Vision From Feeling
- Thread starter VisionFromFeeling
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen
- Status
VFF, you’re still operating under the assumption that you have a ‘real’ ability. That remains to be tested properly. Are you prepared to accept that your “100% accuracy” may be due to confirmation bias? Everyone believes that his memory is good. No one’s is.
But was it a fair method (i.e. not biased)?
I don’t.
I can. You mention one assistant. How was the shuffling blinded? Was your assistant present during your assessments?
And I conclude that you can still not dismiss the possibility of having not done a well blinded test. When will you do that?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not statisticion, so my comments below are based on these Tables of Chance. No doubt others will give you a more accurate evaluation.
2/6 is exactly as expected through random chance.
1:100 - 0-7 correct, and
1:10,000 - 0-9 correct.
9/12 is, therefore, probably in the realms of the expected success rate from random chance alone.
You'd probably need better results than any of the above to make any of those protocols workable for the MDC. My opinion is that Procedure 5 wouldn't cut the mustard due to the wetting process and the uncovered samples (at the very least).
Thanks for the honest reporting. No real need to comment on odds on this trial, or trial 2.
For 6 attempts (5 actually from the tables quoted above) at chance of 1:4, you'd expect to se 0-4 correct choices at odds of 1:100
2/6 is exactly as expected through random chance.
With odds of 1:3, the expected result from 10 trials are, at odds of:
1:100 - 0-7 correct, and
1:10,000 - 0-9 correct.
9/12 is, therefore, probably in the realms of the expected success rate from random chance alone.
You'd probably need better results than any of the above to make any of those protocols workable for the MDC. My opinion is that Procedure 5 wouldn't cut the mustard due to the wetting process and the uncovered samples (at the very least).
You are free to resent what you wish. You chose to start this thread and so long as posters obey the user agreement, they are free to respond as they will. I responded by observing on what I felt 30 years ago. What you feel now I can only infer from your posts.
I agree that attempts at deception would be immoral. I do not agree they are a waste of time. Many people make a lot of money deceiving others. I would hate to see this forum being used in such a scam.
I make no assumptions about your character and I certainly am not attacking you. I am responding to your posts in a thread you started on an internet forum. I think you are seriously mistaken in your conclusions. I expect testing to demonstrate this. I predict you will have difficulty accepting that evidence when the time comes- just as I have difficulty accepting your claims as factual.
I presume from the above description that you did not wet the non-supplemented cereal. If so, poor protocol.
I screwed up the tags in my post (#222) above.
This -
Should have read -
This -
Should have read -
This seems strange to me. If I’m looking for gray marbles mixed in with white ones, I have to look at them all, anyway. How can you find the supplement cup if you don’t assess all of the cups?
But was it a fair method (i.e. not biased)?
Last edited:
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
You need to set the number of trials and proceed with them once you start the test. You don't get to stop the test just because you fail the first time or two.
Do an unblinded test first, just to make sure your "powers are working." Then proceed with the properly double-blinded test. Do exactly the same number of trials in each, and don't stop until that number is reached.
Do an unblinded test first, just to make sure your "powers are working." Then proceed with the properly double-blinded test. Do exactly the same number of trials in each, and don't stop until that number is reached.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
VFF: Thanks for posting your results. Yes, I think your experiments are going well and continuing to indicate that you have some unknown sensing of what is in the cups. Your experiments are not yet up to the standards that would allow others to conclude that something odd is indeed occurring. That's okay. It can take a while to work out a protocol that both meets your needs in regard to what you are capable of sensing and is also appropriately blinded to all potential sources of information leakage via normal channels. I think you're doing great!
The water being added making a difference is a good start on figuring out what exactly and how you are sensing the difference. What effect does water have on the bacteria? Do you know? I afraid I don't, but that should provide a clue to what you are sensing.
Here are some probabilities I computed for the results you posted today:
The probability of getting 9 or more correct out of 12 independent trials with a probability of 1/3 on each trial is 0.003856.
If you include the previous 7 trials with 2 successes at the same probability of 1/3 on each trial (not accurate, but that means the probability will be computed as higher than it should be), the probability of 11 or more correct out of 19 independent trials is < 0.024072.
These probabilities were computed in EXCEL using the following formulas:
1-BINOMDIST(8,12, 1/3, 1) and 1-BINOMDIST(10,19, 1/3, 1)
You can compute this for yourself for any number of trials and successes you like using the EXCEL function BINOMDIST.
BINOMDIST is a function that computes the probability of getting X successes out of N trials with a probability P of success on each trial. Because the EXCEL function computes either P(X = a) or P(X<= a), the actual probability you are interested in is computed as the probability of 9 or more successes is computed as 1 minus the probability of 8 or fewer successes.
Good luck with your continuing efforts. Please either post here or PM me with more results when you get a chance to conduct more experiments. I would be very interested to hear how you are doing. If you find yourself bothered by the disparaging personal comments that some people are posting, I recommend the ignore function which allows you to selectively eliminate the posts of people who annoy you.
The water being added making a difference is a good start on figuring out what exactly and how you are sensing the difference. What effect does water have on the bacteria? Do you know? I afraid I don't, but that should provide a clue to what you are sensing.
Here are some probabilities I computed for the results you posted today:
The probability of getting 9 or more correct out of 12 independent trials with a probability of 1/3 on each trial is 0.003856.
If you include the previous 7 trials with 2 successes at the same probability of 1/3 on each trial (not accurate, but that means the probability will be computed as higher than it should be), the probability of 11 or more correct out of 19 independent trials is < 0.024072.
These probabilities were computed in EXCEL using the following formulas:
1-BINOMDIST(8,12, 1/3, 1) and 1-BINOMDIST(10,19, 1/3, 1)
You can compute this for yourself for any number of trials and successes you like using the EXCEL function BINOMDIST.
BINOMDIST is a function that computes the probability of getting X successes out of N trials with a probability P of success on each trial. Because the EXCEL function computes either P(X = a) or P(X<= a), the actual probability you are interested in is computed as the probability of 9 or more successes is computed as 1 minus the probability of 8 or fewer successes.
Good luck with your continuing efforts. Please either post here or PM me with more results when you get a chance to conduct more experiments. I would be very interested to hear how you are doing. If you find yourself bothered by the disparaging personal comments that some people are posting, I recommend the ignore function which allows you to selectively eliminate the posts of people who annoy you.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks for that Beth.
For the probability challenged amongst us, could you put the above in the context of odds normally bandied about for MDC challenges, i.e. 1:1,000?
I will say that you do spin a good yarn, Anita, but yarn is all I see it as, enough yarn to make a nice sweater for the coming northern winter. Nay, enough yarn to outfit all members of the JREF!
Oh, so you won't be attempting the MDC, then?
You aren't?
I agree. But you should stop pulling my leg, also.Please guys, stop the hostilities or I will feel bad about coming to my thread, and might stop coming here at all. I really wanted to discuss test results and test protocols with you people, rather than having my personality attacked!
M.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
For the MDC, the 1:1000 odds would be p < 0.001.
The probabilities given above are as follows (these are approximations):
p = 0.0039 is 1:250 while p = 0.024 is 1:40.
Last edited:
Hi Anita,
Glad to see that you're exploring some steps towards tightening up your protocol.
You've experimented with covering the cups with paper, this may have failed. I'm quite concerned about that. You've suggested that this may be because paper blocks some types of low energy radiation. Indeed it does. Light is one of the types of radiation that is severely attenuated by a sheet of paper. Although you've positioned yourself so that you can't see the inside rim of the cup this doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that you're picking up the cereal's influence on ambient light. If the cups are on top of a grill then I assume that they're close to a wall. That would make ambient light a concern.
You've suggested that your difficulties in this run might equally have been because of the larger number of potential targets, that would seem to be supported your feedback with procedure 2.
I also note that this first trial was before you hit upon the idea of wetting the active cereal. With regard to wetting the active cereal it might be best to wet all cereals to ensure that it is the bacillus that you're detecting rather than the moisture. That said, skeptics have a time honoured tradition of testing people who think they can detect water under unusual circumstances so that might equally be a paranormal claim. Wet it if that works for you, if it doesn't then you've got a "water dowsing" protocol, and couple of pillocks who think that invalidates your test. Their opinion doens't matter if this works out for you then you should be able to apply for the JREF on the basis of being able to tell wet lactobacillus from empty cups, cups with dry cereal, or cups with wet cereal, so long as there's no outward way of telling you're good for the million. However that's just my opinion which doesn't matter either the JREF would have the final say.
However back to that paper. I do think that a propperly controlled challenge should involve covers. It'd be strange if paper should have such an effect as you first reported noticing your sensitivity to this bacillus when it was obscured within a friends' stomach and later through the cardboard of a cereal box. Given your other attempts to improve your sensitivity, i.e. reducing to three cups and wetting the cereal it might be worth revisiting this issue and seeing if you can try again with the paper in place when it's just three cups and the target cereal is moist. If not then perhaps the cup can be elevated in a location where ambient light would be less of a concern – i.e not near a wall.
Let's look at the suggestion that more than three cups may have been overwhelming your ability. This would certainly be the case if your ability was predominantly based upon receiving feedback and working out how your assistant might place the cups next time.
Let me demonstrate.
Have a look at these replications of your initial test.
Experiment 1
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|A|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|B|C
Prediction|A|A|B|B|B|A|B|A|B|C|C|A|B|A|B|A|C|C
Hit|0|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|1|1|0|1|1|0|1
Total Hits|11|
Percentage|0.611111|
Signifcance|0.014434|1 in 69.2826776893141
Trend|0.054528|
Experiment 2
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|A|B|C|A|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B
Prediction|B|A|B|A|B|C|B|C|C|B|C|A|B|B|A|A|B|B
Hit|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|0|1|0|1
Total Hits|12|
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.051683|
Experiment 3
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|C|B|A|B|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|A
Prediction|A|B|A|B|C|B|B|C|B|A|B|A|A|A|B|C|C|A
Hit|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|1
Total Hits|12|
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.053106|
Experiment 4
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|A|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|C
Prediction|B|B|A|B|C|B|C|A|A|B|A|A|B|C|B|B|B|A
Hit|0|0|1|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0
Total Hits|8|
Percentage|0.444444|
Signifcance|0.22326|1 in 4.4790794408513
Trend|0.034614|
Experiment 5
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|C|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|B
Prediction|A|C|A|A|C|A|B|A|A|A|C|A|A|A|C|C|C|B
Hit|0|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|0|1|0|0|1|1
Total Hits|10|
Percentage|0.555556|
Signifcance|0.043348|1 in 23.0690798442699
Trend|0.044571|
Experiment 6
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C
Prediction|C|A|B|A|B|A|A|A|C|A|A|B|B|A|A|C|B|C
Hit|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|1
Total Hits|9|
Percentage|0.5|
Signifcance|0.107602|1 in 9.29347421757414
Trend|0.049787|
Experiment 7
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|A|C|A|B|C|A
Prediction|B|C|C|B|C|A|B|B|A|A|C|B|A|C|A|B|A|B
Hit|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|0
Total Hits|13|
Percentage|0.722222|
Signifcance|0.000853|1 in 1172.88901435911
Trend|0.055951|
Experiment 8
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|C|A|B|A|C|B|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|B|A|B
Prediction|C|B|B|C|B|A|A|B|A|B|B|C|B|B|C|A|A|C
Hit|1|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|0
Total Hits|9|
Percentage|0.5|
Signifcance|0.107602|1 in 9.29347421757414
Trend|0.041726|
Experiment 9
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|A
Prediction|B|C|C|A|B|A|B|A|B|B|A|A|B|A|B|B|B|A
Hit|1|0|1|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|0|0|1|1
Total Hits|12|
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.053106|
Experiment 10
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|C|A|B|C|B|A|B|C|B|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|A|B
Prediction|B|A|B|A|B|A|C|A|A|A|B|C|B|A|B|B|A|B
Hit|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|1
Total Hits|12|
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.060218|
Now you may have already noticed these random sequences aren't very random at all. On the face of it they appear to jump about all over the place as random as a random thing and there's not long streches where a value doesn't appear. In fact those are the very factors that make the sequences deceptively structured rather than random at all.
These sequence are extreme examples of common human biases. Joe Soap approaches the roulette tables in his local casino, with the intention of betting on the 2nd Dozen (13 to 24 inclusive) When he sees that on the table to his left the last spin was 22 and on the table to his right none of the numbers from 13 to 24 have come up in the last three spins then of course he places his bet on the table to the right. His bet has just come up on the left hand table so what are the odds of it coming up twice in a row? On the table to the left it's due to come up. In fact his bet is equally likely to come up on either table as the roulette wheel is unaware of the previous spins and makes no attempt to even itself out.
In the sequences above are generated in an attempt to artificially even themselves out. The odds of a repeat should be one in three. In fact in the sequences above there are deliberately no repeats. The predictor knows that repeats are unlikely and so narrows the field of possible guesses from 3 to 2.
Under those circumstances we expect a hit rate of 8 and 5/6 out of 18. The signifcance of getting at least 13 out of 18 drops from around 1 in 1000 to just 1 in 25
This is rule 1 - the application of a rule imposes structure.
But there's another rule. We also have the idea that a value might be "due." If that value hasn't come up in the last three, it's "due" to come up now. The sequences above follow that logic, the predictor follows that logic too. On the fourth trial there's a 50-50 chance that one of the values won't have come up yet.
This is rule 2 it imposes even more structure on our supposedly random sequence. From my trials it appears to raise the expected level of success to around 12 out of 18. Getting 13 or better is distinctly commonplace.
Following these rules is clearly a distinct advantage with 3 options.
Incidently The one thing these simulations don't replicate is any downward bias. They give no advantage at all to the first prediction and the advantage from the second rule doesn't kick in until trial 4. This introduces an upward bias to the trend where in 1000 runs I only got 36 downward trends of greater magnitude to that in your initial test. That make your downward trend significant and in potential need of explanations when before - assuming a constant accuracy rate - no such explanation was necessary. Many such explanations are possible, wondering if you benefitted from warm ups before the test proper to ranging from simply accepting the effects of fatigue. Perhaps your subconcious is triggering fatigue when it knows you're not doing so well and so selction bias means we're more likely to end on a failure.
Back to the advantage of feedback and structured sequences.
With 4 options this advantage is significantly reduced.
In my 3 option scenario the most common result was 12 out 18 such a result been a fair test (with a genuinely random sequence and no feedback) would have had odds of one in 69.
In my 4 option scenario the most common result was 7 out of 18 such a result been a fair test (with a genuinely random sequence and no feedback) would have had odds of one in 7.
Obviously feedback and the two rules being in effect, still give an advantage that means you're expected to beat the odds in the four option scenario but by an amount that is no longer anywhere near as significant.
Obviously my dabblings in excel are a mere caricature of human behaviour, where I've placed hard and fast rules actual human behaviour is influenced by more subtle biases. However the advantage that this gives to the human acting as a random number generator, in being slightly less predictable, may be negated by the fact that the predictor is human too and has access to all the range of subtlety present in the human brain. Your subconscious knows how it might react to a request to eliminate the biases of rule1 and can project that point of view onto another person, especially if you know your assistant quite well.
It's a shame that you don't have the sequence used in your initial test so that we could see if there were some sort of structure that might have been apparent.
It should have been our last chance as there's no really good reason for you to be continuing what is essentially a game of rock – paper – scissors. However the fact that you've given in to the temptation for immediate feedback and somehow found it difficult to obtain a proper randomizer can be construed as circumstantial evidence that your subconscious knows that this is how it's playing its games and is resisting changes to a favourable set-up. As such it would be hardly surprising that you've not presented the sequence to be investigated for any hidden structure.
Given that you've effectively told your assistant to eliminate the bias associated with what I called rule 1 it would be interesting to see if he'd over compensated. Earlier I said that rule 2 kicks in 50% of the time, that's only true with rule 1 in effect. Without rule 1 in effect this changes. 2/3 of the times one number is "due", 1/9 of the time two numbers are "due" so we'd have had opportunity to see if this bias was picking up the slack in providing you with information.
If you're really having difficulty obtaining a die may I suggest drawing lots, making a cardboard spinner or using the computer that you post from to generate a sequence of pseudo random numbers.
http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20dicebag.htm
If your assistant won't have access to the web at the time of the test they can pre-generate a sequence of random numbers and take pains to ensure that you don't see it.
Asking your assistant to eliminate their bias just won't work. Whatever bias is being eliminated will be replaced by another. Its a bit like asking someone not to think of an elephant. The fact is if it's not generated by a proper randomizer thent he sequence is structured.
Any further test with immediate feedback will merely help demonstrate that it's an integral part of your ability. Only by eliminating this feedback can you demonstrate that your ability is based upon the present location of the target rather than an ability to extrapolate from its previous locations. As such you do need to be recording your predictions and your assistant needs to be recording the target locations. I'm sure all of us would welcome this being data being included in your reports.
I appreciate your efforts in shielding the cups of cereal within second cups. It greatly reduces opacity concerns and goes someway towards addressing the possibility that wear and tear starts to indentify the cups. However the rims of the cups will still be visible, removing and replacing the cups by those rims will surely increase wear and tear.
Perhaps the cups could be placed inside a shoebox? Do you think that would work with your ability?
I glad that you've taken some steps towards eliminating some of our concerns but it is a slight issue that after trying with covers you decided to go without and that you may have replaced one target for ambient light, the inside of the cup, with another the wall behind the grill. Also after trying with a larger number of potential targets you've now reduced back to three. It's of far greater concern to me that you've resisted using random numbers, are still getting immediate feedback and aren't publishing the actual sequences of target locations and predictions.
In fact in your last test, the only concern you've effectively eliminated is the one about the opacity of the cups.
Working from the hypothesis that your successes are related to structured sequences and feedback it would perhaps be interesting to see these eliminated one at a time and find out at what point your ability fails. However surely it'd be far more interesting if you could prove that your successes had nothing to do with these factors and simply eliminate feedback until the end, use a proper randomizer and allow the randomness of your sequence to be analysed.
Also please please please, strictly predifine the test conditions and the number of trials then stick to that even if you feel things aren't going well. By all means limit yourself to ten attempts in a session to avoid the fatigue and nausea you experience but specify this in advance. Otherwsie selection bias will invalidate your test.
Even without these other concerns it could look as if all you were doing was tinkering with the protocol each time you failed waiting for a run of luck then quitting one that lucky streak had expired.
Anyway thanks for looking into this for us it is greatly appreciated.
FYI if test procedure 5 had been a fair test, getting at least 9 out of 12 correct with three options to choose from has odds of 1 in 259.
trial|hit|running totals|significance|odds
1|1|1|0.333333|1 in 3
2|1|2|0.111111|1 in 9
3|1|3|0.037037|1 in 27
4|0|3|0.111111|1 in 9
5|1|4|0.045267|1 in 22.0909090909091
6|1|5|0.017833|1 in 56.076923076923
7|1|6|0.006859|1 in 145.8
8|1|7|0.002591|1 in 385.941176470588
9|1|8|0.000965|1 in 1035.94736842105
10|1|9|0.000356|1 in 2811.85714285714
11|0|9|0.001372|1 in 728.999999999999
12|0|9|0.003856|1 in 259.366032210834
You should have stopped at 10, and that should have been prespecified. You should have used a randomizer. You shouldn't have had feedback. You should have had covers on the cups. Then we'd have had something really special. As it is all we've proved is that this didn't happen by chance, something we pretty much already knew.
Glad to see that you're exploring some steps towards tightening up your protocol.
You've experimented with covering the cups with paper, this may have failed. I'm quite concerned about that. You've suggested that this may be because paper blocks some types of low energy radiation. Indeed it does. Light is one of the types of radiation that is severely attenuated by a sheet of paper. Although you've positioned yourself so that you can't see the inside rim of the cup this doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that you're picking up the cereal's influence on ambient light. If the cups are on top of a grill then I assume that they're close to a wall. That would make ambient light a concern.
You've suggested that your difficulties in this run might equally have been because of the larger number of potential targets, that would seem to be supported your feedback with procedure 2.
I also note that this first trial was before you hit upon the idea of wetting the active cereal. With regard to wetting the active cereal it might be best to wet all cereals to ensure that it is the bacillus that you're detecting rather than the moisture. That said, skeptics have a time honoured tradition of testing people who think they can detect water under unusual circumstances so that might equally be a paranormal claim. Wet it if that works for you, if it doesn't then you've got a "water dowsing" protocol, and couple of pillocks who think that invalidates your test. Their opinion doens't matter if this works out for you then you should be able to apply for the JREF on the basis of being able to tell wet lactobacillus from empty cups, cups with dry cereal, or cups with wet cereal, so long as there's no outward way of telling you're good for the million. However that's just my opinion which doesn't matter either the JREF would have the final say.
However back to that paper. I do think that a propperly controlled challenge should involve covers. It'd be strange if paper should have such an effect as you first reported noticing your sensitivity to this bacillus when it was obscured within a friends' stomach and later through the cardboard of a cereal box. Given your other attempts to improve your sensitivity, i.e. reducing to three cups and wetting the cereal it might be worth revisiting this issue and seeing if you can try again with the paper in place when it's just three cups and the target cereal is moist. If not then perhaps the cup can be elevated in a location where ambient light would be less of a concern – i.e not near a wall.
Let's look at the suggestion that more than three cups may have been overwhelming your ability. This would certainly be the case if your ability was predominantly based upon receiving feedback and working out how your assistant might place the cups next time.
Let me demonstrate.
Have a look at these replications of your initial test.
Experiment 1
Target|B|A|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|B|C
Prediction|A|A|B|B|B|A|B|A|B|C|C|A|B|A|B|A|C|C
Hit|0|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|1|1|0|1|1|0|1
Percentage|0.611111|
Signifcance|0.014434|1 in 69.2826776893141
Trend|0.054528|
Experiment 2
Target|B|A|B|C|A|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B
Prediction|B|A|B|A|B|C|B|C|C|B|C|A|B|B|A|A|B|B
Hit|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|0|1|0|1
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.051683|
Experiment 3
Target|C|B|A|B|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|A
Prediction|A|B|A|B|C|B|B|C|B|A|B|A|A|A|B|C|C|A
Hit|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|1
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.053106|
Experiment 4
Target|A|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|C
Prediction|B|B|A|B|C|B|C|A|A|B|A|A|B|C|B|B|B|A
Hit|0|0|1|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0
Percentage|0.444444|
Signifcance|0.22326|1 in 4.4790794408513
Trend|0.034614|
Experiment 5
Target|B|C|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|B
Prediction|A|C|A|A|C|A|B|A|A|A|C|A|A|A|C|C|C|B
Hit|0|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|0|1|0|0|1|1
Percentage|0.555556|
Signifcance|0.043348|1 in 23.0690798442699
Trend|0.044571|
Experiment 6
Target|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C
Prediction|C|A|B|A|B|A|A|A|C|A|A|B|B|A|A|C|B|C
Hit|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|1
Percentage|0.5|
Signifcance|0.107602|1 in 9.29347421757414
Trend|0.049787|
Experiment 7
Target|B|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|A|C|A|B|C|A
Prediction|B|C|C|B|C|A|B|B|A|A|C|B|A|C|A|B|A|B
Hit|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|0
Percentage|0.722222|
Signifcance|0.000853|1 in 1172.88901435911
Trend|0.055951|
Experiment 8
Target|C|A|B|A|C|B|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|B|A|B
Prediction|C|B|B|C|B|A|A|B|A|B|B|C|B|B|C|A|A|C
Hit|1|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|0
Percentage|0.5|
Signifcance|0.107602|1 in 9.29347421757414
Trend|0.041726|
Experiment 9
Target|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|A
Prediction|B|C|C|A|B|A|B|A|B|B|A|A|B|A|B|B|B|A
Hit|1|0|1|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|0|0|1|1
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.053106|
Experiment 10
Target|C|A|B|C|B|A|B|C|B|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|A|B
Prediction|B|A|B|A|B|A|C|A|A|A|B|C|B|A|B|B|A|B
Hit|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|1
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.060218|
Now you may have already noticed these random sequences aren't very random at all. On the face of it they appear to jump about all over the place as random as a random thing and there's not long streches where a value doesn't appear. In fact those are the very factors that make the sequences deceptively structured rather than random at all.
These sequence are extreme examples of common human biases. Joe Soap approaches the roulette tables in his local casino, with the intention of betting on the 2nd Dozen (13 to 24 inclusive) When he sees that on the table to his left the last spin was 22 and on the table to his right none of the numbers from 13 to 24 have come up in the last three spins then of course he places his bet on the table to the right. His bet has just come up on the left hand table so what are the odds of it coming up twice in a row? On the table to the left it's due to come up. In fact his bet is equally likely to come up on either table as the roulette wheel is unaware of the previous spins and makes no attempt to even itself out.
In the sequences above are generated in an attempt to artificially even themselves out. The odds of a repeat should be one in three. In fact in the sequences above there are deliberately no repeats. The predictor knows that repeats are unlikely and so narrows the field of possible guesses from 3 to 2.
Under those circumstances we expect a hit rate of 8 and 5/6 out of 18. The signifcance of getting at least 13 out of 18 drops from around 1 in 1000 to just 1 in 25
This is rule 1 - the application of a rule imposes structure.
But there's another rule. We also have the idea that a value might be "due." If that value hasn't come up in the last three, it's "due" to come up now. The sequences above follow that logic, the predictor follows that logic too. On the fourth trial there's a 50-50 chance that one of the values won't have come up yet.
This is rule 2 it imposes even more structure on our supposedly random sequence. From my trials it appears to raise the expected level of success to around 12 out of 18. Getting 13 or better is distinctly commonplace.
Following these rules is clearly a distinct advantage with 3 options.
Incidently The one thing these simulations don't replicate is any downward bias. They give no advantage at all to the first prediction and the advantage from the second rule doesn't kick in until trial 4. This introduces an upward bias to the trend where in 1000 runs I only got 36 downward trends of greater magnitude to that in your initial test. That make your downward trend significant and in potential need of explanations when before - assuming a constant accuracy rate - no such explanation was necessary. Many such explanations are possible, wondering if you benefitted from warm ups before the test proper to ranging from simply accepting the effects of fatigue. Perhaps your subconcious is triggering fatigue when it knows you're not doing so well and so selction bias means we're more likely to end on a failure.
Back to the advantage of feedback and structured sequences.
With 4 options this advantage is significantly reduced.
In my 3 option scenario the most common result was 12 out 18 such a result been a fair test (with a genuinely random sequence and no feedback) would have had odds of one in 69.
In my 4 option scenario the most common result was 7 out of 18 such a result been a fair test (with a genuinely random sequence and no feedback) would have had odds of one in 7.
Obviously feedback and the two rules being in effect, still give an advantage that means you're expected to beat the odds in the four option scenario but by an amount that is no longer anywhere near as significant.
Obviously my dabblings in excel are a mere caricature of human behaviour, where I've placed hard and fast rules actual human behaviour is influenced by more subtle biases. However the advantage that this gives to the human acting as a random number generator, in being slightly less predictable, may be negated by the fact that the predictor is human too and has access to all the range of subtlety present in the human brain. Your subconscious knows how it might react to a request to eliminate the biases of rule1 and can project that point of view onto another person, especially if you know your assistant quite well.
It's a shame that you don't have the sequence used in your initial test so that we could see if there were some sort of structure that might have been apparent.
It should have been our last chance as there's no really good reason for you to be continuing what is essentially a game of rock – paper – scissors. However the fact that you've given in to the temptation for immediate feedback and somehow found it difficult to obtain a proper randomizer can be construed as circumstantial evidence that your subconscious knows that this is how it's playing its games and is resisting changes to a favourable set-up. As such it would be hardly surprising that you've not presented the sequence to be investigated for any hidden structure.
Given that you've effectively told your assistant to eliminate the bias associated with what I called rule 1 it would be interesting to see if he'd over compensated. Earlier I said that rule 2 kicks in 50% of the time, that's only true with rule 1 in effect. Without rule 1 in effect this changes. 2/3 of the times one number is "due", 1/9 of the time two numbers are "due" so we'd have had opportunity to see if this bias was picking up the slack in providing you with information.
If you're really having difficulty obtaining a die may I suggest drawing lots, making a cardboard spinner or using the computer that you post from to generate a sequence of pseudo random numbers.
http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20dicebag.htm
If your assistant won't have access to the web at the time of the test they can pre-generate a sequence of random numbers and take pains to ensure that you don't see it.
Asking your assistant to eliminate their bias just won't work. Whatever bias is being eliminated will be replaced by another. Its a bit like asking someone not to think of an elephant. The fact is if it's not generated by a proper randomizer thent he sequence is structured.
Any further test with immediate feedback will merely help demonstrate that it's an integral part of your ability. Only by eliminating this feedback can you demonstrate that your ability is based upon the present location of the target rather than an ability to extrapolate from its previous locations. As such you do need to be recording your predictions and your assistant needs to be recording the target locations. I'm sure all of us would welcome this being data being included in your reports.
I appreciate your efforts in shielding the cups of cereal within second cups. It greatly reduces opacity concerns and goes someway towards addressing the possibility that wear and tear starts to indentify the cups. However the rims of the cups will still be visible, removing and replacing the cups by those rims will surely increase wear and tear.
Perhaps the cups could be placed inside a shoebox? Do you think that would work with your ability?
I glad that you've taken some steps towards eliminating some of our concerns but it is a slight issue that after trying with covers you decided to go without and that you may have replaced one target for ambient light, the inside of the cup, with another the wall behind the grill. Also after trying with a larger number of potential targets you've now reduced back to three. It's of far greater concern to me that you've resisted using random numbers, are still getting immediate feedback and aren't publishing the actual sequences of target locations and predictions.
In fact in your last test, the only concern you've effectively eliminated is the one about the opacity of the cups.
Working from the hypothesis that your successes are related to structured sequences and feedback it would perhaps be interesting to see these eliminated one at a time and find out at what point your ability fails. However surely it'd be far more interesting if you could prove that your successes had nothing to do with these factors and simply eliminate feedback until the end, use a proper randomizer and allow the randomness of your sequence to be analysed.
Also please please please, strictly predifine the test conditions and the number of trials then stick to that even if you feel things aren't going well. By all means limit yourself to ten attempts in a session to avoid the fatigue and nausea you experience but specify this in advance. Otherwsie selection bias will invalidate your test.
Even without these other concerns it could look as if all you were doing was tinkering with the protocol each time you failed waiting for a run of luck then quitting one that lucky streak had expired.
Anyway thanks for looking into this for us it is greatly appreciated.
FYI if test procedure 5 had been a fair test, getting at least 9 out of 12 correct with three options to choose from has odds of 1 in 259.
1|1|1|0.333333|1 in 3
2|1|2|0.111111|1 in 9
3|1|3|0.037037|1 in 27
4|0|3|0.111111|1 in 9
5|1|4|0.045267|1 in 22.0909090909091
6|1|5|0.017833|1 in 56.076923076923
7|1|6|0.006859|1 in 145.8
8|1|7|0.002591|1 in 385.941176470588
9|1|8|0.000965|1 in 1035.94736842105
10|1|9|0.000356|1 in 2811.85714285714
11|0|9|0.001372|1 in 728.999999999999
12|0|9|0.003856|1 in 259.366032210834
You should have stopped at 10, and that should have been prespecified. You should have used a randomizer. You shouldn't have had feedback. You should have had covers on the cups. Then we'd have had something really special. As it is all we've proved is that this didn't happen by chance, something we pretty much already knew.
Last edited:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks - I was simply inverting the p figures and getting that - but wanted to check (that's why I revert to consulting the automeasure tables, saves everyone from my arithmetic errors).
We need to firm up the language used here. At the moment what we can say is that you enjoy the experiences or perhaps perceptions.
The word 'observations' is only correct if we know that what you are experiencing is related to real information.
Until proper testing is done we don't know this, no matter how many times you assert this is so.
I think we have already established why I (and others) find this a little unconvincing.
Still, testing will clarify the issue.
And that is fair enough - that was what I was wondering about earlier.
Except that they would be revealed NOT to be 'observations', but something else - perhaps illusion, perhaps a visual processing issue, perhaps hallucination, perhaps imagination... If they are not reflecting reality the one thing they definitely would then NOT be is 'observations'.
I'm going to put your not understanding this down to a language issue.
No. There would be no 'ability'. You may still have the same perceptions, but if they are not related to real information then are simply illusions, and having such illusions is not an 'ability' and there would not be any 'observations'.
I am pressing this point because I am not sure whether you are clear on the distinction either in terms of English definition or conceptually.
If you have the ability to percieve real information that others cannot then this is a paranormal ability and you are experiancing genuine 'observations' about objects/people.
If testing shows your visualisations are NOT related to real information then you have no 'ability' and there are no 'observations' to relate, only some form of illusion/misperception. That would not be unique or even particularly unusual.
As mentioned before those tests would really be useful and would limit anyone's ability to cast doubt on a positive result.
But it may be. Not necessarily a negative or undesirable one, simple possibly part of your visual processing that does not work as it normally might.
I have a degree in Experimaental Psychology in which we studied a lot of perception and it was fascinating in how many ways the system can misinterpret information.
That you do not like the thought of considering the possibility it may be an 'error' is interesting in itself.
By 'error' I mean that some aspect of your processing (visual, memory etc.) may not be working in normal way. E.g. some people perceive family and friends as strangers or imposters. They see everything another person sees, but are perceiving the people in a conceptually different way.
Exactly.
Well, not really. Perhaps you could use it as such, but Creative Thinking is a conscious creative process. Synesthesia isn't in itself creative thinking anymore than colourblindness is.
It seems very important to you that whatever it is you are experiencing it in some way is a positive and sets you apart somehow. I'm sure you will disagree but that is my impression.
A very common aspect of such claims is the repeated emphasis that it is not unusual to you and you aren't much bothered about it, but it is inconceivable that whatever you are experiencing might be undesirable, or of no net positve benefit. A strange paradox.
Fair enough. We agree on that.
Again we agree, but then you say the strange...
This is where language is important.
If you said in that paragraph "In either case I get to keep the sensations" or "experiences" then we are in full agreement.
If you are uncomfortable with replacing the word 'ability' with either of those words then I would ask you why?
Again you mix in two very differnt types of example. "Tasting sunshine" is a good example of Synesthesia.
"Seeing inside the human body" is absolutely not. That is a paranormal ability.
"Believing I can see inside the human body" is neither Synesthesia or a paranormal ability.
Again the tests will hopefully help us to gather evidence as to whether this is the case.
Have you actually done this? I could invent phrases and claim it would be possible to do anything in the future.
What does "vibrational algebra" actually mean? What does it have to do with algebra? You have already stated you know little to no statistics at the moment, so I am wondering how you believe you could apply the complexities of molecular structure into a mathematical framework and create new medicines from this.
Do you have any evidence at all that you have a new system for creating brand new medicines other than the two words "vibrational algebra"?
Again you may as well be saying "I will use magic" if you have no experimental or factual basis for saying such things.
If you have any details beyond this then please tell us - there are some very experienced scientists on these forums. Without any details it's just made up concepts.
I could tell you about the plot I have for a book I am writing:
Different time lines are like an infinite number of parallel 'strings' that are all next to each other but slightly out of synch. If you travel to other 'strings' then you are effectively travelling backwards or forwards in time, with the added benefit that it circumvents the usual 'killing your grandfather' paradox.
I could claim in the future this will allow me or others to travel in time as a result of concepts invented by my vivid imagination. I call it "planar time segmentation".
But without details it's just a throwaway concept in a story.
I don't want to sound glib, but I use this example to illustrate that you seem to have a strange concept of scientific research. Having an imagination can be extremely important in creating new concepts and experiments in science, but they must be married to experimentation, observation and replication.
Vague concepts and pseudo-science are ten-a-penny on the internet.
To test the idea you will absolutely have to "waste time and resources" on them. No-one is going to accept untested ideas or materials.
You can't do science just by imagining it in your head.
Again this is extremely testable.
However if I suggested we formulate testing around this claim I assume you would then say it isn't your strongest ability...
And yet ironically you still think these physical observation abilities are strong enough to create new medicines and create new fields of scientific testing!
So they are strong enough for you to use them however you wish to advance science and strong enough for you to use them as a scientist might use a thermometer or barometer... yet not strong enough to be tested as indicative of your ability?
This is another common theme of such claims - the more the claimant provides details of their ability, the more inconsistencies seem to appear.
Again what do you mean by 'fail'?
It doesn't matter if a scientist becomes angry or emotional as aresult of an experiment, if he is honest in publishing the results and has carried out the experiment correctly then he has added some knowledge to the world.
Again with the language issue.
It is actually about finding whether there is an ability.
But you claim repeatedly you aren't bothered about having the ability or not?
Anyway your emotions are relevant if they are potentially causing you to become strongly disposed to confirmation bias.
Of course you are entitled to your emotions, but it is important to be aware of similar examples that we have seen before - the strength of emotional attachment to a perceived ability may prevent a claimant from accepting negative results.
All of your posts show an extremely strong attachment to your perceived ability to the point you have repeatedly stated that an entirely negative result would still not stop you perceiving this as an 'ability'. (Unless as mentioned earlier there is some confusion over the exact definition of words).
It would seem fairly important if you wish to to actual experiments, especially at the conceptual level you described earlier.
Why specifically a chemistry experiment?
And this forum is a very useful resource for that.
Okay that's great.
Please do not get the impression I wish to be negative about your experiment.
You appear genuine about wishing the test to go ahead and I am genuine in wanting the same and for the protocols to be as tight as possible.
One of the worst outcomes is that the experiment is carried out and you demonstrate positive results, but lack of tight controls in the test protocol allows room for questions about the validity of the result.
It is really in everyone's interest, especially yours, that the protocol allows as little room as possible for demonstrating anything other than your claimed ability.
The importance of this ability being demonstrated to be real cannot be overstated.
That's a great idea as a control - someone else with no claimed ability attempting to discern the ailments using simple observation.
Agreed. It genuinely sounds like you are willing to work with IIG and at this point it does look like the test will go ahead.
Good luck.
Last edited:
Anita,
It doesn't really relate to your current testing, but a story occurred to me that might have some relationship with your more general sense of having validated your powers.
A neighbor of mine a few years ago was into Brain Gym etc... she'd been on a course and was going to start teaching it in schools. She needed someone to practice on, and I was too nice to say no. She got me to touch my nose which each index finger, stand with my arms outstretched, I think drinking water was involved at some point. She would ask me questions and based on the stiffness/resistance of my arms she would know whether I was telling the truth/whether something was positive or negative/blah blah blah. The thing was, I was doing all of it (stiffening/relaxing my arm) because I was too polite/embarrassed to tell her to her face that what she was doing didn't work, and was a bunch of crap.
Maybe Brain Gym does work, on people less cynical and closed minded than me, but that wasn’t the point of the story. You may have powers, you may not, but don’t necessarily trust people to tell you honestly whether you ‘guessed’ right or not. People will lie to you for stupid reasons.
All the best with your testing...
It doesn't really relate to your current testing, but a story occurred to me that might have some relationship with your more general sense of having validated your powers.
A neighbor of mine a few years ago was into Brain Gym etc... she'd been on a course and was going to start teaching it in schools. She needed someone to practice on, and I was too nice to say no. She got me to touch my nose which each index finger, stand with my arms outstretched, I think drinking water was involved at some point. She would ask me questions and based on the stiffness/resistance of my arms she would know whether I was telling the truth/whether something was positive or negative/blah blah blah. The thing was, I was doing all of it (stiffening/relaxing my arm) because I was too polite/embarrassed to tell her to her face that what she was doing didn't work, and was a bunch of crap.
Maybe Brain Gym does work, on people less cynical and closed minded than me, but that wasn’t the point of the story. You may have powers, you may not, but don’t necessarily trust people to tell you honestly whether you ‘guessed’ right or not. People will lie to you for stupid reasons.
All the best with your testing...
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
Well, your instinct that it wasn't the proper way to do it was correct. It's not. However, in this situation, it provides a close approximation.
I am now prepared to consider VFF a genuinely self-deceived person. I am seeing enough of a pattern of: Shrugging off negative results ("I am 100% correct" despite in her own testing having failures); self-contradictory statements ("Apparently the paper was blocking..." versus detection inside a sealed, in-the-store cereal box); changing the story to fit the current needs ("when I found the H. pylori in a relative" -- per the original post, she used "vibrational algebra" to conclude that calcium carbonate might be a good treatment for H. pylori); and leaving out pertinent information (not mentioning until deep into the experiment description posts that she DISCARDED any attempt where she didn't get a feeling and had the cups reshuffled for another trial) to consider that she is on some level not trying to get a realistic trial.
What is particularly troubling for me is that she combines this with assertions that she is very scientific and going to get a double degree in scientific fields--yet she will not apply the basic principles of eliminating unconscious bias to these very preliminary tests.
The previously not-mentioned do-overs for "I don't get anything" trials is a big issue. Given that we don't know how many times these 'extra' set-ups occurred, how can we possibly do any kind of statistical analysis? If it's an elaborate game of subconscious "Rock, Paper, Scissors," doesn't the presence of these additional shuffles totally alter the hit occurrance? That is, if she doesn't get a 'read', she requests a new set-up.
The refusal to use a die to randomize is very concerning. The unwillingness to concede that there is not yet evidence of an "ability", only of believed-in perceptions has actually crossed over into irritating for me.
I promise to return to this post later tonight and cite the posts where I have quoted or paraphrased, but I have to get another chapter finished for class now.
Best wishes.
What is particularly troubling for me is that she combines this with assertions that she is very scientific and going to get a double degree in scientific fields--yet she will not apply the basic principles of eliminating unconscious bias to these very preliminary tests.
The previously not-mentioned do-overs for "I don't get anything" trials is a big issue. Given that we don't know how many times these 'extra' set-ups occurred, how can we possibly do any kind of statistical analysis? If it's an elaborate game of subconscious "Rock, Paper, Scissors," doesn't the presence of these additional shuffles totally alter the hit occurrance? That is, if she doesn't get a 'read', she requests a new set-up.
The refusal to use a die to randomize is very concerning. The unwillingness to concede that there is not yet evidence of an "ability", only of believed-in perceptions has actually crossed over into irritating for me.
I promise to return to this post later tonight and cite the posts where I have quoted or paraphrased, but I have to get another chapter finished for class now.
Best wishes.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,486
So. After scrolling through all the posts between yours and this one, I can reasonably gather that nothing of any importance has been accomplished? Thank you.
I'll check back later.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
So. After scrolling through all the posts between yours and this one, I can reasonably gather that nothing of any importance has been accomplished? Thank you.
I'll check back later.
Yeah, that last set of tests didn't really exemplify "better controls".
*Sigh*
Back to waiting.
VisionFromFeeling
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,361
JWideman:
I use this to build a growing library of references. For instance, in the chemistry lab there might be a container of a pure compound such as Calcium Carbonate. I make the observation of being under the impression of feeling what that chemical feels like. I can then read the label of the container before, during, or after making my observation to learn the name associated to the feeling. At later dates when I come across the same or a similar feeling I can say that it feels like Calcium Carbonate. This is however a learning method.
When I make claims of having made observations where I identified something, there should be no label. When I claim to be using the ability, I should be using my library of references to give the name of what I feel. The case in which I identified Lactobacillus in the cereal box would be an example of a learning experience. Not of an identification experience.
As an example of an identification experience, when I saw a co-worker and detected reproductive cysts there was no label or external means of detecting this that I know of and it was a possible example of an identification experience.
When I identified Lactobacillus in the friend's stomach it was the case of almost an identification experience. I did not remember my reference of Lactobacillus but I did identify "organic, living, white, bright, friendly, ingested intentionally as opposed to having appeared naturally, bacteria, in the stomach".
Yes I do make incorrect answers during the cereal tests. I realize that it will sound like a bunch of excuses, since that is what they are, but toward what becomes the end of a chemical identification test I am uncomfortable and unable to make observations with the ability yet I push myself to try to reach a certain total number of trials. And sometimes I do not spend enough time building up the perception of the target before reporting an answer. Now that I've found some of my excuses I can stop what causes them in future tests, by stopping the test when I am tired rather than continuing to make observations and then blaming it on fatigue when they are incorrect, and by rather than rushing, not reporting an answer until I have worked on it long enough to be certain. I appreciate finding out what my excuses are for incorrect answers so that I can improve on my technique and eliminate any excuses in upcoming tests as well as find out just how well my ability can do. These initial cereal tests are all about finding out first of all how my ability can be used on a chemical identification test, and secondly how to design the test protocol.
The test protocol is at a very primitive stage right now and is far from acceptable to scientific standards or even to my own standards. The results of the two first cereal tests do not conclude anything, not for or against an ability. They are just a very early beginning.
Actually, even though it does sound like an excuse, when I see Lactobacillus, it has so far always been correct. But when I push myself to answer when I do not see it, it has a 2/3 chance of being incorrect and I make incorrect answers and it concerns cases where I did not feel or see it. This sounds like nonsense I know, but later on on a real test there will be no excuses and I will learn to only make an answer when I actually claim that I saw it. And no excuses will be valid.
The point of all of this is not that I could claim to have an ability, but that I have reasons to want to have a test of scientific standard to find out if there is an ability or not. I have been unable to dismiss a possible ability when I have checked the accuracy of the observations. The accuracy of past observations is not evidence. It simply explains why I am compelled to have a test. Oh well, lots and lots of talk and no evidence, but the tests are on their way so we all have to be patient. I do appreciate the comments though.
Madalch:
Old man:
I am very open to finding out that I do not have a paranormal ability. If I make a statistically significant number of incorrect answers that indicate no paranormal ability, then I will gladly accept it. I am just curious because I have made some very interesting accurate observations. I realize that when I check my accuracy I often truly expect to be wrong but just haven't been. I accept the possibility of confirmation bias although it does not appear to be relevant in my case. I have tried to dismiss my observations. I apologize if that doesn't sound credible, so let's just leave it at that and see what test results suggest.
Well these first tests were intended just to try things out and for that humble purpose it was ok, and they accomplished that task well. For an official test it was not ok.
Perhaps I should not have posted the first two cereal tests? I already know that they were not done under proper conditions, I am still working on that. Upcoming tests will be done under more proper procedures.
If you have two cups with a gray marble and one cup with a white marble and you can only look at one cup at a time, and you claim to be able to sense their color. You can either work on detecting the gray marbles one at a time to eliminate those and deduce which one remains and is the white one, and then look at the white one to verify that you think it is the white one. Or, you could work on detecting the white marble, and once you find it, you can verify that you think it is the white one, and do not need to look into the others unless you choose to, and that way it should not matter how many gray ones are around it the work will be almost the same. So it is much easier. This way I am hoping that I can increase the total number of cups because I don't have to exhaust myself by finding all the wrong ones first and can go straight to the right one. A larger total number of cups makes the test statistically more interesting for test purposes.
The way I do this is I sense the entire row of cups searching for a specific vibrational information, and when there is a match it is highlighted. I then look closer at that cup to verify that it is what I searched for, and do this one by one. By searching for the white light rather than the dark, I can detect the one target cup instead of the other ones.
EHocking:
Well the results are fine if they are 9 of 10 but we simply need more trials. Yes definitely the procedure as of now is far from acceptable, it will undergo several steps of improvements.
I will continue to wet the bacteria since it seems to activate them and brighten their radiance. If I am unable to detect the light from covered samples it does not conclude no paranormal ability. Many weak radiations are blocked by paper. Hopefully the containers could be arranged so that even without covers, no differences among them could be detected through ordinary means. I will investigate other cover materials and perhaps find one that is acceptable for tests as well as that lets through the information that I claim to need for detection.
Soapy Sam:
Only time will reveal that I am not one of such persons. And we are here to find out whether I have a paranormal ability or not. There is no deliberate lie or deception going on.
alfaniner:
I absolutely love your little blue man.
I would prefer to do as many trials as I can, so that this number of trials may be different for different tests depending on how many I can do at that time. When I become tired and realize that I am unable to sense the bacteria I can state this and have a break and continue later on. Once I apply this, the downward trend that was seen in both cereal tests might not appear again.
If a test protocol insists that I have a set total number of trials to do, then I would suggest 10.
Beth:
I perceive the bacteria as having a bright white light and a characteristic feeling to them, and perceive the plain cereal as having a dark flat light. Statistics will indicate whether this leads to correct answers. The testing procedure must be improved on. I am happy to continue with the cereal tests and so far they have not allowed me to dismiss the reasons to proceed with the tests.
I did experience during the second cereal test some observations that were so absolutely compelling to me to be true that I decided right there and then that if even one of these were to be incorrect then that would give me serious doubt in my ability and I would consider not continuing with a cereal test. Well, whether it was that 1 in 3 chance or some flaw in the protocol or an actual ability, the observations were correct, so all I can conclude is to continue testing.
Moochie:
What am I supposed to do at this very point? I have done my part in the test arrangements with the IIG and now it's their turn. I am arranging cereal tests every week and continue to improve on the protocol. I am posting the results here. I describe the ability and my observations and I assure that I am honest. I answer everyone's questions. If you are impatient then don't turn that against me, I am impatient too! And I am working as fast as I can!
I have contacted the IIG to test my ability on medical information. I did not begin arranging a test with the JREF because of their requirements on the applicants, for instance I do not have the required media presence. The cereal tests are going quite nicely and if I am successful I will definitely apply for the MDC. I know it sounds unbelievable but I don't favor one testing organization over the other based on how much they would pay if I passed the test. Practical reasons determine which one is more convenient for me. I am not money-oriented in this, I just want a test of scientific standard. Surely JREF will provide that, but, their pre-reqs are harder.
No I am not a guesser. When I claim to sense, feel or see something with the ability, I do so after having been under the impression that I actually sensed something. So I do not guess at random (but I did a few times on the cereal tests to try to get it over with, and that won't be done from now on at all).
I understand and fully embrace the possibility that I could be capable of making an observation, and then after the observation finding out what the ailment is, and assuming that what I observed fits with the ailment. This would especially be possible for observations that are vague, and that leave a lot of room for filling out the details. Obviously I have done this to certain extent, for instance in my observation that "there is something very unusual, bright, organic, and living, inside the cereal box", when I read the box and found out that there is Lactobacillus in the cereal, I made the assumption that what I observed was Lactobacillus in absence of any other more likely explanation. So this is an example of where I do make the connection after finding out what it was. But most of my perceptions are more specific than vague.JWideman said:
I use this to build a growing library of references. For instance, in the chemistry lab there might be a container of a pure compound such as Calcium Carbonate. I make the observation of being under the impression of feeling what that chemical feels like. I can then read the label of the container before, during, or after making my observation to learn the name associated to the feeling. At later dates when I come across the same or a similar feeling I can say that it feels like Calcium Carbonate. This is however a learning method.
When I make claims of having made observations where I identified something, there should be no label. When I claim to be using the ability, I should be using my library of references to give the name of what I feel. The case in which I identified Lactobacillus in the cereal box would be an example of a learning experience. Not of an identification experience.
As an example of an identification experience, when I saw a co-worker and detected reproductive cysts there was no label or external means of detecting this that I know of and it was a possible example of an identification experience.
When I identified Lactobacillus in the friend's stomach it was the case of almost an identification experience. I did not remember my reference of Lactobacillus but I did identify "organic, living, white, bright, friendly, ingested intentionally as opposed to having appeared naturally, bacteria, in the stomach".
Yes I do make incorrect answers during the cereal tests. I realize that it will sound like a bunch of excuses, since that is what they are, but toward what becomes the end of a chemical identification test I am uncomfortable and unable to make observations with the ability yet I push myself to try to reach a certain total number of trials. And sometimes I do not spend enough time building up the perception of the target before reporting an answer. Now that I've found some of my excuses I can stop what causes them in future tests, by stopping the test when I am tired rather than continuing to make observations and then blaming it on fatigue when they are incorrect, and by rather than rushing, not reporting an answer until I have worked on it long enough to be certain. I appreciate finding out what my excuses are for incorrect answers so that I can improve on my technique and eliminate any excuses in upcoming tests as well as find out just how well my ability can do. These initial cereal tests are all about finding out first of all how my ability can be used on a chemical identification test, and secondly how to design the test protocol.
