This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Anybody watching this? People can apparently predict/see the future sort of (a few seconds anyway)!
In reply to thomasadixon: That'll be why no-one ever gets killed in unexpected accidents then ... or am I just being too cynical?
In reply to OMR:
People do ignore their instincts... Food for thought though, why did people react differently before the picture came up? (I'm assuming you saw it!)
People do ignore their instincts... Food for thought though, why did people react differently before the picture came up? (I'm assuming you saw it!)
In reply to thomasadixon: I knew you were going to write that.
In reply to Glyn Jones: i didn't even watch the program, but i know what happened on it
In reply to johnj: I didn't expect that decision from the woman with the enormous breasts - what did you think?
In reply to thomasadixon:
Though did you see what seemed to be enormous error bars (larger than the actual effect) in the 'prediction' side of the graph.
Be brilliant if true but I remain to be convinced...
Though did you see what seemed to be enormous error bars (larger than the actual effect) in the 'prediction' side of the graph.
Be brilliant if true but I remain to be convinced...
In reply to Glyn Jones: that bit didn't really interest me, i was watching next weeks shameless at the same time
In reply to Different Steve:
Missed that, it'd be nice if they put a written version with more info on the bbc site.
Same, interesting though (as was the rest, if true).
> (In reply to thomasadixon)
>
> Though did you see what seemed to be enormous error bars (larger than the actual effect) in the 'prediction' side of the graph.
>
> Though did you see what seemed to be enormous error bars (larger than the actual effect) in the 'prediction' side of the graph.
Missed that, it'd be nice if they put a written version with more info on the bbc site.
> Be brilliant if true but I remain to be convinced...
Same, interesting though (as was the rest, if true).
In reply to Different Steve:
> Though did you see what seemed to be enormous error bars (larger than the actual effect) in the 'prediction' side of the graph.
One set of error bars was actually inside the other set. There is no effect and the 'scientist' who said there was should be taken outside and laughed at. In reply to thomasadixon:
This any help? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/decisions/
However, when it comes to stuff like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7238637.stm
I think whoever puts it on TV with a"science" label dangling from it should be soundly slapped. I am reminded of these pieces by Ben Goldacre: http://www.badscience.net/?p=340 and http://www.badscience.net/?p=324 The disappointing thing is that it could have been an informative programme about statistical bias, the value of double-blind controlled trials and the like - but that might have risked upsetting some of the counter-knowledge proponents out there who I suspect are a reliable source of useful and entertaining (though largely worthless) content for such programmes.
> it'd be nice if they put a written version with more info on the bbc site.
This any help? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/decisions/
However, when it comes to stuff like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7238637.stm
I think whoever puts it on TV with a"science" label dangling from it should be soundly slapped. I am reminded of these pieces by Ben Goldacre: http://www.badscience.net/?p=340 and http://www.badscience.net/?p=324 The disappointing thing is that it could have been an informative programme about statistical bias, the value of double-blind controlled trials and the like - but that might have risked upsetting some of the counter-knowledge proponents out there who I suspect are a reliable source of useful and entertaining (though largely worthless) content for such programmes.
In reply to Martin W:
I must admit, only managed the first 20 minutes or so of this before I turned off.
The 'equations' used in the dating scenario and shoe shopping bit were pathetic, and an attempt to put a science tag on what was effectively a pop psychology tool.
An equation in which the variables include the participant's own subjective rating of both his and his would-be partner's attractiveness! That sounds robust...especially as the uber-ugly geek rated himself more attractive than the quite pretty girl at the bar, and thereby achieved a 95% chance of pulling!
Quite ridiculous, and disappointing after Horizon started so strongly this series with the 'Gravity' programme and the 'How to Kill a Man' one with Portillo.
I must admit, only managed the first 20 minutes or so of this before I turned off.
The 'equations' used in the dating scenario and shoe shopping bit were pathetic, and an attempt to put a science tag on what was effectively a pop psychology tool.
An equation in which the variables include the participant's own subjective rating of both his and his would-be partner's attractiveness! That sounds robust...especially as the uber-ugly geek rated himself more attractive than the quite pretty girl at the bar, and thereby achieved a 95% chance of pulling!
Quite ridiculous, and disappointing after Horizon started so strongly this series with the 'Gravity' programme and the 'How to Kill a Man' one with Portillo.
In reply to thomasadixon: Ha Ha! I confess I saw two or three minutes and then abandoned the telly to look through what was happening here. But then I 'knew' it was going to be a crap programme, though the scientists are still arguing whether I knew it coz I'm psychic or just cynical and have wasted far too much time in the past listening to pseudoscience.
