Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grek]

Let's see how Grek stands up.

Good points:
My ranking of "being Edward" as worse than "being Fernando" was consistant with my ranking of Edward as worse than Fernando.
I made no assumptions about anyone dating, anyone being exclusive or anyone cheating.
I rated Fernando as better than Adam.
I did not assume that Adam knew about the Betty/Edward relationship.

Debatable points:
I feel that Gary did a good deed because he was socially expected to stop Fernando from taking the food, but did not do so.
I rated Dan as better than Gary for the reason described in result 4. With the extra info, Dan goes up a rank because wealth is a (very weak) indicator of virtue.

Bad points:
I had an unstated and unexamined assumption that Adam & Betty's table was closer to the door than Carrie & Dan's.
I had an unstated and unexamined preference to be Adam over being Fernando. Upon reflection, I have reversed this preference. Being beaten is much worse than being hungry.

[scrdest]

RE: relationships imply exclusivity

The results are somewhat skewered by the fact that even if you, personally, do not share this point of view, the characters do.

What reason do you have to assume this?

Betty's reaction, for example.

[Graknorke]

RE: relationships imply exclusivity

The results are somewhat skewered by the fact that even if you, personally, do not share this point of view, the characters do.

What reason do you have to assume this?

Betty's reaction, for example.

Betty was never in a relationship with anybody though (apart from maybe Edward? That would explain why she had sex with him and then they were talking about what happened. I doubt that she would talk about that with someone she just met.)

[LordBucket]

Good points:
Bad points:

I hesitate to describe anyone's answers as good or bad. Part of the point of the test is that we don't know the details, and the answers reveal which assumptions we make.

For example, while most of us assumed that Adam and Betty were couples and that they didn't know Carrie and Dan, a few people assumed that they all did know each other. It' a very different situation, if your boyfriend tells you that a total stranger is prettier than you and then she approaches him for sex...than it is if for exmple, they all already know each other, and Adam and Carrie have a history together...which would explain why she was so nonchalent about propositioning him. I think Betty's reaction is more understandable if Carrie is Adam's ex, and she's deliberately bringing a date to their restaurant just to create problems.

Maybe there isn't much reason to make an assumption like that. But there isn't much reason to assume that Dan and Carrie are a dating couple either, and yet many people did make that assumption.

Is Edward a violent criminal who Betty is cheating on Adam with, or is Edward Betty's long term established boyfriend, and he just has extreme jealousy issues? Are Dan and Carrie on a date and Carrie walks out on him to sexually proposition a total stranger, or are they friends only and she already knows Adam and is pleasantly surprised to find him attracted to her? Is Fernando a starving homeless man or is he simply in a bad spot and will get out of it soon? Is Gary a virtuous man helping the hungry, or is he too lazy and irresponsible to do his job? Would Gary still be virtuous if he says nothing, not because he wants to make Fernando's life easier...but rather because he simply doesn't want to create more work for himself?

There are lots of ways we can fill in the missing information.

With the extra info

There's no extra info. There's no "this is definitely what was going on."  We don't know. But we tend to fill in the details with our our assumptions.

[LordBucket]

Betty's reaction, for example.

What, you mean sleeping with Edward? You interpret that to mean that she's in a relationship with Adam and believes in exclusivity in relationships?

On the other hand, Adam didn't seem to have any problem telling Betty he thought Carrie prettier. Carrie didn't seem to think it improper to leave Dan's table and proposition Adam. And Dan either didn't think it improper or at least wasn't very bothered by it. Why is Betty's single reaction of getting angry at Adam thinking her less pretty than Carrie enough for you to conclude that all of these people are in and believe in exclusive commitment relationships?

...or is it you projecting your own views onto the situation?

[scrdest]

Betty's reaction, for example.

What, you mean sleeping with Edward? You interpret that to mean that she's in a relationship with Adam and believes in exclusivity in relationships?

On the other hand, Adam didn't seem to have any problem telling Betty he thought Carrie prettier. Carrie didn't seem to think it improper to leave Dan's table and proposition Adam. And Dan either didn't think it improper or at least wasn't very bothered by it. Why is Betty's single reaction of getting angry at Adam thinking her less pretty than Carrie enough for you to conclude that all of these people are in and believe in exclusive commitment relationships?

I do not infer all these people believe in exclusivity, I am just using Betty as an example since her reaction, and even more so her original question, point to being insecure about her position in the relationship.

Tangentially, assumption that Betty had something to do with Edward beating Adam up is because the OP states that she discusses what happened at the restaurant and then Edward goes to beat Adam up. If, in fact, Betty was cheating on Edward, him beating Adam up makes no sense, and her telling him about it makes no sense.

Even if they did not presume exclusivity, 'Oh, and this guy I've been sleeping with insulted me' leading to Edward beating Adam up makes no sense unless Edward fell out of a time portal to 1200.

[BFEL]

LordBucket, I'm curious what you would think of my "Kaiser Soze" idea of the situation, even if it was mostly intended as a joke (I also wanted to present a different way of looking at things).

Assuming my earlier post WASN'T a joke post, what would you say about my psyche?

