crap is that the new chirping smoke alarm? i cant afford to close my ceiling so ive been coping by pretending the sparrows perpetually around my house are vaguely nice to look at
I was visiting a friend when his smoke detector chirped. I held my breath for what felt like an eternity (but was just a few picoseconds) before he noted it was going off and he needed to replace the battery. The timing of it was coincidental and he navigated that expertly, the birds were held at bay.
To add onto this, some people aren't just conformist, they're retarded on top of that. I have a coworker who would be best described as "NPC-lite." He will believe most things unquestioningly. That includes when I push back on his occasional NPC-like remarks, we will often discuss and he will admit he isn't super knowledgeable and that what I'm saying is probably more close to the truth
And then a couple weeks later the same topic will come up and he will spout the same NPC talking point that we had already came to a mutual understanding were BS. He will just completely forget entire conversations. That's just a specific example, but I've had similar experiences with multiple people. It's like they don't even have the baseline mental capacity required to be non-conformist.
Hate is a strong word but he grates on me a lot at times that's for sure. I feel a bit guilty about it because from the outside we look like good buddies since we often get lunch together but internally half the time he opens his mouth I'm just like "ugh."
I can see why you would think that. And if I saw someone saying this without any knowledge of the person I would probably come to the same conclusion. But trust me when I say this dude's memory really is that bad.
He's the type of guy who if you are around him long enough will tell you the same story 3 times in one week thinking he didn't tell you yet. And, the most frustrating part of it, sometimes he gets the details of his own stories mixed up and I have to correct him because I've heard it already....
Sometimes it's easy to forget just how dumb normies can be....
One of my friend's wives tried to understand the "Lets Go Brandon" meme when it was mildly brushed against (Somebody on a show had the name Brandon). Her conclusion was "I thought they were against censorship, it's ironic they can't just say fuck biden".
It's frustrating when so much of the time it isnt even just them disagreeing with us on fundamental issues, it's just them being blatantly retarded. Not being able to understand that that has nothing to do with the type of censorship that is normally discussed in the political arena means you are so retarded you don't deserve to be able to vote.
Funny that you say that though, because I literally just responded to someone on plebbit 5 minutes ago who said I'm advocating against free speech for saying it's a net positive if twitter collapses because it was a leftist cesspool before.
I remember a saying by a man named Terry Pratchett which went like this; "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it."
Right now I'm more concerned about the box I'm in, and it's one of actions, not merely perceptions.
There's no foolproof test, but something that comes to mind is asking a very general question, and see if they give an absolute answer. Something like, 'do you believe in Science?' or 'how do you feel about conspiracy theorists?'
If they 'believe in Science,' they're a normie, because that's now how science works. If they hate conspiracy theorists, normie. But, again, not foolproof, because plenty of people who go against the narrative still can't think outside their box, either.
So, I suppose it's easier to test people to determine that they can't think outside the box, as opposed to that they can.
"Do you believe in science" is a tricky one, because when spoken aloud, you cannot hear the capitalization you added. I believe in science, as in, I believe in the process of trial and observation of results and drawing limited conclusions from said observations, that such a concept exists. I believe in it. I believe in horses, too. And in gravel roadways, even if superior roadways exist, I still believe they also exist in tandem.
Believing in science, and believing in Science, are two very different things.
It's context, though. Again, science isn't something you 'believe' in, exactly, and you wouldn't normally phrase it that way; and anyone asking that is obviously putting the capitalization on, and is obviously an NPC.
Just like how you should do a double take if someone asked if, per your example, you believed in horses. The phrasing of the 'science' question, as well as the current cultural zeitgeist, makes it a good shit test.
Would you really answer "yes" if someone asked if you believed in science? Without any specification about scientific method or anything?
I would reply "like... the concept of it?" and then clarify, much like I just did, at the risk the person I'm talking to is a psycho-lefty or combat-NPC trying to check a shibboleth. The correct answer is neither yes nor no, but requesting further details, regardless of whether you're trying to check their own opinions in why they'd ask such a question in the first place, though.
Language matters. That's why the left perverts it so often.
I think a better question would be: "Do you follow any "out-there" ideas or theories?" That way you don't use the trigger word. Most people believe in some harmless crack-pot idea that doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't impact their life in anyway. Like "Elvis isn't dead".
