3 ms·

I just went looking for some "credible results", as in "published research of well designed experiments", rather than "I predicted that X would happen and it di

by dosy 7y ago

I just went looking for some "credible results", as in "published research of well designed experiments", rather than "I predicted that X would happen and it did" or "I knew what Y was thinking and I was right", which although interesting and useful are probably less convincing for people. There's this write up from 2011 by Huffpost[1] about this Cornell experiment[0]: [0]: http://dbem.org/FeelingFuture.pdf http://dbem.org/FeelingFuture.pdf [1]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/esp-evidence_n_795366 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/esp-evidence_n_795366 If you want a TLDR you do one for everyone else. You've stats skills, and maybe you're a skeptic, so I guess you can find some reason to dismiss the methodology, but it would be more interesting to get your insight into the stats in the paper. Another paper testing more hypotheses related to retrocausal effects[2] [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273946180_Anomalous_'Retrocausal'_Effects_on_Performance_in_a_GoNoGo_Task https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273946180_Anomalous... I've also heard about experiments to measure the effect of humans trying to influence a random number generator (genuine entropy source), and being able to do it, but I couldn't find any papers this time. Also would be interesting to track [3] to see if there's any high performers. [3]: https://www.predibly.com/ https://www.predibly.com/ The beyoncefan666[4] twitter is pretty spooky. Big ticket events, correct predictions. But I wouldn't really call it credible until I see a timeline of specific events with good accuracy. [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/02/beyoncefan666-twitter-account-predicting-future-beyonce-pregnancy https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/02/beyoncefa... psi is about more than predictions about the future, or looking into the past, or finding missing items or people. I haven't see any good evidence for human telekinetic ability (despite the legions of people on YouTube claiming they can spin 'psi wheels'). My notion is like all abilities, this is on a bell curve. There must be some people very good at some things. Genuine strong TKs tho would probably be considered a threat and suppressed / imprisoned (like Magneto, basically, in X-Men). If I wanted to find strong psychics I would go to casinos.

sansnomme 7y ago
Being truly able to influence RNGs would break a not insignificant portion of the cryptography currently in use.
scottlocklin 7y ago
Erm I'm skimming this and not finding anything you can test using statistics. Just a bunch of weird assertions that don't mean anything. For example: "An article published in the Dec. 13, 2010 issue of The New Yorker highlights a phenomenon that is well known to scientists, not only in the field of psi but across many disciplines: Initial experiments can show very strong results, but when the experiments are repeated again and again, the effects can decline." First off, the New Yorker isn't exactly ... well science. Second off; there is a well known reason why "initial experiments show strong results" -it's called p-value hacking.
- dosy 7y ago
  Please have a look at [1] and [2] now
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    I quoted something linked in [1] (Huffpo not science either; trash mostly) and I don't think [2] says what you think it says. If there were statistical evidence for "psychic powers," you'd presumably be able to present some. It's not like there aren't enough fruity people out there who REALLY WANT to believe in this sort of thing. By now, after ... literally centuries of people trying this sort of thing, you should have at least one example of unexplained phenomena.
    - dosy 7y ago
      that's weird, I meant [0] and [2] the two papers. And you could be right about 2, I didn't read it yet, just included it to add a paper I found looking for credible results. now, you called people crazy, and if this topic is so overwhelming for you that you're falling back to ignoring facts and calling people crazy names, take a mental health day and come back to it when you're feeling more resilient, instead of projecting onto others. that's not a nice or useful way to discuss. since you said that I think I can point out that you've ignored 0 so far. you seem to want to not believe this, so is 0 the inconvenient truth you're pretending doesn't exist? closing your eyes and hoping reality will go away seems pretty crazy to me. haha. you know that doesn't actually make it disappear, right? Right? I just checked out your WordPress site and you are real scientist. I'm shocked that 1 you don't think there's some sort of quantum underpinnings of this phenomena and 2 you don't want to investigate it. You're an anti establishment guy you seem bitter that your niche research is unappreciated. well, this field quantum physics X psi could be a real fit for you. seriously consider it, I mean it.
bencollier49 7y ago
The Twitter fortune telling thing comes from a person posting as many possible predictions on their timeline, then deleting the incorrect predictions, leaving what looks like a string of correct guesses.

by dosy 7y ago

sansnomme 7y ago

Being truly able to influence RNGs would break a not insignificant portion of the cryptography currently in use.

scottlocklin 7y ago

Erm I'm skimming this and not finding anything you can test using statistics. Just a bunch of weird assertions that don't mean anything. For example: "An article published in the Dec. 13, 2010 issue of The New Yorker highlights a phenomenon that is well known to scientists, not only in the field of psi but across many disciplines: Initial experiments can show very strong results, but when the experiments are repeated again and again, the effects can decline." First off, the New Yorker isn't exactly ... well science. Second off; there is a well known reason why "initial experiments show strong results" -it's called p-value hacking.

dosy 7y ago
Please have a look at [1] and [2] now
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  I quoted something linked in [1] (Huffpo not science either; trash mostly) and I don't think [2] says what you think it says. If there were statistical evidence for "psychic powers," you'd presumably be able to present some. It's not like there aren't enough fruity people out there who REALLY WANT to believe in this sort of thing. By now, after ... literally centuries of people trying this sort of thing, you should have at least one example of unexplained phenomena.
  - dosy 7y ago
    that's weird, I meant [0] and [2] the two papers. And you could be right about 2, I didn't read it yet, just included it to add a paper I found looking for credible results. now, you called people crazy, and if this topic is so overwhelming for you that you're falling back to ignoring facts and calling people crazy names, take a mental health day and come back to it when you're feeling more resilient, instead of projecting onto others. that's not a nice or useful way to discuss. since you said that I think I can point out that you've ignored 0 so far. you seem to want to not believe this, so is 0 the inconvenient truth you're pretending doesn't exist? closing your eyes and hoping reality will go away seems pretty crazy to me. haha. you know that doesn't actually make it disappear, right? Right? I just checked out your WordPress site and you are real scientist. I'm shocked that 1 you don't think there's some sort of quantum underpinnings of this phenomena and 2 you don't want to investigate it. You're an anti establishment guy you seem bitter that your niche research is unappreciated. well, this field quantum physics X psi could be a real fit for you. seriously consider it, I mean it.

bencollier49 7y ago

The Twitter fortune telling thing comes from a person posting as many possible predictions on their timeline, then deleting the incorrect predictions, leaving what looks like a string of correct guesses.