Entry title
- Pretesting second participant.
- Things seem to be generally going in the right direction, but I have concerns about the validity of the P(Theory) judgments. Two 100s is a serious problem.
Unexpected Observations
- This person gave 100% for both P(theory) judgments. I don't know how to explain this.
New Hypotheses
Current Protocol
Current Materials
New Data
Participant 2
- Original theory (stable prices due to excess supply) was retained with an exception note (better coal producing technology). Consistent with the default/exception approach of HHNT and Khemlani group.
Faults
- Person gave 100% confidence both times, a serious problem. Why would the person do this?
- Person gave slowly increasing coal prices, but said they are steady. Again, this seems like an inflation argument.
- Person did not make predictions.
- Wordiness, especially "perception of energy prices"
- Didn't understand inflation note.
- Delete for 6 different years.
- The similarity of explanation one to the original data was also not valid. The theory said no change, but the person said this was similar to the downward price trend.
Corrections
- Removed "perception of energy prices" from introduction.
- Deleted "for 6 different years"
- Fix inflation note to: "the prices have already been adjusted for inflation" from "these are real coal prices, meaning the prices have been adjusted for inflation"
|
Project name
Main project page
Previous entry Next entry
