評論
打印
But of course, there was also a trick involved.
當(dāng)然，這里也有詐。
So first, we walked up to people, we asked them about their voting intention and then when they started filling in,
首先，我們找到一些路人，詢問他們的投票意向，然后當(dāng)他們填寫的時候，
we would fill in a set of answers going in the opposite direction.
我們會填寫一份相反的答案。
We would put it under the notepad.
并放在寫字板的下方。
And when we get the questionnaire, we would simply glue it on top of the participant's own answer.
然后，當(dāng)我們拿到填好的問卷時，會直接把它粘到參與者自己的答案上面。
So there, it's gone. And then we would ask about each of the questions:
于是乎，它不見了。然后，我們會再問他們這幾個問題：
How did you reason here? And they'll state the reasons, together we will sum up their overall score.
這里你給出的理由是什么？然后他們會陳述理由，同時，我們還會算他們的總分。
And in the end, they will state their voting intention again.
最后，他們還會再次陳述自己的投票意向。
So what we find first of all here, is that very few of these manipulations are detected.
那么，我們首先了解到的是，這些小把戲很少會被揭穿。
And they're not detected in the sense that they realize, "OK, you must have changed my answer,"
即便被發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們也不會覺得，“好吧，你肯定是換掉了我的答案”
it was more the case that, "OK, I must've misunderstood the question the first time I read it. Can I please change it?"
更可能是這樣，“好吧，我第一次讀題目的時候一定是誤解它了。我可以換回答案嗎？”
And even if a few of these manipulations were changed, the overall majority was missed.
即便部分被篡改的答案被改回來了，總的來說，大部分還是被忽略了。
So we managed to switch 90 percent of the participants' answers from left to right, right to left, their overall profile.
我們成功替換了90%參與者的答案，從左翼到右翼，從右翼到左翼，他們整個的概述。
