2 ms·
It doesn't have that potential though. There were 13 questions, with each question changing multiple variables. Simply changing the road/legality situation an
by Bartweiss 10y ago
It doesn't have that potential though. There were 13 questions, with each question changing multiple variables. Simply changing the road/legality situation and the demographics between questions buries any informative results.
I made my decisions based on a strict decision tree. It covered every case without ever involving demographics (except "cat vs. human"). At the end, I got a halfway accurate summary of my swerving and legality opinions, with a wildly inaccurate but equally confident summary of my demographic opinions.
With 13 questions and 5-10 variables, the system couldn't possibly distinguish my ruleset from a totally unrelated one. There aren't enough bits of information to gauge that, and therefore there isn't enough information to gauge much of anything.
- tlb 10y agoThere are when you give different sets of questions to large numbers of people. If you give very similar questions to a single subject, they try to be consistent with previous decisions so that order becomes significant, which confounds the results.
- Bartweiss 10y agoI know there's an issue with being too specific. If you're trying to get gut reactions you can't be too transparent or you bias later responses. But I'm objecting that data was unrecoverably lost here. Most respondents (including me) report using clear rules that were incompletely revealed by the questions. That's not something you can rebuild by averaging lots of results and seeing "what people valued". I applied a specific decision tree, and reducing it to "valued lives a lot, valued law some" produces outcomes I consider immoral. So I guess I phrased my initial complaint wrong: I think that reducing this to a statistical assessment of choices discards the most important data.