Psychic playing card test. Please do not look at vote before voting!

[Interesting Ian]

OK, if you would please vote before seeing how other people voted, I would appreciate that. I have the card in front of me just next to my keyboard. I will leave it there during the duration when people are voting. Voting will end on Monday 15th March at 5pm GMT. At that time I will reveal the pertinent card.

The 10 cards I deliberately chose from the deck. However the card you might either clairvoyantly "see" or/and telepathically read from my mind was chosen randomly from the 10 cards. Moreover it's position in the voting list was also determined randomly. Also the position of all other cards was chosen randomly.

If people like, they could say in this thread which card they chose and whether they are a skeptic or believer.

eg relevant card - Believer

Edit to add: I have pm'd Mercutio the relevant card and he has acknowledged.

[Mercutio]

For the record, Iam has PMed me the identity of the card. I will not be voting (duh), and I cannot be bought. I thank Ian for his trust.

[renata]

I remember reading about some studies that say given a limited amount of choices people tend to pick for a particular one in the sequence. In other words, all things being equal, in a group of- say- 10 options, and a request to pick one randomly, some will be picked more than others. I am unable to have any backup for this, and it could be pop psychology. Perhaps Mercutio would know?

Anyway, it is possible that a card in your poll will be picked more often due to that phenomena- if I am remembering its effects correctly.

[TLN]

Which card do you feel you can psychically detect?

Since there's no option for "none", I will not be voting.

[Jeff Corey]

Penn & Teller told me it's the 3 of clubs.

[iain]

Originally posted by renata
I remember reading about some studies that say given a limited amount of choices people tend to pick for a particular one in the sequence. In other words, all things being equal, in a group of- say- 10 options, and a request to pick one randomly, some will be picked more than others. I am unable to have any backup for this, and it could be pop psychology. Perhaps Mercutio would know? Don't a lot of mentalist magic tricks work on this sort of principle?

[Denise]

I voted Jack of Diamonds. Just a guess as I am not "psychic." How do we know that you even have any cards at all?

[specious_reasons]

Ian, do you mind if I ask a few questions?

What is your hypothesis?

What was the process for the card selection?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by renata
I remember reading about some studies that say given a limited amount of choices people tend to pick for a particular one in the sequence. In other words, all things being equal, in a group of- say- 10 options, and a request to pick one randomly, some will be picked more than others. I am unable to have any backup for this, and it could be pop psychology. Perhaps Mercutio would know?

Anyway, it is possible that a card in your poll will be picked more often due to that phenomena- if I am remembering its effects correctly.

Yes, there's a difficulty here. That problem could be eliminated by averaging out over quite a few of these tests.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
[B]Ian, do you mind if I ask a few questions?

What is your hypothesis?



I am testing out the hypothesis that people can detect the card next to my keyboard through anomalous cognition.



What was the process for the card selection?

The 10 cards I deliberately selected myself because I didn't want, say to have 2 Queens, or any aces (as psychologically people might be drawn to aces).

I picked the relevant card by using the hundredths of a second digit indicator on my stop watch on my digital watch. You know, each card was assigned a single digit. I used a similar method to determine all the positions of the cards in the voting list. :)

[Brown]

Originally posted by renata
I remember reading about some studies that say given a limited amount of choices people tend to pick for a particular one in the sequence. In other words, all things being equal, in a group of- say- 10 options, and a request to pick one randomly, some will be picked more than others.Originally posted by iain
Don't a lot of mentalist magic tricks work on this sort of principle? Yes. I used a technique like this to surprise the hell out of my dad. (And he actually thought he had free will about what card he was going to choose! Bwaah-ha-ha-ha!! Little did he know that 75 percent of the people, when presented with a set of playing cards in the way I presented them to him, would select the third card.)

Actually, there are a lot of techniques along these lines. I noticed David Blaine using a different technique in one of his tricks. I recognized it as a technique that was published by Martin Gardner in one of his "Mathematical Games" columns.

For those who are interested, there is a popular technique called "Magician's Choice" or "Equivoqué" that can have a powerful effect upon those not familiar with it.

For the time being, I'd assume that no such techniques are involved here.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I did the best I could. When I let my brain wander into the land of playing cards, I started seeing playing cards all over the planet. I haven't learned how to address Ian's particular card.

~~ Paul

[Sindai]

I skimmed the poll for a second and asked my brain to return a random card. I got "jack of hearts." Since that wasn't available, I decided to go with "jack of diamonds."

[Ed]

I am not sure what this means. My first guess is "nothing". After all, there is no way of knowing what people would have picked in this series if there were no woo rays flying, right? Therefore, one would not know if those that chose the correct card are psychic or if they just love that card. Guess I don't get the point of the bandwidth use.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
I am not sure what this means. My first guess is "nothing". After all, there is no way of knowing what people would have picked in this series if there were no woo rays flying, right? Therefore, one would not know if those that chose the correct card are psychic or if they just love that card. Guess I don't get the point of the bandwidth use.

It is true that with just the one test that nothing much can be inferred. Nevertheless, if a number of such tests were carried out, that might be more interesting.

[Lothian]

I predict that having a 7 as the seventh card down will make it the most popular. You may have subconsciously put it there as well. It also fits quite close to brown’s trick.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian
I predict that having a 7 as the seventh card down will make it the most popular. You may have subconsciously put it there as well. It also fits quite close to brown’s trick.

No, both the target card was picked randomly and its position in the voting list was selected randomly.

[Zep]

3 of hearts. Non-believer. Closed eyes and picked the first number I thought of in the range from 1 to 10.

HOWEVER, This is not really as "random" a test as it would seem to be. Already we have seen the available pool of choices from which to choose, so already we may be forming "likes" and "dislikes", ie. a prejudicial outcome. For example, if the thought of a random card from a complete deck popped into my head, it may not be in this subset. So I may feel inclined to choose a card similar to my thunked card - same suit or value, perhaps. This would make it an inexact and influenced choice, not really a candidate for "anomalous cognition" at all.

And while understanding the limitations that Ian is working under with the poll technology of the forum, it is still possible to see the previous outcomes beforehand and so make a choice possibly influenced by that in some way. I'm pleased to see that Ian has tried to avoid this, although this limitation seemed to be beyond many well-known psychic testing investigators in the past.

[T'ai Chi]

I have no experience with remote viewing (but do meditate).

I 'sensed' the 4 of Diamonds even before reading it in the list of choices, so I stuck with that as my selection.

[Aoidoi]

heh, I picked 7 of clubs as I found it the least significant (not a face card, not a round number nor a high/low extreme, always thought clubs the least interesting of the suites).

Amusingly, it's in the lead as the guess at the moment. I suspect a lot of smart-*sses like me did something similar. :D

[Peskanov]

To add interest to all these little experiments, some kind of control group should be used.
For example, asking some volunteers to pick a car from Ian's set using different criterions:
- Choose using personal preferences.
- Try to guess the card of other person, not Ian's card.
- Choose randomly in a short time.

Without any reference for comparison, I don't think this experience is interesting.

(btw, I chose 4 of diamonds, but I think it could be due that this card is important in some game I used to play years ago)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Peskanov
To add interest to all these little experiments, some kind of control group should be used.
For example, asking some volunteers to pick a car from Ian's set using different criterions:
- Choose using personal preferences.
- Try to guess the card of other person, not Ian's card.
- Choose randomly in a short time.

Without any reference for comparison, I don't think this experience is interesting.

It will be if we say did about 10 tests.

[mummymonkey]

Fun thread Ian.
I picked the 7 of clubs before I even realised there was a list to choose from. Luckily it's on the list and wouldn't you just know it? It's in the lead.

[TheBoyPaj]

2 of spades - Skeptic.

As for my method, I didn't look at the list of cards, but I closed my eyes and tried to imagine where your computer was in relation to myself (which direction from my house, approximate distance). I got a strong image of the 2 of spades, and was pleased to see it on the list.

I still don't expect to be right!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It is true that with just the one test that nothing much can be inferred. Nevertheless, if a number of such tests were carried out, that might be more interesting.

Ian,

The thing that belivers don't seen to get is that without proper control, in this case for example, you end up with nothing more than cocktail party chat. If you did a number of similar exercises and obtained results that were "interesting" because of the lack of hypothesis theory rigorous design and so on, all that would result is yet more "it means this no it dosen't" crap that we are all so used to. The fact that believer research is evidentially designed with flaws precludes any firm finding and fuels the believer mind set. This lack of rigorous design suggests to me that those that really know better (Schwartz comes to mind) do so that they in fact can say that the results are "suggestive" or "equivical" rather than "negative". A lousey experiment proves nothing and really is not any more interesting than anything else we may observe in our day to day life.

