I know there's an issue with being too specific. If you're trying to get gut reactions you can't be too transparent or you bias later responses.
But I'm objecting that data was unrecoverably lost here. Most respondents (including me) report using clear rules that were incompletely revealed by the questions. That's not something you can rebuild by averaging lots of results and seeing "what people valued". I applied a specific decision tree, and reducing it to "valued lives a lot, valued law some" produces outcomes I consider immoral.
So I guess I phrased my initial complaint wrong: I think that reducing this to a statistical assessment of choices discards the most important data.
But I'm objecting that data was unrecoverably lost here. Most respondents (including me) report using clear rules that were incompletely revealed by the questions. That's not something you can rebuild by averaging lots of results and seeing "what people valued". I applied a specific decision tree, and reducing it to "valued lives a lot, valued law some" produces outcomes I consider immoral.
So I guess I phrased my initial complaint wrong: I think that reducing this to a statistical assessment of choices discards the most important data.