Book Test: Max & Any Others Interested

[Garrette]

This actually began in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36428)

There are several posts on Pages 2 and 3 about it, but I thought splitting it would be best.

To summarize:

In an informal experiment, Toastrider placed a book on top of his computer and invited anyone to determine the title via remote viewing or any other paranormal ability.

Max gave an interesting but debatable answer.

Toastrider is repeating the experiment via pms; I am setting up my own similar experiment on the forum.

So far, Max has agreed to participate, but it is open to anyone, believer or non-believer, skeptic or cynic, woo-woo or curmudgeon. I would, in fact, prefer to have several participants.

[As an aside: Toastrider, you are welcome to use this thread for your public communications and posting of results]

I have suggested a protocol which has been neither agreed to nor rejected by Max, but Interesting Ian and Clancie have objected to some of it (both of them in a professional manner; this comment is not to meant to be derogatory).

In my test, I have placed a book on top of my locker in hopes that someone can determine its title or possibly subject matter via anomalous cognition:

I will quote some of the relevant parts of previous posts:

Originally posted by Garrette:

We haven't worked out details, but the gist is for anyone you like to correctly name the title of a book I have selected and set out.
Preferably, we will do this several times.

It does not matter to me if the title is gleaned by telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, quantum displacement, astral traveling, superstring warping, mediumship, temporal anti-gravitron tunneling, or alien communication. I am only interested that the title be correctly determined somehow other than via mundane means


Originally posted by Garrette:

I can't speak for Toastrider, Winston, but for my book title experiment I'm open to suggestions to ensure I don't cheat.
(Although I think there are those on this forum who might vouch that they trust me; I think Clancie would be one, though I don't want to speak for her).

Perhaps there is a mutually agreeable third party to whom I could e-mail or pm the book title.

Or this: I could mail the name of the book to different people, you included. Mail takes about two weeks to reach anyone from here, so I could mail it (you could check the post mark upon receipt) and then give the participants about 5 days or so to respond.



Originally posted by Max

Garratt

I don't feel confident with this as I couldn't concentrate as deeply as I wanted. I got adventure, a boy, but also horse and carriage racing so I don't know. Could it be Mark Twain book?


Originally posted by Garrette:

Hi, Max, thanks for participating.


I don't feel confident with this as I couldn't concentrate as deeply as I wanted.



Not a problem. Take as long as you like until you do feel comfortable.



I got adventure, a boy, but also horse and carriage racing so I don't know.



Is this your guess, or do you want to wait until you feel comfortable?

We haven't really set any guidelines, but I'd like to propose some now:

1. We're going for title only; descriptions of subject matter do not count as hits.

2. Words actually in the title count as hits, even if out of order.

3. Words not in the title take away on a one-for-one basis from the hits; this means it's possible to get a negative score.

4. No questions will be answered except after you submit your word(s)

5. Each book will be a commercially published book. No other restrictions. Out-of-print books are allowed.


If these protocols do not fit with how you get your impressions, just propose some of your own. I'm quite flexible on this.


Originally posted by Max:

Could it be Mark Twain book?


See #4 above.



P.S. I'm glad I got the darn thing up on my locker sooner than I expected...whew....



Originally posted by Garrette:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

I don't think this is going to work, even assuming Max received the information anomalously for the first book. Research indicates that people initially do well, then their performance slips, but they do well again in the very last trial (albeit not as well as the very beginning).

And from anecdotal accounts we cannot just perform at will, at least not time after time.

So even if Max got the first book by psi, I would say he probably won't be able to do it again.

-----

You may be right, Ian.

Tell you what: If we change the requirement to exact title (I won't count misspellings against him), then I will agree that if Max gets just 1 out of 10, I will begin seriously reviewing my position on anomalous cognition.

I'm willing to consider 1 out of 10 in this effort a success


Originally posted by Max:

I'd like to make it clear that I am not a medium/clairvoyant or anything else regarding telling fortunes etc. The book Toasty challenged us with is my first attempt to do anything remotely like this. I have experienced unexplainable incidents during my life and most of you will be aware of the ones I have related on here. I don't think it is possible to come up with exact details of a book title nor do I think I happened to be lucky in selecting the God Father. I think that, that is phenomenal given all the millions of words we use and I came up with God. I don't even know how a clairvoyant works, all I did was to concentrate so hard on the book by Toasty's computer but this took tremendous effort. I was unable to get so deep in with Garratte's book. I may have an attempt again but I'm not sure when. I don't think one can put a time/place on the excercise. I left Toast's challenge for quite a long time and then I just felt one night that I could take up his challenge, so I did. I can't explain it.


That's a lot of quoting in one post, but it's the best I can do.

For those who want to participate, please join in.

For those who have suggestions on protocol, they are most welcome.

There are other specific discussions between me and Clancie about protocols, but I didn't quote them. You may find them of interest in the other thread.

[max]

Garrette
Yes it is a good idea to use this new thread for the subject. Regarding Toasty, he suggested in a PM that I should have another go and has placed a second book by his computer, however, I haven't commented on this nor PMd him with any sort of challenge. I will have another try at your book garrette at some stage and I will also admit if I can't come up with anything.
I do get a thought that it is 'Tom Sawyer' but there's also 'The Horses Tale'.

[Darat]

About making sure the that the book is the one on top of your locker, you could use PGP to encrypt the title - then place it here in full public view and then when the test is over reveal the key.

(You could also encrypt a picture of the book on your locker.)

[davidhorman]

I can't speak for Toastrider, Winston, but for my book title experiment I'm open to suggestions to ensure I don't cheat.

You could PGP encrypt it and post it here, then after the test you supply the key.

Or, simpler, insert the title into the middle of a short bit of random text (lorem ipsum) perhaps, use an MD5 checksummer and post the result here.

David

[Garrette]

Originally posted by david horman:

You could PGP encrypt it and post it here, then after the test you supply the key.

Or, simpler, insert the title into the middle of a short bit of random text (lorem ipsum) perhaps, use an MD5 checksummer and post the result here.

David

Thanks for the suggestions, but I have a two fold problem:

1. I'm technically illiterate
2. Due to my situation, I will not be able to install any programs on the machine I'm using.

Regarding the random text, it sounds intriguing. Can you be more specific on exactly how to do that?

Thanks.

Edited to add: Thanks to you, too, Darat. I read quickly and missed your post.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Max:

Garrette
Yes it is a good idea to use this new thread for the subject. Regarding Toasty, he suggested in a PM that I should have another go and has placed a second book by his computer, however, I haven't commented on this nor PMd him with any sort of challenge. I will have another try at your book garrette at some stage and I will also admit if I can't come up with anything.
I do get a thought that it is 'Tom Sawyer' but there's also 'The Horses Tale'.

Does this constitute your answer, Max? Or should I wait until you specifically say "This is my answer?"

If I wait, then I will not allow credit for previous answers that you did not say: "This is my answer."

Also, do you agree with my suggested protocols? I'll repost them here, but it's not too late to change them.



1. We're going for title only; descriptions of subject matter do not count as hits.

2. Words actually in the title count as hits, even if out of order.

3. Words not in the title take away on a one-for-one basis from the hits; this means it's possible to get a negative score.

4. No questions will be answered except after you submit your word(s)

5. Each book will be a commercially published book. No other restrictions. Out-of-print books are allowed.


If these protocols do not fit with how you get your impressions, just propose some of your own. I'm quite flexible on this.


I'm going to add one more, though, as an edit to number 2:

Conjunctions and other such type words do not count toward a hit; i.e., "The" does not count toward a hit; neither does "And" or "Or".

[Garrette]

Blindingly obvious thought:

Would someone (hint, hint, david or darat or other) to let me e-mail the book info to them, and that person could then encrypt it here?

I may ask for Claus' help on this.

[Interesting Ian]

Clancie
Its not like seeing a book jacket and being able to read a title.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Garrete
You see, it appears again as if you are speaking for all psychics. Since you admit you can not do so, then please let Max determine his abilities and limitations


Well I agree with everything Clancie says. I think I've got a pretty good feel of how esp works, and my views coincide with hers.

BTW Max, how well do you remember your dreams?

When I was very young I could remember all my dreams perfectly and I didn't understand what people were talking about when they said they couldn't remember their dreams. But now, although I know I dream, my memory of them just about immediately goes.

Now when I was very young I had quite a few anomalous experiences which basically have never occurred again after about the age of 9. Possibly the age when I started to forget my dreams.

So about a year ago I was wondering if there might perhaps be a connection here. This belief received quite a bit of further support when I read somewhere that there is some evidence that people who remember their dreams appear to have greater psi ability.

[Garrette]

[I}Interesting Ian:[/I]

Well I agree with everything Clancie says. I think I've got a pretty good feel of how esp works, and my views coincide with hers.


Two hardly makes a quorum, but if you'd care to discuss specifics in another thread, I'm game.

For this thread, though, I'd really rather you make concrete proposals for the protocol. (That's sincere, btw, in case it's in doubt). Max has yet to comment on my proposals; perhaps he'll comment on yours or Clancie's.

[Ed]

The books spine is darkish blue or blue with black highlights sort of with white writing, horizontal. The title is 3 or 4 words first word is "the".