[voidx]

My visualized card was covered with naked ladies and as such I was distracted (they were being oh so naughty) from gleaning either the suit or number of the card. Are you sure your thinking about the card Ian? One of them also turned into a pitcher of beer. It was all rather odd I must say.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


Ian,

The thing that belivers don't seen to get is that without proper control, in this case for example, you end up with nothing more than cocktail party chat. If you did a number of similar exercises and obtained results that were "interesting" because of the lack of hypothesis theory rigorous design and so on, all that would result is yet more "it means this no it dosen't" crap that we are all so used to. The fact that believer research is evidentially designed with flaws precludes any firm finding and fuels the believer mind set. This lack of rigorous design suggests to me that those that really know better (Schwartz comes to mind) do so that they in fact can say that the results are "suggestive" or "equivical" rather than "negative". A lousey experiment proves nothing and really is not any more interesting than anything else we may observe in our day to day life.

Tell me what's lousy about my experiment? What should I have done that I didn't do? I await your reply with interest.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Tell me what's lousy about my experiment? What should I have done that I didn't do? I await your reply with interest.

The only improvement I can think of would be me to have used zener(sp?) cards. But let me know Ed about all these other improvements I could make.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Tell me what's lousy about my experiment? What should I have done that I didn't do? I await your reply with interest.

You don't really consider this a valid experiment right? I'm hoping that it's just for fun.
For one thing, there's is no way of stopping people from voting more than once.

[iankaplan]

7 of clubs - Skeptic

I played along as well as I could. Just closed my eyes, pictured I.Ian sitting at a computer (your avatar is you, no?), and next to him in my mind's eye was a black seven. Scanning the list, I saw 7 of clubs, and there you have it.

It seems it is being chosen at 3 times chance rate. Interesting... could it have to do with the number 7, or it's perceived "random" position in the list? Can't wait to find out and participate in more fun experiments!

[Grommitt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Tell me what's lousy about my experiment? What should I have done that I didn't do? I await your reply with interest. You introduced your own preference and bias in selecting the 10 cards.
The 10 cards I deliberately selected myself because I didn't want, say to have 2 Queens, or any aces (as psychologically people might be drawn to aces).Note the phrases; " I deliberately selected" and "I didn't want".

If this is testing others peoples psychic ability, it must be totally random without your notions of psychology determining any part of it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Denise


You don't really consider this a valid experiment right? I'm hoping that it's just for fun.
For one thing, there's is no way of stopping people from voting more than once.

It depends what you mean by a "valid experiment". The vast majority of people on here are skeptics and they might tend to "psi miss". Also people will be psychologically disposed to favor certain cards. And people will be psychologically disposed to pick near top, middle, or bottom of list, or wherever. People might just simply guess just for the hell of it and not try to open up to any feelings.

I can't do anything about the psi missing. But all the other problems can be eliminated by doing a large number of tests. Even the guessing won't matter if there is any genuine anomalous cognition; it will just reduce its overall significance which can be made up by a sufficiently large number of tests.

Of course you can still object by pointing out that Mercutio can vote even though he's not supposed to, and I can, and I can pm others to tell them the card. So no, it's certainly not immune to cheating. {shrugs} But neither is the testing totally useless.

As for voting more than once, I never realised that it was possible. Never has worked for me in the past. :confused:

I agree though that "psi missing" might make the whole exercise a waste of time, although I rather feel that's not what you had in mind.

[Denise]

There's a way to clear out your cookies etc., and vote again. And let's not forget sock puppets.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Grommitt
The 10 cards I deliberately selected myself because I didn't want, say to have 2 Queens, or any aces (as psychologically people might be drawn to aces).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the phrases; " I deliberately selected" and "I didn't want".

If this is testing others peoples psychic ability, it must be totally random without your notions of psychology determining any part of it.

But the evidence suggests that people might tend to get the correct rank but wrong suit and so on. So I felt that I should try to eliminate that element. Of course playing cards are unsatisfactory. Zener cards would be much better. Just that I don't have any, although come to think of it I could just print one out . . hmmmm. Oh well. We've stuck with this test for now.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Denise
There's a way to clear out your cookies etc., and vote again. And let's not forget sock puppets.

Yes, people can cheat. But would they really bother to cheat? I mean what is the point? I can't do anything about that at the end of the day apart from not do the test at all.

But if you think you're so clever and can do it without any cheating, then go ahead and set a test up. Use zener cards though. These results I've got are ridiculous even if the 7 of clubs does transpire to be the target card.

[VicDaring]

I'm reasonable sure I could detect the yellow 7 from an Uno deck, if given the opportunity. But then again, who knows?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Tell me what's lousy about my experiment? What should I have done that I didn't do? I await your reply with interest.

This is not the beginning of an argument, I am simply stating a few facts. What you are doing

-Does not control for position bias.
-Does not control for yea saying (or nay saying)
-Does not control for inherent preferences
-Does not have a clear hypothesis
-Does not control for multiple guesses

You really don't know why a match is a match. Doing it again dosen't really help matters since you don't know the biases of the new respondents. You have too many things going on to make any sense of the results.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But the evidence suggests that people might tend to get the correct rank but wrong suit and so on. So I felt that I should try to eliminate that element. Of course playing cards are unsatisfactory. Zener cards would be much better. Just that I don't have any, although come to think of it I could just print one out . . hmmmm. Oh well. We've stuck with this test for now.

!@#$%^&*() would be better than cards.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes, people can cheat. But would they really bother to cheat? I mean what is the point? I can't do anything about that at the end of the day apart from not do the test at all.

But if you think you're so clever and can do it without any cheating, then go ahead and set a test up. Use zener cards though. These results I've got are ridiculous even if the 7 of clubs does transpire to be the target card.

Ian, I'm not interested in setting a test up. I thought we were just chatting about your test. I was just trying to point out that cheating was easy if one wanted to do so. Because a person can cheat, then the results would not be valid. Doing more and more tests would not make the results any more valid when there aren't controls to stop people from cheating.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


This is not the beginning of an argument, I am simply stating a few facts. What you are doing

-Does not control for position bias.



Eliminated by numerous tests.



-Does not control for yea saying (or nay saying)



No idea what this means.



-Does not control for inherent preferences



Eliminated by numerous tests.


-Does not have a clear hypothesis



A hypothesis is not required. I am simply collecting data to see if is of any statisitcal significance. Of couse I agree that vastly more than one test would be needed before we could even reach the most tentative of conclusions.




-Does not control for multiple guesses



But there's nothing I can do about that should people feel the strange urge to do so.





You really don't know why a match is a match. Doing it again dosen't really help matters since you don't know the biases of the new respondents.



Any biases will get ironed out by a sufficiently large number of tests.



You have too many things going on to make any sense of the results. [/B]

What things? How do they impact upon the results? More details please.


You know, I absolutely knew you would say nothing of any substance after I asked you to specify the defects of my experiment and how you would improve it. Psychic ability on my part? No, in all comments in the past you have had never said anything worthwhile or of any subtance, so by inductive reasoning I reasoned you wouldn't this time either.

And I was correct!

Well, whaddya know. :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


!@#$%^&*() would be better than cards.

I rather think not.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Denise


Ian, I'm not interested in setting a test up. I thought we were just chatting about your test. I was just trying to point out that cheating was easy if one wanted to do so. Because a person can cheat, then the results would not be valid. Doing more and more tests would not make the results any more valid when there aren't controls to stop people from cheating.

At the end of the day I don't believe I can do anything to stop people from cheating should they feel a bizarre need to do so.

Cheating, fraud etc are always possible even in parapsychological research, never mind other branches of science. And certainly one could not hope to eliminate this problem completely in an informal fun experiment like this! :rolleyes:

I shall ensure that I pm you in future to ask your permission before I do such a naughty thing again as to not conduct a 100% watertight experiment.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian




I shall ensure that I pm you in future to ask your permission before I do such a naughty thing again as to not conduct a 100% watertight experiment.

I think you are reading way, way, way too much into my comments Ian. Really.

[Yahweh]

I have not seen the results ahead of time, I did not read this thread prior to voting...

I gave my vote to Jack of Diamonds. That one stood out to me more than the others. Just for fun, I'll try to guess the order at which Ian will find the cards in his deck (from top to bottom):

J of Diamonds
10 of Clubs
4 of Diamonds
2 of Spades
Q of Hearts
8 of Hearts
3 of Hearts
K of Spades
9 of Spades
7 of Clubs

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Denise


I think you are reading way, way, way too much into my comments Ian. Really.

No!! I must ask your permission in future.

Honestly!

The only person that would be cheating is me! I could pm all the believers, Max, Clancie and whoever, and tell them the correct answer so they could vote accordingly! Oh yes, and I'll tell them to use all their sock puppets and clear out their cookies and . . . .

Dear me!

I must remember not to carry out any more tests unless it is as tight as normal parpsychological reseach! :mad:

Thanks for pointing out my stupidity Denise! ;)

[Pyrrho]

I chose the Jack of Diamonds, at random. I do not believe in remote viewing, esp, etc.; I think if anyone guesses the card, it will be due to coincidence.

