User:Alexander L. Davis/Notebook/The psychology of empirical data sharing: Coherence, Correspondence and Performance/2012/02/15
|Project name||<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>Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html>
I worry most about motivation and communication in MIMECCC. The external validity is clearly bad. Blinding is an internal validity issue.
In the core space OPFFPE. Ontology is the most important: do we get the types and predicates right. The rest is just structure learning.
1) Interview 1: “I’d like for us to both guess it right. But since I don’t have the supporting data, I want to win the game” a. Decided since it was going to be too hard, to just game it. b. I know the rule is wrong but I want to win the game. 2) Even if the researcher wanted to be altruistic, he could only do this and not get kicked out of academia without lying. 3) Not clear that th person could propose additional #s 4) Example of an acceptable rule 5) People have trouble finding/using he feedback button 6) Takes about 10 minutes to get through the beginning 7) Remove additional definition of trial 8) Give them an idea of what the other person will see. 9) Maybe 30 minutes after 1st 2 pages begin 10) Please explain how you/other person earn bonus money.