[max]

Garrette

Yes the conditions you set seem to be ok although I don't know whether I can come up with a title.
Why is it not good enough to come up with a genre or a bit about the book....i.e I have found 'American Gods' (Toasts book) on the net and it is about crime initially, so I scored two counts on that one. The book begins with the main character in jail and about to be released ,he hears that his wife is killed the day before he comes out of jail. As I said in earlier posts, I got the words God and crime in my mind. As there are not many books with God in the title I went for the Godfather, I only know of another and that's Chariots of the Gods.
When I concentrated on your book I got a vivid vision of horse/carriage or chariot race but two teams raced into each other. Then I got adventure and boy. It maybe that these thoughts are not connected to anything remotely concerning this forum but that's all I can come up with for now.
Ian, I only remember dreams if they are just before I waken and have always been like that. This is why the unexplained dreams I've had totally stand out from any others, in that they are brightly lit, a lighting that isn't normal plus you know that this is a message. It also feels as if time stands still for those moments and also in both dreams it was all done by thought transference. In both dreams I had to ask the person to turn round as their backs were to me.

Getting back to the subject, I do think Garrette that psychics do work as Clancie and Ian describe. I am not a psychic although I have been told many times that I should train up to be one. I am too scared to bother. I think if there were a psychic on here, they would probably say the same as me, that it's not possible to come up with the exact details of the book. If you are saying NO it's not adventure, horse racing etc then I will have one more try but I'll wait until the time is right next time.

[Garrette]

Hi, Max,

I don't want to force my protocols on you. If what you think you can do does not extend to the actual title, then we won't use the title.

I don't have a problem with you describing the subject matter; I just disagree on what is considered sufficient to constitute a hit.

As I tried to demonstrate on the other thread, the impressions you posted (adventure, boy, horse, carriage) could be counted as a hit on countless books.

If you want to stick with the genre/subject matter/whatever, we can do that. Just try to be more specific about it.

That being said, shall we call the first trial to an end, and if so, which of your answers is the final answer? Or would you like to wait a bit and give a different one?

---

Ed, I will take that as your final guess, unless you tell me you want to refine it. You've got time. I hadn't prepared for someone to guess at the physical description. I'll spend a few moments writing them down so they won't change over time.

I'll try to take a digital pic, too, but I've had no luck with those in the past.

Edited to add: No need for the written description or pic. The exact book is on Amazon with a clear picture.

[max]

Garrette
Ok we'll start over. Don't know if and when I am able to come up with anything though.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette

So far, Max has agreed to participate, but it is open to anyone, believer or non-believer, skeptic or cynic, woo-woo or curmudgeon. I would, in fact, prefer to have several participants.



I think they might be a propensity for skeptics to psi miss ie get significant results below chance.

[Garrette]

The following is transplanted from the other thread. I think they help with the whole protocol for genre/subject answers as opposed to titles.

Originally posted by Clancie, in the original thread

Posted by Garrette

Let me ask you this: Which of the following books would Max's answer (I got adventure, a boy, but also horse and carriage racing) not apply to?

-Huckleberry Finn
-Tom Sawyer
-Ben Hur
-Any of the Hardy Boys Mysteries
-Sea Biscuit
-Treasure Island
-Great Expectations
-Oliver Twist
-Black Beauty
-Harry Potter
-The Bible
-Any myriad others


Offhand, these are the ones I would reject.

Huck Finn
Tom Sawyer
Any of the Hardy Boys
Treasure Island
Great Expectations
Oliver Twist
(I can't remember Black Beauty well...so "maybe")
Harry Potter
The Bible

I would be looking for an adventure book where the boy was the main character and a horse was a main character and they had to escape together from something, or a boy + a main scene in the book with a horse in a carriage/chariot ride or race, where something like that figured as an important part of the book.

Boy growing to manhood in the story and participating in a horse/chariot race as an adult in a key scene in the book--a la Ben Hur? I'd probably take that as a hit of a sort, though I could understand if you wouldn't. (That said, I don't think your book is "Ben Hur").


Originally posted by Garrette, in the original thread

Thanks, Clancie.

I can agree with the sentiment. Are you able to turn that into some sort of rule? I'm thinking along the lines:

If the word or phrase is given in reference to the genre or plot of the book, then the word or the phrase must be directly and obviously applicable to the main character or main characters or to the major plot line.

I can live with that.

I'm going to take the liberty of copying this comment and yours over on the other thread.

[lofgoernost]

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test

This came to me before reading the following by Ed
The books spine is darkish blue or blue with black highlights sort of with white writing, horizontal. The title is 3 or 4 words first word is "the".

Now, let's quibble about how many words Koo-Aid will count for ;-)

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Max:

Ok we'll start over. Don't know if and when I am able to come up with anything though.

I think you mean that I should reveal the first book and put up a new one. For the new one, you'll aim for subject matter.

Here goes, then.

Title: The Tangier Diaries: 1962-1979
Author: John Hopkins

Book Jacket: Yellow, almost completely, including the spine

Color of Title Letters: Red


-----


Ed's Answer:

The books spine is darkish blue or blue with black highlights sort of with white writing, horizontal. The title is 3 or 4 words first word is "the".

Guess for spine color: Incorrect - Miss
Guess for coloring of spine letters: Incorrect - Miss
Guess for length of title: Incorrect - Miss
Guess for first word of title: Correct - Not counted, per protocol



Max's Answers:

I got adventure, a boy, but also horse and carriage racing so I don't know.

--snip--

I do get a thought that it is 'Tom Sawyer' but there's also 'The Horses Tale'.


Adventure: In a broad sense correct - Neither hit nor miss. I think it lies more in the miss column because it is presented in association with "boy", but I'm willing to not insist on that here.

Boy: Incorrect - Miss

Horse and carriage racing: Incorrect - Miss (It would also be a miss if we broke out horse racing from carriage racing, but that would add another miss, so I'm leaving them together)

Tom Sawyer: Incorrect - Miss

A Horse's Tale: Incorrect - Miss


---

Here is the Amazon link for this title:

Tangier Diaries at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932274501/qid=1078845101/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6221700-2410203?v=glance&s=books)

And this is the Publishers Weekly Editors Review on Amazon:

From Publishers Weekly
When Hopkins graduated from Princeton in 1960, he wasn't interested in the conventional routes of graduate study or a Wall Street career. Instead, he traveled, first to South America where he and a Princeton friend had visions of making money in coffee. When that fell through, the two wandered around Europe, stumbling eventually on teaching jobs at an American school in Tangier. There, they found a community of artists and socialites more accepting than most because of the remote locale. During his time in Morocco, Hopkins managed to enter into two major romances, befriend fellow ex-pat novelists William Burroughs and Paul Bowles, and even write several novels. As Hopkins gains experience, the voice he uses to catalogue his life in Tangiers changes, from his first perceptions as a perpetual tourist ("These urchins won't leave us alone. Do these diminutive hustlers ever sleep?") to an insider's appreciation of the land and the culture?"I know that that landscape and the Moroccans in it represent something totally human, something harmoniously timeless to which I give my full allegiance." The colorful references to actual occurrences take second place to describing the mysticism and primitive beauty of North Africa. Those musings and the sometimes overripe prose give the book some of the quality of an 18th-century European travelogue. There are times, though, when Hopkins shows that he is conscious of this escapist excess: "Here there is no pressure, no anxiety. I simply put down the words and they trickle out. Ideas recorded here do no violence to my soul.... How sweet the peace is."
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.

[Garrette]

Oops. Missed this one:

Originally posted by lofgoernost:

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test


Four words ("The" is not counted): None correct - 4 Misses

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

I think they might be a propensity for skeptics to psi miss ie get significant results below chance.

It is unclear if you mean they will do this intentionally or it will simply happen because of some sort of negative psi inherent in skeptics.

In either case, if it is true, then it will help Max and others who legitimately try the test because it will make every hit that much more significant since the baseline will be that much poorer.

[Garrette]

Max, (and all others participating; others are still welcome to join)

Give me about four hours from the time I post this before you start attempting new answers.

Take all the time you like. I'm in no rush, and I would prefer you not answer before you are confident in your answer.

[Clancie]

Hmmm...a couple of comments....

1. Max's process was obviously different from mine (which started very non-psychically, "What kinds of books might Garrette be reading?"

2. re: protocol. What about keeping it fiction (still so broad)? Maybe you wouldn't even have to have the book, just print out the cover and description from Amazon and leave it on a table (I don't know if that helps the psychic process or not, but it wouldn't hurt).

I'm wondering about looking at any hits for, you know, the elements of fiction: setting, plot, main character, theme, tone. If Max had gotten "Africa" or "travel adventure" we might have thought about it.

Also anything related to the words in the title, the author's name, or the cover picture or design.

That may sound like a lot of variables to help someone with, but I bet if you have a bunch of us also guessing, we won't do very well. Given the millions of books out there, and almost endless possibilities, I personally don't think this is the least bit easy to do! But I think it would be fun to try again some time, if Max feels like doing it again.

[Clancie]

Garrette,

Don't you think it would be better if we put our answers in PMs to you? That way we won't be influenced by other guesses.

[Luke T.]

If I am an acceptable personage to all involved, I have a solution to securing the name of the book while posting the title publicly in an encrypted form.

Like many people, I am not technically adroit with PGP. It would be best if the encryption and decryption could be understood by everyone involved. Along those lines, I can use my own private encryption method and post the book title encrypted, and at the end of the experiment, reveal the encryption method to everyone so they can decrypt it for themselves.

If this sounds okay to everyone, Garrette can then PM me the title of the book.

[Garrette]

Luke T.,

It's okay to me. I'll take the word of more technically savvy people that your method is secure.

Unless I hear objections, I'll pm you the info in about twelve hours.

