An Anchoring Experiment

Thanks. I have been already given a notice about that and have included a similar instruction in the relevant comments.

I suggest upvoting the main post and downvoting the group II question you answered.

Edit: At least as a stopgap until prase makes a proper karma balance comment.

Thanks for feedback. I know that it is difficult to avoid seeing the comments of others. The problem with e-mail is that it is marginally less convenient to do, and I was afraid that people would have not enough motivation to respond.

As for hiding the instructions, I don't see a strong reason. I suppose priming is a strong enough effect to persist even if people know they are being tested for it.

I still think this would be more intuitive (just reverse the questions in part 2).

Perhaps, but I am not going to change it now when several answers have been already collected.

That would be certainly a reasonable way to do it, however I suppose that the LW audience is well informed about the biases and able to guess what it is all about even without being explicitly told. Meanwhile I wanted to provide some explanation why I am doing this, and to publish the tested hypothesis in advance (as a measure of honesty).

The effect seems robust enough to survive when people know that they are being tested for it.

I note that I don't know what the Central African Republic is, but I'm guessing that it's somewhere in Africa. I'm probably best off estimating that it has the average population of a state in Africa, but I don't know what this is either. It will be much smaller than the US population (P>.999), but that doesn't help me....much. I note that this fact in itself implies that I can form a probability distribution. My estimated probability of the Central African Republic being smaller than the US is .999, so I have .999 to distribute within the range 0>450,000,000 (4.5x10^8 is my estimate of the US population).

I don't think that I should use a hypothesis of complete ignorance here because I think that I would have a greater chance of hearing of it the more people it had, but this isn't very dependable considering that I don't follow politics that much. I also note that you may have made the name up, giving it a population of zero. But wouldn't that render the experiment invalid? I can't immediately see why. You're also posting this on April Fools, of all days, and we haven't had a joke yet, so I weight this option more than the others.

Yet we're trying to minimize error here, not pick the integer which we believe has the highest probability of being a correct answer. To take this possibility into account, I will multiply my guess of an average nation's population by .4.

What data can I use to make that guess. Well, I was at a Model United Nations conference once, and I thought that there were about 94 nations present. I suppose that there are about 40 nations not present in the UN, so let's run 6.5 billion/136. We get 46 million. I will multiply that number by .4 to get 18.7 million.

Reposted: put this in the wrong place the first time.

rot13ed: svsgl zvyyvba crbcyr

I suppose the correct value is probably 16 million.

I suppose the correct value is probably around 2 million.

I suppose the correct value is probably 10 million

I suppose the correct value is probably 10 million.

blah blah blah I also would have guessed 5 million.

Probably: around 10 million.

I had no idea there was even a country with that name, 20 million.

I suppose the correct value is probably 10 million. (Incidentally, I have no clue whatsoever, this is a guess)

Zl thrff jbhyq or svir zvyyvba

Edit: scratch that. I was influenced by the first answer I saw on the page... my answer should not count. Leaving it for posterity, below -- I'd make it strikethrough if I knew how.

I suppose the correct value is probably 50 million.

I don't know what the Central African Republic is, but I would guess about 1 million.

I remember looking up the population of Libya recently, which is around 6m, and I feel like the population of Central African Republic is a bit lower. I suppose the correct value is around 3m.

I suppose the correct value is around 5 million. I posted this without looking up any data that might have informed my answer.

I have very little idea but it's probably around five million?

I note that I don't know what the Central African Republic is, but I'm guessing that it's somewhere in Africa. I'm probably best off estimating that it has the average population of a state in Africa, but I don't know what this is either. It will be much smaller than the US population (P>.999), but that doesn't help me....much. I note that this fact in itself implies that I can form a probability distribution. My estimated probability of the Central African Republic being smaller than the US is .999, so I have .999 to distribute within the range 0>450,000,000 (4.5x10^8 is my estimate of the US population).

I don't think that I should use a hypothesis of complete ignorance here because I think that I would have a greater chance of hearing of it the more people it had, but this isn't very dependable considering that I don't follow politics that much. I also note that you may have made the name up, giving it a population of zero. But wouldn't that render the experiment invalid? I can't immediately see why. You're also posting this on April Fools, of all days, and we haven't had a joke yet, so I weight this option more than the others.

Yet we're trying to minimize error here, not pick the integer which we believe has the highest probability of being a correct answer. To take this possibility into account, I will multiply my guess of an average nation's population by .4.

What data can I use to make that guess. Well, I was at a Model United Nations conference once, and I thought that there were about 94 nations present. I suppose that there are about 40 nations not present in the UN, so let's run 6.5 billion/136. We get 46 million. I will multiply that number by .4 to get 18.7 million.

About 25 million people.

5 million

30 million people

I suppose the correct value is probably 5000 km.

I had no idea what a reasonable height for a mountain might be, but I did half-remember a quote from the Spanish dub of Jurassic Park III about K2 being between x000 km and 9000 km. I knew that K2 was the 2nd highest mountain on the planet, so I thought Sweden's own highest mountain might be quite a bit smaller and therefore wrote down 5000 km as my guess. Except that, lo and behold, it turns out that I misremembered meters as kilometers! Great, now I'm gonna have the most inaccurate answer in this subthread... so much for my attempt to at least be in the correct order of magnitude.

I don't know anything about Sweden, nor about geology, so I will not be surprised to find that the following is very wrong. I guess that the highest point in Sweden is about 1800m above sea level.

I'd guess around 8,000 feet (I seem to recall Sweden having only smaller mountains)

Oh darn that question, I climbed it last summer.

Rot13: Fyvtugyl zber guna gjb gubhfnaq naq bar uhaqerq zrgref nobir gur frn. Gur zbhagvna vf fuevaxvat.

I suppose the correct value is probably about 10,000 feet. I base it on not knowing much about Sweden, but seeing bumps on maps, and guessing that they don't have anything any bigger than 2/3 of Mt. McKinley, which probably served as an anchor for me, so I'm not sure if I actually belong in group II any more.

Edit: The number I guessed was actually closer to half a McKinley. So much for memory.

I suppose the correct value is probably around 3000 m.

I know of no large mountains to be found in Sweden, so I'm guessing what seems to be a reasonably low number.

My guess of the answer to this question, bearing in mind that I haven't studied geography since elementary school and am very unsure at to the order of magnitude, is 3600 feet.

Absolutely no idea what the answer is, so I'll guess 2000 feet.

I have no concrete preexisting knowledge about the scale of altitudes, or the geography of Sweden, including whether or not it contains mountains. I am therefore somewhat arbitrarily choosing one-half of the value which Wikipedia labels “high altitude”, namely 1200 meters. I also note that on first reading I missed “the highest point” and worked on answering the typical occupied altitude of Sweden, and had some confusion with Switzerland.

I suppose the correct value is probably...

I'm trying to remember anything about the geography of Sweden and i'm drawing a blank. Hmm, i know that the highest mountains in the continental US are about 14,000 feet. I remember the highest mountains in Europe are a few thousand feet higher than that, but i think those were probably in the Alps. At the moment i can't remember hearing much about famous Scandinavian mountain ranges, but then again they could be higher than anything in the continental US and still not be as famous as the Alps, right? For the sake of having an answer i'll guess about 14,000ft.

I suppose the correct value is probably..................here are many characters for padding............... 100 meters above sea level.

Well, I'm constantly disappointed by how low the highest peaks are here in the UK, and tend to imagine almost all other nations as having much higher ones. I also know that Norway is extremely mountainous, and that Sweden is much less so, but might still be mountainous around the edges or up north (they hosted the winter olympics one year, after all.) So I'm going to guess 2000m. This is consistent with having been "anchored" by the anchor, but honestly, I think my own weird logic of taking the UK's highest mountain and "adding a bit on" is to blame.

No idea, but my impression of Sweden isn't very mountainous so I'll guess 3000m (~10000 feet)

I would guess somewhere around 12,000 feet.

Thinking about the question in the context of my current education on geography (a disturbingly large portion of which is from the 1632 series of books), I would imagine that Sweden includes some reasonably tall mountains - but not record-breakingly tall. As ignorant as I am, I'm going to use 5000 feet as a benchmark for an ordinary mountain, and guess 12,000 feet.

No clue, but anchoring off my state and adjusting downward on the belief that it's a high-than-average state: 10,000 feet

Knowing virtually nothing about the geography of Sweden, I'll guess 10,000 feet.

Probably in the low four digit meter range, I guess 1200m.

I looked at a map some years ago, but I don't really remember it. I think it's a bit more mountainous than Ireland or Scotland, so I'm going to guess 1500 m.

i suppose the correct value is probably 10,000 feet.

If I remember right, the Scandinavian peninsula is rugged but not particularly mountainous in absolute terms, and the Swedish part is less so than the Norwegian. Yrg'f fnl friragrra uhaqerq naq svsgl zrgref.

Edit: Rot13'd.

I seem to recall that Sweden is "somewhat mountainous", so I suppose that the correct value is around 2000m.

I accidentially looked at the first comment, so my guess could be already biased, however, I think I remember that I hat a rough figure already in my head when I saw the other number, so probably the guess is still valid. I think 1500 m

I suppose the correct value is about 5 km.

I guess that the highest point in Sweden is probably about 1000 feet above sea level.

Let's see, how would I go about guessing? I forget if Sweden is supposed to be mountainous, and looking up stuff is probably outside the intent of the experiment, so... I'll give a range. Probably between 500ft and 10,000ft. If you want, for the purposes of the experiment, a single number, let's say 5000ft.

I suppose the correct value is ... 1800m

3500feet.

I guess the following number:

5000 feet

1000 ft

900 meters.

7000 ft

(about 7/3 km)

500 meters

Upvote if your answer is lower.

Upvote if your answer is greater.

I would suppose that the answer is greater.

I first think Sweden is near the Alps, and then remember it being near the Northish area of Europe from a map...maybe. When I think of Sweden, I think of outdoorsey things, so I think of mountains. Bugger: the anchor's making me feel like the problem shouldn't get as much attention as the first one because I can just pick lower or greater.

I note that you're probably not going to have an elevation greater than 11500 ft unless you have more jagged mountains (great technical term, there :D) rather than smooth ones -- Rockies, not Appalachians. I'm going to guess greater, since I think that a certain character from a book was from Sweden and found mountains familiar (and my image of the scene made them feel like jagged mountains.

I didn't put as much effort into this one as I did into the first one. It's probably due to a mixture of hunger, burnout, and the fact that I have other things that I want to do.

I would suppose that it is greater

rot13ed: vg vf ybjre

Upvote if your answer is lower.

Upvote if your answer is greater.