The test protocol is at a very primitive stage right now and is far from acceptable to scientific standards or even to my own standards. The results of the two first cereal tests do not conclude anything, not for or against an ability. They are just a very early beginning.
Actually, even though it does sound like an excuse, when I see Lactobacillus, it has so far always been correct. But when I push myself to answer when I do not see it, it has a 2/3 chance of being incorrect and I make incorrect answers and it concerns cases where I did not feel or see it. This sounds like nonsense I know, but later on on a real test there will be no excuses and I will learn to only make an answer when I actually claim that I saw it. And no excuses will be valid.
The point of all of this is not that I could claim to have an ability, but that I have reasons to want to have a test of scientific standard to find out if there is an ability or not. I have been unable to dismiss a possible ability when I have checked the accuracy of the observations. The accuracy of past observations is not evidence. It simply explains why I am compelled to have a test. Oh well, lots and lots of talk and no evidence, but the tests are on their way so we all have to be patient. I do appreciate the comments though.
Madalch:
I don't know until I try this. It is not among my experiences since usually papers aren't stained with unusual chemicals in this way. It is something I can try, and if I find out that it is something I am able to do I will let you know and you can send me a sample.Madalch said:
Old man:
Old man said:
I am very open to finding out that I do not have a paranormal ability. If I make a statistically significant number of incorrect answers that indicate no paranormal ability, then I will gladly accept it. I am just curious because I have made some very interesting accurate observations. I realize that when I check my accuracy I often truly expect to be wrong but just haven't been. I accept the possibility of confirmation bias although it does not appear to be relevant in my case. I have tried to dismiss my observations. I apologize if that doesn't sound credible, so let's just leave it at that and see what test results suggest.
VisionFromFeeling said:
Well these first tests were intended just to try things out and for that humble purpose it was ok, and they accomplished that task well. For an official test it was not ok.
Old man said:
Perhaps I should not have posted the first two cereal tests? I already know that they were not done under proper conditions, I am still working on that. Upcoming tests will be done under more proper procedures.
Then let's just say that I was working on detecting the one sample of "wet bacterial supplement". I don't see how this would weaken a protocol?Old man said:
VisionFromFeeling said:
Old man said:
If you have two cups with a gray marble and one cup with a white marble and you can only look at one cup at a time, and you claim to be able to sense their color. You can either work on detecting the gray marbles one at a time to eliminate those and deduce which one remains and is the white one, and then look at the white one to verify that you think it is the white one. Or, you could work on detecting the white marble, and once you find it, you can verify that you think it is the white one, and do not need to look into the others unless you choose to, and that way it should not matter how many gray ones are around it the work will be almost the same. So it is much easier. This way I am hoping that I can increase the total number of cups because I don't have to exhaust myself by finding all the wrong ones first and can go straight to the right one. A larger total number of cups makes the test statistically more interesting for test purposes.
The way I do this is I sense the entire row of cups searching for a specific vibrational information, and when there is a match it is highlighted. I then look closer at that cup to verify that it is what I searched for, and do this one by one. By searching for the white light rather than the dark, I can detect the one target cup instead of the other ones.
The cereal test protocol so far is absolutely not acceptable as an official test protocol and there are many improvements to be made on it. I don't know what you mean by biased? Please explain, I'm sure it's a good question if only I knew what it is asking about.Old man said:
EHocking:
You can rely on me reporting the cereal test results no matter what they are.EHocking said:
EHocking said:
Well the results are fine if they are 9 of 10 but we simply need more trials. Yes definitely the procedure as of now is far from acceptable, it will undergo several steps of improvements.
I will continue to wet the bacteria since it seems to activate them and brighten their radiance. If I am unable to detect the light from covered samples it does not conclude no paranormal ability. Many weak radiations are blocked by paper. Hopefully the containers could be arranged so that even without covers, no differences among them could be detected through ordinary means. I will investigate other cover materials and perhaps find one that is acceptable for tests as well as that lets through the information that I claim to need for detection.
I will definitely aim toward the 1 in 1,000,000 results. And we really can't conclude much on just a total of 10 or 12 trials. I am preparing to have a total of at least 50 trials, and if I still get 9 out of 10 correct then that would be a passing score.EHocking said:
Soapy Sam:
Soapy Sam said:
Only time will reveal that I am not one of such persons. And we are here to find out whether I have a paranormal ability or not. There is no deliberate lie or deception going on.
I can not claim to know whether I have a paranormal ability or not. All I can claim is that so far the observations have had good accuracy and that there are no grounds for dismissing the possibility of an ability yet.Soapy Sam said:
alfaniner:
I absolutely love your little blue man.
alfaniner said:
I would prefer to do as many trials as I can, so that this number of trials may be different for different tests depending on how many I can do at that time. When I become tired and realize that I am unable to sense the bacteria I can state this and have a break and continue later on. Once I apply this, the downward trend that was seen in both cereal tests might not appear again.
If a test protocol insists that I have a set total number of trials to do, then I would suggest 10.
Beth:
Beth said:
I perceive the bacteria as having a bright white light and a characteristic feeling to them, and perceive the plain cereal as having a dark flat light. Statistics will indicate whether this leads to correct answers. The testing procedure must be improved on. I am happy to continue with the cereal tests and so far they have not allowed me to dismiss the reasons to proceed with the tests.
I did experience during the second cereal test some observations that were so absolutely compelling to me to be true that I decided right there and then that if even one of these were to be incorrect then that would give me serious doubt in my ability and I would consider not continuing with a cereal test. Well, whether it was that 1 in 3 chance or some flaw in the protocol or an actual ability, the observations were correct, so all I can conclude is to continue testing.
I would guess that the warm water gives the bacteria a liquid environment that they can move in and the warmth might give them some energy. The Lactobacillus I saw in the stomach was very active, and less so but somewhat active in room-temperature cereal, and is least active in refrigerated yoghurt, so I assumed that giving them some warmth would activate them. In my vision of them they started crawling and moving in the water, and their vibrational information became much more detectable.Beth said:
Moochie:
Moochie said:
What am I supposed to do at this very point? I have done my part in the test arrangements with the IIG and now it's their turn. I am arranging cereal tests every week and continue to improve on the protocol. I am posting the results here. I describe the ability and my observations and I assure that I am honest. I answer everyone's questions. If you are impatient then don't turn that against me, I am impatient too! And I am working as fast as I can!
Moochie said:
I have contacted the IIG to test my ability on medical information. I did not begin arranging a test with the JREF because of their requirements on the applicants, for instance I do not have the required media presence. The cereal tests are going quite nicely and if I am successful I will definitely apply for the MDC. I know it sounds unbelievable but I don't favor one testing organization over the other based on how much they would pay if I passed the test. Practical reasons determine which one is more convenient for me. I am not money-oriented in this, I just want a test of scientific standard. Surely JREF will provide that, but, their pre-reqs are harder.
No I am not a guesser. When I claim to sense, feel or see something with the ability, I do so after having been under the impression that I actually sensed something. So I do not guess at random (but I did a few times on the cereal tests to try to get it over with, and that won't be done from now on at all).
Well, my correspondence with all of you does not contain any deliberate lies, exaggeration, or deception. I am being as honest as I can. Let's just see what the test results say.Moochie said:
Last edited:
- Status