[LordBucket]

LordBucket, I'm curious what you would think of my "Kaiser Soze" idea of the situation, even if it was mostly intended as a joke (I also wanted to present a different way of looking at things).

I don't get the reference. I haven't seen the movie you're talking about.

Assuming my earlier post WASN'T a joke post, what would you say about my psyche?

...well, I notice that the post largely consisted of asserting that things have happened or will happen. As has been mentioned a couple timess and by people other than me, part of the point of this is to see how we interpret events based on limited information. But speculating why something happened and asserting that something happened are not the same thing.

For example, if I watch Bob go to a funeral, stand on the outskirts and wait for everyone else to leave then leave a flower on the grave...I might speculate that he was sad and didn't want to have to deal with anybody. Or I might speculate that he wasn't invited. But if I assert that the funeral was fake and the coffin contained a top secret spy document and that the flower was just a cover while he planted a bomb to blow it up, but that it won't succeed because between him planting it and the bomb going off a bomb squad will show up and defuse it...at that point I'm not really interpreting events being observed so much as making up events and adding them to the story.

Your joke post kind of does that.

[XXSockXX]

I don't find it surprising at all that most people assume relationships to be exclusive. After all the vast majority of relationships are, and more importantly, the "standard" image in our society is one of exclusive relationships. I found it more surprising that most people assumed that A+B and C+D are indeed couples, because their behaviour doesn't necessarily suggest that.

Not surprising nobody fell for the "rich is bad" trap, that was obvious, but Dan doesn't do anything that can be judged morally, except if you assume being rich is a very bad thing in itself.

Also surprising people viewed Gary so favourably, he only passively helped Fernando, nobody concluded he just didn't care.

Most people viewed Fernando as a poor guy, nobody thought he could be hungry for other reasons, like I jokingly suggested, it might be his own fault.

In a society that values honour more than ours (more of a macho kind of honour), Edward might be judged more favourably, nobody assumed he was defending Betty's or his own honour.

In conclusion, most people seem to have a rather idealisticly positive view of humanity. Most people see economic conditions as unlikely to change. People have a conservative view on relationships on the one hand, but don't see them as ultimately that stable either (because nobody thought how bad it might be for Dan to get walked out on and nobody questioned Adam making a move on Carrie.)

[Graknorke]

I do not infer all these people believe in exclusivity, I am just using Betty as an example since her reaction, and even more so her original question, point to being insecure about her position in the relationship.

I still think that the only relationship is Betty and Edward. The other events wouldn't make sense otherwise.

[Imp]

Hehe!  This is neat.

LordBucket, may I ask you for a direct appraisal of my answer as well?

[LordBucket]

LordBucket, may I ask you for a direct appraisal of my answer as well?

My first impression is that it must be very nice to be so happy to be who you already are. That said, you didn't really rank anyone. You just said that Gary was "least bad" and everyone else was equivalent regardless of what they did.

As mentioned previously, a big part of the test was to see how people would fill in the details of the motivation of others, but you didn't do that. Instead you identified with one person and said that everyone except the person you identified with...wasn't as good as the person you identified with. Instead of ranking everyone you listed each character and told us what you wanted them to do to make things more convenient for your own self.

So...that kind of looks like extremely self centered to me. Literally you looked at every character and evaluated their actions based on how they affected the character you identified with and then told us what you wanted them to do in the future for your own personal benefit and convenience.

[Imp]

Thanks for the interpretation!

Some people consider 'being non-judgemental' a non-flaw.  Course, it's -extremely- hard to be non-judgemental in a test of this type.

I wondered if you'd react to how I 'did it backwards', I decided who 'I' was (and -not- who I wanted to be, but identified with to the point of 'was') almost before I ranked anyone - then judged 'myself', then 'judged everyone else' (or failed to judge them).

Gary's role is that of a servant, though you didn't describe his duties I surely imagined them.  He's there to provide service to every paying customer who enters, and to meet the expectations of reasonable behavior for everyone from his invisible bosses to the people carrying out possible recurrent 'problems' of verbal violence and 'misappropriation', and his security in life (keeping his job - but also earning the highest possible tips!) is based on being able to respond 'appropriately and reasonably' (based on the judgments of others) regardless of the behavior of others.

That can lead one to 'respond in kind', to want others to also 'need' to respond appropriately, which makes juggling dealing with the rest of the world without your own being disrupted gosh-darn smoother.

[Zangi]

1. Gary (Meh, F can have the leftovers, just don't steal the silverware/plates. "I didn't see nothing.")
2. Fernando (In and out, no problems, no harm.)
3. Dan (Alright, so the date(?) was a bust.  Nothing wrong here.)
4. Carrie (No harm at all, she takes compliments well and no reason for that offer to be available for later then 'now'.)
5. Edward (He probably likes B, poor choice... but what can you do?)
6. Adam (Moron.)
7. Bettie (Drama incarnate.)

... I don't want to be any of em.  I'm not a social person.  Maybe Fernando counts?

[Darvi]

Gotta agree there, I'd rather be Harrold who obviously turned down an invitation in favour for sitting at home playing games.