The results page would be much improved if instead of presenting a single point in each scale labelled "You" it gave an indication of how much uncertainty there is in its measurements (answer: a whole lot).
It also seems to conflate some things that, in my brain at least, aren't at all the same. E.g., it looks as if it combines "prefer to kill criminals rather than non-criminals" and "prefer to kill people who are crossing where the light is red over people who have legal right of way", which are quite different. And it lumps a bunch of things together under "social value preference", which I suspect makes assumptions about how users view "executives" that may not be reliable in every case.
I find it interesting how many of the comments here take it that the goal is to promote the idea that (e.g.) athletes matter more than fat people, or that rich people matter more than poor people. Rather, the point seems to be to investigate what preferences people actually express.
Any single person's preferences are measured incredibly unreliably, as many people have remarked on in their own cases. But in the aggregate I think they're getting some useful information.
It also seems to conflate some things that, in my brain at least, aren't at all the same. E.g., it looks as if it combines "prefer to kill criminals rather than non-criminals" and "prefer to kill people who are crossing where the light is red over people who have legal right of way", which are quite different. And it lumps a bunch of things together under "social value preference", which I suspect makes assumptions about how users view "executives" that may not be reliable in every case.
I find it interesting how many of the comments here take it that the goal is to promote the idea that (e.g.) athletes matter more than fat people, or that rich people matter more than poor people. Rather, the point seems to be to investigate what preferences people actually express. Any single person's preferences are measured incredibly unreliably, as many people have remarked on in their own cases. But in the aggregate I think they're getting some useful information.