Take the integrity test
-
I'm afraid history is littered with the corpses of Emperors who thought they had done that! :laugh:
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
How do you rate in integrity compared with Britons in general? Take the Integrity Test from the Essex Centre for the Study of Integrity - ECSI.
Add up your answers 1-4 and see how honest you are. Scores range from 10 [very honest] to 40 [politician]. I scored 18, how good, or bad, are you?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
how good, or bad, are you?
Quince :rolleyes:
-
I am not the sort of Emperor that will allow dissent or let the son of my padawan live to defeat me! I would have them shot there and then, and not explain my plan first. I would also make sure there were no holes in my bases.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
I would have them shot there and then, and not explain my plan first.
I would also make sure there were no holes in my bases.This could have been taken from the '100 Rules for Evil Emperors', I would post a link, but the whole text is in German. The real problem is that there are plenty such things which can be your undoing and trying to prevent them all will only let you slip into the subcategories of 'Paranoid Evil Emperor' or 'Insane Evil Emperor'. And if it really happens and somebody has finally come to make an end to you, please resist the urge to explain your plans in full length, even if you think you have him right where you want him. Just get rid of him, no ceremony, no explanations, no gloating. This may be the only way to get off the hook. And do it yourself. Your henchmen will fail with absolute certainty.
I'm invincible, I can't be vinced
-
18. The questions are flawed I think. Many have unusual, but realistic situations where a the consequences of sticking to "never justified" rule would be worse than not doing. For example a friend of mine both speeded and was over the alcohol limit rushing someone she was at a party with to hospital. The person she was rushing had accidentally eaten a peanut (she had an allergy) and by the time the ambulance would have arrived there was a good chance the girl would have been dead. The police caught her and when the situation was explained they escorted them to the hospital without charge. So questions c & h were both a 2, but not due to lower integrity than someone voting 1.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]In all situations, there are exceptions to the rules; the questions are valid for 99% of the time. I would assume that your friend would agree that she would never/rarely speed or drive after drinking too much in normal situation.
Watched code never compiles.
-
How do you rate in integrity compared with Britons in general? Take the Integrity Test from the Essex Centre for the Study of Integrity - ECSI.
Add up your answers 1-4 and see how honest you are. Scores range from 10 [very honest] to 40 [politician]. I scored 18, how good, or bad, are you?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
I don't drive, but I can imagine that c2 and h2 might, exceptionally, be necessary. So I have scored 13: c, e, and h as rarely. (Of course, that e2 immediately invalidates this post. :-D )
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
14 for me, even though I have done some of the things I scored a 1 for.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
14 for me, even though I have done some of the things I scored a 1 for.
Now that prescient comment points out, for me, a great gaping hole in the test design. Clearly, one of the questions should be: "Is it ever justified to answer any one of the questions here (except this one) with a #1 choice, when, in fact, you have done the action implied by the question ?" imho, the answers to that question should be reverse-scored: in other words: if RM voted "rarely" or "sometimes" justified on that question: his honesty score should increased (i.e., lowered). On the other hand, if someone answered that question with "always justified," then that raises the question of either the subject being untestable with these criteria, or being a pathological liar, sociopath, or, even, psychotic ? I leave the implications of someone answering that question with "never justified:" to your imagination. Sticky wicket, there. best, Bill
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
14 for me, even though I have done some of the things I scored a 1 for.
Now that prescient comment points out, for me, a great gaping hole in the test design. Clearly, one of the questions should be: "Is it ever justified to answer any one of the questions here (except this one) with a #1 choice, when, in fact, you have done the action implied by the question ?" imho, the answers to that question should be reverse-scored: in other words: if RM voted "rarely" or "sometimes" justified on that question: his honesty score should increased (i.e., lowered). On the other hand, if someone answered that question with "always justified," then that raises the question of either the subject being untestable with these criteria, or being a pathological liar, sociopath, or, even, psychotic ? I leave the implications of someone answering that question with "never justified:" to your imagination. Sticky wicket, there. best, Bill
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
Like most quizzes it has limited value, and in fact it is measuring (or trying to) our attitude to certain scenarios. So we can honestly say that something is never justified, even though we may have done it in the past, or may even do it in the future. You can still drive above the speed limit even though you know and agree that it is wrong.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
-
In all situations, there are exceptions to the rules; the questions are valid for 99% of the time. I would assume that your friend would agree that she would never/rarely speed or drive after drinking too much in normal situation.
Watched code never compiles.
Maximilien wrote:
I would assume that your friend would agree that she would never/rarely speed or drive after drinking too much in normal situation.
LOL, I like the emphasis, but it really was a friend, I can't take credit. I hope in similar circumstances I'd do the same thing. But it illustrates my point: the "never" isn't the same as "99% of the time". I know it's pedantic but there are pedantic people out there so the result is skewed.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Like most quizzes it has limited value, and in fact it is measuring (or trying to) our attitude to certain scenarios. So we can honestly say that something is never justified, even though we may have done it in the past, or may even do it in the future. You can still drive above the speed limit even though you know and agree that it is wrong.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
Hi Richard, imho a much better test design would have each "rating" question preceded by a "binary yes/no checkbox" question that asked: "have you ever, yourself, done" the action to be rated. Not only would that version of the test remain simple, it would add a complex dimension of additional data, allowing, possibly, inferences to be drawn between behavior and personal ethical conscious criteria. best, Bill (ex social scientist)
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
-
How do you rate in integrity compared with Britons in general? Take the Integrity Test from the Essex Centre for the Study of Integrity - ECSI.
Add up your answers 1-4 and see how honest you are. Scores range from 10 [very honest] to 40 [politician]. I scored 18, how good, or bad, are you?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
The presumption is that if you can rationalize an unethical act you are less ethical- but then they give you a set of acts that are not always unethical. And the more inclined you are to splitting hairs the higher your score should go. I'm not real clear why keeping money you found on the street qualifies as an ethical question, for example. If you can't figure out who the owner is then who should get the money if not you? Your local government? Are you supposed to 'read in' the assumption that you know who the owner is? If you take it to a charity does that count as 'keeping it' since you are benefiting by it? There's a big difference between finding a coin sitting on the ground and a satchel of large bills sitting next to a bus stop. Both count the same way by this question. I can't even guess what they want us to use as a reasonable set of assumptions on that one. A person could easily get a lower score on this test by insisting that a thing doesn't count where another person would count it. Therefore they can answer "oh, I never fail to report damage to a parked vehicle, but dinging them with a shopping cart doesn't count".
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug... The difference between an ostrich and the average voter is where they stick their heads.
-
Hi Richard, imho a much better test design would have each "rating" question preceded by a "binary yes/no checkbox" question that asked: "have you ever, yourself, done" the action to be rated. Not only would that version of the test remain simple, it would add a complex dimension of additional data, allowing, possibly, inferences to be drawn between behavior and personal ethical conscious criteria. best, Bill (ex social scientist)
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
I agree, although it would then need some rather more intelligent people to analyse the results, thus making it far less newsworthy.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
