5 ms·

It definitely was valid. Probably the most valid data you're going to get if you want to test for this thing. Your emotions are getting in the way of your logi

It definitely was valid. Probably the most valid data you're going to get if you want to test for this thing. Your emotions are getting in the way of your logic. I personally don't see what the problem is. People should be allowed to send whatever emails they like, it's up to you to reply to them. If they had sent emails out asking how everyone's day was going, would you get upset? What about how many employees they had?

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
Researchers are held to a higher ethical standard than random people because experimenting on people is morally dubious unless you follow strict guidelines. I feel like there is a lot of hyperbole wrt the harm that was done by this study but on the other hand I think it's clear researchers shouldn't have free reign to manipulate people as they see fit just because it's through email.
- seoulmetro 5y ago
  I'm not talking about moral standard when I talk about the first sentence. I'm talking about data. And this data is flawless. They shouldn't be allowed to manipulate people, but that doesn't discredit the results. The same way it would be very bad for us to put normal, average people in control of jetliner cockpits as a scientific test to see if they can fly them properly with guidance. But if that managed to happen, the data would still be valuable. I wouldn't call sending one-off emails to people to be manipulation.
  - jffry 5y ago
    Given how widespread word of this thing got, how could researchers possibly distinguish responses to their email that were from people who were not aware it was research, versus responses from people who had become aware what was happening? The same goes for people who didn't respond. Did they not respond because they heard about this being research, or did they not respond for other reasons? This data is the opposite of flawless, it is poisoned, and any attempt to draw conclusions from the responses they got would be junk.
    - seoulmetro 5y ago
      >Given how widespread word of this thing got, how could researchers possibly distinguish responses to their email that were from people who were not aware it was research, versus responses from people who had become aware what was happening? By limiting results by time to anything received before everyone found out? It's pretty easy to set a time period for that. It has the benefit that people who find out will not want to participate or will complain. >This data is the opposite of flawless, it is poisoned, and any attempt to draw conclusions from the responses they got would be junk. Nope. Even just limiting it to 48hours would provide great data.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  Researchers are random people. There is no need to gate keep. Anyone can publish research papers. You don't have to be a "researcher" to do research.

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago

Researchers are held to a higher ethical standard than random people because experimenting on people is morally dubious unless you follow strict guidelines. I feel like there is a lot of hyperbole wrt the harm that was done by this study but on the other hand I think it's clear researchers shouldn't have free reign to manipulate people as they see fit just because it's through email.

seoulmetro 5y ago
I'm not talking about moral standard when I talk about the first sentence. I'm talking about data. And this data is flawless. They shouldn't be allowed to manipulate people, but that doesn't discredit the results. The same way it would be very bad for us to put normal, average people in control of jetliner cockpits as a scientific test to see if they can fly them properly with guidance. But if that managed to happen, the data would still be valuable. I wouldn't call sending one-off emails to people to be manipulation.
- jffry 5y ago
  Given how widespread word of this thing got, how could researchers possibly distinguish responses to their email that were from people who were not aware it was research, versus responses from people who had become aware what was happening? The same goes for people who didn't respond. Did they not respond because they heard about this being research, or did they not respond for other reasons? This data is the opposite of flawless, it is poisoned, and any attempt to draw conclusions from the responses they got would be junk.
  - seoulmetro 5y ago
    >Given how widespread word of this thing got, how could researchers possibly distinguish responses to their email that were from people who were not aware it was research, versus responses from people who had become aware what was happening? By limiting results by time to anything received before everyone found out? It's pretty easy to set a time period for that. It has the benefit that people who find out will not want to participate or will complain. >This data is the opposite of flawless, it is poisoned, and any attempt to draw conclusions from the responses they got would be junk. Nope. Even just limiting it to 48hours would provide great data.
charcircuit 5y ago
Researchers are random people. There is no need to gate keep. Anyone can publish research papers. You don't have to be a "researcher" to do research.