This is fun: http://programs.clearerthinking.org/how_rational_are_you_really_take_the_test.html#.Vd4NUSgViko
Predictably, I scored as "rationalist". I am strong in 3 areas, and OK in the rest. With no weak spots. And I strongly disagree with one of their assessments.
This, folks, is what happens when you have a rationalist education: tests of rationality become transparent. And that's about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
88% rationalist, with an advertising degree. Oh wait, knowing how to plan to manipulate people over time, while eliminating undue influence to yourself.... hmm that might actually make sense.
ReplyDeleteI also got a rationalist. All my scores were above 80%
ReplyDeleteSpoilers: I emailed them about one of the answers being wrong, and a matter of value distinction rather than rationality. It was the English test: I budgeted 4 weeks, on the grounds that more than 5% of the time, it had taken more that much time. That is, I intentionally budgeted in disaster avoidance.
ReplyDeleteThere were some sketchy stuff there. I think the dollar value on time saving was iffy, it depends on what your used to valuing your time. If you get paid $15 an hour, then you'll likely spend $15 to save an hour. If you make $200 an hour than you'll pay that much.
ReplyDeleteIn your case though I would agree partially that the 5% identification of outliers is not a valid way to decide. Three data points are too few to use any statistical reasoning effectively.
David -- that's why it said "if you're on a budget, blah blah blah". There wasn't a right answer there, it was checking for consistency across multiple questions. At least, that's the normal way this is done. That is, you ought to value an hour the same in both domains. The trick is: do people?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't, as my old stats professors used to tell me, a smart bookie can take you for all your money.
As for the outliers -- yeah, with three I actually use max, not 5%. Again, this is intentional as a means of avoiding disaster. Or, to put it another way: If I've got to a Thai place three times, and my bill (after tax and tip) has varied between $15, $20, and $25, then how much do I bring with me?
I got Skeptic. Fun quiz!
ReplyDeleteMy answer to the Thai place question is to bring a credit card.
ReplyDeleteWhile funny, that avoids rather than solving the cognitive problem. I suppose your point is that money is fungible and time is not?
ReplyDeleteThat... I have some issues with the money questions on that test. I have sufficent income that $45 and $90 are functionally equivalent in how much they will change my life, so why would I care when the money arrives? That is definitely not true for everyone's budget. (The same scale issue holds for everyone taking the test. Money value is proportional to how much you already have!)
ReplyDeleteThe paper time thing also annoyed me, since I can always screw around for 3 weeks after finishing the paper if I budget 4 weeks, it's not like that time disappears if I don't use it!
More to be funny, but also that the restaurant problem is a poor one since the amount you pay is more dependent on your current desires than the place. Are you there for a big meal or a small one? Are you in the mood for drinks? Do you want something that is expensive like shrimp, or would chicken serve? Those aspects can vary results greatly, but are not surprising since you probably have an idea what you want before you go.
ReplyDeleteEva Schiffer Yeah, a lot of these tests assume you are a well to do college student. For about a million years (ok, 100), that has been THE studied population. For this money assessment, it does assume that the $45 isn't needed. I think this is part of why poverty makes you perform less well on rational tests -- you literally cannot think past the next meal, so $90 in 3 years is less good than $45 right now.
ReplyDeleteWe are exactly agreed on the paper thing. Budget assuming you are going to fuck up, then be glad when you don't!
David Rothfeder I was going for a similar thought experiment involving money instead of time. If you don't like that example, please come up with another one. I'd vastly prefer that to not pickery.
William Nichols Well, if $45 right now means I don't pay a penalty of $50 because my account is overdrawn, the math is suddenly very different.
ReplyDeleteExactly right, Eva Schiffer . This is the problem limiting rationality tests, as it is really hard to convey in such tests that you should assume a state of plenty. It's basically impossible to put yourself there if you aren't there already.
ReplyDeleteI guess my nitpicking would be the issue with any of these thought experiments. They try to create simple examples in the complex model of life. There are just many variables to boil down a person's though processes with hypotheticals
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of curious what they were trying to get at with the firefighter question. Any thoughts William Nichols?
ReplyDeleteDavid Rothfeder That's sort of the point. Real life problems are effectively unsolvable, so we do an ethical Fourier transformation to see what they look like and find the answer under that model. that we transform the model back and hope the answer works.
ReplyDeleteAnd while "ethical Fourier transformation" is cribbed from a recent SMBC, it is how ethics/morality/rationality all must work. We cannot model the world,. so we make a model and hope it works out. That's really the secret reason different ethical models have different answers to things like the Trolley problem: different transformations.
Eva Schiffer The firefighter question is a good one. It is good because it is tricky: there's no answer that's right or wrong to how he dies.
ReplyDeleteThe relevant question is the next one: how many answers did you consider. Higher is better.
This goes to our (as in, humans) well known issue of not considering sufficient answers before deciding on one. So, the more possibilities you considered, the better!
William Nichols Well, there's no answer in the problem as given. I would hope that I am supposed to assume there would exist a theoretical answer (since they're implying the autopsy found one). And I'm gonna have to take issue with "more answers = more better". At some point you reach "considering magical invisible unicorn stabbing him to death" which is way beyond even a reasonable margin from occam's razor.
ReplyDeleteEva Schiffer That all depends on the time you have to consider possibilities. From a Baysean (BT afterwards) perspective, there is a non-zero chance that it was magical invisible unicorns. With BT, there's always this low-likelihood chunk of probability that is "all other hypotheses". When the hypotheses that we do know garner insufficient evidence, then we start to expand the ones that're bunched together as "all other".
ReplyDeleteThat was ridiculously abstract. Basically, goes the theory, DO consider magical invisible unicorns, but give them a very low probability. So low, in fact, that you probably don't have consciousness awareness of the possibility.
But, assuming a time stopper device? Then, yeah, consider the unicorns.
Assuming you're making a decision quickly? List the pareto solutions (ie, the 20% or so of all options that are approx 80% of the probability space) and try those out.
William Nichols So if the test expects me to answer questions on the assumption that I have nothing better to do than take the test (as opposed to "I have allocated some time to take this test because it amuses me and I have excess time I can waste") then I think we have a problem. :P
ReplyDeleteEva Schiffer I thiiink its max number was, like 5. Coming up with five possibilities before deciding on one doesn't seem to far fetched.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, perfect rationality assumes infinite cognition. Which is to say: we ain't rational. Not by a long shot.