--

Clancie,

I have no objections to pms as the means of sending answers.

Again, unless there are objections, pms are now the way to communicate your final answers.

I request, though, that when you pm me, post a blurb here saying you have done so in order for others to know.

Thanks.

[Garrette]

Clancie,

The issues about the elements of fiction are what make this difficult to do. The more things you allow hits on, the more (falsely) broad you make the target.

If Max had said all the same things but had added the word Africa, would it have been a hit? Africa's not a major character (Tangier is); Africa's not a plot line. In fact, the common image conjured by the word Africa is foreign to Tangier which is not Savannah or elephant country or bushmen. That's why we really should agree before hand.

This topic, though, is important, so let's keep thinking on it.


Nor do I think it wise to allow an answer to be a hit on either the title or the subject. The answerer must state which it is. Or do as Ed did and give an answer on physical appearance.

Finally, I don't see a reason to limit it to fiction. Why the limitation? Is there an indication that feelings around fiction are received better?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
Book Jacket: Yellow, almost completely, including the spine

Color of Title Letters: Red


-----



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed's Answer:

The books spine is darkish blue or blue with black highlights sort of with white writing, horizontal. The title is 3 or 4 words first word is "the".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Guess for spine color: Incorrect - Miss
Guess for coloring of spine letters: Incorrect - Miss
Guess for length of title: Incorrect - Miss
Guess for first word of title: Correct - Not counted, per protocol



Spectacular confirmation of psi missing from a vehement skeptic! What more proof is required??

[Clancie]

Posted by Garrette

Is there an indication that feelings around fiction are received better?
I don't know, but it seems like it might be. My main thought was that fiction alone is extremely broad and very unlikely, imo, to get right on one or two tries--or even close. But when you add in non fiction as well you literally add millions of possible choices and make it much harder to sort through millions of possibilities for what an image or word might mean. I also think non fiction is less focused content-wise than fiction, so a little harder to be sure what is a hit or a miss.

But...I don't know anything about this kind of experiment either, Garrette. Just my two cents for what its worth! :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

I don't know, but it seems like it might be. My main thought was that fiction alone is extremely broad and very unlikely, imo, to get right on one or two tries--or even close. But when you add in non fiction as well you literally add millions of possible choices and make it much harder to sort through millions of possibilities for what an image or word might mean. I also think non fiction is less focused content-wise than fiction, so a little harder to be sure what is a hit or a miss.

But...I don't know anything about this kind of experiment either, Garrette. Just my two cents for what its worth! :)

I definitely don't think it would work if the person with the book is a skeptic. It worked with ummm . .what's he called? Toastie because he wasn't taking it seriously.

I certainly agree about keeping it fiction. And printing it out from Amazon is also a good idea. It helps the person who chooses the book to more clearly have the book in his/her mind.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I definitely don't think it would work if the person with the book is a skeptic. It worked with ummm . .what's he called? Toastie because he wasn't taking it seriously.

I certainly agree about keeping it fiction. And printing it out from Amazon is also a good idea. It helps the person who chooses the book to more clearly have the book in his/her mind.

Ah, yes: "THE RULES"

[Darat]

Garrette - if Luke's suggestion is fine (and after all this isn't a rigourous experiment) OK, otherwsie I could try to locate a suitable PGP utlity that all Windows uses could use. Let me know.


Originally posted by Clancie

I don't know, but it seems like it might be. My main thought was that fiction alone is extremely broad and very unlikely, imo, to get right on one or two tries--or even close. But when you add in non fiction as well you literally add millions of possible choices and make it much harder to sort through millions of possibilities for what an image or word might mean. I also think non fiction is less focused content-wise than fiction, so a little harder to be sure what is a hit or a miss.

But...I don't know anything about this kind of experiment either, Garrette. Just my two cents for what its worth! :)

Couple of disagreements (all just my opinion of course)

Fiction works tend to have "catchier" titles, after all they try to appeal to a book reader/buyer and non-fiction books tend to be more focused and very specific. I can't see any reason to reduce the set that possible target could be taken from.

[roger]

Honestly, I think the protocol is quite unacceptable.

So long as you are arguing about whether a guess constitutes a 'hit' or not, then you are 1) introducing judging into the test 2) inviting unlimited arguments about the results 3) proving nothing.

This would never be publishable in any reputable journal, nor would Randi ever agree to the test conditions, because of the necessity of judging the results.

Several times in the past we have designed good protocols for RV on this forum. Paul Aganastasomthingoranother came up with some good ones, I remember. I don't know if they survived the Great Pruning. In short, the test runs along the lines of having 2 or more different targets, announced at the start. One of the targets is randomly selected (truly random). Test starts, participants RV it however they want, and record their answer. I.e. the applicant does all the "judging". Then another trial starts, with no feedback on the correctness of the previous trial. Do enough trials to gain statistical significance. Analyze and publish the data.

Private encryption methods are not acceptable. Any method invented by someone is prone to cracking. PGP is freely available here (http://www.pgp.com/products/freeware.html). Yes, I do trust Luke, but if you don't remove a potential objection, then rest assured the objection will be made when people are unhappy with the results.

[Ed]

Why not post 10 book pictures and have all of the rv'ers out there pick the right one?

Identifying the object as a book is sloppy in the first place, no more info please.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

I don't know, but it seems like it might be. My main thought was that fiction alone is extremely broad and very unlikely, imo, to get right on one or two tries--or even close. But when you add in non fiction as well you literally add millions of possible choices and make it much harder to sort through millions of possibilities for what an image or word might mean. I also think non fiction is less focused content-wise than fiction, so a little harder to be sure what is a hit or a miss.

But...I don't know anything about this kind of experiment either, Garrette. Just my two cents for what its worth! :)
I disagree. Its often stated that a reading or psi phenonmenon is made up of several hits which in culmination become evidential. If anything, we're leaving ourselves more open by allowing any book title period. We're looking for elements of what people can bring through here in a psi sense that will convincingly give the title, or at least give a quite detailed summary of characters and subject of the book. Fiction or non-fiction should have zero affect here. If the abilities are worth anything they should be able to discern a non-fiction book from a fiction book.

I also think that any words given that are specified as to whether the reader thinks they likely pertain to title, subject, plotlines, characters, should be held to those categories.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by roger

Private encryption methods are not acceptable. Any method invented by someone is prone to cracking. PGP is freely available here (http://www.pgp.com/products/freeware.html). Yes, I do trust Luke, but if you don't remove a potential objection, then rest assured the objection will be made when people are unhappy with the results.

What I have in mind is a one time pad. One time pads are unbreakable. However, if the participants of this experiment would like to ensure any possible foul play is eliminated, then PGP is the way to go. I just wasn't sure everyone involved would want to go to the trouble of learning how to use it.

Whatever you guys decide on is okay by me.

[roger]

Luke, they are unbreakable, but aren't they also spoofable? Meaning, if max guess "The Grapes of Wrath", and you encoded the book "Of Mice and Men", all you have to do is publish a different OTP than you actually used, and make it look like the title was "Of Mice and Men". Or vice versa, if you wanted to make it look like somebody failed if they actually succeeded. Maybe I am not thinking about it correctly?

Please note that this is a discussion of encrpytion, NOT luke's character.

In any case, my point is irrelevant so long as there is the potential for the tester to merely PM the correct answers to somebody if they want to cheat.

[Toastrider]

Wow. I've created a monster... coolness.

Okay. For simplicity's sake, I'll adhere to Garrette's protocols; he seems to have a good head on his shoulders and I like his ideas. What's started out as a rather obnoxious mocking of Gullible Ian has actually turned into an experiment; as Mr. Spock would say, 'Fascinating.'

So, I have a new book on the tower. Feel free to take a stab at it, if you want. No animus will be tossed at you if you're not up to it (this goes to max in particular), or if you get it wrong.

Alternately, we could use ten books in a list and you pick the one on the tower; I like that idea too. Of course, if you're lucky and get higher than average, I will not only suggest you take the JREF challenge, I will also recommend you play the stock market or go to Vegas ;)

--Toasty

[Cleopatra]

I totally agree with Roger. I don't think that the answer should be encrypted.

It's better for Max to appoint a person who trusts to check the conditions of the experiment with Garette.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Ed
Why not post 10 book pictures and have all of the rv'ers out there pick the right one?

Identifying the object as a book is sloppy in the first place, no more info please.
This sounds like a better approach perhaps. That way the word hints and images, or whatever it is RV'ers or PSI'ers are getting should go along way to helping them choose the proper book. Plus someone could just pick books at random, and see how things turn out. Technically I would assume RV/PSI would give those people an advantage as they'd have some keywords and images to go on to help them make their choice. While those of us just making simply guess' would not have that luxury.

In this way those using RV or PSI to make their choice can list down the words or images they received and write them down. Giving us a guideline of how they ended up choosing the book they did, but at the same time not trying to attach a score to those words as it would be exceedingly difficult to do so. If the images/words/etc. help, then we should be able to see that when we analyze it, but we don't score it because I doubt we'd agree on a protocol anyway.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx

I disagree. Its often stated that a reading or psi phenonmenon is made up of several hits which in culmination become evidential. If anything, we're leaving ourselves more open by allowing any book title period. We're looking for elements of what people can bring through here in a psi sense that will convincingly give the title, or at least give a quite detailed summary of characters and subject of the book. Fiction or non-fiction should have zero affect here. If the abilities are worth anything they should be able to discern a non-fiction book from a fiction book.

