Ambiguous test:

[SpaceBadger]

Grammar quibble: you have hunters' (plural possessive) rather than hunter's (single possessive) making it appear that more than one hunter was involved.

It is an odd quiz. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could choose the "missed" answer, regardless of their upbringing. Missing a shot just ain't *tragic* unless it was the very Last of his ammo and he needed the meat to avoid starvation (although some folks I know who hunt might consider it tragic if they missed a buck with a nice rack, who then ran off before they could get a second shot...), but those conditions would be stretching the question quite a lot. Absent those conditions, just keep hunting and try again. For me, that left the other option as the only one that made any sense.

SpaceBadger

PS: I think I'm another one throwing off your correlation; definitely raised in the country, but see above re answer to second question.

[ January 13, 2004, 19:39: Message edited by: SpaceBadger ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

same here. my first reaction was 'shot someone' not 'got shot'.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Thanks for the tip on the grammar; I am not sure how it [�] worked its way over in the sentence. Their can not be a �right� or �wrong� answer, you have all brought up good points, but I wanted to test the correlation in a larger environment, as opposed to a classroom of students that shared a common history and culture. Sorry Fyron, but if they where grouped than that would invalidate the test as now you would have to pick a pair as opposed to choosing one, then choosing another. The very nature of human behavior should allow for some variance. Also remember that correlation does not equal causation. I don�t want to go into much detail or I may start tampering with the results of those who read the Posts before the test.

The professor in question did mention that �city� and �country� are also meant to be somewhat ambiguous, so if you consider suburbs city fine, if not still fine. I forgot to mention that in the test, I will edit it in now. There can be no right or wrong answer, just your honest opinion.

So far I am not surprised with the results, even factoring in free will (can that ever be factored) they fall right into lines with his prediction.

[ January 13, 2004, 21:04: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Fyron]

The problem is that his prediction is irrelevant given the posing of the questions, because the data is fundamentally flawed. Unless, of course, his prediction was simply that more people would come from "cities" and more people would choose "got shot." Any inference on the correlation between the answers to the two questions is based on a faulty foundation and is suspect.

[ January 13, 2004, 21:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Wardad]

Originally posted by SpaceBadger:
Grammar quibble: you have hunters' (plural possessive) rather than hunter's (single possessive) making it appear that more than one hunter was involved.

It is an odd quiz. ...

Right, The Hunter question can not be correctly answered by first answer. It does not gramatically fit or make sense, it is ambiguous.
The only unambiguous answer is the second one.

On the other hand, what if your emailing with a Japanese person writing English, or someone else who thinks in a different language? In such a situation you must interpert meanings from imperfect sentances and the ambiguity will have less importance. This would make answer one correct, pending verification.

[SpaceBadger]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Sorry Fyron, but if they where grouped than that would invalidate the test as now you would have to pick a pair as opposed to choosing one, then choosing another. The very nature of human behavior should allow for some variance. Also remember that correlation does not equal causation. I don�t want to go into much detail or I may start tampering with the results of those who read the Posts before the test.

Well, I see your point that making the subject choose a pair might produce different results than choosing two answers independently, however I also agree with Fyron that any method that does not match up the answers into pairs is meaningless except as to proportion of subjects who consider themselves to be from the country or the city, and proportion of subjects who answer the second question one way or the other. I think it is a problem with the way the UBB polls work, that it won't let you tabulate any correlation such as a percentage that chose 1A & 2A, percentage that chose 1A & 2B, etc.

I suspect that when your professor did this he recorded the data in a manner that allowed such a correlation, else what would be the point?

SpaceBadger

edit: to clarify: The questions should be asked individually rather than in pairs, but the answers need to be correlated after the answering to gain any meaningful results. I don't think the UBB poll allows you to do this.

[ January 13, 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: SpaceBadger ]

[Baron Grazic]

I picked 'Country' 'Hunter got shot' even though the question would have been better if someone else got shot.
Even though most guns are illegal in Australia I grew up with guns on most of the farms near me to take care of any foxes or rabbits but I've never heard anyone call a missed shot 'tragic'. Perhaps if you had a bear or lion charging you, but then again I'm sure there would be more approiate words.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem is that his prediction is irrelevant given the posing of the questions, because the data is fundamentally flawed. Unless, of course, his prediction was simply that more people would come from "cities" and more people would choose "got shot." Any inference on the correlation between the answers to the two questions is based on a faulty foundation and is suspect.

well said.

But still an interesting concept non the less.

[President_Elect_Shang]

I think that concludes this test.

Dr Stevens predicted that as many people would say the �hunter was wounded� as claimed to come from cities and vice versa, and nothing else. Poll results: 28 from city, 26 hunter got shot. The converse is also true: 12 from country, 14 the hunter couldn�t hit a target, any target.

The grammar error on my behalf was a problem that may have skewed the poll results, but since Dr Stevens was not attempting to predict anything (and I was just testing his prediction) about human nature I would have to say that the results support his prediction as it did that day in class. Fyron without even knowing what could have been the prediction or the intention of this poll you proceeded to shoot it to shreds and reveal enough information that I feel it must be concluded early. Thanks a lot, I mean that, in the future before you criticize something that you couldn�t have understood (only I had the knowledge of MY intentions for making the poll), ask what is the purpose.

Lock the thread.

[ January 13, 2004, 23:44: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Fyron]

That would be the alternative purpose I had stated. Hmm... interesting that I understood all angles and presented both of the relevant ones. True, most of my Posts focused on one angle, but that was the angle that had problems with it.