|
|
|
Go 
|
Post 
|
Find 
|
Notify 
|
|
Reply 
|
|
Admin 
|
New PM! 
|
Diamond Enthusiast
Enthusiast of the Year


|
While dropping an envelope in a mailbox, you could send an opinion to a government official. Dropping an envelope of money to see if the public is honest. Which is a matter of opinion.  Dropping an envelope in an ATM to see if people would save money. Dropping the vote envelope in a ballot box. This is a wide open question.
|
| |
| Posts: 5267 | Location: The Motor City | Registered: 06-03-02 |    |
|
Diamond Enthusiast
Enthusiast of the Year


|
Babs, I would put the letter in the mailbox. Either someone dropped it, it came out of a mailbox or it fell out of the mail carrier's hand and blew away. The administrator probably wanted you to open it and then tell him what the contents were. It sounds more like a psychological evaluation than IQ. Fred, I don't understand your question. quote: to the same place viz. your own.
I don't know what that means. Dropping lots of addressed and stamped envelopes All going to same place Different name usually two groups of letters This sounds like a contest or raffle using different names to win a prize.
|
| |
| Posts: 5267 | Location: The Motor City | Registered: 06-03-02 |    |
|
Diamond Enthusiast

|
Clare:Here's some more detail The idea is that you ensure that the letters, if posted, arrive at some address which is yours. You would use a name of some, probably fictional, organisations or body as the addressee. You would choose two, perhaps, more such names. Now, why would anyone do that for a serious purpose ? They would do so to gain information about the thinking of the senders (and the non-senders, come to that)
|
| |
| Posts: 7611 | Location: Newmarket, UK/ Antibes, S.France | Registered: 07-14-02 |    |
|
Diamond Enthusiast


|
I'm confused, 2.
Let's see, hmmmm...
You want to get your own postal code? Because of all your personalities? So you'll pack up all the letters and take them to the post office to show them how many people ... naaah, if that's what you wanted you'd mail 'em yourself.
Hmmmm 2.
You're doing a research project on how many people will re-mail an envelope they find on the street? Because you, too, didn't get the right answer on that same I.Q. test and you want to see how many other people are as dumb as you? Naaaah. You wouldn't need different addressee names to do that.
Hmmm 3.
You're planning to murder someone at your place and you want lots of different DNA around to confuse the CSI's? So with all those names and different DNA on each envelope... Naaah, that wouldn't be it either. I mean, it's a serious purpose all right. But it's not public opinion you'd be assessing, it would be some crown attorney's prosecutorial opinion.
Hmmm 4.
Your at university doing a master's in sociology one the subject of, say, class or ethnic prejudices, and set one would be:
- addressed in crayon, crudely printed, smudged with dirt, mis-spellings of the street name, and the stamp upside-down, or
- the addressee's name clearly belongs to the subject ethnic group
And set #2 would be pristine or Anglo-Saxon.
and you would drop an equal number of each set.
Then you could count how many of each you received and draw your conclusions on the assumption that people wanted or did not want to help the addressee based on the regard they had for the class or ethnic group by troubling to re-mail the letters.
|
| |
| Posts: 6249 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02 |    |
|
Diamond Enthusiast

|
quote: Originally posted by babthrower:
Hmmm 4.
Your at university doing a master's in sociology one the subject of, say, class or ethnic prejudices, and set one would be:
- addressed in crayon, crudely printed, smudged with dirt, mis-spellings of the street name, and the stamp upside-down, or
- the addressee's name clearly belongs to the subject ethnic group
And set #2 would be pristine or Anglo-Saxon.
and you would drop an equal number of each set.
Then you could count how many of each you received and draw your conclusions on the assumption that people wanted or did not want to help the addressee based on the regard they had for the class or ethnic group by troubling to re-mail the letters.
That's the idea, though in practice the technique is a bit more subtle than your crayon example  This example is a crude one too, but conveys the idea:You might choose to use an addressee called something like 'The pro-life society' and for another a title hinting at some organisation or research department supportive of abortion. Then you'd simply wait to see how many letters were returned. The responses give some indication of the sentiments of the people in the area where you dropped the letters.Those who are against the supposed thinking of the addressee won't be minded to post the letter whereas those who do tend to favour it will assist by posting. The virtue of this method is that a suitably subtle choice of name can reveal private prejudices which standard questioning would never reveal.
|
| |
| Posts: 7611 | Location: Newmarket, UK/ Antibes, S.France | Registered: 07-14-02 |    |
|
Platinum Enthusiast
|
quote: The responses give some indication of the sentiments of the people in the area where you dropped the letters.Those who are against the supposed thinking of the addressee won't be minded to post the letter whereas those who do tend to favour it will assist by posting.
Interesting, Fred. But aren't you worried about selection bias? Not all people are inclined to pick up a dropped envelope and examine it, much less post it. Some people are a little antisocial and won't make any effort on behalf of a stranger. Some don't want the inconvenience of carrying it around looking for a mailbox if none is immediately visible. Some may have more trouble than others distinguishing a dropped letter from the background of paper litter -- unless you're study is restricted to tidy neighborhoods. Some people may be afraid of the germs! There are many reasons why some people will "participate" and others will not. The point is, you're counting the responses from a subset of the population -- namely the participaters who will stop and pick up the letter in the first place. They may have certain shared personality traits that correlate (or anti-correlate) with the opinions under study, leading to false conclusions based on the collected responses. Has this method of assessing public opinion ever been validated?
|
| |
|
Platinum Enthusiast
|
From New Scientist this week: quote: US psychologist Stanley Milgram is probably best known for his 1960s experiment at Yale University showing people's willingness to follow orders from someone in authority - even to the extent of giving seemingly lethal electric shocks to innocent victims (see They made me do it). Less celebrated is the ingenious method he devised in the mid-1960s for gauging public opinion without conducting a formal poll.
Milgram and his research assistants "accidentally" dropped 300 stamped and addressed envelopes in phone boxes, shops and on pavements all over New Haven, Connecticut. The addresses were identical apart from the first line, which read either "Medical Research Associates", "Friends of the Nazi Party" or "Friends of the Communist Party". Milgram predicted that people's likelihood of picking up and posting the envelopes would depend on how much they were in sympathy with the values implied by the recipient. The people of New Haven turned out to have little taste for extreme political views: they returned about 70 per cent of the envelopes for the Medical Research Associates, compared with 25 per cent for either of the Party Friends.
The technique was not without problems - such as helpful passers-by frequently spotting an envelope being dropped and handing it back to the researcher - so Milgram experimented with different methods. Once he hired a light aircraft to drop envelopes over Worcester, Massachusetts. Unfortunately, many of the envelopes ended up on rooftops, and others put the plane in danger when they were swept into the ailerons of its wings.
Despite such setbacks, the envelope-dropping method has stood the test of time and is still employed by social psychologists to ascertain public opinion. Recent drops have examined attitudes to abortion, President Clinton's impeachment and Arab-Israeli relations. In 1999, school student Lucas Hanft dropped 1600 letters in Manhattan and Nassau County, addressed to fictitious organisations that supported or opposed gay marriage. Hanft discovered city inhabitants were more liberal than suburbanites but was also threatened with arrest for littering.
Well, I guess there really is something to it. Apologies, FP, for having doubted you. 
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
© 2002-2008 AnswerPool.com
Visit DiscussionPool.com! |