Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigoro
Personally, I don't see much difference in "amount of conflict generated" between options A- no single owner, and D- many owners in one consortium. Certainly consortia could also be some of the many owners of option A. I think people voted A or D for the same basic reason- to increase conflict.
|
The main difference is the presence or absence of small players. With single owner, such as a consortium, you probably won't run into "this is a standalone startup that is making their gate, it does not follow the regulations of top dogs and is in fact trying to fight against them", while with no single owner that situation is reasonably available during a campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigoro
A radical might always feel disappointed with the outcome, but nonetheless the existence of a radical will move the centre. But in this case, I don't think the 8-10 posters involved is a large enough population size to generate a smooth spectrum.
|
You're right, the population is too small for any serious statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigoro
Indeed, phrasing is important. If the middle answer is the most popular, then phrasing the question in a different way can bias towards a different middle- e.g. by giving more options. There's a similar effect in menu writing, where putting a single extremely expensive option on the menu normalises the price perception of the other items upwards.
|
Hah, that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigoro
Also, for example, the "Is it high biotech?" question got a range of answers saying "yes" but were apparently contradictory. It'd be unfair to criticise Frost for this in hindsight, but a different phrasing might've got a different result.
|
I was somewhat confused by the question and answers about biotech, but just went with the flow.