|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2010 : 19:03:42
|
This should get interesting.
Is this evidence that we can see the future?
… The paper, due to appear in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology before the end of the year, is the culmination of eight years' work by Daryl Bem of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. "I purposely waited until I thought there was a critical mass that wasn't a statistical fluke," he says.
It describes a series of experiments involving more than 1000 student volunteers. In most of the tests, Bem took well-studied psychological phenomena and simply reversed the sequence, so that the event generally interpreted as the cause happened after the tested behaviour rather than before it.
In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list. Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type.
In another study, Bem adapted research on "priming" – the effect of a subliminally presented word on a person's response to an image. For instance, if someone is momentarily flashed the word "ugly", it will take them longer to decide that a picture of a kitten is pleasant than if "beautiful" had been flashed. Running the experiment back-to-front, Bem found that the priming effect seemed to work backwards in time as well as forwards… |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 19:34:18 [Permalink]
|
Jerry Coyne noticed this back on Halloween. He even notes that James Randi left a challenge:I find this to be a very interesting reader response. After the usual magnificently uninformed comments: "Time is strange, gravity doesn't make sense, and matter is mostly empty space. There is no such thing as time. Everything, what we call past, present and future, is happening in the Now" we find far more cogent remarks, along with the suggestion that author Bem should go for my Foundation's million-dollar prize. Of course he should, but he won't. We've made him the offer, many others have, as well, but he chooses to ignore it. It's there, it's real, the grubbies constantly claim it doesn't exist, but it persists. Dr. Bem, give us a call. Accept the challenge, under your conditions, thoroughly fair, proper, definitive, observed and controlled, and you don't have to invest a penny. Isn't that attractive to you? And just think of the book sales along with the currency. Yes, a million US dollars still buys a lot... Make us all happy, won't you?
Hello...? Dr. Bem? You there...?
(loud silence) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 20:04:22 [Permalink]
|
| In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list. Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type. |
Well, duh. So the "random" words they were later to type tended to be those they had earlier recalled? Big deal. Those were the words they remembered best from earlier having recalled them. That memory obviously had an effect on their so-called random selection. (How could it be otherwise?)
If Isaac Newton himself would not duplicate the action of his law of gravity under scientific conditions under James Randi's observation, I'd call him, and gravity, a fraud. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 20:22:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
| In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list. Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type. |
Well, duh. So the "random" words they were later to type tended to be those they had earlier recalled? Big deal. Those were the words they remembered best from earlier having recalled them. That memory obviously had an effect on their so-called random selection. (How could it be otherwise?)
|
If I'm understanding this correctly, they were asked to type a list of words randomly selected. Not just the ones they previously recalled. In other words, the words they previously recalled were the words that were later randomly selected 53.1% of the time.
I'm confused about the typing part. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 20:32:55 [Permalink]
|
It looks interesting, but so did other precognition studies which subsequently could not be replicated. I don't think it's worth getting too excited over until others can produce the same results using the same protocols.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 20:57:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It looks interesting, but so did other precognition studies which subsequently could not be replicated. I don't think it's worth getting too excited over until others can produce the same results using the same protocols.
|
Exactly! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 21:56:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by HalfMooner
| In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list. Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type. |
Well, duh. So the "random" words they were later to type tended to be those they had earlier recalled? Big deal. Those were the words they remembered best from earlier having recalled them. That memory obviously had an effect on their so-called random selection. (How could it be otherwise?)
|
If I'm understanding this correctly, they were asked to type a list of words randomly selected. Not just the ones they previously recalled. In other words, the words they previously recalled were the words that were later randomly selected 53.1% of the time.
I'm confused about the typing part.
|
Oh, then I misunderstood that part. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 10:30:03 [Permalink]
|
| I read nothing there that would be be precognition, they reacted to words or images provided to them in both examples? It wouldnt even qualify for the JRF. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 11/12/2010 10:31:00 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 11:11:05 [Permalink]
|
You can read the actual paper here.
I have a prediction- Other people who bother to try will be unable to replicate these results.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 11:49:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I read nothing there that would be be precognition, they reacted to words or images provided to them in both examples? It wouldnt even qualify for the JRF.
|
That's not how I understand it. See what I wrote in reply to Mooner. The only part that confuses me is the typing part. Note that even though they disagree, at least some of those who don't agree with the findings or think that they wont hold up when the study is repeated are qualified to comment on methodology. But I swear, I had to read the article several times to get the study. And I'm still confused about part of it. It should also be noted that this freaking thing is going to peer review outside of an in house paranormal journal, which is almost unprecedented. So it's made it that far.
Probably my reading the actual study wont help because I'm not qualified to comment on the methods used unless they are so obvious that anyone could find the mistakes. I might have Michelle take look at it when she gets back from her trip up north. She is qualified and would catch the mistakes in procedure if there are any. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 16:16:07 [Permalink]
|
Here is what Bob Lloyd said on our facebook page.
| Just skimming through the pdf you'll see straight away that the very first experiment wasn't double-blind nor randomised nor was there a control group... and a social psychologist said that he couldn't see anything wrong with the methodology??? If you prime the experimental group to anticipate the results, and then provide them with continuous feedback during the experiment, you might have one or two problems drawing reliable conclusions :) |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2010 : 14:43:48 [Permalink]
|
Richard Wiseman is going to attempt to replicate one of Bem's studies, but he already sees methodological problems:
The studies were run by student experimenters, with other students acting as participants. The study software presented participants with a list of 48 words (e.g., CAT, SOFA, MUG, DESK), and then asked them to type all of the words that they could remember into the computer. The software then randomly selected half of the words in the original list (e.g., CAT, MUG) and presented them to the participants again. The participant did not see the non-selected words (e.g., SOFA, DESK). Let’s refer to the selected words as the ‘target words’ and the non-selected words as the ‘control’ words. Accoding to Bem’s results, participants were significantly more likely to remember the words in the ‘target’ than ‘control’ list (i.e., they appeared to be better able to remember those words that they would later see a second time.).
The potential problem is in the scoring. The experimenters used a second piece of software to score participants’ responses. Of course, participants may have misspelled remembered words (e.g., typing ‘CTT’ instead of ‘CAT’) or come up with words that were not on the original list (e.g., typing ‘CAR’ instead of ‘CAT’). To deal with this, the scoring software was designed to automatically go through the participant’s responses and to flag up any words that were not absolutely identical to the words that were not in the original list. The experimenter then had to go through these ‘unknown’ words manually, and either correct the spelling or tell the software to ignore them because they did not appear on the original list. To prevent any possibility of unconscious bias, the experimenter should have been doing this blind to the words in the ‘target’ and ‘control’ lists. Unfortunately, this was not the case. |
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2010 : 17:48:44 [Permalink]
|
| I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone more qualified than Richard Wiseman to attempt to replicate the studies.. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2010 : 14:43:57 [Permalink]
|
So far one replication of the study has been conducted, but the results were not.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2010 : 14:59:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
So far one replication of the study has been conducted, but the results were not.
|
Who'd a thunk it? Others are working on it too. I kinda expect the numbers to even out, as in what you would expect from chance. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2010 : 10:36:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
So far one replication of the study has been conducted, but the results were not.
|
I predicted the future!
 |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
Study suggests precognition...
