3 ms·
Are you really going to say you "knew" this rather than perhaps assumed it? The test may not be perfect but it is some sort of proof beyond anecdotal evidence.
by ryanelkins 17y ago
Are you really going to say you "knew" this rather than perhaps assumed it? The test may not be perfect but it is some sort of proof beyond anecdotal evidence.
Also I'd say down votes are because you made a accusatory statement without any sort of thought behind it.
- nazgulnarsil 17y agoI read the article, saw no conclusion that was novel or applicable, saw the 18 upvotes...
- idm 17y agoYou're doing your science wrong. The upvotes are because the conclusion is novel.
- nazgulnarsil 17y agolet me rephrase: what quantitative predictions can I make using the results of this study?
- idm 17y agoA relevant quantitative prediction would be of this form: When participants are randomly divided into two experimental conditions, "donation" and "no-donation", participants in the donation condition donate significantly more than no-donation participants. The amount of donation is the dependent variable - it's the way you measure, quantitatively, that the experimental manipulation caused the participants to behave differently. EDIT: I forgot the prediction part. So, I predict that this "donation effect" generalizes. If I ran a charity and I wanted to increase donations, then I might predict that if I gave something to potential donors, they would donate more when they were given the chance. I'd measure the outcome in terms of dollars donated.
- nazgulnarsil 17y agothis study explicitly controls for reciprocity effects though.