I also think that any words given that are specified as to whether the reader thinks they likely pertain to title, subject, plotlines, characters, should be held to those categories.

Oh well, if skeptics and non-skeptics can't agree on even this, we might as well shelf the idea.

I insist a non-skeptic should select a book and another skeptic should attempt to "guess" it. And also should be a fiction book.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Toastrider
[B]Wow. I've created a monster... coolness.

Okay. For simplicity's sake, I'll adhere to Garrette's protocols; he seems to have a good head on his shoulders and I like his ideas. What's started out as a rather obnoxious mocking of Gullible Ian has actually turned into an experiment; as Mr. Spock would say, 'Fascinating.'



In what sense am I gullible??

BTW did you know that the word gullible is not a real word! :eek:

[Toastrider]

I insist that Gullible Ian should be set on fire.

Because I am Unfrozen Caveman Websurfer, and his strange declarations confuse and frighten me. Ook ook.

--Toasty

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Spectacular confirmation of psi missing from a vehement skeptic! What more proof is required??

Just to confirm this was of course a joke in case anyone had any doubts.

[davidhorman]

A lot of posts since this morning...

Just wanted to voice support for Ed's "pool of 10 books" idea. I thought about suggesting something like that earlier - not sure why I didn't.

On the subject of Luke's one time pad and spoofing, that was one reason I suggested an MD5 checksum. It's simpler to generate and easier to check than something PGP encoded (no keys involved), and shouldn't be (reasonably) spoofable. The true title should be wrapped in some lorem ipsum (randomly generated but legible text) to stop anyone checking random book names against the checksum:

Etiam tristique malesuada enim. Fusce ultrices, purus nec fringilla ultrices, nunc ante auctor tortor, sit amet fermentum neque nulla nec orci.

Curious George Goes To The Beach

Nunc lorem pede, facilisis eu, rutrum vitae, egestas eu, wisi. Morbi ultricies risus eu leo. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Suspendisse orci. Aenean ac est vitae elit sollicitudin egestas. In auctor convallis sem. Proin tristique rhoncus ligula. Cras hendrerit urna et velit. Integer rhoncus. Etiam vel risus.

I should point out that I don't know too much about MD5 so there may be some good objections to it.

David

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Toastrider
I insist that Gullible Ian should be set on fire.

Because I am Unfrozen Caveman Websurfer, and his strange declarations confuse and frighten me. Ook ook.

--Toasty This post has been reported.

While it skirts the boundry of good taste, it does not violate forum rules. I would recommend that those who take offense to Toastrider, ignore him.

Toastrider, I recommend that you try to be a little more civil and aim for making more productive posts.

[Ed]

The book is

Curious George Goes to the Beach.

Am I close?:D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh well, if skeptics and non-skeptics can't agree on even this, we might as well shelf the idea.

I insist a non-skeptic should select a book and another skeptic should attempt to "guess" it. And also should be a fiction book.

Nonsense again. Any book, any language.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This post has been reported.

While it skirts the boundry of good taste, it does not violate forum rules. I would recommend that those who take offense to Toastrider, ignore him.

Toastrider, I recommend that you try to be a little more civil and aim for making more productive posts.

What about the rule forbidding people not to be a jerk??

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What about the rule forbidding people not to be a jerk??
Forbidding them not to be a jerk? Uh oh. Say goodbye to Mercutio, Luke T, Clancie and a whole host of others. Fortunately, Ian and I can stay. :p

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What about the rule forbidding people not to be a jerk?? It's one post, Ian. It hardly shows a pattern of behavior. Besides, I asked him to be more civil. What more do you want?

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

Why not post 10 book pictures and have all of the rv'ers out there pick the right one?
Well, for starters, Ed, because we haven't -got- any RV'ers... :(

Even Max, who describes what I think of as a going through a "psychic/intuitive process"....concentrating...getting "something"...trying to make sense of it...doesn't claim to be a psychic or clairvoyant.

(Also, Cleopatra, don't you want to play along, too? Remember my theory! :) )

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, for starters, Ed, because we haven't -got- any RV'ers... :(

We don't? How do you know that? You are not a Remote Viewer yourself, are you? Perhaps a psychic?

Originally posted by Clancie
Even Max, who describes what I think of as a going through a "psychic/intuitive process"....concentrating...getting "something"...trying to make sense of it...doesn't claim to be a psychic or clairvoyant.

I think it would be best if we let people decide for themselves what abilities they claim to have. If we start judging people before they are even tested, we are not being skeptical at all, but merely prejudicial.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Clancie
(Also, Cleopatra, don't you want to play along, too? Remember my theory! :) )

Of course I want to but I don't know how. How can I do something I do not believe that it works? Unless you want me to do Garette a tarot reading and then make a guess ;)

[max]

Claus
Clancie has got me well sussed out. She is correct in what she has said about me. She refers to the last book I tried to identify not a future one.......keep up

[Clancie]

Posted by Cleopatra

Unless you want me to do Garette a tarot reading and then make a guess :)
Actually, if you were really willing to do it, I'd say, "Of course!" :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by max
Clancie has got me well sussed out.

Huh? What does "sussed out" mean?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Huh? What does "sussed out" mean?

Kinda means understand. Maybe only used in UK?

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Huh? What does "sussed out" mean?

Generally "to suss" is slang for "I've worked that out", the "out" appears to be optional.

e.g. "I've sussed [out] how to use my new gadget".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Generally "to suss" is slang for "I've worked that out", the "out" appears to be optional.

e.g. "I've sussed [out] how to use my new gadget".

Ooops, your post must have appeared seconds before mine lol

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Huh? What does "sussed out" mean?

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/sussed

My, that was hard.

[max]

sorry....it means she has totally understood me and so her remarks about me are correct :)

[CFLarsen]

Thanks for the clarification. :)

max,

Don't you know yourself what you are able to do? That would make it impossible to test your abilities.

[max]

Claus
No I don't know what I can do, I'm on new ground here. Probably nothing ultimately.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by max
Claus
No I don't know what I can do, I'm on new ground here. Probably nothing ultimately.

Well, it does make it impossible to test you.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, for starters, Ed, because we haven't -got- any RV'ers... :(

Even Max, who describes what I think of as a going through a "psychic/intuitive process"....concentrating...getting "something"...trying to make sense of it...doesn't claim to be a psychic or clairvoyant.

What exactly about this psychic/intuitive process gives it the inability to allow the medium to pick which of 10 books, is actually on Garrettes shelf? If they can guess the book out of the blue, then they can discern which book out of the 10 they are getting information about, in whatever form it takes.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

What exactly about this psychic/intuitive process gives it the inability to allow the medium to pick which of 10 books, is actually on Garrettes shelf? If they can guess the book out of the blue, then they can discern which book out of the 10 they are getting information about, in whatever form it takes.
Well, voidx, you won't like this answer--and I'm not a psychic, so it's just my personal impression of "the process", but here it is:

They get what they get and pass it along.

Its up to others--sitters, clients, testers, scientists...whoever....to then take what has been given to them and see if it has signifcance or meaning and is of value.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, voidx, you won't like this answer--and I'm not a psychic, so it's just my personal impression of "the process", but here it is:

They get what they get.
Right. So having gotten what they get, why is it harder to pick the book out of 10 possible books, instead of just picking the book out of the blue?

If I get the impression of monkeys and a safari man and me being mischievous as a youngster. There are 2 routes we're talking about here.

A) I conclude the book I'm getting information about is Curious George.

B) I look at 10 books and conclude that Curious George is the book I'm mostly likely receiving information about.

Why is A possible but B not possible via psychic/intuition?

[roger]

Exactly voidx. All the proposed test does is shift the "judging" requirement from a third party to the RVer. This seemingly inconsequential change turns the test from an ambiguous, unblinded test to a very rigorous, blinded one, without changing the mental processes used one iota.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, voidx, you won't like this answer--and I'm not a psychic, so it's just my personal impression of "the process", but here it is:

They get what they get and pass it along.

Its up to others--sitters, clients, testers, scientists...whoever....to then take what has been given to them and see if it has signifcance or meaning and is of value.
Ummm but then even in the original exercise the book doesn't mean anything to anyone, not even Garrette, as its just a random book. So in this case, the mediums impression of what book the hints might be pointing at is just as valid as any of ours. Unless you are saying that they somehow are reading Garrette psychically and are getting information from him as to what the book is. This exercise based on your description now appears almost completely useless. They give a description, on give whatever information their "getting" and Garrette would have to go...yup, that sounds like the book I have on my shelf.

[Ed]

Originally posted by voidx

Right. So having gotten what they get, why is it harder to pick the book out of 10 possible books, instead of just picking the book out of the blue?



Why is A possible but B not possible via psychic/intuition?

Very simple, Watson. If they need to pick 1/10 then we can easily see, on a purely empirical basis, the accuracy of their prediction. If it is one book then they can weasel till the cows come home. Fraud hates light.

Watch the reasons flow.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

Unless you are saying that they somehow are reading Garrette psychically and are getting information from him as to what the book is.
What I'm saying is, "Who knows?" Really, I think we have to see if anyone comes up with an unusual pattern or impressions that seem correct....THEN try to figure out the "why" and the "how".
This exercise based on your description now appears almost completely useless. They give a description, or give whatever information they're "getting" and Garrette would have to go...yup, that sounds like the book I have on my shelf.
Well, no. He doesn't have to agree. More and more, I think this is a judgment call. For example, I'd give Max points for "The God Father" and the theme he got of crime. Others might say "No, it's not nearly close enough."

I know you'd like to have someone say, "This is precisely what I do and how." Then someone else say, "Here's a test, 1 through 10 choices, are you right?" But even if Max could do such a test to your satisfaction, I don't think we would (1) all agree that he demonstrated psychic ability; or (2) how and where he got the information from if he did.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie


Well, no. He doesn't have to agree. More and more, I think this is a judgment call. For example, I'd give Max points for "The God Father" and the theme he got of crime.

He got a theme for crime?

His original guess on 3/5 was

The God Father by Mario Puzo



After the title was revealed, he talked about his process on 3/6
toastrider
Well, you see Toast, I had God coming to me in my thoughts as I tried to visualise where you were and what was on your computer and the only book I knew with God in the title was 'The God Father'. If you look further up this thread (previous page I think,) that's what I posted. Now wouldn't it have really been spooky if I'd have known about the book called American Gods?
What does anyone else think? What are the odds in coming up with God out of all the titles of books past and present?


bolding mine above

Only on 3/7 does he mention anything about crime

No, I didn't use remote viewing, I don't know how to do that even t'were possible. I said further up the thread that I concentrated on the matter and got crime and God in my mind. After a while that's all I could get so I put the two together and then got 'The GOD Father' as the possible book. I have never heard of the 'American GODs' I would say it is pretty remote to come up with one out of two words in Toast's book whatever you say. Of course I couldn't hope in a million years for you to agree, but this is why there is never any progress on here. You just won't admit anything. If I told you exactly what you were wearing now and where you were and got it right, you would still deny any ESP


today Max says (partial quote)

I have found 'American Gods' (Toasts book) on the net and it is about crime initially, so I scored two counts on that one.

The comments about sensing crime did not come until 2 days after the original prediction, and a day after the name of the book was known. I think awarding any points for comments made after the reveal is futile.

I agree with Garrette that Max should mention what he sees/senses in full prior to the reveal. Any retroactive comments should be invalidated.

Although the original guess appears impressive, there could have been many other ways it would have hit. A search for books with "God" in the title shows 27056 hits on amazon. If "God" is a keyword, there are 109670 hits on amazon. Similarly, there are 100038 hits with "father" as a keyword, and 5920 with "father" in the title. Mario Puzo wrote about a dozen books, and people with first name "Mario" as authors show 5560 hits on Amazon. In other words, there are many, many combinations that would have allowed some sort of a hit.

Therefore, I support the pick a book from 10 procedure. Max should be the one to decide, because it eliminates the uncertainty in the choices. Garrette already posted how common boy/horse/adventure themes are- I will not bore you with Amazon hits on those subject matters :)

Alternatively, there can be another procedure. Select a panel of judges. Have Max submit his guess to a coordinator, and have some other guesses submitted- not by RVers, by other volunteers who claim no power. Have judges- not knowing who made each guess rate each as compared to the target on a scale of 0 (total miss) to 10(exact hit). Have them post their evaluations, and then reveal who made each guess. Max- if that is what we are testing- should consistently score higher than volunteers, and should consistently score, by all judges and for several trials over a certain number- for examply, over a 5. The judges, and Max, and volunteers should be kept unaware of who made which guess- a coordinator of impeccable integrity, trusted by both parties would be the key. I just threw this together- it is more complex than 1/10 book choice, and perhaps less exact, but it might be interesting to conduct this, and circumvent Max's reluctance to identify a book from 10. I am sure there are gaping holes in this example, and I am also sure they will be pointed out swiftly :)

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

Similarly, there are 100038 hits with "father" as a keyword, and 5920 with "father" in the title. Mario Puzo wrote about a dozen books, and people with first name "Mario" as authors show 5560 hits on Amazon. In other words, there are many, many combinations that would have allowed some sort of a hit.
Well, you make a good point, but in those specific instances, they all would have been misses. The book was "American Gods".

Of course, you could find thousands of books with the word "American" in them....and probably hundreds of millions (or more) without it.

But I agree about describing the "process" ahead...assuming Max is even willing to keep on with this.

[Interesting Ian]

I'm entirely dissatisfied with all this. I'm going to start my own thread in the next couple of hours where *I* choose a book. I know skeptics will whine that my protocol is not what they would like, and anomalous cognition should take such and such a form.

Sorry guys. It is not upon those who think the concept of PSI to be inherently absurd to dictate the way that PSI ought to be manifested. Think about it. Everyone is welcome to "guess" the title of my book. But if you could give it a shot Max, and perhaps you as well Clancie that would be great. BTW, I do not expect anyone to succeed, but at least this way it has the remotest chance, unlike what people are suggesting on here. I'll pm Garrette the title. I'll print it out from amazon, and it will be a novel.

As I say I will start a new thread before I go to bed tonight.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, you make a good point, but in those specific instances, they all would have been misses. The book was "American Gods".

Of course, you could find thousands of books with the word "American" in them....and probably hundreds of millions (or more) without it.

But I agree about describing the "process" ahead...assuming Max is even willing to keep on with this.

My point was that Max's guess could have been scored as a hit to several hundred thousand books. I am merely looking at it from the perspective of how many possible books could have had a match in one word with Max's guess.

But yes, if one looks at it from the direction of the target, there are indeed 96460 with "American" in the title, 370654 with it as a keyword.

[Mercutio]

Ian--
I don't claim to speak for any skeptic but myself, but my skepticism would require me to try my hardest to see the title. If I tried to mess up the process, I would not be testing it! I resent, just a bit, the implication that a skeptic would do this!

I humbly suggest that it would be as likely that you would try to mess up the process, so that you could blame it on skeptics! (to be sure, I do not think you would do this--which means exactly what I said, that it is "as likely".)

I'd be glad to participate once the stimulus materials are assembled.

M

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Ian--
I don't claim to speak for any skeptic but myself, but my skepticism would require me to try my hardest to see the title. If I tried to mess up the process, I would not be testing it! I resent, just a bit, the implication that a skeptic would do this!

I humbly suggest that it would be as likely that you would try to mess up the process, so that you could blame it on skeptics! (to be sure, I do not think you would do this--which means exactly what I said, that it is "as likely".)

I'd be glad to participate once the stimulus materials are assembled.

M

It could just be subconscious expectations of failure which would ensure failure. No disrespect was intended.

And one important point. Don't try. Just think of it as light hearted fun . .a game so to speak. ESP doesn't work by people trying. Just relax and allow any thoughts or feelings to enter into your head.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It could just be subconscious expectations of failure which would ensure failure. No disrespect was intended.
I didn't really think you meant disrespect. My problem is that the "subconscious expectations" cannot, even in principle, be determined before the results; they may only be discerned after the fact. I can completely believe that I am trying my best, but if my results are bad you may then say it was subconscious expectations of failure leading to negative psi. Could it be true? I suppose so, but I hope you can see the circularity of the definition of "subconscious expectations".

And one important point. Don't try. Just think of it as light hearted fun . .a game so to speak. ESP doesn't work by people trying. Just relax and allow any thoughts or feelings to enter into your head. Actually, different laboratories have gotten different results on this. My notes are at the office now (so, sorry, no citations) but there have been positive effects for trying, for not trying, for motivating with money, for not doing that...I think that it is premature for anyone to say that "ESP doesn't work by" any particular method.

Perhaps you can ask the people who get your title right (if there are any) what method they used...

[Toastrider]

Upchurch gave me a ticket.

So I can't set anyone on fire? Bummer.

Sorry, Upchurch. Some folks just bring out the worst in me. At least it was Unfrozen Caveman Websurfer that time, and not Spider Jerusalem. Egads.

--Toasty, who will pay his ticket when he gets back from vacation.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
What I'm saying is, "Who knows?" Really, I think we have to see if anyone comes up with an unusual pattern or impressions that seem correct....THEN try to figure out the "why" and the "how".

But what constitutes an unusual pattern then, if that's what we're looking for? We've no concept of what a regular pattern would be. So far as I can tell their all just random patterns.


Well, no. He doesn't have to agree. More and more, I think this is a judgment call. For example, I'd give Max points for "The God Father" and the theme he got of crime. Others might say "No, it's not nearly close enough."

Its because the points will always be contested that we are trying to find another alternative. Which is why the 1 in 10 book scenario seems an improvement to me.


I know you'd like to have someone say, "This is precisely what I do and how." Then someone else say, "Here's a test, 1 through 10 choices, are you right?" But even if Max could do such a test to your satisfaction, I don't think we would (1) all agree that he demonstrated psychic ability; or (2) how and where he got the information from if he did.

But how I'm describing the 1 in 10 book example I don't care HOW they do it. Look, Max gets his information anyway he wants to get it, process matters not about the book on Garrette's shelf. He writes all this information down, and then decides for himself, because he was the one receiving the information, which book of the 10 it most likely applies too. We then see if that is indeed the book on Garrette's shelf. Since we cannot see the flashes of images and other such things that Max might get in his mind, he's the best judge from the information he receives, by whatever process, to make a judgement call of which of the 10 books he's receiving information about, if he really does have some kind of ability.

If anything it improves the chances for Max because at least he's now narrowed down to 10 book titles, instead of any number of possible book titles. And we can see based on his information that he's recorded why he thinks that's the book he was getting information about, however he gets it.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm entirely dissatisfied with all this. I'm going to start my own thread in the next couple of hours where *I* choose a book. I know skeptics will whine that my protocol is not what they would like, and anomalous cognition should take such and such a form.

Sorry guys. It is not upon those who think the concept of PSI to be inherently absurd to dictate the way that PSI ought to be manifested. Think about it. Everyone is welcome to "guess" the title of my book. But if you could give it a shot Max, and perhaps you as well Clancie that would be great. BTW, I do not expect anyone to succeed, but at least this way it has the remotest chance, unlike what people are suggesting on here. I'll pm Garrette the title. I'll print it out from amazon, and it will be a novel.

As I say I will start a new thread before I go to bed tonight.
Read my comments on the 1 in 10 book scenario. We don't care WHAT form the anomalous cognition takes, so long as the medium receiving it can do something useful with it, like guessing which of 10 books their receiving information about. I'm rather amazed that there was less contention over letting Max have to pull the book title out of thin air, rather than choosing 1 out of 10. As I mention, if anything it improves his chances.

[Clancie]

voidx

Just to be clear,
Personally, I think it sounds like fun to have various people presented with a list of 10 books, one of which has been selected to be on the shelf, locker, whatever. I think doing this repeatedly and then seeing if any patterns emerge would be fun, too. Getting results and looking for patterns in them can always be ineteresting, but we all know that, whatever the results are, it won't prove anything or convince anyone of anything one way or the other. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun to do...or even worthwhile to try.

[Garrette]

Wow. Great stuff. Some rambling thoughts:

1. I have not pm'd Luke T. the book information due to the comments in this thread, though I have placed the book on top of my locker.

2. Cleopatra said this:

Unless you want me to do Garette a tarot reading and then make a guess

For some reason, though, I can only read it this far:

Unless you want me to do Garette

Will there be a vote?

[/offensive digression of man far too long in Iraq]

3. [Apologies to Cleopatra] Sorry, Cleopatra. No offense meant. [/Apologies to Cleopatra]

4. I agree almost absolutely with Ed and Voidx about the 10 book list being better. If I can be post-pre-proactive, I did actually think of this yesterday, but we were already into this set up so I didn't pursue it. I may yet change it to that. I do not think Clancie's objections to this process have merit. Edited to add: Clancie appears not to object now; sorry if I mischaracterized your position

5. Nor do I think that restricting it to fiction titles is better. If anything, it expands the subject's chances for a hit.

6. I am woefully unsuited for the task of determining the proper technical security procedures for this. I think, perhaps, that regardless of encryption/non-encryption or PGP/private method/random text that there will always remain the human element and trust will be required. Even if the encryption thing were worked out, who is to say that I'm not lying about which book is on my locker? I might have put The Book of Kells up there but told Luke T. that it's actually The Happy Hooker. If I were truly part of an ECA and truly feared the discovery that psi is real, this is, in fact, the route I would take; much simpler and more effective than worrying about encryptions. The more I think about it, the less I see the need for the security in this particular non-scientific experiment-like but fallible test. Trust me or don't. Participate or don't. I admit up front that I would/will object strenuously to such protocols in any test purporting to be scientific.

7. Somewhere in all these comments, I got the impression that actually having the book on the locker is not considered by some to be necessary, and that simply printing an Amazon page would be sufficient. While I admit this is not a scientific test, that particular "looseness" is wholly unacceptable to me as it would leave far too large a hole about which the subjects could complain. For any test I run, an actual book (or other object, if we change the test) will be in the designated spot; I will know its title and its nature and what it looks like; I will personally have handled it (I will, in fact, be the last person to handle it before it is put in the designated spot); and I will think about it. Right now, I just bring it to mind occasionally throughout the day. If we want to get more rigorous, I could set my watch to beep on the hour to remind me to think about it for a minute.

8. While the thoughts were not crystallized to the extent I am about to express them, I had four particular goals in mind when I began this. I think they are being demonstrated fairly well, though the first not so much because there's only been one trial.

a. Demonstrate that the success rate, even in a loosely controlled and favorable-to-the-subject test, is much lower than the subjects expect it would be. Yes. I entered this with bias. I expect it to fail to demonstrate anomalous cognition. That being said, I would be quite happy to be proven wrong.

b. Demonstrate that the subjects and those who believe in AC will not quantify what can be done. For the record, I don't really include Max in this. He has been, at least in all discussions with me, up front in admitting that if he possesses any ability at all it is unpredictable, small, and vague.

c. Demonstrate that the "judging" (and once we got past titles, judging became a necessity) is inconsistent when applied by those who believe. Clancie, don't take this personally, but this is directed at you. When I gave my sample list of titles that could be counted as hits against Max's "boy, adventure, horse, racing" you discounted them all. I believe you did so, even if it was subconsciously, because to do otherwise would have demonstrated that your standards for success were too loose. However, your response to the "Godfather" "American Gods" test is inconsistent with that and shows that in actual application, you are far broader than you claim to be. The same is evidenced in your comments that if Max had added "Africa" to his list, it would have counted as a hit for The Tangier Diaries.

d. Prompt others to do better tests. It has apparently prompted Ian to do another one. Whether it's better or not remains to be seen. I hope it is. For some reason, he chose me to pm the secret information to, so I have that now. I'm honored he chose me.

9. Here's what I'm proposing: as I have one book up now, and it has been up for about 14 hours, I will continue with this trial with the same protocols. After that, I will adjust, probably to the 10-title-version. For those scientists out there, please continue with suggestions on how best to do that. My stipulation is that the titles actually be in my possession, but I am confident that I have access to enough of them which are varied enough to conduct a good test.

How's that?

[Ceinwyn]

So this is basically "let's guess what book Garrette has on top of his locker", right?

Ok, I guess "Summa Theologica" by Thomas Aquinas.



Did I win?

[Cleopatra]

Ok I cannot stay long today but since I am a maniac with semantics I couldn't help noticing Clancie that you keep refering to the whole experiment as fun...

* Shuffles the deck and when she asks about Garette the Hanged Man appears...:crc:

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ok I cannot stay long today but since I am a maniac with semantics I couldn't help noticing Clancie that you keep refering to the whole experiment as fun...

* Shuffles the deck and when she asks about Garette the Hanged Man appears...:crc: Yes, it's fun for Clancie until her pet beliefs are threatened. Then seriousness abounds. Calls for evidence are heard throughout the forums.

Hush, you can hear them now...

you have no proof...show me where I said that...I have you on ignooooooorrre...

[Cleopatra]

Come on Buki there is no reason to be hostile right now. :)

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Buki:

So this is basically "let's guess what book Garrette has on top of his locker", right?

Not really. It's a test (albeit loose and unscientific) to demonstrate validity or lack of validity to the claim of anomalous cognition.

For believers, that means use whatever method of AC you believe works.

For those who don't believe but who think they can reasonably emulate some process espoused by believers, that means try emulating it.

For those who don't believe but want to act as a control or participate for some other reason, it means try to figure out the book by whatever means you can so that any hits by the believers have less significance.


0riginally posted by Buki:

Ok, I guess "Summa Theologica" by Thomas Aquinas.

Did I win?

I will post the answer simultaneously for all, when everyone who is participating has revealed their answer.

For future reference, please pm answers.


For the record, buki, I do have a sense of humor, and I think you're just trying to be silly in your last post. But I have my official Cracker Jack Scientist hat on at the moment and so must treat all responses with equal objectivity.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Come on Buki there is no reason to be hostile right now. :) Was I being hostile? I'm sorry if that's how it appeared.

It's just that I"ve been reading Clancie's posts for quite a while now and I've noticed how she goes from one aspect to another. I believe someone else pointed this out earlier.

In any case, those are my observations, and I stand by them.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Cleopatra:

* Shuffles the deck and when she asks about Garette the Hanged Man appears...

Ummm........ [meek and mild voice] Help? [/meek and mild voice]

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Garrette


Not really. It's a test (albeit loose and unscientific) to demonstrate validity or lack of validity to the claim of anomalous cognition.

Then how can it be a test of anything?

I don't quite get what you are trying to resolve here, sorry.

For the record, buki, I do have a sense of humor, and I think you're just trying to be silly in your last post. But I have my official Cracker Jack Scientist hat on at the moment and so must treat all responses with equal objectivity. [/B]Of course I was being silly. This whole experiment is silly.

I'm probably just tired and don't get the whole reasoning behind this. What the hell, have fun.

[Garrette]

buki, this is from me a few posts up:

8. While the thoughts were not crystallized to the extent I am about to express them, I had four particular goals in mind when I began this. I think they are being demonstrated fairly well, though the first not so much because there's only been one trial.

a. Demonstrate that the success rate, even in a loosely controlled and favorable-to-the-subject test, is much lower than the subjects expect it would be. Yes. I entered this with bias. I expect it to fail to demonstrate anomalous cognition. That being said, I would be quite happy to be proven wrong.

b. Demonstrate that the subjects and those who believe in AC will not quantify what can be done. For the record, I don't really include Max in this. He has been, at least in all discussions with me, up front in admitting that if he possesses any ability at all it is unpredictable, small, and vague.

c. Demonstrate that the "judging" (and once we got past titles, judging became a necessity) is inconsistent when applied by those who believe. Clancie, don't take this personally, but this is directed at you. When I gave my sample list of titles that could be counted as hits against Max's "boy, adventure, horse, racing" you discounted them all. I believe you did so, even if it was subconsciously, because to do otherwise would have demonstrated that your standards for success were too loose. However, your response to the "Godfather" "American Gods" test is inconsistent with that and shows that in actual application, you are far broader than you claim to be. The same is evidenced in your comments that if Max had added "Africa" to his list, it would have counted as a hit for The Tangier Diaries.

d. Prompt others to do better tests. It has apparently prompted Ian to do another one. Whether it's better or not remains to be seen. I hope it is. For some reason, he chose me to pm the secret information to, so I have that now. I'm honored he chose me.

