Be my guest. But wouldn’t it have more impact if you could prove your assertion first? “It ain’t boasting if you can do it.”
:smack: The quote in my sig is from the other thread.
Sorry.
Shalmanese, Shade and Musicat,
Thank you for your contributions! 
I will certainly be using your ideas for the second test.
My term is nearly over, and I can then easily contact mates to whom scanners + enccoding software are meat and drink (if you see what I mean).
Because it may take cityboy916 a while to do the first test, I’d rather stick to the agreed conditions.
Meanwhile could all of you please do the first test yourselves! The more controls we have, the better.
What are the 12 objects on my desk?
Which one has the post-it on it?
I’m not sure – I think there’s an optimal ratio between the number of controls and the numbers of “psychs”, and that optimal ratio isn’t lots to one. Though my brain is addled by a head-cold and insufficient sleep, I’m guessing too many controls increases our chances of a Type I error (because a single lucky guess by the only psych will grossly skew the statistics).
We need more psychs. Or perhaps not.
OK, glee, your test, your thread, your conditions. No problem. 
But I’m having trouble understanding just what the test is. Could you sum it up?
It looks like CityBoy916 has been given the task of guessing (excuse me, astrally-projecting) what objects are on your desk.[ol][]Is there any time limit at all?[]How many objects does he have to guess correctly to be considered a success?[]How many times can he submit his choices (I would expect only once, but I’d like to hear it officially)[]How close does he have to come for an object to be considered “viewed”?[/ol]
More psychs the better, for sure.
The control chaps will basically just tell us how likely it is you can learn enough about me from my posts to guess what’s on my desk. But that shows the chance that a psychic is using that method (I’m not suggesting cityboy will do this).
As I have said, this is the first ever test (that I know of). So even one psychic is infinitely better than none!
I do appreciate your support and interest.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Musicat *
But I’m having trouble understanding just what the test is. Could you sum it up?
It looks like CityBoy916 has been given the task of guessing (excuse me, astrally-projecting) what objects are on your desk.[ol][li]Is there any time limit at all?[]How many objects does he have to guess correctly to be considered a success?[]How many times can he submit his choices (I would expect only once, but I’d like to hear it officially)[*]How close does he have to come for an object to be considered “viewed”?[/ol] [/li][/QUOTE]
From earlier in the thread:
-
For identification purposes, the desk is on the right of the room as you enter, and has two computers on it.
-
Ignoring all computer equipment (and pieces of paper), there are 12 separate objects on the desk. They are all clearly visible. I have allocated each object a number, rolled a 12 sided dice, and stuck a yellow post-it note on the chosen object (with the words ‘this one’ on the post-it).
-
You are invited to remote view the desk and identify the object with the post-it attached.
-
If you feel able, you are welcome to name the other 11 objects.
-
There is no time limit, because no-one else uses the room (and my cleaning lady has instructions not to touch anything in the room!)
-
Purely for comparison purposes, SDMB members are invited to also perform steps 3. and 4. Please state whether you claim paranormal powers, or are a ‘control’ (e.g. just using your intelligence guided by your experience)
-
I am e-mailing David B. the answers to 3. and 4. (right after posting this). If another Moderator would like to join in, they are most welcome.
-
I suggest that predictions be posted on the thread, since I think this will make analysis of the various answers easy. Once cityboy916 has posted, David B. can reveal all.
-
I am on GMT here (it’s now about 0100 i.e one hour after midnight). There is usually enough daylight to see the room clearly, plus I work from home quite a bit.
So:
-
there is no time limit (cityboy said he didn’t have full control over his ability at present)
-
cityboy has to name the object on my desk with a post-it attached to it
-
good point about number of guesses! I would expect just one, but I should have put it in the protocol. (I won’t change anything about this test now though, because I don’t want cityboy to have to ‘restart’ his viewing)
-
yes, deciding whether cityboy ‘hits’ the object is a little ‘loose’. (but I wanted to start with a wide range of objects which would nevertheless be readily identifiable. For future tests I will name all objects (using guidance from you and others), and even try for pictures. The test will then be effectively to select one number (representing the chosen object) from 12 possibilities.)
P.S. Bung in your control guesses!
We gotta bung 'em in? :o
It looks like the answer to my question, “How many objects does he have to guess correctly to be considered a success?” is, “one, that object with the post-it note on it.” If there was a published list of objects, I would say he has a 1/12 chance (8%) of getting it right if allowed one chance. Since there is no list, I don’t know of a way to compute the odds. They could be very low (all the objects in the world are theoretically on the list) or very high (if you have a common desktop object that anyone might guess).
It also looks like naming the other 11 objects, while a fun task, has no bearing on determining the pass/fail status of CityBoy916’s test. Is that correct?
And even though there is no time limit, will the test end when CityBoy916 emails David B with his choice?
One last thing – David B will then compare the object chosen with the object you have already emailed him about, and when announcing the results, give his opinion as to whether they are the same object and the test was passed? I hope so – he would be the least biased party since he hasn’t seen the object and has to rely solely on the submitted descriptions.
Look here, old bean. Some of us English chappies (especially P.G. Wooster fans) have developed speech affectations, don’t you know?
Now I know you New World types like to take the bull by the horns (sounds jolly uncomfortable to me), but here in Old Blighty we fink iss OK to say fings worever way we fancy. (Yes, I do know this is the language of Shakespeare. :o )
Correct.
I don’t know the odds either. (That’s one more reason for seeing what control lists come up with.)
Perhaps there are roughly 1,000 objects that might ‘reasonably’ be on a computer desk?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes (although it will be ‘interesting’ to see what other objects cityboy ‘sees’.)
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist using Bung in my answers.
- Rock paperweight.
- Buzz Lightyear action figure.
- Can of beans.
- glass dish
- small metal sculpture - from a war (this one)
- address book
- Pen in pen holder
- toothbrush
- box of envelopes
- mirror
- puzzle
- spoon
Okay, I had a hard time visualizing this. I was afraid you would walk through in your boxers while I was looking.
And I thought it might have been only a spelling error. Instead, I get a lecture about the lack of political correctness by us crude colonists. Bung it is, gov’nor.
I think I have the rules straight now. I’m all squared away and all a-twitter with excitement. Thanks for bunging it up so clearly.
Personally, I always liked the W.C. Fields saying, “There comes a time, you see, when you must grab the bull by the tail and look the situation squarely in the face.”
It would seem to me that should I pass the test in naming the “this one” object, each additional object I name will decrease the odds that I got it right by chance alone. They could be very useful to note since they would add weight to the single solitary psychic subject here (me ).
Anyone care to make predictions on whether this works or not?
I’ll be the first. It wont. I’ll admit that its exciting to see someone who claims psychic ability actually submit to a test like this though. Unfortunately, astral projection in the way cityboy916 describes it just doesn’t make sense. We know how the brain and eyes work together to see colors and shapes and distances. Astral projectors obviously dont bring their eyes with them, so claiming to see with normal sight while projecting just isnt possible.
Also, i get the impression that cityboy916 and glee know each other only through these message boards, which means that cityboy would have nothing but the name “glee” to bring him to the specific room with the desk and the items. What if there happen to be fifteen people who are known sometimes as “glee”? How could cityboy916 distinguish them, if any one of them could have been the SDMB poster? Is he even sure whether glee is a man or a woman?
Anyway, here’s my prediction for the items on glee’s desk.
- a pad of post-it notes
- an ashtray
- a framed picture of a boy
- a printer
- a paperback novel
- a light bulb
- a small cardboard box
- a red bow
- a folded pair of socks
- nail clippers
- a fish bowl or tank with 2 fish in it
- a winney-the-pooh stuffed animal
The fish bowl is “this one”
Yes, I think it would change the odds. By how much, I’m not sure.
Nevertheless, should viewing & naming other objects be used as part of the score or not (by mutual agreement)?
I would think our goal here is to reach a pass/fail condition, and an obvious one where there can be no doubt. In a well-designed test, there can be no “cherry picking” or “data mining” of the results afterwards, and no excuses why things worked differently than expected, or the results will be open to subjective analysis. “No, he didn’t see the post-it note object, but look at the 2 other objects he saw! He must have astrally-projected!”
-
Thanks for the guesses - psychic or non-psychic?
Oh, and is the metal sculpture your guess of the item with the post-it? (If not, what does ‘this one’ mean?) -
Bung is English for:
a) a stopper for closing a hole, particularly a cask
b) slang for throwing or tossing
c) slang for a bribe
Only the first two are in the Oxford English Dictionary, but I’m confident about the third possible meaning, especially concerning politicians! :smack:
- I am being quite careful these days. I don’t put extra objects on the computer desk, and only enter the room fully clothed. (You can never tell who is viewing :eek: )
Each are in my Oxford English Reference Dictionary, so nyah!
Missed from mine, though indubtably Inglish:
d) a generic payment:
“How much do you want for that?”
“Bung me a tenner, and it’s yours”.
e) bunghole; mouth:
“A tenner for that? You’ve got to be joking!”
“Ah, shut yer bunghole”
Anyway:
I believe you have attached a post-it note to a Sea-monkey Aquarium.
Other items on your desk include:
[ul]
[li]Post-it notes (natch)[/li][li]Stapler[/li][li]Mouse-pad[/li][li]Desk-tidy made from old bog-roll tubes and sticky-backed plastic[/li][li]Spare mouse-pad[/li][li]Signed copy of Everything you wanted to know about sex, but didn’t know how to spell (or possibly a computer manual of sorts)[/li][li]Small plastic device you found, the function of which is long forgotten, but you refuse to throw it away in case it is ever needed[/li][li]Newton’s cradle (the sleeping Newton, long gone)[/li][li]The Far Side calendar from 1997 which you’re are saving for re-use in 2014 (doh!)[/li][li]A ball of rubber-bands[/li][li]Head-phones[/li][/ul]
No special powers were used in the making of this post.
I’ve always thought it referred to your opposite end, as in Vulgar Slang def #2.
I don’t think the “throwing or tossing” use is common on this side of the Pond; at least it’s a new one on me.
Gosh, thanks for your vote of confidence. :rolleyes:
You have a point. I’ve always thought of it under the assumption that the real me is a spirit/soul and that the body is only a vehicle. From that POV it seems to make sense to me. Of course I could be wrong. Of course whatever method allows the “astral body” to see must be separate from the eyes etc, but I don’t claim to know how it works, just that it does which is what this test is for.
True.
Pick any name out of the list of commonly used names. There must be millions of people who are known by that name. But if you know a specific person by that name and you project, you can say “I want to go to so-and-so’s house” and you’ll be there. Or so I’m told, by more than one source, in absence of evidence to the contrary. Time will tell if I’m right or wrong.
glee is a guy, right?
Unh…suppose YOU tell US. With any luck, he/she/it/whatever will be sitting at his/hers/its/whatever’s desk when you float by.
So glee – don’t dress gender-ambiguously, now, y’hear? :dubious:
Mosier – CityBoy916 has already said that he can easily find glee’s house. I assume astral projection works somewhat differently than a google search on the keyword “glee.” In any case, it’s all part of the test – find the right desk and view it. A failure to describe the correct object will be a failure of the whole test, whether it was because of the wrong desk, the wrong object, or an inability to astrally project at all.