Paranormal detection

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Let me restate the definitions for your convenience:
Staring is when you look at something intensively because you desire to do so, and that involves the conscious and the subconscious levels.
Looking at something intensively for the sake of demonstrating a test is NOT staring (acting/passive), and that involves only the conscious level, you don't have any desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity to do so,it's boring and doesn't happen in normal every day life.
...

Reason1, I pretty much assume there is some kind of language barrier here. If I saw any chance of you submitting a proper application including media profile and academic support, I would go through the very likely painful lengths of explaining to you why some of your defintions seem arbitrary.

But you have refused to take advice given in this thread, you continue to talk of a long post to come or of an explanation arriving.

I conclude you have already made up your mind about what is happening to you when you speak of "staring" and no evidence to the contrary will convince you of something different.

You have the mindset of a believer. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

In your present position, there seems no way that you will do a simple controlled test. The scenarios you describe have too many variables to account for and thus are useless to find out if what you claim happens does indeed happen. As of now, there is no way to measure - not judge, infer or guess: measure that what you say takes place in reality/that your experiences are observable outside of your mind.

I encourage you to contact the psychology department of a nearby university and propose one of your test scenarios to them. Their response might help you on your path to wherever you are destined.

 

[Moochie]

Let me restate the definitions for your convenience:
Staring is when you look at something intensively because you desire to do so, and that involves the conscious and the subconscious levels.
Looking at something intensively for the sake of demonstrating a test is NOT staring (acting/passive), and that involves only the conscious level, you don't have any desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity to do so,it's boring and doesn't happen in normal every day life.

And how would you go about proving this? How would you (or anyone except the person looking) know?

How much longer are you going to insult our intelligence this way?


M.

 

[Moochie]

Ron,
If I remember my Looney Tunes, the toad was a frog (Michigan J. Frog, to be precise) and he sang Varsity Rag.

Not that I'm a pathetic nerd and pedantic nit-picker or anything.


ETA: Arrrgh
Not only that, but I'm an incorrect pathetic nerd and pedantic nit-picker. It was the Michigan Rag. Duuuh! As in Michigan J. Frog.
Note to self: Google first, not later.

I was going to say that the depth of your knowledge regarding Looney Tunes is truly breathtaking, but then I saw the second part of your post, so now it's merely breath.


M.

 

[reason1]

ok...regarding the confirmation bias thing:
some people are arguing that there is a possibility that i cannot detect when someone stares at me... i say "so what ?, my experience is self-evident".
So, even if there is a logical/philosophical possibility that i do miss some staring....again "so what, it's self-evident".

so, there is no confirmation bias here because the odds are against that a self-evident experience/test would happen thousand times
what do you say ?

PS:still not ignoring anyone ,just be patient

 

[Femke]

ok...regarding the confirmation bias thing:
some people are arguing that there is a possibility that i cannot detect when someone stares at me... i say "so what ?, my experience is self-evident".
So, even if there is a logical/philosophical possibility that i do miss some staring....again "so what, it's self-evident".

so, there is no confirmation bias here because the odds is against that a self-evident experience/test would happen thousand times
what do you say ?

So basically you are saying: I can detect someone staring at me, except when I don't.
Then I say: riiight.

 

[Kariboo]

ok...regarding the confirmation bias thing:
some people are arguing that there is a possibility that i cannot detect when someone stares at me... i say "so what ?, my experience is self-evident".
So, even if there is a logical/philosophical possibility that i do miss some staring....again "so what, it's self-evident".

Well, you claim that you can detect when someone stares at you, so instances where someone stares at you and you don't detect that are a problem. I.e. in direct opposition of your claim. Or with other words, you missing someone staring at you, makes your claim invalid.

so, there is no confirmation bias here because the odds are against that a self-evident experience/test would happen thousand times
what do you say ?

I say that you just described confirmation bias being present. I also say that the odds are very good that this would happen a lot. Or with other words it is a very common and ordinary experience that you are describing. You have just convinced yourself that something out of the ordinary is going on.

People have suggested some simple tests to see if this is the case, you could go out and try those

 

[reason1]

I say that you just described confirmation bias being present

NO...i'm saying that "my confirmation is unbiased"

 

[Uncayimmy]

So basically you are saying: I can detect someone staring at me, except when I don't.
Then I say: riiight.

To be fair this is not inherently a problem. Lots of legitimate science starts out that way. If you didn't know anything about magnetism, you would have an object that mysteriously attracts some objects but not others. Proper testing would eventually lead you to understanding just what is going on, and then you could have a 100% success rate. Until then it would simply attract objects except when it doesn't.

Suppose we had some sort of test where in only 10% of the trials someone was actually "staring" at him. If he only detected those "stares" 50% of the time but did not have a single false positive (detected a stare when there was not), that could be very significant statistically given a sufficient number of trials.

Thing is, Reason1 hasn't properly examined his experiences in the first place and does not deserve such a test. What he is describing is rather ordinary in my opinion.

 

[Femke]

To be fair this is not inherently a problem. Lots of legitimate science starts out that way. If you didn't know anything about magnetism, you would have an object that mysteriously attracts some objects but not others. Proper testing would eventually lead you to understanding just what is going on, and then you could have a 100% success rate. Until then it would simply attract objects except when it doesn't.

