On 3 August 2010 14:32, Jim Korman wrote: > RussellMc wrote: >> Most of the prognostications on the reason for the test and a rough >> indication of how good it is liable to be, and what "good" means in the >> context, and what the implications of the ratios and absolute values mig= ht >> imply, all suitably approximately, are reasonably well addressed by the >> newspaper article that I cited in the original post. >> >> Portions from my post: >> >> The following links access a genuine ethics test developed by Roger >> Steare, a professor of organisational ethics, and corporate >> philosopher in residence at the Cass Business School in London. >> >> He notes that =A0the purpose of the test is to "understand how we as hum= an >> beings make the decisions that determine our lives and the world we >> are creating for ourselves". Until we understand who we are, says >> Steare, we really can't make decisions about who we ought to be. >> >> This links to an article that appeared in the NZ Herald. >> >> >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=3D11&objectid= =3D10662433 >> >> Test here - >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0www.ethicability.org >> >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Russell >> > Note too, that part of the test was to see what you pick when your > choices are limited. > > Jim > And I wonder how much of the test (survey ??) was to see how people considered the results accurate and which are they thought most inaccurate. (The final 2 questions IIRC) RP --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .