If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   New study which gives evidence that people have premonitions is conducted after one of the researchers had a hunch   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 31
    More: Strange, The Sixth Sense  
•       •       •

1375 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Oct 2012 at 9:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-24 03:54:04 AM
I've had premonitions. Nothing useful though.
 
2012-10-24 07:54:55 AM
mojoimage.com
 
2012-10-24 09:45:49 AM
Terrible, inarticulate headline. Joke ruined. Admins be shamed, go stand in corner.
 
2012-10-24 09:48:54 AM
The vast majority of premonitions never come true but we latch onto and remember the odd one that does. It's called selection bias.
 
2012-10-24 09:49:18 AM
I've got a feeling...

That tonight's gonna be a good night.
That tonight's gonna be a good night.
That tonight's gonna be a good, good night.
 
2012-10-24 09:50:48 AM
Considering how we need to be able to predict the future in the ordinary course of life, it's not that unusual to suppose that people might be able to develop expectations about the future.

Likewise, given random chance, it would be weird if systems that work to predict the future didn't luck out on some false positives. It's spooky, but also noticeable because it's spooky and relevant (in our favour, rather than the run-of-the-mill unexpected).

So a mix of confirmation bias,

Cool story bro time: At a late night phone drive I and some other financial salesmen were expected to stay late and harass people at home via the telephone. Naturally nobody actually wanted to do that, despite such boiler-room tactics making the biggers-and-betters up the multi-level marketing pyramid lots of money. We weren't getting paid to do it, although we had the opportunity to earn money from closing a sale. Afterwards, during the meeting at which the bosses had promised pizza, the b&bs grilled us for not working harder. One woman had apparently played a computer game on her work laptop for ten minutes while the boss stood behind her...

My point being that nobody has yet to write a proposal to study obliviousness. or maybe I just don't care enough to look it up.
 
2012-10-24 09:52:08 AM

Frederick: I've had premonitions. Nothing useful though.


I've had dreams where I've literally dreamed about the future, but it was virtually all things that were so benign and innocuous that they're next to useless.
 
2012-10-24 09:57:01 AM
We have no claws, sharp teeth, spikes, cannot run fast, fly, hear much, smell worth a damn, or anything physically impressive. We have big brains. We can anticipate, plan, calculate and guess.

If there was a temporal ability with humans it would probably come about because of our lack of physical abilities and avoiding predation. However, it would still give us an advantage in our made up habitat as well.
 
2012-10-24 10:04:46 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: The vast majority of premonitions never come true but we latch onto and remember the odd one that does. It's called selection bias.


And of course you have to split premonitions into two categories - the idea of being able to predict purely random events, and experts subconciously recognizing a pattern and having a (better than average) hunch of what is about to happen without necessarily being able to rationally explain why the knew something was about to happen (say a fireman "sensing" a building is about to collapse). Obviously the former is nonsense, but the latter can clearly happen (how accurate would depend on the persons experience and the situation in question) - and is often why people believe in premonitions, as the same thing happens in normal life - you might register the slight interference in nearby speakers without consciously noticing it when a mobile phone is about to right as the network connects to it and think that you can tell shortly before you receive mobile calls, or someone tends to call you at the same time on certain times and days of the week, so you subconsciously expect the call shortly before it comes (and as you note, forget when it didn't happen as expected).
 
2012-10-24 10:10:26 AM
xria:

Yeah yeah, but I need to feel special and unique so I'm gonna call it a superpower.
 
2012-10-24 10:15:48 AM

imashark: Frederick: I've had premonitions. Nothing useful though.

I've had dreams where I've literally dreamed about the future, but it was virtually all things that were so benign and innocuous that they're next to useless.


I've had those. It would be nice to foretell important things, rather than what cubicle I'll be sitting in four years hence.
 
2012-10-24 10:24:40 AM
New study gives evidence of observer bias.

I'm going to make a psychic prediction of my own (cue mystic sound FX): A future study will show that the reports which show the poor science, dubious statistical analysis, and lack of repeatability in this study will be accorded less than 10% of the space in the press as this one got.
 
2012-10-24 11:15:37 AM
I knew it!
 
2012-10-24 11:55:18 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: The vast majority of premonitions never come true but we latch onto and remember the odd one that does. It's called selection bias.


You didn't read the article, did you?

Lizard_SF: New study gives evidence of observer bias.

I'm going to make a psychic prediction of my own (cue mystic sound FX): A future study will show that the reports which show the poor science, dubious statistical analysis, and lack of repeatability in this study will be accorded less than 10% of the space in the press as this one got.


ftfa "the 26 studies she examined had purposes other than to look for evidence of presentiment". Good jorb! 

Hey guys, just an fyi.. when a study contradicts your view of the world, that doesn't mean it's unscientific. In fact, this just proves that you'd be terrible scientists.
 
2012-10-24 12:56:22 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: TofuTheAlmighty:

Hey guys, just an fyi.. when a study contradicts your view of the world, that doesn't mean it's unscientific. In fact, this just proves that you'd be terrible scientists.


Yeah, I did. Cherry-picking data from studies which were NOT CONTROLLING for the data you cherry picked does not valid research make. And how many "studies" were rejected before finding 46 that contained the results they wanted?

Also, a good scientists learns that if an experiment has been repeated 20 times, it's *probably* a safe bet it will work the same way on the 21st time. Sure, every once in a while, you get a failure on a "routine" experiment that leads to a new discovery... but the vast majority of the time, you don't, and there's better avenues of exploration. In this case, the "experiment" is "Scientist claims to have found proof of psychic phenomenon". This "experiment" has been conducted hundreds of times, and, every time, the "study" is found to be fatally flawed and/or not reproducible.

Could this be the one that actually works? Maybe. I could also buy five different state lottery tickets and hit all of them.It's *possible*. It's just not *probable*, and that's the category this falls in.

Remember the "faster than light neutrino" flap a year or so ago? "Closed minded skeptics", like me, pointed out that so many empirical studies (not to mention the technology we reliably use every day) relies on relativity working. "But... but... Galileo!", sputtered the "open minded". Who turned out to be right?

Science isn't a "pick your favorite flavor" system. Competing models of the universe aren't created equal. Over time, the accumulation of evidence weighs heavier and heavier, and the degree of skepticism with which seemingly contradictory models must be approached becomes greater and greater. Every single attempt to prove the existence of psychic abilities under controlled conditions has been shown to be false. What's special about this one that I should give it any more benefit of the doubt?
 
2012-10-24 01:18:07 PM

Lizard_SF: BraveNewCheneyWorld: TofuTheAlmighty:

Hey guys, just an fyi.. when a study contradicts your view of the world, that doesn't mean it's unscientific. In fact, this just proves that you'd be terrible scientists.

Yeah, I did. Cherry-picking data from studies which were NOT CONTROLLING for the data you cherry picked does not valid research make. And how many "studies" were rejected before finding 46 that contained the results they wanted?

Also, a good scientists learns that if an experiment has been repeated 20 times, it's *probably* a safe bet it will work the same way on the 21st time. Sure, every once in a while, you get a failure on a "routine" experiment that leads to a new discovery... but the vast majority of the time, you don't, and there's better avenues of exploration. In this case, the "experiment" is "Scientist claims to have found proof of psychic phenomenon". This "experiment" has been conducted hundreds of times, and, every time, the "study" is found to be fatally flawed and/or not reproducible.

Could this be the one that actually works? Maybe. I could also buy five different state lottery tickets and hit all of them.It's *possible*. It's just not *probable*, and that's the category this falls in.

Remember the "faster than light neutrino" flap a year or so ago? "Closed minded skeptics", like me, pointed out that so many empirical studies (not to mention the technology we reliably use every day) relies on relativity working. "But... but... Galileo!", sputtered the "open minded". Who turned out to be right?

Science isn't a "pick your favorite flavor" system. Competing models of the universe aren't created equal. Over time, the accumulation of evidence weighs heavier and heavier, and the degree of skepticism with which seemingly contradictory models must be approached becomes greater and greater. Every single attempt to prove the existence of psychic abilities under controlled conditions has been shown to be false. What's special about this one that I s ...


TofuTheAlmighty:

It seems that you've done a bit of cherrypicking, yourself.
 
2012-10-24 01:32:42 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Terrible, inarticulate headline. Joke ruined. Admins be shamed, go stand in corner.


They should have seen that coming apparently.
 
2012-10-24 01:33:55 PM

Lizard_SF: BraveNewCheneyWorld: TofuTheAlmighty:

Hey guys, just an fyi.. when a study contradicts your view of the world, that doesn't mean it's unscientific. In fact, this just proves that you'd be terrible scientists.

