thomas c 0 Posted February 7, 2011 http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/01/04/132622672/could-it-be-spooky-experiments-that-see-the-future Interesting stuff, not quite sure what to make of it but food for thought. Regards T,C Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted February 8, 2011 Interesting :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted February 8, 2011 That is indeed interesting. I will try to learn after exams if i have the feeling that it didn´t go well Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-)rStrangelove 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Wow, nice article. If this is true, it could help ArmA2 players that find the game too hard. A lot of ppl complained about how they got shot from somewhere without ever seeing AI enemies, right? .. If this article is true, ppl would instantly know where the enemy is when we would exchange all enemy models with naked chickz & gunz. :D Also, dePBOing a mission after you've played it (to see the enemy patrol waypoints) would make it easier for you beforehand. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TRexian 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Meh... I think I've read that article before.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-)rStrangelove 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Meh... I think I've read that article before.... If you think that you have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
concurssi 11 Posted February 8, 2011 It's an interesting read, for sur, but I don't buy it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TRexian 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Snark notwithstanding, I do think these kinds of experiments are incredibly fascinating. There is a rather consistent theme in the scientific studies that suggests we really don't know as much as we think we know about the subconscious mind. In terms of replicating this guy's results, it would be very interesting, too, if there were certain places that were more conducive to this type of thing than others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
celery 8 Posted February 8, 2011 BS until proven otherwise. The article mentioned that a test already failed to replicate the results. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[aps]gnat 28 Posted February 8, 2011 What? Apparently, scanning and retyping those words later somehow improved recall earlier. Cue the Twilight Zone music Whoah! :eek: ... we really don't know as much as we think we know about the subconscious mind. Too true. Take this guy who broke his brain, but now it seems to be a weird graphical super-computer! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4913196365903075662# He's just 1 of a few with truely amazing brain function. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
concurssi 11 Posted February 8, 2011 I noticed something just now. These are all correlative experiments, but he's talking like they establish this as fact, which is strange. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sprayer_faust 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Ahhh, statistics. I don't think it deserves the name experiment. And to call 53 % (3 % deviation) proof... Any model of "the future" one can think of is questionable. In most cases when people say future, they imagine a film, a frame sequence lying on a single thread. That would mean everything is already determined. This by definiton prevents time travel, but that's another story. And if you try to expand the idea of future in a non-deterministic way, you soon discover it becomes equivalent to "no future at all". To be of any use, a leak from the future would require that the future already happened or, to put it correctly, that the future will happen exactly as the leak suggests. If not - if you could dramatically change the course of the future with present actions, then what was the point of the leak. The leak is then no better than your imagination. I do not believe in future. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr_centipede 31 Posted February 10, 2011 I say blasphemy. heretics. burn them in the stakes. Where are the inquisitor when you need it... (cue for the monthy python inquisition here) :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johncage 30 Posted February 10, 2011 some of his conclusions were pretty silly and it's obvious other factors were involved instead of "time travel" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Charles 22 Posted February 10, 2011 He'd need 1.21 gigawatts to prove this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted February 10, 2011 That is indeed interesting. I will try to learn after exams if i have the feeling that it didn´t go well Learning after exams is a good thing. It can help you do well on subsequent exams. But if a past exam didn't go well, then you didn't study effectively before or after the test. You can't travel back in time and improve your grade. This would expose you to a paradox. If you studied after a test to improve a grade and actually improved it to a satisfactory level, what would motivate you to improve it in the first place? Ahhh, statistics. I don't think it deserves the name experiment.And to call 53 % (3 % deviation) proof... 3% is actually quite a large effect size. Years ago I could have gone more into detail about the kind of study and what kind of statistics he may have used, but I forget all that stuff now. I guess what this means is, on average, if you study after an exam, you can expect a 3% increase in grade. This is of course if the results of the experiment is true. They are not if the experiment can't be replicated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted February 10, 2011 Learning after exams is a good thing. It can help you do well on subsequent exams. But if a past exam didn't go well, then you didn't study effectively before or after the test. You can't travel back in time and improve your grade. This would expose you to a paradox. If you studied after a test to improve a grade and actually improved it to a satisfactory level, what would motivate you to improve it in the first place? There's no paradox, because the reported effect is only 3%. 3% is actually quite a large effect size. Years ago I could have gone more into detail about the kind of study and what kind of statistics he may have used, but I forget all that stuff now. I guess what this means is, on average, if you study after an exam, you can expect a 3% increase in grade. This is of course if the results of the experiment is true. They are not if the experiment can't be replicated. Yeah, the 3% is statistically large enough for medical professionals to say things like Aspirin decreases the chances of heart attack (as indicated in the report) yet the same gap in this experiment makes professionals question it :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) There's no paradox, because the reported effect is only 3%. It is a paradox if your reason for studying more is the grade you already got. Say you were 2% off of a B, the grade you were shooting for... Yeah, the 3% is statistically large enough for medical professionals to say things like Aspirin decreases the chances of heart attack (as indicated in the report) yet the same gap in this experiment makes professionals question it :) The larger the sample size, and the more experiments that are published for meta-analysis, the greater the confidence in their over-all findings. I'm interested in the results either way. Hopefully it doesn't blow up his career. I think experimenters should be free to pursue reasonable research without ridicule. Especially in psychology, which is sort of this pre-paradigmatic science with very rigorous testing standards but very difficult to contol test subjects and effects. Edited February 10, 2011 by Max Power Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
