Yes, getting consistently misses results will null the result (even a single 1 in a billion result in the opposite direction will null my result.
Parodoxically, consistent P<0.05 in the opposite direction (misses) is also count as evidence of psi..
this is why I use Two-Tailed instead of One-Tailed...
Statistics: Posted by _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ — 23 Oct 2011, 12:46
]]>
You're right, getting P=0.00032 out of 342 significance tests is nothing to be excited about. I calculated the binomial probability (Which is technically the same of a One-Tailed P-value) and its P=0.103 (about 1 in 9)
Either it was RetroPK or dumb luck...
lol, nah because I will fail the formal test (P=0.000001)
As I said, I'm no expert in statistics, so don't question me why the hit rate and z-score slightly decreased..
Yes, I will publish it in Skeptiko, but not right now.....
Statistics: Posted by _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ — 23 Oct 2011, 12:29
]]>
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.
Statistics: Posted by Arouet — 23 Oct 2011, 12:24
]]>
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.
Statistics: Posted by _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ — 23 Oct 2011, 12:06
]]>
]]>
]]>
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
!!!!!Statistics: Posted by _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ — 23 Oct 2011, 09:01
]]>
]]>
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).
Statistics: Posted by Arouet — 20 Oct 2011, 13:11
]]>
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......
Statistics: Posted by _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ — 20 Oct 2011, 11:24
]]>
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...
Statistics: Posted by _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ — 16 Oct 2011, 15:21
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>