Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[halleyscomet]

Except that's not true. Twice now you've dismissed my thorough coverage of a topic with these one-liner deflections, then you come back a day or so later and try to regurgitate that same coverrage, which is now somehow relevant again. Only you try to pretend you're the one teaching it, as if it were something you knew all along. Do you really think people don't see through these obvious stunts?

It certainly seems consistent with the kind of consultant he's been painting himself to be.

I'm reminded of a past job where I'd been advocating for a major server upgrade for years. Since I was a "tech" and not a "manager" my recommendations were ignored. Fast forward a couple years and a new manager is brought in to run IT. He takes my plan, which I've been working on for two years, slaps his name on it and gets it approved.

In an interesting twist, the VP, who'd been hearing nothing but crap about me from the manager, came in during the weekend upgrade. He demanded to know why I was the one telling everyone what to do. In no mood for being politic, I replied with, "Because we're implementing a plan I've been working on for two years. I know what we're doing because I designed the new infrastructure."

The VP looked over to the manager who'd rubber stamped my plan. He was lounging in a corner drinking a cola, largely ignoring all the work going on around him.

That VP took to getting more input from me after that.

 

[abaddon]

It certainly seems consistent with the kind of consultant he's been painting himself to be.

I'm reminded of a past job where I'd been advocating for a major server upgrade for years. Since I was a "tech" and not a "manager" my recommendations were ignored. Fast forward a couple years and a new manager is brought in to run IT. He takes my plan, which I've been working on for two years, slaps his name on it and gets it approved.

In an interesting twist, the VP, who'd been hearing nothing but crap about me from the manager, came in during the weekend upgrade. He demanded to know why I was the one telling everyone what to do. In no mood for being politic, I replied with, "Because we're implementing a plan I've been working on for two years. I know what we're doing because I designed the new infrastructure."

The VP looked over to the manager who'd rubber stamped my plan. He was lounging in a corner drinking a cola, largely ignoring all the work going on around him.

That VP took to getting more input from me after that.

Frankly, Buddha's insults to Jay are risible. It is plain that I know vastly more that Buddha, and I pale into insignificance compared to the sheer breadth and scope of Jay's knowledge.

The only reason I have been quiet in this thread is simply because I could not reliably hold my tongue at the absolute buffoonery being spouted in this and previous threads by some participants.

 

[JayUtah]

Detection of Outliers Due to Participants’ Non-Adherence to Protocol in a Longitudinal Study of Cognitive Decline

Good example, thank you. Also that's the field my father was a scientist in for most of his career.

It's too bad Buddha insists on his comically dogmatic statement that no outliers may ever be removed from the data without some theoretically insurmountable consequence. We could otherwise have a good discussion on the nature of outliers. However, in the case of PEAR the discussion is mostly academic. The distributions produced in the independent attempts to replicate the results confirm that Operator 010 was an anomaly, and Dr. Jahn was gracious enough to admit the substance of that conclusion.

One can debate endlessly whether it's advisable -- either in theory or in practice -- to exclude outliers, but your example shows where it's not only advisable but practically mandatory. Adherence to the experimental protocol is essential to avoiding confounds, and where the protocol is known to have been broken it must be assumed the data for those subjects are confounded regardless of their actual values. If one argues that Operator 010 was prematurely disregarded based on nonconformance to expected distributions of PK proficiency, one still has to contend with the anomalous performance according to the volition variable. That could have functioned as an empirical control if the experimenters had been conscientious in their design. Since they weren't, we can't eliminate tampering as a confound. Sadly, dereliction in applying enough controls to detect impropriety in outlying data doesn't translate into being given the benefit of the doubt regarding outliers that appear. That's not how science works.

So then replication becomes the order of the day. Outliers did not appear in the three other studies (two of them independent) using the same design. We have two strong reasons and one moderately strong reason to disregard Operator 010, and only pedantic and conjectural reasons for retaining her. And that's only one of several reasons given by one of PEAR's critics, and only one of PEAR's critics, and only one study alleging to prove psychokinesis. "Is Telekinesis Real?" has devolved into the typical inconsequential nitpicks.

 

[JayUtah]

Were you talking of the Stanford Prison Experiment? In it, one of the guards was a outlier.

Everyone who professes some interest in psychology research should be aware at least of the landmarks, one of them being the Stanford prison experiment. He seems to be waiting for me to give away the ending, even though it's not at all difficult to find the actual reported results or consult the book I repeatedly referred him to.

This is why it's proper to reject his proposed requirement of documentation as a condition of his attention. Well, first it's absurd on its face. It is not necessary to provide a reference every time a fact is stated. He purports to be an expert in statistics, and I've demonstrated my expertise. If it's a conversation between experts, then it should mostly be a discussion from the top of the head. Only one of us is demonstrating expertise.

But his reaction to documentation already provided, either by him or by me, is disappointing. He keeps insisting documentation wasn't provided when it clearly was. He doesn't read or comment on the sources he acknowledges exist. He doesn't even read his own sources, as we discovered Yes, I left the description vague on purpose to see if he would research it on his own from the citations. He didn't. He expects me to tell the whole story, which is at odds with his insinuation that it is improper for me to do so and that I must defer to published authority. To justify his request, he has belatedly tried to set the stage by providing a few cursory citations himself. But the texts at the other end don't say at all what Buddha says they do. Sometimes they merely mention topics he has drawn conclusions about, the implied argument being "This concept exists, therefore I am right about it." That's the cargo-cult approach we've seen him exhibit when he tries to discuss other subjects in which he has purported to be an expert. He's evidently aiming at the common perception that if an article has footnotes, it must be properly researched and reasoned.

This reaction is not mere indifference. Buddha clearly knows how to use the forum quote function, but his desire to do so seems to evaporate entirely when reporting what I say. A couple of days hence, Buddha will write "One of my critics has said..." without saying who said it or where and when. This deprives the reader of the ability (or at least the desire) to confirm the accuracy of the quote. In other words, this gives him the means to lie about what I say in ways that would be more difficult to detect than if he had quoted in the customary fashion. And lie he has. We've seen in his other debates that he relies heavily on straw men. This is just one more example.

So no, someone who shows such a callous disregard of -- if not outright hostility towrd -- the culture of documented responses doesn't get to suddenly impose it on others as a condition of his continued participation. That's entirely dishonest and self-serving.

 

[JayUtah]

Fourthed! or Forthed!

It's pleasure to read the contributions of real experts!

Thanks, it's appreciated. But of course Buddha is well prepared for this. He's convinced you're all my toadies and that your opinion of his performance therefore shouldn't matter. By his own admission Buddha is impervious to criticism. Here we see one of the ways he achieves this. He simply invents a conspiracy theory to explain sentiment that doesn't go his way.

 

[JayUtah]

It certainly seems consistent with the kind of consultant he's been painting himself to be.

It's not hard to write a catalogue of deceptive and dishonest arguments Buddha has attempted. Like every other person who tries them, he thinks he's getting away with it. Straw men, well poisoning, divide-and-conquer -- we've seen this all several times before. It's all social engineering. It has nothing to do with psychokinesis or statistics or scientific methodology. All those topics were exhausted pages ago. Now it's just gaslighting and insults.

I'm not soured on the whole concept of consultancy. But I agree that it seems to attract a larger proportion of dishonest practitioners who rely on exactly this sort of browbeating to defray criticism.

 

[halleyscomet]

I'm not soured on the whole concept of consultancy. But I agree that it seems to attract a larger proportion of dishonest practitioners who rely on exactly this sort of browbeating to defray criticism.

I've worked with some spectacular consultants. My current employer has entire lines of business that exist thanks to healthy relationships with consultants who got us bootstrapped on some new technology.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Everyone who professes some interest in psychology research should be aware at least of the landmarks, one of them being the Stanford prison experiment. He seems to be waiting for me to give away the ending, even though it's not at all difficult to find the actual reported results or consult the book I repeatedly referred him to.

Don't worry, he'll eventually google that Zimbardo's is a no-no from a "modern" point of view -I don't want to reveal anything about it- and then he'll tell he was the first one in expressing concern about it.

He keeps insisting documentation wasn't provided when it clearly was.

Repeatedly, indeed. But he'll continue to do it as, what else could he do to avoid falling flat on his face? Put yourself in his lapti.

Yes, I left the description vague on purpose to see if he would research it on his own from the citations. He didn't. He expects me to tell the whole story, ...

That why I've been cultivating vagueness here since 2011, after two years of finding that any polished explanation comes back to you in even more warped ways.

You should reply in style sometimes, adding some hogwash to that effect -and hiding hints pointing the keenest minds that you know what you're talking about-. If they want to know, let them get some education.

This reaction is not mere indifference. Buddha clearly knows how to use the forum quote function, but his desire to do so seems to evaporate entirely when reporting what I say.

He makes walls of text using your own posts. I suggest you not to enable such distractive behaviours and doing that by splitting your messages in as many posts the bits you quote from "Buddha" determine.

Your long posts allows "Buddha" to ignore 90% of their content. He making lies of the remaining 10%, you won't be able to avoid it.

Your long, well reasoned, craved-by-everyone posts are to be written as standalone pieces, not as a reply to "Buddha" 's tomfoolery. Let him quote your original work instead of you quoting his tosh.

A couple of days hence, Buddha will write "One of my critics has said..." without saying who said it or where and when. This deprives the reader of the ability (or at least the desire) to confirm the accuracy of the quote.

Yes, he plays dirty. Knowingly. It's what survivalists of their own made tragedies do. "Buddha" 's hogwash doesn't deserve but short replies and teaching moments. Let's set that as the standard of every thread involving "Buddha" 's. [if abaddon agrees]

 

[Fudbucker]

Demonstrations of telekinesis under laboratory conditions seem pretty unlikely. However, it is possible that there are people with telekinesis who simply avoid being tested.

The judgement of the likelihood of the latter will be affected by one's fundamental beliefs about reality. I believe this is probably all a dream, so telekinesis would not be surprising to me. Materialists would probably consider it very unlikely, except those materialists who consider it a real possibility that we're in a simulation. Because if we're in a simulation, then pretty much anything is possible.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, he plays dirty. Knowingly. It's what survivalists of their own made tragedies do. "Buddha" 's hogwash doesn't deserve but short replies and teaching moments. Let's set that as the standard of every thread involving "Buddha" 's. [if abaddon agrees]

Anything for you, honey.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I've been reading this thread, but with only a couple of college courses on statistics under my belt (that I haven't had to use for so long I've probably forgotten most) I don't have anything to contribute that posters like JayUtah can't say much much better.

I would like to submit that I googled Zimbardo, and he looks exactly like I would expect a guy named Zimbardo to look.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Anything for you, honey.

Thank you, luv.

I've been reading this thread, but with only a couple of college courses on statistics under my belt...

That is probably one or two courses more than "Buddha" 's, if we judge from the skills shown.

 

[Buddha]

Intuitive Data Sorting
Up to this point, we have assumed that if the REG data are ultimately
explainable by some paranormal principle, that principle implies some causal
influence on the REG; i.e., it involves PK. An alternative interpretation
is suggested by a model called "intuitive data sorting" (IDS) proposed by
* May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, and Utts (1985) to account for REG PK data
generally. According to this model, significance occurs because of a
psi-mediated selection of the starting point of the sequence of random
events so as to capture locally "biased" subsequences. For example, if
significance is defined as p<.05, one of every 20 sequences from a truly
random source should be significanIntuitive Data Sorting
Up to this point, we have assumed that if the REG data are ultimately
explainable by some paranormal principle, that principle implies some causal
influence on the REG; i.e., it involves PK. An alternative interpretation
is suggested by a model called "intuitive data sorting" (IDS) proposed by
* May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, and Utts (1985) to account for REG PK data
generally. According to this model, significance occurs because of a
psi-mediated selection of the starting point of the sequence of random
events so as to capture locally "biased" subsequences. For example, if
significance is defined as p<.05, one of every 20 sequences from a truly
random source should be significantly "biased." If such sequences were
captured more frequently than I in 20 times, a cumulatively significant
deviation could result. An attractive feature of the IDS model is that it
seems to account better than competing causal models for the failure o
.. significance to increase as N increases, a trend that is evident
in the actual data base (May et al., 1985). It is also noteworthy that
Schmidt had considered a similar hypothesis several years earlier (see
p. 98).” Palmer, page 212

Thus is the title of May’s article, Psi Experiments with Random Number Generators: an Informal Model.

It seems strange that Palmer used this article to support his analysis because May and his colleagues wrote it in favor of the telekinesis. I suspect that Palmer distorted the authors’ evaluation of telekinesis because his interpretation invalidates their research. However, the article is not available on the Internet, so I will be criticizing Palmer’s interpretation of it.

In theory, you can choose a locally “biased” sequence if you try hard enough. However, this is not how things work in real world. If Palmer interpretation is correct, nothing can be inferred in all other applications that use statistical methods of data analysis.

Suppose, you have determined in advance the length of a sequence of samples of electric circuits you have to take to decide that the number of defective ones exceeds specified limit indicating that something is wrong with the manufacturing process. For whatever reason that only Palmer has knowledge of, you might decide that the process had produced a “biased” sequence, and continue sampling. Then a new sequence would indicate that the manufacturing process is fine, and stop sampling. But Palmer will tell you that your new sequence is, actually, a “biased” subsequence, and you must go on with the sampling. This means that, if Palmer is correct, a sampling never ends. This nonsense implies that all statistical methods are at fault no matter what application you choose.
In reality, you use certain statistical methods to determine the length of a sampling sequence in advance, and then use the results of a sampling to draw a conclusion.

I wish I could have a link to May’s article to see what the authors wrote themselves, without the idiotic Palmer interpretation of their words.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Hey Jay, as "Buddha" is gonna ignore it for ever, why don't you tackle Jeffers or any other interesting paper or article suggested here? It would be better that replying to the copypasta of the usual suspect.

 

[JayUtah]

It seems strange that Palmer used this article to support his analysis because May and his colleagues wrote it in favor of the telekinesis.

It seems strange you don't know that Palmer believes in psychokinesis and was one of the prominent researchers in favor of it. That doesn't stop him from being a conscientious peer reviewer, of course, but you're so intent on vilifying him you don't even know who he is or what he does.

However, the article is not available on the Internet...

Why should that stop you? Are you merely an armchair scholar?

This means that, if Palmer is correct, a sampling never ends. This nonsense implies that all statistical methods are at fault no matter what application you choose.

Here's a tip. When you draw a conclusion that seems to invalidate an entire well-established field, it's probably your conclusion that's wrong and not the whole field. That's how the real world works. The conclusion you're trying desperately to cram into Palmer's mouth is your conclusion, not his. Statistics is not at all hampered by the consequences of not actually being able to achieve infinity. It is, in fact, empowered by it.

 

[halleyscomet]

(Irrelevant statistics onanism clipped for brevity)

Seriously dude, what are you trying to achieve here? The study has been proven to be garbage. Even the study's original author conceded the baseline was crap and blamed it on telekinetic powers. Do you have anything better than this study or are you going to keep beating that dead horse?

 

[JayUtah]

Hey Jay, as "Buddha" is gonna ignore it for ever, why don't you tackle Jeffers or any other interesting paper or article suggested here? It would be better that replying to the copypasta of the usual suspect.

I already summarized the gist of Jeffers' argument in one of my previous lengthy threads, where I talked about the answer to "Pick a number between 1 and 10" as either an integer or a real number.

Inasmuch as Buddha seems to want no more than to use this forum as a pulpit from which to preach his own greatness (and borrow the expertise of other posters to do so) I'm not going to fuel that fire in that way. When and if Buddha ever gets around to Jeffers, I don't want him regurgitating my analysis and pretending he thought of it. I wouldn't deprive the forum of the amusement of watching Buddha fumble through it. Remind me again after Buddha re-purposes this thread and flounces, as we know he will.

 

[halleyscomet]

Remind me again after Buddha re-purposes this thread and flounces, as we know he will.

He's holding onto this one with a lot more tenacity than he has previous threads. I suspect your successful exposing of his ignorance about statistics hit a bit too close to home for his taste. He may very well make this the hill he dies on, morphing this into a true Jabba thread.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Intuitive Data Sorting
Up to this point, we have assumed that if the REG data are ultimately
explainable by some paranormal principle, that principle implies some causal
influence on the REG; i.e., it involves PK. An alternative interpretation
is suggested by a model called "intuitive data sorting" (IDS) proposed by
* May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, and Utts (1985) to account for REG PK data
generally. According to this model, significance occurs because of a
psi-mediated selection of the starting point of the sequence of random
events so as to capture locally "biased" subsequences. For example, if
significance is defined as p<.05, one of every 20 sequences from a truly
random source should be significanIntuitive Data Sorting
Up to this point, we have assumed that if the REG data are ultimately
explainable by some paranormal principle, that principle implies some causal
influence on the REG; i.e., it involves PK. An alternative interpretation
is suggested by a model called "intuitive data sorting" (IDS) proposed by
* May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, and Utts (1985) to account for REG PK data
generally. According to this model, significance occurs because of a
psi-mediated selection of the starting point of the sequence of random
events so as to capture locally "biased" subsequences. For example, if
significance is defined as p<.05, one of every 20 sequences from a truly
random source should be significantly "biased." If such sequences were
captured more frequently than I in 20 times, a cumulatively significant
deviation could result. An attractive feature of the IDS model is that it
seems to account better than competing causal models for the failure o
.. significance to increase as N increases, a trend that is evident
in the actual data base (May et al., 1985). It is also noteworthy that
Schmidt had considered a similar hypothesis several years earlier (see
p. 98).” Palmer, page 212

That is a misquoting of Palmer's.

Thus is the title of May’s article, Psi Experiments with Random Number Generators: an Informal Model.

It's Psi Experiments with Random Number Generators: an Informational Model, clumsy you. It's included in "Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention with
Random Number Generators. A Meta-Analysis" by Bösch, Steinkamp and Boller

<snipped>

Really?

 

[SOdhner]

“ An opportunity to test the optional-stopping hypothesis is suggested by the fact that the degree to which optional
stopping was potentially operative seems to have varied from series to
series. In 24 of the series, the number of runs in the PK+ and PK- modes
was identical. In 23 of these, the number of runs per type was either 2500
or 5000; in the remaining series it was 3000 runs. It is very unlikely
that optional stopping was a factor in these series. Thus, if the
optional-stopping hypothesis were correct, one would expect lower scoring in
these series than in the other 37.” Palmer, 120

This is bald-faced lie,

??????

That statement you quoted is just common sense - how is it a "bald-faced lie"? If points out that some of the series the numbers are identical and also nice and round, and therefore they likely didn't do anything shady like deliberately stop at a good point.

So if you want to test if they did that elsewhere, you can compare to these tests and see if there's a difference in favor of tests where they stopped at a suspicious point. If they're way better than these ones that's something that might imply there's some shenanigans going on.