Sorry to get all Ms. Science Person here and spoil the effect, but ... the experiment doesn't really test whether you can spontaneously think of someone out of all the dozens of people you know and have them just up and call you. It tests whether you can guess which of four specific people is ACTUALLY calling you when the phone rings. I don't know why the number comes out better than 25 percent, unless it's because the sample size was too small. I mean, hey, if you only call me once, and I guess right, I've had a 100% success rate.
I'm very sad to see this kind of pseudoscience on C-NET, which is otherwise a reliable information source.
There is, however, a very plausible cognitive science explanation for the phenomenon. There are two parts to the explanation. The first part is that the people we think about frequently are generally people we are likely to hear from. The second part is that our brains are wired to notice coincidences and not wired to pay much attention to non-coincidences. In other words, I will notice the handful of times I'm thinking of Fred and the phone rings and it's him, but I will not notice the hundreds and hundreds of times I'm thinking about Fred and Fred DOESN'T call.
If I gave a list of four friends / family members, chances are they are going to be people I talk to frequently, and given that, chances are they will be people I will think about from time to time.
So to me, this proves nothing. The test should be more random or a wider number of people... especially people you do not converse with frequently.
Wonder why Jessica Alba never calls me? I think about her A LOT and she has yet to ring me to say hello.
Which is even worse. There are any number of possible explanations, but it is impossible to determine what is going on since the people at Reuters did not seem to se fit to publish the methods section of any paper, assuming it was even published by a peer review journal. If they received more than one call with the experimental population reduced by one each time, this result is not at a ll surprising. It may also be that even if the people to call were chosen at random, only certain people actually received the request, due to any number of reasons (not being home, being busy, not having a phone on, etc..) Thus time of day or even the fact that a call occurred at all contains substantial information about caller ID. The fact that this is considered informative at all shows how little paranormal "researchers" understand the scientific method, and why they have no business calling themselves scientists.
For those that don't know, this is quite similar to a Nature article done on Uri Gellar in the 70's proving without a doubt psychic or telepathic powers exist. Uri Gellar was later publicly embarrassed on the tonight show by Johnny Carson under the advisement of James Randi. Uri Gellar was presented with the props, he wasn't allowed to prepare them himself. He was unable to repeat any of his tricks under those conditions. Wikipedia has a detailed account of Mr. Gellar's failings: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller</a>
A sample of 63 people guessing one of four names correctly 45% of the time does not mean anything at all. Randomness fully accounts for that result.
If you toss a four-sided cube an infinite number of times, then each side of the cube will appear 25% of the time. However, if you toss the cube 63 times, you may get one side appearing 28 times (45% of the total) rather than 16 times (25% of the total). This is the nature of randomness. It does not mean that there is some inherent tendency of that side of the cube to appear more often because of unseen forces.
Simpler example is a coin flip, where there is a 50% chance of heads appearing. But you can toss the coin 100 times and see heads 75 times. Do you then conclude that you have some psychic ability to flip heads? Hardly. It is just the nature of randomness.
This is pretty basic stuff. I can't believe that any serious consideration is being given to this "study."
For the skeptics who love to spout the old Why dont you read the Headline -Psychic Wins Lottery.-" take a look at this&. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.psychic-junkie.com/psychic-wins-lottery.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.psychic-junkie.com/psychic-wins-lottery.html</a>
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon--all are targets for Mozilla's plan to use Web apps to free people from ecosystem lock-in. Also: new Firefox features aplenty.
The rise of Apple's stores is one of the past decade's great retail stories. So, why then does the company continue to creep back into the big-box outlets and will this hurt the brand?
The company helps small businesses with little tech savvy build apps easily, and now its partner Constant Contact will email-blast prospective users, too.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
I'm very sad to see this kind of pseudoscience on C-NET, which is otherwise a reliable information source.
There is, however, a very plausible cognitive science explanation for the phenomenon. There are two parts to the explanation. The first part is that the people we think about frequently are generally people we are likely to hear from. The second part is that our brains are wired to notice coincidences and not wired to pay much attention to non-coincidences. In other words, I will notice the handful of times I'm thinking of Fred and the phone rings and it's him, but I will not notice the hundreds and hundreds of times I'm thinking about Fred and Fred DOESN'T call.
What's next,divining rods? Perpetual, net positive motion?
Still unclaimed, the $1M prize...
So to me, this proves nothing. The test should be more random or a wider number of people... especially people you do not converse with frequently.
Wonder why Jessica Alba never calls me? I think about her A LOT and she has yet to ring me to say hello.
There are any number of possible explanations, but it is
impossible to determine what is going on since the people at
Reuters did not seem to se fit to publish the methods section of
any paper, assuming it was even published by a peer review
journal.
If they received more than one call with the experimental
population reduced by one each time, this result is not at a ll
surprising. It may also be that even if the people to call were
chosen at random, only certain people actually received the
request, due to any number of reasons (not being home, being
busy, not having a phone on, etc..) Thus time of day or even the
fact that a call occurred at all contains substantial information
about caller ID. The fact that this is considered informative at all
shows how little paranormal "researchers" understand the
scientific method, and why they have no business calling
themselves scientists.
If you toss a four-sided cube an infinite number of times, then each side of the cube will appear 25% of the time. However, if you toss the cube 63 times, you may get one side appearing 28 times (45% of the total) rather than 16 times (25% of the total). This is the nature of randomness. It does not mean that there is some inherent tendency of that side of the cube to appear more often because of unseen forces.
Simpler example is a coin flip, where there is a 50% chance of heads appearing. But you can toss the coin 100 times and see heads 75 times. Do you then conclude that you have some psychic ability to flip heads? Hardly. It is just the nature of randomness.
This is pretty basic stuff. I can't believe that any serious consideration is being given to this "study."
Bruce