That would at least show that they are capable of thinking outside the establishment norms if they think they are allowed to.
You're on the right track with D&D. Basically you need to check their creativity in building or resolving hypothetical situations that go against their assumptions. One reason wokists can't write good fiction is they are incapable of escaping their own experiences.
Those NEVER made any sense to me on any level; firstly magic and healing potions exist within the d and d universe; secondly who the fuck enforces accessibility rules on, say, a black dragon?
I chose a black dragon a they are known to be capricious and psychotic even by dragon standards
It's the same with the tranny in BG remake expansion (siege of draognspear). Even if you know nowthing about DnD, the original game (that you just remade) has a belt of femininity/masculinity as a cursed item. An item that changes your sex.
Magic that changes your sex. It is the dream come true for any tranny. No HRT, no surgery, just equip the belt and you are what you want to be at 100%.
But for whatever reason that is not something that the tranny sought out (hey, it's a cursed item and other people are happy if they can hand it over to a willing recipient).
Those people (and it also applies to the wheelchair) just want to push their agenda and want to talk about it in a game setting. That the game has already solved their issue (by having magic) and a perfect solution for people like them exist? Nope, not enough.
Alternatively, you could have it so that magical healing restores people to their soul-state. To the state they are "meant" to be in. And over time, their souls adjust to their bodies, so old wounds cannot be healed as the soul has accepted the affliction.
Even so, being stuck in a wheelchair should make adventuring an immensely and instantly bad idea. And most of any sensible mechanics built around it are almost certainly more likely to have a very negative and "exclusive" effect on any players rolling around in a wheelchair.
The Killdozer story was a good one before his side of the story got too famous. I would float "imagine how desperate you'd have to be to go through that effort" would result in either "I never considered it" (a good sign) or "Nah, he was crazy" (lost unthinking soul).
Would be good to think for a few hours on a similar thing. Waco might be good, but there's too much "cartoon villain" from the government, right down to getting kids out of the compound and immediately turning around and planting them in front of a TV with sugary snacks and gloating about it to agitate those inside.
You could have non-obvious exposed antennas, but with most bands capable of getting you a good enough video feed to operate the vehicle, dampening from the armor is a serious concern - you'd need to disguise it and have at least two antennae on opposite sides of the vehicle.
He sealed himself in his own death machine, I don’t think he expects himself to make it out alive. The guy already lost everything so this is the one last time to set things right.
No test would be able to adequately define the terms, let alone reach a methodology qualified to say such.
Proposing violence to every single problem, including innocuous ones, is thinking outside the box but most would probably say poisoning your neighbor's dog for barking once at 8pm doesn't say what you hoped it would.
It accomplishes every task it would set out to do. Its an effective solution.
The problem is that people who ask questions like this don't consider that type of action a good thing and would whine if their dog was killed. Meaning the terms are poorly defined and useless.
You'd have a really interesting paper if you can come up with a test like that and compare with self-reported agreement with different political statements.
Thinking outside the box sounds like creativity. You test that by asking people to, say, name uses for a brick and see who comes up with the most ideas.
Conformist versus seeing alternative perspectives sounds like the openness dimension of the big five personality traits. You test that with a psychometric correlation test.
I didn't know the terminology so I used descriptive words. Psychometrics is the subset of psychology that looks for conclusions in statistical correlations. If answers to questions X, Y and Z correlate consistently through a number of people, it can be said that those three questions are measuring the same thing. There's a statistical tool to find those correlations. It's called factor analysis.
Anyway, if you make all sorts of questions related to temperament, test them and then make a factor analysis from the results, you'll find that there are five dimensions to human personality (as far as anyone can tell so far). One of them is openness, which on one extreme describes something like being naturally curious and on the other something like being naturally cautious. People high in openness are creative, intuitive and statistically tend towards leftism. People low on openness value tradition, stability, think more logically and tend to dislike change.
The central problem is Goodhart's law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. You need an open ended question with multiple right and wrong answers, and an intelligent interpreter. If you ask unpopular questions, they have to be plausibly deniable answers so the other person doesn't think you're a honeypot or strategically challenged; the general concept of shrouding.
