Help Wiseman: Do you have Sixth Sense?

[CFLarsen]

Richard Wiseman is currently running a study at the Edinburg International Science Festival, and asks for participants:

Do you have Sixth Sense?

Would you like to find out how emotionally intelligent your are?? Just click Sixth Sense to take part in the UK's largest study to test intuition.

The experiment:
• The public are invited to go online (www.sciencefestival.co.uk), look at a series of specially commissioned photographic portraits of people smiling, and decide whether the smiles are genuine or fake.
• Participants will also be asked to complete a short questionnaire on intuition, allowing researchers to examine the types of people who are especially good at recognising emotion in others.
• Certain parts of each face will be masked (top, bottom, left or right) to help discover which part of the face provides most information.

Everyone taking part in the study will receive feedback about their own intuitive abilities.

Professor Wiseman explained: “The ability to accurately judge the emotions of others is an essential psychological skill in almost every area of life. This study aims to discover who is especially good and bad at this mysterious skill, as well as providing some insight into how people can improve their intuitive abilities.�

He will announce the results of the Sixth Sense study at the end of the Festival on Sunday 10 April.
Source (http://www.sciencefestival.co.uk/index1.html)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Richard Wiseman is currently running a study at the Edinburg International Science Festival, and asks for participants:

Maybe you can help him demonstrate the claimed 'experimenter effect' again?

[Donks]

7 out of 10.

[Nyarlathotep]

I suck, I scored 1 out of 10

[Pragmatist]

4 out of 10, I expected to get 0! :)

[T'ai Chi]

One isn't going to be able to get a lot of scientific knowledge from this activity. It seems it is not cheat-proof in the least.

The general method is to do a 'Save As' on a pic just to see the file names. Then note which ones you select and note your score.

Then select pics again, just changing one of your selections, and note if your score decreases or increases.

Keep doing that until your score is 10 out of 10, and you will have the list of choices that leads to a perfect score.

Sure, they can probably tell that the same person is doing this to get a perfect score, but they couldn't tell if then that 'perfect list' was being fed to other people.

A simple way to help deter this possbility would be to add more pictures, or remove the filenames if possible.

[Donks]

Originally posted by jzs
One isn't going to be able to get a lot of scientific knowledge from this activity. It seems it is not cheat-proof in the least.

The general method is to do a 'Save As' on a pic just to see the file names. Then note which ones you select and note your score.

Then select pics again, just changing one of your selections, and note if your score decreases or increases.

Keep doing that until your score is 10 out of 10, and you will have the list of choices that leads to a perfect score.

Sure, they can probably tell that the same person is doing this to get a perfect score, but they couldn't tell if then that 'perfect list' was being fed to other people.

A simple way to help deter this possbility would be to add more pictures, or remove the filenames if possible.
Yes, this in no way is cheat proof. It's extremely hard to avoid cheating on the internet, just ask porn sites.

In any case, the filenames can't be "removed", the browser needs a filename so it can ask the server for the image. They can be randomly assigned on-the-fly.

ETA: Of course if you really want to cheat, there is little anyone can do to stop you, beyond having hundreds or thousands of image pairs in order to at least make it more tedious to get the correct answer for all.

[Mojo]

7 out of 10. Without cheating.

[Sharon]

Many thanks for taking part, you scored 8 out of a possible 10.

Sharon

[Chocolate Chip]

7 out of 10

[VeronicaX]

7 out of 10 woohoo!!

Now, can anyone tell me which one is the genuine smile? only a part of the face may be shown:

: ) or : )

: or :

; ) or ; )

D or D

) or )

[Garrette]

8 of 10. No cheating.

[Skeptic_Sergeant]

Many thanks for taking part, you scored 7 out of a possible 10.

far better then i thought i would get.

[Harlequin]

10 out of 10!


OK, I cheated - but only by lying about my results.
I really only got 8 out of 10.:D

[DeVega]

4 out of 10! :(

I expected to score more highly as I have been told in the past that I have really good Emotional Intelligence - so I'm a bit shocked!

Some of them were hardly smiles at all! (Yeah, I know, I'm just making excuses for myself now;) )

Harlequin - how did you cheat?