[Garrette]

There seems to be a hinted-at but specifically unstated idea, particularly among the non-believers here, that if a test isn't completely scientific and doesn't have as its aim the falsification of some null hypothesis then it's just a waste of time.

I disagree.

Tests such as mine in this thread will never have any validity in regard to determining if psi is real or not. I acknowledge that.

But it can point out flaws in thinking and in analysis. On both sides of the fence.

I refuse to say that this test is worthless; I do not believe it is.

[Ceinwyn]

Ah, I see now. Sorry Garrette, please carry on.


I will still analyze and be cynical, dammit! I will! And your little dog too!

[Darat]

Originally posted by Garrette


Ummm........ [meek and mild voice] Help? [/meek and mild voice]

[off topic]

If anything it may have piqued her interest... getting a card that indicates Garrette is hung… ;)

[/off topic]

I downloaded the PGP program from Roger's link and it seems simple enough for anyone reasonably familiar with Windows to use, especially if they just have to decrypt a message. (And only a luciatic would question the security of PGP.)

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, voidx, you won't like this answer--and I'm not a psychic, so it's just my personal impression of "the process", but here it is:

They get what they get and pass it along.

Its up to others--sitters, clients, testers, scientists...whoever....to then take what has been given to them and see if it has significance or meaning and is of value.I'm not voidx, but I don't like this answer either. :D

If what they get has something to do with Garrette's book, it should help them to pick his book out of a group of books. If what they get has nothing to do with Garrette's book, why are we running a test where they try to guess his book?

We should distinguish the psychic process (if any) from the process of testing for its existence. Other people "tak what has been given to them and see[ing] if it has significance or meaning and is of value" is not the psychic process---these other people are not psychic, after all---rather, it is the process by which they try to decide whether the person claiming to be psychic is in fact psychic. And it is not a terribly good way of deciding that, because it is very hard to determine how much significance or meaning or value we would expect them to find in the information given by a [i]non-psychic.

A good test for psi is one where we know what result to expect if psi exists and we know what result to expect if psi doesn't exist, and where those two results are different enough that, after the test is done, we can easily decide which one actually happened.

I am very much in favor of having the testee pick the book out of a group. A group of eight is nice; then Garrette can flip a coin three times to decide which will be the target. (I mean that literally: take an actual coin and flip it.) It doesn't matter how the eight are chosen; the testee can choose them if he wants to.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I didn't really think you meant disrespect. My problem is that the "subconscious expectations" cannot, even in principle, be determined before the results; they may only be discerned after the fact. I can completely believe that I am trying my best, but if my results are bad you may then say it was subconscious expectations of failure leading to negative psi. Could it be true? I suppose so, but I hope you can see the circularity of the definition of "subconscious expectations".
Actually, different laboratories have gotten different results on this. My notes are at the office now (so, sorry, no citations) but there have been positive effects for trying, for not trying, for motivating with money, for not doing that...I think that it is premature for anyone to say that "ESP doesn't work by" any particular method.

Perhaps you can ask the people who get your title right (if there are any) what method they used... [/B]

I was thinking more of anecdotes and my personal experiences. They vastly swamp the research. Even with research I believe that it strongly suggests that psi is facilitated along the lines I have delineated. It seems to me a tad strange you arguing with me what the most effective way is when you don't even believe in it! :eek:

With the subconscious expectatations of failing I was simply attempting a very plausible hypothesis to account for the propensity for skeptics to sometimes psi miss.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Toastrider
[B]

So I can't set anyone on fire? Bummer.

Sorry, Upchurch. Some folks just bring out the worst in me.

With what reason do I bring out the worse in you? Care to share?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx

Read my comments on the 1 in 10 book scenario. We don't care WHAT form the anomalous cognition takes, so long as the medium receiving it can do something useful with it, like guessing which of 10 books their receiving information about. I'm rather amazed that there was less contention over letting Max have to pull the book title out of thin air, rather than choosing 1 out of 10. As I mention, if anything it improves his chances.

No, limiting the targets is a bad idea in my opinion.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, limiting the targets is a bad idea in my opinion.

Why?

Consider how ESP etc. is often described e.g. as a fleeting, almost intuitive process, that it is not like "seeing" with your eyes and so on. There are millions of possible books so having some of these flashes may not help you pin it down. (And couldn’t your 'subconscious' (not that I think we have one ;) ) almost filter out some legitimate titles because they "sounded strange"?

But give people a choice out of say ten books and that lets them use their feelings to work out which was the book they thought they had received information about.

"Yes - that's the one, that's why I said there was a priest and Lord Dunsey, my ESP was trying to tell me that it was book about infertile aristocrats!"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette




8. While the thoughts were not crystallized to the extent I am about to express them, I had four particular goals in mind when I began this. I think they are being demonstrated fairly well, though the first not so much because there's only been one trial.

a. Demonstrate that the success rate, even in a loosely controlled and favorable-to-the-subject test, is much lower than the subjects expect it would be.



Who are these subjects please. I don't expect anyone to be successful.




Yes. I entered this with bias. I expect it to fail to demonstrate anomalous cognition. That being said, I would be quite happy to be proven wrong.



I too expect it to fail to demonstrate AC. This does not however provide any evidence whatsoever against AC.



b. Demonstrate that the subjects and those who believe in AC will not quantify what can be done.



Why do you need to demonstrate it since no one is denying it so far as I'm aware??

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, limiting the targets is a bad idea in my opinion.

And another thing.

You said earlier that "And also should be a fiction book." so aren't you already limiting the targets?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by buki
Yes, it's fun for Clancie until her pet beliefs are threatened. Then seriousness abounds. Calls for evidence are heard throughout the forums.

Hush, you can hear them now...

you have no proof...show me where I said that...I have you on ignooooooorrre...

From my experience with skeptics this is what I was concerned would happen. They are absolutely certain no anomalous cognition exists, but should it exist it must have certain characteristics and be precisely quantifiable etc. They also don't like to see this as being a fun game because, perhaps subconsciously, they might be expectations on their part that should they treat it as fun it just might work. No doubt they also fail to appreciate that the failure of such an experiment provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever against AC. Indeed it would still not even if one adopted my suggestions.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
So this is basically "let's guess what book Garrette has on top of his locker", right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not really.



But Buki realises that one can have a priori knowledge that anomalous mental phenomena cannot possibly exist i.e they are logically impossible. Or perhaps he is content in simply asserting that such alleged phenomena would be inconsistent with everything we know about science :rolleyes:

You cannot expect a person like Buki to take this experiment seriously. He already "knows" the answer. Some people are just too emotionally committed to a particular interpretation of reality to even countenance any other.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by buki
Not really. It's a test (albeit loose and unscientific) to demonstrate validity or lack of validity to the claim of anomalous cognition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then how can it be a test of anything?

I don't quite get what you are trying to resolve here, sorry.



There you go! What did I just say?? Some people are just too intellectually deficient to understand anything.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, buki, I do have a sense of humor, and I think you're just trying to be silly in your last post. But I have my official Cracker Jack Scientist hat on at the moment and so must treat all responses with equal objectivity. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course I was being silly. This whole experiment is silly.

I'm probably just tired and don't get the whole reasoning behind this. What the hell, have fun.

{shakes head sadly}

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Why?

Consider how ESP etc. is often described e.g. as a fleeting, almost intuitive process, that it is not like "seeing" with your eyes and so on. There are millions of possible books so having some of these flashes may not help you pin it down. (And couldn’t your 'subconscious' (not that I think we have one ;) ) almost filter out some legitimate titles because they "sounded strange"?

But give people a choice out of say ten books and that lets them use their feelings to work out which was the book they thought they had received information about.

"Yes - that's the one, that's why I said there was a priest and Lord Dunsey, my ESP was trying to tell me that it was book about infertile aristocrats!"

No harm in doing it both ways.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I was thinking more of anecdotes and my personal experiences. They vastly swamp the research. Even with research I believe that it strongly suggests that psi is facilitated along the lines I have delineated. It seems to me a tad strange you arguing with me what the most effective way is when you don't even believe in it! :eek:
LOL...that is a huge difference between us, Ian...my line of work makes me familiar with our cognitive biases, and so I am much more apt to trust a body of research than my own experience on this. (I think I have told you in other threads of the time I was ready to swear in court that a particular person had mugged me, when it became obvious minutes later that it was another person entirely! I know for a fact that my perceptions are subject to various biases...)

As for arguing with you...I do teach about this stuff, Ian, I am familiar with the literature on both sides. I submit that you and I both approach the literature with a bias. I know I am aware of mine, and I work to see both sides. I don't pretend to know whether this is the same for you. Anyway...I was merely pointing out that the published literature in psi has not reached a consensus on "effort" (either agreeing or disagreeing with you). Your personal experience suggests otherwise, but to be fair, N=1 for this observation. The experience of one person should not be weighted more heavily than that of any other...or that of decades of research.

