View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 16 Oct 2011, 02:17

Arouet wrote:Can you take us step by step through what you're actually doing? Is it that for each trial you are staring at that line going back and forth on that website (in one of the 5 or so different options) 1000 times?


1) I click on the Bell Curve Experiment

2) Bubble "Record" (For a meta-study)

3) Goal and Sound are optional

4) Run Experiment

5) Starts the trials untill there are a total of 1024 trials

6) Experiment ends and gets published in my Experimental Log.

7) Since the statistical analyses in the website is very slightly flawed (flawed because of one-tailed), I conducted my own two-tailed, statistical analysis.

And I still don't understand why at 141 trials you would have pretty well exactly expectation, but 30 trials later suddenly have significance? Does that not suggest variance? Your entire significance seems to be based on the last 30 trials! That sounds like variance.


It may be that the effect-size may be too small that it can only be detected in the long run, which is also true for other conventional experiments dealing with small effect-sizes.

Anyway, in order to find out for sure, I would need to conduct more further research. By the way, Craig is right that variance doesn't usually occurred in the long run and he is correct that the more larger the sample-size is, the more closer the result gets to the expected value. This is why an inference based on a larger sample-size is much more accurate than small sample-size.

Also, I get what you are saying about the meta-study, I'm no expert, but I don't think that's what you're doing: it's just one continuous study. I think calling it a meta-study is confusing as it implies that you are combining a bunch of different studies from different people. You're just continuously adding to your study.


You just said it! A meta-study or meta-analysis is a cross-analysis of the results of several or all independent, homogeneous studies as if they are one large study. This is exactly what I'm doing, Richard Wiseman & Milton conducted their own ganzfeld meta-analysis, even though their meta-analysis were horrendously flawed due to heterogeniety and incorrect statistical analysis.

Again: I don't think you should be just doing trials and recalculating. You should be doing a set number of trials, decided in advance, Then check your results.


Again, all the trials for each study is the same: N=1,024. A sample-size of N=1,024 is a good sample-size for experimentation (which is akin of tossing a fair coin 1,024 times)
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38






Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby Arouet » 16 Oct 2011, 02:25

Your hit rate after 171 trials is: 50.25%

You are suggesting that the quarter of a percent above chance is something to get exited above?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 16 Oct 2011, 02:33

Arouet wrote:Have any of the retro experiments done the following control? You have your normal run. Then you have the control run where before the subject runs his trials, someone else reviews the recording first. The subject and the researcher should be blind to which trials had someone observe first or not.


Again, I conducted an experimental group and a control group.

All the experimental procedures are completely automated just like the ganzfeld experiments, so there is no way I can bias the data to my favor or expectation.

All the procedures in the experimental group are the same as the control group with the same number of sample-size (N=1024) for each experiment.

In the experimental group, I try to influence the recorded RNG while in the control group, a recorded RNG is just running by itself without willing to mentally influence it.

By comparison, the experimental group did show statistical significance while the control group did not according to my meta-study.....
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 16 Oct 2011, 02:43

Aruoet,

What would be considered evidence in statistical standards is if the P-Value is less than 0.05 since a result like this can be expected by chance less than 1 in 20 (P<0.05), it has nothing to do with the hit rate.

For instance, suppose I tossed a coin 100 times and got 58 heads (58% hit rate where MCE is 50%) Is this hit rate above MCE evidence to you????
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby Arouet » 16 Oct 2011, 02:54

_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ wrote:
Arouet wrote:Have any of the retro experiments done the following control? You have your normal run. Then you have the control run where before the subject runs his trials, someone else reviews the recording first. The subject and the researcher should be blind to which trials had someone observe first or not.


Again, I conducted an experimental group and a control group.

All the experimental procedures are completely automated just like the ganzfeld experiments, so there is no way I can bias the data to my favor or expectation.

All the procedures in the experimental group are the same as the control group with the same number of sample-size (N=1024) for each experiment.

In the experimental group, I try to influence the recorded RNG while in the control group, a recorded RNG is just running by itself without willing to mentally influence it.

By comparison, the experimental group did show statistical significance while the control group did not according to my meta-study.....


I wasn't referring to your one. I was talking about any of the other experiments of this type that have been out there.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby Arouet » 16 Oct 2011, 02:58

I'm not a stats guy so I can't debate the finer points with you. But I'm not going to get excited about a 0.25% effect.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 16 Oct 2011, 15:21

Arouet,

Sorry for the indirect reply...

Well....if you were expecting an exact 51% hit rate in my 173 combined study, it will be so highly statistically significant that it will be much more unlikely than winning the lottery....

Anyway, I will publish my meta-study again on friday and we'll see how it'll turn out...
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 20 Oct 2011, 11:24

My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study Early Update!

In my old meta-analysis that combines all the results of 173 studies, the overall results were statistically significant at P=0.03, which shows fair evidence for psi-hitting.

From Friday-Today, I conducted 112 studies (Total Studies: 285) and here is the overall Two-Tailed, Statistical-Analysis:

Total Studies: 285

N=291,840

Average Chance Expectation: 145,920

Hits: 146,634 (50.24% hit rate & 714 hits above the average chance expectation or in a statistical sense, expected value)

stouffer-z=2.64

P=0.0082 (1 in 121)

Evidence of psi-hitting: Very good!

In the experimental group, the P<0.05 was consistent throughout my 112 studies and my highest statistical significant result out of all the studies conducted at this point is P=0.0029 (1 in 344), which is really close to passing James Randi's One Million Dollar Preliminary Test (P=0.001)

In the control group I also conducted more but not exact as 285 studies and the overall results are still based on what would be expected by chance...

Please leave a comment, thanks!

I will still publish more studies this friday by the way......
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby Arouet » 20 Oct 2011, 13:11

I'm still not terribly exited about a 0.24% effect size!

Unfortunately there aren't that many people (myself included) on this site who are really qualified to evaluate your work here or the stats you've done.. On Skeptiko (where winston is a member as well) there are several from both the skeptical and proponent side. I'm sure they will be interested in this. Maybe you can cross post this there (but do it in the main forum, not the science subgroup: the main forum gets the most attention).
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby Jayhawker30 » 20 Oct 2011, 15:36

Say, what exactly defines a chance hit rate?
User avatar
Jayhawker30
 
Posts: 68
Joined: 14 Jul 2011, 20:04

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 23 Oct 2011, 09:01

My RetroPsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study Update # 2!



This is my PK Study # 346 and as you can see, I was trying to mentally make the bar go to the right (like I always do in all of my PK studies)

Result: In this PK study, I tried to mentally influence the bar to go the right and fortunately it did went to the right in a statistically significant way, i.e. in a way that would hardly hardly happen by chance alone.

Here is my overall Two-Tailed, Statistical Analysis for this study:

N=1,024

Mean Chance Expectation: 512

Hits: 570 (55% hit rate)

Z=3.59

P=0.00032 (1 in 3,125)

Evidence of PK: Very Good!

99% Confidence Interval: 51%-59% hit rates

Getting a result like the one observed in this video can be expected by pure chance 1 in 3,125. In other words, if you run this experiment 3,125 times, you would get a single result like this by pure chance....however, I conducted only 346 studies....

A result this statistically significant would be considered a "Pass" in JREF Preliminary Test


---------------------------------------

Overall Meta-Analysis in Experimental Group

Total Studies: 346

N=354,304

Mean Chance Expectation:177,152

Total Hits:177,853 (50.19% hit rate and 701 hits above the mean)

stouffer-z=2.35

P=0.018 (1 in 55)

Evidence of PK: Good!

99% Confidence Interval: 49-50% Hit Rate

Even though the z-score decreased about 0.27, the result is still statistically significant and therefore, evidence for the PK-Hypothesis....


----------------------------------------

Overall Meta-Analysis of Control Group:

Total Studies: 284

N=290,816

MCE: 145,408

Total Hits 145,437

stouffer-z=0.10

P=0.91

Evidence: None.

99% Confidence Interval: 49-50%


---------------------

Summary

It seems that even though I coducted a total of 346 studies, the overall statistical analyses of all these studies still show consistent high z-scores and evidence of PK from 172-346 studies.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to calculate the overall effect-size of this effect since calculating effect-sizes wasn't covered in my statistics textbook..

sigh, we would know how strong this possible PK effect is if we only knew the damn effect-size :evil: !!!!!
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 23 Oct 2011, 09:22

Jayhawker30,

The hit rate doesn't matter, it's the P-Values in significance tests that matter. P-Values tells you with a less than 5% (P<0.05), 1% chance (P<0.01), etc. chance that the null-hypothesis is true. Even if you tried to count evidence based on only hit rates, it would be very confusing since a hit rate of 58% in 100 coin tosses isn't evidence, yet a 58% hit rate in 1,000,000 coin tosses is extremely strong evidence..

P-Values are much more accurate and conclusive than hit rates.

Arouet,

Thanks for the advice :)...

Sure, I'll publish it on Skpetiko forum (but not right now...)
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby Arouet » 23 Oct 2011, 09:36

_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ wrote:My RetroPsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study Update # 2!


Getting a result like the one observed in this video can be expected by pure chance 1 in 3,125. In other words, if you run this experiment 3,125 times, you would get a single result like this by pure chance....however, I conducted only 346 studies....


You're a stats guy. You know that this is the wrong way to think about this. To say that there is a 1/3000 chance of getting a certain result does not mean that you're "due" to get it only after 3000 tries. It's that if you do it over and over again, you will on average get it 1/3000 tries. On the whole, getting it after 346 tries is not in itself special. If you keep on getting such results you may have something. You do a lot of trials, you're going to get some outlier results. As a stats guy you know this.

A result this statistically significant would be considered a "Pass" in JREF Preliminary Test[/b]


Great! Submit your application!


---------------------------------------

[b]Overall Meta-Analysis in Experimental Group

Total Studies: 346

N=354,304

Mean Chance Expectation:177,152

Total Hits:177,853 (50.19% hit rate and 701 hits above the mean)

stouffer-z=2.35

P=0.018 (1 in 55)

Evidence of PK: Good!


I'm not sure though why you don't note that your percentage is dropping. You were around 50.24-50.25 before. You're down to 50.19. One could interpret that as dropping back towards the mean.

Remember, your entire significant effect size came out of approximately 30 sessions. If you had a particularly good run during those 30 it can take some time to get back, but that's the way the trend appears to be going, if I'm reading you right.


It seems that even though I coducted a total of 346 studies, the overall statistical analyses of all these studies still show consistent high z-scores and evidence of PK from 172-346 studies.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to calculate the overall effect-size of this effect since calculating effect-sizes wasn't covered in my statistics textbook..

sigh, we would know how strong this possible PK effect is if we only knew the damn effect-size :evil: !!!!!


Again: post this in the main forum on skeptiko. There are people who can answer these questions.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 23 Oct 2011, 12:06

Arouet,

The P-Value is the probability, assuming that the null-hypothesis is true, that the observation would occur as extreme or more extreme than the one actually observed. P-Values are completely different than the probabilities in coins, dice, etc.

For instance, suppose I ran 20 significance tests. P=0.05 (1 in 20) tells us there is a 5% chance of a significance test being statistically significant by chance alone, so in this case, statisticians expect about 1 of 20 tests being positive by chance.
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: My Retropsychokinesis Random Number Generator Meta-Study

Postby Arouet » 23 Oct 2011, 12:24

Right, but the one in 20 is an average, you could get that result on your 3 trial, or your 15th. To say that you got a 1/3000 shot in 340 trials isn't not very significant.

Do you acknowledge that the results are edging back towards the mean? It's not going to happen quickly unless you have a bunch of particularly bad runs in a row to match the bunch of particularly good runs you had when you moved from 140 - 171 trials. But your trend seems going back in the opposite direction at this time.

Anyhow, I guess you'll continue running your trials and see what happens. But I really suggest presenting your work in a forum where there are people who can give more constructive criticism than I can.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron