Greetings, Sup Forums

Greetings, Sup Forums.

I've come to test you -- but not with fake-ass tests for finding your soulmate among videogame characters, a real very scientific very advanced test to tap into the essence of your core values and compare them to the values of your peers.

Due to intricacies of statistical analyses that I intend to run on this data, I need shittons of participants (more than a thousand) that can be of dubious quality (so none is too worthless to participate). In return you get your own individual value profile and comparison anchors, and I get your anonymous data to violate with my statistical tools (and also help me test an idea that I've been thinking about for almost 10 years).

Here's the link: unipark.de/uc/personalvalues

* * *

If you're interested in who I am and what I do -- shoot me an email @ [email protected]

Other urls found in this thread:

krautchan.net/int/thread-41729248.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Also, the aggregated results will be posted in the /sci/ thread here Sup Forums.org/sci/thread/9156172

Also, gender composition so far

fuck off CIA.
Go look for Bane or something.

bumping for interest.
could this be stickied?

That'd be great, heh. The survey strives better on slower boards - it takes about 10 mins to complete, and then people post their results and come to chat. In Sup Forums, the thread gets flushed by then.

Also, there's zero identifying information collected.
Of course, you have to believe me that I don't collect IP and browser data (but I don't).

And here is the religiosity. You guys strayed from God.

If you want to follow the survey though it's better to do so on /sci or in krautchan's /int.

That's a hourse bump.

...This seems like an extremely shoddy test.

Your English is mediocre, Kraut.

...

Most of the questions in the test were written by American academics tho.

But some are not - if you have specific corrections that'd be very helpful.

Fuck you

Also off to do a little groceries (nothing works on Sundays in Germany). If somebody'd bump this a couple of times in the next hour, I'd be indebted.

bump, did your test

- Why the fuck are these written in second person when it's plainly obvious they are addressed to an individual first and foremost?

- Unusual word choices.

- Typographical errors.

- Needless quantification of what could only reasonably be expected to be binary answers.

- Outright telling respondent which choice to mark on two of them, presumably as a lame anti-rigging system. Did it ever occur to you some like me would chose to deliberately not comply?

Is he proposing to her on that picture?

Laddie.

Bump.

Thank you a ton guys!

Thanks for the input.
1. Over the course of 15 years of use of this questionnaire, it became apparent that it's easier for participants to evaluate their similarity to an imaginary person than their relation to abstract concepts.
2. Sorry, have to reuse the questionnaire exactly as it was put together by the author.
3. If you could point out specific typographical errors that'd help a lot! I proofread it, but may have missed something.
4. Actually, all questions have good distributions of answers that would lose in meaning if collapsed into two options.
5. It did. That's fine.

...

bump

...

A more lively discussion of this questionnaire and scores from different countries for comparison can be found here: krautchan.net/int/thread-41729248.html

>HTTPS for the survey
Props for taking privacy at least somewhat seriously.
Expect results from me in a few.

This survey engine is German quality. Unfortunately, it's visual design is also German.
Thanks mate!

As a hint for the final page: Also show the maximum possible values, not only the average you get compared against. It's fairly useless to know without being able to put the number into perspective.

One thing I wish you'd asked and would like to know is if there are any patterns for transsexuals, i.e. where gender diverges from sex.

Thanks. I can't really introduce major changes on the fly, but I will definitely keep that in mind for future renditions.

Well, I have "other" for gender and, predictably for an imageboard, have quite some answers in that category. The gender question could have been worded more smartly, in hindsight, as I'm also pretty interested in the differences. There are pretty strong (and predictable) gender differences in values, with females being higher on benevolence and security, and males being higher on achievement, power, and stimulation.

>3. If you could point out specific typographical errors that'd help a lot! I proofread it, but may have missed something.
On the story questions about the poo train, it asks
>How safe do you think is the Tejas Express?
when it is called the Tejal Express everywhere else

Also found a case of bias in the following page (about the call center supervisor)

In order to hire an immigrant (on a work visa) in the US, a company has to be approved for visa sponsorship. That fact isn't addressed in the question and could cause skewed results among americans.

Also, who the fuck whines about racism during a job interview. I wouldn't hire him on that fact alone.

quads checked faget

Thanks bro! Fixed.

>People high on humility vale recognizing their insignificance in the large scheme of things, stress modesty and acceptance of one's portion.
Change vale to value, and portion to something that makes sense in english (e.g. lot in life)

Aw yeah, lower than all averages except for self direction and hedonism.

>I suck.

Last one is more curiosity that critique. Why use a 6 choice Likert Scale? It seems like a neutral choice would be good for this kind of survey.

Really grateful for the comments. 260 people passed the survey, you're the first to point out these typos.

Quit about half way through - you're in a shithole and want to travel to another shithole - do you take slow ass train full of sweaty indians or faster uncomfortable train full of sweaty indians - no option to not take a train full of sweaty indians, and BTW, 240000000000 sweaty indians a year die on trains - fuck that, I'm flying

>That's a huge issue. The value part of the questionnaire is actually a hugely popular scale in psychology, I'm using it as is.

It's not an easy scale to fill - 57 questions about important stuff - and people are too tempted to just choose the midpoint instead of thinking if they have the chance. By using a forced-choice scale you make people make a decision that they're more comfortable with - at the cost of introducing some artificial distinctions. It annoys people, but eventually produces more meaningful data.

I laughed out loud.

ah, that makes sense

bump

but what if it's actually in the middle? It's not unimportant for me, but it's not especially important?

Finished mine.

Results seemed to reflect my personality well, the questions were interesting as well.

Huge thanks, bud!
It's not a personality test, it's a personal values questionnaire - while there is some correspondence between personality traits and values, it's far from perfect. They also predict different things - for example, values are good at predicting political orientations, while personality traits aren't. But happy you enjoyed it!

Googling your email shows results to archives threads from Sup Forums.

How long do you think it'll take to get all 1000 when you're hopping boards like this?

archived*

>fuck

A couple of days. I've started yesterday and it's at 304 atm.

But yeah, I am hopping boards. An alive thread in Sup Forums though gives a lot of respondents (to each and every of whom I'm very grateful btw).

That's some fat participation going on here.

saving bump

Here are my values. Fuck yeah!

Almost 350

Education

Shit's going slow in the evening...

bump