• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Suggestion-clairvoyant test for JREF site.

DuckTapeFileMan

Thinker
DuckTapeFileMan
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
208
It would be possible for this site to create somewhere where registered users can try their luck at clairvoyance.

You could have the option of clicking on 1 of 5 cards, the star, moon, wavy line, etc. the card that will be guessed at would be chosen by a random number generato software.

You get one try every 10minutes.

The JREF site could keep a public communal score.


It would be a good experiment.

Any comments?
 
DuckTapeFileMan said:
It would be possible for this site to create somewhere where registered users can try their luck at clairvoyance.

You could have the option of clicking on 1 of 5 cards, the star, moon, wavy line, etc. the card that will be guessed at would be chosen by a random number generato software.

You get one try every 10minutes.

The JREF site could keep a public communal score.


It would be a good experiment.

Any comments?
Click to expand...

I have a comment. Would you consider changing your avatar? It's making my stomach churn and I can't concentrate on the content of your post enough to make an answer!
 
Re: Re: Suggestion-clairvoyant test for JREF site.

tkingdoll said:
I have a comment. Would you consider changing your avatar? It's making my stomach churn and I can't concentrate on the content of your post enough to make an answer!
Click to expand...

[delusion]

Don't mind TK, she's been spoiled my my gorgeous avatar, and she just likes to drool over skepdudes.

[/delusion]


Sounds like a fun idea. DO you know html? If you designed a website that could do it, I would imagine there could be a link put up for us to enjoy the amusings of change guessings.

I wouls also suggest pithy responses when we don't do any better than chance, for added amusement.
 
Re: Re: Re: Suggestion-clairvoyant test for JREF site.

fowlsound said:
[delusion]

Don't mind TK, she's been spoiled my my gorgeous avatar, and she just likes to drool over skepdudes.

[/delusion]
Click to expand...

It's not my fault! I'm sensitive and icky avatars on a public forum are liable to bias the reader, which would be a shame.

I agree that in principle, the test idea is a fun one, why not email the JREF directly and suggest it? There would have to be clear messages about the odds of guessing by chance, we don't want to encourage any woo woos who accidentally get 4 out of 10.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suggestion-clairvoyant test for JREF site.

tkingdoll said:
It's not my fault! I'm sensitive and icky avatars on a public forum are liable to bias the reader, which would be a shame.

I agree that in principle, the test idea is a fun one, why not email the JREF directly and suggest it? There would have to be clear messages about the odds of guessing by chance, we don't want to encourage any woo woos who accidentally get 4 out of 10.
Click to expand...


I agree it should be very clear in the message.

[derail]

so you're saying I'm not hot? Who's gonna be on the skepdude calendar, then?

I'd better change my avatar before I ruin any skepchicks through evidence of grossality.

[/derail]
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suggestion-clairvoyant test for JREF site.

tkingdoll said:
It's not my fault! I'm sensitive and icky avatars on a public forum are liable to bias the reader, which would be a shame.

I agree that in principle, the test idea is a fun one, why not email the JREF directly and suggest it? There would have to be clear messages about the odds of guessing by chance, we don't want to encourage any woo woos who accidentally get 4 out of 10.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the exact problem? Anyone who gets any result that appears to differ from chance may get the wrong idea and start thinking they are psychic, even though they fall within standard chance parameters.
It might be fun, but I don't think it would have any real use.

Anyway here is a 25 trial Zener test for fun.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suggestion-clairvoyant test for JREF site.

Ashles said:


Anyway here is a 25 trial Zener test for fun.
Click to expand...

Well, tk, you got 5 / 25 correct (20%)
By chance we would expect 5 / 25 correct guesses (20%)
For 25 trials, a score of 9 or above would be statistically significant

Dammit, I'm so average!

Yes, I agree that it could be a can of worms if someone did do significantly better than average, but if they could do that repeatedly then it should be investigated. The wording would need to include a caveat about repeatability.

ETA I just noticed the original post suggested this for registered users. I think that would be counter-productive as this is a forum for skeptic thinking, not for psychics.
 
Well I've got buckley's chance of being psychic I got 4 right out of 25,one less than chance.Not that good then.;)
 
Well there's always going to be someone that does better than average and there is always the circular logic that they are the one special person with the psi ability. When they repeat the excercise to account for statistical anomolies, they will learn how statistics work.