DeVega

[jmercer]

7 out of 10... obviously, no cheating. :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
4 out of 10, I expected to get 0! :)

Can't get connection on either deepnet or firefox browsers.

[Ashles]

6 out of 10.

But those people were kinda funny lookin'.

[alfaniner]

8/10.

I have some questions, though. How were the "genuine" smiles produced? Obviously both pics were taken under the same conditions. Did they tell the subjects "OK, fake smile. OK real smile." To get someone to do it, you don't tell them to smile, you make them smile. Perhaps the photographer was facile in this area.

The other is, a smile is incomplete without the entire facial expression. As a portrait artist, I know that it is difficult to "match the smile to the eyes". The eyes or mouth alone is not usually enough to give you the information.

I doubt there would be much cultural bias as there are (ostensibly) six facial expressions that are universal. Joy, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, and sadness. I credit The Atlas of Facial Expression and a couple of Desmond Moriss' books for teaching me about these.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by alfaniner
8/10.

I have some questions, though. How were the "genuine" smiles produced.
I believe they showed them this:

http://www.penisland.org/

[kookbreaker]

6/10.

Am I psychic yet?

[Yaotl]

8/10

Didn't someone else do this exact experiment already with different pictures?

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I suck, I scored 1 out of 10
That's way below chance... if you are serious, then it's obvious how that happened. Negative ESP.

Me, I got 8...

[EHocking]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Richard Wiseman is currently running a study at the Edinburg International Science Festival, and asks for participants: 7 out of 10. Genuinely thought I would have done better than that. So there you go...

[Kaylee]

9/10 :)

Don't know why this wasn't in the science forum though. Isn't Emotional Intelligence regarded as a legit science ... by everyone?


Originally posted by alfaniner
The other is, a smile is incomplete without the entire facial expression. ... The eyes or mouth alone is not usually enough to give you the information.
I agree.

I doubt there would be much cultural bias as there are (ostensibly) six facial expressions that are universal. Joy, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, and sadness.

That's probably mostly true, but I think there may be some slight exceptions. For example, for a short while I tried to learn American Sign Language (ASL). I didn't find switching from English to ASL a smooth process, especially right after work. It always took me a while to switch gears before I could do the facial expressions appropriately for ASL.

Facial expressions are very important in ASL and would be considered exaggerated by the average desk jockey in corporate America. I personally thought that the facial expression for the why sign looked like frowning. While there were a a lot of things I liked about ASL, the facial expression for the why sign was never one of them.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Can't get connection on either deepnet or firefox browsers.

Eventually managed to get it, but took about 4 mins to load with all graphics missing.

Booted up to my other drive which also has XP on it, and the page loaded up virtually instantaneously with all graphics.

So does the appropriate drive need to be formatted? Or what?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Eventually managed to get it, but took about 4 mins to load with all graphics missing.

Booted up to my other drive which also has XP on it, and the page loaded up virtually instantaneously with all graphics.

So does the appropriate drive need to be formatted? Or what?

Actually I just formatted the appropriate drive a month ago, and I couldn't get loads of websites before then. So I'll stick to the other drive. Trouble is it automatically boots into dodgy drive after 30 secs :mad:

I got 8/10 but I thought I'd get 10/10.

Women should be better at this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jzs
One isn't going to be able to get a lot of scientific knowledge from this activity. It seems it is not cheat-proof in the least.

The general method is to do a 'Save As' on a pic just to see the file names. Then note which ones you select and note your score.

Then select pics again, just changing one of your selections, and note if your score decreases or increases.

Keep doing that until your score is 10 out of 10, and you will have the list of choices that leads to a perfect score.

Sure, they can probably tell that the same person is doing this to get a perfect score, but they couldn't tell if then that 'perfect list' was being fed to other people.



Yes so it's completely meaningless and provides no evidence whatsoever.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes so it's completely meaningless and provides no evidence whatsoever.

Ya know, I am still waiting for that evidence for anything paranormal, no matter what form it comes in.

Got any?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
That's way below chance... if you are serious, then it's obvious how that happened. Negative ESP.

Me, I got 8...

Of course. Psi missing, how could I have not thought of that?;)

Actually, I wonder if I misread the instructions. Either that or I am a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar worse judge of people than I thought I am.

[RichardR]

Many thanks for taking part, you scored 8 out of a possible 10.

Do I get the $Million?

[Palimpsest]

7 out of 10. Which seems to be about average here, not counting negative ESP...

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes so it's completely meaningless and provides no evidence whatsoever.

Quite. It's not a "sixth sense" experiment at all. I guess Wiseman put that phrase in there to test the people who reckon they actually are psychic. He's just testing his hypothesis that intuition has nothing to do with psi but with normal psychology, in this case normal visual processing. After the experiment, I wonder whether he will proclaim that this is evidence for a deulsional basis for belief in psi ability :rolleyes:

[Darat]

6 out of 10.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Richard Wiseman is currently running a study at the Edinburg International Science Festival, and asks for participants:

I didn't actually read this, being remarkably lazy, but I think when people refer to the sixth sense or to intuition, they are really thinking of those subtle sense cues we all get that (which?) - please help me with my grammar!!! - lets us recognize someone, for example, by their body movements caught out of the corner of the eye or from a distance - that kind of thing. Or the tone of the voice which says much more than the actual content of the language.

[EdipisReks]

i scored a 5 out of 10. i will reward myself with breakfast.

[alfaniner]

I'm curious as to if there's a correllation for the pictures that those of us who got 8/10 got wrong. I'd suspect it would be the "eyes only" and "mouth only" ones.

[Vitnir]

8 out of 10 and I suspect I got the last pictures with eyes only backwards.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Quite. It's not a "sixth sense" experiment at all. I guess Wiseman put that phrase in there to test the people who reckon they actually are psychic. He's just testing his hypothesis that intuition has nothing to do with psi but with normal psychology, in this case normal visual processing. After the experiment, I wonder whether he will proclaim that this is evidence for a deulsional basis for belief in psi ability :rolleyes: Has anyone considered that that the actual test results going to be based on the 6 questions you fill in before you take the "test"?

For instance, two of my responses were (paraphrasing);

(4) "I trust my initial feelings about people"
(6) "My initial feelings about people are (probably not) always right".

(edited for a repeat of "axshully")

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid
I didn't actually read this, being remarkably lazy, but I think when people refer to the sixth sense or to intuition, they are really thinking of those subtle sense cues we all get that (which?) - please help me with my grammar!!! - lets us recognize someone, for example, by their body movements caught out of the corner of the eye or from a distance - that kind of thing. Or the tone of the voice which says much more than the actual content of the language.

Sixth sense refers to anomalous cognition. The experiment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the paranormal. But of course the complete morons on here think it does. Yet again sKeptics demonstrate their mind numbing awesome stupidity.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes so it's completely meaningless and provides no evidence whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ya know, I am still waiting for that evidence for anything paranormal, no matter what form it comes in.

Got any?[/B]

I didn't understand your question before in that it seemed to be a total non-sequitur. That was before people on here started talking about the 6th sense and David Smith's response to me. So, this test is supposed to be about the paranormal is it?? In that case could someone kindly enlighten me and inform me what the flying f*ck this has to do with the paranormal?? Obviously, Claus, you think it does. Does your stupidity know of any limits whatsoever?? :eek:

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Quite. It's not a "sixth sense" experiment at all. I guess Wiseman put that phrase in there to test the people who reckon they actually are psychic. He's just testing his hypothesis that intuition has nothing to do with psi but with normal psychology, in this case normal visual processing. After the experiment, I wonder whether he will proclaim that this is evidence for a deulsional basis for belief in psi ability :rolleyes:

I think you are probably right. :)

Whatever Wiseman eventually claims, I can guarantee you, he will get it reported in several newspapers. How does he do this? :)

[Alkatran]

9/10, pick the bigger mouth and squintier eyes.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I didn't understand your question before in that it seemed to be a total non-sequitur. That was before people on here started talking about the 6th sense and David Smith's response to me. So, this test is supposed to be about the paranormal is it?? In that case could someone kindly enlighten me and inform me what the flying f*ck this has to do with the paranormal?? Obviously, Claus, you think it does. Does your stupidity know of any limits whatsoever?? :eek:

Good old Ian. Never changes.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by EHocking
Has anyone considered that that the actual test results going to be based on the 6 questions you fill in before you take the "test"?

For instance, two of my responses were (paraphrasing);

(4) "I trust my initial feelings about people"
(6) "My initial feelings about people are (probably not) always right".

(edited for a repeat of "axshully")


Absolutely. But these questions have to be correlated with how you perform at the actual test. He's basically trying to show that people who answer 4 and 6 score well at the visual test, or something like that. If the experiment is a success, he may go on to speculate that people who trust their initial feelings about people also tend to believe in psi, and because subjective assessment of intuition ability has just been shown to correlate with success at a test that "simulates" intuition but involves only normal psychology, psi can be equated with intuition in this way. Of course, Wiseman may not speculate that at all. We'll have to wait and see.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I think you are probably right. :)

Whatever Wiseman eventually claims, I can guarantee you, he will get it reported in several newspapers. How does he do this? :)

It's who you know;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
It's who you know;)

Could you elaborate?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Could you elaborate?

it is which person or persons an indefinately specified person is aquainted with

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
it is which person or persons an indefinately specified person is aquainted with

I didn't ask for a reiteration. I asked for an elaboration.

Do you mean that Wiseman gets coverage, because he knows people? What people does he know?

[Flo]

4 out of 10, but I haven't yet received my new glasses ;)

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sixth sense refers to anomalous cognition. The experiment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the paranormal. But of course the complete morons on here think it does. Yet again sKeptics demonstrate their mind numbing awesome stupidity.

WHAT? You're saying that "sKeptics demonstrate their mind numbing awesome stupidity" because "the complete morons on here think it does" have something "to do with the paranormal"??!!

So, skeptics (sorry, I won't use your childish formatting in my own sentences) believe in the paranormal??!

Congratulations! You've invented another DefinitIAN - The ability to take a word and define it to mean whatever you want, regardless of any dictionary definition or any common sense or logic whatsoever.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
It's who you know;)

Yeah, I think you are probably right :)

[Soapy Sam]

Six. Bland as ever.

I do wonder what's meant by "genuine"smile. As all the pictures are clearly posed- same clothes, variations mostly in lighting- how would anyone know which is "genuine"- including the smilers?

Give me a 'real"smile.

Great.

Now give me a pretend one.

Eh?

I don't think the distinction is meaningful.

[Sharon]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Absolutely. But these questions have to be correlated with how you perform at the actual test. He's basically trying to show that people who answer 4 and 6 score well at the visual test, or something like that. If the experiment is a success, he may go on to speculate that people who trust their initial feelings about people also tend to believe in psi, and because subjective assessment of intuition ability has just been shown to correlate with success at a test that "simulates" intuition but involves only normal psychology, psi can be equated with intuition in this way. Of course, Wiseman may not speculate that at all. We'll have to wait and see.

If he does go on to say this I personally think he makes a valid point.I'm an ex tarot reader and I did well 8/10. As an ex tarot reader I now look back and realise I 'must' have been picking on on facial expressions and in turn this lead me to continue with the 'point' I was making in the reading or not but genuienly believed it was psi, at the time.

Sharon

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Six. Bland as ever.

I do wonder what's meant by "genuine"smile. As all the pictures are clearly posed- same clothes, variations mostly in lighting- how would anyone know which is "genuine"- including the smilers?

Give me a 'real"smile.

Great.

Now give me a pretend one.

Eh?

I don't think the distinction is meaningful.
As someone who scored the same as you did, I must agree. I think the effort is to find which facial features people use to make a judgement.
But I think the whole process is more dynamic than that. How fast do you smile when someone says, "Smile , please," versus when someone points out that there's a vole in your knickers. Now that's a spontaneous fookin' smile, it is!

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
As someone who scored the same as you did, I must agree. I think the effort is to find which facial features people use to make a judgement.


I think thre must be something significant and special about the people who got 6/10.


Originally posted by Jeff Corey

But I think the whole process is more dynamic than that. How fast do you smile when someone says, "Smile , please," versus when someone points out that there's a vole in your knickers. Now that's a spontaneous fookin' smile, it is!

