Tuesday, September 22, Brett Favre Meme! I don't think it's truly been called out and recognized for the meme that it is! It's pretty clear to me that the Brett Favre meme is in full swing! And shows no signs of abating. It just grows from one site to the next site! Sometimes, as in the above photo, there appears to be some point being made. But just as often it's just the meme itself, in its purest form: Anyway, it's clear to me that this is one of the most major, prevalent memes on the internet today.
She had long hair. No, of course not. The explanation given for Serios's boo-boo was that his photos showed her as she wanted to be. Or did I lose you somewhere? Serios accomplished his wonders with a simple device that is easily made. You will need a small, positive magnifying lens, preferably about half an inch in diameter and with a focal length of about one and a half inches.
The latter can be ascertained by measuring the distance between the lens and the image of a distant object cast upon a piece of paper. You'll need a small tube-as long as the focal length-to hold the lens. From any color transparency a thirty-five-millimeter slide or a sixteen-millimeter motion picture frame, for example cut a circle ose: The left end is held close to the iens of a Polaroid camera focused to infinity and the image on the transparency is thrown onto the Polaroid film.
The lens is fitted to the other end. You use the Serios gimmick by holding it in the hand with the lens end toward the palm. The victim-holding the Polaroid camera, which has been focused to infinity distant -is to snap the shuttor when your hand is held before the lens. Keep the tube pointing straight into the camera. If it is off-center it will produce smeary pictures, as Serios did on many occasions. The photo that results is usually of poor but interesting quality. The pictures are often in the middle of a Polaroid frame, with a circular shape surrounded by black, as would be expected if you like, you can be sure your device is not detected by placing a loose tube of paper around it.
The device will slide out easily, and you can offer the paper tube for examination, though any parapsychologist will hesitate to look too carefully. In , writer Paul Welch had a piece on Serios in Life magazine that was totally supportive. The paper tube, which Serios called his "gismo" and which was used to conceal his optical device, was never mentioned. Although it was prominent in all of Serios's work, and showed up in most photos, Life chose to censor all reference to it to make a better story, for once the "gismo" was made known it would not be hard to figure out that the experimenters were allowing rather wide latitude for procedure in their "scientific tests".
But Eisenbud, leaping to the bait the "gismo" supplied, was quick to proclaim that though Serios liked to use the paper tube, he often did not, merely holding his hand there instead. When two photographers-Charles Reynolds and David Eisendrath-and Persi Diaconis, a prominent conjuring authority at Stanford University, went to Denver to see the super-psychic in action, they got the same old runaround. After one attempt, Serios quickly placed his hand in his pocket. Diaconis reached for it, trying to intercept the "gismo" before it could be emptied.
Eisenbud threw himself between the two men and objected to this action, apparently forgetting that he had invited the three there to observe and that he was now interfering with that observation. A moment later, Serios produced the then-empty paper tube from his pocket for examination. Observers are invited to observe, but are blocked when they look too closely.
Diaconis notes that at one point Dr. Eisenbud had asked of the observers, "If he's only genuine 10 percent of the time, isn't that enough for you guys? For that 10 percent is well within the noise level of your very loose "experiments", doctor. In fact, a much higher percentage would still be within those very generous limits, given the expert observations of Reynolds, Eisendrath, and Diaconis.
But we will admit that if the experiments had been done with good security and at least a brave attempt at proper control of the subject, 10 percent would be impressive. As it is, no one is impressed or satisfied. Life chose not to say a word about the Reynolds-Eisendrath-Diaconis investigation, which had shown that the experiments they observed, contrary to what had been said by Eisenbud in his book, were "without adequate control over the essential materials" and revealed "irreparable methodological flaws in all phases of the experiments". Life was well aware of both the use of the giveaway "gismo" and the definitive report of the three competent observers, but in order to make a convincing case it ignored the contradictory evidence.
When I questioned the magazine's staff about these omissions I was told at "an earlier draft of his [Welch's] story included mention of the "gismo" struck out of the final version, as Serios does not always use it. But a murderer does not kill every person he meets either. And what of the Reynolds-Eisendrath-Diaconis expos6? Nary a word from Life in response.
