Ganzfeld effect

[Dancing David]

Hi TaiChi:

In looking briefly at the literature on the ganfeld effect it would appear that there is a huge area for interpretation of what constitutes a 'hit'. Perhaps you could discuss what control have been put in place and how they control for the experiementer's interpretation.

Inspired by this quote:

The Ganzfeld is set up so that an interpretation must be made of a verbal report from the test subject to be matched against an image allegedly sent telepathically to the subject. Thus, even if an image bears little or no resemblance to the verbal description, if it is selected as the one most closely resembling the image verbally described, then it counts as a hit.

Also no, meta analysis is not a reliable statistical method, it is fraught with error and amplifies experimental error, you must first make sure that the demographics are not creating the effects seen in the meta analysis.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Also no, meta analysis is not a reliable statistical method, it is fraught with error and amplifies experimental error, you must first make sure that the demographics are not creating the effects seen in the meta analysis.

Well one can botch up a meta-analysis, but this isn't specific to meta-analyses, as one can botch up just about any analysis.

 

[Dancing David]

So what controls have been put in place to control experimenter interpretation creating the positive results?

 

[T'ai Chi]

So what controls have been put in place to control experimenter interpretation creating the positive results?

The receiver rates all 4 pictures without knowing which one is the one the sender was thinking of.

In addition, I understand that all the pictures in a group of 4 are such that they are different in content from each other.

 

[Trollbane]

Just out of curiosity. The way the description of the experiment is worded I understand that the image is selected according to the verbal description made by a test subject, right?

So the test subject, who recieves the image, doesnt actually rate the pictures, but rather just describes what he saw to a third party that selects the pictures?

Does the third party that eventually select the picture fitting the verbal description know what picture was sent?

 

[CFLarsen]

The receiver rates all 4 pictures without knowing which one is the one the sender was thinking of.

In addition, I understand that all the pictures in a group of 4 are such that they are different in content from each other.

I've seen a Ganzfeld experiment where a set of video clips were used, instead of 4 pictures. Of course, this widens the field immensely, and will - due to wider interpretation possibilities - yield more hits.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I've seen a Ganzfeld experiment where a set of video clips were used, instead of 4 pictures. Of course, this widens the field immensely, and will - due to wider interpretation possibilities - yield more hits.

Widens the field due to it being a video and not a static picture, yes. However, you have to provide evidence, not your speculation, that this would actually increase the hit rate. For example, why wouldn't it lower the hit rate?; it would provide more time to be wrong. Why wouldn't it cancel out the hit rate becase there is more time to be right and equal time to be wrong, etc.

Do you have evidence that the receivers listed significantly more words when receiving using the videos instead of the pictures?

Second, are you aware that the videos, like the pictures, were chosen so as to be different among each other in their groups of 4?

Evidence Claus.. evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

Widens the field due to it being a video and not a static picture, yes. However, you have to provide evidence, not your speculation, that this would actually increase the hit rate. For example, why wouldn't it lower the hit rate?; it would provide more time to be wrong. Why wouldn't it cancel out the hit rate becase there is more time to be right and equal time to be wrong, etc.

Do you have evidence that the receivers listed significantly more words when receiving using the videos instead of the pictures?

Second, are you aware that the videos, like the pictures, were chosen so as to be different among each other in their groups of 4?

Evidence Claus.. evidence.

The more things there are to look at, the more interpretations can be made.

E.g., we see a tree or bush in two of the videos - that would increase the possibility of a hit.

Don't ask others for evidence, if you are not prepared to give it yourself, you hypocrite.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The more things there are to look at, the more interpretations can be made.

E.g., we see a tree or bush in two of the videos - that would increase the possibility of a hit.

Don't ask others for evidence, if you are not prepared to give it yourself, you hypocrite.

*sigh*. I don't think you're getting my point.

Just because there are more things, you still haven't shown that that necessarily increases the hit rate. For example, because there are also more things in the video, couldn't that lower the hit rate possibly too?

And you didn't address videos being chosen as to be very different among the 4 in a group.

We're there a tree or a bush in two of the videos? DO you have actual evidence for this or anything like it?

Let us know. It isn't enough to just make an assertion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just because there are more things, you still haven't shown that that necessarily increases the hit rate. For example, because there are also more things in the video, couldn't that lower the hit rate possibly too?

No, quite contrary, because the "hits" are judged by interpretation: A cartoon of Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote and a video of a frog can yield two hits, if the test person says "animal", "plants", "earth", etc.

And you didn't address videos being chosen as to be very different among the 4 in a group.

Can you name 4 videos where absolutely nothing is in common?

