5 ms·

This is trivial software to write. Why does someone not quickly whip up a web app that does the picture thing as described in the experiment, then we can person

This is trivial software to write. Why does someone not quickly whip up a web app that does the picture thing as described in the experiment, then we can personally test if we have ESP senses or not? Specs: Two buttons - ESP mode or non-ESP mode. In non-ESP mode, 60 random pictures are shown and we are to guess. Then it gives the correct one. In ESP mode, add some porn. If the results are different, then we have ESP. Use Javascript for the randomisation algorithm so that we can be sure there is no server trickery being done.

Fargren 16y ago
Javascript random is only pseudoalleatory. I think you need a true random number generator to truly test this.
- cmos 16y ago
  can't it just get one from the server?
- lwat 16y ago
  Random.org can help
- endtime 16y ago
  Why would psuedorandomness be insufficient? Don't try to hack the JS and the effect should be the same.
  - Fargren 16y ago
    If it's pseudorandom, that means there's some form of pattern in the numbers it generates. It's impossible (or at least unreasonably hard) to know whether the person doing the test may subconciously guess or estimate the pattern. That invalidates the whole test.
    - endtime 16y ago
      I suppose that's true, though if someone can intuit a crypto-strong PRNG then that's an interesting and significant result in itself.
      - Fargren 16y ago
        Sure, but when it's only being used to pick from between to picture sets, maybe it's not as impossible as it would seem.
        JeremyBanks 16y ago
        It seems pretty impossible. Unless you're using a horribly flawed PRNG, patterns in the data should require analysis much deeper than human intuition could manage. This analysis would also probably require much more information than you would get from this experiment.
      - nl 16y ago
        Javascript random() isn't a crypto-strong PRNG. Depending on how any PRNG is seeded, guessing it's output may not be very hard at all - especially if you've seen it once before. Eg, I once had a Poker playing game on an Amstrad that used a PRNG with a very predicable seeding strategy. I could amaze my friends by knowing exactly what cards I would be dealt.
        endtime 16y ago
        I'm not suggesting that JS's random() is crypto-strong. I was replying to this part: >I think you need a true random number generator to truly test this
- lwhi 16y ago
  Use a lava lamp and a webcam. EDIT: or http://www.lavarnd.org/ http://www.lavarnd.org/
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
Encosia 16y ago
If we repeated the experiment here, publicly, we'd all know whether we were in the control or experiment group just about immediately. The results wouldn't be valid, would they?
- jeromec 16y ago
  For the "Who's got the porn" experiment I don't think test takers knowing which group they were in would make much difference. My understanding is that both groups would be told they were being tested for ESP. However, one group is told hot stimulating pictures are mixed in with regular pictures, and the other group is told there are only regular pictures. According to the article, the group with no added incentive (from erotic pictures) to choose correctly had accuracy which would be expected, at about 50%. However, the group with the stimulating pictures was able to beat the 50% threshold. Presumably, the brain of those test takers had more incentive to use all resources available to be correct, including any extrasensory ones... As such, test subjects knowing they are in the group with the erotic pictures should still be able to beat the 50% threshold. Edit: Actually, I'm reading through the actual experiment and it appears all 100 sessions used both erotic and nonerotic pictures of varying arousal value. Also, both the position of the picture and the picture itself were not actually chosen by the computer until after the test taker made the choice, although they were told differently, making it a test for a future event. So, yes, I think we would already be compromised for trying to recreate the test.
  - Encosia 16y ago
    I agree that it shouldn't make any different, logically, but then your control group still isn't truly a control group. Your results could be doubted on the basis of things like the participants knowing too much about the experiment and trying to guess patterns in the RNG.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      Oh, yes, any results we came up with running the experiment here should be properly doubted from the start. Not only would participants know too much about the experiment, but over the Internet participants wouldn't be directly observable which certainly throws out any real legitimacy. I was only thinking in terms of possibly recreating enough of the test to experience some of the same results, regardless of how those results might be perceived, but I think too much information about the test is now known.

Fargren 16y ago

Javascript random is only pseudoalleatory. I think you need a true random number generator to truly test this.

cmos 16y ago
can't it just get one from the server?
lwat 16y ago
Random.org can help
endtime 16y ago
Why would psuedorandomness be insufficient? Don't try to hack the JS and the effect should be the same.
- Fargren 16y ago
  If it's pseudorandom, that means there's some form of pattern in the numbers it generates. It's impossible (or at least unreasonably hard) to know whether the person doing the test may subconciously guess or estimate the pattern. That invalidates the whole test.
  - endtime 16y ago
    I suppose that's true, though if someone can intuit a crypto-strong PRNG then that's an interesting and significant result in itself.
    - Fargren 16y ago
      Sure, but when it's only being used to pick from between to picture sets, maybe it's not as impossible as it would seem.
      - JeremyBanks 16y ago
        It seems pretty impossible. Unless you're using a horribly flawed PRNG, patterns in the data should require analysis much deeper than human intuition could manage. This analysis would also probably require much more information than you would get from this experiment.
    - nl 16y ago
      Javascript random() isn't a crypto-strong PRNG. Depending on how any PRNG is seeded, guessing it's output may not be very hard at all - especially if you've seen it once before. Eg, I once had a Poker playing game on an Amstrad that used a PRNG with a very predicable seeding strategy. I could amaze my friends by knowing exactly what cards I would be dealt.
      - endtime 16y ago
        I'm not suggesting that JS's random() is crypto-strong. I was replying to this part: >I think you need a true random number generator to truly test this
lwhi 16y ago
Use a lava lamp and a webcam. EDIT: or http://www.lavarnd.org/ http://www.lavarnd.org/
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

Encosia 16y ago

If we repeated the experiment here, publicly, we'd all know whether we were in the control or experiment group just about immediately. The results wouldn't be valid, would they?

jeromec 16y ago
For the "Who's got the porn" experiment I don't think test takers knowing which group they were in would make much difference. My understanding is that both groups would be told they were being tested for ESP. However, one group is told hot stimulating pictures are mixed in with regular pictures, and the other group is told there are only regular pictures. According to the article, the group with no added incentive (from erotic pictures) to choose correctly had accuracy which would be expected, at about 50%. However, the group with the stimulating pictures was able to beat the 50% threshold. Presumably, the brain of those test takers had more incentive to use all resources available to be correct, including any extrasensory ones... As such, test subjects knowing they are in the group with the erotic pictures should still be able to beat the 50% threshold. Edit: Actually, I'm reading through the actual experiment and it appears all 100 sessions used both erotic and nonerotic pictures of varying arousal value. Also, both the position of the picture and the picture itself were not actually chosen by the computer until after the test taker made the choice, although they were told differently, making it a test for a future event. So, yes, I think we would already be compromised for trying to recreate the test.
- Encosia 16y ago
  I agree that it shouldn't make any different, logically, but then your control group still isn't truly a control group. Your results could be doubted on the basis of things like the participants knowing too much about the experiment and trying to guess patterns in the RNG.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Oh, yes, any results we came up with running the experiment here should be properly doubted from the start. Not only would participants know too much about the experiment, but over the Internet participants wouldn't be directly observable which certainly throws out any real legitimacy. I was only thinking in terms of possibly recreating enough of the test to experience some of the same results, regardless of how those results might be perceived, but I think too much information about the test is now known.