Smile at that? In this household that's just a "What - again?".

But I agree with Soapy and you, someone has already made a judgement about which is a real smile or not before. Perhaps all we are seeing is that some people agree with that assessment more then others?

(Isn't there some evidence/research that a "real smile" is physiologically different to a "smile and say cheese" type of smile, uses different muscles and the like?)

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Darat
(Isn't there some evidence/research that a "real smile" is physiologically different to a "smile and say cheese" type of smile, uses different muscles and the like?)
Yes, I think I've heard something about that as well. Especially concerning the muscles around the eyes (which makes one of my old teachers pretty fake).

Anyway, I got a 7/10, but I think this test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/index.shtml) is a little bit more fair. Here you'll see 20 video clips and you'll get the answers when you're done. My score here was better than 50%, enough said.

[Open Mind]

This Wiseman trial seems pointless unless he is up to something sneaky like asking people not to feel happy but tighten eye area muscles etc.? ... not that even this would be meaningful, many people will judge those faces by facial tightness, wideness of grin, etc. not by feeling at all, even if they normally do, it is a test, that means more conscious analysis by people who might normally use feeling. (I know I did to get 7 out of 10) ..Also smiling makes people feel happier, etc.

What does Wiseman hope to achieve from this pseudo 'sixth sense' trial? Does anyone doubt people can read faces?

Or did anyone really doubt people can let their imagination run wild in a virtual/real haunted location when asked what they are feeling?

How do these really relate to honestly looking for a sixth sense?

Are Wiseman's trials genuinely for the benefit of psychology/ parapsychology.....or for public opinion shaping?

Professor Richard Wiseman was awarded Britain's first Professorship in the Public Understanding of Psychology …… Sort of goes nicely with his CSICOP Public Education In Science Award (very nicely given to their fellow consultant editor) .…. Some of his experiments have been funded by COPUS (the committee on the Public Understanding of Science).

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sixth sense refers to anomalous cognition. The experiment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the paranormal. But of course the complete morons on here think it does. Yet again sKeptics demonstrate their mind numbing awesome stupidity. Yes, Ian.

Those stupid Shttp://mail.wghs.net/~ict/kanim.gifeptics, once again, are dogmatically asserting that a psychological phenomenon has something to do with the paranormal.

They're like that.

Do you need to lie down for a bit, get some sleep, maybe?

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Thomas
Yes, I think I've heard something about that as well. Especially concerning the muscles around the eyes (which makes one of my old teachers pretty fake).

Anyway, I got a 7/10, but I think this test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/index.shtml) is a little bit more fair. Here you'll see 20 video clips and you'll get the answers when you're done. My score here was better than 50%, enough said. I don't know about "more fair" but I agree that it is a little more extensive as it gathers more data points and doesn't purport to be a test of a sixth sense. Wiseman's test doesn't either, so I don't know why they gave it the title they did.

Actually, I'm a bit confused as to the worth of these tests. Merely smacks of "pop quiz" to me. I'm sure someone will enlighten.

As for score? I managed 15/20 which was entirely consistent with my 7/10 score on Wiseman's test.

[Garrette]

I, too, do not see the possible value of this 'experiment,' but I suppose I can wait to see what Wiseman publishes/releases about it before I throw it completely away.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Absolutely. But these questions have to be correlated with how you perform at the actual test. He's basically trying to show that people who answer 4 and 6 score well at the visual test, or something like that. If the experiment is a success, he may go on to speculate that people who trust their initial feelings about people also tend to believe in psi, and because subjective assessment of intuition ability has just been shown to correlate with success at a test that "simulates" intuition but involves only normal psychology, psi can be equated with intuition in this way. Of course, Wiseman may not speculate that at all. We'll have to wait and see. I didn't infer any of the above from the "abstract" (posted at the start of the thread).

It seems to be more of a psychology test, rather than a parapsychology test, especially as he states that it is designed to test a persons intuition. Intuition in this case is not a paranormal phenomenon, it's merely instinctive perception from visual recognition of facial characteristics.

Either way - we'll find out his motives and conclusions on Sunday.

Either way - I think the Sixth Sense title was misleading and a foolish one to use, even if it was just to incite interest in the "study".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sixth sense refers to anomalous cognition. The experiment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the paranormal. But of course the complete morons on here think it does. Yet again sKeptics demonstrate their mind numbing awesome stupidity.


It doesn't look like all the skeptics think it is a test of the paranormal, so I take this back. Sorry.

[misawafan]

I scored 9/10. And as I'm one of those "moronic/stupid/etc." skeptics I of course believe this to be proof of my paranormal abilities and shall have my own television shown upcoming.
http://www.neverflash.com/kingdom/v02/schatten_2_bilder/crowley.jpg

[Thomas]

Originally posted by EHocking
I don't know about "more fair" but I agree that it is a little more extensive as it gathers more data points and doesn't purport to be a test of a sixth sense.
I should have elaborated. By "a little bit more fair", I meant that here you'll get to see the entire face, plus it's in motion.

I agree that they're pop-quiz styled and hardly scientific.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Thomas
I should have elaborated. By "a little bit more fair", I meant that here you'll get to see the entire face, plus it's in motion.

I agree that they're pop-quiz styled and hardly scientific. It's funny, you know. I felt even more manipulated because of the video. I was very conscious of the fact that the video of each person didn't start or finish at the same place for each person and was well aware that my choice was probably being influenced by where the video was cut off.

For instance, with the video that plays all the way through, from "rest", then the "smile", then back to "rest" had a different effect on my decisions that when the video froze at the "smile".

As for pop quizzes, go, apparently I'm better at picking the false breasts from the real and the women from the transvestites.

So at least I can rest easy in the knowledge that even though I'm a sucker for a false smile, I won't be going home with any blokes and fumbling silicone.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It doesn't look like all the skeptics think it is a test of the paranormal, so I take this back. Sorry.

Well. Thank you. I think a lot of "us" have made errors from time to time and apologized as well. I know how difficult that must have been.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Well. Thank you. I think a lot of "us" have made errors from time to time and apologized as well. I know how difficult that must have been.

No it wasn't difficult at all.

[Winny]

Many thanks for taking part, you scored 7 out of a possible 10.

Yay! I'm average.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It doesn't look like all the skeptics think it is a test of the paranormal, so I take this back. Sorry. Interesting Ian finally admits that at least some people who disagree with him mean what they say.

There ought to be some little victory dance I could do right now, but I'm tired... so tired...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by EHocking


As for score? I managed 15/20 which was entirely consistent with my 7/10 score on Wiseman's test. [/B]

17/20 which is consistent with my score of 8/10 on Wiseman's test. To be quite honest though I found myself uncertain on quite a few of them. A few were obviously fake or genuine though. A couple of them looked like right psychos too. Number 10 for example. I wouldn't like to bump into him on a dark night.

[TheBoyPaj]

I got 8 out of 10. But I think I messed up the test. For the first two I thought you were supposed to click on the fake smile. So I should clearly have got 10 out of 10!

;)

[Garrette]

Aaagh.

Only 13 of 20 on the video one, and I knew what visual clues to look for.

[Open Mind]

7/10 for Wiseman's
15/20 for video ..... I got 14 out of the first 15 correct .... 4 out of the last 5 wrong :( or should that be :) ?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by EHocking
As for pop quizzes, go, apparently I'm better at picking the false breasts from the real and the women from the transvestites.
I would say that at least one of those is a more useful skill than distinguishing real from fake smiles.

A lot more useful.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Open Mind
7/10 for Wiseman's
15/20 for video ..... I got 14 out of the first 15 correct .... 4 out of the last 5 wrong :( or should that be :) ?

If I recall correctly I got the first 12 all correct, and 2 out of the last 4 or 5 incorrect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by EHocking
As for pop quizzes, go, apparently I'm better at picking the false breasts from the real and the women from the transvestites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ashles
I would say that at least one of those is a more useful skill than distinguishing real from fake smiles.

A lot more useful.


Nah I wouldn't. I don't really get turned on by breasts. Bums and legs for me.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by EHocking
As for pop quizzes, go, apparently I'm better at picking the false breasts from the real and the women from the transvestites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashles
I would say that at least one of those is a more useful skill than distinguishing real from fake smiles.

