The Scientific Cultural Theory Test
| Individualism You scored 68% individualism, 36% fatalism, 24% hierarchy, and 0% egalitarianism! |
| You strongly adhere to the culture of Individualism. Individualists believe that everyone should be given a fair chance, but people should be allowed to succeed or fail based on their merit. Competition -- in the marketplace, in elections, or elsewhere -- is your forte. Individualists think nature is resilient, like a ball at the bottom of a cup, and therefore competitors can be given free rein to exploit it. |
 |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The Scientific Cultural Theory Test written by Stentor on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test |
4 comments:
Here are my results:
You scored higher than 89% on individualism
You scored higher than 98% on fatalism
You scored higher than 13% on hierarchy
You scored higher than 10% on egalitarianism
Proof that I am more "radical" than you Franc!
The funny thing is that whenever I take tests like that, I always answer the most extreme yes or no answer available; either "completely agree" or "completely disagree". So it probably helped my scores get bigger. :P
OK....here's mine now....
"You scored 100% individualism, 32% fatalism, 16% hierarchy, and 48% egalitarianism!"
You scored higher than 91% on individualism
You scored higher than 45% on fatalism
You scored higher than 12% on hierarchy
You scored higher than 34% on egalitarianism
I'm the biggest individualist of anybody!
And yet you're a bloody relativist, and refuse to admit that individuals can figure out morality for themselves. Go figure.
I recognize the logical correctness of your moral system, but I think that it's based upon the assumption that morality has some relationship with individual value fulfillment. My problem is that I don't see any hard evidence for that alleged relationship.
Morality could just as easily be defined as communal value fulfillment. Also, moral actions could be defined as those that benefit the environment, while immoral actions could be defined as those that harm the environment.
I see "morality" as a term that's just as amorphous and gooey as "spirituality" and "God." Until hard evidence can be presented that one definition is correct, I see no justification for dismissing any definition. And, if multiple definitions are plausible, the term loses any general coherency.
Post a Comment