> First, giving a reply doesn't necessarily entail the person replying did so with a deep understanding for another's perspective. So I'm really not sure why you make that self serving logical step, but let's continue.

No, but that, and my follow up, means I was attempting to. We're supposed to engage here assuming good faith. I think that includes assuming someone that replies to you and makes arguments on points you've presented (or they think you've presented) is at least trying to understand the other's perspective. And that was what the last paragraph of my earlier comment was about, people stopping at that superficial level, or spreading an assumption of a stance around.

> You can't possibly expect someone of that age to provide a nuance balanced answer so I don't think it's a good quality signal for an openness trait.

Well, it's probably not a good signal for much of anything at that age if used in isolation. It's part of an entrance exam though, so it could be used in any number of ways, I imagine. It could also just be a matter of seeing how the applicants handle an unusual question and stressful question. My guess, given the age group it's targeted at, is that there's no (or very few) "wrong" answers, as long it's backed up. Is it the wrong answer for them to say they they think it was a mistake, and this is how they would relay the problem to the public, and apologize and/or assign blame?

> Then you're left with it's value as an intelligence estimation.

If we presume your assumptions about the reasons it may be in place are exhaustive, then yes. I prefer to assume at best we can approach closely understanding someone else's reasoning from outside observation. I think arguments that have "then all you're left with" generally assume far too much. As an example, in my prior paragraph I gave a possible reason to include it which you haven't covered so far. I could probably come up with one or two more. We aren't close to being able to say "than you're left with", or as I think it was intended to by synonymous to (but I may be wrong), "the only other explanation is".

> if you RTFA and RTFT and follow the conversation that you are jumping into, suggested that even thinking such a question to be controversy is mere 'ignorance'.

That's not how I interpret those comments. I specifically don't interpret them as "even thinking the problem is a controversy is ignorance". I do interpret the first comment from karatestomp as stating that they thought that the issue wasn't very controversial, and the second comment saying it played on people ignorance. I interpreted that as people ignorance of the details of the issue. That doesn't imply it's impossible to be upset about it based on the facts, just that the article is playing on people lack of knowledge regarding the facts.

> I believe I provided a reasonable argument against what I was answering to.

Specifically, I was referring to your response to me when I said you provided little explanation, and your words of that reply are below, in their entirety:

>> 100% agree with you. But you are contradicting a point I never made. So... good job taking down your own strawman argument. It ironically really drives home the rest of your post.

Which while possibly reasonable, wasn't entirely useful, IMO, so I asked for more information.

> you ironically and sort of pedantically explained why it's important to consider other points of view without really getting my point. If someone doesn't agree with you, or if someone doesn't laugh at your joke, it isn't always because they didn't get it.

I laid out some items I though fairly accurate and self evident in a factual manner. My actual argument was not stated so forcefully, and was I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

> I highlighted the fact that you used the word 'causes' since it seems to highlight your lack of through thought toward answering my point, which to me qualifies as "reacting to the surface level of any ... topic".

That wasn't actually the problematic behavior I was calling out. Reacting at a surface level will happen, it's human nature. I think the problematic behavior is what you do next, which is "and immediately seeking others lend support and credence to that interpretation rather than trying to understand the motivations and purpose." Engaging and attempting to understand a point of view, even if it's through argument and discussion, is not what I would consider problematic behavior.

Case in point, you reacted to the surface level of that, and missed what I was actually trying to communicate as what I saw as a problem. Calling someone out for that when they are already engaging is of little practical use, as I'm sure you're aware of at the moment, since it just happened to you. Unless you've run around promoting this misunderstanding as a prime example of someone else's bad behavior, you aren't really doing what I was talking about.

> Now since you insisted, you have my full perspective.

Yes, I do. Thank you. I still don't necessarily agree with you, but at least there was some discussion as to my points with regard to your argument.