respondent

And then the respondent said "that's what he did".

I know of a method in which you give each respondent a coin and ask them to flip it in secret. If the coin lands heads, answer "Yes," if not, answer honestly.

But, as one other respondent has commented, we make some assumption that those on HN can judge this for themselves. -- This comment meant in good spirit, all around.

As suggested by another respondent, Im pretty sure you can post a picture of yourself with skinhead tattoos. Can you post a hateful picture?

Could you break down the data by name and/or gender of both the sender and the respondent? Test multiple hypotheses simultaneously?

As a respondent to one of my questions put it "ARM is a mixture of clever ideas intermixed with a healthy dose of WTF?"

It is undesirable for people to respond to those questions not by challenging the substance of the answer, but by questioning the respondent's standing to provide the answer. There is no "but, show us then".

Judge Learned Hand is, in this case, concisely explained that principle before going on to explain that it doesn't apply because the respondent didn't obey the law. Legal reasoning is actually very simple.

No mechanism is offered, and all they studied was respondent's reported diet. Nothing to see here, other than the fact that there is evidence that eating lots of fresh produce correlates well with longevity.

However, some blame for this rests on those who use simplified arguments, not just the respondent. But also much of this simplification happens when debates, blog wars, or just general cultural divisions are summarized.

In our recent reader survey almost every respondent answered why they read PandoDaily with a variation of the following: Long form content that isnt afraid to call out powerful people. As long as those powerful people aren't your investors, no doubt.

As the first respondent to you noted, this is a psychologist's essay and nowhere does he claim the majority _aren't_ trying to heal the sick. Your arguments are often emotional, anecdotal, and structured to pass a 'common sense' filter without necessarily being relevant.

Maybe I lack empathy, but geez, I actually did it for a while, and you and the other respondent didn't... so maybe another option is that the article is a bit sensational and it isn't as bad as it is made out?

It's not that they manipulated the questions in advance -- it's that they reversed the meaning of the questions after the respondent had answered them. Even under these conditions, the majority of respondents were then prepared to support the position which they had, ostensibly, only a few minutes ago opposed and vice versa.

A human respondent will have to ignore the matter of whether there's additional context and second-guess the captcha author to get the problem right -- presumably the most unsafe environment is the volcano.

If you're comparing the average survey respondent to your average independently wealthy 19th century author, there's a few pretty obvious reasons why people with normal jobs don't aimlessly walk all the time - such as a job and the appeal of aimlessly driving, which I'm sure scratches nearly the same itch.

For example, if a respondent were to disagree with the linked article, they would try to avoid making an outrageously stupid claim such as "Implicit in this statement... [is] accepting the status quo"--which is in NO WAY implied by the article--and then smugly toppling the argument that no one made.

I'm just gonna quote what I said when this was on Metafilter a few months back: "Anyway, yes, the fundamental problem in these questions is not how people think -- it's that the question they want the respondent to think they're asking, and the question they claim they're actually asking, are two different things. The lawyer/engineer one is a classic example of this; what they hope is that you will read it as "how likely is it that these personality traits correlate to an engineer", so that they can then swoop in and say "what we were really asking is the mathematical definition of a percentage!" Which ultimately tells us very little about the respondents and quite a bit about the people conducting the quiz&;&."