[Interesting Ian]

BTW Denise, I'm not annoyed with you and I'm pleased you're back :)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The only person that would be cheating is me! I could pm all the believers, Max, Clancie and whoever, and tell them the correct answer so they could vote accordingly! Oh yes, and I'll tell them to use all their sock puppets and clear out their cookies and . . . .
well, technically, I could cheat, too...and, like you, I kind of resent the implication! But...I absolutely understand that this does raise the question of cheating...and I think that, of course, no matter how significant your results might be, they should be distrusted until they can be replicated with the possibilities of cheating that have been pointed out here fixed. (terrible grammar, but I am too lazy to fix it).

That said, is it useless? Of course not! At two levels...one, it is a nice exercise in experimental design. two...suppose we do find significant results--I can think of a million reasons to try to replicate with the same subjects and better controls!

...Oh...I would also like something explained to me. I understand about multiple votes, clearing cookies and voting again, yadda yadda yadda...but unless Ian or I give the answer to someone, what advantage does that give? We have more people voting randomly, according to the null hypothesis. Of course, there are no guarantees but our words of honour that we will not give out the answer...but hey, all I have here is my word, and besides, this is just a fun little test.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
well, technically, I could cheat, too...and, like you, I kind of resent the implication! But...I absolutely understand that this does raise the question of cheating...and I think that, of course, no matter how significant your results might be, they should be distrusted until they can be replicated with the possibilities of cheating that have been pointed out here fixed. (terrible grammar, but I am too lazy to fix it).

That said, is it useless? Of course not! At two levels...one, it is a nice exercise in experimental design. two...suppose we do find significant results--I can think of a million reasons to try to replicate with the same subjects and better controls!

...Oh...I would also like something explained to me. I understand about multiple votes, clearing cookies and voting again, yadda yadda yadda...but unless Ian or I give the answer to someone, what advantage does that give? We have more people voting randomly, according to the null hypothesis. Of course, there are no guarantees but our words of honour that we will not give out the answer...but hey, all I have here is my word, and besides, this is just a fun little test.

I absolutely emphatically agree with what Mercutio has said. Only us 2 can cheat. Other people can cheat, but they won't know what result their cheating will give them! LOL

[Cecil]

I focused on Ian's avatar and I got an impression of red more so than black, followed by hearts more than diamonds. Then I had a surprisingly strong image of an 8.

Luckily for me, the 8 of hearts was on the list.

And of course I do not consider this phenomenon as existing in any sense.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I absolutely emphatically agree with what Mercutio has said.
Sorry...I just had to save this...it's such a rare thing!:p

[Denise]

Originally posted by Mercutio
!

...Oh...I would also like something explained to me. I understand about multiple votes, clearing cookies and voting again, yadda yadda yadda...but unless Ian or I give the answer to someone, what advantage does that give?

I don't know about advantage but it could really screw your test up. For instance, I could vote many times to show them briefly as having 25 people voting for each card. It might be hard to figure out which votes to throw out because you wouldn't know what vote was a vote by a person voting once, or by me voting to make them all even. Also, by not requiring people to post what they voted for, you will not be able to tell who actually picked the card if say, 20 people claim a match and the card only received ten votes.

[shemp]

The only card around here is Boring Ian.

Why don't you jam a 2x4 into one of your bodily orifices and let us guess where it is?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Denise


I don't know about advantage but it could really screw your test up. For instance, I could vote many times to show them briefly as having 25 people voting for each card. It might be hard to figure out which votes to throw out because you wouldn't know what vote was a vote by a person voting once, or by me voting to make them all even. Also, by not requiring people to post what they voted for, you will not be able to tell who actually picked the card if say, 20 people claim a match and the card only received ten votes. I agree, that could be done. And of course, it would then be possible for skeptics and believers (if I might falsely dichotomize for a moment) to blame one another for doing such a thing.

But both sides also have an interest in seeing it done properly. Sure, exposing weaknesses is a nice way of demonstrating that they do exist and should be controlled for next time...but I think the discussion here has already concluded that this is far from an ideal test...so there is not much reason to screw the test up on principle (in my opinion, anyway). So why not behave honorably? Both sides might accuse the other of having a reason to cheat, but in truth both sides have every reason to be honest! Both sides want a fair test--skeptics because they are confident it will show no effect, believers because they [hope, are confident, somewhere along that continuum] it will show an effect. The only reason to cheat is if you lack the courage of your convictions, and around here I don't think that describes too many people.

Of course I could be wrong. But...as I said, discussion has already established that enough could happen that this cannot be a scientific test. So why screw it up?

[specious_reasons]

Hey Ian! Just want to point out a couple of things:

You should pre-select the number of tests. That way you can't stop right when you're having a stroke of good (or bad) luck. Preselecting the number of tests and running through all of them gives chance a chance. :)

I'm rusty on my probability, but one test is definitely not enough to "show" anything. You suggested 10, any reason or a guess?

Given the way the poll results are looking, it looks like there might be some selection bias. I know I selected a popular card on impulse.

[Ratman_tf]

7 of clubs. Skeptic.

I had no special insight, I just moved my mouse over the choices going 'Wiggity wiggity wiggity' and clicked one as randomly as I could.

Here's another possible data point that I hardly ever see addressed. What about a null reading? Are psychics 100% reliable so that a failed reading just never happens? ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mercutio
For the record, Iam has PMed me the identity of the card. I will not be voting (duh), and I cannot be bought. I thank Ian for his trust.

Hah, all it takes is a bit of skirt and you are anyones.

[Ratman_tf]

Here's another thing, it seems that everyone is guessing at the card. (Even me) That's not what Ian asked.

Which card do you feel you can psychically detect?

Should we have even voted if we were just guessing? Doesn't that flood the poll with useless data?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A hypothesis is not required. I am simply collecting data to see if is of any statisitcal significance.

And...

Also originally posted by Interesting Ian
I rather expected this though. I just wish I wasn't wholly ignorant of statistics so I could do a more in depth analysis. Oh well.

I feel one of these coming on... :eek:

[Garrette]

I voted 4 of Diamonds.

I do not believe in anomolous cognition, but I tried to replicate the feelings I remember having back when I did. It only took a moment. I didn't "see" the card; I just sort of "liked" it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Denise
There's a way to clear out your cookies etc., and vote again. And let's not forget sock puppets.

The only way I can see to get around that is to only consider as 'official' results, the cards that people post.

[PinkRabbit]

9 of spades. Skeptic-ish.

As for method, I meditated, and the 9 of spades popped into my head...and it was on the list, so I went with that.

Barb

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf:

I had no special insight, I just moved my mouse over the choices going 'Wiggity wiggity wiggity' and clicked one as randomly as I could.

Dagnabit, Ratman! You know that we in the Sooper Sekrit Skeptic Society are trying to prevent the Universal Magic Word That Allows Psi Things to Happen from becoming public knowledge.

Why oh why oh why did you have to say "wiggity wiggity wiggity?"

Now my computer is channeling Shirley McLaine.

[Ersby]

At first I wanted to chose Jack of diamonds, but it's a line from one of my favourite songs so I figured that was response bias.

I chose 4 of diamonds as being nicely inconspicuous.

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I absolutely emphatically agree with what Mercutio has said. Only us 2 can cheat. Other people can cheat, but they won't know what result their cheating will give them! LOL Ian,

You're forgetting that others can cheat to turn a positive result into a negative. For example, we might all be getting a strong image of one card but, damned if we're going to give you the satisfaction of being proved right, we all pick different cards and deliberately blow the test. We can also see before voting how others have voted and so vote to spread things out evenly.

There are probably ways that we can cheat to turn a negative into a positive too, with a bit of thought. For example, if lots of people chose to vote for the same card, picking that card at random, that could still be taken as support for your idea when the results were in. Even if the wrong card was picked, it might be the right colour, the right suit or also a picture card.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by shemp
The only card around here is Boring Ian.

Why don't you jam a 2x4 into one of your bodily orifices and let us guess where it is?

Why don't you take up "no answers" offer.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Denise

Also, by not requiring people to post what they voted for, you will not be able to tell who actually picked the card if say, 20 people claim a match and the card only received ten votes. [/B]

I can't compel people to do that. I requested it, but people have just ignored me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
[B]Hey Ian! Just want to point out a couple of things:

You should pre-select the number of tests. That way you can't stop right when you're having a stroke of good (or bad) luck. Preselecting the number of tests and running through all of them gives chance a chance. :)



Ideally yes, I still think people are taking this test too seriously though.




I'm rusty on my probability, but one test is definitely not enough to "show" anything. You suggested 10, any reason or a guess?



I've decided this test is no good at all. 10 would really be the minimum number, but it's imperative that I know what skeptics have voted, and what believers have voted. People aren't saying, so I'm going to have to think of a new test where the options demand people declare whether they are believers or skeptics. I need to do this because of the phenomenon of psi missing.


Given the way the poll results are looking, it looks like there might be some selection bias. I know I selected a popular card on impulse.


It is also clear that I need to use zener cards.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Here's another thing, it seems that everyone is guessing at the card. (Even me) That's not what Ian asked.



Should we have even voted if we were just guessing? Doesn't that flood the poll with useless data?

I was thinking of asking people not to vote if they're just guessing. But this is a skeptics board. If I had done that scarcely anyone would have voted at all.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
Ian,

You're forgetting that others can cheat to turn a positive result into a negative. For example, we might all be getting a strong image of one card but, damned if we're going to give you the satisfaction of being proved right, we all pick different cards and deliberately blow the test. We can also see before voting how others have voted and so vote to spread things out evenly.

There are probably ways that we can cheat to turn a negative into a positive too, with a bit of thought. For example, if lots of people chose to vote for the same card, picking that card at random, that could still be taken as support for your idea when the results were in. Even if the wrong card was picked, it might be the right colour, the right suit or also a picture card.

I fully acknowledge that people can screw the test up. I'm baffled as to why people should want to. Are skeptics not confident of getting a negative result?? :confused:

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

!Xx+-Rational-+xX! chose 9 of Spades! I'm a hardcore materialist debunker that worships science! ESP is false so I will be wrong!

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I fully acknowledge that people can screw the test up. I'm baffled as to why people should want to. Are skeptics not confident of getting a negative result?? :confused: I'm not saying that anyone would want to. When conducting a test, you can't just assume you know someone's motives though. You have to build in controls that assume the worst. Just because you don't think people will cheat is not a good enough reason to allow them the ability to cheat. That is what designing a strong testing protocol is all about.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
I'm not saying that anyone would want to. When conducting a test, you can't just assume you know someone's motives though. You have to build in controls that assume the worst. Just because you don't think people will cheat is not a good enough reason to allow them the ability to cheat. That is what designing a strong testing protocol is all about.

Well there's nothing I can do about it if people refuse to name their choices in the actual thread {shrugs}

So it's either put up with the possibility of cheating (ie deliberately screwing up the test for no reason at all and going to some considerable effort in doing so), or not do a test at all.

And it's difficult to know what I could do about the possibility of myself or Mercutio cheating. Well, obviously I can prevent myself from cheating, but I meant to the satisfaction of other people.

I still say that people are taking this test way way too seriously. To say the least, it never was aspiring to try and achieve the watertight protocols adopted by proper parapsychological research! :eek:

[Vitnir]

I tried to feel which card it was - Q of hearts came up
I did not try to pick a card by reasoning.
I'm pretty sceptical to the idea that I would be a psychic so I would say it's a lucky guess if it's right.

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I still say that people are taking this test way way too seriously. To say the least, it never was aspiring to try and achieve the watertight protocols adopted by proper parapsychological research! :eek: Agreed. I'm not taking it too seriously (honest). I think people will be honest and the result will be interesting but, as you say, because of the lack of controls the result won't actually tell us anything about the existence or otherwise of a paranormal ability we might have to divine which card you have selected. A failure won't prove you're wrong and a success won't prove you're right. Should be fun though :)

Edited to add : Reading your comments, we seem to be in complete agreement. :wow2:

[The Don]

8 Hearts

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've decided this test is no good at all. 10 would really be the minimum number, but it's imperative that I know what skeptics have voted, and what believers have voted. People aren't saying, so I'm going to have to think of a new test where the options demand people declare whether they are believers or skeptics. I need to do this because of the phenomenon of psi missing.

It is also clear that I need to use zener cards.

In order to judge if the results can not be explained by random chance, you have to be able to calculate the probability of a hit. With the book test as originally suggested this is not possible. With the playing card test you need at least 260 trials to calculate a chi-squared significance. So you're right, Zener cards would tie this down to manageable numbers.

If you want to know how to calculate significance, have a look at this page on calculating chi quared values:
http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/statistics/tress9.html

and this handy calculator for when you have some results:
http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/psitest.htm

[Ladewig]

Which card do you feel you can psychically detect?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should we have even voted if we were just guessing? Doesn't that flood the poll with useless data?

How do you know that psychically detecting a card does not feel like guessing?
I originally decided to post this question for laughs, but now that I think about it, I realize that if psychic powers existed, it is possible that they might feel like random guessing.

[stepping back before being deluged with comments of "it is more likely that guessing feels like psychic powers."]

[Brown]

10 clubs
Non-believer
I did not select this card at random.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Hah, all it takes is a bit of skirt and you are anyones. Much as I appreciate your posting this suggestion, I have received no offers at all! Of any sort! I find this somewhat depressing. I wanted at least the opportunity to surprise someone by saying "no"...

[Tanja]

I voted for the 7 of clubs.
I am skeptical, but very friendly towards this sort of experiment/game.
I just looked at the list and voted for the one which "stuck out"

[Kerberos]

Skeptic - K of spades, I looked over the options a couple of times and then picked the one which I liked best.
One flaw in the experiment, is that you haven't announced what statistical method you'll be using to analyze for significance.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Skeptic - K of spades, I looked over the options a couple of times and then picked the one which I liked best.
One flaw in the experiment, is that you haven't announced what statistical method you'll be using to analyze for significance.

We don't need to worry about that until the results are in. But the test in isolation tells us nothing anyway. I'm going to do a zener card one soon and also ask people their beliefs in the actual questions. You see there's 5 different zener cards, so if I ask whether people are believers or skeptics as well, that'll take up the 10 options. And I just need to find images of the 5 zener cards. Should be a much better test. Of course I still can't stop people from cheating.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


We don't need to worry about that until the results are in.
Actually we do, what statistical method we use can influence the degree of statistical significance. Therefore the method should be selected in advance to keep the results from being influenced by subconscious bias (or conscious, but if you wanted to cheat it would be far easier simply to vote ten times for the correct choice).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Brown
10 clubs
Non-believer
I did not select this card at random.

Just to stress that the target card was randomly selected from the 10, and also it's position in the voting order was randomly determined. So there's no question of me having a psychological propensity for picking a certain card and putting it in a certain position, nor is there any trickery of any nature involved in this test. I absolutely assure people of that.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Actually we do, what statistical method we use can influence the degree of statistical significance. Therefore the method should be selected in advance to keep the results from being influenced by subconscious bias (or conscious, but if you wanted to cheat it would be far easier simply to vote ten times for the correct choice).

Kerberos, I don't know any statistical methods apart from the obvious one.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Kerberos, I don't know any statistical methods apart from the obvious one.
I'm not exactly an expert statistician either, but you could for example analyze either how often the correct card was the one that was picked most often, or alternatively how often it was one of the five cards selected most often
Anyways I think the it's a good idea to device a test rather than just have a discussion even if it isn't waterproof. Also it's fun - I think I'll go post on the "can you guess this book?" thread too.

[Small Town Jesus]

This non-believer is going for the 9 of spades.

If it's good enough for Towlie... ;)

STJ

[TheBoyPaj]

Just out of interest, I ran a series of online Zener card tests a few months back on a separate forum (one from which I was banned for holding skeptical views).

I ran the tests live using a video link, people sending me their predictions via email and me turning over the cards on camera. Short of the possibility of my using sleight of hand I believe this was a very robust procedure.

[Tricky]

91 votes in, Ian. You might as well tell us what the card is and start a new round. I don't think you're going to get many more votes.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
91 votes in, Ian. You might as well tell us what the card is and start a new round. I don't think you're going to get many more votes.

But my card is not quite in the lead yet.

Only kidding ;)

[TheBoyPaj]

And how many votes have I had for my much tighter book test?

Two. :con2:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
91 votes in, Ian. You might as well tell us what the card is and start a new round. I don't think you're going to get many more votes.

I understand Tricky. You're like a kid a few days before xmas day. You simply cannot contain your excitement at the prospect of the card being revealed :)

Tell you what. If the votes reach 200 before Monday, I'll reveal the card at that point. :)

[Ladewig]

Interesting Ian-
The vast majority of people on here are skeptics and they might tend to "psi miss".

I think I understand the phrase, but would you define it just so I can be certain?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ladewig

I think I understand the phrase, but would you define it just so I can be certain?

I personally don't feel 'psi missing' is too useful of a concept, but it is acheiving statistical significance, but in the opposite direction.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I understand Tricky. You're like a kid a few days before xmas day. You simply cannot contain your excitement at the prospect of the card being revealed :)

Tell you what. If the votes reach 200 before Monday, I'll reveal the card at that point. :)
LOL. I was more interested in seeing the test repeated. As you say, you need a number of these tests to have any kind of decent sample. You'll probably never get as many votes on future tests due to ennui.

But I admit, I am curious. I notice some interesting voting patterns that I can't talk about until voting is ended (lest I influence someone's vote!:eek: )

[max]

King of Spades

[Interesting Ian]

Come on guys, just another 93 votes required.

