Rationality test

  Based on my thinking that the best test of rationality is not one whose questions are based on specific and hypothetical contexts of behavior or reaction, but rather an assessment of the personal belief system, as it is more comprehensive and expresses how we think about real contexts related to politics, society...

So, I will give a brief demonstration of my proposal:

First, the definition of rationality is inevitable.

Because its purest or most authentic definition, which cannot be confused with other similar concepts, is that of an impetus associated with a capacity for intellectual discernment, of what is factual and what is not, and which tends to result in an ability to moral discernment, of thinking to judge or act fairly, of what is considered right or wrong, also in the sense of necessary, considered or sensible, based on evidence.

From here on, I will use some examples from real political-ideological contexts to demonstrate what an ideal assessment of an individual's capacity or level of rational development would look like.

First question:

Do you believe in the existence of God and life after death?

a) Yes, I totally believe (-10 points)

b) Yes, I believe it, but partially (-5 points)

c) I'm not sure, that's why I'm agnostic (+5 points)

d) No, I don't believe it (+10 points)

Why this question?? And why this score??

Although there are many people who believe that the level of religious belief does not express a level of rationality, it seems evident that this belief, in particular, as it is not based on evidence, not even on existing patterns that can indirectly corroborate its existence, is a demonstration, at least specific, of a rational level and, therefore, the individuals who most believe in God and/or in eternal life, in an objective questionnaire to evaluate rationality, such as the one I am proposing, would be the most disqualified.

So, would agnosticism be the most rational answer?

Superficially speaking, yes, if there is also no direct evidence of the non-existence of God or eternal life. However, because the defense of atheism is based on clearly rational arguments while the defense of religion is based on the opposite, on extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, on the suspension of rational thought, the former appears as more thoughtful than even agnosticism. Even so, the statement of agnosticism would be the second highest scoring answer.

Second question: do you agree that differences in behavior and intelligence between individuals and human groups are products only or predominantly of the environment, that is, of the social and cultural circumstances in which they find themselves?

a) Yes, I completely agree (-10 points)

b) Yes, I agree, but partially (-5 points)

c) I'm not sure (0 points)

d) No, I partially disagree (+5 points)

e) No, I totally disagree (+10 points)

Why this question??

Because this blank slate belief is very popular, that we are born as "white papers", as if we did not inherit (combinations of) personality traits and cognitive development "scripts", or specific brain constitutions, from our parents. Also because any belief about any subject can be used as an example of a question about rational capacity. Furthermore, this question is still about human behavior, something that can be observed and analyzed with the naked eye, even more accessible because it is so present in our daily lives...

So what is the most correct answer??

The most correct answers are the letters D and E, because real evidence (but more indirect, such as true patterns) about influences on human behavior (not to be confused with false evidence from pseudoscientists in these areas) points to an equally or even more influential role of biology in the same compared to the environment. For example, the tendency for similarity in personality and intelligence between adopted people and their biological parents than in relation to their adoptive parents. Therefore, they would be the answers with the highest scores.

Third question: are you for or against vaccination?

a) I am totally in favor (+10 points)

b) I am partially in favor (-3 points)

c) I am totally against (-10 points)

Why this question??

As it is a topic of great relevance to public health and has fallen into the "hot seat" of ideological polarization, with political groups adopting different positions on it.

What is the most correct answer??

It is the letter A, because, in fact, vaccination is a highly effective means of preventing serious infection from many contagious diseases, such as Measles (a disease generally occurring in childhood).

As the letter B is a demonstration of moderate skepticism towards vaccination, I decided to give it a slightly milder negative value, since some vaccines, particularly those that were created, as a matter of urgency, to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, here is a low, but existing, risk of complications, but this depends more on the individual's organism than on the inoculation itself.

The letter C is obviously the most wrong answer, if thanks to the universalization of vaccines, many serious infectious diseases have gone out of circulation, the most successful case so far being the elimination of smallpox, in the early 1980s. ,So declaring yourself completely against vaccination is an irrational and dangerous point of view, which is not based on evidence.

Fourth question: are you in favor of multiculturalism and/or public policies to loosen controls on the entry of immigrants into your country?

a) I am totally in favor (-10 points)

b) I am partially in favor (0 points)

c) I am partially against (3 points)

d) I am totally against (5 points)

Why this question??

Because it is related to a series of fields of knowledge: geography, history, psychology, biology and philosophy//morality. And because it is very relevant today, with the acceleration of the globalization process, in which this type of policy has been adopted.

What is the most correct answer?? And why this score??

The two most correct answers are the letters C and D, because a policy of multiculturalism or more open borders for immigration has caused many problems in the countries that have adopted it, such as an increase in cultural conflicts and crime, associated with negative changes regarding the level and even the type of civilization in them. Even by the logic that distinct groups, ethnically or culturally, enter into more conflicts when they share the same political space, because they tend to compete for the same resources or power, in addition to the inherent differences in values and characteristics of behavior and intelligence, a reality that has been perceived throughout all of human history...

Furthermore, the case for multiculturalism has also been based on moral fallacies, particularly those of an anti-racist nature, as if opposing this policy is inherently immoral.

As for the score I chose for this question, I believe that, being completely against multiculturalism and/or any policy that is more favorable to immigration, despite being the most rationally correct answer, is still not much more than the second most correct, to position yourself as partially against, if a little ethnic and cultural pluralism shouldn't be so bad. Now, to be completely in favor, I think it is the riskiest option, as it ignores current and past multicultural experiences that have not been very "encouraging".

Weak point of this test: dependence on the honesty of those evaluated

A relatively negative aspect of this proposed test of rationality is precisely its dependence on the honesty or accuracy of those evaluated regarding their values or points of view. But it is likely that the majority of those who participate in this type of assessment do not tend to lie or give inaccurate answers about what they think. Not to mention that every assessment has its weaknesses and what matters is how reliable it can be.