The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: Madness on August 11, 2017, 12:39:23 pm
-
Am I Psychic? (http://amipsychicapp.com/) app.
-
Odd
-
Allow me to translate.
"Using established scientific methods..."
Translation:
"Using statistical tests that were never meant to be used in the way we're going to use them, we will produce a large number of false positive results to convince people they're psychic".
-
Allow me to translate.
"Using established scientific methods..."
Translation:
"Using statistical tests that were never meant to be used in the way we're going to use them, we will produce a large number of false positive results to convince people they're psychic".
Lol. Every time somone 'calls' a coin flip, they are psychic. Do that with a big enough room, with enough people, enough times, and you'll have someone guess the right answer to any number of multiple choice questions.
-
There was a TV programme in the UK about ten years ago that demonstrated this really well. A volunteer was asked to bet on five horse races, with the presenter (Derren Brown - is he famous outside of the UK?) telling them which horse to back in each case. He correctly predicted the winner five times in a row. It was revealed at the end that there were in fact 7776 volunteers, each receiving a different combination of horses. One of them had to win!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Derren_Brown_shows#Derren_Brown:_The_System_.282008.29
-
That's amazing lol.
-
Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day...
-
Allow me to translate.
"Using established scientific methods..."
Translation:
"Using statistical tests that were never meant to be used in the way we're going to use them, we will produce a large number of false positive results to convince people they're psychic".
Hi there, totally understandable response. However I am going to direct you to a few of the academic journal articles which I based the app upon. I hope you read them :)
1. goo.gl/P7nYwG
Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No.3, pp.345-367.
2. goo.gl/QC3jbY
Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events (2002). Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 537-550.
3. goo.gl/irrBrg
Consciousness, Information, and Living Systems (2005). Cellular & Molecular Biology, 51, pp.703-714.
4. goo.gl/b14wuqcontent_copyCopy short URL
Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality (1991). Foundations of Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 197-207
-
Hi there, totally understandable response. However I am going to direct you to a few of the academic journal articles which I based the app upon. I hope you read them :)
Delightful :) . Welcome to the forum AIP, I'm glad you decided to come here.
I must ask, what brought you here?
-
Hi there, totally understandable response. However I am going to direct you to a few of the academic journal articles which I based the app upon. I hope you read them :)
Delightful :) . Welcome to the forum AIP, I'm glad you decided to come here.
I must ask, what brought you here?
+1
Also, AIP, have you followed The Global Consciousness Project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/) at all?
-
Same for the "financial" industry ... years ago some sly cats created a bunch ( 100? ) of financial advice services and had them publicly publish their forecasts ... after 10 years, you had a few that were right every time with proven track record of results that could be verified. Just close down the "losers" and keep the winners and you appear to be a financial genius.
-
Hi there, totally understandable response. However I am going to direct you to a few of the academic journal articles which I based the app upon. I hope you read them :)
Delightful :) . Welcome to the forum AIP, I'm glad you decided to come here.
I must ask, what brought you here?
+1
Also, AIP, have you followed The Global Consciousness Project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/) at all?
The criticism of the app, given that it is based in scientific peer-reviewed research brought me here. And of course I have heard of the GCP work of Dean Radin and Robert Morris.
I'm happy to be here also! I just wanted to clear the air on the app not being based in science. Thank you :)
-
Same for the "financial" industry ... years ago some sly cats created a bunch ( 100? ) of financial advice services and had them publicly publish their forecasts ... after 10 years, you had a few that were right every time with proven track record of results that could be verified. Just close down the "losers" and keep the winners and you appear to be a financial genius.
Sorry to disagree, but the work of Russell Targ and SRI in the prediction of silver market futures over the course of several weeks in 1982 was a massive success, generating over 200k in profit. I'm not supporting a position here, as much as informing. I can provide the peer-reviewed research if necessary?
Thanks :)
-
The criticism of the app, given that it is based in scientific peer-reviewed research brought me here. And of course I have heard of the GCP work of Dean Radin and Robert Morris.
I'm happy to be here also! I just wanted to clear the air on the app not being based in science. Thank you :)
For what it's worth, I consent to my words being used for your project, AIP. Also, Hogman's criticism could be brought to bear on most any project using statistical analysis - it's psychometric rigour which separates ;).
How specifically did you find us though? I'm interested, seeing as we're a pretty niche community (and only happen to be discussing your app and project because I have an eclectic morning roundup).
-
The criticism of the app, given that it is based in scientific peer-reviewed research brought me here. And of course I have heard of the GCP work of Dean Radin and Robert Morris.
I'm happy to be here also! I just wanted to clear the air on the app not being based in science. Thank you :)
How specifically did you find us though? I'm interested, seeing as we're a pretty niche community (and only happen to be discussing your app and project because I have an eclectic morning roundup).
He's psychic.
-
The criticism of the app, given that it is based in scientific peer-reviewed research brought me here. And of course I have heard of the GCP work of Dean Radin and Robert Morris.
I'm happy to be here also! I just wanted to clear the air on the app not being based in science. Thank you :)
How specifically did you find us though? I'm interested, seeing as we're a pretty niche community (and only happen to be discussing your app and project because I have an eclectic morning roundup).
He's psychic.
They're*
But also, hilarious ;).
-
Allow me to translate.
"Using established scientific methods..."
Translation:
"Using statistical tests that were never meant to be used in the way we're going to use them, we will produce a large number of false positive results to convince people they're psychic".
Hi there, totally understandable response. However I am going to direct you to a few of the academic journal articles which I based the app upon. I hope you read them :)
1. goo.gl/P7nYwG
Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No.3, pp.345-367.
2. goo.gl/QC3jbY
Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events (2002). Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 537-550.
3. goo.gl/irrBrg
Consciousness, Information, and Living Systems (2005). Cellular & Molecular Biology, 51, pp.703-714.
4. goo.gl/b14wuqcontent_copyCopy short URL
Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality (1991). Foundations of Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 197-207
Interesting articles. I didn't actually claim psychic abilities don't exist, although I personally don't believe in them. I was claiming that your app won't be able to determine their existence on an individual with any kind of accuracy.
Since psychic ability is largely shunned by the mainstream, we can take it that at least one of two things is true: psychic ability is "small", and/or it is rare. If it were "large" or commonplace it would be accepted by the mainstream.
If psychic abilities are "small" then you'll need thousands of tests to determine if an individual has them. See your first reference for a perfect example - in table 1, column HI, they had 839,800 repetitions of 200 Bernoulli trials to get a mean difference of 0.026 in the number of successes. They couldn't even achieve a mean difference of 1.
If psychic abilities are rare then your app will suffer from the notorious problem of having very poor positive predictive value. This article describes it: http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/crystal-balls-and-positive-predictive-values/
-
The criticism of the app, given that it is based in scientific peer-reviewed research brought me here. And of course I have heard of the GCP work of Dean Radin and Robert Morris.
I'm happy to be here also! I just wanted to clear the air on the app not being based in science. Thank you :)
How specifically did you find us though? I'm interested, seeing as we're a pretty niche community (and only happen to be discussing your app and project because I have an eclectic morning roundup).
An article was written about the app recently on CNET, and this forum was on the third page of search results. I debated about responding at all, but one of the goals of the app is to present parapsychology to a wider audience, so with that in mind I responded.
-
Allow me to translate.
"Using established scientific methods..."
Translation:
"Using statistical tests that were never meant to be used in the way we're going to use them, we will produce a large number of false positive results to convince people they're psychic".
Hi there, totally understandable response. However I am going to direct you to a few of the academic journal articles which I based the app upon. I hope you read them :)
1. goo.gl/P7nYwG
Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No.3, pp.345-367.
2. goo.gl/QC3jbY
Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events (2002). Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 537-550.
3. goo.gl/irrBrg
Consciousness, Information, and Living Systems (2005). Cellular & Molecular Biology, 51, pp.703-714.
4. goo.gl/b14wuqcontent_copyCopy short URL
Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality (1991). Foundations of Physics, Vol. 21, pp. 197-207
Interesting articles. I didn't actually claim psychic abilities don't exist, although I personally don't believe in them. I was claiming that your app won't be able to determine their existence on an individual with any kind of accuracy.
Since psychic ability is largely shunned by the mainstream, we can take it that at least one of two things is true: psychic ability is "small", and/or it is rare. If it were "large" or commonplace it would be accepted by the mainstream.
If psychic abilities are "small" then you'll need thousands of tests to determine if an individual has them. See your first reference for a perfect example - in table 1, column HI, they had 839,800 repetitions of 200 Bernoulli trials to get a mean difference of 0.026 in the number of successes. They couldn't even achieve a mean difference of 1.
If psychic abilities are rare then your app will suffer from the notorious problem of having very poor positive predictive value. This article describes it: http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/crystal-balls-and-positive-predictive-values/
I can explain how the app can correctly determine whether psychic ability is present. For individual users, after each test is completed, the app transitions into a results screen which shows the deviation from chance, albeit not using a p-value (I wanted to make the results screen easy to read for those without a statistical background). While one test deviating from chance does not mean the user is psychic, if the user is able to consistently achieve a deviation from chance, that would be something to explore further.
Having said that, the big picture in determining if psychic ability is present is that within the "cloud" of the app there is an anonymous database where the information from each test is stored. Once a large enough body of data has been accumulated, a meta-analysis of the data can be made which would then mathematically determine whether or not psychic ability is being demonstrated.
To your point of psychic ability being a "small" effect. You are correct. Research shows that these abilities are not of a sufficient magnitude to normally be detectable. While there have been many instances of dramatic demonstrations of psychic ability in the literature, in general psychic ability is a small effect. Having said that, while the effect may be "small", an effect is still present. Which is why in the studies I previously cited meta-analysis was used. The effect would be undetectable otherwise. Once a large enough body of data has been accumulated, then we can see whether the results from the app is demonstrating an effect.
