Archives > House of Random
debate with Lordy and Josheh I didnt read.
Al:
You guys suck. Too long, still read slowly. And I'm the most ADHD reader ever. :P
If Lordy has called this an experiment/survey/test or something else, this would have been all different. The other problem with this maybe is experimenter's bias, I had to search it up but this is a good starting explanation...http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect
Owen:
You're both right.
Gene, yes it's common sense that first impressions are important and a factor in deciding on continuing with something, and yes you don't need to justify/validate/prove common sense, I could tell you the sky is blue, and not need to provide proof. However, when you decided to quantify a 'first impression' as being the decisive 45 minutes:
[18:37] <@His_Lordship> The most important thing is to keep them there for 45 minutes
That's where you would have (would have = assuming you wanted to enter this into a journal of behaviour or some shit) needed to back up the claim that 45 minutes is the definition of a first impression. Why did you not do 30 minutes? Why not an hour? Why not 2? What is the length of a 'first impression'? At this point if I told you the sky was blue falling into the light wavelength of about 600-650nm, this is where there would need to be some evidence, as I have quantified the 'blue-ness' of the sky, just like you quantified the length of a first impression.
Josh, it's not a fucking peer reviewed journal Gene has made, sometimes you are allowed to accept things at face value and also make your own judgements on them.
I'd judge 45 minutes as probably a sufficient amount of time to form a first impression.
If I wanted to be a REAL thundercunt I could have mentioned the small sample size, lack of statistical analysis and any other bias that may or may not be present. But at the end of the day, it's a video about a game, not a piece of academic research that doctors and experts are going to use to base all their future assumptions/theories on.
Brb, going back to lecturing in a Science.
MoBBy:
--- Quote from: Owen on March 05, 2014, 01:14:45 am ---You're both right.
Gene, yes it's common sense that first impressions are important and a factor in deciding on continuing with something, and yes you don't need to justify/validate/prove common sense, I could tell you the sky is blue, and not need to provide proof. However, when you decided to quantify a 'first impression' as being the decisive 45 minutes:
[18:37] <@His_Lordship> The most important thing is to keep them there for 45 minutes
That's where you would have (would have = assuming you wanted to enter this into a journal of behaviour or some shit) needed to back up the claim that 45 minutes is the definition of a first impression. Why did you not do 30 minutes? Why not an hour? Why not 2? What is the length of a 'first impression'? At this point if I told you the sky was blue falling into the light wavelength of about 600-650nm, this is where there would need to be some evidence, as I have quantified the 'blue-ness' of the sky, just like you quantified the length of a first impression.
Josh, it's not a fucking peer reviewed journal Gene has made, sometimes you are allowed to accept things at face value and also make your own judgements on them.
I'd judge 45 minutes as probably a sufficient amount of time to form a first impression.
If I wanted to be a REAL thundercunt I could have mentioned the small sample size, lack of statistical analysis and any other bias that may or may not be present. But at the end of the day, it's a video about a game, not a piece of academic research that doctors and experts are going to use to base all their future assumptions/theories on.
Brb, going back to lecturing in a Science.
--- End quote ---
Zemus:
--- Quote ---[18:42] <+Zemus> good bye
[18:42] * +Zemus (~Zemus@99B3EDDC.D1D76713.F588E21F.IP) Quit (Quit: )
--- End quote ---
:-)
Al:
:owen:
But really. I had something similar drafted, didn't get the chance to post it at school. Both aren't wrong when Gene's isn't REALLY doing "academic research," and Josh saying he needs to back up his claims. Of course he could have made this more scientific (by method or whatever), but he's not a scientist. I don't think everyone will discredit him because of that though.
That draft is actually gone now, but basically I said this would have all been different if Gene labeled this as an experiment/project/test/survey. This argument would have never happened, and not worth arguing it's "validity" at all. (No offense to either one of you, just saying hypothetically.)
It's just asking what 6 random people think. So just treat it as that, cause that's what it is. I don't think Josh is taking away from that anyway. Let's get back to helping RS survive. ##