You are right. Thanks, I did not realise I jumped to conclusions.

@Reason1
How did you find out that people need to stare at you in the right, detectable way? Do you ask people right after their 'guiltily' turning away? You must have had some feedback to be so adamant about it.
Some others asked it before, but I don't think you have addressed that.

 

[Kariboo]

NO...i'm saying that "my confirmation is unbiased"

No, if you ignore/miss the times when someone is staring at you that is part of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias: "count the hits and ignore the misses".
In your ability, not noticing that someone IS staring at you when you say you can feel people staring at you is ignoring a miss. A miss is when something you say you can do happens but you miss it.

 

[reason1]

again ,thanks UncaYimmy of your objectivity.

Thing is, Reason1 hasn't properly examined his experiences in the first place and does not deserve such a test. What he is describing is rather ordinary in my opinion.

Also this experience happened with me thousands of times before. I'll give examples later.

to all of you who are interested:
I recall detecting when people stared at me from above while waring a cap three times,one from the second floor and 2 from fifth floor

there was no reason for me to suddenly look up exactly at a person at the fifth floor .
also how do you explain that all of those people suddenly tried to hide at that moment ?.

You seem to ignore the very ordinary explanations provided for your experiences.

Maybe i should do that as these explanations are actually off-topic !

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Reason1, this subforum deals only with the Million Dollar Challenge. If you - or anyone else for that matter - want to discuss different topics, perhaps other subforums are more suited for that.

You have made a claim. Perhaps you should start working on your application. How would you state your claim and the success/failure scenario, as per rule #1 from the Challenge Application page?

 

[reason1]

No, if you ignore/miss the times when someone is staring at you that is part of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias: "count the hits and ignore the misses".
In your ability, not noticing that someone IS staring at you when you say you can feel people staring at you is ignoring a miss. A miss is when something you say you can do happens but you miss it.

NO..NO..NO, if i ignore the misses and only count the hits for non self-evident test ,it's confirmation bias

 

[GzuzKryzt]

---

 

[GzuzKryzt]

---

 

[TSR]

regarding my definitions:
My definitions are the psychological/scientific ones,

And you can, of course, cite some psychological/scientific source to support this?

regarding my definitions:

The starers know they are staring ,hence conscious level
Also they have a desire to do so , hence subconscious level

But how do you *know* they have this desire to stare at you, as opposed to the desire to help complete the test?

 

[TSR]

NO..NO..NO, if i ignore the misses and only count the hits for non self-evident test ,it's confirmation bias

No, it is confimration bias whether you *think* it is self evident or not, which your current claim is not. Because if your claim is true, there would be no (or significantly few) misses.

IOW, under no circumstances is it acceptable, for the sake of a test attempting to demonstrate a better-than-random-chance of something occurring, to ignore the misses.

Perhaps the problem is the definition of "self" in "self-evident?" This does not mean "the result is evident to me," but that "the result is evident in and of itself, requiring no assumptions or interpretation, such that anyone would agree on what that result actually is."

For example, as a demonstration of gravity I toss a ball into the air, and it falls directly down and hits the ground. This is witnessed by ten people. How many of those people are *not* going to agree that the ball fell again? How many are going to have seen it hit a table before rolling off onto the ground? The result is self-evident.

If the ball does not fall directly down and hit the ground, we cannot just ignore that result, for the purpose of demonstrating gravity. It is a clear miss and would indicate either gravity does not work, or that some other force intervened. Maybe there was wind? Maybe a bird came along and grabbed it? We could then design a test to eliminate those factors -- but again, it would all be self-evident.

Does that make things clearer?

How would you distinguish between someone staring out of general curiousity, and someone staring out of curiousity as to how the test will turn out, such that anyone would agree on that distinction?

You seem to be allowing for the possibility that you *have* been ignoring misses -- which means you haven't really demonstrated anything at all in your previous experiences.

 

[TSR]

IMHO, further response to reason1 only serves his other purpose which I'm confident has nothing to do with the MDC and only other, more dishonest, plans. If you chose to respond please be mindful of how your responses may be used in the future. Thank you.

If you refer to reason1's "joke" about suing, since zie has not submitted an application, and since no one responding so far has any authority to accept or reject that non-existent application, nor to engage reason1 in any way on behalf of JREF, I fail to see how any such use could possibly be attempted without objection and sustanation of that objection.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

If you refer to reason1's "joke" about suing, since zie has not submitted an application, and since no one responding so far has any authority to accept or reject that non-existent application, nor to engage reason1 in any way on behalf of JREF, I fail to see how any such use could possibly be attempted without objection and sustanation of that objection.

What H3LL probably referred to was a possibility of the umpteenth time a would-be applicant using the JREF forum for something different he initially led on.

A way of paraphrasing H3LL's post would be: "Do not feed the troll."



Seriously, UncaYimmy et al.: Do you see this going to an application? If not, what would the most productive approach be now?

 

[Lrrr]

I think maybe we should wait a day or so (and stop forcing reason1 to respond to our posts) so that he/she may complete the long post explaining everything that has been promised "real soon now" for at least two days.