Some from my rough draft of interview questions and other criteria, which have the different goal of organizational integrity, but might be applicable. Modify some to make questions non-leading or legally defensible.
Ask for social media logins.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (definitely rephrase to catch people pleasers).
What is real agile development? (this would be mentioned on the job posting so the candidate can prove they aren't just mass applying).
When is it and is it not okay to lie on your resume or for a friend? (Hopefully this would filter out chickenshits who know good answers but answer in a way they think a Taylorist corporation wants to hear)
General questions regarding financial and economic literacy (people who grasp socio-economic concepts are less likely to need layers of lower and middle management). A relevant one would be how handle or prevent the united airlines incident where the doctor is randomly and forcefully selected to be removed. Basic ones to ask about are common misconceptions, such as carrying a slight negative credit-card balance to "prove creditworthiness" or increased pay reducing your net income progressive tax brackets (the interviewer/interpreter has to account for, or be open-minded, when the interviewee is well versed in tax-avoidance and multiple categories of taxation effecting income).
Pay attention to some objectively bad habits, like using an ad-supported flashlight app instead of the phone's built-in toggle. I personally distrust people who don't attempt competence, dignity, and prosocialness (i.e. willing to forgo personal gain so bad behavior in others is discouraged) in all walks of life.
Does .999... == 1 and the monty-hall problem (various right and wrong answers, and screens some agreeable and disagreeable personalities).
Side-note: If HR and recruiters are misbehaving, just let them know they are being monitored.
Edit: In any kind of social makeup, it's important to have intellectual diversity which includes seeking out those that know what you and others don't. This has to be balanced with the risk that people will derail a grouping by being either too harmonious or disharmonious. You have to be self-aware and intelligent to make sure someone else isn't imitating desired virtues.
Agreed. Those two questions are meant to gauge someone's cooperativeness and curiosity, along with attention to detail if they're already acquainted with the problem. 0.999...=/=1 under non-standard number systems, and monty-hall probability depends on criteria assumptions. I would never entrust an HR drone with such a fickle, inefficiently reproducible task, as they are too egotistical and unimaginative to comprehend the questions' intent.
A person who doesn't think outside the box would never accept this. Is there some sort of academic test an outside box thinker would be forced to accept as true?
Eric Weinstein had a podcast called The Portal where he explored a similar subject. He'd ask his guests how to tell someone that their breath is bad.
I think the question can fit what you're after, but there might need to be more groundwork to get a better response.
"Capable of" is a different metric than "only knows currently", most easily demonstrated in a thought experiment of yourself at age 6 months: You definitely only know conformist ideas at that time, what your family says is true, is true. But you clearly now can think outside the box, I would hope.
So which one do you wish to measure? Do you want to test if the person has aphantasia? If they're an NPC? Or if they're just ill-informed? Your question is lacking, unfortunately.
no one way works because theres diffrent kinds of cracked, a good first start would be seeing how well they put their trust is an information source and ask why they trust it so highly if their response is something along the lines of its the news why would they lie you found one. a good secound one is to get their opinon on oddball topics like jan 6 and the prisoners. basicly see how they respond to authority or at least percived authority and its abuse.
It's this simple, do they appear to think about the Questions you ask them, or do they simply reply? That being said, your Question is quite open ended, and needs to be more specific on topics, range and form of analytical thought for a more accurate answer. Because as it stands you can say that everyone fits the standard for 'thinking outside of the box.'
Fundamentally, even people who can think our of the box will still rely on establishment knowledge for somethings due to the Gelman Amnesia Effect. Normally, if they know something from experience, they are anti-establishment on it. If they don't know it from experience, they are establishmentarian on it.
Humans tend to accept the first explanation they receive for anything (including you and me). Most of the media is thus based around getting there first, being the first story most people hear.
This is a feature of humans, we can assume in the distant past humans who were skeptical or didn't listen to their elders got eaten by sabertooths or left the gates unlocked were killed by barbarians.
Unfortunately even in dissident circles once you jump the first hurdle of getting people to realize the mainstream story is false you are immediately bombarded with "alternative" theories which are often ALSO extreme bullshit. And it never ends.
