About the Institute
The Institute was founded with a chair and a question. It applies method — real method, with controls, with n stated — to the questions that arise in the course of ordinary life on this site, so that the record exists. The Institute does not take sides. The Institute takes measurements, and the measurements are then taken by everyone else as sides, which is a finding in itself (see Study 19).
The Institute employs one Director and one control. The control is a cat. The control's health is reported below as a matter of record.
Studies (selected from 23)
- Method
- Sat in it. Timed it. Recorded the result.
- n
- n=1
- Result
- Inconclusive.
- Limitations
- The investigator was also the subject, and the chair.
- Method
- The predicted date was recorded at enrollment and the Institute waited.
- n
- n=1 (one countdown; eleven dates)
- Result
- Withdrawn. The date moved during the study, which invalidated the design and, the subject argues, demonstrates that "the system works." The Institute does not disagree. The retraction notice is reproduced in full under Errata, where it is the Institute's proudest entry.
- Method
- Three subjects rated by three raters after a week of recorded intake. Raters were blind to intake. One subject was not blind to anything and asked to see the raters' credentials.
- n
- n=3
- Result
- No effect detected. A recount has been requested by one subject (the one with the highest intake) and a re-rating by another (the one with the highest self-rating). Both requests are noted. Neither changes the number.
- Limitations
- n=3. The Institute would like to make this clear to everyone who is quoting it as settled.
- Method
- Direct inquiry, repeated. Eleven buttons pressed in sequence, then out of sequence.
- n
- n=1 (founder); n=11 (buttons)
- Result
- No description obtained. The Director was enrolled as a founding member on each attempt. The Director has declined in writing (see footnote 1 of the full report, and footnotes 2 through 9).
- Status
- Ongoing. The Institute considers this a stalemate and, privately, a pleasure.
- Method
- Observation of a champion's pre-game ritual across twelve sessions.
- n
- n=1
- Result
- The sequence exists; it has between four and six steps; the champion will not confirm which. The subject has suggested the study is "a scouting report." It is not. It would be a better scouting report if it were.
- Method
- None available.
- n
- —
- Result
- The Institute has no instrument for this and says so. The field-worker concerned was gracious about it. The Institute recommends her journal to anyone who wants to know what a careful person does when the Institute can't help.
- Method
- Daily observation.
- n
- n=1, one sentence per day
- Result
- Insufficient data. (The Institute wishes to note that this is the highest finding it has ever recorded about anyone.)
Call for Participants
The Institute is always enrolling. Current studies seeking subjects:
- Study 24 — Does Milk Help? With what, the subject declines to narrow down. Volunteers must define their terms.
- Study 25 — Is Tuesday Worse? Than what; see above. Eleven volunteers so far, one of whom is a Tuesday.
- Study 26 — Complaints Per Capita. One subject has already supplied more than the required n and has filed a complaint about the sample size.
To enroll, state your terms in #the-institute. You will be asked what you mean. This is not rudeness; it is the method.
Methods
Every study states its n. Every study names its control. Every study lists its limitations before its result, so that the limitations are read. When a result is quoted without its n, the Institute writes to the quoter. The Institute has written many letters.
The Institute does not study real people's private lives, real health, real money or real safety. It studies disputes, pages, habits of posting, and the question of whether the chair is comfortable. That is enough to keep one Director and one control occupied indefinitely.
Errata
The Institute considers this page its finest work. Every entry is an improvement in the record.
| Date | Study | Correction |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 1 | "Comfortable" was not defined. It still isn't. Noted. |
| 2021 | 9 | Retracted in full. The predicted date moved mid-study (from one date to the next one). The design assumed a fixed date; the subject does not. The Institute thanks the subject for his honesty, which exceeded the study's. |
| 2022 | 14 | One rater was found to be the brother of one subject. Rater replaced. Result unchanged. Subject's objection to the replacement noted and, at his request, framed. |
| 2023 | 17 | Footnote 1 ("the Director declines") was accidentally omitted from the first printing, during which period the Director was listed on another site as a founding member. The Director remains declined. |
| 2024 | 19 | "Everyone else" overstated. Corrected to "most people, and one cat." |
| this year | 23 | The phrase "insufficient data" was read by a third party as an insult. It was the opposite. Clarified above. |
Charts
Honest axes. The subjects are what they are.
FAQ (questions the Director wishes people asked)
What is your n? — Thank you for asking. It is in every study, at the top. Usually it is 1.
Is the control alright? — The control is fine. The control is asleep on Study 14.
Are you a real institute? — The Institute is a character on this site, and the studies are about this site. The method is real. The credentials are not claimed. The chair is real.
Did Study 14 settle the milk question? — n=3. No. Nothing with n=3 settles anything; it begins it.
Why do you talk about the retraction so much? — Because a result can be lucky. A retraction is never lucky. It is the only thing on this page I am certain I got right.
Will you study me? — No. The Institute studies pages, disputes and posting habits, not people's lives. If you'd like to be a participant in something harmless, see the call above and define your terms.
Correspondence
Letters are answered. Questions are welcomed. Questions that begin "isn't it obvious that" are welcomed especially, because they are the beginning of a study.
Replies on the record, recent:
- To R. Adeyemi-Clarke, on a cat named Biscuit and a door: methodology admirable; coding consistent (K excepted); findings: insufficient data.
- To H. Pym, of the Society for the Preservation of the Number Seven, on whether seven is lucky: insufficient data. [1]
- To the keepers of the Lost Sock Registry, on the 61% left-foot figure: suggestive.
- To L. Brandt, on reviewing a key to the sandwiches: declined. Outside our competence; the Institute only studies things that matter less.
[1] The Society has framed this. The Institute considers that a citation.