We're there a tree or a bush in two of the videos? DO you have actual evidence for this or anything like it?

Yes. A videotape. Swedish TV, the "Vitenskabsmagasinet" a couple of months ago.

Let us know. It isn't enough to just make an assertion.

No, it sure isn't. Which is why you are asked, again and again, to provide evidence of your own claims.

Are you seriously saying that in a video with more things, the hit rate does not go up? There are not more possibilities for interpretation? Since there are no standards for interpretations (how can there be? We all associate differently), simple logic tells us that hits will increase.

 

[FutileJester]

Just out of curiosity. The way the description of the experiment is worded I understand that the image is selected according to the verbal description made by a test subject, right?

So the test subject, who recieves the image, doesnt actually rate the pictures, but rather just describes what he saw to a third party that selects the pictures?

Does the third party that eventually select the picture fitting the verbal description know what picture was sent?

Good question! Anyone....?

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, quite contrary, because the "hits" are judged by interpretation: A cartoon of Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote and a video of a frog can yield two hits, if the test person says "animal", "plants", "earth", etc.

But if the recepient says "water, frozen, rain, forest" and the video is a long clip of a dry African desert, it can go the other way and lower a hit rate. There is more room for error (and lowering the hit rate) as well.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

Can you name 4 videos where absolutely nothing is in common?

You avoided answering the question directly. Will you address it:

Are you aware that the videos, like the pictures, were chosen so as to be different among each other in their groups of 4?

Yes. A videotape. Swedish TV, the "Vitenskabsmagasinet" a couple of months ago.

Will you provide me with a copy of this?

Will you put it, or a transcript of it, on your most excellent webpage?

Have you actually seen this video?

No, it sure isn't.

Claus, merely asserting something hypothetical provides actual evidence of nothing. If you claim (and you did) videos make it easer to get hits because they have more stuff in them, you provide the evidence, not your logic which isn't evidence.

Personally, your beliefs seems interesting, as the hit rate in the autoganzfeld was 34% (using videos) down from 37% (without videos).

"simple logic" might tell you that the hit rate will increase. However, logic is not actual evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

But if the recepient says "water, frozen, rain, forest" and the video is a long clip of a dry African desert, it can go the other way and lower a hit rate. There is more room for error (and lowering the hit rate) as well.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

I disagree. The more things in a video, the more possibilities of interpretation.

You avoided answering the question directly. Will you address it:

Are you aware that the videos, like the pictures, were chosen so as to be different among each other in their groups of 4?

I saw the videos in the program. I could easily find general similarities.

Will you provide me with a copy of this?

If you send me a blank videotape and pay for shipping and conversion.

Will you put it, or a transcript of it, on your most excellent webpage?

A transcript of videos, shown for their visual content? Don't be stupid. How can I possibly describe each and every thing in the videos??

Have you actually seen this video?

I have seen the program. I made that clear.

Claus, merely asserting something hypothetical provides actual evidence of nothing. If you claim (and you did) videos make it easer to get hits because they have more stuff in them, you provide the evidence, not your logic which isn't evidence.

If you want to reject logic, please do so.

Personally, your beliefs seems interesting, as the hit rate in the autoganzfeld was 34% (using videos) down from 37% (without videos).

Whoa...where is this?

"simple logic" might tell you that the hit rate will increase. However, logic is not actual evidence.

No, but it most certainly is a very valuable tool to discern truth from false.

Can you name 4 videos where absolutely nothing is in common?

Are you seriously saying that in a video with more things, the hit rate does not go up? There are not more possibilities for interpretation? Since there are no standards for interpretations (how can there be? We all associate differently), simple logic tells us that hits will increase.

You keep shifting focus, T'ai Chi......

 

[Dancing David]

The receiver rates all 4 pictures without knowing which one is the one the sender was thinking of.

In addition, I understand that all the pictures in a group of 4 are such that they are different in content from each other.

taiChi

I will try to keep this thread from descending into the gutter warfare so common around psi research.

The issue is in the inetrpretation of what constitutes a hit and this is a major major source of error in any social science. I will give the following explanation>

the subject says fur
one of the pictures if of a dog and the experimenter says hit.
the subject says shiny
one of the picture is of water and the experiementer says hit.

..Now this is a real problem because attributes of various things can be desiganated as hits when really it is a matter of interpretation. Which is why it is very important in any social science that the rating system be explicit:

For example say that you are rating 'violence' in a TV show, it is very important to have a sheet thats says what you are scoring when you are an act of violence. It is very important that other researchers know exactly how you obtained your result.