[Clancie]

I'm kind of curious why the card I picked continues to be in the lead. :confused: (Same reasoning I used? A sort of non-descript card in a non-descript position?)


edited to add:

Paj,

Did you use a poll with your list of books? It makes it a lot easier to participate.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm kind of curious why the card I picked continues to be in the lead. :confused: (Same reasoning I used? A sort of non-descript card in a non-descript position?)


edited to add:

Paj,

Did you use a poll with your list of books? It makes it a lot easier to participate.

I don't know about other people Clancie, but I thought of that card before even seeing the options, so I picked it.

Adam

[patnray]

This test is an exercise in data mining. You have not specified the statistical tests you will use in advance. You have not specified what you expect to find (although you have hinted that you would like to find skeptics missing more than by chance). To properly analyse the data you should not know which guesses came from skeptics before you analyse the data (i.e. it should be a blind procedure).

So a suggestion for a future test: instead of using a poll, have the guesses (and the degree of skepticism in the respondant) PM'd to a third party who will tabulate the results and substitute the respondant's name with a number. They can also screen out multiple responses from the same person. Then, you can try to identify a subset of respondants with above or below chance results (after running the test many times). Only after completing your analysis would we all be allowed to see which respondants were skeptics.

[Clancie]

Posted by slimshady

I don't know about other people Clancie, but I thought of that card before even seeing the options, so I picked it.
Oh. I forgot that everyone else might be reading my mind!
:)

Seriously, that's a funny choice...seems like such a "nothing card". (Don't most people tend to choose face cards? Or is that too obvious?)

Too bad the popular choice here seems like the wrong one, though--otherwise I think Ian would have already declared the winners by now.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by patnray
This test is an exercise in data mining.



How do you know? We haven't got to that stage yet. I am quite prepared to data mine though. This might provide me with a tentative hypothesis before further testing.



You have not specified the statistical tests you will use in advance. You have not specified what you expect to find (although you have hinted that you would like to find skeptics missing more than by chance).



This is because I do not have any expectations. I am simply gathering data.



To properly analyse the data you should not know which guesses came from skeptics before you analyse the data (i.e. it should be a blind procedure).



Absolute rubbish. Psi missing is one of the more consistent patterns in parapsychological reseach. This certainly need not imply it is likely to be repeated here given that skeptics feelings will not be exactly the same as in proper parapsychological testing.



So a suggestion for a future test: instead of using a poll, have the guesses (and the degree of skepticism in the respondant) PM'd to a third party who will tabulate the results and substitute the respondant's name with a number. They can also screen out multiple responses from the same person. Then, you can try to identify a subset of respondants with above or below chance results (after running the test many times). Only after completing your analysis would we all be allowed to see which respondants were skeptics. [/B]

A worthwhile idea perhaps. So you do it. I shall do what I want to do.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Oh. I forgot that everyone else might be reading my mind!
:)

Seriously, that's a funny choice...seems like such a "nothing card". (Don't most people tend to choose face cards? Or is that too obvious?)

Too bad the popular choice here seems like the wrong one, though--otherwise I think Ian would have already declared the winners by now.

Clancie,

One possible flaw in testing such as this is what is referred to as "optional stopping". I need to specify beforehand when I will stop otherwise the option of stopping when my card is ahead might be tempting and this will result in a statistically flawed result :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by patnray
You have not specified the statistical tests you will use in advance. [/B]

I shall be working out the arithmetical mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, range, 3rd quartile, 1st quartile, interquartile range, median, mode, counts, examining outliers, extreme outliers, standard deviation, skewness, histograms, pie charts, box plots, time series plots, scatterplots, as well as many more, ranging from simple to advanced techniques.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian



You know, I absolutely knew you would say nothing of any substance after I asked you to specify the defects of my experiment and how you would improve it. Psychic ability on my part? No, in all comments in the past you have had never said anything worthwhile or of any subtance, so by inductive reasoning I reasoned you wouldn't this time either.

And I was correct!

Well, whaddya know. :rolleyes:

Ian,

Do you really wish to be spanked again? Naughty boy. You must really wrap your head around the fact that your mind is not really first class. Most of your maunderings suggest it, this latest little hissy fit adds to the suspicion. You strike out when you are on thin ice. You must focus, for your own happiness, on coming to terms with your intellectual mediocrity. It might make you less defensive. If it does not make you happier it certainly will those that must interact with you. You know they think you are a bit of a prig, no? Is that why you drink? You probably think that you have these big thoughts and are misunderstood, don't you? Drown your sorrow at not being recognized by your inferiors for the intellectual giant that you are? I am sure that your therapist has alluded to this sad fact, perhaps in a way too subtle for you to comprehend. You might ask her (it is a she I suspect) to come right out with it. You cannot do it with the people around you since they have tried and now they simply don't trust you.

Be well.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I shall be working out the arithmetical mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, range, 3rd quartile, 1st quartile, interquartile range, median, mode, counts, examining outliers, extreme outliers, standard deviation, skewness, histograms, pie charts, box plots, time series plots, scatterplots, as well as many more, ranging from simple to advanced techniques.

As someone who has taught statistics for a decade, I must ask...WTF?

Mean of what? Mean # of votes? Mean category? Can't be that, they are nominal categories, mean and median do not apply. Same with measures of dispersion...with nominal categories, variability is rather arbitrary.

Skewness and histograms are also inappropriate...same reason...you yourself said the categories were randomly ordered, so skewness (for instance) is impossible to evaluate...

Umm...

Ok, I'm slow today. I think, just perhaps, this is your subtle sense of humor at work...ok, I will admit it. You got me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio


As someone who has taught statistics for a decade, I must ask...WTF?

Mean of what? Mean # of votes? Mean category? Can't be that, they are nominal categories, mean and median do not apply. Same with measures of dispersion...with nominal categories, variability is rather arbitrary.

Skewness and histograms are also inappropriate...same reason...you yourself said the categories were randomly ordered, so skewness (for instance) is impossible to evaluate...

Umm...

Ok, I'm slow today. I think, just perhaps, this is your subtle sense of humor at work...ok, I will admit it. You got me.

LMAO!! :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


Ian,

Do you really wish to be spanked again? Naughty boy. You must really wrap your head around the fact that your mind is not really first class. Most of your maunderings suggest it, this latest little hissy fit adds to the suspicion. You strike out when you are on thin ice. You must focus, for your own happiness, on coming to terms with your intellectual mediocrity. It might make you less defensive. If it does not make you happier it certainly will those that must interact with you. You know they think you are a bit of a prig, no? Is that why you drink? You probably think that you have these big thoughts and are misunderstood, don't you? Drown your sorrow at not being recognized by your inferiors for the intellectual giant that you are? I am sure that your therapist has alluded to this sad fact, perhaps in a way too subtle for you to comprehend. You might ask her (it is a she I suspect) to come right out with it. You cannot do it with the people around you since they have tried and now they simply don't trust you.

Be well.

{farts contemptuously}

[Sindai]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm kind of curious why the card I picked continues to be in the lead. :confused: (Same reasoning I used? A sort of non-descript card in a non-descript position?)

Personally, I think this seems likely.

In fact, looking at the poll right now, I notice a distinct "double hump" distribution, with the least votes at the center and the ends and the most in the two areas between those three areas. This seems like what you would expect to get if most people were trying to pick cards that didn't "stand out" by being in conspicuous positions.

Of course, the way this test is set up, there are so many confounding factors that anything about the outcome is pure speculation, but speculation is fun. :D

[magicflute]

Yup, this is kinda fun although it is a flawed test. Patnray have suggested a tighter format, which does help to eliminate preferences, posistional bias, multiple votes, etc. But I voted anyway! :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Absolute rubbish. Psi missing is one of the more consistent patterns in parapsychological reseach. This certainly need not imply it is likely to be repeated here given that skeptics feelings will not be exactly the same as in proper parapsychological testing.
Really? How does one tell psi missing from just regular missing? How can research that is trying to determine a psi effect assume such a thing as "psi missing"?

To me, it sounds remarkably like a way to explain away negative results while keeping the positive results. Or worse, to interpret negative results a positive results, like saying, "The ten consecutive prove that "psi hits" are real, and the the ten consecutive misses prove that "psi missing" also is real. How can you lose with such a rigged system?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mercutio


As someone who has taught statistics for a decade, I must ask...WTF?

Mean of what? Mean # of votes? Mean category? Can't be that, they are nominal categories, mean and median do not apply. Same with measures of dispersion...with nominal categories, variability is rather arbitrary.

Skewness and histograms are also inappropriate...same reason...you yourself said the categories were randomly ordered, so skewness (for instance) is impossible to evaluate...

