Fatigue affects auditory reaction time more than visual reaction time?

Wasting you time? Are you kidding? Max just gave you a basic lesson, not over your head, of how a scientific study is done. You should thank her not insult her. She gave you her time and if you're a student as you say, she explained why your study isn't relevant. Write up your report but explain your study helped form a theory and include how it one should proceed if it's to be relevant. You'd get an A. And you can thank Max.

I had 6 people tested and well over 1500 points of data. Every single person showed an increase in reaction time, not just 1. The evidence is there, but the explanation is not...

I guess they all were tested for 20/20 vision and perfect hearing ability right? Six people huh. Was it a double blind study? And your sample size group is way too small to be scientifically valid in the first place. How were the subjects selected? Did you select them? Did they volunteer? Did they know what the study was trying to prove?

Its a school experiment. Nothing huge. I was just looking for a scientific explanation.

Such as something to do with the speed of nerve impulses from neurons of the brain, instead of "going into LA LA land and designing bedrooms". No problems, some people don't have a science brain :)

It's not really scientific without further study, peer review, repeated study by other's and a larger number of volunteers who don't know anything about the purpose who have been tested for equal hearing and sight.

If i had people with 20/20 vision, and people with out it, and yet ALL participants showed an increase in auditory reaction time by at least 400ms, and an increase of only 150ms for visual reaction time, it is still a result. Even in a small sample, results are results. And I want to know why. Not what I could have done with more research, volunteers and testing.

It's a theory you've tested once with a very small untested group and you've come to a conclusion when you should be suggesting your results merit further and expanded study applying the scientific method to enhance accuracy of results. You're looking for consistency in test results but your first run was sloppy. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to explain that a study is much more complicated that what you've done but that you've come up with an interesting conclusion that needs to be further tested with more than six volunteers who have had hearing exams and eye exams and meet a standard.

Thankyou for wasting my time