It seems to me that this hypothesis is more of a mechanism for choice blindness than an alternate explanation- we already know that human beings will change their minds (and forget they’ve done so) in order to please authority.
(There’s nonfictional evidence for this, but I need to run, so I’ll just mention that we’ve always been at war with Oceania.)
What I’m saying is “Maybe they’re only pretending to have an opinion that’s not theirs.” not “They’ve changed their minds for authority.” so I still think it is an alternate explanation for the results.
IIRC, part of the debriefing protocol for the study involved explaining the actual purpose of the study to the subjects and asking them if there were any questions where they felt the answers had been swapped. If they at that point identified a question as having fallen into that category, it was marked as retrospectively corrected, rather than uncorrected.
Of course, they could still be pretending, perhaps out of embarrassment over having been rooked.
I’m having trouble interpreting what your point is. It seems like you’re saying “because they were encouraged to look for swapped questions before hand, Epiphany’s point might not be valid” however, what I read stated: “After the experiment, the participants were fully debriefed about the true purpose of the experiment.” so it may not have even occurred to most of them to wonder whether the questions had been swapped at the point when they were giving confabulated answers.
Does this clarify anything? It seems somebody got confused. Not sure who.
IIRC, questions that were scored as “uncorrected” were those that, even after debriefing, subjects did not identify as swapped. So if Q1 is scored as uncorrected, part of what happened is that I gave answer A to Q1, it’s swapped for B, I explained why I believe B, I was afterwards informed that some answers were swapped and asked whether there were any questions I thought that was true for, even if I didn’t volunteer that judgment at the time, and I don’t report that this was true of Q1. If I’m only pretending to have an opinion (B) that’s not mine about Q1, the question arises of why I don’t at that time say “Oh, yeah, I thought that was the case about Q1, since I actually believe A, but I didn’t say anything at the time.”
As I say, though, it’s certainly possible… I might continue the pretense of believing B.
It seems to me that this hypothesis is more of a mechanism for choice blindness than an alternate explanation- we already know that human beings will change their minds (and forget they’ve done so) in order to please authority.
(There’s nonfictional evidence for this, but I need to run, so I’ll just mention that we’ve always been at war with Oceania.)
What I’m saying is “Maybe they’re only pretending to have an opinion that’s not theirs.” not “They’ve changed their minds for authority.” so I still think it is an alternate explanation for the results.
IIRC, part of the debriefing protocol for the study involved explaining the actual purpose of the study to the subjects and asking them if there were any questions where they felt the answers had been swapped. If they at that point identified a question as having fallen into that category, it was marked as retrospectively corrected, rather than uncorrected.
Of course, they could still be pretending, perhaps out of embarrassment over having been rooked.
I’m having trouble interpreting what your point is. It seems like you’re saying “because they were encouraged to look for swapped questions before hand, Epiphany’s point might not be valid” however, what I read stated: “After the experiment, the participants were fully debriefed about the true purpose of the experiment.” so it may not have even occurred to most of them to wonder whether the questions had been swapped at the point when they were giving confabulated answers.
Does this clarify anything? It seems somebody got confused. Not sure who.
IIRC, questions that were scored as “uncorrected” were those that, even after debriefing, subjects did not identify as swapped.
So if Q1 is scored as uncorrected, part of what happened is that I gave answer A to Q1, it’s swapped for B, I explained why I believe B, I was afterwards informed that some answers were swapped and asked whether there were any questions I thought that was true for, even if I didn’t volunteer that judgment at the time, and I don’t report that this was true of Q1.
If I’m only pretending to have an opinion (B) that’s not mine about Q1, the question arises of why I don’t at that time say “Oh, yeah, I thought that was the case about Q1, since I actually believe A, but I didn’t say anything at the time.”
As I say, though, it’s certainly possible… I might continue the pretense of believing B.