Maybe you were making a joke, Ian, but Mercutio makes a good point. Shouldn't you let someone familiar with statistics make the evaluation? Since you have already trusted Mercutio with the actual card, it seems you could trust him a little further to do the analysis, especially in light of his knowledge of such things. How about it?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I fully acknowledge that people can screw the test up. I'm baffled as to why people should want to. Are skeptics not confident of getting a negative result?? :confused:

The problem with polls and stuff on internet message boards is... they're internet message boards. Some people like to muck with online things just because they can. Skepticism doesn't come into the equation for them.

[JesFine]

10 of clubs. Skeptic. Not really sure how I chose. I just picked one.

[S. D. Youngren]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Absolute rubbish. Psi missing is one of the more consistent patterns in parapsychological reseach.




Also known as doubling one's chances. I'm not surprised it's popular.

This certainly need not imply it is likely to be repeated here given that skeptics feelings will not be exactly the same as in proper parapsychological testing.

I don't think I'm following you here.

By the way:

Eight of Hearts. It just "wanted" me to. Skeptic.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I shall be working out the arithmetical mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, range, 3rd quartile, 1st quartile, interquartile range, median, mode, counts, examining outliers, extreme outliers, standard deviation, skewness, histograms, pie charts, box plots, time series plots, scatterplots, as well as many more, ranging from simple to advanced techniques.

LOL, wtf Ian? :)

I said the above in a post a few days ago.

[S. D. Youngren]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


In order to judge if the results can not be explained by random chance, you have to be able to calculate the probability of a hit. With the book test as originally suggested this is not possible. With the playing card test you need at least 260 trials to calculate a chi-squared significance. So you're right, Zener cards would tie this down to manageable numbers.


Chi squares? I know they're easy and cute, but I'm not sure about using them here.

This really should have been addressed beforehand. Yes, Ian, I know; you weren't planning on getting into all that. But you also should have known that you'd have people here wanting your experiment to look like one.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by S. D. Youngren
Chi squares? I know they're easy and cute, but I'm not sure about using them here.

Why's that?

Paj <=== Not an expert.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie
Paj,

Did you use a poll with your list of books? It makes it a lot easier to participate.

You only have to send me a PM. It's not much harder than clicking a poll then posting your reply on a thread, as most people have been more than happy to do here. Maybe it's the lack of immediate response (not seeing how everyone else has voted) that doesn't light people's fires.

Even you said that a set book test might be fun to do, but you have not participated. I feel so.. used. :rs:

(The books are at http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


You only have to send me a PM. It's not much harder than clicking a poll then posting your reply on a thread, as most people have been more than happy to do here. Maybe it's the lack of immediate response (not seeing how everyone else has voted) that doesn't light people's fires.

Even you said that a set book test might be fun to do, but you have not participated. I feel so.. used. :rs:

(The books are at http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php)

Paj, if I were you I'd put the link to your random book displaying site in your sig line for maximum exposure. :)

[LuxFerum]

I vote for Q of Hearts.:)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Really? How does one tell psi missing from just regular missing? How can research that is trying to determine a psi effect assume such a thing as "psi missing"?

To me, it sounds remarkably like a way to explain away negative results while keeping the positive results. Or worse, to interpret negative results a positive results, like saying, "The ten consecutive prove that "psi hits" are real, and the the ten consecutive misses prove that "psi missing" also is real. How can you lose with such a rigged system?

Psi missing is scoring below chance to a statistically significant extent. It's not rigged at all. First of all they establish who are the skeptics and believers, and then carry out a test to investigate the hypothesis that believers will psi hit and skeptics will psi miss. So even if overall the result is according to chance, if skeptics do tend to psi miss in the experiment, and believers tend to psi hit, then that would give some evidence for the hypothesis.

You see?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Sindai


Personally, I think this seems likely.

In fact, looking at the poll right now, I notice a distinct "double hump" distribution, with the least votes at the center and the ends and the most in the two areas between those three areas. This seems like what you would expect to get if most people were trying to pick cards that didn't "stand out" by being in conspicuous positions.

Of course, the way this test is set up, there are so many confounding factors that anything about the outcome is pure speculation, but speculation is fun. :D

Yes, it is clear that people psychologically are favouring certain positions in the list. Thus, even if I used zener cards, it could well be the case that people would prefer the 2nd and 4th positions on the list no matter what the symbols are there. This is not to mention that people might favour certain symbols eg circles over wavy lines. Thus in any single test one would need to know precisely the extent of this prejudice before being able to come to any conclusions ie any anomalous effect is swamped by peoples favouring certain positions and symbols.

Now one way I could get around this were if I carried out 2 tests, one where I do not pick out a card and people just arbitrarily choose a card, the other where I choose a card and people try to psychically detect it. The other way is simply to carry out a very large number of tests.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by magicflute
Yup, this is kinda fun although it is a flawed test. Patnray have suggested a tighter format, which does help to eliminate preferences, posistional bias, multiple votes, etc. But I voted anyway! :p

If I recall he suggested that I should be testing out some hypothesis. But that does not seem to me to be a good idea until one first of all collects data.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Oh. I forgot that everyone else might be reading my mind!
:)

Seriously, that's a funny choice...seems like such a "nothing card". (Don't most people tend to choose face cards? Or is that too obvious?)


Yes people do. That was one of the original problem with the proper birth of parapsychology in the 1930's. People did prefer face cards. This is why zener cards were developed.

However, I felt that simply putting something like the Queen of hearts in text, as opposed to presenting a graphical representation of the Queen of hearts, would nullify this tendency. It seems I was correct. However people are obviously favouring the 7 of clubs. I was half thinking of substituting this card for another card as well. Oh well.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


LOL, wtf Ian? :)

I said the above in a post a few days ago.

Er . .yes . ..sorry! LOL Just thought I'd use it as a joke cos it sounded so impressive :)

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
. However people are obviously favouring the 7 of clubs. I psychically predicted that. I have passed both of your tests. I am going to set up my own £1.50 a minute hot line.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Psi missing is scoring below chance to a statistically significant extent. It's not rigged at all. First of all they establish who are the skeptics and believers, and then carry out a test to investigate the hypothesis that believers will psi hit and skeptics will psi miss. So even if overall the result is according to chance, if skeptics do tend to psi miss in the experiment, and believers tend to psi hit, then that would give some evidence for the hypothesis.

You see?
Again, that sounds like data-fitting to me. "Oh, he missed because he is a skeptic", sort of thing. As has been discussed here, even in well-controlled tests where there is some suggestion of telepathy, the number of hits is so close to random that it requires meta-analysis to support the psi hypothesis.

I also recall reading in one of Randi's books (don't remember which one), where a researchers had suggested that individual subjects were fluctuating between "psi hitting" and "psi missing", depending on their mood. They then threw out all the "psi misses" because it was "obvious" the subject was unconsciously picking against what his telepathy saw. It made their results look remarkably good. Go figure.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tricky

Again, that sounds like data-fitting to me. "Oh, he missed because he is a skeptic", sort of thing. As has been discussed here, even in well-controlled tests where there is some suggestion of telepathy, the number of hits is so close to random that it requires meta-analysis to support the psi hypothesis.

I also recall reading in one of Randi's books (don't remember which one), where a researchers had suggested that individual subjects were fluctuating between "psi hitting" and "psi missing", depending on their mood. They then threw out all the "psi misses" because it was "obvious" the subject was unconsciously picking against what his telepathy saw. It made their results look remarkably good. Go figure.
Psi missing does make data mining easier, but if the protocol and statistical method is specified in advance, you could easily make a legitimate experiment that included psi missing, and even fluctuation between missing and hitting depending on mood.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Again, that sounds like data-fitting to me.


{shrugs}

As I explained, it's not.



I also recall reading in one of Randi's books

Rule number 1

The serious student of parapsychology should never take anything that Randi says at face value, or indeed any skeptic. Always do your homework for yourself.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Rule number 1

The serious student of parapsychology should never take anything that Randi says at face value, or indeed any skeptic.....
....While accounts from believers should always be accepted without question. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Psi missing is scoring below chance to a statistically significant extent. It's not rigged at all. First of all they establish who are the skeptics and believers, and then carry out a test to investigate the hypothesis that believers will psi hit and skeptics will psi miss. So even if overall the result is according to chance, if skeptics do tend to psi miss in the experiment, and believers tend to psi hit, then that would give some evidence for the hypothesis.
You mean a skeptic actually has psi abilities, but because he's a skeptic he uses them subconsciously to produce worse than average results? Wow, if we could throw some sex in there, too, Freud would be dancing in his grave!

How about doing the experiment first, tallying who had positive and negative results, and then letting a third party determine who is a believer and who is a skeptic?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You mean a skeptic actually has psi abilities, but because he's a skeptic he uses them subconsciously to produce worse than average results? Wow, if we could throw some sex in there, too, Freud would be dancing in his grave!

~~ Paul

And this is something else I've screwed up (as well as not using zener cards etc) by mentioning it in the first place. Basically there is no point in doing any future testing on this board since people will have read this thread, know about psi missing, and this will subconsciously effect their voting.

I'm going to have to do any further testing on another board. Any suggestions anyone? I need 10 options for the 5 zener cards because people will have to say whether or not they are a believer or skeptic as well as choosing a card.

Maybe I could carry out this experiment on 3 or 4 boards. Any suggestions welcome.

Can't do any further tests on this board.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Psi missing does make data mining easier, but if the protocol and statistical method is specified in advance, you could easily make a legitimate experiment that included psi missing, and even fluctuation between missing and hitting depending on mood.
Certainly you could set up such an experiment, but to what purpose? The single and most important thing is to determine a psi effect. To that end, one need only test people who believe in and think they posess psychic powers. If they cannot on average have significantly more hits than misses, then it is pointless to try to find out how mood or skepticism affects an effect that has not been demonstrated.

Essentially, paranormal researchers should prove they can do simple algebra before they move on to calculus.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And this is something else I've screwed up (as well as not using zener cards etc) by mentioning it in the first place. Basically there is no point in doing any future testing on this board since people will have read this thread, know about psi missing, and this will subconsciously effect their voting.

I'm going to have to do any further testing on another board. Any suggestions anyone? I need 10 options for the 5 zener cards because people will have to say whether or not they are a believer or skeptic as well as choosing a card.

Maybe I could carry out this experiment on 3 or 4 boards. Any suggestions welcome.

Can't do any further tests on this board.
LOL. That is priceless, Ian. You tell us we should learn more, but then you say we can't be good subjects because we know too much. This has to go into the Lame Excuses Hall of Fame.

Maybe it would help confuse us if you ran away some more.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


And this is something else I've screwed up (as well as not using zener cards etc) by mentioning it in the first place. Basically there is no point in doing any future testing on this board since people will have read this thread, know about psi missing, and this will subconsciously effect their voting.

I'm going to have to do any further testing on another board. Any suggestions anyone? I need 10 options for the 5 zener cards because people will have to say whether or not they are a believer or skeptic as well as choosing a card.

Maybe I could carry out this experiment on 3 or 4 boards. Any suggestions welcome.

Can't do any further tests on this board. Ian,

You are starting to see the light. You are so close to an hypotheses. Have a good think. If the same experiment was done on a board of believers as one of sceptics, would you expect the same results ? If not why not ? What would cause the difference ? How can you test it to ensure that the only reason for any difference must be due to your supposed reason ?

[asthmatic camel]

I chose 3 of hearts in the almost certain knowledge that it would be the least popular choice as the first card in the list. BINGO :D

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tricky

Certainly you could set up such an experiment, but to what purpose? The single and most important thing is to determine a psi effect. To that end, one need only test people who believe in and think they posess psychic powers. If they cannot on average have significantly more hits than misses, then it is pointless to try to find out how mood or skepticism affects an effect that has not been demonstrated.
I'll have to disagree here, they need to prove some effect or another, but it doesn't have to be more hits. Less hits would do the trick, as well as some sort of patern to the hits - presuming this patern could be replicated.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
I chose 3 of hearts in the almost certain knowledge that it would be the least popular choice as the first card in the list. BINGO :D

This illustrates 2 fundamental problems.

[list=a]
People are ignoring my request to go by their feelings about which is the correct card.
Some people are deliberately choosing a card which will even out the scores thereby proving evidence of no psi.
[/list=a]

And this is also where psi missing comes in. Skeptics sub-consciously want the experiment to fail, and therefore will use their psi abilities to choose a card which is not the target. Or alternatively, in common with AC, they might choose a card which they feel people will not choose, either because of its position in the voting list, or because of the rank/suit of the card.

[asthmatic camel]

Precisely Ian, that's why so many of us find experiments like this of such little worth.

[magicflute]

Father: 'Son, I am very dissapointed; you got a 16 in you History exam yesterday!"
Son: "Oh, that's ok Dad, I really passed the test. My teacher said I was Psi Missing!"

When you win you win and when you lose you win. I wish I could get those kinds of odds in Las Vegas!

[TheBoyPaj]

Your experiment also assumes that most people have psychic powers and that these will manifest themselves on demand. People who claim psychic powers often say that they can not turn them on and off, and that it is only over time that they become apparent.

So, instead of doing one test and seeing if there is a skew to the chosen card, rather you should be doing many tests and seeing if any one person outperforms chance. After all, if such powers exist, chances are they will be better developed in certain individuals.

I have in my mind a live testing webpage, with video feed of a person chooing Zener cards in one corner, a simple click and select form for choosing cards in another corner and a chat applet for communication with the tester. Results could be calculated automatically and displayed almost instantly. If I had time I'd do it myself, but if anyone wants a project...

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

And this is also where psi missing comes in. Skeptics sub-consciously ..use their psi abilities to choose a card which is not the target. . And some skeptics, to counter any proof of psi missing (which could in turn prove psi) deliberately tune into their real psi abilities to psi hit. The result of which makes for skeptics a nice bell curve centred on chance. Proving that psi-missing and psi hitting are occurring equally and making it look like psi does not exist and we are merely seeing the results we would expect. Ba$tards.

[asthmatic camel]

Careful Lothian, I raised this with Ian before and was insulted as a result. It's obviously far too sensible an opinion to hold water when opposed to the superior beliefs of the Interesting one. :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I'll have to disagree here, they need to prove some effect or another, but it doesn't have to be more hits. Less hits would do the trick, as well as some sort of patern to the hits - presuming this patern could be replicated.
I agree, but why make things difficult. Go for the straightforward answer with non-skeptics who think they have powers. Over a large number of experiments, you should find some of the "real" telepaths and their powers should work "some" of the time. The rest of the guesses will average out, and you will be left with a residual positive outcome. Once this has been established (which I do not believe it has), then you can go on to more complex variations. Investigators should not start out with the complex variations.

To use an analogy, Mendel had to show the basic patterns of inheritance worked (overall) before we could go on to complex questions such as mutations and linked traits.

[asthmatic camel]

3 of Hearts 7 5.38%
8 of Hearts 14 10.77%
4 of Diamonds 18 13.85%
K of Spades 14 10.77%
9 of Spades 9 6.92%
10 of Clubs 9 6.92%
7 of Clubs 24 18.46%
J of Diamonds 16 12.31%
Q of Hearts 10 7.69%
2 of Spades 9 6.92%
Total: 130 votes 100%

Trouble is here Ian, statistically, my guess at the 3 of hearts is just as likely to be correct as any other. Look at the results... 1st card and last card get few votes as do the two in the middle. There seems to be a psychological effect here which I have witnessed many times.

Nowthen, if I have indeed guessed correctly, and the 3 of hearts is the correct card, what conclusion would you draw ? That there has been no "psi" effect or that there has been deliberate "psi missing" ?

Pointless exercise; six out of the ten cards are far more likely to be chosen than the others.

Better experiment please.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
3 of Hearts 7 5.38%
8 of Hearts 14 10.77%
4 of Diamonds 18 13.85%
K of Spades 14 10.77%
9 of Spades 9 6.92%
10 of Clubs 9 6.92%
7 of Clubs 24 18.46%
J of Diamonds 16 12.31%
Q of Hearts 10 7.69%
2 of Spades 9 6.92%
Total: 130 votes 100%

Trouble is here Ian, statistically, my guess at the 3 of hearts is just as likely to be correct as any other. Look at the results... 1st card and last card get few votes as do the two in the middle. There seems to be a psychological effect here which I have witnessed many times.

Nowthen, if I have indeed guessed correctly, and the 3 of hearts is the correct card, what conclusion would you draw ? That there has been no "psi" effect or that there has been deliberate "psi missing" ?

Pointless exercise; six out of the ten cards are far more likely to be chosen than the others.

Better experiment please.

I've already addressed this earlier on today. Why don't you learn to read? To paste in what I said:

Yes, it is clear that people psychologically are favouring certain positions in the list. Thus, even if I used zener cards, it could well be the case that people would prefer the 2nd and 4th positions on the list no matter what the symbols are there. This is not to mention that people might favour certain symbols eg circles over wavy lines. Thus in any single test one would need to know precisely the extent of this prejudice before being able to come to any conclusions ie any anomalous effect is swamped by peoples favouring certain positions and symbols.

Now one way I could get around this were if I carried out 2 tests, one where I do not pick out a card and people just arbitrarily choose a card, the other where I choose a card and people try to psychically detect it. The other way is simply to carry out a very large number of tests.

[voidx]

PSI missing? Wow. That's a good one. You're trying to assign a negative attribute to skeptics. So rather than just us getting below chance, which is possible, it is now construed as a negative PSI ability. So you assume we have some PSI ability in the first place, which makes no sense. If we score less than chance, thats the entire explanation right there. In this sampe size we averaged less than chance. This is not really surprising I don't think. But you want to label that PSI missing, so any potential PSI hitting seems more impressive. You want to quantify any less than chance performances from skeptics, so that any positive performances by PSI'ers looks good. But we're not testing for how people miss, we're testing for people getting above chance results. This is just a potential distraction if you ask me.

Edited to add: your testing for the presence of PSI and so that must be shown in an above chance performance. To get less than chance does not invoke the possibility of the tested for phenomenon at all so why is it a PSI miss rather than just...a miss.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Trouble is here Ian, statistically, my guess at the 3 of hearts is just as likely to be correct as any other. Look at the results... 1st card and last card get few votes as do the two in the middle. There seems to be a psychological effect here which I have witnessed many times.

Nowthen, if I have indeed guessed correctly, and the 3 of hearts is the correct card, what conclusion would you draw ? That there has been no "psi" effect or that there has been deliberate "psi missing" ?

Pointless exercise; six out of the ten cards are far more likely to be chosen than the others.

Better experiment please.
It really doesn't matter which cards are psychologically preferred. If the actual card selection is random, the preferred and non-preferred cards will be the target just as often. Over a large number of trials, the results will balance out. But this requires a sizable number of tests, and Ian has already indicated that he will not do this. In fact, he has not even completed his first test. If I had to guess (or use my "psi" abilities to read Ian's mind ;) ) I would say that Ian got bad results on his first test and immediately started looking for excuses. I suspect that had the 7 been the actual card, Ian would be trumpeting his "success".

Now, if Mercutio would reveal the card, I could see if this is in fact the case. I sense that Ian has a certain reluctance to do so, even though many of us here, including myself, would agree that a single test means nothing. Quitting and making excuses means quite a bit.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Tricky

Now, if Mercutio would reveal the card, I could see if this is in fact the case. I sense that Ian has a certain reluctance to do so, even though many of us here, including myself, would agree that a single test means nothing. Quitting and making excuses means quite a bit. Ian said he would reveal the card on Monday, I believe. You are wanting him to break his protocol--for understandable reasons, but there have been over 30 votes since you suggested he would not get any more votes. I am certain Ian will reveal the card, either on Monday or when he is convinced the voting is over. Meanwhile, Tricky, I resent ever-so-slightly the implication that I would be more likely to break protocol than Ian would be.:D

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tricky

I agree, but why make things difficult. Go for the straightforward answer with non-skeptics who think they have powers. Over a large number of experiments, you should find some of the "real" telepaths and their powers should work "some" of the time. The rest of the guesses will average out, and you will be left with a residual positive outcome. Once this has been established (which I do not believe it has), then you can go on to more complex variations. Investigators should not start out with the complex variations.
I agree that this would be far simpler, but any experiment which is watertight (which this one isn't) is OK with me, if believers want to make life more difficult for them selves then that's their own problem.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
And this is something else I've screwed up (as well as not using zener cards etc) by mentioning it in the first place. Basically there is no point in doing any future testing on this board since people will have read this thread, know about psi missing, and this will subconsciously effect their voting.
All righty then.

Ian said:
People are ignoring my request to go by their feelings about which is the correct card.
I don't have any feelings about which is the correct card!

Lothian said:
Ba$tards.
We are, aren't we?

What happens if the psi hitting people do telepathy while the psi missing people do remote viewing while the psi neutral people do backtime micro-PK?

~~ Paul

[roger]

Originally posted by Tricky

It really doesn't matter which cards are psychologically preferred. If the actual card selection is random, the preferred and non-preferred cards will be the target just as often. Over a large number of trials, the results will balance out. But this requires a sizable number of tests, and Ian has already indicated that he will not do this.Actually, all that is required is that the card presentation order for each testee be randomized, not for each test. Rather faster.

But of course your response assumed the protocol for this test, which of course does not allow that option (one of many, many things wrong with this trial).

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by roger
Actually, all that is required is that the card presentation order for each testee be randomized, not for each test. Rather faster.

Cough. Mine does this.

(oh, the url? If you insist: http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php)

[roger]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Cough. Mine does this.Nice.

[Marvel Frozen]

3 of Hearts 7 5.38%
8 of Hearts 14 10.77%
4 of Diamonds 18 13.85%
K of Spades 14 10.77%
9 of Spades 9 6.92%
10 of Clubs 9 6.92%
7 of Clubs 24 18.46%
J of Diamonds 16 12.31%
Q of Hearts 10 7.69%
2 of Spades 9 6.92%
Total: 130 votes 100%

Trouble is here Ian, statistically, my guess at the 3 of hearts is just as likely to be correct as any other. Look at the results... 1st card and last card get few votes as do the two in the middle. There seems to be a psychological effect here which I have witnessed many times.

Another problem is the selection of cards. There's no 5 or 6. There's also only 2 Diamonds, and Clubs but 3 Spades & Hearts. Before even looking at the results, I predicted that 4 and 7 would have higher results, and Spades and Hearts would have lower results. Looking at the results, that's exactly what I saw. I guess I'm psychic :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Ian said he would reveal the card on Monday, I believe. You are wanting him to break his protocol--for understandable reasons, but there have been over 30 votes since you suggested he would not get any more votes. I am certain Ian will reveal the card, either on Monday or when he is convinced the voting is over. Meanwhile, Tricky, I resent ever-so-slightly the implication that I would be more likely to break protocol than Ian would be.:D
Then I apologize. I did not realize that there was a specific time when the card would be revealed. (These threads get awfully long!). However, since Ian has already declared the test invalid, that's sort of a moot point. I would never dare suggest that you break your solemn oath, even for such a rat-catcher. But I do take a sort of perverse pride in being able to rile the impassive Mercutio, even "ever-so-slightly". :p

[Suddenly]

If there are people out there that are able to use psychic power to identify an otherwise unseen playing card, may I suggest skipping Randi's puny 1 million dollar challenge and move to the big time. (http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/tournamentgallery/wsop/wsop.htm)

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I've already addressed this earlier on today. Why don't you learn to read? To paste in what I said:

Yes, it is clear that people psychologically are favouring certain positions in the list. Thus, even if I used zener cards, it could well be the case that people would prefer the 2nd and 4th positions on the list no matter what the symbols are there. This is not to mention that people might favour certain symbols eg circles over wavy lines. Thus in any single test one would need to know precisely the extent of this prejudice before being able to come to any conclusions ie any anomalous effect is swamped by peoples favouring certain positions and symbols.

Now one way I could get around this were if I carried out 2 tests, one where I do not pick out a card and people just arbitrarily choose a card, the other where I choose a card and people try to psychically detect it. The other way is simply to carry out a very large number of tests.

I apologise Ian. I'd missed that statement. The point still stands though. This experiment is flawed. Kindly design an experiment which doesn't waste posters' time trying to prove something which has never been conclusively shown to exist.

I don't know which card you chose, I'm not even sure if you are legit. Still, I'd like to know, if my choice was correct, whether or not you would consider me a psychic. Possibly it was a sceptic psi hit as I couldn't give a toss about the experiment and my psi powers were therefore allowed full rein ?

Please continue folks, nothing to see here.

[phildonnia]

I voted for 7C since it seemed like the most boring card in the group, and I figured it would probably be the least popular. Surprise! it was the most popular. I wonder what kind of psychology is at work here.

I don't think this will go a long way toward proving any kind of psychic connection. Since everyone has similar symbols and models in their minds, everyone will tend to choose the same thing when given seemingly random options. This is why men always choose the urinal second-to the left if there are no other pressures.

It's like those old parlor tricks where you think of a country that begins with 'D', and your choice is pretty easy to predict.

[Prester John]

Voted for the first card that came to mind. Skeptic.

[Interesting Ian]

Come on son! You can do it! You can win! Keep voting folks!! :)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Come on son! You can do it! You can win! Keep voting folks!! :) ooh...how Oedipal...

154 votes...that more than doubles the highest vote-getting language award. And I have not even voted on this thread...nor has my sock. That settles it, Ian...from now on, I want you to actively advertise for the language award threads...

What is your secret with polls?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
ooh...how Oedipal...

154 votes...that more than doubles the highest vote-getting language award. And I have not even voted on this thread...nor has my sock. That settles it, Ian...from now on, I want you to actively advertise for the language award threads...

What is your secret with polls?

Dunno. But also every thread I start seems to go on for at least 10 pages as well! :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Dunno. But also every thread I start seems to go on for at least 10 pages as well! :p
I'm guessing it is the same sort of thing that has people lining up to throw a ball and make the clown fall into the water tank. The job of the clown is to keep shouting out insults at the crowd to keep them pitching.

[asthmatic camel]

Mercutio, I demand that this thread be deleted immediately. The experiment is poor, the experimentor is piss-poor. I am pissed; Mrs. Camel will not be when she returns. I shall direct her attention to this thread in order that I may slide into bed surreptisiously with the dog, who doesn't nag, doesn't demand expen