Comments on: Dice Help Scientists Get Honest Answers to Touchy Questions

By: Stan

Stan — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:43:46 +0000

Kyle [at 8.] misinterpreted the results. The researchers report their finding that 19% of 99 people questioned were determined to have killed a leopard. That is NOT the same as Kyle’s interpretation that 19% said that they had killed a leopard. The research would have already deducted the estimated random “Yes” answers from the total. Expected random “Yes”, if none of 100 [simplify the percentages] questioned did, in fact, kill a leopard would be 17 “Yes”, with the rest “No”. And included in the 83 “No” would be 17 mandatory “No” and 66 truthful “No”.

In the case of 19 of 100 actually killing a leopard, and assuming these 19 are proportionally rolling 1/6th One, 2/3rds Two to Five, and 1/6th Six, the expected breakdown in the ANSWERS would be 29-1/2 “Yes”, the rest “No”. From those answers, the researchers can back out the estimate of 19% who did, in fact, kill one or more leopards.

By: MomRose

MomRose — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:24:07 +0000

@kyle:
The article didn’t say “19% of the participants said they had killed” leopard(s). It said “judging from the results, at least 19% of the 99 subjects had killed leopards in the last year.” I would suppose that researchers know how to determine statistically what likely percentage of leopard killers they are talking to from whatever raw data they do collect.

By: bill

bill — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:09:19 +0000

This MEANS that you can’t NOT tell on yourself…

Under informed examination, there can be no secrets…

By: bill

bill — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:07:38 +0000

This same method can be used to track presence of hostile motives in internet search traffic and possibly serve as a tool for identifying threat factors contingent to terrorist activities/or other.

Surely, the NSA is aware of this obvious application??? Semiotics, Mr. Watson… Semiotics.

abne

By: kyle

kyle — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:29:01 +0000

I’m surprised the researchers were surprised at the results. 19% of the participants said they had killed a leopard (or multiple), and the probability of getting a 6 would be about 16.5%. that’s only a 2.5 difference. out of 99 that would mean it was POSSIBLE that 16 people rolled a six, thereby forced to answer with a “yes”, leaving only 3 others that rolled differently and answered honestly. of course there could have been those that have killed, but forced to answer “no” with the same probability. not surprising results at all when AT LEAST 16.5% of the participants are always going to “confess” to killing a leopard.

By: Naveed

Naveed — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 05:04:14 +0000

Pretty clever idea….

Anyone else think it’s unfair that we force people in poor and developing countries to live with predatory animals even though we killed all of ours? I mean I understand the animals are cool and play a key role in the natural food chain but humans have done fine taking their position at the top of the food chain in Europe and North America.

By: daddyvortex

daddyvortex — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:16:00 +0000

Is this a little bit like the old firing squad policy where the commander of the squad tells the men that one of the members has been issued a blank round at random? The men do not get to see their rifles loaded. The goal is to ensure as many men fire at the condemned as possible, yet assuage the feelings of the soldiers in their role as executioner.

By: phanmo

phanmo — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:19:19 +0000

@Hollander
I feel there is a kind of “plausible deniability”; it’s not difficult to calculate the odds as being in favour of giving an honest answer, but no one could ever point at someone and say “He killed a leopard” based on the responses to this survey. It’s not so much about the actual odds as about having a security blanket.

Also, I think that we all know that most people don’t care about odds, based on the number of people who play the lotto or gamble in casinos.

By: Hollander

Hollander — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 06:50:29 +0000

Even under the safety of the die, I find it weird that people will speak the truth about killing leopards. After all, I imagine every person with common sense might realise that the probability of him having to give an honest answer is 4/6, where only 1/6 probability would mask his true answer as “forced by the die”. Personally, I don’t like those odds, but I guess this is quite an interesting mind trick on people.

By: kirk

kirk — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 03:08:42 +0000

Now we will include a pair of dice with the 1040 form — Tax Reform!