Where they hiding behind surfaces?
Where they hiding in the middle of a crowd?
Were come of the players not hiding?
kk
Was some sort of device being tested?
Were the players different in some aspect from the random person in the street?
Aside from participating in the “game”, did the players share some common characteristic?
Was the time it took for researchers to find players important?
Did the researchers eventually find everyone? Is the number of people that they found important?
Could the game have been played with different starting assumptions (eg. more time to hide), and would that have affected the outcome of the game?
Did the researchers use any special methods for finding people (ie. something other than just looking behind bushes, etc.)?
Did the researchers essentially confirm their prediction by running the game, or did the result surprise them?
Did the researchers publish their findings from running this game?
Did Mike lose the game by being found by the researchers?
Did the researchers learn something specifically from Mike losing, as opposed to other people losing?
kk
kk
Where the participants actively hiding?
Where they just trying to look inconspicuous?
**Mike just lost “the game”, but in doing so, he helped out a lot of people(and made a little money, too!). Why?
**
Was the method to detecting the players questions?
Was it something purely visual?
Did the testers suffer from some condition?
Another nudge:** It’s hide-and-seek(of a sort). Remember that “game” is in quotes and it isn’t really a game and it isn’t really hide-and-seek in the true sense. **
When Mike lost the hide and seek type game, was it because the researchers found him by
Identifying him specifically as a listed participant in the research – “we see you hiding there, Mike”?
Identifying him by an otherwise easily perceived quality or qualities, which he had disguised – “You normally have blond hair and blue eyes, but you have colored your hair and put in brown contacts”?
Identifying him as having a not easily perceived quality – “you have this DNA, or you have a detectable level of HIV virus.”?
We’re they testing facial recognition software?
Disease screening test?
Was the game about looking for people with a certain body language?
Did the researchers knew or learn about the participants beforehand?
Good questions from both of you. Keep going.
But… What’s left?
Mind reading?
Smell?
Coincidence? Sheer luck?
Perhaps I misunderstood something. Here, to move along again, I’ll tell more:
The researchers looked for the players in the regular hide-and-seek way. They more or less wandered around looking for them. I picture them doing this with clip boards, though I am not sure if that is really how it was done.
So what was going on and why?
Suntan?
Burn?
But he said that there was nothing physically distinctive about the participants, and nothing particular in common between themselves…
NO
I guess that “YES” there was something in common about them. Sorry if I indicated otherwise.
It’s cool.
So, something that can be see with the naked eye?
Something visual?
In their clothes?
In their bodies?
In their hair?
In the way they acted?
In how they moved?