There has been some criticism on the experimental design including the hotel room.
They repeated the experiment, this time in a concert hall.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...ract?sid=5a3bf425-8e2c-4e71-874b-37790fb8bfb6
Hard to say, only the abstract is free online AFAIK, but this experiment was specifically designed to address at least some of the shortcomings of the welder's goggles / hotel room study you mentioned. Still, a big part of the reason I posted it was just as you say; it's very difficult to design and perform a truly blind but sensitive test in the behavioral sciences. As Victor says, though, just the fact that it's in PNAS suggests that some of the common shortcomings have perhaps been avoided or minimized.
But Preferences can only be determined by & implies (is predicated on) differences, no?Is there something different in the paper than the abstract? According to the abstract, the study wasn't designed to detect differences (although it did), it was designed to determine preferences.
In that case I totally miss your point, because differences were detected and preferences expressed. Whatever you might think of the study in other ways, it certainly did show differences.Huh? Preferences can only be determined by & implies (is predicated on) differences, no?
...
I'm sorry that is a joke and anyone with half a brain can tear that study to shreds.
Better take it up with the PNAS editors
What I mean is that there is no consistency in differences/preferences as evidenced by this quoteIn that case I totally miss your point, because differences were detected and preferences expressed. Whatever you might think of the study in other ways, it certainly did show differences.
How consistent were the subjects? Of the 15 who chose new
violins more often than old ones in part 1, 7 later chose old violins
to take home. Against this,?ve subjects who chose old violins more
often in part 1 later chose new violins to take home (SI Text). By
this measure, just 9 of 21 were consistent
—although this ?nding
seems unsurprising given the way preferences shifted as time was
spent with individual instruments (SI Text). What was consistent
through parts 1 and 2 was a preference for new violins and a
speci?c dislike for O1
Denial is not a river in Africa. Welcome back, John.
Tim
Agreed, & as I said before let's not lose our critical senses just because a paper appears in a scientific journal - it just becomes a belief system but with "science" (i.e. not good science) substituted for godYou should know that there are articles that get published in every journal that raise people's eyebrows. You and I know it's all about who gets the piece for review. They probably had no idea who to send this article to for review.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |