[IrishElk] Thud

[irishelk]

David told some colleagues that he would send his employees over to their workplace. The colleagues thanked him and said they'd expect the visit. Then David proceeded to never send the employees over, or even mention it to them. Why?

Maybe a quickie, feel free to $p0i1

[Brian1976]

line of work relevant? was david being truthful? changed his mind? was david's goal monetary? materialistic? emotional? social? when his colleagues said they'd expect the visit were they being truthful?

[GalFisk]

Did the colleagues expect him to actually send his employees over? Do the colleagues mention the discrepancy to him? Employees: H? A? Colleagues: H? A? David: H? A? M? Would sending the employees over mean having them walk over? Climb? Go by car? Bus? Train? Aircraft? Watercraft? Do the promised employees actually exist? Are they using code words? Is subterfuge relevant? A crime? Money laundering?

[irishelk]

Brian1976 Hi Brian! First time I've seen you around, welcome!

line of work relevant? Yes. was david being truthful? No. changed his mind? No.
was david's goal monetary? materialistic? emotional? social? In a sense this, no to rest.
when his colleagues said they'd expect the visit were they being truthful? Yes.


GalFisk

Did the colleagues expect him to actually send his employees over? Yes. Do the colleagues mention the discrepancy to him? Noish. Employees: H? A? Colleagues: H? A? David: H? A? M? Yes to all. Would sending the employees over mean having them walk over? Climb? Go by car? Bus? Train? Aircraft? Watercraft? Irr., bus or car likely, train or plane possible. Do the promised employees actually exist? Yes. Are they using code words? No. Is subterfuge relevant? Yes. A crime? No (or if so, very slight misdemeanors). Money laundering? No.

[GalFisk]

Did the employees know David had said they'd go? Relevant? Is David sabotaging someone? Or something? Do they work in politics? Manufacture? Servies?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Did the employees know David had said they'd go? Relevant? Quite possibly, irr.
Is David sabotaging someone? Or something? I wouldn't use the term "sabotage," but they might. Potentially creating conflict with, certainly.
Do they work in politics? Manufacture? No. Services? In a sense.

[GalFisk]

Is David blamed for this? Is someone else? Is David creating trouble for someone else? Did someone make a relevant promise based on the expectation that these employees would come?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Is David blamed for this? For not sending the employees? Probably, irr. Is someone else?
Is David creating trouble for someone else? Probably, eventually. Did someone make a relevant promise based on the expectation that these employees would come? No.

[GalFisk]

Relevant what the employees were supposed to do there? How long they were supposed to stay there? Expenses relevant? Billing? Was David asked to send the employees? Did he volunteer to send them? Relevant what David does, apart from sending his employees to colleagues? Is he a boss? Team leader? CEO? Is he doing this for himself? For someone else? Against someone else? For his employees?

[Earnest]

Did he want to send over a selected set of employees? Or some generic employee? Was the whole story a joke? Relevant what the employees do? Organize parties? Can we assume anyone HAM or HAF right? Did the collegues asked for the employees in the first place? To send over to their workplace = in order to repair something? In order to provide a service/do their job in their workplace? Is the workplace of David's collegues another location of the same business as David's one? Very far away? The same building? Another country?Relevant? Do they all work for the same company? Had David send the employees would he have disobeyed to someone? To his boss? Did he simply forget it? Did David expect the collegues to wait for the employees? Had David a carreer adancement? Was him fired? Did he experienced a relevant change in his working position? Were the collegues send over instead? Did David discover something? Was there no more need to send the employees to the collegues? Because of a change that intervened on his side? On the collegues'side? Do they all operate in the same business? Internet relevant? Circus? Health care? Food? Police? Amazon? Technology? Transportation? Fire men? Ambulance? Army? Navy? Judges? Tribunal?

WAG --> was it an emergency situation? Something like the collegues asked for reinforcements but then an explosion happened and David realized that everyone died and there was no more need to send the employees?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Relevant what the employees were supposed to do there? Yes, very. How long they were supposed to stay there? Relevant, but hard to answer. Expenses relevant? Billing? No.
Was David asked to send the employees? Yes. Did he volunteer to send them? He offered for free after being asked. Relevant what David does, apart from sending his employees to colleagues? Yes. Is he a boss? Team leader? Of this particular team, yes. CEO? No.
Is he doing this for himself? Not really. For someone else? In an abstract way, yes. Against someone else? He's not so much "against" anyone, but is in conflict with/critical of someone/thing. For his employees? Not really.


Earnest

Did he want to send over a selected set of employees? Or some generic employee? They have a particular role, but it can be pretty much anyone.
Was the whole story a joke? No. Relevant what the employees do? Yes. Organize parties? No.
Can we assume anyone HAM or HAF right? Yep, a mix of HAM and HAFs.
Did the colleagues asked for the employees in the first place? Yes.To send over to their workplace = in order to repair something? No. In order to provide a service/do their job in their workplace? Yes. Is the workplace of David's collegues another location of the same business as David's one? No--they are in the same field but are not directly related. Very far away? The same building? Another country?Relevant? Irr. Do they all work for the same company? Not impossible, but let's say no for simplicity.
Had David send the employees would he have disobeyed to someone? No. To his boss? Did he simply forget it? No. Did David expect the collegues to wait for the employees? Sort of. Had David a carreer adancement? No. Was him fired? No. Did he experienced a relevant change in his working position? No. Were the collegues send over instead? Nope, nobody was sent.
Did David discover something? At some point, yesish. Was there no more need to send the employees to the collegues? It's more like: There was a need not to. Because of a change that intervened on his side? On the collegues'side? No.
Do they all operate in the same business? Not exactly, but in the same or closely related fields. Internet relevant? Circus? Health care? THIS. Food? Police? Amazon? Technology? Transportation? Fire men? Ambulance? Army? Navy? Judges? Tribunal? No to rest.

WAG --> was it an emergency situation? Something like the collegues asked for reinforcements but then an explosion happened and David realized that everyone died and there was no more need to send the employees? No, but good lateral guess!

[Earnest]

Ambulance relevant? Hospitals? Different departments of the same hospital? Pharmacies? Drugs/pharmaceuticals? anesthesia relevant? Nurse? Psychologists? Physicians?

Had the employees been send, would a patient have died? Would there have been less people to assist another patient? Was there need of these employees somewhere else? Had these employees experience? Had other more experienced employees been send? Is someone giving birth relevant? (E.g. the wife of some of the employees was giving birth but something went wrong ; the doctor did not want to send the husband, who worked in the hospital, to assist the wife in order not to let him know that something negative was happening?)

[irishelk]

Earnest

Ambulance relevant? No. Hospitals? One, yes. Different departments of the same hospital? Pharmacies? Drugs/pharmaceuticals? anesthesia relevant? Nurse? Only indirectly to these. Psychologists? Yes. Physicians? Yes, clinical psychologists and/or psychiatrists.

Had the employees been send, would a patient have died? No. Would there have been less people to assist another patient? No. Was there need of these employees somewhere else? No. Had these employees experience? Noish. Had other more experienced employees been send? No. Is someone giving birth relevant? No. (E.g. the wife of some of the employees was giving birth but something went wrong ; the doctor did not want to send the husband, who worked in the hospital, to assist the wife in order not to let him know that something negative was happening?)

[GalFisk]

Does he think they can't help? That their service will be pointless? Useless? Better used elsewhere? Is he protesting something? A law? A policy? Forensics relevant? Law enforcement? Lie detection?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Does he think they can't help? No. That their service will be pointless? Useless? Better used elsewhere? No.
Is he protesting something? Not exactly, but in the same ballpark. A law? No. A policy? Possibly, probably several policies would be involved. Forensics relevant? Law enforcement? Lie detection? No to rest.

[Earnest]

So David told that he would have send psychologists to the workplace of someone (which was in the same hospital) but did not, right? Are psychologists needed to assist someone?

Was someone mentally ill? Are they needed to cure someone? To help someone? Were the someone asking for psychiatrists taking an appointment? Ask for them immediately? Relevant how many psychiatrists were needed? More than 3? One for each collegue? More than 10?

Had he send psychiatrists would someone have exploited their presence? If so for illegal aims? For taking advantage of their presence? Did David know the reason why the collegues asked for psychiatrists at first? Did the collegue have experience in the field? If so in the field of medicine? Were David and the collegues doctors? Practitioners?
Did the collegues ask for psychologists because a mental illness is difficult to identify and maybe for safety reasons someone would have recovered? Are insurances relevant? Money? Were the psychologists required in order to visit someone? To take part to something? Are sedative relevant? Are we talking about modern times? (If not, wars relevant? Nazis? Death penalty?)
Had David gone (promised to go) himself would the puzzle still work? If not, because the collegues needed employees to which they could give orders rather than someone who has "their same power"?

[irishelk]

Earnest

So David told that he would have send psychologists to the workplace of someone (which was in the same hospital) but did not, right? No and FA. Are psychologists needed to assist someone? No.

Was someone mentally ill? Not someone directly relevant.Are they needed to cure someone? To help someone? Were the someone asking for psychiatrists taking an appointment? Ask for them immediately? No to all. Relevant how many psychiatrists were needed? More than 3? One for each collegue? More than 10? No psychiatrists are needed. A small group was requested, no more than 10.

Had he send psychiatrists would someone have exploited their presence? If so for illegal aims? For taking advantage of their presence? No to all.
Did David know the reason why the collegues asked for psychiatrists at first? Not psychiatrists, but yes. Did the collegue have experience in the field? Yes. If so in the field of medicine? Yes. Were David and the collegues doctors? Yes, but David could be called something else. Practitioners? Colleagues yes, David no.

Did the collegues ask for psychologists because a mental illness is difficult to identify and maybe for safety reasons someone would have recovered? No, but possibly OTRT. Are insurances relevant? No. Money? No. Were the psychologists required in order to visit someone? No. To take part to something? They're not psychologists, they are yopeishly taking part in something. Are sedative relevant? No. Are we talking about modern times? WIthin the last 50 years. (If not, wars relevant? Nazis? Death penalty?) No.
Had David gone (promised to go) himself would the puzzle still work? Possibly, depends on certain factors. If not, because the collegues needed employees to which they could give orders rather than someone who has "their same power"? In a sense, yes, but might be misleading.

Good questions, sorry for all the Nos.

[GalFisk]

Were they supposed to go there to: do work? Learn something? Meet people? Be seen? Pretend to be of another profession? Observe? Participate in subterfuge?

[Earnest]

So sorry...can i ask some clarifications? David works in an hospital and promised to send employees? So the clinical psychologists are the people who asked for david's employees?

In not sending the employees did David "train" the collegues? Did the collegues expect David's employees after minutes from the moment they asked for them? Hours? Days? Are memory diseases relevant? Are lobotomies relevant? Are certain therapies against which david was protesting relevant? Did he want his practitioners not to learn electroshock/lobotomies? Are tests on patients relevant? Is a change in medicine relevant? E.g. he wanted to make a point?
Is it something like: " he promised to send employees, at the very last moment he decided not to and claimed that the colloegues could not operate since they did not have enough personell and he refused to give them unless his therapies were first tried out on the patient"?

Is David's refusal to send employees: intentional? For protesting? Did he want to cause problems? Make qapoint? Save a life? Not making someone suffer? Send the employees elsewhere?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Were they supposed to go there to: do work? Yes. Learn something? Yes. Meet people? Not primarily, but this would occur. Be seen? Ditto. Pretend to be of another profession? Possibly. Observe? Yes. Participate in subterfuge? YES.


Earnest

So sorry...can i ask some clarifications? Of course, good idea. =)David works in an hospital Not necessarily. and promised to send employees? Yes. So the clinical psychologists are the people who asked for david's employees? Yes.

In not sending the employees did David "train" the collegues? No. Did the collegues expect David's employees after minutes from the moment they asked for them? Hours? Days? Days or weeks. Are memory diseases relevant? No. Are lobotomies relevant? No. Are certain therapies against which david was protesting relevant? Yope to yesish. Did he want his practitioners not to learn electroshock/lobotomies? No. Are tests on patients relevant? Not exactly. Is a change in medicine relevant? Yes. E.g. he wanted to make a point? Yes, definitely.

Is it something like: " he promised to send employees, at the very last moment he decided not to and claimed that the colloegues could not operate since they did not have enough personell and he refused to give them unless his therapies were first tried out on the patient"? No.

Is David's refusal to send employees: intentional? Yes, but possible FA. For protesting? No. Did he want to cause problems? Not primarily. Make a point? Yes. Save a life? Not making someone suffer? This is his big-picture aim, yes. Send the employees elsewhere? No.

[Earnest]

Did he want to let the collegues know that he disagreed on something? Subterfuge = falsify something? Partecipate to an illegal action? An illegal action related to medicine? Is the subterfuge illegal? Is blood involved? Brain? Operations? Witnesses?

Is David against the subterfuge? Novelties in medicine = new cures? New wxperime ts? New ways of testing? Are siamese twins relevant? Study of the brain? Animals?
Are witnesses relevant? Death penalty? Were the employees aware of the subterfuge? Had they been send would they have been active part of the subterfuge? Victims? Passive parts?

Point Davie wanted to make = i don't agree with you? With what you are doing? With your medical attitude?

Change in medicine = change in psychology? In medicine as a whole? Were the collegues in favor of the change? Against? Same q. for David please

[GalFisk]

Subterfuge towards: patients? Bosses? Colleagues? Politicians? Inspectors?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Did he want to let the collegues know that he disagreed on something? Yes, this is part of it. Subterfuge = falsify something? In a sense. Partecipate to an illegal action? An illegal action related to medicine? Is the subterfuge illegal? No to all. Is blood involved? No. Brain? Only in that psychology is involved. Operations? No. Witnesses? Yope.

Is David against the subterfuge? No. Novelties in medicine = new cures? New wxperime ts? New ways of testing? Closest to testing/evaluating.
Are siamese twins relevant? No, but I'd love to know where this was leading! Study of the brain? Clinical psychology, yes. Animals? No.
Are witnesses relevant? Yope. Death penalty? No. Were the employees aware of the subterfuge? Yes. Had they been send would they have been active part of the subterfuge? Yes, although... Victims? Passive parts? ...their specific role is largely passive.

Point Davie wanted to make = i don't agree with you? With what you are doing? With your medical attitude? All of the above.

Change in medicine = change in psychology? Yes. In medicine as a whole? Possibly. Were the colleagues in favor of the change? Noish. Against? Perhaps not entirely, against change, but resistant. Same q. for David please He was in favor.


GalFisk

Subterfuge towards: patients? Bosses? Colleagues? This. Politicians? Inspectors? I think no, but DOYD.

[GalFisk]

Is a specific illness relevant? Criteria for diagnosis? Types of treatment? Would sending the colleagues mean pretending more people are against the change? More people are qualified to have opinions about the change? Does not sending the colleagues after all make one side of an argument look weak? Foolish? Like liars?

[Earnest]

Are siamese twins relevant? No, but I'd love to know where this was leading! --> Oh i was aware of some bad experimens made on siamese twins...and also I was guessing that the one of collegues was a trap to attract just some members of David's employees.

Are alternative medicines relevant? Talking with patients?

Change in psychology? Yes --> well...I am not an expert in the field. We said that the change involved testing/evaluating. Measuraments relevant? Tests and evaluations on patients? On viruses? Is it tested the cause of a disease (e.g. which are the subjects that are more likely to be affected?)? The consequences? The cures? Are tools relevantly used? Is Freud relevant? Are dosages relevant? Drugs? Is a specific disturb tested? The presence of it? How patients that are affected by the disorder
react to some stimuli (visual?)? learning disabilities, substance abuse, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders?

...their specific role is largely passive. --> is their presence useful in order to increase the number of participants? were they used as witnesses? To take notes? Just o be present? Did they just represent David in his absence? Is the absence/presence of David's employees crucial for what the collegues were doing? Were the employees aware of what they would have been asked to do by the collegues? Did they know that David disagreed?
Did someone else promised to send them employees a part from David? Is University relevant? University courses? Formal occasions/celebrations? Are laws relevant? Signatures?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Is a specific illness relevant? Noish. Criteria for diagnosis? Yes. Types of treatment? No. Would sending the colleagues mean pretending more people are against the change? More people are qualified to have opinions about the change? No to both. Does not sending the colleagues after all make one side of an argument look weak? Foolish? Eventually, yes. Like liars? Not exactly, but suspect certainly.


Earnest

Are siamese twins relevant? No, but I'd love to know where this was leading! --> Oh i was aware of some bad experimens made on siamese twins...and also I was guessing that the one of collegues was a trap to attract just some members of David's employees. Sounds like an idea for a better puzzle than this one XD.

Are alternative medicines relevant? No. Talking with patients? No, but in the same arena.

Change in psychology? Yes --> well...I am not an expert in the field. We said that the change involved testing/evaluating. Measuraments relevant? Tests and evaluations on patients? Yes. On viruses? Is it tested the cause of a disease (e.g. which are the subjects that are more likely to be affected?)? The consequences? And yes. The cures? Are tools relevantly used? Is Freud relevant? Are dosages relevant? Drugs? Is a specific disturb tested? The presence of it? No to rest.
How patients that are affected by the disorder react to some stimuli (visual?)? No, with a small vague "ish". learning disabilities, substance abuse, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders? None of these are central to the puzzle, though addiction, depression or anxiety might come into consideration at some point.

...their specific role is largely passive. --> is their presence useful in order to increase the number of participants? Not exactly, but OTRTish. were they used as witnesses? Yes, with the caveat that they did not actually go. To take notes? Yes, same caveat. Just o be present? Yes, same caveat.
Did they just represent David in his absence? In a sense. Is the absence/presence of David's employees crucial for what the collegues were doing? No. Were the employees aware of what they would have been asked to do by the collegues? Yes. Did they know that David disagreed? Yes.
Did someone else promised to send them employees a part from David? No. Is University relevant? University courses? Formal occasions/celebrations? Are laws relevant? Signatures? No to rest.

[Earnest]

So symptoms are evaluated --> are the symptoms accentuated through the test? Made evident? Are they physical symptoms? Psychological? Do they leave permanent effects on the patients if stimulated?

Are symptoms mainly on heart? Brain? Muscles? Skin?ear? Are they evident at a first sight? If not did they need to be highlighted somehow? Provoked? Is the selling of a new drug able to cure the symptoms relevant? Do they need time to manifest? Hours? Days? Is histeria relevant? Do the symptoms enable to classify the disease as such? Do the tests exploit new technologies? Poison? Chemical substances? Drugs? Medical devices?

Could the symptoms be cause of death?

[irishelk]

Earnest

So symptoms are evaluated Yope--these questions are hard to answer. There is a relevant symptom, but beware lurking FAs. --> are the symptoms accentuated through the test? Yesish. Made evident? Noish. Are they physical symptoms? No. Psychological? Yesish. Do they leave permanent effects on the patients if stimulated? No.

Are symptoms mainly on heart? Brain? Muscles? Skin? No to these. ear? Not exactly, but close. Are they evident at a first sight? No. If not did they need to be highlighted somehow? In a sense. Provoked? No. Is the selling of a new drug able to cure the symptoms relevant? No.
Do they need time to manifest? Hours? Days? No. Is histeria relevant? No. Do the symptoms enable to classify the disease as such? It might have been called hysteria in olden days.
Do the tests exploit new technologies? Poison? Chemical substances? Drugs? Medical devices? No to all--patients are evaluated more than they are formally "tested."

Could the symptoms be cause of death? No.

[Earnest]

Is "the more people present the better"? If so the better for the test? Are people part of the test? Are noises relevant? White noises? Ultrasounds? Others?

Are symptoms measured? Relevant how "symptoms are measured"? Could they be quantitatively measured? Through a measure? A measure of noise? Of brain waves? Other waves?

Relevanat how patients are evaluated? Just looked? Touched? Touched in relevant places? Are patients consentient? Relevant which kind of people become ill/manifest such symptoms? Humiliation relevant?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Is "the more people present the better"? No. If so the better for the test? Are people part of the test? They are being observed/evaluated more than formally tested. Are noises relevant? Yes (to the symptoms). White noises? Ultrasounds? Others? This.

Are symptoms measured? I think "observed and evaluated" describes it best. Relevant how "symptoms are measured"? Not to the solution of the puzzle, but might help. Could they be quantitatively measured? Through a measure? A measure of noise? Of brain waves? Other waves? No/irr to rest.

Relevanat how patients are evaluated? Not to the solution of the puzzle, but might help. Just looked? Just observed, yes. Touched? No. Touched in relevant places? Are patients consentient? Conscious, yes, at least most of the time. Relevant which kind of people become ill/manifest such symptoms? Depends on what you mean, but I'll say no. Humiliation relevant? No.

[irishelk]

************************RECAP

David told some colleagues that he would send his employees over to their workplace. The colleagues thanked him and said they'd expect the visit. Then David proceeded to never send the employees over, or even mention it to them. Why?

The colleagues are clinical psychologists who really did expect people to come to their hospital. David, who also works in psychology, was lying and never sent them. These employees were not needed elsewhere, and nothing particularly bad would have happened if they had gone. If they had gone, they would have been involved in observing, learning and participating in a type of subterfuge.

Ways of observing and evaluating patients are relevant. No particular medical procedures, tests or devices are relevant. Noises are relevant to the symptoms involved. David wanted to make a point and change something.

[Earnest]

Noises are relevant to the symptoms involved. --> laugh noises? Low noises? Noises heared by humans? Sounds above certain waves (Db?)?

David wanted to make a point and change something --> was David aware of the subterfuge? Did he not send employees because of this? Is the "not sending the employees" interpreted as a sign of protest? By anyone? By anyone taking part to the subterfuge? Did David know it?

Subterfuge = something illegal? See what happen if something unethical is made on patients? On humans instead of animals?

[Earnest]

Ways of observing and evaluating patients are relevant --> do patients suffer when observed? Change their health status? tinnitus relevant? Is the subterfuge against something? Against someone (e.g. a chief? A patient? A choef with a disease? A boss with the disease and who had always been against the change?) Against a rule? A way of observing patients?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Noises are relevant to the symptoms involved. --> laugh noises? Low noises? Noises heared by humans? Yope. Sounds above certain waves (Db?)? No/irr to rest.

David wanted to make a point and change something --> was David aware of the subterfuge? Yes. Did he not send employees because of this? No, at least not in the way you mean. Is the "not sending the employees" interpreted as a sign of protest? Not relevantly. By anyone? By anyone taking part to the subterfuge? Did David know it? Know what?

Subterfuge = something illegal? No. See what happen if something unethical is made on patients? The people doing the subterfuge are not doing anything to patients, no. On humans instead of animals? No.

Ways of observing and evaluating patients are relevant --> do patients suffer when observed? Change their health status? Noish, but maybe explore. tinnitus relevant? No.
Is the subterfuge against something? Yes. Against someone (e.g. a chief? A patient? A choef with a disease? A boss with the disease and who had always been against the change?) No. Against a rule? Probably a collection of rules. A way of observing patients? Yesish, but not in the sense of a certain method or test.

[Earnest]

Ways of observing and evaluating patients are relevant--> directly? Wearing certain clothes? Behind a glass? Touching the patient? Making him believe that no one is observing? Privacy relevant?

Are patient naked when observed? Do they wear relevant clothing? Embarassment relevant? X-rays?


Is the subterfuge = breaking the collection of rules? Making new rules?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Ways of observing and evaluating patients are relevant--> directly? Yes. Wearing certain clothes? Behind a glass? Touching the patient? No to these. Making him believe that no one is observing? This is possible, but not necessarily. Privacy relevant? Not exactly, but OTRTish.

Are patient naked when observed? Do they wear relevant clothing? Embarassment relevant? X-rays? No to all.


Is the subterfuge = breaking the collection of rules? Making new rules? These are the eventual goals, but the subterfuge itself is not either of these.

[Earnest]

Will of patient relevant? (E.g. giving drugs to calm him) Taking decisions in place of the patient? Bio ethics relevant? Observing certain parts of the body? Observing results/numbers/figures? Reveal if the patient had previously drunk/had sex/been abused?
Reveal the name of the patient? Anonymity relevant?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Will of patient relevant? I think no, but depends on what you mean. (E.g. giving drugs to calm him) Not this. Taking decisions in place of the patient? No. Bio ethics relevant? I believe this would be included in that heading, sure. Observing certain parts of the body? Observing results/numbers/figures? Reveal if the patient had previously drunk/had sex/been abused?
Reveal the name of the patient? Anonymity relevant? No/irr to rest.

[Earnest]

Do patients have to give some info before being examined? During the examination? Are questions asked to the patients? P.s. to be sure all patients are alive right? Are patients paid to be examined? Sudden and loud noises relevant? Are noises artificially created by the evaluators? Are fears relevant? Fear of certain noises? Phobia? Agoraphobia? hypnosis relevant? sleep? sleepwalking?
Are patients examined in front of a large audience? Relevant? If so, are people of the audience in silence? Taking notes? Would their notes represent a sufficient prove of the validity of the evaluation method? Would their presence?

Is the "evaluation part" in itself the novelty (in the sense that before, patients were not even evaluated)?

[biograd]

Was the idea that David would send over the employees to do work for the colleagues in their professional capacity? or rather disguised as patients? possibly to covertly evaluate the practices of the colleagues' offices regarding treatment of patients?

[irishelk]

Earnest

Do patients have to give some info before being examined? Yope, see note below. During the examination? No. Are questions asked to the patients? Probably.
P.s. to be sure all patients are alive right? Yes. Are patients paid to be examined? No. Sudden and loud noises relevant? Are noises artificially created by the evaluators? Are fears relevant? Fear of certain noises? Phobia? Agoraphobia? hypnosis relevant? sleep? sleepwalking? No to all.

Are patients examined in front of a large audience? No. Relevant? If so, are people of the audience in silence? Taking notes? Would their notes represent a sufficient prove of the validity of the evaluation method? Would their presence? No one other than the patients and the professionals doing the evaluating are present.

Is the "evaluation part" in itself the novelty (in the sense that before, patients were not even evaluated)? Noish, but this is vaguely OTRT.


biograd

Was the idea that David would send over the employees to do work for the colleagues in their professional capacity? Noish... or rather disguised as patients? Yes! possibly to covertly evaluate the practices of the colleagues' offices regarding treatment of patients? Yes indeed, good leap.


NOTE TO AVOID CONFUSION: There is nothing else left to discover about a specific test or evaluation performed on patients at any one time. Rather, the colleagues' hospital workers are observing and evaluating patients over time. The bit about noises is tangentially relevant, but not necessary to solve.

[GalFisk]

Did not sending the fake patients cause the trial to be: authentic? Aborted? Smaller than expected? Did it cause embarrassment for the colleagues of David? Did it give the result David wanted? Did he want to shed light on the shady practice they asked him to help with? Did he help putting a stop to this practice?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Did not sending the fake patients cause the trial to be: authentic? Aborted? Smaller than expected? No to all.
Did it cause embarrassment for the colleagues of David? Eventually, yes. Did it give the result David wanted? Yes. Did he want to shed light on the shady practice they asked him to help with? Yesish. Did he help putting a stop to this practice? In fact he did, but not really relevant.

[GalFisk]

Were other fake patients brought in instead? Relevant? Did David do something relevant besides promising to send and then not sending his employees? Are other individuals involved? Other groups? Government?

[irishelk]

GalFisk

Were other fake patients brought in instead? No. Relevant? Yes. Did David do something relevant besides promising to send and then not sending his employees? At some point, yes. Are other individuals involved? Not directly. Other groups? Government? No.

[Balin]

I think I know this story and will send a PM.

[irishelk]

Hm, didn't get the PM. You can $p0i1 if you like, it's dragged on long enough!

[Balin]

Somehow, I sent the PM to myself. Somehow.

I may have some details mixed up, but:
David was performing an experiment about bias in psychology or something I can't exactly remember. He sent his employees to psychiatric facilities with instructions to tell the doctors they were hearing voices or sounds in their head (can't remember the exact details); the doctors described them with various mental discorders. After the employees were eventually released and David revealed what he'd done, he called the facilities and told them he'd be sending other employees in to do the test again, but never sent them. This time, the doctors diagnosed several actual patients as pseudopatients since they were expecting fakers to show up.
This it?

[irishelk]

You got it, nicely solved!

Just to add some extraneous details:

********************************SPOILER

This experiment was headed by psychologist David Rosenhan in the early 70s. He hired several completely "sane" people to pretend to be "insane," to show how arbitrary those two categories can be and how bad American mental hospitals were at distinguishing between the two.

The fake patients were instructed to say that they heard voices saying "thud," "empty" and "hollow," so they were admitting themselves (P.S. occasional auditory hallucinations are super common and happen to plenty of otherwise healthy people, so they probably shouldn't have even been admitted, but all the participants were). After they were admitted, they stopped pretending to be experiencing any symptoms. They were still kept for weeks or months, and scrutinized in ways so extreme they're almost comical. I highly recommend reading some of their individual experiences. One fake patient kept a diary, and the nurses reported that he was "performing writing-like behaviors."

Anyway, as Balin said--after the initial study was published, Rosenhan offered to send his fake patients to several other hospitals. All his colleagues eagerly agreed, sure that their staff could pick out the "fakers." Then he just didn't send any, and didn't tell anyone. On their own, the hospitals found dozens of admitted patients that they were sure were actually "sane," thus further proving his point.