Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal

In summary: HUGE for the field of parapsychology. It may finally gain the credibility it has long deserved. However, if it is found to be false, then it has also discredited the entire field.
  • #1
pftest
249
0
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html

Extraordinary claims don't come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven't yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What's more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can't find any significant flaws. "My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can't be true," says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. "Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn't see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order."
Critical mass

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.

This is an unfinished version of the paper: http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I was aware of this work [at least, very similar work] and some of the claims emerging, but nothing ever seemed to come of it. Thanks for the update!

It will be interesting to see what happens now.
 
  • #3
From the cited paper, this is what I saw quite some time ago [probably around 2002 or 2003]. I have mentioned it but was never able to find a valid reference for this work.

The trend is exemplified by several recent “presentiment” experiments, pioneered by Radin (1997), in which physiological indices of participants’ emotional arousal were monitored as participants viewed a series of pictures on a computer screen. Most of the pictures were emotionally neutral, but a highly arousing negative or erotic image was displayed on randomly selected trials. As expected, strong emotional arousal occurred when these images appeared on the screen, but the remarkable finding is that the increased arousal was observed to occur a few seconds before the picture appeared, before the computer has even selected the picture to be displayed. The presentiment effect has also been demonstrated in an fMRI experiment that monitored brain activity (Bierman & Scholte, 2002) and in experiments using bursts of noise rather than visual images as the arousing stimuli (Spottiswoode & May, 2003). A review of presentiment experiments prior to 2006 can be found in Radin (2006, pp. 161–180). Although there has not yet been a formal meta-analysis of presentiment studies, there have been 24 studies with human participants through 2009, of which 19 were in the predicted direction and Feeling the Future 5 about half were statistically significant. Two studies with animals are both positive, one marginally and the other substantially so (D. I. Radin, personal communication, December 20, 2009)...
 
  • #4
Ivan Seeking said:
I was aware of this work [at least, very similar work] and some of the claims emerging, but nothing ever seemed to come of it. Thanks for the update!

It will be interesting to see what happens now.

Ditto. It would be fascinating to learn the mechanism behind this, if this turns out to be repeatable (and re-observable).

It is my experience that its far too early to get your hopes up about this... it will either be discredited, or will turn into cold fusion (so untestable that it might as well be false for any practical purpose).

On the other hand, if precognition turns out to be scientific fact, then it'll be a very useful surveillance and advertising tool (among other things).
 
  • #5
Thanks for the link to the draft version. I'm sure I would not have otherwise come across it. It appears well-written, down to earth, and a legitimate attempt at objective scientific inquiry. Can't speak to the actual data, of course, but fascinating stuff.
 
  • #6
Just my two cents here:

Obviously I'm skeptical. This could certainly turn out to be another Project Alpha, or just a bump in the data. But this would certainly vindicate the idea that "if it's real, science can find it" mantra which is either loved or loathed by individuals.

In any case, precognition certainly wouldn't be paranormal anymore if this study is repeatable.​

Now for a discussion builder: some (not all) parapsychologists and paranormal investigators have long claimed that precognition, remote viewing, and other similar perceptional phenomena weren't measurable by science. I've long taken issue with this statement since remote viewing, at least, is easily testable and worth a lot of money (Randi has a box with something in it, guessing it on your first try gets you $1,000,000).

Does this open the doors? Hypothetically, these parascientists (or scientists, now) have brought their research into the realm of peer-reviewed science.

IF the research turns out to be flawed, does precognition remain in the realm of science (i.e. still non-existent until proved), or do we allow it to go back to that mushy realm of untestability?
 
  • #7
Science won't take a stand until it has some evidence to do so with. Which is what they are trying to do now.

I personally dismiss the notion until evidence of it's existence is proven. For me it remains the equivelant of a myth, great for stories but with little basis in reality.
 
  • #8
jarednjames said:
Science won't take a stand until it has some evidence to do so with. Which is what they are trying to do now.

That's kind of what I'm talking about. A group has decided that this test is "good enough" to show evidence of precognition. The test must be falsifiable to be seriously considered.

Which brings me to my question: if this test is shown to have failed (i.e. the results are negative), do we allow the results to stand, or do we push it back into the realm of parascience?

Let me try to build this idea a bit more. In "normal" science. You devise a test which could yield positive or negative results. You don't discard the negative results and say: "oh, there's no evidence here." You keep the negative results along with the positive results.

A group has decided that this test is "good enough" to prove the existence of precognition. Does that mean that it's also "good enough" to disprove it? If the answer is "no", then it's not a scientific test!
 
  • #9
Test results coming back negative don't indicate something doesn't exist.

As a crude example, you devise a new way to test for guns at an airport, you run the test and every time it returns a negative result (no guns on a person) when in fact 50% of people actually had guns on them. The test has clearly failed and doesn't work.

Does the fact the test didn't work indicate the guns didn't exist? No. It simply means the test can't detect them. It can't be used as grounds to derive somethings non-existence.

(Disclaimer: I'm in no way trying to defend any of this paranormal stuff.)
 
  • #10
jarednjames said:
Does the fact the test didn't work indicate the guns didn't exist? No. It simply means the test can't detect them. It can't be used as grounds to derive somethings non-existence.
(Bold added for emphasis.)

Well, I believe in your example here you are testing the functionality of the gun-detecting system. One of the premises of the test is that guns exist. Otherwise you wouldn't be testing anything. I hate to nit-pick, but I'm not sure your example is an analog to what we are discussing.

Furthermore, your post includes the words "it simply means the test can't detect them." But we've gotten past that point. The scientists involved in this study (which is still slated to be published as I understand it) have given this test the stamp of approval. They have said "this test can prove the existence of precognition." However, it's not worth anything unless the negative results have equal value.

Their test includes showing a series of images to a viewer. If they allow for positive results (a viewer reacts to an upcoming image before it is shown), then they need to allow for negative results (a viewer not reacting to an upcoming image before it is shown). Just because the viewer might NOT react doesn't mean that there is no data being gathered.

Jared, is it okay if I change your example to something I feel is more accurate? Here's my try:

You are testing for the ability of un-aided human flight. The test involved a random subset of the human population. Some are given jetpacks with fuel, and others are given jetpacks with a fuel substitute (same weight, but provides no thrust). So, the testee doesn't know if he has a working jetpack or not. After being thrown off a bridge, the testee must use any means he or she can to fly. Record the success rate. Next you perform that same test, but you don't give anyone a jetpack. Record the success rate.

The addition of the jetpack with or without fuel with combat confirmation bias from the tester and the testee and allow for a double blind test (so long as the tester isn't aware of the contents of the jetpack).

If no one can fly without the properly fueled jetpack, that doesn't mean you didn't gather any data. Proof that no one can fly without aid? Of course not! But science now has a definitive statement on the issue: "it seems humans cannot fly without a source of external aid. This has been shown to be true to a certain statistical degree (dependent upon test pool size)."

This is not a null statement. It has content. Scientific content. And you can use it to predict the outcome of future tests with high reliability.
 
  • #11
I feel the previous post was lacking content to properly demonstrate my point. I've chosen to use a separate post so as to keep the conclusion separate from this sort of epilogue.

If you carry the analog back to the precognition example, you can see that the details line up better than the "gun detector" test.

Get a test group together, tell them that they will be seeing a series of images. For the entire group, insert an image that says: "warning, explicitly sexual content ahead." In half of those test cases you show them an explicitly sexual image, and in the other half, you don't. This if your control group.

In the next half of the test, you perform the same test, but you remove the image that says: "warning, explicitly sexual content ahead." So, again, half of the group will see the sexual image, and the other half will not.

I'm concerned that we will learn that this test didn't quite create a rigid control group. Instead they were looking for any arousal in the testee versus none. And, frankly, humans are weird, and we might be aroused by... um... anything. :uhh:
 
  • #12
Agreed, your idea is better.

My original point was regarding the test being shown to be null. Not with the results, I apologise I mis-read your post.

If science has collected evidence then yes, it can make a statement regarding the existence (or possibility) of something.
 
  • #13
jarednjames said:
If science has collected evidence then yes, it can make a statement regarding the existence (or possibility) of something.

This is good, but it's also contingent on everyone agreeing that the test is even within the realm of science.

For some parascientists, their work is outside of science (EDIT: their claim, not mine!). I'm genuinely glad that we've all agreed to bring "precognition" into the scientific realm. It means that we can start making definitive statements for the first time.

Here's a twist for you... if the arousal happens prior to the image being displayed, can you detect the arousal ahead of time and remove the image from the queue? If that's true, then this would be the first evidence for multi-dimensional time. Or maybe it would just end the universe.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Evo said:
Flex and Jared, you guys are discussing the wrong paper. You're discussing the crackpot Radin paper

Here is the paper you're supposed to be discussing.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html

Not that this paper will turn out any more credible, I'm not impressed.

I haven't read any paper. Just making a comment regarding scientific procedure.

I still don't buy into any of this paranormal stuff so there's really nothing for me to discuss.
 
  • #16
jarednjames said:
I haven't read any paper. Just making a comment regarding scientific procedure.

I still don't buy into any of this paranormal stuff so there's really nothing for me to discuss.
It's not paranormal like the Radin paper.

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.
Ok, no information here and not impressive.

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.
Well, duh. We've known for years that it takes a while for the brain to consciously shift from one train of thought to an opposite.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html
 
  • #17
Evo said:
Flex and Jared, you guys are discussing the wrong paper. You're discussing the crackpot Radin paper that Ivan posted. He was thinking of an older unrelated paper.

Well, don't I feel silly! I guess I was just blindly following the trend of the thread.

That being said, the majority of what I've stated here is valid for any parapsychological study.
That's kind of what I'm talking about. A group has decided that this test is "good enough" to show evidence of precognition. The test must be falsifiable to be seriously considered.

Either way, we are now allowed to "science-up" the idea of precognition. No one is allowed to say: "precognition is out of bounds for science." At least, that's how I read the situation.
 
  • #18
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.

Spooky my a**. All they've said there is that a student has shown they remembered a word and then when asked to type some words later that is one of the ones the typed. Would you believe it.
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.

Subliminal advertising comes to mind. Nothing new here.
In another test, for instance, volunteers were told that an erotic image was going to appear on a computer screen in one of two positions, and asked to guess in advance which position that would be. The image's eventual position was selected at random, but volunteers guessed correctly 53.1 per cent of the time.

What you mean out of a choice of two there's virtually a 50/50 split in right and wrong choices. Who'd have thought it.
That may sound unimpressive – truly random guesses would have been right 50 per cent of the time, after all. But well-established phenomena such as the ability of low-dose aspirin to prevent heart attacks are based on similarly small effects

They help prevent heart attack. As in you take them in the hope they help you (hence the small odds of them actually working - it works for some people so others try it). Nobody is claiming they definitely will prevent heart attacks. The odds are low for them because they only assist with this.
These people are using similarly low odds to claim precognition exists without any basis.

And any of this has what to do with precognition? Aside from that 50/50 test with the porn I see no reason to ascertain precognition's existence. I'd want that test reapeated many times to hold that there are >50% correct guesses occurring. But even then I'd still wouldn't hold out much for it. Why not do it with 5 / 10 / 15 pics? If precognition actually exists it would still show up, and wouldn't be so close to an even draw (as you'd expect without precognition).
 
  • #19
I loved the aspirin bit, that was so off the wall and of no significance to this, I'm still scratching my head on that one.
 
  • #20
FlexGunship said:
I believe the goal was to illustrate that "although 53% might sound very close to 50%... aspirin is recommended because instead of helping 50% of people, it helps 53% of people." Therefore, we are to conclude that 53% is, indeed, a statistically significant number.

Edit by Evo: AAAARRGH, flex, I accidently edited out your post. I need to stop answering the phone when I'm responding.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Still meaningless when the discussion is about guessing something. If I only performed my job correctly 53% of the time, I'd be fired. If a doctor killed 47% of his patients it would be unacceptable. Know what I mean?
 
  • #22
FlexGunship said:
Edit by Evo: AAAARRGH, flex, I accidently edited out your post. I need to stop answering the phone when I'm responding.

Wait... where IS my response? My well-reasoned, carefully thought out post seems to have gone decidedly AWOL.

You mean... you... edited it.. out.:frown: Everyone keeps deleting my posts... :frown:
 
  • #23
FlexGunship said:
Wait... where IS my response? My well-reasoned, carefully thought out post seems to have gone decidedly AWOL.

You mean... you... edited it.. out.


:frown: Everyone keeps deleting my posts... :frown:
I didn't just delete it, I sent it into oblivion. :cry:

And it was a truly great post.
 
  • #24
Evo said:
I didn't just delete it, I sent it into oblivion. :cry:

That's nothing. I once got an entire thread deleted.
(Edited for increased cleverness)
 
  • #25
jarednjames said:
Spooky my a**. All they've said there is that a student has shown they remembered a word and then when asked to type some words later that is one of the ones the typed. Would you believe it.
Heh, good point. "Researchers have demonstrated that they can get students to type words that they have previously remembered when asked."

jarednjames said:
Subliminal advertising comes to mind. Nothing new here.
Well, they're saying it works in reverse. Seeing the word "ugly" before seeing a kitten delays your response on the quality of the kitten. They are claiming that after you delay your response on the quality of a kitten, then will show the word "ugly."

Traditional:
Show word -> show cat -> delay -> judgement
Show cat -> judgement

Bem's version:
Show cat -> delay -> judgement -> show word
Show cat -> judgement

They are talking about moving the word but not moving the delay.

Again, I would like to see the response of the testee input into a supercomputer and if they show a delay, then have a supercomputer NOT display the word "ugly" afterwards. Then what do they attribute the delay to? Or does the universe simply fall apart?

Evo: Destroyer of Posts! said:
I loved the aspirin bit, that was so off the wall and of no significance to this, I'm still scratching my head on that one.
I believe the goal was to illustrate that "although 53% might sound very close to 50%... aspirin is recommended because instead of helping 50% of people, it helps 53% of people." Therefore, we are to conclude that 53% is, indeed, a statistically significant number.

I've found out the "Catch 22" here. Since scientific studies seek to establish causal relationships (i.e. this causes that), Bem will claim that such a metric is invalid since the very thing they are demonstrating is non-causal.

EDIT: Do you believe in miracles, Evo?
 
  • #26
A test for precognition should be simple, shouldn't it?

I propose the following:

The test subject must accurately* predict a future event. The event must be something that is otherwise considered un-predictable (or of such low odds any other method wouldn't be able to determine its occurrence accurately).

*Accuracy is defined here in relation to the complexity of the prediction. See following examples.

Example 1
Task - A person predicts the outcome of a number of rolls of a fair dice.
Accuracy Required - Due to the nature of the task, the person must predict the exact result.
Additional Requirements - The dice must be rolled a number of times to ensure the probability of simply guessing the outcome correctly each time is made as low as possible. Recomendation is 20 rolls as a start.

Example 2
Task - A person predicts a seemingly random event, in this case we'll use a car crash.
Accuracy Required - The event must be described in enough detail so that a random person could match the description to the crash should it occur, without any details being left vague or open to interpretation. "A car will crash on the M4 tomorrow" is not a valid predicition. "A blue Ford will crash into a red Hyundai near junction 10 on the M4 tomorrow" is acceptable, but more detail would be preferred.
Additional Requirements - As above, the event must clearly match the description given in order to be considered an accurate prediction of said event.

As you can see, all you need to do is describe a future event in enough detail for us to clearly identify it when it occurs. Simple.
 
  • #27
jarednjames said:
A test for precognition should be simple, shouldn't it?

I propose the following: [...] Simple.

<Devil's Advocate>
I think the idea is that this is an unconscious response. And that it is uncontrollable by the individual. Specifically, they are saying that psychological tests are functional even if causality is reversed.

Examples of standard tests:
  1. Show a scary picture -> heart rate increases
  2. Show a boring picture -> heart rate steady

Examples of precognition tests:
  1. Heart rate increases -> show a scary picture
  2. Heart rate steady -> show a boring picture

The important fact is that whether a scary picture or a boring picture is being shown is predetermined and NOT based on the heart rate. It's quite a claim!​
</Devil's Advocate>
 
Last edited:
  • #28
jarednjames said:
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.
Spooky my a**. All they've said there is that a student has shown they remembered a word and then when asked to type some words later that is one of the ones the typed. Would you believe it.
I think you might be misinterpreting the experiment, maybe. The article is ambiguous, and not well written on this point, but here is how the experiment was apparently done (I'll try to summarize it):

The entire process for each participant was done in private on a computer. There were a total of 100 precipitants.

  1. A list of 48 common words are given to the participant to remember. The word list and word order are identical for all test subjects. I'll call this word list the "super-set."
  2. The test subject is then asked to recall as many words as they could from the superset. I'll call this list of a test subject's recalled words the "recalled-set."
  3. The computer randomly generates a subset of 24 words from the super-set. This list of words is called the "practice-word-set" (the draft version of the paper calls them the 24 "practice words"). Participants then had to perform some exercises on each word, such as clicking on each word with the mouse, categorizing each word (all words form the superset are are either foods, animals, occupations, or clothes), and typing each practice word.
  4. I'll call the remaining 24 words from the super-set that are not in the practice-word-set the "control-word-set" (the paper calls them "control words").
  5. A measure is calculated called a "weighted differential recall (DR) score," ranging from -100% to 100%, which correlates the recalled-set to the practice-word-set and control-word-set. A positive DR% means the words from the recalled-set had a higher percentage of "practice words" than "control words." A negative DR% means the words from the recalled-set had a higher percentage of "control words" than "practice words." A 0 DR% means that the participant chose an equal number of words from both sets.
    The DR score was calculated as follows,
    P: number of words in both the recalled-set and practice-word set.
    C: number of words in both the recalled-set and control-word set.
    DR% = [(P – C) × (P + C)]/576

    {Edit: Here's an example: 10 practice words recalled, 8 control words recalled. DR% = 100% x [(10-8)(10+8)]/576 = 6.25%}
There was also a 25 person control group. In this group, the procedure was the same except the participants did not do any practice exercises, and were not shown the randomly generated practice-word-set. However it was still used to calculate a DR% score for comparison.

Results:
Mean DR% score:
Main group:2.27%
Control group: 0.26%

A variation of the experiment was performed which had a slight change of how the superset of words were originally given to the participants. In this version of the experiment, the sample size was much smaller; only 50 participants. There was also a 25 participant control session.

Mean DR% score:
Main group:4.21%
Control group: Not given in the paper, but only mentioned as, "DR% scores from the control sessions did not differ significantly from zero."

For details, here's a link to where I gathered this:
http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

I'd like to see the experiment reproduced with a larger sample size. For now I am not impressed. And why does the paper not give the control group's mean DR% in the second experiment ?!? Perhaps because all DR% scores in the whole experiment do not statistically differ significantly from 0? I'm not impressed.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Evo said:
Flex and Jared, you guys are discussing the wrong paper. You're discussing the crackpot Radin paper that Ivan posted. He was thinking of an older unrelated paper.

What are you talking about? This is what I linked.

© 2010 American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/index.aspx [Broken] 0022-3514/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021524
This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.
Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for
Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect
Daryl J. Bem
Cornell University
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Actually, I didn't even link it, I just quoted from the paper linked in the op.
 
  • #31
collinsmark said:
I think you might be misinterpreting the experiment

No misinterpretation about it, that is what the article said.


53% means you are only 3% over the expected 50/50 odds of guesswork. Without a much larger test group that 3% doesn't mean anything. It could simply be a statistical anomaly.

Any of you seen the Derren Brown episode where he flips a coin ten times in a row and it comes out a head each time?

The test group is too small and this 3% doesn't show anything. If I sat in a room and flipped a coin 100 times, calling heads each time, there is a an equal chance that heads will come up as tails and so although you'd expect an even spread of heads vs tails, however there is a chance that you get more heads than tails and as such would show me as being correct >50% of the time. But there's nothing precognitive about that.
Also, as per the Derren Brown experiment, I flip a coin ten times and could call heads ten times in a row and each coin toss come out heads. Again, nothing precognitive there. Despite what it looks like.

As a note, DB spent 8 hours stood in front of a camera flipping the coin until it came out heads ten times in a row (they showed this at the end). He used it to explain something in a show (he made out it was extremely likely to happen to help what he was trying to get the audience to do), but the purpose of the explanation (showing the 8 hours worth of attempts) at the end was him trying to demonstrate that it is possible for heads to come out ten times in a row, how unlikely it was - but not impossible.
 
  • #32
Considering the experiment involving the word memorization followed by the "practice" typing of a random subset of words,

Now I am kinda' impressed. (But not jumping out of my seat or anything).

I just created a C# program to simulate Daryl J. Bem's experiment in order to analyze the statistics. Basically, the program simulates the experiment, except without any human interaction so we can rule out any human influences. This way one can compare the paper's reported DR% against simulated DR% values.

When simulating 100 participants in a given experiment, and repeating the experiment 5000 times, the mean DR% was very close to 0 as expected, but the standard deviation of the mean DR% was only 1.097%. The paper's reported DR% (for the first trial of 100 participants) was 2.27%. That's over two standard deviations better than expected. That could be significant.

For the second trial with 50 participants, repeating the experiment 5000 times, the simulated mean was (of course) almost 0, and the standard deviation of the mean DR% was 1.54%. The actual experiment apparently had a DR% of 4.21%. That's about 2.7 standard deviations away from what is expected.

So, the numbers in this experiment might be somewhat statistically significant. But I still would be curious to see how it turns out with a larger sample set.

I've attached the code below. Please forgive my poor coding, I wasn't putting a whole lot of time into this.

Code:
//Written by Collins Mark.

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;

namespace Precognition_tester
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {   
            int NumLoops = 5000;  // <== number of experiments
            int SampleSize = 100;  // <== number of participants in each experiment.

            double memoryMean = 18.4; // <== averge number of words recalled.
            double memoryStDev = 5;   // <== standard deviation of number of words 
                                      //     recalled (I had to guess at this one)
            int ItemsPerCat = 12;
            int i;
            Random uniRand = new Random();

            // Load the category lists.
            List<string> foodList = new List<string>();
            foodList.Add("HotDogs");
            foodList.Add("Hamburgers");
            foodList.Add("Waffles");
            foodList.Add("IceCream");
            foodList.Add("Coffee");
            foodList.Add("Pizza");
            foodList.Add("Guinness");
            foodList.Add("SausageEggAndCheeseBiscuit");
            foodList.Add("Toast");
            foodList.Add("Salad");
            foodList.Add("Taco");
            foodList.Add("Steak");

            List<string> animalList = new List<string>();
            animalList.Add("Cat");
            animalList.Add("Dog");
            animalList.Add("Snake");
            animalList.Add("Whale");
            animalList.Add("Bee");
            animalList.Add("Spider");
            animalList.Add("Elephant");
            animalList.Add("Mongoose");
            animalList.Add("Wambat");
            animalList.Add("Bonobo");
            animalList.Add("Hamster");
            animalList.Add("Human");

            List<string> occupationsList = new List<string>();
            occupationsList.Add("Engineer");
            occupationsList.Add("Plumber");
            occupationsList.Add("TalkShowHost");
            occupationsList.Add("Doctor");
            occupationsList.Add("Janitor");
            occupationsList.Add("Prostitute");
            occupationsList.Add("Cook");
            occupationsList.Add("Theif");
            occupationsList.Add("Pilot");
            occupationsList.Add("Maid");
            occupationsList.Add("Nanny");
            occupationsList.Add("Bartender");

            List<string> clothesList = new List<string>();
            clothesList.Add("Shirt");
            clothesList.Add("Shoes");
            clothesList.Add("Jacket");
            clothesList.Add("Undershorts");
            clothesList.Add("Socks");
            clothesList.Add("Jeans");
            clothesList.Add("Wristwatch");
            clothesList.Add("Cap");
            clothesList.Add("Sunglasses");
            clothesList.Add("Overalls");
            clothesList.Add("LegWarmers");
            clothesList.Add("Bra");

            // Add elements to superset without clustering
            List<string> superset = new List<string>();
            for (i = 0; i < ItemsPerCat; i++)
            {
                superset.Add(foodList[i]);
                superset.Add(animalList[i]);
                superset.Add(occupationsList[i]);
                superset.Add(clothesList[i]);
            }

            mainLoop(
                NumLoops, 
                SampleSize, 
                ItemsPerCat, 
                memoryMean, 
                memoryStDev, 
                superset, 
                foodList, 
                animalList, 
                occupationsList, 
                clothesList, 
                uniRand);
        }

        // This is the big, main loop.
        static void mainLoop(
            int NumLoops, 
            int SampleSize, 
            int ItemsPerCat, 
            double memoryMean, 
            double memoryStDev, 
            List<string> superset,
            List<string> foodList,
            List<string> animalList,
            List<string> occupationsList,
            List<string> clothesList,
            Random uniRand)
        {
            // Report something to the screen,
            Console.WriteLine("Simulating {0} experiments of {1} participants each", NumLoops, SampleSize);
            Console.WriteLine("...Calculating...");

            // Create list of meanDR of separate experiments.
            List<double> meanDRlist = new List<double>();

            // Loop through main big loop
            for (int mainCntr = 0; mainCntr < NumLoops; mainCntr++)
            {
                // create Array of participant's DR's for a given experiment.
                List<double> DRarray = new List<double>();

                //Loop through each participant in one experiment.
                for (int participant = 0; participant < SampleSize; participant++)
                {
                    // Reset parameters.
                    int P = 0; // number of practice words recalled.
                    int C = 0; // number of control words recalled.
                    double DR = 0; // weighted differential recall (DR) score.

                    // Create recalled set.
                    List<string> recalledSet = new List<string>();
                    createRecalledSet(
                        recalledSet,
                        superset,
                        memoryMean,
                        memoryStDev,
                        uniRand);

                    // Create random practice set.
                    List<string> practiceSet = new List<string>();
                    createPracticeSet(
                        practiceSet,
                        foodList,
                        animalList,
                        occupationsList,
                        clothesList,
                        ItemsPerCat,
                        uniRand);

                    // Compare recalled count to practice set.
                    foreach (string strTemp in recalledSet)
                    {
                        if (practiceSet.Contains(strTemp))
                            P++;
                        else
                            C++;
                    }

                    // Compute weighted differential recall (DR) score
                    DR = 100.0 * (P - C) * (P + C) / 576.0;

                    // Record DR in list.
                    DRarray.Add(DR);

                    // Report output.
                    //Console.WriteLine("DR%:  {0}", DR);
                }
                // record mean DR.
                double meanDR = DRarray.Average();
                meanDRlist.Add(meanDR);

                // Report Average DR.
                //Console.WriteLine("Experiment {0}, Sample size: {1},  mean DR:  {2}", mainCntr, SampleSize, meanDR);

            }
            // Finished looping.

            // Calculate mean of meanDR
            double finalMean = meanDRlist.Average();

            // Calculate standard deviation of meanDR
            double finalStDev = 0;
            foreach (double dTemp in meanDRlist)
            {
                finalStDev += (dTemp - finalMean) * (dTemp - finalMean);
            }
            finalStDev = finalStDev / NumLoops;
            finalStDev = Math.Sqrt(finalStDev);
            
            // Report final results.

            Console.WriteLine(" ");
            Console.WriteLine("Participants per experiment: {0}", SampleSize);
            Console.WriteLine("Number of separate experiments: {0}", NumLoops);
            Console.WriteLine("mean of the mean DR% from all experiments: {0}",
                finalMean);
            Console.WriteLine("Standard deviation of the mean DR%: {0}", finalStDev);

            Console.ReadLine();
            
        }

        static double Gaussrand(double unirand1, double unirand2)
        {
            return (Math.Sqrt(-2 * Math.Log(unirand1)) * Math.Cos(2 * Math.PI * unirand2));
        }
        
        static void createRecalledSet(List<string> recalledSet, List<string> superSet, double mean, double stdev, Random unirand)
        {
            // Determine how many words were recalled. (random)
            double unirand1 = unirand.NextDouble();
            double unirand2 = unirand.NextDouble();
            while (unirand1 == 0.0) unirand1 = unirand.NextDouble();
            while (unirand2 == 0.0) unirand2 = unirand.NextDouble();

            double gaussrand = Gaussrand(unirand1, unirand2);
            gaussrand *= stdev;
            gaussrand += mean;
            int recalledCount = (int)gaussrand;
            if (recalledCount > superSet.Count) recalledCount = superSet.Count; 
            
            // Create temporary superset and copy elements over.
            List<string> tempSuperSet = new List<string>();
            foreach (string strTemp in superSet)
            {
                tempSuperSet.Add(strTemp);
            }

            // Randomize temporary superset.
            shuffleList(tempSuperSet, unirand);

            // Copy over first recalledCount items to recalledSet.
            for (int i = 0; i < recalledCount; i++)
            {
                recalledSet.Add(tempSuperSet[i]);
            }
        }

        static void createPracticeSet(
            List<string> practiceList, 
            List<string> foodList,
            List<string> animalList,
            List<string> occupationsList,
            List<string> clothesList,
            int itemsPerCat,
            Random uniRand)
        {
            List<string> tempFoodList = new List<string>();
            List<string> tempAnimalList = new List<string>();
            List<string> tempOccupationsList = new List<string>();
            List<string> tempClothesList = new List<string>();

            // load temporary lists.
            foreach (string strTemp in foodList)
                tempFoodList.Add(strTemp);
            foreach (string strTemp in animalList)
                tempAnimalList.Add(strTemp);
            foreach (string strTemp in occupationsList)
                tempOccupationsList.Add(strTemp);
            foreach (string strTemp in clothesList)
                tempClothesList.Add(strTemp);

            // Shuffle temporary lists
            shuffleList(tempFoodList, uniRand);
            shuffleList(tempAnimalList, uniRand);
            shuffleList(tempOccupationsList, uniRand);
            shuffleList(tempClothesList, uniRand);

            // Load practice list
            for (int i = 0; i < itemsPerCat / 2; i++)
            {
                practiceList.Add(tempFoodList[i]);
                practiceList.Add(tempAnimalList[i]);
                practiceList.Add(tempOccupationsList[i]);
                practiceList.Add(tempClothesList[i]);
            }

            // Shuffle practice list
            shuffleList(practiceList, uniRand);
        }

        // method to shuffle lists.
        static void shuffleList(List<string> list, Random unirand)
        {
            List<string> shuffledList = new List<string>();
            while (list.Count() > 0)
            {
                int indexTemp = unirand.Next(list.Count());
                shuffledList.Add(list[indexTemp]);
                list.RemoveAt(indexTemp);
            }
            foreach (string strTemp in shuffledList) list.Add(strTemp);
        }
    }
}
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
What are you talking about? This is what I linked.

© 2010 American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/index.aspx [Broken] 0022-3514/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021524
This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.
Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for
Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect
Daryl J. Bem
Cornell University

Ivan Seeking said:
Actually, I didn't even link it, I just quoted from the paper linked in the op.
This is what you posted https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2982604&postcount=3

Ivan Seeking said:
From the cited paper, this is what I saw quite some time ago [probably around 2002 or 2003]. I have mentioned it but was never able to find a valid reference for this work.

The trend is exemplified by several recent “presentiment” experiments, pioneered by Radin (1997), in which physiological indices of participants’ emotional arousal were monitored as participants viewed a series of pictures on a computer screen. Most of the pictures were emotionally neutral, but a highly arousing negative or erotic image was displayed on randomly selected trials. As expected, strong emotional arousal occurred when these images appeared on the screen, but the remarkable finding is that the increased arousal was observed to occur a few seconds before the picture appeared, before the computer has even selected the picture to be displayed. The presentiment effect has also been demonstrated in an fMRI experiment that monitored brain activity (Bierman & Scholte, 2002) and in experiments using bursts of noise rather than visual images as the arousing stimuli (Spottiswoode & May, 2003). A review of presentiment experiments prior to 2006 can be found in Radin (2006, pp. 161–180). Although there has not yet been a formal meta-analysis of presentiment studies, there have been 24 studies with human participants through 2009, of which 19 were in the predicted direction and Feeling the Future 5 about half were statistically significant. Two studies with animals are both positive, one marginally and the other substantially so (D. I. Radin, personal communication, December 20, 2009)...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
<whisper>Umm... so was I talking about the wrong thing or not? :uhh:</whisper>
 
<h2>1. What is precognition?</h2><p>Precognition is the ability to have knowledge or awareness of future events or experiences before they occur. It is often referred to as "premonition" or "foreknowledge".</p><h2>2. How is the precognition paper different from other research on the topic?</h2><p>The precognition paper being published in a mainstream journal means that it has gone through a rigorous peer-review process and has been deemed scientifically valid and significant. This sets it apart from other research that may not have undergone the same level of scrutiny.</p><h2>3. What methods were used in the precognition study?</h2><p>The specific methods used in the precognition study will vary depending on the research design and goals of the study. However, common methods used in precognition research include controlled experiments, surveys, and statistical analysis of data.</p><h2>4. What are the implications of the precognition paper being published in a mainstream journal?</h2><p>The publication of a precognition paper in a mainstream journal can have significant implications for the scientific community and society as a whole. It may provide evidence for the existence of precognition and open up new avenues for research in this field. It may also challenge traditional beliefs and theories about time and the human mind.</p><h2>5. How can the findings of the precognition paper be applied in real life?</h2><p>The potential applications of the findings of the precognition paper will depend on the specific results and conclusions of the study. However, if precognition is proven to be a real phenomenon, it could have implications for various fields such as psychology, neuroscience, and even law enforcement. It could also potentially be used to improve decision-making and planning in personal and professional contexts.</p>

1. What is precognition?

Precognition is the ability to have knowledge or awareness of future events or experiences before they occur. It is often referred to as "premonition" or "foreknowledge".

2. How is the precognition paper different from other research on the topic?

The precognition paper being published in a mainstream journal means that it has gone through a rigorous peer-review process and has been deemed scientifically valid and significant. This sets it apart from other research that may not have undergone the same level of scrutiny.

3. What methods were used in the precognition study?

The specific methods used in the precognition study will vary depending on the research design and goals of the study. However, common methods used in precognition research include controlled experiments, surveys, and statistical analysis of data.

4. What are the implications of the precognition paper being published in a mainstream journal?

The publication of a precognition paper in a mainstream journal can have significant implications for the scientific community and society as a whole. It may provide evidence for the existence of precognition and open up new avenues for research in this field. It may also challenge traditional beliefs and theories about time and the human mind.

5. How can the findings of the precognition paper be applied in real life?

The potential applications of the findings of the precognition paper will depend on the specific results and conclusions of the study. However, if precognition is proven to be a real phenomenon, it could have implications for various fields such as psychology, neuroscience, and even law enforcement. It could also potentially be used to improve decision-making and planning in personal and professional contexts.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
25K
Back
Top