Yeah, I did. Cherry-picking data from studies which were NOT CONTROLLING for the data you cherry picked does not valid research make. And how many "studies" were rejected before finding 46 that contained the results they wanted?


It's amusing how you can draw such a conclusion with insufficient data supplied by the article. You don't know how the studies were controlled, it's quite possible that they were adequately controlled for such a test, after all, she's been doing this since 1978. What are your qualifications again?

You just sound angry, and you have nothing factual to back your position.

Lizard_SF: Remember the "faster than light neutrino" flap a year or so ago? "Closed minded skeptics", like me, pointed out that so many empirical studies (not to mention the technology we reliably use every day) relies on relativity working. "But... but... Galileo!", sputtered the "open minded". Who turned out to be right?


Lmao. You act as if you're superior simply for your ability to doubt. Yeah, it's a good thing to be skeptical, but when you pull unfounded irrational arguments out of your ass, you just sound like you're afraid of change. BTW, nobody took that faster than light neutrino as a serious result, it hadn't been independently verified with other tests. That's a bit different than the 26 tests in the article pointing to the same conclusion.
 
2012-10-24 02:04:26 PM

Nurglitch: Considering how we need to be able to predict the future in the ordinary course of life, it's not that unusual to suppose that people might be able to develop expectations about the future.

Likewise, given random chance, it would be weird if systems that work to predict the future didn't luck out on some false positives. It's spooky, but also noticeable because it's spooky and relevant (in our favour, rather than the run-of-the-mill unexpected).

So a mix of confirmation bias,

Cool story bro time: At a late night phone drive I and some other financial salesmen were expected to stay late and harass people at home via the telephone. Naturally nobody actually wanted to do that, despite such boiler-room tactics making the biggers-and-betters up the multi-level marketing pyramid lots of money. We weren't getting paid to do it, although we had the opportunity to earn money from closing a sale. Afterwards, during the meeting at which the bosses had promised pizza, the b&bs grilled us for not working harder. One woman had apparently played a computer game on her work laptop for ten minutes while the boss stood behind her...

My point being that nobody has yet to write a proposal to study obliviousness. or maybe I just don't care enough to look it up.


Was first prize a Cadilac El Dorado?
 
2012-10-24 02:11:31 PM
So, lemme get this straight:
"Every other study being touted as 'proving' psychic ability has been shown to be flawed or wrong. Therefore, this study is almost certainly flawed or wrong, as not only does it show no radical changes in research methodology that might merit a closer look, it in fact pulls data from studies which were not testing for 'psychic' powers and thus were not likely to be controlling for them."

Is an "unfounded irrational argument"?

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

Can I state as a 100% certain fact this study will be debunked? No. There's almost nothing I'd ever state as a 100% certain fact. It's not a 100% certain fact I won't be killed by a meteor before I finish writing this post (though if you see it, you can safely assume I haven't been), but for practical purposes, I will live my life as if it WERE 100% certain, because it's 99.more nines than I care to write certain, and that's good enough for me.

The argument that "Just because every other such study was falsified, doesn't mean this one will be!" is the equivalent of "Just because the first 1,000 Nigerian princes who emailed me were frauds, doesn't mean the 1001st is!" This is true -- it's not an *absolute* certainty. I'll still keep deleting them, though. Epistemological uncertainty is fun for debate, but it's not a good basis on which to live. You should always keep in mind the *possibility* that you're wrong -- but also keep in mind the *probability*, and make decisions accordingly.

As for "no one took the FTL neutrino" seriously, I suggest you go back and look at the Fark threads on the topic, and see how many of the responses mirror your comment on this study. ("You're just closed minded!" "Scientists used to say the world was flat, they were wrong then, so Einstein is wrong now!", "Oh, so you've got a degree in physics?", etc, etc, etc.)

Past performance is not a guaranteed predictor of future performance, but it's a damn good indicator. ("The race goes not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.")

Or, as Larry Niven pointed out a while back (1970s), if premonition, even weak and sporadic and feeble premonition, were possible, it would convey such an astounding evolutionary advantage that we wouldn't need to debate its existence; it would exist in all humans by now. (Look at how rapidly the gene for adult digestion of lactose, which is a much less useful thing than premonition, has spread throughout the human population in only ten thousand years or so, an eyeblink in evolution.)
 
