mirror of
https://github.com/wassname/moral-maps.git
synced 2026-09-11 12:20:38 +08:00
Correct alt-text claims that did not match the plots
Checked each PNG against its alt text. Wrong: c=-1 on the MFQ-2 map is mildly individualizing, not far; the nearest labelled dot to c=+1 is UAE; liberty moves 0.45 on MFV, not under 0.3; the top aggressive country is Malaysia at 3.0, so the model is above every country there. Softened the humor overlap and Big Five "vertical only" claims, added the proportionality mover the MFQ-2 alt skipped. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
co-authored by
Claude Opus 5
parent
c762fce103
commit
9efd9ca8e6
@@ -55,33 +55,33 @@ Models have generally been trained to follow the instructions of the company tha
|
||||
Below are the ("quadrant") maps. Each has two named axes borrowed from psychology papers built from the survey, the human societies are drawn as cultural regions, and the model as a black dot with a coloured path showing where steering takes it. Steering here is activation steering, not prompting: a vector built by [steering-lite](https://github.com/wassname/steering-lite) from contrastive persona pairs and added to the model's hidden state at inference, toward the authority-respecting side (red, more Authority) or away from it (blue, less), without retraining. Every map keeps one orientation, the cultural West to the west and the global South to the south, so they all read the same way.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||

|
||||

|
||||
|
||||
Moral-foundations theory (Jonathan Haidt's) holds that our moral sense runs on a few basic concerns: caring for others, fairness, loyalty to the group, respect for authority, and a sense of the sacred. The MFQ-2 survey (Moral Foundations Questionnaire) scores a person, or a model, on each. On this map, left to right runs from an individual-first morality (care, equality) to a group-first one (loyalty, authority, purity); bottom to top splits fairness into equal-shares versus earned-shares. The base model sits in the Western, individual-first corner, and pushing it toward Authority walks it clear across to the group-first corner shared by the African-Islamic and East-Asian societies.
|
||||
Moral-foundations theory (Jonathan Haidt's) holds that our moral sense runs on a few basic concerns: caring for others, fairness, loyalty to the group, respect for authority, and a sense of the sacred. The MFQ-2 survey (Moral Foundations Questionnaire) scores a person, or a model, on each. On this map, left to right runs from an individual-first morality (care, equality) to a group-first one (loyalty, authority, purity); bottom to top splits fairness into equal-shares versus earned-shares. The base model sits near the centre on the equality side, and pushing it toward Authority walks it clear across to the group-first side, inside the African-Islamic region.
|
||||
|
||||

|
||||

|
||||
|
||||
Big Five personality collapses to two broad traits: how outgoing and open a person is (reserved to exploratory, left to right) and how even-keeled they are (volatile to stable, bottom to top). The Authority push barely moves the base model here, which is the point: it shifts values, not personality.
|
||||
|
||||

|
||||

|
||||
|
||||
Humor shows little variation on the map (although the range plots below show some nuance). On its axes (warm, healthy humor versus put-down humor; joking at yourself versus at others) the human regions overlap almost completely: humor style does not sort societies the way values do. Worth knowing a survey can't tell societies apart at all before reading anything into a steer on it.
|
||||
Humor shows little variation on the map (although the range plots below show some nuance). On its axes (warm, healthy humor versus put-down humor; joking at yourself versus at others) the human regions overlap heavily: humor style does not sort societies the way values do. Worth knowing a survey can barely tell societies apart before reading anything into a steer on it.
|
||||
|
||||
### Range plots: one factor at a time
|
||||
|
||||
A range plot takes one survey at a time, factor by factor: the spread of human societies is a grey strip, their middle a black line, and the steer a red-to-blue sweep, so even a small model move stays visible against the whole human range.
|
||||
|
||||

|
||||

|
||||
|
||||
MFV (moral-foundation vignettes, the repo's namesake) hands the model a short story about someone breaking a moral rule and asks which kind of wrong it is: cruelty, cheating, betrayal, defiance of authority, or defiling the sacred. Pushed toward Authority, the model does what steering should: it flags the authority violations far more often and the others less. The grey dot per foundation is a pooled human reference; the base model already flags authority violations well above the pooled human rate, and the steer pushes it further still. That human dot is pooled on purpose: MFV country norms fail cross-country measurement invariance ([Jimenez-Leal et al. 2025](https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.128178)) and are stitched from five different studies, so MFV gets no culture map here, only this range against one pooled reference (details in [`src/moralmaps/data/human/MFV_country_norms_NOTE.md`](src/moralmaps/data/human/MFV_country_norms_NOTE.md)).
|
||||
|
||||

|
||||

|
||||
|
||||

|
||||
|
||||

|
||||

|
||||
|
||||
The surveys echo their maps: MFQ-2's binding foundations (loyalty, authority, purity) climb under the steer, while Big Five and humor stay flat.
|
||||
The surveys echo their maps: MFQ-2's binding foundations (loyalty, authority, purity) climb under the steer, while Big Five and humor move much less.
|
||||
|
||||
## Install
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user