Gobbo
(Gobbo)
June 16, 2011, 10:46pm
77
Actually it does. You could have just picked one, or all, but instead you want to waste time.
Seeing as how no one wants to focus on the data, we’ll move onto another study.
Gobbo
(Gobbo)
June 16, 2011, 10:52pm
79
Study of the sense of being stared at
Source: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis. (anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html )
Show Credentials
In fall 1995, Professor Ray Hyman (University of Oregon) and Dr. Utts prepared a report assessing the statistical evidence for psychic functioning in U.S. government sponsored research as part of a review done by the American Institutes of Research (AIR) at the request of Congress and the CIA. The study that follows is taken from that report.
Results of studies in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), the United States and Scotland demonstrated that people do have a sense of being stared at. In other words, without contact with the other person, someone is aware when that person's consciousness is trained on them. To replicate the results, SAIC performed two studies of its own. The result was that they found that people displayed the same subconscious reaction of knowing when they are being stared at. Dr. Utts reviewed the two studies to determine whether they were valid studies.
Abstract:
Purpose: It is often reported anecdotally that people know when they are being watched. Two experiments were conducted at SAIC to determine whether or not these anecdotes could be supported by a change in physiology when someone is being observed from a distance. The experimental design was essentially the same for the two experiments. This work was a conceptual replication of results reported by researchers in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), the United States and Scotland. The experiments in the FSU were interpreted to mean that the physiology of the recipient was being manipulated by the sender, an effect that if real could have frightening consequences.
Method: The “observee” was seated in a room with a video camera focused on him or her, and with galvanic skin response measurements being recorded. In a distant room the “observer” attempted to influence the physiology of the observee at randomly spaced time intervals. During those time intervals, an image of the observee appeared on a computer monitor watched by the observer. During “control” periods, the video camera remained focused on the observee but the computer monitor did not display his or her image to the observer. There were 16 “influence” periods randomly interspersed with 16 “control” periods, each of 30 seconds, with blank periods of 0 to 5 seconds inserted to rule out patterns in physiology.
Results: To determine whether or not the galvanic skin response of the observees was activated while they were being watched, the response during the control periods was compared with the response during the “influence” periods for each subject. The results were then averaged across subjects. In both experiments, there was greater activity during the periods of being watched than there was during the control periods. The results were statistically significant in each case (p = .036 and .014) and the effect sizes were similar, at 0.39 and 0.49. As preplanned, the results were combined, yielding an effect size of .39 (p = .005). As an interesting post hoc observation, it was noted that the effect was substantially stronger when the observer and observee were of opposite sexes than when they were of the same sex.
Homework: pick a study and see if you can find something wrong with the methodology.
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 10:54pm
80
Na, I’m still trying to figure out why someone would read or post studies if the data doesn’t matter.
Gobbo
(Gobbo)
June 16, 2011, 10:55pm
81
(btw the dude (Hyman) working with the statistician in these is a Psychologist)
Gobbo
(Gobbo)
June 16, 2011, 10:56pm
82
No, you’re avoiding looking at data because it’s supporting a thesis you would rather not be correct.
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 10:59pm
83
Statisticians cannot preform scientific inquiry…
Now I know I have you on the ropes.
I’m starting to think your guys’ form of argumentation here is ‘Well I didn’t read that part.’
Are you saying they don’t go over the methodology in study I posted?
That they only mentioned the statistical outcomes?
Is that what you’re saying? If so, it’s wrong.
If you want to say, ‘She is a statistician, and because I haven’t read all the details, it immediately invalidates everything presented’ that is a ridiculous statement. As far as I can tell, that is what you’re saying.
If you don’t want to look at the evidence I will just assume you don’t want to because it’s not the type of evidence you want to see.
LOL
Still waiting for a study of your choosing.
Gobbo
(Gobbo)
June 16, 2011, 11:06pm
84
You can choose a study to analyze, or you can keep making excuses as to why you refuse to look at any information.
I’ve brought all this information together. It’s not my job to say ‘here, read this specifically, then that,’ and all this stuff. If you don’t want to make any effort here than it’s pretty obvious what your intentions are.
Geeezz…
Tit-tat
Tit-tat
Is there a rat?
Where is the cat?
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 11:09pm
86
I could choose, but I want you to. I don’t know which study to choose based on any criterion. You posted the overview, so hopefully you may know which study is the most famous, which study is considered the most legitimate, ect. If you don’t, just say, and i’ll choose one randomly. Just don’t complain that I chose the worst one when I do.
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 11:11pm
87
LOL, you wrote the meta-review or posted a single link?
Gobbo
(Gobbo)
June 16, 2011, 11:14pm
88
My choice is for you to study them all individually, and then as a whole with regards to the conclusions from the meta-view.
If you don’t want to do that, then look at them all quickly and choose the weakest one carried out by a researcher from a discipline you find to be the least scientific.
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 11:15pm
89
I also kind of need you to align yourself with one the studies, otherwise it will be like last time. Where you just go from study to study quoting it’s conclusion, and I’m the only one that reads them all and tries to understand them. It was far too one-sided. You get one study this time.
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 11:16pm
90
James, do you know anything about these? Are some baby-land frolics and others legit?
Blurry
(Blurry)
June 16, 2011, 11:18pm
91
Have you not figured this out yet, Wobbly? If you disagree with him it’s because you either haven’t read what he posted, haven’t read it carefully enough, or you’re just an idiot. Duh.
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 11:19pm
92
Yeah, that’s just smoke an mirrors though, a behavior he has acquired recently. Let us hope for his sake that I don’t decide it’s not worth the effort to pry some authenticity out of him.
Yes, many are “legit”. Although I stopped looking into them many years ago after being so thoroughly disappointed in Man’s ability to rationally deduce what he is looking at.
They are legit in the sense that they can display that the mind is more perceptive to minuscule tidbits of data than people realize. The question as to whether the mind is performing unknowable feats of magical perception is a false and senseless question.
How about if I choose one;
Study of the sense of being stared at
Source: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis. (anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html )
Show Credentials
In fall 1995, Professor Ray Hyman (University of Oregon) and Dr. Utts prepared a report assessing the statistical evidence for psychic functioning in U.S. government sponsored research as part of a review done by the American Institutes of Research (AIR) at the request of Congress and the CIA. The study that follows is taken from that report.
Results of studies in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), the United States and Scotland demonstrated that people do have a sense of being stared at. In other words, without contact with the other person, someone is aware when that person's consciousness is trained on them. To replicate the results, SAIC performed two studies of its own. The result was that they found that people displayed the same subconscious reaction of knowing when they are being stared at. Dr. Utts reviewed the two studies to determine whether they were valid studies.
Abstract:
Purpose: It is often reported anecdotally that people know when they are being watched. Two experiments were conducted at SAIC to determine whether or not these anecdotes could be supported by a change in physiology when someone is being observed from a distance. The experimental design was essentially the same for the two experiments. This work was a conceptual replication of results reported by researchers in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), the United States and Scotland. The experiments in the FSU were interpreted to mean that the physiology of the recipient was being manipulated by the sender, an effect that if real could have frightening consequences.
Method: The “observee” was seated in a room with a video camera focused on him or her, and with galvanic skin response measurements being recorded. In a distant room the “observer” attempted to influence the physiology of the observee at randomly spaced time intervals. During those time intervals, an image of the observee appeared on a computer monitor watched by the observer. During “control” periods, the video camera remained focused on the observee but the computer monitor did not display his or her image to the observer. There were 16 “influence” periods randomly interspersed with 16 “control” periods, each of 30 seconds, with blank periods of 0 to 5 seconds inserted to rule out patterns in physiology.
Results: To determine whether or not the galvanic skin response of the observees was activated while they were being watched, the response during the control periods was compared with the response during the “influence” periods for each subject. The results were then averaged across subjects. In both experiments, there was greater activity during the periods of being watched than there was during the control periods. The results were statistically significant in each case (p = .036 and .014) and the effect sizes were similar, at 0.39 and 0.49. As preplanned, the results were combined, yielding an effect size of .39 (p = .005). As an interesting post hoc observation, it was noted that the effect was substantially stronger when the observer and observee were of opposite sexes than when they were of the same sex.
So now… where is the trick?
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 11:24pm
94
kk, I’ll read it and then bounce my problems with it back to you(if I find any).
After this, I have a few experiences that might be of interest along these same lines involving that mystical “ethereal plane”.
Wobbly
(Wobbly)
June 16, 2011, 11:42pm
96
Can’t find the actual study, or whatever the hell the CIA released.