User:Alexander L. Davis/Notebook/Error Models and Data Sharing in Hindsight/2012/02/09: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Comments== | ==Comments== | ||
* | * Rethink Fischhoff's debiasing paper; it seems like this task could be crazy, and we have to make sure it isnt before we conclude that people are crazy; | ||
==Unexpected Observations== | ==Unexpected Observations== | ||
* Participant believed that his theory would be 100% true if he expected the child to place the dot in area A EXACTLY 50%of the time and area C EXACTLY 50% of the time; this (A,B,C)->(50, 0, 50) distribution should have very low prior probability though. | * Participant believed that his theory would be 100% true if he expected the child to place the dot in area A EXACTLY 50%of the time and area C EXACTLY 50% of the time; this (A,B,C)->(50, 0, 50) distribution should have very low prior probability though. |
Revision as of 11:31, 9 February 2012
Error Models and Data Sharing in Hindsight | <html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page <html><img src="/images/c/c3/Resultset_previous.png" border="0" /></html>Previous entry<html> </html> |
Entry title
Comments
Unexpected Observations
New Hypotheses
Current Protocol
Current Materials
New DataJust one qualitative interview. Other participant was a no-show. Faults
1) need to specify the curriculum for them to be able to make judgment 2) Need to specify that the "response" is where the child put the dot and not personal information, etc. Corrections
|