Which makes sense, as this is essentially a Rorschach test about prosocial behavior.

Basically the test is immune to this kind of criticism, because it's only interested in your response to it.

And lo and behold if you "troll" it by declaring it all bullshit, you're a type A engineer willing to argue over meaningless things, which certainly isn't very prosocial, whatever value it otherwise brings.

I was nodding along until I realized that you're proposing "a bloody-minded willingness to argue over meaningless technical minutiae" is a good thing.

It isn't good, but it's sometimes fun. That depends entirely on who you're doing it to. If you're not careful, it could end up being just mean.

I don't think it's fair to criticize metaphor as bullshit insofar as the definition of bullshit is something like "saying things without regard for their truth values" (paraphrasing Harry Frankfurt) because metaphor doesn't have the sort of truth requirement you seem to think it does.

> It subtly undermines the supposedly profound statements by pointing out that there's still a little bit of bullshit in them, too

This actually caught me and I found myself trying to game the test itself.

For the first one, I was like "Yeah, it's true and is saying that persistence is important if you want to achieve your goals, but it's kind of a bullshitty way to say it" And then reading the rest, they all felt like they belonged on posters of silhouetted people looking over mighty vistas. So I declared the entire exercise a trick question.

Also. Water saws are fucking scary.