Four Scenarios

[freedomfromforum]

Basically what he is doing is establishing the criteria of each scenario and noting each respondent's religious views.
He's just seeing how fucked up you guys are regarding matters of "us vs them"...


Sheeple...

Not even close catfish, but your response does fit into a category, so thanks for the input.

[Zazzy]

Basically what he is doing is establishing the criteria of each scenario and noting each respondent's religious views.
He's just seeing how fucked up you guys are regarding matters of "us vs them"...


Sheeple...

Agreed. C'mon, FFF. Admit it.

**Was going to edit, then changed my fucking mind. I'm a woman, so I get to do that.

[Silver]

I know freedomfromfallacy. I know he has you all beat.

[freedomfromforum]

@Zazzy,

I made the model with a relatively thin veneer. The tells are actually necessarily given within the scenario frames. The only fair clues I could give without potentially tarnishing the purity of participant's responses, is that some who have already responded have hit on one of three key features within the frames. Even your most recent response (this latest one) contains extremely valuable data which will be added to the calculated results. As far as posting any results, I'm afraid that they would be far too anti-climactic for most of the members here, as they pertain to my work/study in the field of behavioral and cognitive psychology. No one here is being examined as an individual - I am examining a group, and attempting to interpret that group within the frame of a subjective model.

But you ARE going to tell us your overall objective, yes?

Revealing more at this stage would bias the results. I am at a point where calculations are being made based upon all input (seemingly relevant or otherwise). If you can imagine that this exercise is about something other than it appears, then you will be making good use of the time. Trust me, the model is constructed for a project that has no impact upon this forum. However, the forum input has tremendous impact upon the project. Just know that I will reveal the impetus for this exercise once enough data has been assembled, and that most of you will be very disinterested in the results.

[Fruity]

you keep hitting kudo on everyone else's posts. What about mine?

[freedomfromforum]

FFF, you made it through 3 pages. You must tell.

I hate to say this, but I don't get the point. It seems rather biased.

I still like you. Carry on.

Maybe it seems biased and maybe it doesn't

I still like you too

[Owlix]

Well have fun with it!

[freedomfromforum]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-21617-po...#pid531038

Four Scenarios
Scenario One: I am an atheist. I am in the mall and I see an elderly woman drop a $10 bill on the ground. I pick up the bill and return it to the woman who dropped it; why?

Scenario Two: I am a Christian. I am in the mall and I see a young man drop a $10 bill on the ground. I pick up the bill, and instead of returning it to the man who dropped it, I slip it into my pocket; why?

Scenario Three: I am a Christian. A woman cuts me off in traffic. Frustrated, I honk my horn for a long while and I yell out some choice words; why?

Scenario Four: I am an atheist. A man cuts me off in traffic. Frustrated, I grip the wheel, muster a smile, and carry on with my journey without angst; why?

____________________________________________________________

Moral Model

1) Present four scenarios (frames) depicting behaviors commonly not associated with subject sets.

2) Install qualifier to establish model integrity.
(in this model: separation/organization of sets into a staggered format)

3) Install three separate detractors to support the qualifier.
(in this model: religious beliefs, age, and gender)

4) Observe reactions of participants.
(in this model: paying particular attention to detracted responses, thus establishing a baseline for the qualifier)

5) Tally total number of responses, both ratable and non-ratable.
(to establish sub-sets)

6) Calculate subset participation and valuation using model parameters.
(in this model: using scenario sets as a baseline)

7) Divide subsets into relative category with +/- factors in % for each set.

_____________________________________________________________

A “set” refers to the groups depicted within the scenarios (in this model: Christians and atheists). The subsets refer to those observing the sets within their frames (scenarios). Set “A” is the atheists (in) the frame. Set “B” is the Christians (in) the frame. Subset “A” is the atheists (observing) the sets within their respective frames. Subset “B” is the Christians (observing) the sets within their respective frames. Out of a total of 27 responses, I found 18 to be what the model determines as “ratable”. The 9 remaining responses are “non-ratable” as determined by the model. Of the 18 ratable responses I found subsets “A” and “B” to be considerably close in their scoring, and I was not surprised by the results.

Subset “A” scored at 66/34%

Subset “B” scored at 61/39%

These results reflect each subset’s respective moral norm, with subset “A” showing a 66/34% “positive response/negative response”, and subset “B” displaying nearly the same numbers with 61/39%. Bear in mind that the tenor of the responses does not determine positive v. negative results, as the qualifier serves that function. The long and short of this model exercise is that subsets “A” and “B” have nearly identical “moral” values. In other words - religion does not determine morals, but morals MAY determine religious choice.

Thank you to all who participated in this exercise. I sincerely appreciate your time and input. This is NOT an exercise to make value judgments, and I assure that none are being made by me. Thanks again, and I told you all not to worry, and that it was boring psych geek stuff

[catfish]

So in other words, I was spot-on...

[freedomfromforum]

So in other words, I was spot-on...

As I said, you're not even close. http://atheistforums.org/thread-21617-po...#pid531684

Re-read this bit from my last post.

"These results reflect each subset’s respective moral norm, with subset “A” showing a 66/34% “positive response/negative response”, and subset “B” displaying nearly the same numbers with 61/39%. Bear in mind that the tenor of the responses does not determine positive v. negative results, as the qualifier serves that function. The long and short of this model exercise is that subsets “A” and “B” have nearly identical “moral” values. In other words - religion does not determine morals, but morals MAY determine religious choice."

I added that last bit in bold to help you out. As for the category your former response made it into... "non-ratable", so YOU contributed nothing but hot air. Also, I love your lack of psychological education. If I were to examine anyone here, you'd be the most transparent and the easiest to lead.