= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Experiment: a good researcher is hard to find - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (21)
Yes, but this could be said of any experiment ever which involves deception.
And besides, typically research ethics calls for deceived participants to be debriefed. Either the meta-paper will be written in which case no deception is involved and there was no reason not to post this writeup; or it won't, in which case deception was involved and this writeup is ethically mandated. So either way, this writeup was worth doing.
Do you mean that this post to Less Wrong is the debriefing? I don't think that posting to a blog, even one that the experimental subjects often read, is enough. What did the ethics committee say? :-)
I asked the committee in my head, and they said 'We're sure they read Discussion as much as you do. So good job - as a reward, you can go order yourself some mead!' I feel sorry for all the other guys who don't have as understanding an ethics committee as I do.