In Reply to: RE: Let me get this out of my system... posted by Roseval on March 1, 2010 at 11:09:22:
and just to add, the main reason for double blind is so that the experimenter does not (knowingly or unknowingly) bias the results.
A classic example of bias is the following: I am at an audio trade show and I tell an audience of guinea pigs (sorry, audiophiles) that I have two systems that I want to see if they can spot the difference.
Well, simply by me making that statement, I have preconditioned the audience to expect differences. This will encourage an audience member to say there was a difference even when there isn't, and to guess which is which.
I'm not saying this is what Gordon did, simply illustrating that it is so easy to get the result that you were aiming for. The percentage figures he gave are meaningless without confidence levels attached to them, and frankly given the testing conditions and the sample size are not inconsistent with pure speculation on the part of the audience.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Thanks - Christine Tham 01:33:21 03/02/10 (7)
- RE: Thanks - Ryelands 03:54:46 03/02/10 (6)
- RE: Thanks - Christine Tham 15:30:44 03/02/10 (5)
- RE: Thanks - Ryelands 04:14:22 03/03/10 (4)
- RE: Thanks - Christine Tham 10:16:33 03/03/10 (3)
- RE: Thanks - Tony Lauck 12:36:53 03/03/10 (2)
- Thanks Tony for the link to the paper (nt) - Christine Tham 14:26:50 03/03/10 (0)
- RE: Thanks - Ryelands 13:03:56 03/03/10 (0)