View Single Post
Old 02-18-2010, 09:00 AM   #15
dsvick
Wizard
dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dsvick ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
dsvick's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,737
Karma: 635747
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio, USA
Device: PRS-900
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin View Post
I am trying to determine how people rank restrictions. I suspect that given the option of "None of the above" 90% or more of respondents (perhaps even 100%) would choose that response and what would be learned then about the relativity of the restrictions?
You're assuming that they are relative, when to a lot of people they aren't. You're asking people to choose the lesser of four evils, but just because they choose one doesn't mean the others aren't evil as well. If you are not giving respondents all of their possible choices then the results you interpret from the data you receive are skewed. By not giving them that choice you're implying that they wouldn't really mean it if they did say it.
dsvick is offline   Reply With Quote