Search the Community

So apparently this is a test that can determine if you are racist. http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/racframe.htm I figured I might as well try it.. Oh boy. My results: Welp, looks like I'll have to cut ties with all my black friends No but in all seriousness, it seems like the way the test is done is biased. It's a reaction based test, and on the second half it switches the controls around so that I went through much slower. Is this really a valid test as the site claims? I have a feeling if it were to reverse the order of races in the test it would show me as a strong automatic preference for "African Americans".. I wasn't very surprised with those results honestly. What really bothered me is the fact that a tool is on a website supposedly for "students, teachers, and others interested in the causes and consequences of prejudice.". Yeah it's been 5 years since I was in public school, but damn, indoctrinating students into feeling guilt by using pseudo tests? Seems they've really ramped up the propaganda. Apparently there are even textbooks conforming to the narrative of social justice in the USA.. http://www.understandingprejudice.org/anthol.htm

Hello, I'm skeptical of some of the IQ tests that come up on a basic google search in that it seems likely that they'd give you a higher number to make you feel smart about yourself so you buy into the stuff they're offering and just wanted to hear what others on here used to verify their IQ. So far I've had sites tell me ranges from either 100 to 128, and I want to know if my brain is that of a layman NPC or an industrial powered engine of special snowflakes. I thought it was low-average from shitty school experience but I'm skeptical now. The sites I used were, Memorado, IQ-test.dk, and this other one that seemed good but didn't give me the result cause it didn't tell me about the 20 Euro price tag until after I spent all my time finishing it. All insight and sources are appreciated sincerely, or if there's a thread or resource somewhere that I overlooked please let me know. Thank you.

Take the test Www.16personalities.com I am an INTJ

I’m still new to syllogisms and logical proofs and I’m not sure if I’m begging the question (if that’s even the right description of this?), some other logical fallacy in this regard or if I just missed something simple in the formulation somewhere. Where I’m having trouble is with using “the coma test” as a litmus test to disprove positive actions as UPBs, especially to disprove the big three as positives: rape, murder and theft. On page 67: And then at the bottom of the page it explains the requirement for capacity of performing moral actions: If the positive action as UPB is “rape is moral,” then if you don’t rape you are considered immoral. If you cannot rape, you are excluded from the consideration because you are not able to make the choice. You are not condemned as evil because of the lack of choice. So my question is which of these is conclusions put forward on this page are true: Common sense tells us that a positive moral action as UPB creates the situation where a coma patient is immoral because they cannot abide by it, therefore no positive moral actions as UPB are valid. Also, avoidance of committing a negative moral action does not necessarily mean you are moral. Or Where choice is absent, so is moral consideration absent. Because the coma patient cannot make a choice, he is neither moral nor immoral. So, attempting to assign a positive or negative moral action as UPB to the coma patient is invalid. Because of this, “the coma test” as a whole is inapplicable for moral considerations because someone in a coma is not a moral agent. Not sure if it is a false dichotomy and I’m missing a third (or fourth) conclusion I’m not realizing? If the latter conclusion is true, where no choice = no morality basis, then it also applies to the next part on murder: If he’s stranded on an island with nobody to murder (physical state that objectively differentiates him), he does not have the “to murder or not to murder?” dilemma. So the man is neither moral nor immoral since he does not have the ability to choose. It's very late and the caffeine has long been out of my system. Any help in clearing this up will be greatly appreciated. (Edit: Added tags, thank you TDB) (Edit: Corrected the logical fallacy, I think I may be begging the question, not presupposition)