Via Michael J. Coffey .
Surprisingly, I'm a journalist.
https://www.guidedtrack.com/programs/1q59zh4/run?normalpoints=18&sunkcost=0&planning=1&explanationfreeze=2&probabilistic=1&rhetorical=3&analyzer=3&timemoney=2&intuition=7&future=6&numbers=9&evidence=9&csr=6&enjoyment=0
You are Intuitive: You tend to trust your intuitions — you size up situations quickly and stick with your judgments once you’ve made them. This tendency can be useful when you need to think on your feet, or when you’re using a skill that you’ve already honed to perfection.
You are Subjective: People and stories interest you more than facts and figures do; you focus on the essence of ideas over the details. Your mind is more qualitative than quantitative. This trait lets you focus on the big picture over the nitty-gritty.
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.
Personally I would have said almost the exact opposite about the first three.
Apparently I don't have any especially strong skills and may be vulnerable to the "sunk cost fallacy".
The Sunk Cost Fallacy is a cognitive bias that can distort your decisions about which pursuits are worth continuing and which aren't. (Like whether to finish eating an unappetizing dish that you've already paid for, for example.)
No, no, no, no, NO. That's not a fallacy, that's called bloody-mindedness, and used properly it is very far indeed from a weakness. You just have to accept that sometimes time gets wasted. That's part of the process.
I disagreed with the premise of the question that it was possible to know for certain that a project would be unsuccessful. That's a fallacy in itself.
"It appears that you have a fairly weak understanding of the way that evidence should affect your confidence in a theory."
Umm.... reaaaally ?
Interesting though.
http://www.sciencedump.com/content/explorer-attorney-or-inventor-take-rationality-test
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...
-
Why Philosophy Matters for Science : A Worked Example "Fox News host Chris Wallace pushed Republican presidential candidate to expand...
-
In the last batch of simulations, we dropped a long gas stream into the gravitational potential of a cluster to see if it would get torn...
But sunk-cost is a fallacy. The amount of effort or resources put into a project have no bearing, logically speaking, on whether or not you should keep going on it. The idea that they should is the fallacy.
ReplyDeleteWell, their example of walking out of a movie theatre halfway through because the movie didn't seem like it was up to much is demonstrably wrong. Plenty of movies are slow burners, or the director deliberately fools the audience and then suddenly changes tack. It's worth an extra 45 minutes just in case, and I don't care for the LA sunshine anyway.
ReplyDeleteI'm an executive ??!?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so.
I'm "that thing" stuck to the bottom of your shoe...
ReplyDeleteHey, I didn't take the test and I found out I'm a Test Avoider!
ReplyDeleteJordan Henderson Oh, was there a "test". Here, I thought it was an "opinion poll"....lol
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that it said my lowest level of rationality has to do with valuing my own time. And that's probably true, since the association between dollars and time are, to a large part, arbitrary.
ReplyDelete