2012-10-24 02:24:47 PM

Lizard_SF: So, lemme get this straight:
"Every other study being touted as 'proving' psychic ability has been shown to be flawed or wrong. Therefore, this study is almost certainly flawed or wrong, as not only does it show no radical changes in research methodology that might merit a closer look, it in fact pulls data from studies which were not testing for 'psychic' powers and thus were not likely to be controlling for them."

Is an "unfounded irrational argument"?

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

Can I state as a 100% certain fact this study will be debunked? No. There's almost nothing I'd ever state as a 100% certain fact. It's not a 100% certain fact I won't be killed by a meteor before I finish writing this post (though if you see it, you can safely assume I haven't been), but for practical purposes, I will live my life as if it WERE 100% certain, because it's 99.more nines than I care to write certain, and that's good enough for me.

The argument that "Just because every other such study was falsified, doesn't mean this one will be!" is the equivalent of "Just because the first 1,000 Nigerian princes who emailed me were frauds, doesn't mean the 1001st is!" This is true -- it's not an *absolute* certainty. I'll still keep deleting them, though. Epistemological uncertainty is fun for debate, but it's not a good basis on which to live. You should always keep in mind the *possibility* that you're wrong -- but also keep in mind the *probability*, and make decisions accordingly.

As for "no one took the FTL neutrino" seriously, I suggest you go back and look at the Fark threads on the topic, and see how many of the responses mirror your comment on this study. ("You're just closed minded!" "Scientists used to say the world was flat, they were wrong then, so Einstein is wrong now!", "Oh, so you've got a degree in physics?", etc, etc, etc.)

Past performance is not a guaranteed predictor of future performance, but it's a damn good indicator. ("The race ...


I'll go ahead and turn off the lights now, this thread is over.
 
2012-10-24 02:39:48 PM
It's my Spider Sense...
 
2012-10-24 03:56:13 PM

Lizard_SF: So, lemme get this straight:
"Every other study being touted as 'proving' psychic ability has been shown to be flawed or wrong. Therefore, this study is almost certainly flawed or wrong, as not only does it show no radical changes in research methodology that might merit a closer look, it in fact pulls data from studies which were not testing for 'psychic' powers and thus were not likely to be controlling for them."

Is an "unfounded irrational argument"?


That's absolutely right! Generally, those psychic studies are looking for "guess what's in the box" or "what number am I thinking of" kind of shiat. This one simply found a correlation between unspoken, physiological responses preceding stimuli. Your argument is also unfounded, because you have no idea what the controls were, and you jump the the irrational conclusion that a researcher who's been doing this since 1978 knows less about how determine if a studies control conditions were sufficient for analysis than you do. Again, I'll ask what are your qualifications?

Lizard_SF: As for "no one took the FTL neutrino" seriously, I suggest you go back and look at the Fark threads on the topic, and see how many of the responses mirror your comment on this study. ("You're just closed minded!" "Scientists used to say the world was flat, they were wrong then, so Einstein is wrong now!", "Oh, so you've got a degree in physics?", etc, etc, etc.)


Ok.. some retards (yes, I'll use that word) on fark took it seriously, but those aren't the people I'm talking about. We're talking about credible researchers.
 
2012-10-24 04:02:27 PM
This would be incredibly useful to determine where V-2 bombs are going to land in London!
 
2012-10-24 04:14:26 PM

Lord Dimwit: This would be incredibly useful to determine where V-2 bombs are going to land in London!


BraveNewCheneyWorld: Again, I'll ask what are your qualifications?


A 100% track record in predicting that reports claiming to "prove" psychic powers will be debunked and forgotten about. This goes along with my 100% track record in predicting that water is wet and that peace treaties in the Middle East will be broken.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The burden is on you to show that studies NOT intended to look for psychic powers were, somehow, controlled for them, and that the studies were not cherry picked from thousands of other studies.

You do not address the main issue. Assuming one does not have the time to go replicate her experiments personally (I don't), and assuming I have to make a snap judgment on the likelihood of this being anything but yet another loudly hyped and quickly forgotten "proof", which is the more sensible response?

a)Every other such experiment has been debunked; it is highly probable this one will be, too.
b)My God! Psychic powers EXIST! This PROVES it!

I'm going with 'a'. I've stated above I acknowledge I *could* be wrong. I just don't think it's very likely that I am. If I am, then, I am. My ego will survive the blistering humiliation of publicly betting against the 9999999999-to-1 longshot.
 
2012-10-24 04:34:28 PM

Lizard_SF: The burden is on you to show that studies NOT intended to look for psychic powers were, somehow, controlled for them, and that the studies were not cherry picked from thousands of other studies.


Actually, the burden would be on you to show that there is a problem with the studies. Are you really asking me to prove a negative? You can also go find some information showing that the researcher has a history of being a crackpot, and is disrespected in the community, if such information exists. You can also show that other psychic studies looked simply for a biological response that might be unobserved by the subject themselves, as this one did. As of yet, you've done none of these. Quite honestly, saying "it's never been observed in other studies, therefore this study isn't true," isn't a respectable thought process if you can't show extreme similarity between the experiments in question.
 
2012-10-24 07:56:28 PM
I've got an alternate take on this.

It takes time for signals to travel along nerves. It literally, physically, unavoidably takes a sensation from your foot longer to reach your brain than a sensation from your nose, and the difference should be perceptible. Yet, if you touch your nose and foot (or your nose to your foot) you feel both at the same time.

The logic here is simple; your brain is buffering sensations so it can synchronize them. This serves the additional purpose of giving your basic senses some chance to do preprocessing. All of this provides delay, and there's no easy way to tell how much. You're living in the past; what you experience already happened. Things like reflexes and other survival instincts bypass this normal buffer, so they appear to happen "faster" than reality; they're skipping the input you're still processing.

The really interesting thing is, it's like that for everyone. Every single person is living in the past. That means if something happens that can bypass your body's normal processing, it appears to everyone to happen in response to the future. Hence, premonitions.
 
2012-10-24 08:27:21 PM

Frederick: I've had premonitions. Nothing useful though.


I had interesting things.

Simple things like thinking of a song, turning on the radio, and having it be on.

More interesting; walking through a Fri-Sat night job I had for 4-5 months at one point. Worked 3 hours each night, walked past the phone and it started ringing, first thought to enter my hed was 'That call is for me.'. It was. I had never received a call at work before that, and never received another before I left the job. Never had the thought enter my head again either.

I often will start thinking about someone out of the blue and they will call in about 15 seconds or so.

Woke up one time in my 20's when I still slept until noon with a strong feeling that I HAD to watch the news at noon. Lead story was a very good friend who had left town for awhile and just gotten back into town(She hadn't even gotten a chance to call and let me know she was back yet) had drowned in the lake. Not many details, and later that afternoon some heiress or someone else important died at the same lake, and my friend's story never got more than a few paragraphs in the paper.

For the most part, people have been unable to wake me for years by coming by or calling. I usually wake up 20 seconds or so beforehand.

The weirdest was when my roommate went back home for Xmas one year. I was sleeping in the afternoon so that I could go drink all night and had a dream that he poked his head in the door and let me know they were back. I asked how everything was, he said 'Good, by the way, Mike wants you to call him.'. The dream ended, I woke up, and within less than 30 seconds, the phone rang, and it was muy friend MIke(From the dream).

Not 'useful', but it makes me pay attention to hunches more than your average person.
 
2012-10-25 06:21:45 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lizard_SF: So, lemme get this straight:
"Every other study being touted as 'proving' psychic ability has been shown to be flawed or wrong. Therefore, this study is almost certainly flawed or wrong, as not only does it show no radical changes in research methodology that might merit a closer look, it in fact pulls data from studies which were not testing for 'psychic' powers and thus were not likely to be controlling for them."

Is an "unfounded irrational argument"?

That's absolutely right! Generally, those psychic studies are looking for "guess what's in the box" or "what number am I thinking of" kind of shiat. This one simply found a correlation between unspoken, physiological responses preceding stimuli. Your argument is also unfounded, because you have no idea what the controls were, and you jump the the irrational conclusion that a researcher who's been doing this since 1978 knows less about how determine if a studies control conditions were sufficient for analysis than you do. Again, I'll ask what are your qualifications?


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Given the options of accepting a study of other studies (which makes standard controls very difficult) that goes against everything we know about science or concluding that there was mistakes in the study, the last option isn't the irrational one.
 
2012-10-25 07:02:31 AM
Pseudoscientific progress goes "Bunk!"?
 
2012-10-25 04:42:21 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Generally, those psychic studies are looking for "guess what's in the box" or "what number am I thinking of" kind of shiat.


Well, as long as you can generalize, you must be right. Right?
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report