You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Fixing Moral Hazards In Business Science - Less Wrong Discussion

33 Post author: DavidLS 18 October 2014 09:10PM

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

Comments (96)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 19 October 2014 07:14:45AM 4 points [-]

StackOverflow et al are also free and offer no compensation except for points and awards and reputation. Maybe it can be combined. Points for regular participation, prominent mention somewhere and awards being real rewards. The downside is that this may pose moral hazards of some kind.

Comment author: DavidLS 19 October 2014 07:44:50AM 4 points [-]

Oh, interesting.

I had been assuming that participants needed to be drawn from the general population. If we don't think there's too much hazard there, I agree a points system would work. Some portion of the population would likely just enjoy the idea of receiving free product to test.

Comment author: sbenthall 20 October 2014 04:55:33AM 3 points [-]

I would worry about sampling bias due to selection based on, say, enjoying points.

Comment author: beltranRM 21 October 2014 01:00:03AM *  1 point [-]

For studies in which people have to actively involve themselves and consent to participate, I believe that there is always going to be some sampling bias. At best we can make it really really small, at worst, we should state clearly what we believe are those biases in our population.

At worst, we will have a better understanding of what goes into the results.

Also, for some studies, the sampled population might, by necessity, be a subset of the population.