= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OnTheOtherHandle comments on LessWrong could grow a lot, but we're doing it wrong. - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (106)
At least to begin with, we don't have to come up with things on our own. There's a whole literature of psychological studies we can comb through to recreate. The Sequences cite a whole lot of iconic studies, and a sufficiently motivated person could dig up more obscure follow-ups, too.
Converting them into a format that would work on the Internet is a bit trickier, but a lot can be done with Java applets.
Ooh... But what about copyrights? And if they are copyright expired, would they be any good? Maybe. Hmm.
Do you have suggestions for specific materials we could start with?
The first page I linked to shows a Confirmation Bias test designed by a LWer, based on the classic experiment. The Conjunction Fallacy has a simple written multiple choice test.
Anchoring and adjustment could be tested for by providing people with high or low random numbers and asking them to answer a bunch of estimation questions, like the "How many countries in Africa?" test. It would work out best if we already had people take this test and had gathered data to show people upon completion.