Kindly comments on Participation in the LW Community Associated with Less Bias - Less Wrong

31 Post author: Unnamed 09 December 2012 12:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (49)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Kindly 09 December 2012 04:27:41PM 4 points [-]

As I pointed out on the LW survey discussion thread, the anchoring question was much more closely related to the "what is your height in centimeters?" question than to the random number.

I've redone the comparison with all US responders who also gave a height (n=468). Not only is the correlation much stronger (r = -0.35 versus r = 0.08), but (in a sense) the effect is greater as well: while the random number slope is 0.15 here (+100 random number means +15 feet guessed), the height slope is -11.5 (+1 centimeter of height means -11.5 feet guessed).

I don't know what this says about bias. But interestingly, this effect is almost entirely killed by significant exposure to LW: among the (n=82) of the responders tested above who also had a karma score of at least 500, the correlation between height and estimate is -0.02, which is negligible. Among the (n=137) responders with a karma score of at least 100, the correlation is -0.064, and the slope of the effect is only -2.2 feet/centimeter.

Comment author: Unnamed 09 December 2012 10:30:51PM 7 points [-]

I just left a comment about this on the other thread. In brief, this height correlation seems to be driven by a single outlier who listed their own height as 13 cm and the height of the tallest redwood as 10,000 ft.

Comment author: Kindly 10 December 2012 12:22:44AM *  1 point [-]

Well, crap.

Edit: this comment should probably be downvoted to -4 if anyone cares.