Serious question: What do you mean by "morally wrong" in question 3? I'm assuming you're not referring to a cosmic function?
For many of these I would be uncomfortable with responding with a number and leaving it at that. For example, I am at least 95% certain that IQ scores are a meaningful. Anything that produces statistically relevant discrepancies is meaningful. But they are hardly comprehensive, they are unreliable, and they are dangerous to extrapolate from.
And with the chromosome thing, of course having XX chromosomes is likely to put people at a disadvantage on math IQ test. Because IQ tests are administered in this universe, and this is a universe where having XX chromosomes makes you a woman and women are less likely to be encouraged to excel at taking math IQ tests, therefore having XX chromosomes reduces your probability of excelling at math IQ tests. I assume this is not quite what you're asking about, but there are many ways I could interpret the question. In fact, that particular question is sort of phrased as a truism. "The reason why people with different genetics score differently on IQ tests is because of genetics... well yeah, if there's a statistically relevant discrepancy between XX and XY people, then the XX and the XY probably has something to do with it."
Basically my answers would depend a lot on the precise phrasing of the question and on the definitions of words that I assume you are using.
I am tempted to respond using the numbers as a measurement of how confident I am that I interpreted your question correctly. :P
Perhaps ironically, the questions where I am not worried about interpreting the question correctly but I simply don't know the answer are the ones where the confidence metric makes the most sense to me. I don't know much about the stock market, but I'd be happy to hazard a guess somewhere between 0 and 10 for that one. Same for the calorie question. Most of the rest of my answers would be exactly 0 or 10, depending on the interpretation.
no subject
For many of these I would be uncomfortable with responding with a number and leaving it at that. For example, I am at least 95% certain that IQ scores are a meaningful. Anything that produces statistically relevant discrepancies is meaningful. But they are hardly comprehensive, they are unreliable, and they are dangerous to extrapolate from.
And with the chromosome thing, of course having XX chromosomes is likely to put people at a disadvantage on math IQ test. Because IQ tests are administered in this universe, and this is a universe where having XX chromosomes makes you a woman and women are less likely to be encouraged to excel at taking math IQ tests, therefore having XX chromosomes reduces your probability of excelling at math IQ tests. I assume this is not quite what you're asking about, but there are many ways I could interpret the question. In fact, that particular question is sort of phrased as a truism. "The reason why people with different genetics score differently on IQ tests is because of genetics... well yeah, if there's a statistically relevant discrepancy between XX and XY people, then the XX and the XY probably has something to do with it."
Basically my answers would depend a lot on the precise phrasing of the question and on the definitions of words that I assume you are using.
I am tempted to respond using the numbers as a measurement of how confident I am that I interpreted your question correctly. :P
Perhaps ironically, the questions where I am not worried about interpreting the question correctly but I simply don't know the answer are the ones where the confidence metric makes the most sense to me. I don't know much about the stock market, but I'd be happy to hazard a guess somewhere between 0 and 10 for that one. Same for the calorie question. Most of the rest of my answers would be exactly 0 or 10, depending on the interpretation.