Wow. Great stuff. Some rambling thoughts:
1. I have
not pm'd Luke T. the book information due to the comments in this thread, though I have placed the book on top of my locker.
2. Cleopatra said this:
Unless you want me to do Garette a tarot reading and then make a guess
For some reason, though, I can only read it this far:
Unless you want me to do Garette
Will there be a vote?
[/offensive digression of man far too long in Iraq]
3. [Apologies to Cleopatra] Sorry, Cleopatra. No offense meant. [/Apologies to Cleopatra]
4. I agree almost absolutely with Ed and Voidx about the 10 book list being better. If I can be post-pre-proactive, I did actually think of this yesterday, but we were already into this set up so I didn't pursue it. I may yet change it to that. I do not think Clancie's objections to this process have merit.
Edited to add: Clancie appears not to object now; sorry if I mischaracterized your position
5. Nor do I think that restricting it to fiction titles is better. If anything, it expands the subject's chances for a hit.
6. I am woefully unsuited for the task of determining the proper technical security procedures for this. I think, perhaps, that regardless of encryption/non-encryption or PGP/private method/random text that there will always remain the human element and trust will be required. Even if the encryption thing were worked out, who is to say that I'm not lying about which book is on my locker? I might have put The Book of Kells up there but told Luke T. that it's actually The Happy Hooker. If I were truly part of an ECA and truly feared the discovery that psi is real, this is, in fact, the route I would take; much simpler and more effective than worrying about encryptions. The more I think about it, the less I see the need for the security
in this particular non-scientific experiment-like but fallible test. Trust me or don't. Participate or don't. I admit up front that I would/will object strenuously to such protocols in any test purporting to be scientific.
7. Somewhere in all these comments, I got the impression that actually having the book on the locker is not considered by some to be necessary, and that simply printing an Amazon page would be sufficient. While I admit this is not a scientific test, that particular "looseness" is wholly unacceptable to me as it would leave far too large a hole about which the subjects could complain. For any test I run, an actual book (or other object, if we change the test) will be in the designated spot; I will know its title and its nature and what it looks like; I will personally have handled it (I will, in fact, be the
last person to handle it before it is put in the designated spot); and I will think about it. Right now, I just bring it to mind occasionally throughout the day. If we want to get more rigorous, I could set my watch to beep on the hour to remind me to think about it for a minute.
8. While the thoughts were not crystallized to the extent I am about to express them, I had four particular goals in mind when I began this. I think they are being demonstrated fairly well, though the first not so much because there's only been one trial.
a. Demonstrate that the success rate,
even in a loosely controlled and favorable-to-the-subject test, is much lower than the subjects expect it would be. Yes. I entered this with bias. I expect it to fail to demonstrate anomalous cognition. That being said, I would be quite happy to be proven wrong.
b. Demonstrate that the subjects and those who believe in AC will not quantify what can be done. For the record, I don't really include Max in this. He has been, at least in all discussions with me, up front in admitting that if he possesses any ability at all it is unpredictable, small, and vague.
c. Demonstrate that the "judging" (and once we got past titles, judging became a necessity) is inconsistent when applied by those who believe. Clancie, don't take this personally, but this is directed at you. When I gave my sample list of titles that could be counted as hits against Max's "boy, adventure, horse, racing" you discounted them all. I believe you did so, even if it was subconsciously, because to do otherwise would have demonstrated that your standards for success were too loose. However, your response to the "Godfather" "American Gods" test is inconsistent with that and shows that in actual application, you are far broader than you claim to be. The same is evidenced in your comments that if Max had added "Africa" to his list, it would have counted as a hit for The Tangier Diaries.
d. Prompt others to do better tests. It has apparently prompted Ian to do another one. Whether it's better or not remains to be seen. I hope it is. For some reason, he chose me to pm the secret information to, so I have that now. I'm honored he chose me.
9. Here's what I'm proposing: as I have one book up now, and it has been up for about 14 hours, I will continue with this trial with the same protocols. After that, I will adjust, probably to the 10-title-version. For those scientists out there, please continue with suggestions on how best to do that. My stipulation is that the titles actually be in my possession, but I am confident that I have access to enough of them which are varied enough to conduct a good test.
How's that?
