liberals should show more positive evaluations than conservatives, and again, we hope to see differences based on the types of arguments as well.


Anti Death Penalty Argument Evaluations







The last two graphs summarize the data for the pro same-sex marriage and anti same-sex marriage arguments, respectively.



Pro Same-sex Marriage Argument Evaluations





Anti Same-sex Marriage Argument Evaluations

[DDV]

Já fui chamado de marxista pelo DDV e de extrema-direita pelo _Juca_.

Então eu acho que não vou fazer este teste não.

Eu poderia descobrir que sou um nazista, um frade franciscano ou até mesmo um ET deixado à sua própria sorte no planeta Terra.

Você não foi chamado de marxista por mim, eu disse apenas que você compartilha ALGUMAS teses com os marxistas....e só.

Eu também já fi chamado de "esquerdista fanático" e de "conservador de extrema direita" aqui nesse fórum. Isso é NORMAL para qualquer pessoa centrista.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Os não-centristas são comumente extremistas histéricos na avaliação de qualquer coisa não suficientemente alinhada a eles.

[Cumpadi]

Os não-centristas são comumente extremistas histéricos na avaliação de qualquer coisa não suficientemente alinhada a eles.

É mesmo? as vezes os centristas são bem mais histéricos...

[Liddell Heart]

Os não-centristas são comumente extremistas histéricos na avaliação de qualquer coisa não suficientemente alinhada a eles.

Centristas tendem a usar o "argumentum ad temperantiam" para desqualificar argumentos dos não-centristas.

Outra coisa, na Inglaterra existe o "extremo-centrismo", ou "centrismo radical".

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Talvez algum moderador pudesse por gentileza fundir esse tóṕico a um anterior que eu não tinha visto:

../forum/topic=11634.0.html

É sobre os mesmos testes.



Um pouco sobre o assunto de moral num nível científico:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

Não é algo exatamente atual mas achei interessante.