I don't think it opens a can of worms as long as you easily explain statistics and suggest they repeat the test for demonstratable results.
 
Azrael 5 said:
Well I've got buckley's chance of being psychic I got 4 right out of 25,one less than chance.Not that good then.;)
Click to expand...

I got 3 / 25. I'm not just not psychic, I'm unlucky as well.

But then I got 7 / 25 on my second try. I'm almost significant!

Of course, if you average them, I got 5 / 25....
 
fowlsound said:
I don't think it opens a can of worms as long as you easily explain statistics and suggest they repeat the test for demonstratable results.
Click to expand...
That's probably true.

But my only concern is that the people who will want to believe they are psychic will register the higher than chance trials and fnid excuses for the average times.

And the sceptics know the statistics of this already.

Ah maybe I'm just being overly cautious.
What the hell. It'd be interesting to see people's responses to it anyway.

(I got 4/25 BTW)
 
Ashles said:
That's probably true.

But my only concern is that the people who will want to believe they are psychic will register the higher than chance trials and fnid excuses for the average times.

And the sceptics know the statistics of this already.

Ah maybe I'm just being overly cautious.
What the hell. It'd be interesting to see people's responses to it anyway.

(I got 4/25 BTW)
Click to expand...


Perhaps a log in that will enable the page to remember the hits and misses? One that calculates all results without letting the person forget the bad results? Some sort of cookie?

Just a thought. As long as the explination is clear and the results are kept "honest" I think it'd do just fine.

Well except for those claiming Randi is either fixing the results or psychicly blocking the people attempting to use their "powers." Of course there's no arguing with those nutters anyway.
 
I just did the test 3 times scoring 4, 7 and 8. Each time I just chose whatever was in the same column. I used the 2nd column for the 1st test, the 1st column for the 2nd test and the 5th column for the 3rd test.

Woo-hoo...
 
fowlsound said:
Perhaps a log in that will enable the page to remember the hits and misses? One that calculates all results without letting the person forget the bad results? Some sort of cookie?
Click to expand...
I think it would be best if every trial will be stored in a database, and the number of a user's trials and their average score would be visible to anyone. There could be a 'high score ranking' or whatever you call it, listing the users with the highest average, but you would only qualify for the ranking if you've done more than, say, 25 trials, to prevent people from getting a top ranking based on only one or a few lucky hits.

I love the idea, btw.
 
Well, Seismosaurus, you got 8 / 25 correct (32%)
By chance we would expect 5 / 25 correct guesses (20%)
For 25 trials, a score of 9 or above would be statistically significant


Cool, I'm almost psychic!

You'd have to have a lot more explanation. For instance, what does "statistically significant" mean? Because you look at this and say "hey, chance says you should get 20%, I got 32%, why isn't that significant? Why do I have to get 36%?"

And if this is a JREF thing, I can see anybody who happens to get 9 or more right is going to go around claiming they won the JREF prize and Randi won't pay up on some technicality he invented. It would promote more "it's all rigged" nonsense.
 
I'm definitely psychic :cool:

I scored 4/25, 2/25, 1/25, 4/25, and 7/25.

That makes 1 away, 3 away, 4 away, 1 away, and 2 away form average. i.e. 11 away from average: far better than any “9”.

This is proof that I have psychics’ ability to handle statistics. :D
 
John Jackson said:
I'm definitely psychic :cool:

I scored 4/25, 2/25, 1/25, 4/25, and 7/25.

That makes 1 away, 3 away, 4 away, 1 away, and 2 away form average. i.e. 11 away from average: far better than any “9”.

This is proof that I have psychics’ ability to handle statistics. :D
Click to expand...


I would be inclined to accept your conclusions if it weren't for your bloody footy team. Newcastle. Bah.


(Just kidding, mate.)
 
6/25 and 5/25. But I just kept hitting the + symbol. I used this test to explain statistics to a high school class once, and then wowed them by getting 25/25 on my first try, right there in front of them. Then explained that I could see the reflection of the card in the glasses of the student I had picked to hold it up. :) I cheat.
 
fowlsound said:
I would be inclined to accept your conclusions if it weren't for your bloody footy team. Newcastle.
Click to expand...
I think that everyone should be allowed 1 delusion ;)

Newcastle Utd - premiership champions 2005/6.

That's mine :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom