Russell@ulowell.UUCP (03/23/87)
[] I would like to invite the readers of mod.psi to participate in a MACRO experiment in REMOTE VIEWING. Any of you who know me should of course not participate but the rest of you are invited. At a pre-announced time, I will go to an unspecified spot for several hours. after returning form the spot, I i will post a list of candidates places; the actual place and seven decoys. People who are participating will then choose from the list of eight plaes and send their SINGLE choice along with what ever other ocmments they wnat to me (brand@lll-crg.arpa lll-crg!brand), and I will tabulate the results and post them. We will then repeat the expiremnt, tabulate the results for the new test and the AUTO-correlation function. IF some people have stronger psi abilities in this area than others than more of the people who got it right on the first trial should be able to get it right on the second trial. The first trial will be held SATURDAY APRIL 4th from 1 pm to 3 pm PACIFIC TIME
karl@haddock.UUCP (03/28/87)
[] In article <1153@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> brand@lll-crg writes: >At a pre-announced time, I will go to an unspecified spot for several hours. >after returning from the spot, I will post a list of candidates places; >the actual place and seven decoys. It would be better if you would *first* draw up the list of candidates, then select one at random (don't just pick one -- use an eight-sided die) for the target. Otherwise you might give unconcious clues in the descriptions. >People who are participating will then choose from the list of eight places >and send their SINGLE choice..., and I will tabulate the results. Don't do the tabulation yourself -- recruit someone who doesn't know what the "right" answer is. For some reason the results of such experiments tend to be biased according to the beliefs of the tabulator. (Don't take it personally; it affects both pro- and con-psi experimenters, and is usually accidental.) Karl W. Z. Heuer (haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Levitating Lint
cooper>@pbsvax.dec.com.UUCP (03/31/87)
[]
Karl W. Z. Heuer (haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com) suggests some
precautions which Russell Brand should take in his first participatory
experiment. Unfortunately I missed the original posting (our gateway was
out for a while). On the basis of what Karl posted, however, I must
strongly agree.
Unless the stated precautions are taken, virtually nothing, pro or con,
can be concluded from the test. It is known that well understood,
conventional (i.e., non-paranormal) mechanisms will sometimes result in
"hits" if those controls are not in place. Simply telling the percipients
the location would be more effective, but not fundamentally different.
I am speaking not as a critic of parapsychology, looking for reasons to
dismiss such research, but as a serious amateur parapsychologist, active in
the scientific parapsychology community.
Both remote-viewing experiments and group testing are deceptively difficult
to do correctly. This experiment combines both. Without having seen the
original protocol, I cannot comment on whether or not there are other flaws
in the procedure (but are you aware of the stacking effect, and have you
taken it into account? It is a frequent source of error in group testing).
Topher Cooper
USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!pbsvax.dec.com!cooper
INTERNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.