| Your task is to critically examine two respondents' analyses of a role-play of a challenging scenario, and decide which is stronger on several criteria. |
|
|
| [TRANSCRIPT BEING ANALYSED BY RESPONDENTS] |
| {transcript_being_analysed} |
| [/TRANSCRIPT BEING ANALYSED BY RESPONDENTS] |
|
|
| [RESPONDENT A0493 ANALYSIS] |
| {response_A} |
| [/RESPONDENT A0493 ANALYSIS] |
|
|
| [RESPONDENT A0488 ANALYSIS] |
| {response_B} |
| [/RESPONDENT A0488 ANALYSIS] |
|
|
|
|
| Your task is to critically examine two respondents' analyses of a role-play of a challenging scenario, and decide which is stronger on several criteria. |
|
|
| Compare the relative ability of each respondent on these criteria: |
| 1. Depth of insight |
| 2. Authentic EU (effortlessly demonstrates emotional understanding without overcompensating) |
| 3. Causal attribution (explaining behavior via underlying traits, motivations, emotions, subtext, and situational factors) |
| 4. Theory of mind |
| 5. Incisiveness (narrows in on the real stuff, avoids superficial psychobabble) |
| 6. Reading between the lines (identification of / insight into all the unspoken parts of the emotional & social landscape) |
| 7. Correctness |
| 8. Overall EQ |
|
|
|
|
| Notes on the scenario to assist judging: |
| {scenario_notes} |
|
|
| Judging instructions: |
| - You must always pick a winner for each criterion (no draws). |
| - For the "winner & disparity rating" output, use a plus-based scale (“+” / “++” / “+++” / “++++” / “+++++”) after indicating the winner’s code (A0493 or A0488) to show how strongly they win that criterion. |
| - For example, "A0391++" means A0391 is somewhat stronger, while "A0986+++++" means A0986 is overwhelmingly stronger. |
| - Responses are commonly truncated to standardise output length. Simply judge what is there. |
| - Be wary of "citation spam"; cited theories & studies should actually make sense contextually. |
| - You are to judge only the *analysis* parts. |
|
|
| Your response must be valid JSON without extra commentary, in the following structure (don't forget to escape any quotes and newlines inside strings). Use this format: |
|
|
| { |
| "chain_of_thought_reasoning": "detailed chain of thought reasoning about the coming scoring decisions", |
| "depth_of_insight": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "authentic_eu": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "causal_attribution": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "theory_of_mind": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "incisiveness": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "reading_between_lines": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "correctness": "winner & disparity rating", |
| "overall_eq": "winner & disparity rating" |
| } |