Finally, just as an aside, the app is registered with the IRB, and is a legitimate parapsychological experiment. The idea was to create something fun that anyone could play, while the real science was going on in the background.
I appreciate your skepticism. I'm not sure whether or not the app will show that psychic ability exists, only time will tell on that.
-
I can explain how the app can correctly determine whether psychic ability is present. For individual users, after each test is completed, the app transitions into a results screen which shows the deviation from chance, albeit not using a p-value (I wanted to make the results screen easy to read for those without a statistical background). While one test deviating from chance does not mean the user is psychic, if the user is able to consistently achieve a deviation from chance, that would be something to explore further.
Having said that, the big picture in determining if psychic ability is present is that within the "cloud" of the app there is an anonymous database where the information from each test is stored. Once a large enough body of data has been accumulated, a meta-analysis of the data can be made which would then mathematically determine whether or not psychic ability is being demonstrated.
To your point of psychic ability being a "small" effect. You are correct. Research shows that these abilities are not of a sufficient magnitude to normally be detectable. While there have been many instances of dramatic demonstrations of psychic ability in the literature, in general psychic ability is a small effect. Having said that, while the effect may be "small", an effect is still present. Which is why in the studies I previously cited meta-analysis was used. The effect would be undetectable otherwise. Once a large enough body of data has been accumulated, then we can see whether the results from the app is demonstrating an effect.
Finally, just as an aside, the app is registered with the IRB, and is a legitimate parapsychological experiment. The idea was to create something fun that anyone could play, while the real science was going on in the background.
I appreciate your skepticism. I'm not sure whether or not the app will show that psychic ability exists, only time will tell on that.
In that case I wish you luck. I hadn't appreciated what was going on behind the scenes. :)
And don't apologise for not using p-values! They simplify potentially complicated results into a black white answer, that allows people to be lazy in interpreting results.
-
Is there a way the test can reveal if you're anti-psychic? Like, you have the ability to nullify others' psychic abilities.
-
The criticism of the app, given that it is based in scientific peer-reviewed research brought me here. And of course I have heard of the GCP work of Dean Radin and Robert Morris.
I'm happy to be here also! I just wanted to clear the air on the app not being based in science. Thank you :)
How specifically did you find us though? I'm interested, seeing as we're a pretty niche community (and only happen to be discussing your app and project because I have an eclectic morning roundup).
An article was written about the app recently on CNET, and this forum was on the third page of search results. I debated about responding at all, but one of the goals of the app is to present parapsychology to a wider audience, so with that in mind I responded.
Very cool.
The idea was to create something fun that anyone could play, while the real science was going on in the background.
This to me sounds like a great idea, and I applaud you for the insight. I think too often people assume that if they stick "Science!" in front of a statement that they deserve to be believed outright, which instead just alienates people and leads to, again imo, this cultural shift in trusting science to seeing it as just another mysticism that only the 'anointed' can seen. Things like this, which draws in participants, might be helpful in reversing that trend.
I appreciate your skepticism. I'm not sure whether or not the app will show that psychic ability exists, only time will tell on that.
Hey look, real science at work. ^ :)
-
An article was written about the app recently on CNET, and this forum was on the third page of search results. I debated about responding at all, but one of the goals of the app is to present parapsychology to a wider audience, so with that in mind I responded.
Lol. Third page. I admire your rigour.
Thanks for reaching out :).
...
Finally, just as an aside, the app is registered with the IRB, and is a legitimate parapsychological experiment. The idea was to create something fun that anyone could play, while the real science was going on in the background.
I appreciate your skepticism. I'm not sure whether or not the app will show that psychic ability exists, only time will tell on that.
Amazing. I mean, I only shared it because I enjoy the crux of research projects sourcing the public at large, through popular mediums like apps, and, as you mentioned, bringing "parapsychology to a wider audience" (which I believe is a misnomer, by the way, as parapsychology - para-anything - just seems to be a prejorative term for subjects which are supposedly somehow outside science's purview).
An article was written about the app recently on CNET, and this forum was on the third page of search results. I debated about responding at all, but one of the goals of the app is to present parapsychology to a wider audience, so with that in mind I responded.
Very cool.
Ridiculous even ;).
The idea was to create something fun that anyone could play, while the real science was going on in the background.
This to me sounds like a great idea, and I applaud you for the insight.
+1
I appreciate your skepticism. I'm not sure whether or not the app will show that psychic ability exists, only time will tell on that.
Hey look, real science at work. ^ :)
;)
-
Now I suppose I'm going to have to download the app and actually contribute ;).
-
Is there a way the test can reveal if you're anti-psychic? Like, you have the ability to nullify others' psychic abilities.
Research has shown that there is an effect where certain people consistently perform far below what would be expected by chance. The effect is called "psi missing".
Sorry about the late response. I've been at an academic conference for a week. I appreciate all of the questions btw.
-
Now I suppose I'm going to have to download the app and actually contribute ;).
That would be great! Contribute away! Also some of the profits are being donated to the Rhine Research Center (the oldest parapsychological lab in the USA). Not sure if I mentioned that before, but there it is.