I have a feeling I've heard of a trick like this before. My memory thinks it was something to do with trying to find out rates of drug use in the US, or possibly the US military, but I can't recall where I might have read that and a quick google didn't find anything that looked like what I was half-remembering. I also have a vague feeling that the one I'm thinking of didn't provide for both false positives and false negatives; it just gave you deniability for giving a "yes" answer, but didn't do anything to turn some real "yes" answers into "no". I wonder how much more accurate the latter makes the tests.
(It also puts me faintly in mind of the practice of loading one rifle with blanks when organising a firing squad.)
I can see how this approach would break up a fixed strategy of saying "No, I've never killed any leopards" so that it requires more thought to maintain a lie.
I'd like to see a parallel program checking on whether people have abused "anonymous" answers.
I'd also like to see whether the 18% of ranchers having killed leopards has a good match with the apparent number of leopards killed.
no subject
no subject
(It also puts me faintly in mind of the practice of loading one rifle with blanks when organising a firing squad.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I'd like to see a parallel program checking on whether people have abused "anonymous" answers.
I'd also like to see whether the 18% of ranchers having killed leopards has a good match with the apparent number of leopards killed.