In reply to Martin W:
Not sure, I don't have flash! I'll have a look from home though.
What about the bits testing responses on bets (the win/loss scenario), that seemed to make sense although I think I've seen it before.
Hutchm: Didn't pay any attention to that bit I must admit, after he said that guy was 95% I kind of switched off.
Shame you've all roundly denounced our foresight abilities...ahh well.
Not sure, I don't have flash! I'll have a look from home though.
What about the bits testing responses on bets (the win/loss scenario), that seemed to make sense although I think I've seen it before.
Hutchm: Didn't pay any attention to that bit I must admit, after he said that guy was 95% I kind of switched off.
Shame you've all roundly denounced our foresight abilities...ahh well.
In reply to OMR:
I watched it as far as the point where he rated himself a 10/10 for wit. Anyone who thinks they are that witty are definitely not going to go down well with the ladies! I also loved the bit where he went on about the system being able to rate the chance precisely and then in the next scene he said "well let's call that seven".
Armstrong & Miller were on BBC4, far better fare...
I watched it as far as the point where he rated himself a 10/10 for wit. Anyone who thinks they are that witty are definitely not going to go down well with the ladies! I also loved the bit where he went on about the system being able to rate the chance precisely and then in the next scene he said "well let's call that seven".
Armstrong & Miller were on BBC4, far better fare...
In reply to hutchm:
> The 'equations' used in the dating scenario and shoe shopping bit were pathetic, and an attempt to put a science tag on what was effectively a pop psychology tool.
The equation was a red herring. What is actually happening is that the subject is being forced to focus on the important variables in the decision making process. This makes the decision simpler and detracts from dithering. In reply to Burns: That's very true, it definitely feels as though it's been significantly 'dumbed down' now. It used to be required viewing in our household, along with QED.
And they've even changed the title music too!
And they've even changed the title music too!
In reply to anonymouse:
I'd agree with that. A pop psychology tool. I do wonder why in that case it was presented on Horizon rather than one of those channel 4 programmes where they take an absolute minger and try to convince her that she's gorgeous.
> (In reply to hutchm)
> [...]
> The equation was a red herring. What is actually happening is that the subject is being forced to focus on the important variables in the decision making process. This makes the decision simpler and detracts from dithering.
> [...]
> The equation was a red herring. What is actually happening is that the subject is being forced to focus on the important variables in the decision making process. This makes the decision simpler and detracts from dithering.
I'd agree with that. A pop psychology tool. I do wonder why in that case it was presented on Horizon rather than one of those channel 4 programmes where they take an absolute minger and try to convince her that she's gorgeous.
In reply to hutchm:
> I'd agree with that. A pop psychology tool. I do wonder why in that case it was presented on Horizon rather than one of those channel 4 programmes where they take an absolute minger and try to convince her that she's gorgeous.
Good question. I was waiting for the smarmy git to come clean and explain that it was all a front, but he never did. I watched it more in hope than anything else. Decision making is a fascinating subject, but the information content of the program was almost zero - any positive information having been destroyed by the terrible, terrible precognition bilge. If those error bars were real, and meant what they seemed to mean, then he was just being dishonest about the results. In reply to owlart:
QED was great, as was Arena. Where are they now? Still at least we've got "reality" t.v. that no way resembles any reality other than its own, in their place.
QED was great, as was Arena. Where are they now? Still at least we've got "reality" t.v. that no way resembles any reality other than its own, in their place.
In reply to Anonymous:
Really? How many fingers am I holding up?
Really? How many fingers am I holding up?
In reply to anonymouse:
That is not precognition, it is telepathy, if you are thinking about it.
Three I think, but the other hand is waving two at me.
That is not precognition, it is telepathy, if you are thinking about it.
Three I think, but the other hand is waving two at me.
In reply to thomasadixon:
Thought that the one woman they did the pre-cog experiment on was hardly grounds for 'proof' of anything. Do it on thousands of people and maybe I'll start to believe it.
The warm/cold experiment was silly as well, when they got the second control group in and said "It's an identical situation, with an identical subject, having an identical conversation".....the only problem being.....the group of volunteers were NOT identical and were totally different people. There may have been many factors which contributed to one lot saying yes and one lot saying no surely?
Thought that the one woman they did the pre-cog experiment on was hardly grounds for 'proof' of anything. Do it on thousands of people and maybe I'll start to believe it.
The warm/cold experiment was silly as well, when they got the second control group in and said "It's an identical situation, with an identical subject, having an identical conversation".....the only problem being.....the group of volunteers were NOT identical and were totally different people. There may have been many factors which contributed to one lot saying yes and one lot saying no surely?
In reply to sutty:
But if you were a precognitive person you would know what the answer would eventually be. You got it right by the way, the second time if not the first.
But if you were a precognitive person you would know what the answer would eventually be. You got it right by the way, the second time if not the first.
In reply to anonymouse:
Hope you asked first.
> (In reply to Anonymous)
> Really? How many fingers am I holding up?
> Really? How many fingers am I holding up?
Hope you asked first.
In reply to Hjonesy:
Priming is quite well established as an effect in the literature I think. Not sure that this program did justice to anyone involved.
Priming is quite well established as an effect in the literature I think. Not sure that this program did justice to anyone involved.
In reply to Hjonesy:
random allocation to conditions (i give them the benefit of the doubt) and it's all good
it's a really interesting area actually - this is becoming something of a classic
http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/71/2/230
>
> the group of volunteers were NOT identical and were totally different people. There may have been many factors which contributed to one lot saying yes and one lot saying no surely?
> the group of volunteers were NOT identical and were totally different people. There may have been many factors which contributed to one lot saying yes and one lot saying no surely?
random allocation to conditions (i give them the benefit of the doubt) and it's all good
it's a really interesting area actually - this is becoming something of a classic
http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/71/2/230
In reply to Hjonesy:
I'd assumed they'd done it with lots of people and that was just the one they were showing on the screen, far too much faith in the BBC!
I'm not sure how you could do that so that it was a good result, you can't do both tests on the same person since they'd know what was going on... Agree though, there are a huge number of factors (how they ask them would affect what answer they got I'd expect) and personally my thought was that I'd answer, "well it depends on their experience, etc, who cares if the guy's nice?".
I'd assumed they'd done it with lots of people and that was just the one they were showing on the screen, far too much faith in the BBC!
I'm not sure how you could do that so that it was a good result, you can't do both tests on the same person since they'd know what was going on... Agree though, there are a huge number of factors (how they ask them would affect what answer they got I'd expect) and personally my thought was that I'd answer, "well it depends on their experience, etc, who cares if the guy's nice?".
In reply to rich: and the other experimenter (the one without the drinks) would have to be unaware whether he had a hot person or a cold person of course
In reply to thomasadixon:
Exactly. It's human nature. He's bound to appeal to some and not others of course.
> (In reply to Hjonesy)
>
> I'd assumed they'd done it with lots of people and that was just the one they were showing on the screen, far too much faith in the BBC!
>
Yeah, I was listening out for the "this is the test we did on X,000 of people the other week" - but I must have missed it. I don't think that guy was very reassuring to be honest. I'd like to think I'm fairly open-minded to that sort of thing, if it can be scientifically proven, but that prog just left me thinking "nah, not convinced guys sorry".>
> I'd assumed they'd done it with lots of people and that was just the one they were showing on the screen, far too much faith in the BBC!
>
> I'm not sure how you could do that so that it was a good result, you can't do both tests on the same person since they'd know what was going on... Agree though, there are a huge number of factors (how they ask them would affect what answer they got I'd expect) and personally my thought was that I'd answer, "well it depends on their experience, etc, who cares if the guy's nice?".
Exactly. It's human nature. He's bound to appeal to some and not others of course.
In reply to Hjonesy:
For a start the "interviewee" would have seen whether it was a hot or cold cup and couldn't have helped being more confidant in a "hot-cup" situation
> The warm/cold experiment was silly as well, when they got the second control group in and said "It's an identical situation, with an identical subject, having an identical conversation".....the only problem being.....the group of volunteers were NOT identical and were totally different people. There may have been many factors which contributed to one lot saying yes and one lot saying no surely?
For a start the "interviewee" would have seen whether it was a hot or cold cup and couldn't have helped being more confidant in a "hot-cup" situation
In reply to thomasadixon: Was just about to watch it then got a feeling it would be tosh.
In reply to anonymouse:
Well my first thought was three, then thought,'no he is waving two fingers at me'.
Now if you were in the same room as me and a few others i could probably make you do something simple you do not normally do inside ten minutes. I used to do it on building sites at lunchtimes, getting others to watch the person to check what I got them to do was not a habit like scratching their nose or pulling their ear. then I would write down what I planned and show the paper when they did it. You just need to tune in to people at times.
Well my first thought was three, then thought,'no he is waving two fingers at me'.
Now if you were in the same room as me and a few others i could probably make you do something simple you do not normally do inside ten minutes. I used to do it on building sites at lunchtimes, getting others to watch the person to check what I got them to do was not a habit like scratching their nose or pulling their ear. then I would write down what I planned and show the paper when they did it. You just need to tune in to people at times.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...