This is an attempt to replicate an actual scientific study (citation and results to follow) here on BotF and see how results compare with the original. Please respond to whichever of the following 2 replies, “a” or “b”, currently has fewer responses (to keep the “treatment” groups equal-sized and as a partial substitute for randomization) without looking at the other (at the very least – realizing I attempt herding cats here – if you must look at the other, please do so only after you’ve submitted your own reply as instructed above). Please leave the default subject line of your reply (i.e., either “RE: a” or “RE: b”) unchanged and respond with simply “1” or “2” as the entire body of your reply. Thank you.

Without treatment, an unusual disease is expected to kill 600 people. Treatment 1 is expected to save 200 of them. Treatment 2 offers a 1/3 probability of saving all 600 and a 2/3 probability of saving none. Please indicate your choice between ordering Treatment 1 or Treatment 2 with the appropriate number (only) as the body of your reply.

Without treatment, an unusual disease is expected to kill 600 people. Given Treatment 1, 400 of them are expected to die. Treatment 2 offers a 1/3 probability that nobody would die and a 2/3 probability that all 600 would die. Please indicate your choice between ordering Treatment 1 or Treatment 2 with the appropriate number (only) as the body of your reply.

I just read about this study today, found the results interesting, wondered to what extent they would be replicated here, and thought the experimental design structure simple enough to give that a try.

I didn't participate because I am familiar with the study. Good luck!

1

2

there are no superior answers

I choose option 1, as it is better that 200 are saved than risking a 2/3 chance of nobody being saved.

Treatment 1.

2

2

1

(and about those direction-following skills . . . herding cats, I tell ya)

If not, why clutter thread?

P.S. you're wrong, btw.