So you don't mark verbal threats the same way that you mark hitting and you don't mark things blowing up the same way that you mark hitting. Even though they may be combined into a groos score of acts of violence, you should have clear and explicit guidelines and very good scoring. This is crucial to good methodology in any social science research, otherwise there is room for the experiemental error to increase dramaticaly.

 

[Dancing David]

Tai,

I lost a post so I am sorry if this is a repeat.

In social science it is essential to lower the amount of experiementer interpretation.

I am not trying to be mean but CFL is on the money and you are just barking up the wrong tree.

the issue is a standard one in any social science, the more interpretation the more room for experiemental error. this is not CFL picking on the poor psi researcher, these are valid questions that must be answered and controlled for, it is not a matter of saying thatw e must see the videos and thatw e are discussing a hypothetical.

These are the standards of control in a social science. They have thousands of papers written about them, they are the bane of all good social science. Interpretation is just a classic of experimental error. There are whole studies about how interpretation is a source of error, even worse are experimenter effects upon the subject. they produce a kind of error that is even harder to control for. That is why when you conduct experiements you frequently have to video tape the thing to make sure that the experiementer and the confederates act the same in each situation.

The issue is that in the interpretation of what constitutes a hit. That is why I asked, and so far your answers have not given me any reassurance that YOU actualy understand the issue. there is plenty of evidence for what CFL is talking about, so answer the question:

What controls are put in place to limit the rror from interpretation of a hit.

(Rhine limited the images for just this reason.)

 

[T'ai Chi]

I disagree. The more things in a video, the more possibilities of interpretation.

The more possibilites to be wrong too. Someone could go on and on about ice, and the video could be a desert, for example.

I saw the videos in the program. I could easily find...

Please provide evidence you saw the videos, and please provide evidence of several examples.

A transcript of videos, shown for their visual content? Don't be stupid.

Ad hom. Aww, I thought you didn't call people stupid, Claus? Tsk.

How can I possibly describe each and every thing in the videos??

And how can I do that with an entire book or dozens of studies??

I have seen the program. I made that clear.

And I have made it clear that I've read books and articles. I guess I HAVE to believe you, but you DON'T have to believe me. Whatever.

If you want to reject logic, please do so.

This from someone who supports someone who does an analysis on counts yet runs from actually showing the counts are independent. Whatever!

Whoa...where is this?

I guess you didn't read the book. I'm honestly not surprised.

Can you name 4 videos where absolutely nothing is in common?

You have yet to provide evidence of these videos.

Are you seriously saying that in a video with more things, the hit rate does not go up? There are not more possibilities for interpretation? Since there are no standards for interpretations (how can there be? We all associate differently), simple logic tells us that hits will increase.

"simple logic" is not evidence. I could see how the hit rates could go up, down, stay the same, etc. Also, autoganzfeld the hit rate went from 37% to 34%, so what does this say about your theory?

You keep shifting focus, T'ai Chi......

Uh huh. Go answer your questions or help Darat answer his.

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Yes, thank you for your input.

Your failure to provide evidence of your claims is now excruciatingly obvious. You can cry foul, wail, scream, yell, complain, whatever you like.

You, my friend, have just been voted off the island.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

 

[Dancing David]

The more possibilites to be wrong too. Someone could go on and on about ice, and the video could be a desert, for example.


You would think so but again the issue is not about 'did the person report an image that was shown to the sensder'

The question is "How does the experiementer interpret that a hit occured?", it is essential to minimize the experiementers interpretation of the data.

A video has many more possible asssociations for the experimenter say 'that is a hit'.

My point is about good science, if they control for this and still get the same number of hits then they have a demonstarted effect. And then we can argue if it is statisticaly significant or not.


[/B]

 

[Yahweh]

The receiver rates all 4 pictures without knowing which one is the one the sender was thinking of.

In addition, I understand that all the pictures in a group of 4 are such that they are different in content from each other.

Think of a number between 1 and 4...

Highlight:
<div style="background:#000000">Were you thinking of the number 3?

You'll notice that a reciever will have a tendency to rate the third image as "most likely". Of course, if the image the sender selected is chosen at random, it shouldnt matter much on any kind of unconscious "weighting" of likelyhood on the part of the reciever.</div>

 

[CFLarsen]

Think of a number between 1 and 4...

Highlight:
<div style="background:#000000">Were you thinking of the number 3?

You'll notice that a reciever will have a tendency to rate the third image as "most likely". Of course, if the image the sender selected is chosen at random, it shouldnt matter much on any kind of unconscious "weighting" of likelyhood on the part of the reciever.</div>

Got any data? (And don't list 4 studies, where the 3rd is the most important.....)