Are you psychic? Boundary Institute's Free GotPsi Tests

sootywooty31 said:
Well sign in and check my years trials under cristo 31 over 7000 done, so if can be equalled by chance say try a 1000 and try to emulate the word matches of 3 and above to make things more substantial.

The test can be played for word only matches also, and if many would like to try so one can get to 7000+ trials much quicker and compare the results.

Yes i found the thread on google by chance, Robin.
Click to expand...
I understand why this seems convincing, but sadly it is not, and you need not take my word for it. Explore the site itself, then follow the links to the papers about the results. There are six in total. and only one of those has anything to do with the web-based psi research. And that one paper was not published anywhere that would allow discussion of the methodology, analysis, or conclusions.

More importantly, that one paper admits it is not formal or to be used for final conclusions (though its tone as it progresses shifts so that people will do just that).

Here is the abstract, in full:

In August 200, the Boundary Institute launched a suite of three Web-based psi experiments; a fourth test was added in September 2001. By December 31, 2001, more than 46,000 individuals from 106 countries had contributed over 7 million trials. This paper summarizes a preliminary analysis of data collected through October 2001.[/HILITE
Click to expand...
Highlighting is mine. It is a preliminary analysis, with a data cut-off of 2001. There has been no follow-on analysis. None. Perhaps there is good reason, but given what the site and the links on the site give us, you are not justified in concluding that you have the abilities you are claiming. Perhaps you do have those abilities, but verification will require much more effort on your part.
 
fagin said:
Most here would think remote viewing is a crock.

And obviously, holy thread resurrection, Batman.
Click to expand...

Did a couple of the tests for a laugh. On the RV test it would appear that by choosing the same options and key words for each test, I got 86% accurate.



Disclaimer taking the test was "for entertainment purposes only" I do not believe or have ever believed that RV is possible.
 
I did a few card tests. First trial I got 8 of 10 simply by picking the same card every time. The next two trials I actually tried and got 1 of 10 and 3 of 10.

Then I did two RV tests and chose to have it scored on keywords only. Remarkably, I was scored as a failure on both tests when I would have scored me as at least worth considering further.

The first picture I had in mind was of a medieval portrait of a woman from the chest up, filling nearly the whole frame with distant mountain peaks in the background. The actual picture was a modern photograph of a woman, from the chest up, filling nearly the whole frame but without any discernible background.

The second picture I had in mind was a close up photograph of a steam locomotive moving fast from right to left, but not a flat trajectory, more as if coming from the back right of the photo and moving to the front left. There was a lot of steam flying backward in the wind. I pictured a red insignia on the nose of the locomotive. The actual picture was a very sporty convertible moving fast from left to right with red in the hubcaps and background.
 
Last edited:
Garrette said:
I did a few card tests. First trial I got 8 of 10 simply by picking the same card every time. The next two trials I actually tried and got 1 of 10 and 3 of 10.

Then I did two RV tests and chose to have it scored on keywords only. Remarkably, I was scored as a failure on both tests when I would have scored me as at least worth considering further.

The first picture I had in mind was of a medieval portrait of a woman from the chest up, filling nearly the whole frame with distant mountain peaks in the background. The actual picture was a modern photograph of a woman, from the chest up, filling nearly the whole frame but without any discernible background.

The second picture I had in mind was a close up photograph of a steam locomotive moving fast from right to left, but not a flat trajectory, more as if coming from the back right of the photo and moving to the front left. There was a lot of steam flying backward in the wind. I pictured a red insignia on the nose of the locomotive. The actual picture was a very sporty convertible moving fast from left to right with red in the hubcaps and background.
Click to expand...

That was quite good seeing the woman, also the fast moving train as well instead of a fast moving car it is sometimes hard to decipher the exact image. At least you had a more positive approach which all tasks need to start of with.

Good Luck!
 
sootywooty31 said:
That was quite good seeing the woman, also the fast moving train as well instead of a fast moving car it is sometimes hard to decipher the exact image. At least you had a more positive approach which all tasks need to start of with.

Good Luck!
Click to expand...
I appreciate the thoughts, but I am afraid you are missing the point. The most that it can mean is that there might be something there, but the likelihood is that there is not anything like the abilities you claim and that my results seem to indicate.