Sorting people into critical/non-critical thinkers is waste of time. Concentrate on winning and the masses will accept your truth. This is the reality the left knows and the right refuses to learn.
Try asking them how they would have felt if they hadn't had breakfast that day.
What does God need with a starship?
Somehow, the books actually did something with that entity.
Turns out that was a malevolent entity known only as "The One" who was imprisoned by the Q at the center of the galaxy.
The books are a trilogy: Q-Space, Q-Zone and Q-Strike, in that order. I've read them, they're highly recommended. A shame they're not canon.
They also explain that strange barrier surrounding the Milky Way in Trek canon. Turns out it's there for a very good reason...
That’s exactly what the Butcher of Gallitep would say!
crap is that the new chirping smoke alarm? i cant afford to close my ceiling so ive been coping by pretending the sparrows perpetually around my house are vaguely nice to look at
I was visiting a friend when his smoke detector chirped. I held my breath for what felt like an eternity (but was just a few picoseconds) before he noted it was going off and he needed to replace the battery. The timing of it was coincidental and he navigated that expertly, the birds were held at bay.
To add onto this, some people aren't just conformist, they're retarded on top of that. I have a coworker who would be best described as "NPC-lite." He will believe most things unquestioningly. That includes when I push back on his occasional NPC-like remarks, we will often discuss and he will admit he isn't super knowledgeable and that what I'm saying is probably more close to the truth
And then a couple weeks later the same topic will come up and he will spout the same NPC talking point that we had already came to a mutual understanding were BS. He will just completely forget entire conversations. That's just a specific example, but I've had similar experiences with multiple people. It's like they don't even have the baseline mental capacity required to be non-conformist.
This kind of thing right here is why so called democracy is a farce. Because most people are goldfish.
Yep. Fortunately this specific dude doesn't vote, but plenty of people at his level or worse do.
Hence why you have the media manufacture consent.
Have you, gradually, come to hate him?
Hate is a strong word but he grates on me a lot at times that's for sure. I feel a bit guilty about it because from the outside we look like good buddies since we often get lunch together but internally half the time he opens his mouth I'm just like "ugh."
(Whoosh!!!)
What exactly am I missing here?
There's a passage where Hitler describes what it's like to argue with jews. It's basically the same as what you wrote about NPCs.
He ends the passage with: "...Gradually I began to hate them."
Ahahaha now that you mention that it sounds familiar. Thanks for the heads up, I totally missed that one lmao
Your coworker didn’t forget your earlier conversation. He’s just a dishonest manipulative fuck.
I can see why you would think that. And if I saw someone saying this without any knowledge of the person I would probably come to the same conclusion. But trust me when I say this dude's memory really is that bad.
He's the type of guy who if you are around him long enough will tell you the same story 3 times in one week thinking he didn't tell you yet. And, the most frustrating part of it, sometimes he gets the details of his own stories mixed up and I have to correct him because I've heard it already....
Sometimes it's easy to forget just how dumb normies can be....
One of my friend's wives tried to understand the "Lets Go Brandon" meme when it was mildly brushed against (Somebody on a show had the name Brandon). Her conclusion was "I thought they were against censorship, it's ironic they can't just say fuck biden".
It's frustrating when so much of the time it isnt even just them disagreeing with us on fundamental issues, it's just them being blatantly retarded. Not being able to understand that that has nothing to do with the type of censorship that is normally discussed in the political arena means you are so retarded you don't deserve to be able to vote.
Funny that you say that though, because I literally just responded to someone on plebbit 5 minutes ago who said I'm advocating against free speech for saying it's a net positive if twitter collapses because it was a leftist cesspool before.
This one. The defining trait of the NPC is that it responds to new information with anger or fear.
COVID is a fairly easy target without showing all your cards
I remember a saying by a man named Terry Pratchett which went like this; "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it."
Right now I'm more concerned about the box I'm in, and it's one of actions, not merely perceptions.
There's no foolproof test, but something that comes to mind is asking a very general question, and see if they give an absolute answer. Something like, 'do you believe in Science?' or 'how do you feel about conspiracy theorists?'
If they 'believe in Science,' they're a normie, because that's now how science works. If they hate conspiracy theorists, normie. But, again, not foolproof, because plenty of people who go against the narrative still can't think outside their box, either.
So, I suppose it's easier to test people to determine that they can't think outside the box, as opposed to that they can.
I think a better question would be to ask them if they think science is always correct.
Every scientist will tell you 'no'. Any indoctrinated drone will tell you yes.
"Do you believe in science" is a tricky one, because when spoken aloud, you cannot hear the capitalization you added. I believe in science, as in, I believe in the process of trial and observation of results and drawing limited conclusions from said observations, that such a concept exists. I believe in it. I believe in horses, too. And in gravel roadways, even if superior roadways exist, I still believe they also exist in tandem.
Believing in science, and believing in Science, are two very different things.
It's context, though. Again, science isn't something you 'believe' in, exactly, and you wouldn't normally phrase it that way; and anyone asking that is obviously putting the capitalization on, and is obviously an NPC.
Just like how you should do a double take if someone asked if, per your example, you believed in horses. The phrasing of the 'science' question, as well as the current cultural zeitgeist, makes it a good shit test.
Would you really answer "yes" if someone asked if you believed in science? Without any specification about scientific method or anything?
I would reply "like... the concept of it?" and then clarify, much like I just did, at the risk the person I'm talking to is a psycho-lefty or combat-NPC trying to check a shibboleth. The correct answer is neither yes nor no, but requesting further details, regardless of whether you're trying to check their own opinions in why they'd ask such a question in the first place, though.
Language matters. That's why the left perverts it so often.
Which is what I said. If someone answers "yes" they're an NPC, that's all I said.
I think a better question would be: "Do you follow any "out-there" ideas or theories?" That way you don't use the trigger word. Most people believe in some harmless crack-pot idea that doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't impact their life in anyway. Like "Elvis isn't dead".
That would at least show that they are capable of thinking outside the establishment norms if they think they are allowed to.
Put them in a D&D session and see how adaptive they are by how many veins are showing on the DMs forehead everytime its their turn.
You're on the right track with D&D. Basically you need to check their creativity in building or resolving hypothetical situations that go against their assumptions. One reason wokists can't write good fiction is they are incapable of escaping their own experiences.
Has anyone actually in a wheelchair opted to roll (heh) the battle wheelchair?
Those NEVER made any sense to me on any level; firstly magic and healing potions exist within the d and d universe; secondly who the fuck enforces accessibility rules on, say, a black dragon?
I chose a black dragon a they are known to be capricious and psychotic even by dragon standards
It's the same with the tranny in BG remake expansion (siege of draognspear). Even if you know nowthing about DnD, the original game (that you just remade) has a belt of femininity/masculinity as a cursed item. An item that changes your sex.
Magic that changes your sex. It is the dream come true for any tranny. No HRT, no surgery, just equip the belt and you are what you want to be at 100%.
But for whatever reason that is not something that the tranny sought out (hey, it's a cursed item and other people are happy if they can hand it over to a willing recipient).
Those people (and it also applies to the wheelchair) just want to push their agenda and want to talk about it in a game setting. That the game has already solved their issue (by having magic) and a perfect solution for people like them exist? Nope, not enough.
It's because they don't actually want to be a woman. They want to be a monster, and force you to call them a woman.
You could build a pretty good campaign around a quest to obtain scarce healing magic for your crippled character.
Alternatively, you could have it so that magical healing restores people to their soul-state. To the state they are "meant" to be in. And over time, their souls adjust to their bodies, so old wounds cannot be healed as the soul has accepted the affliction.
Even so, being stuck in a wheelchair should make adventuring an immensely and instantly bad idea. And most of any sensible mechanics built around it are almost certainly more likely to have a very negative and "exclusive" effect on any players rolling around in a wheelchair.
I think it's basically a purity check, or otherwise an attempt to make you bend the knee and submit to stupidity in the name of accessability.
Wait, can I strap some sword to stick out from the wheels so I can cut people down like it's a war chariot?
And maybe make it able to hover with magic so I can get over any obstacles like stairs but also do divebomb attacks from the sky..
So this is why my DM perks up when it's my turn.
The Killdozer story was a good one before his side of the story got too famous. I would float "imagine how desperate you'd have to be to go through that effort" would result in either "I never considered it" (a good sign) or "Nah, he was crazy" (lost unthinking soul).
