Conference hydra::dejavu

1913.0. "a big psi experiment?" by MACROW::GLANTZ (Mike @TAY 227-4299 TP Eng Littleton) Fri Feb 04 1994 08:51

  The following was posted in ASKENET_V5. I'm also posting it to
  PHILOSOPHY.

  Imagine some of the psi experiments you could do ... a "sensitive"
  person attempts to transmit a message to everyone, and their responses
  are evaluated for "receipt" of the message ... or, everyone is told to
  concentrate on having a certain event happen (such as a delicately
  balanced object moving in a particular direction or something), and
  then experimenters try to determine if the event(s) occurred at a
  frequency higher than pure chance ... or maybe some of the "causative
  formation" experiments. Might be interesting.

================================================================================
Note 308.0  What experiment would you like to perform on 18 million people? 1 reply
STAR::PRAETORIUS "mwlwwlw&twwlt"                    117 lines   3-FEB-1994 16:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[I realize this is a different sort of question, but it is a question]

From:	US2RMC::"""Cabinet Press Office""@jnt.ac.uk" "MAIL-11 Daemon"
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	MEGALAB (UK) PRESS RELEASE

YOUR RESPONSE URGENTLY WANTED: Please reply by 9 February 1994
 
 
MEGALAB UK:
 
A SAMPLE OF 18 MILLION PEOPLE IS AVAILABLE FOR YOUR RESEARCH
 
                                         (Apologies if duplicate message)
 
Can you propose a scientific experiment which requires the cooperation
of many millions of people? We want your outline within the next week
for an experiment that must be simple to carry out and generate new
findings for science. 
 
The Science Minister, William Waldegrave, is supporting the search for a
mass experiment, to be staged during the National Week of science,
engineering and technology 'set7' 18-27 March 1994, as part of the
programme of nationwide events which aims to give science a higher
profile among the general public.  The experiment will bring together
the resources of The Daily Telegraph, and the BBC's Radio One and
Tomorrow's World. 
 
A panel of distinguished judges will select the best proposals for
experiments which require mass participation, one or more of which will
be conducted during science week, live on Radio One and Tomorrow's
World.  We are looking for ideas for mass experiments the public can
perform quickly in their immediate surroundings.  Although we seek ideas
that are tailored to print, radio or TV, we are most keen to find ideas
that exploit all three media. 
 
POTENTIAL RESOURCES AT YOUR DISPOSAL
 
* Preliminary fieldwork, pilot sampling, canvassing of public opinion
through a Gallup opinion poll/multiple choice questionnaire with rapid
turn-round are available in the science pages of The Daily Telegraph,
which will monitor progress towards the experiment, and follow through
afterwards as required.  Daily readership: 2,700,000.  Specific fields
of research which might take advantage of the print medium: literacy,
cognitive and visual skills, memory, search for local flora and fauna. 
 
* On the day of the experiment, sustained access to the daytime Radio
One audience of up to 10 million.  Opportunities to assess responses and
check them as the day progresses.  Instant feedback over telephone
lines.  Specific fields of research which might take advantage of radio:
cognitive and aural functions, physics and psychology of sound,
perception, memory. 
 
* Access to the audience of Tomorrow's World: 6 million.  Instant
feedback over telephone lines.  Specific fields of research which might
take advantage of television: cognitive and visual functions, physics
and psychology of light and colour, visual perception, memory, field
work. 
 
* The home surroundings and workplaces of the relevant audiences can be
exploited in obvious ways, eg, to demonstrate or test physical phenomena
and domestic technology.  The experiment should address a genuine
scientific question and should generate results which are interesting
and useful.  Biologists, anthropologists and geneticists might find ways
to map population densities, clusters, hereditary traits, search for
unusual flora fauna and so on. 
 
HOW TO ENTER
 
Outline your proposed experiment on one side only of A4 paper.  Non
standard formats will be disqualified.  Closing date, Wed 9 February
1994. 
 
State in order:
 
1 - YOUR NAME, ESTABLISHMENT, ADDRESS, TEL & FAX NUMBERS.
 
2 - THE CATEGORY OF SCIENCE OR TECHNOLOGY.
 
3 - DEFINE THE SECTION OF THE POPULATION WHOSE PARTICIPATION IS MOST
    NECESSARY. 
 
4 - OUTLINE YOUR EXPERIMENT.
 
5 - POSSIBLE OR INTENDED OUTCOME.
 
6 - INDICATE ITS ORIGINALITY.
 
Post your entry to: Megalab UK, Dept 1, PO Box 320, Derby DE3 5YZ.
 
Issued by
Press Office
Office of Public Service and Science
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS 


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by us2rmc.bb.dec.com; id AA11890; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:27:28 -0500
% Received: from nisp.ncl.ac.uk by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/13Jan94) id AA12944; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:44:54 -080
% Received: by nisp.mailbase.ac.uk id <[email protected]> (5.65cVUW/MAILBASE.2.0 ); Thu, 3 Feb 1994 08:45:37 GM
% X-Version: Mailbase (TM) Enhanced List Manager Version 2.3
% Received: from [+JANET.000050020005/FTP.MAIL] by nisp.mailbase.ac.uk id <[email protected]> (5.65cVUW/MAILBASE.2.0 ); Thu, 3 Feb 1994 08:28:35 GM
% From: "Cabinet Press Office"@jnt.ac.uk
% To: [email protected]
% Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 06:14 GMT
% Subject: MEGALAB (UK) PRESS RELEASE
% Message-Id: <03 FEB 1994 08:07:52 [email protected]>
% Authentic-Sender: [email protected]
% Original-Sender: "Cabinet Press Office"@gec-b.rutherford.ac.uk
% X-List: [email protected]
% Reply-To: "Cabinet Press Office"@jnt.ac.uk
% Sender: [email protected]
% Precedence: list

    Some mass parapsychology experiments have been conducted in the past
    without much success.  This is not surprising, given the problems.

    If an ESP test were to be given with everyone guessing against the same
    target, and if we counted each test as independent, then we would run
    into the stacking effect described in note 1912.15.  There are two
    solutions to this:

    1 -- Let everyone vote on each target, with the most popular choice for
    each target being the call.  In effect, you would be treating the whole
    group as a single "subject."  Problem here is that you would lose most
    of the statistical power which you get from the large number of
    subjects.  Furthermore the same "response biases" which create the
    stacking effect could well swamp out the genuine signal.

    2 -- Give everyone a separate set of targets.  Given sufficient funding
    this can be dealt with, but the logistics are very complicated,
    especially if you provide individual feedback, which many
    parapsychologists believe is very important in eliciting psi.

    Another problem applies to any mass parapsychological experiment,
    whether ESP or PK.  It is generally believed by parapsychologists that
    a positive response on a psi test requires a warm, supportive
    atmosphere within which the subjects are well motivated but not
    pressured or anxious.  Virtually by definition the mass experiments
    rule this out.  The expected result would be a very small overall
    magnitude, and a high rate of "psi missing" which would tend to cancel
    out whatever small effect was obtained.

    A sophisticated enough design -- for example, appointing some
    volunteers as local proctors to give the necessary "stroking" to the
    percipients, use of the computer network to distribute tests and
    collect results, all backed up by individual testing to select expected
    high-scoring environments/subjects -- could overcome these
    difficulties.  But it would be expensive and would take more than 4
    days to develop.

    I think that this one will have to go by.

					Topher

    
    Yeah, we did one here in this very file several years ago, if I recall
    correctly.  (;^)  It was a number-guessing experiment.  
    
    Forgot how the results came out though.  Does anyone remember?
    
    Cindy

RE: .2 (Cindy)

    Actually there were two.  A competetive test is in note 868.* and a
    cooperative test is in 914.*.

    Both were flops from the viewpoint of getting the right answer.

    I'd say both were successes from a broader viewpoint.

				    Topher