The key is not forming a conclusion on preliminary indicators which is what these results are. That is also what your results are, even though you have over 7,000 tests.

Did you understand my other posts about the site and the paper cautioning against drawing conclusions from results on the site? If not, please re-read or ask questions about it. But if you did understand, then my question stands:

What are your plans to further explore -- and attempt to confirm -- your apparent ability?
 
sootywooty31 said:
Lol! Yes i am afraid all sites need email addys, look at all the forums we sign up to we live on trust i suppose, still Aepervius have a nice day.
Click to expand...

It's click-bait. They lure you in with some carnival act (See if you're psychic!) and harvest your validated email address to sell to direct-marketing folk.
 
Garrette said:
I appreciate the thoughts, but I am afraid you are missing the point. The most that it can mean is that there might be something there, but the likelihood is that there is not anything like the abilities you claim and that my results seem to indicate.

The key is not forming a conclusion on preliminary indicators which is what these results are. That is also what your results are, even though you have over 7,000 tests.

Did you understand my other posts about the site and the paper cautioning against drawing conclusions from results on the site? If not, please re-read or ask questions about it. But if you did understand, then my question stands:

What are your plans to further explore -- and attempt to confirm -- your apparent ability?
Click to expand...

Hi again Garrette! Yes i have read that paper Richard Shoup was in the process of compiling more recent data for ppl to view but became ill and has now passed on, Dean Radin is now in charge and is working on things there now.

I have done previous trials also and i had 4 years of similar results.

7000+ is a fair indication i feel though, with random words generated how close would my 3+ matches scores be reached i wonder, i could of give in i suppose and put off by the immense task in hand.

All the best, Paul.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
It's click-bait. They lure you in with some carnival act (See if you're psychic!) and harvest your validated email address to sell to direct-marketing folk.
Click to expand...
I have an email account created specifically for signing to web sites. If there is anything of interest there, I re-register with account I care more about.
 
As these things go, the Institute for Noetic Sciences isn't so bad. I think they really do want to find a "there" there instead of just shilling.
 
JayUtah said:
It's click-bait. They lure you in with some carnival act (See if you're psychic!) and harvest your validated email address to sell to direct-marketing folk.
Click to expand...
Most are like that. I doubt this one is. Radin walks the line between sincere believer and intentionally self-deluded, but selling contact info to direct marketers is not, I think, consistent with his behavior.

Could be wrong, though.
 
sootywooty31 said:
Hi again Garrette! Yes i have read that paper Richard Shoup was in the process of compiling more recent data for ppl to view but became ill and has now passed on, Dean Radin is now in charge and is working on things there now.

I have done previous trials also and i had 4 years of similar results.

7000+ is a fair indication i feel though, with random words generated how close would my 3+ matches scores be reached i wonder, i could of give in i suppose and put off by the immense task in hand.

All the best, Paul.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you're still missing the point. You could do 20 million tests on that site (or similar), and it would not be proof. Not because I don't want it to be real but because those tests are loosely designed and meant merely to be starting points. You are taking them as end points.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
RV is perfect - guaranteed to not work any better than just guessing.
Click to expand...

Well i can see no one dare take up my challenge to match my 3+ words and prove it is just down to chance alone, What is the old saying action speaks louder than words ever will.

No need anyone replying because this just a joke site really so must leave now, but i am sure their are few here that have rv in them and know it can be done so my apologises to them.

All the best, Paul.
 
Can I put the results on my CV and what kinds of employers are looking for these "experimentally well established" abilities?
 
Last edited:
sootywooty31 said:
Well i can see no one dare take up my challenge to match my 3+ words and prove it is just down to chance alone, What is the old saying action speaks louder than words ever will.

No need anyone replying because this just a joke site really so must leave now, but i am sure their are few here that have rv in them and know it can be done so my apologises to them.

All the best, Paul.
Click to expand...
I responded politely and repeatedly with substance. Not once have you addressed that substance. Please aim your unfounded criticisms elsewhere. I am still willing to engage civilly with you if you wish to do so. If not, then the faulty reasoning for your departure lies with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom