05/12 - Move It Monday!

No, they usually post around 8pm or so, and you have to panda them. But they have a long timer, like a few hours.

 

Okay thanks, I'll keep an eye out!

 

Nice. Ive been applying for a lot of remote IT work on LinkedIn. There's a lot of good opportunities, from what I've seen.

 

Similar to mturk, but with companies and start ups, instead of just on a platform that's a free for all.

 

... And I stopped reading there. How do I know how "trustworthy" someone "looks"? — Often, I don't. Maybe I'm just not good at this.

I confess:
For years, I've strategically varied my survey responses because we "know" researchers may become suspicious if we "straightline." — Especially when my honest responses would be "straight down the middle" (typical for me on bubble pages in psych studies asking my estimates on a hundred personality traits of a "35 year old blonde female tax accountant" without anything else to go on — obviously I have no clue to what degree the fictitious blonde tax accountant is "honest," "nervous", "forthright," "aggressive," "caring," "philosophical," "suspicious," "trustworthy," "apathetic," "fretful," "competitive," "moral," "punctual," "amicable," "flighty," "winsome," "ambivalent," "contentious," "jocular," "agreeable," "equivocal," pertinacious," "perspicacious," etc. etc. etc.) ... my honest answers might be straight middle bubbles because I simply don't know and am disinclined to make arbitrary assumptions. So I "randomly" vary some of my responses, put a few to the left of middle, a few to the right, for no good reason in some cases but to avoid suspicious-looking straightlining.

 

In some ways, I'm just not a good research subject. Especially for psych studies. It's hard to do them entirely honestly anymore. Too many times, I've dishonestly varied some responses to conceal what would otherwise be honest-but-suspicious-looking straightlining. Over time, I've become too experienced with typical patterns in studies, so some typical "deceptions" don't work on me anymore; I see them coming, I'm not fooled, and I have to "fake it" dishonestly. — If I cannot participate honestly anymore, I should quit.

 

... Nowadays I'll sometimes add a feedback note to inform a researcher that a study's deception didn't work on me, and that I had to "imagine" how I'd respond if the deception had worked. – Not good enough, right? Studies that use deception are better served by less-experienced participants who are "fooled," unaware of the deception until the debriefing reveals it.

Don't most ongoing participants soon gain experience from such debriefings, and soon begin to suspect and anticipate deceptions?

As one research associate noted: "...If a person participates in one study and they learn in the debriefing that they were deceived, will they believe what the researcher says in the next study? Why should they?"