Hi everyone. Thanks for taking an interest. I’m especially interested in (a) errors committed in the study, (b) what sorts of follow-up studies would be the most useful, (c) how the written presentation of the study could be clarified.
On errors, Michaelos already found one—I forgot to delete some numbers from one of the tables. That error has been fixed and Michaelos has been credited. Can anyone see any other errors?
On follow-up studies, lessdazed has suggested some. I don’t know if we need to see what happens when nothing is presented on AGI; I think our “before” surveys are sufficient here. But trying to teach some alternative threat is an interesting idea. I’m interested in other ideas as well.
On clarity of presentation, it will be worth clarifying a few things. For instance, the point of the study was to test a method of persuasion, not to see what students would do with an unbiased presentation of evidence. I’ll try to make that more obvious in the next version of the document. It would be good to know what other things might be misunderstood.
Thanks for pointing this out. There was in fact an error. I’ve fixed the error and updated the study. Some of the conclusions embedded in tables change; the final conclusions reported stay the same.
I’ve credited you on p.3 of the new version. If you want me to credit you by name, please let me know.
Thanks again!