Ambiguous test:

[Puke]

no, technically not. but i have known enough human beings to tell you what the results are going to be. the only thing we are missing seeing is the small differences that reflect this particular group of voters.

re-arranging the questions the way you suggest will affect the way people thing about the poll. they will see both questions at once, instead of one after the other, and will then be more inclined to answer in a way that represents how they would like to think about it, rather than how they actually think. there could still be some of that happening, but people are less likely to go back and change their answer, once having read and considered the questions.

its just a flaw in the polling system.

[David E. Gervais]

I picked 1) City and 1) got shot.

But my initial reaction to question 2 was that someone 'other' than the hunter got shot. not that he shot himself.

I guess that means I'm strange.

Cheers!

[Roanon]

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
But my initial reaction to question 2 was that someone 'other' than the hunter got shot. not that he shot himself.

I guess that means I'm strange.

Not at all. Exactly my reaction, and then I chose 1) as being slightly closer to what I thought. But still, the "correct" answer for me is missing .

[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 ]