Beating markets with RV: new study

#2
No control group? No description of whether they were permitted to follow the news. No description of the subjects background, financial markets experience, etc. No discussion (especially since the prediction went in trends (1st 2 down, the rest up) of what the chance expectation should be, and to what extent chance is in play?
 
#3
If I'm understanding the protocol properly the predicted direction was decided by aggregate - so also no discussion of whether the wisdom of crowds applied either.
 
#4
I see the pseudoskeptics are posting outside of their forum again. I suppose along with software to prevent profanity, Arouet will also demand automated measures be put in place to prevent him from wandering outside of CD. Because trusting certain people to follow the rules is asking too much.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#5
Thanks for this Doug.

Calls to mind the class project on dream telepathy that had some interesting preliminary results.

Ideally future studies will be done, and in the meantime no one will foolishly gamble their savings in one go. :)
 
#8
The Daily Grail has an interesting summary of a successful attempt to beat the stock market using associative remote viewing:

Researchers Use ESP to Make Thousands of Dollars on the Stock Market

The paper described in the summary can be found here:

Stock Market Prediction Using Associative Remote Viewing by Inexperienced Remote Viewers

Doug
Fascinating, thanks, Doug. (I came across this old thread in the process of indexing, sorry for resurrecting it but it really got my attention).

Is this something that we have the human resources to try to replicate in some form here on Skeptiko? Maybe even as a variation on the dream experiment we had going - there were some consistently good dreamers, maybe we could substitute dream imagery for RV'd imagery? Or mix and match - if there are any good RVers, we could try both at the same time. What do people think?

Just for the record, after reading the study, and then looking at Arouet's "critique", I was stunned. This is worse than pseudoskepticism - it has no even hypothetical relationship to the actual experiment.

Control group? Uh, the "control group", as in the Ganzfeld, is chance...

What relevance could following the news, and the subjects' background, financial markets experience, etc have when they are blind not only to the images themselves but also to which direction each image represents? Wisdom of the crowds? Uh, dude, again: the crowd was blind.

No description of what the chance expectation should be, and to what extent chance is in play? Uh, are you really, honestly having trouble working out that the chance expectation of a repeated forced binary choice is 50%?

Wow. Total shocker.
 
#9
But probably all of that was already obvious to everybody else, and saying it was both unnecessary and unkind. I don't know, sometimes contentiousness gets a hold of me.
 
#10
Fascinating, thanks, Doug. (I came across this old thread in the process of indexing, sorry for resurrecting it but it really got my attention).

Is this something that we have the human resources to try to replicate in some form here on Skeptiko? Maybe even as a variation on the dream experiment we had going - there were some consistently good dreamers, maybe we could substitute dream imagery for RV'd imagery? Or mix and match - if there are any good RVers, we could try both at the same time. What do people think?

Just for the record, after reading the study, and then looking at Arouet's "critique", I was stunned. This is worse than pseudoskepticism - it has no even hypothetical relationship to the actual experiment.

Control group? Uh, the "control group", as in the Ganzfeld, is chance...

What relevance could following the news, and the subjects' background, financial markets experience, etc have when they are blind not only to the images themselves but also to which direction each image represents? Wisdom of the crowds? Uh, dude, again: the crowd was blind.

No description of what the chance expectation should be, and to what extent chance is in play? Uh, are you really, honestly having trouble working out that the chance expectation of a repeated forced binary choice is 50%?

Wow. Total shocker.
Heh, you're going pretty far back for me here! If you're interested in discussing this without the snark I can re-read the paper and provide my thoughts anew. I don't remember much about it. But if you just want to throw potshots and snide, arrogant remarks - count me out.
 
#11
Heh, you're going pretty far back for me here! If you're interested in discussing this without the snark I can re-read the paper and provide my thoughts anew. I don't remember much about it. But if you just want to throw potshots and snide, arrogant remarks - count me out.
I'm not really interested in discussing it, but just to offer an insight into the tone of my comments: despite my initial sense that you fit the typical pseudoskeptic mould, you protested vehemently to me that you were a genuine skeptic, and I've tried ever since to give you the benefit of the doubt. But when I see "critiques" like this, it's very hard to believe that you are not playing a game, and I don't like being played.

If you look carefully at what I said, you might see that the "potshots" are actually inarguable points - which is why there is no point discussing them (from my point of view, of course - but if you want to present a case anyway, feel free to start a thread in the CD forum).
 
#12
I'm not really interested in discussing it, but just to offer an insight into the tone of my comments: despite my initial sense that you fit the typical pseudoskeptic mould, you protested vehemently to me that you were a genuine skeptic, and I've tried ever since to give you the benefit of the doubt. But when I see "critiques" like this, it's very hard to believe that you are not playing a game, and I don't like being played.

If you look carefully at what I said, you might see that the "potshots" are actually inarguable points - which is why there is no point discussing them (from my point of view, of course - but if you want to present a case anyway, feel free to start a thread in the CD forum).
I have no problem with constructive critique. In fact I welcome it. The insults are completely unnecessary and only serve to poison what could be a fruitful discussion.

I've given the study a quick re-read. Here's a little collaborative exercise I'd like to ask you to try and answer (or anyone else reading this for that matter): can you think of another possibility for what might have led me to write my post as I did, that does not involve "pseudoskepticism" or "game playing"?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#14
This reminds me of Eric Wargo's claim that many forms of Psi are precognition...but it depends on whether the RVers ever get to know the chain of results.

If not, then you have - unless I'm misunderstanding something - a very odd connection between events if this preliminary study bears further fruit. At the least it seems telepathy and precognition (or possibly PK) is involved here?

I feel like a further exploration of this connection between symbols (the pictures used to represent Up and Down) and future events might help us to come up with Vallee's desired "physics of information" that might explain, to some extent, the nature of synchronicity?
 
#15
Arouet,

The report starts out:

If telepathy and precognition are real abilities, why is it that nobody has cashed in on them by using their 'psi' talents to predict or mind-read sporting results, casino games, or changes in stock markets?
This, I think is part of the point. You either do ESP experiments in a lab that show small but statistically significant effects, and sceptics imply that the real test would be to win on the stockmarkets, or you try to do something practical like this.

In a way, you should combine work like this with the more formal studies. We believe in electromagnetic theory (for example) because people did detailed experiments on it, and because useful stuff has come out of it.

Having said that, I don't really think beating the markets is a particularly laudable enterprise, but that is another question!

However, in addition, it isn't quite clear if the experiment was blinded or not - i.e. did the participants know what the two symbols represented. Since these experiments were devised by prominent researchers, I would suspect they were in fact blind - because RV researchers say they work best when the participants have to rely on the images they receive - not on additional information. The military RV experiments did not give the remote viewers a dossier of what to expect - they gave them coordinates in an inaccessible country (and there was no GOOGLE Earth in those days).

David
 
#16
However, in addition, it isn't quite clear if the experiment was blinded or not - i.e. did the participants know what the two symbols represented.
No offence, David, but this makes no sense. The participants were blinded as to what the two symbols were in the first place (the images were sealed in envelopes), let alone as to that which each symbol represented. It is abundantly clear that the experiment was blinded in all senses.
 
#18
Laird, Yes, reading it more carefully, you are right - and that really settles the matter.

Arouet, if you want to explain why this experiment needs a control, and what it would consist of, please free to do so in this thread!

David
I've given the article a quick skim and I believe I may have misread part of it. I have to start my analysis over. So I'll have to get back to you.
 
Top