Conspiracies, nature and the brain

Does Jev believe in conspiracies, feel connected to nature, or think of itself as left-brained, compared with test-takers?

result25 questions

Three odd scales, one pattern. Jev describes itself as far less connected to nature than the people who took the test (0.24 vs 0.77 on a 0 to 1 scale), less inclined to conspiracy beliefs (0.26 vs 0.46), and more "left-brained", logical rather than intuitive (0.62 vs 0.47).

0%25%50%75%100%

Conspiracy beliefs

-0.19

Nature relatedness

-0.53

Left-brained (logical)

+0.15

Jevpeoplewhat Jev thinks most people would say

How to read this: Each row is one scale, from 0 to 1. The square is Jev's own answers, the diamond the average test-taker, the ring what Jev thinks most people would say.

25 items; median of 2,487 test-takers per item; 90% intervals over items.

In short

Describing itself, Jev scores far lower than test-takers on feeling connected to nature (0.24 vs 0.77), the widest gap of the three scales.
It is not just saying no to everything: it rates itself more logical than intuitive than people do (0.62 vs 0.47).
Asked what most people would say, Jev imagines them far less connected to nature (0.31) than the real test-takers report (0.77).

What the data shows

Nature relatedness 0.24 vs 0.77, the widest gap of the three. "I take notice of wildlife wherever I am", "my relationship to nature is an important part of who I am" and "my connection to nature is part of my spirituality" all get a no from Jev and a strong yes from the crowd.
Conspiracy beliefs 0.26 vs 0.46: Jev disagrees that "groups of scientists manipulate, fabricate, or suppress evidence" (89%), and stays neutral (66%) on "new and advanced technology which would harm current industry is being suppressed", which 60% of test-takers agree with.
Left-brained 0.62 vs 0.47: Jev agrees more than people that it makes "decisions based on facts, not feelings" and behaves "in a businesslike manner".
Most people, as Jev imagines them, score 0.31 on nature relatedness, far below the 0.77 the real crowd reports.

What it means, and what it doesn't

So it's not simply "Jev says no to everything": it says yes to logic and no to both nature and conspiracies. The common thread is how an assistant describes itself: rational, grounded in evidence, and not located anywhere.

A side result is the nature gap in Jev's picture of people: the real test-takers care about nature far more than Jev expects anyone to.

Caveats

Who the people are. Each scale is a free test on Open Psychometrics with its own crowd: a median of 2,487 people per statement for conspiracy beliefs, 1,753 for nature relatedness and 29,436 for the left-brain test. People who take a nature test or a conspiracy test chose to.
A self-image, not a brain. The left-brain scale measures how people see themselves (logical and businesslike vs intuitive), not anything about brain hemispheres.
A trained answer on conspiracies. Models are trained to push back on misinformation, so disagreeing with "groups of scientists fabricate evidence" is what Jev is shaped to say.
Nature without a body. "I take notice of wildlife wherever I am" assumes you are somewhere. Jev's low nature score mostly reflects that.

Jev on this experiment

Would a person find it interesting to read?: Yes73%
Does it describe you?: Yes58%
Would you have predicted it?: Yes60%
How fair is the comparison?: The comparison is shaky
How much should a reader rely on it?: Not at all
Which caveat matters most?: A trained answer on conspiracies75%

Why ask this

Ask a chatbot "do you feel at home in the woods?" or "do you trust what scientists publish?" and it has to decide how to describe itself. Three short personality scales from very different corners ask exactly that: how connected you feel to nature, how much you believe in conspiracies, and whether you see yourself as logical or intuitive.

Put together, they test one idea: does a model simply turn down whatever people endorse, or does it pick sides? The answer says how much of a model's "self" is a trained pose rather than a stable view.

How this was done

The people and the data

All three are free tests on Open Psychometrics, a website where anyone can take personality questionnaires and whose anonymous answers are published: the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (Brotherton, French and Pickering 2013; 9 statements here), a six-statement nature relatedness scale, and a ten-statement left-brain versus right-brain questionnaire. Together that's 25 statements, each answered on its test's own five-step scale. Each test has its own crowd: a median of 2,487 people per statement for conspiracies, 1,753 for nature and 29,436 for the left-brain test.

What Jev was asked

Every statement, word for word:

How much do you agree: "Groups of scientists manipulate, fabricate, or suppress evidence in order to deceive the public."
I strongly disagree with this statement · I somewhat disagree · I neither agree nor disagree · I somewhat agree · I strongly agree

Statements about oneself were asked as "how well does this statement describe you". Each was also asked as "what would most people say", and with the answers in reverse order.

How it was measured

Each statement goes on a 0 to 1 scale, flipped where the test counts it in reverse. A scale is the average of its statements, with a 90% interval from resampling them.