A lot more useful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah I wouldn't. I don't really get turned on by breasts. Bums and legs for me. So "no" to fake breasts, but "yes" to fake women, eh Ian? This is an insight of you I was not expecting to find on this thread.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by EHocking
So "no" to fake breasts, but "yes" to fake women, eh Ian? This is an insight of you I was not expecting to find on this thread.

Most people on here have no sense of humour either :rolleyes:

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Most people on here have no sense of humour either :rolleyes: ... or a sense of humour that does not require emoticons to make their point. You need to chill out Ian, not *every* post directed at you has a barb in it.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Richard Wiseman is currently running a study at the Edinburg International Science Festival, and asks for participants:
And the initial results are here (http://www.sciencefestival.co.uk/html/media1.html). First cab off the rank is a quick analysis of the scores between the sexes.

It seems that most of our speculation was right, and that this was an experiment in psychology and that the 6 questions preceding the photos were quite pertinent to the exercise itself.

Indeed, one of us postulated one of the preconceptions that this initial data "disputes" - and that was that women are better at this sort of thing than men. It seems that, to quote the media release, "...77% of women classifying themselves as highly intuitive versus just 58%of men. However, these claims were not supported by women’s ability to spot genuine smiles, with men spotting 72% of the genuine smiles and women detecting 71% of them."

The full analysis of the over 15,000 responses are to be posted by Wiseman later, apparently, but in the meantime, I have a table of our responses so far sorted by score. Please PM to correct your gender and I'll repost for someone better at stats than myself to analyse.
<table><SIZE=1><tr><td>Alkatran</td><td> 9</td><td></td><tr><td>misawafan</td><td> 9</td><td></td><tr><td>Shera</td><td> 9</td><td>F</td><tr><td>alfaniner</td><td></td><td></td><tr><td>Garrette</td><td> 8</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Harlequin</td><td> 8</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Interesting Ian</td><td> 8</td><td>M</td><tr><td>ReFleX</td><td> 8</td><td></td><tr><td>RichardR</td><td> 8</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Sharon</td><td> 8</td><td>F</td><tr><td>TheBoyPaj</td><td> 8</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Vitnir</td><td> 8</td><td></td><tr><td>Yaotl</td><td> 8</td><td></td><tr><td>Chocolate Chip</td><td> 7</td><td></td><tr><td>Donks</td><td> 7</td><td></td><tr><td>Ehocking</td><td> 7</td><td>M</td><tr><td>jmercer</td><td> 7</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Mojo</td><td> 7</td><td></td><tr><td>Open
Mind</td><td> 7</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Palimpsest</td><td> 7</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Skeptic_Sergeant</td><td> 7</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Thomas</td><td> 7</td><td>M</td><tr><td>VeronicaX</td><td> 7</td><td>F</td><tr><td>Winny</td><td> 7</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Ashles</td><td> 6</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Darat</td><td> 6</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Jeff
Corey</td><td> 6</td><td>M</td><tr><td>kookbreaker</td><td> 6</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Soapy Sam</td><td> 6</td><td>M</td><tr><td>EdipisReks</td><td> 5</td><td></td><tr><td>DeVega</td><td> 4</td><td>F</td><tr><td>Flo</td><td> 4</td><td>F</td>
<tr><td>Pragmatist</td><td> 4</td><td>M</td><tr><td>Nyarlathotep</td><td> 1</td><td></td><tr><td>billydkid</td><td> </td><td>M</td><tr><td>CFLarsen</td><td> </td><td>M</td><tr><td>davidsmith73</td><td> </td><td>M</td><tr><td>Dr Adequate</td><td> </td><td>M</td><tr><td>jzs</td><td> </td><td>M</td></SIZE></table>

It was also quite interesting to review the remarks posted on the perceived motive behind the experiment. The majority questioned the validity of the experiment, the background is alluded to in the media release, and also got the basic "intuition test" idea. The minority view that it was an underhanded swipe at psi believers has yet to be determined, as apparently this experiment has not ended and further analyses are yet to be posted by Dr.Wiseman.