Digital Deception

I know Something You Don’t Know

Presentation-wise, I thought you did a good job. You didn’t rush through your points, and you were very clear and logical in your progression. I liked your use of an audience member for analysis, since it made the presentation very engaging. I thought there was a lot of text in the presentation, so it could’ve benefited from some alternate visuals like more pictures, illustrations or graphics; especially since you dealt with an idea that could have been displayed easily through visual examples. I thought you could’ve used an overview of your points at times (or how they relate to deception/Nyberg/etc…) and that might’ve been reading from your slides a bit too, but otherwise, I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation.

You deal with a very interesting idea that I felt engaged in immediately. Your content was clear, and I liked how you explained the premise of asymmetric information, your own hypotheses, and then the strategies used in practice and the results for your hypotheses. It would’ve been exciting (though totally unnecessary) to see how people get around the problem of asymmetric information instead of just how they use it. It also would’ve been interesting to see what people think about in terms of “what’s important for deception” (as discussed in class, ie. liking a person). In terms of a confederate,I think this is a great idea. It should be a few confederates (consisting of various characteristics to create more genrealizable results), but controlling for the information known is a good idea because it eliminates different reactions to profile length, profile details (in terms of type of details like personal info categories and basic info categories and specificity of info, like “I like dogs” and “I enjoy household animals”), and controls for reactions by confederates (of course).

posted by Josh P @ 12:51 AM