Whelp. There ya go. Didn’t see that coming did ya. Oh wait. Though, don’t worry if you are skeptical. The author points out it could also be:
2. Clairvoyance/remote viewing: The participant is accessing already-determined
information in real time, information that is stored in the computer.
3. Psychokinesis: The participant is actually influencing the RNG’s placements of the
I go with Psychokinesis cause that is the way I roll. Oh wait.
Prof. Emeritus Daryl Bem, psychology, recently made some discoveries in the field of precognition that have given support to the psychics among us.
Titled “Feeling the Future,” Bem’s paper will be published in next month’s issue of The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The research discussed focuses on the concepts of precognition, or consciously predicting the future, and premonition, having knowledge of events to come. These are both features of a concept that Bem and other psychologists call “psi,” more commonly known as “psychic.”
These ‘results’ come out every so often, and in the past have universally been due to poor experimental controls, human error and/or fraud. I’d definitely wait some time, and wait to hear replication of the experiment by several unaffiliated and high quality labs with peer-reviewed publications before accepting any of this. I note in the article that Bem says he’s preparing “replication packages” for others to use. That’s a dumb idea: it may well be that his results are due to a flaw in the design that will be captured in the packages he provides.
Most likely we’ll see a thorough critique of it in the near future. Though it’s good to keep an open mind to the extent that we must allow ourselves the possibility that this stuff is true. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all.
Most likely we’ll see a thorough critique of it in the near future.
That’s what Bem said…only he claimed to be using precognition to see in the near future!
What’s his endgame? Is he a true believer who has not double checked his protocol/methods with skeptical colleagues? Or does he have some ulterior motive? Didn’t Pons and Fleishman get some money for furter “research” after they went public? Call me cynical, but how much money is this guy going to get from true believers now that this is in the news?
In his first experiment, Bem explored the effects of erotic stimuli on perceiving the future. After being shown an image, one hundred Cornell students — 50 male and 50 female — were each shown pictures of two curtained screens on computer monitors, one covering a blank wall, the other covering the image. Many but not all of the pictures behind the curtains were erotic images, such as those of “couples engaged in nonviolent but explicit consensual sexual acts,” according to Bem’s paper. Each participant was to click on the curtain which he or she thought had the picture behind it.
Or maybe the participants could predict which computer screen had the image based on subtle color differences seen underneath the curtains? Why not just have actual identical blank screens (no curtain required), or one black screen that will randomly show a picture or a blank wall after a click?
And why in the world is a scientific journal going to publish this without significantly more substantiation when it’s a known quackery threat subject?
Bem acknowledged that the experiments would have to be replicated in order to confirm that precognition is a real effect. Two other researchers, Jeff Galak of Carnegie Mellon University and Leif Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley, have already tried to replicate one of Bem’s experiments (the one with the word recall test) and failed to get any significant results.
Apparently, James Randi doesn’t have to fork up the $1 mil quite yet.
I find it actually surprising that MSNBC would put up an article that has the section I quoted above. It’s contradictory: they’re saying that it’s surprising and interesting results, but also saying that the results aren’t reproducable. It would be a better attempt at journalistic integrity to simply not go with the story at all, or to make the paragraph I quoted a significant part of the story rather than a small aside buried in the middle of the article.
I could only get through the first ten pages of the report. I think T-A spelled it out quite accurately. The curtain thing and separate sides of the screen are quite open to purposeful or accidental introduction of clues small enough that neither the experimenters or the subjects can consciously identify them, but are enough to kick the positive rate from 50% to 53.1%.
The priming experiments seem to be the least problematic, and even Mr. Alcock can’t muster much of
a refutation other than “the data analysis is complex”. If the priming effect is indeed ‘well accepted’, and
somehow post-priming gives results somewhat comparable to pre-priming, then denying that something is going on seems
tenuous. Seems like a very simple test, gathering a lot of data should be quite easy. Since it does rely just on
quite small differences in response times, it’s definitely not a dramatic proof of psi (ie. such as guessing cards well above chance).
Saying that a person typically responds in 200ms, and with post priming it appears to go down to 180ms for no
apparent reason, does not have the wow effect of Nina Kulagina moving matchsticks around (and yes, I realize it was faked).
Of the experiment represented by the Cornell Sun (I wasn’t about to try to read and interpret the actual document), I gathered that the percentage difference was statistically insignificant to chance. There is a 50/50 chance of picking the right answer. So, if claiming that the preferred group who were stimulated should get it right 53%, it is not surprising. If some psychic connection was rational though, he would have to determine what it was, which students they were (If “psi” were real, wouldn’t the real ones push up the percentage certainly and the non-psi people intermittently making a larger than normal indication?), and do the experiment very numerously.
But if psychic powers existed in everyone, you would expect something like at least 75% to be even worthy of checking out.