[ExI] heaves a long broken psi
thespike at satx.rr.com
Sun Jan 24 16:55:53 UTC 2010
On 1/24/2010 8:43 AM, BillK wrote:
> If you give the brain a random list, it is most unlikely that the
> human will guess correctly at the expected chance (random) level.
> Either because the test was too short. Because the expected chance
> level is only achieved over long durations tests to remove random
> Or the human was making up patterns of guesses (it has to - that's the
> way it works) and the patterns don't match a randomized list. They
> will be better or worse.
Hardly anyone uses iterated guessing protocols any more (remote viewing
protocols are far more informative, because they contain high entropy
gradient targets and are better fitted to the way the mind looks for
meaningful structures), but there is a huge data base of just such
experiments compiled at Princeton and elsewhere. The existence of
preference patterns in unmotivated calls is one of the first things
established in such experimental runs, and the most interesting aspect
to look for is deviations from such individual or population biases.
I looked back at a lot of data accumulated between the 1930s and 1950s,
comparing calls against the background preference patterns, looking for
the proportion of guesses when a particular option is target and
comparing that vote with the proportion it got when not a target. That
is, the comparison is not made against "expected chance (random) level"
but against an internal control that tracks non-random preferences.
Since the target list is random and the choices are made blindly, there
is no apparent way in which "when target" scores can be significantly
deviant from "when not-target" scores--yet they are, to a significant
> I call it random. That's why the tests are not repeatable.
I see. First you explain that psi tests are bound to give results that
deviate from chance because the mind produces patterned or skewed or
non-random streams of calls, and these inevitably match better or worse
than m.c.e. against a short randomized list, which easily accounts for
the non-chance results of parapsychologists--and then you explain that
this is why such tests can never be replicated by non-parapsychologists!
If what you say were valid, anyone who tries this should get results at
the same level, including the most ruthless skeptics, because it's just
an artifact, right? But of course it is only those gullible
parapsychologists who do so. So we're driven back to John-Clark-type
"they just made it all up" or "they all cheated" theories.
More information about the extropy-chat