With the subconscious expectatations of failing I was simply attempting a very plausible hypothesis to account for the propensity for skeptics to sometimes psi miss. A plausible, but unfalsifiable, hypothesis, Ian. "Subconscious expectations" cannot be measured, even in principle! Your plausible hypothesis is indistinguishable from an excuse! I know that does not make it false...my point is that nothing can disprove it! (Unless I am missing something...how would you falsify the claim that subconscious expectations have an effect on anomalous cognition?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
[B]

As for arguing with you...I do teach about this stuff, Ian, I am familiar with the literature on both sides. I submit that you and I both approach the literature with a bias. I know I am aware of mine, and I work to see both sides. I don't pretend to know whether this is the same for you. Anyway...I was merely pointing out that the published literature in psi has not reached a consensus on "effort" (either agreeing or disagreeing with you).



It may not have done. None of this detracts from what I have already said one iota.



Your personal experience suggests otherwise, but to be fair, N=1 for this observation.



N=1 conveys no meaning to me.




The experience of one person should not be weighted more heavily than that of any other...or that of decades of research.
A plausible, but unfalsifiable, hypothesis, Ian.



It's irrelevant whether it is unfalsifiable or not. This does not somehow magically make it less likely to be true. You misuse the concept of falsifiability. It's something which physicists are obsessed with. It doesn't have the same applicability here.




"Subconscious expectations" cannot be measured,



No, neither can consciousness be measured because it is not physical. Again I stress this is wholly irrelevant.



even in principle!



I know, neither can consciousness. So what?



Your plausible hypothesis is indistinguishable from an excuse!



Then you haven't understood it.



I know that does not make it false...my point is that nothing can disprove it! (Unless I am missing something...how would you falsify the claim that subconscious expectations have an effect on anomalous cognition?

By providing a more plausible hypothesis for why skeptics psi miss.

[Clancie]

Garrette,

You have a book on the locker, right? It's probably too late for a PM, so I'm going to just guess it's Gauld's, "Mediumship and Survival".

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

N=1 conveys no meaning to me.
Sample size = 1. It is the report of one person, not the report of several (depending on the study) people under controlled conditions. Even if we take the conditions as assumed to be equal, the central limit theorem tells us that your small sample size is more subject to sampling error.


It's irrelevant whether it is unfalsifiable or not. This does not somehow magically make it less likely to be true. You misuse the concept of falsifiability. It's something which physicists are obsessed with. It doesn't have the same applicability here.
I think I admitted that it does not make it untrue. The problem is simply that it is impossible to say whether or not it is true. This makes it useless in an empirical investigation, which this is.


By providing a more plausible hypothesis for why skeptics psi miss. Well...um, no. Now it is you who misuse the concept of falsifiability. A more plausible hypothesis is completely irrelevant in falsifying your current hypothesis. We do not need to know what does explain something to be able to see that something else does not explain it. What evidence would convince you that skeptics' subconscious expectations were not having an influence? I can think of no result that can overturn your hypothesis, since there is no way of measuring the subconscious expectations in the first place. I mean, certainly...if you could divide up the skeptics with and without subconscious expectations of failure, and there was no difference, that would perhaps do...but since we cannot do that...what do you suggest?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
Garrette,

You have a book on the locker, right? It's probably too late for a PM, so I'm going to just guess it's Gauld's, "Mediumship and Survival".

Shall we just say that's quite an educated guess (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870146351&highlight=book+iraq#post1870146351) shall we? ;)

[Clancie]

Yes, very little intuition with this guess, except maybe...the possible irony.. :)

[Ed]

Garrette,

I suggest that you simply copy one of these

!@#$%^&*()

on an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper and put it on your locker.

There are problems with this but it is clear and easy (number/symbol associations and order effects are not controlled for)

I suggest doing it three times.

[TheBoyPaj]

I don't want to tread on anyone's toes here, but I have set up something which was suggested. Garette, how does this sound?

I have chosen 15 books. I own them all, so even if you know me and are familiar with my bookshelf you will not be able to eliminate any of the titles.

One of the books is on my desk. You must choose which one it is. The subject is irrelevant. No fishing will be entertained, just pick one of the books.

You can view the books at the following page:
http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php

The page has a script which randomises the order, so you should not take any meaning from its position in the list. Also listed are the ISBNs, so you can look up a synopsis if you get a sense of the book's subject.

I have written the book's identity and encrypted it using PGP. The result is a self-extracting file which you can download now and which you will be able to decrypt with the key I will publish on Sunday. No installation of PGP will be required on your part, but apparently the file will only be able to be decrypted by Windows systems. Download the file now at http://www.aouc84.dsl.pipex.com/secretbook.txt.sda.exe

PM me your book title only and I'll announce the results on Sunday.

(I don't want to clutter the board with loads of guesses for yet another RV test, but if you think this is an interesting way to go, send me a message.)

[Garrette]

Since participation in my test has dwindled, probably for good reason. I'll go ahead and post the answer.

Clancie, I was wondering if anyone would guess one of those books we've discussed here, but it's not that one.

The actual book is:

"Ten Ever Lovin' Blue Eyed Years With Pogo"

which is a collection of strips (over ten years, natch) of the Pogo Comic Strip by Walt Kelly who is the greatest cartoonist ever to live bar none this is not debatable so don't even try.

---

I will now, just because my ego knows no bounds, begin another test in another thread along the ten book lines, even though Paj is doing something similar. (And, no, Paj, it doesn't bother me; no toes to worry about stepping on).

I'll ask for input on protocols before starting the test, though, but please put them in the new thread.

Interesting side note. My list of books also included The Hobbit (though another edition with different cover art from the one Paj chose). I have now dropped it from mine.

Paj: Nicely varied list, btw. I tried to vary mine, too.

[TheBoyPaj]

OK, to avoid confusion of the tests I'll continue use this thread on Sunday to post the results. A couple more points though:

Images are from Amazon, but the cover art is the same as the editions I have.

The selection was chosen randomly by simply loading the random display page and seeing which book appeared at a pre-chosen position. When this test is over, I will be choosing another book from the same set, and it could equally be the same book again.

[TheBoyPaj]

Since some people have suggested that my test was not easy enough, I have made it so simple even I.I. could do it!

Just visit http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php , choose the book you feel is on my desk, enter your name and hit "submit".

How simple is that?

[Darat]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Since some people have suggested that my test was not easy enough, I have made it so simple even I.I. could do it!

Just visit http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php , choose the book you feel is on my desk, enter your name and hit "submit".

How simple is that?

Nicely done.

(By the way I had a sense of deja vu since I have 10 of those books on the book shelves behind me - does that count for anything? ;) )

[TheBoyPaj]

Results are in. See the table at http://clarion.no-ip.org/bookresults.htm

Only one person in 20 hit the correct book, and she happened to be an ex-girlfriend of mine. I am sure my wife will be worried about this obvious "link" which still exists between us!

Anyway, the test has reset with another randomly chosen book. Let's see if she can repeat the effect.

(The rest of you, join in!)

[TheBoyPaj]

The winner of Round 3 was Lucianarchy, who correctly guessed that the book on my desk was Chocolat. A fluke or genuine ability? Only one way to find out!

Round 4 is now under way.

[TheBoyPaj]

The winner of round 4 was Ersby, who correctly identified the Holland Rough Guide on my desk. So far, no one has managed to score twice, but it's still early days.

Round 5 is running now.

[TheBoyPaj]

The winner for round 5 was David Horman, correctly identifying the Tweenies book.

Round 6 is on. You know the drill.

[davidhorman]

The winner for round 5 was David Horman, correctly identifying the Tweenies book.

Woo-hoo!

Personally I prefer the Hoobs.

David

[ceptimus]

I did one round (round 4 I think) but my name isn't on the score sheet - I picked the wrong book anyway. Do we have to register or something, before we can play?

[TheBoyPaj]

No need to register. Maybe I just missed your name off the sheet. I'll check the record when I get home.

[TheBoyPaj]

No one won round 7. And only four players. Time for some more publicity!


Hey hey! Roll up, roll up, Join the psychic book experiment (http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php) ! And how! It's psychic! To the max! etc.



(Incidentally, Ceptimus I don't have a record of your entry. I did get an entry with no name attached in round 2. Maybe that was yours?)

[TheBoyPaj]

Round 9 is over, and we're still looking for that elusive second hit.

Poor Darat has been plodding along and trying over and over, and has yet to get one hit! Keep at it. You only have to get one in the next three rounds to equal chance!

Round 10 is now running. Results on Thursday.

[Darat]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Round 9 is over, and we're still looking for that elusive second hit.

Poor Darat has been plodding along and trying over and over, and has yet to get one hit! Keep at it. You only have to get one in the next three rounds to equal chance!

Round 10 is now running. Results on Thursday.

Bloody negative psi!

[TheBoyPaj]

Round 10 is over. No hits.

I'm thinking of introducing some negative stimulus. Darat, if you don't score a hit next time, 250 volts will be sent through your mouse button. Focus, dammit!

Round 11 ends Saturday.

[Darat]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Round 10 is over. No hits.

I'm thinking of introducing some negative stimulus. Darat, if you don't score a hit next time, 250 volts will be sent through your mouse button. Focus, dammit!

Round 11 ends Saturday.

OW! That hurt!

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, it serves you right. Your duck continues.

------cut out and paste into any believers forum-------
Daenris joins the happy band of viewers who have a 100% hit record. Well done!
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 12 is now running.

[TheBoyPaj]

Round 14 is over. I had a load of entries from what appeared to be the same person using multiple identities (same IP address). One of them was a hit, but the challenge will be for the person to use the same identity and to repeat the feat! I have decided to include them on the off-chance that it was a bunch of girl friends using t