= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on 2013 Census/Survey: call for changes and additions - 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 (154)
Yes, except that to minimize anchoring, I would put them in reverse order of frequency.
I don't think so.
Let's say you seperate numbers into four piles:
Group A: 1-5
Group B: 5-25
Group C: 25-90
Group D: 90-100
How should you list those groups to minize that someone picks the wrong group? C, B, D, A seems to be the best order.
Separating out on group into two subgroups shouldn't put them higher but lower on the list.
IAWYC, but with that particular example any order other than A, B, C, D would violate the principle of least astonishment.