Mod+ Feeling the Future: A Meta-Analysis of 90 Experiments...

#1
Feeling the Future: A Meta-Analysis of 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipation of Random Future Events

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692
Abstract:
In 2011, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published a report of nine experiments purporting to demonstrate that an individual’s cognitive and affective responses can be influenced by randomly selected stimulus events that do not occur until after his or her responses have already been made and recorded (Bem, 2011). To encourage exact replications of the experiments, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We can now report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 different countries which yielded an overall positive effect in excess of 6 sigma with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09, combined z = 6.33, p = 1.2 × 10-10. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 7.4 × 10-9, greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for "decisive evidence" in favor of the experimental hypothesis (Jeffries, 1961). Experimental tasks that required "fast-thinking" responses produced larger and more significant effect sizes than did "slow-thinking" tasks that allowed participants time to implement conscious cognitive strategies (see Kahneman, 2011). The number of potentially unretrieved experiments averaging a null effect that would be required to reduce the overall effect size to a trivial value was conservatively calculated to be 520. An analysis of p values across experiments implies that the results were not a product of "p-hacking," the selective suppression of statistical analyses that failed to yield significant results (Simonsohn, Nelson, & Simmons, 2013). We discuss the controversial status of precognition and other anomalous effects collectively known as psi.
 
#2
Greg Taylor at the Daily Grail just posted an article about the study.
http://www.dailygrail.com/Mind-Myst...e-the-Future-Study-Experiments-So-Far-SaysYes

This latest meta-analysis adds to previous data collections which suggest that precognition/presentiment is a natural (if very weak) human ability. Just last month I reported on a meta-analysis of results from seven independent laboratories testing physiological responses to stimuli, that concluded the human body "can apparently detect randomly delivered stimuli occurring 1-10 seconds in the future". And a 1989 meta-analysis of all forced-choice precognition experiments appearing in English-language journals between 1935 and 1977 - 309 experiments conducted by 62 different investigators involving more than 50,000 participants - also found a small but highly significant hit rate (p = 1.1 × 10-9). Both of those meta-analyses also reported that the file-drawer effect was an unlikely explanation, given the number of experiments that would be needed to overturn the positive result.
 
#4
I should probably point out they talk about Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics (TSQM) in the paper for the 2nd study mentioned above (1-10 sec presentiment), as one possible theoretical framework. See the Quantum Biology section.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00146/full

I just recently talked about it in this thread too and about how TSQM offers an answer to Einstein's famous question: "Why does God play Dice".

Pretty fascinating stuff that is getting increasing popular. It does seem to be the most psi-friendly flavor of QM.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/retrocausality.594/
 
Last edited:
#7
Good stuff K9. So the questions is: how many 5-6 sigma meta-analyses do we have to have before folks start taking this more seriously?
Meta-analyses don't solve controversial problems (see: J. Kennedy); so no amount of "5-6 sigma meta-analyses" will resolve it.

Its like the people in the 1900s went and kicked the tires on a car, and instead of the 2000's researchers seeing if the door works they walk around with large spreadsheets and conduct tire-kicking parties. People aren't going to be interested when you're doing the same thing every time.
 
#8
Meta-analyses don't solve controversial problems (see: J. Kennedy); so no amount of "5-6 sigma meta-analyses" will resolve it.

That's besides the point I was making. I am just talking about garnering interest in solving the problem.

See for example where they talk about aspirin in the one of the links above. The aspirin studies promoted interest in marketing aspirin and figuring out how it works. No similar level of interest has arisen in psi.

Anyhow, come on guys, we all know psi is taboo. That's all I was trying to say ... somewhat facetiously ;-)
 
#9
See for example where they talk about aspirin in the one of the links above. The aspirin studies promoted interest in marketing aspirin and figuring out how it works. No similar level of interest has arisen in psi.
Well, Radin also cited a few references which indicate that some of the analyses papers have much higher instances of being read than the average whitepaper. Also, people asked about helping with Beischel's work in one of her telephone interviews but they were fobbed off on the matter. So there is a high interest from people, though its not necessarily monetary. (After all, what do rich people need with psi? They've moved on to high technology spy satellites :P)
 
#10
Well, Radin also cited a few references which indicate that some of the analyses papers have much higher instances of being read than the average whitepaper. Also, people asked about helping with Beischel's work in one of her telephone interviews but they were fobbed off on the matter. So there is a high interest from people, though its not necessarily monetary. (After all, what do rich people need with psi? They've moved on to high technology spy satellites :P)
C'mon, I wasn't saying psi has zero interest. We're here talking about it, aren't we? But, to try and say it has the same level of interest in the mainstream as does, say, allopathic medicine (like my aspirin example), would be ridiculous. Anyhow, this is such a trivial point in context of the OP, let's drop it so we don't distract from what has potential for interesting discussion.
 
#14
For some strange reasons the "Watch thread" function doesn't work for me (I don't think I am the only one). So I am adding this post to be kept updated.
 
#15
I think most people do believe in telepathy, they just don't realize it. People think of it as being some ridiculous, over the top power where you can hear every thought everyone is thinking all the time. However, if you present it as it really is, mundane and almost boring they fully accept it. You hear people say things like"We're on the same wavelength" all the time or "hey I was just thinking the same thing". Which I believe to often be genuine moments of telepathy. Mind you, I don't think it is every time two people have the same thought. But I couldn't tell you how many times my husband will be able to tell me exactly what I was thinking. But it's always about something stupid, like what I want for dinner. Granted, you could argue it just being him knowing me well, but to keep this short(er) I know it goes beyond that.
 
#16
Good stuff K9. So the questions is: how many 5-6 sigma meta-analyses do we have to have before folks start taking this more seriously?
Not for a while, most people don't actually know that serious research goes into this, most people think of psychic powers as parlour tricks and something Randi/Brown/Penn and Teller perform.
 
Top