Would be good to think for a few hours on a similar thing. Waco might be good, but there's too much "cartoon villain" from the government, right down to getting kids out of the compound and immediately turning around and planting them in front of a TV with sugary snacks and gloating about it to agitate those inside.
Good topic submission, OP.
You could have non-obvious exposed antennas, but with most bands capable of getting you a good enough video feed to operate the vehicle, dampening from the armor is a serious concern - you'd need to disguise it and have at least two antennae on opposite sides of the vehicle.
It would be easier today with that stuff being mass market. I'm not sure how accessible wireless camera feeds were back then.
He sealed himself in his own death machine, I don’t think he expects himself to make it out alive. The guy already lost everything so this is the one last time to set things right.
People who use the expression "think outside the box" tend to be normies in my experience.
No test would be able to adequately define the terms, let alone reach a methodology qualified to say such.
Proposing violence to every single problem, including innocuous ones, is thinking outside the box but most would probably say poisoning your neighbor's dog for barking once at 8pm doesn't say what you hoped it would.
It accomplishes every task it would set out to do. Its an effective solution.
The problem is that people who ask questions like this don't consider that type of action a good thing and would whine if their dog was killed. Meaning the terms are poorly defined and useless.
You'd have a really interesting paper if you can come up with a test like that and compare with self-reported agreement with different political statements.
Ask them "How would you have felt had you not eaten breakfast yesterday morning?"
I don't get this? I guess I can't think outside the box :(
https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/s5drf0/iqpills_from_a_grad_student/
I've never seen anything outside of the 4chan post to indicate that it's real though.
Edit
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19086299/ This might be along those lines. Might need to find the full article on sci hub
Thinking outside the box sounds like creativity. You test that by asking people to, say, name uses for a brick and see who comes up with the most ideas.
Conformist versus seeing alternative perspectives sounds like the openness dimension of the big five personality traits. You test that with a psychometric correlation test.
What's a psychometric correlation test?
I didn't know the terminology so I used descriptive words. Psychometrics is the subset of psychology that looks for conclusions in statistical correlations. If answers to questions X, Y and Z correlate consistently through a number of people, it can be said that those three questions are measuring the same thing. There's a statistical tool to find those correlations. It's called factor analysis.
Anyway, if you make all sorts of questions related to temperament, test them and then make a factor analysis from the results, you'll find that there are five dimensions to human personality (as far as anyone can tell so far). One of them is openness, which on one extreme describes something like being naturally curious and on the other something like being naturally cautious. People high in openness are creative, intuitive and statistically tend towards leftism. People low on openness value tradition, stability, think more logically and tend to dislike change.
Yes, simplest test ever - these days anyway.
Just ask them their opinion on Trump.
Sit back and observe. It will tell you everything you need to know.
I believe so, and it was known about thousands of years ago even!
The central problem is Goodhart's law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. You need an open ended question with multiple right and wrong answers, and an intelligent interpreter. If you ask unpopular questions, they have to be plausibly deniable answers so the other person doesn't think you're a honeypot or strategically challenged; the general concept of shrouding.
Some from my rough draft of interview questions and other criteria, which have the different goal of organizational integrity, but might be applicable. Modify some to make questions non-leading or legally defensible.
Ask for social media logins.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (definitely rephrase to catch people pleasers).
What is real agile development? (this would be mentioned on the job posting so the candidate can prove they aren't just mass applying).
When is it and is it not okay to lie on your resume or for a friend? (Hopefully this would filter out chickenshits who know good answers but answer in a way they think a Taylorist corporation wants to hear)
General questions regarding financial and economic literacy (people who grasp socio-economic concepts are less likely to need layers of lower and middle management). A relevant one would be how handle or prevent the united airlines incident where the doctor is randomly and forcefully selected to be removed. Basic ones to ask about are common misconceptions, such as carrying a slight negative credit-card balance to "prove creditworthiness" or increased pay reducing your net income progressive tax brackets (the interviewer/interpreter has to account for, or be open-minded, when the interviewee is well versed in tax-avoidance and multiple categories of taxation effecting income).
Pay attention to some objectively bad habits, like using an ad-supported flashlight app instead of the phone's built-in toggle. I personally distrust people who don't attempt competence, dignity, and prosocialness (i.e. willing to forgo personal gain so bad behavior in others is discouraged) in all walks of life.
https://johnpublic.mataroa.blog/blog/the-asshole-test/ (this test has its own flaws).
Does .999... == 1 and the monty-hall problem (various right and wrong answers, and screens some agreeable and disagreeable personalities).
Side-note: If HR and recruiters are misbehaving, just let them know they are being monitored.
Edit: In any kind of social makeup, it's important to have intellectual diversity which includes seeking out those that know what you and others don't. This has to be balanced with the risk that people will derail a grouping by being either too harmonious or disharmonious. You have to be self-aware and intelligent to make sure someone else isn't imitating desired virtues.
Agreed. Those two questions are meant to gauge someone's cooperativeness and curiosity, along with attention to detail if they're already acquainted with the problem. 0.999...=/=1 under non-standard number systems, and monty-hall probability depends on criteria assumptions. I would never entrust an HR drone with such a fickle, inefficiently reproducible task, as they are too egotistical and unimaginative to comprehend the questions' intent.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Genuine open-mindedness.
This manifests in being able to genuinely receive another opinion.
They can listen without needing to respond, or needing to be right.
They are okay with not having the last word in a debate.
They don't get emotional over their opinion. Or yours.
This trait is rare, even among conservatives.
Ask them what news sources they read?
A person who doesn't think outside the box would never accept this. Is there some sort of academic test an outside box thinker would be forced to accept as true?
Happy Merchant Rorschach?
Eric Weinstein had a podcast called The Portal where he explored a similar subject. He'd ask his guests how to tell someone that their breath is bad. I think the question can fit what you're after, but there might need to be more groundwork to get a better response.
The game Taskmaster is specifically designed for people to come up with new solutions
"Capable of" is a different metric than "only knows currently", most easily demonstrated in a thought experiment of yourself at age 6 months: You definitely only know conformist ideas at that time, what your family says is true, is true. But you clearly now can think outside the box, I would hope.
So which one do you wish to measure? Do you want to test if the person has aphantasia? If they're an NPC? Or if they're just ill-informed? Your question is lacking, unfortunately.
Add a mildly unintelligible word to a reasonable question to see if the person asks you what you meant.
If there's a group task, do something in an odd way, knowing it's not the most effective, to see if someone tries to 'correct' you.
no one way works because theres diffrent kinds of cracked, a good first start would be seeing how well they put their trust is an information source and ask why they trust it so highly if their response is something along the lines of its the news why would they lie you found one. a good secound one is to get their opinon on oddball topics like jan 6 and the prisoners. basicly see how they respond to authority or at least percived authority and its abuse.
Ask them to define a woman.
Ask if they can picture an apple in their mind’s eye. If they can’t, you’re dealing with an NPC.
It's this simple, do they appear to think about the Questions you ask them, or do they simply reply? That being said, your Question is quite open ended, and needs to be more specific on topics, range and form of analytical thought for a more accurate answer. Because as it stands you can say that everyone fits the standard for 'thinking outside of the box.'
Yes it starts with this question:
“Imagine you’d hadn’t eaten breakfast”
No cause people thinking in, outside, and everywhere in-between the box are faggots
You don’t have to ask anything. Keep them talking and they will tell you how brainwashed they are.
There isn't a good test.
Fundamentally, even people who can think our of the box will still rely on establishment knowledge for somethings due to the Gelman Amnesia Effect. Normally, if they know something from experience, they are anti-establishment on it. If they don't know it from experience, they are establishmentarian on it.
Humans tend to accept the first explanation they receive for anything (including you and me). Most of the media is thus based around getting there first, being the first story most people hear.
This is a feature of humans, we can assume in the distant past humans who were skeptical or didn't listen to their elders got eaten by sabertooths or left the gates unlocked were killed by barbarians.
Unfortunately even in dissident circles once you jump the first hurdle of getting people to realize the mainstream story is false you are immediately bombarded with "alternative" theories which are often ALSO extreme bullshit. And it never ends.
Sorting people into critical/non-critical thinkers is waste of time. Concentrate on winning and the masses will accept your truth. This is the reality the left knows and the right refuses to learn.