It was his inane idea that I submit to a preposterous set of controls- this after it had become quite plain to all investigators that his Trilby had been allowed to operate under the loosest and most incredible circumstances. I was to allow myself to be searched-including "a thorough inspection of body orifices"-and then "stripped, clad in a monkey suit, and sealed in a steel-walled, lead-lined, soundproof, windowless chamber". I had to be drunk as well. Then, I was to produce pictures. Because Ted Srios operated under those conditions, said Eisenbud.
When Reynolds, Eisendrath, and Diaconis were there, doctor, the security was so bad that not only was Serios allowed to wander in and out of the room, but Diaconis was able to switch a whole batch of film right under your nose, and you never even knew it! And I have all three witnesses sober, and not in monkey suits. If this great investigator and peerless observer required Serios to perform under the conditions he outlined for me, why didn't he mention to earlier? In that publication Eisenbud wrote thousands of words about his experiments with Serios, referring many times to tests wherein sealed rooms were used, lead glass was employed, and the camera was kept isolated from Serios.
I would like to know where in these accounts is mentioned a test of the kind he claims to have performed. It simply does not exist. Also nonexistent are the powers of Serios and the objectivity of those who investigated him. Eisenbud is at his best when he writes for the parapsychology journals. There he can throw around terminology that obfuscates the basic facts beautifully. Here they discuss the "gismo" and mention that without it Serios obtains results "no different from the results he gets with its use".
They then proceed to describe a "target" attempt in March in which Serios achieved wonderful things. All six "associates" suggested targets, and Dr. Marx suggested a World War I aircraft. Marx had spent much time discussing early aircraft, a subject of great interest to both men, and I am not surprised to discover that Serios came along that evening, knowing that Marx would be there, equipped with an appropriately prepared gimmick for the occasion. Eisenbud carefully points out that Serios, during that session, sometimes used the gimmick and sometimes did not, and produced five prints, all bearing pictures of the same general object-part of a vintage plane.
Off the Deep End Early in the JASPR piece Eisenbud compounds his naivete by saying of the "gismo" that "indeed, no other reason [than to aid in concentration] for its existence or use has yet been discovered". If Eisenbud had looked at his data carefully, as I did, he'd have seen that a use just might suggest itself, because Serios produced pictures only on trial numbers 15, 20, 22, 26 and the only five during which he used the "gismo".
To this day, so I'm told, Eisenbud believes that a bellboy from Chicago could imprint pictures on film by miraculous means. His ego simply does not permit him to realize that he was duped, and he will carry his delusions with him to the grave. Borje Lofgren, writing in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, had it right when he described Eisenbud and other parapsychology enthusiasts as "decaying minds" with "thinking defects and disturbed relations to reality".
At the very least, it seems that Dr.
theranchhands.com: Sitemap
Eisenbud is not rowing with both oars in the water. Statistician Persi Diaconis, whom I have known for many years since his early interest in conjuring , is in a particularly strong position from which to judge the value of parapsychological claims. His knowledge of sleight of hand and mentalism is second to none, and I do not make that statement lightly. Persi is capable of miracles with a deck of cards that would put to shame many a professional magician, and his awareness of the psychological subtleties of the conjurer equip him perfectly for such investigations.
Unhappily for the art, Mr. Diaconis long ago chose a more serious profession and today is involved in heady statistical problems. His help as a consultant has greatly assisted my work, and though he has withdrawn from active participation in the CSICOP, he contributes to our efforts when he can spare the time. A recent paper of his, published in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, stirred up quite a few para-ccientists who were castigated in the article.
Diaconis correctly pointed out that "modern parapsychological research is important There always seem to be many loopholes and loose ends. The same mistakes are made again and again". It stands to reason that if either subject cheating or bad experimental procedure can damn the work of a parapsychologist, then a combination of both these elements double-damns it.
Diaconis has long been examining parapsychological work, not as a passive observer but as an involved investigator. In addition to having been one of the experts called in to -J examine, the Serios-Eisenbud episode PA and Elizabeth F. Loftus, has for some years been investigating the circumstances under which information received subsequent to a complex natural event, such as an accident or a crime, causes systematic and predictable changes in witnesses' recollections of the event see Loftus, , for a review of this research.
Sightings of unidentified flying objects UFOs and of un- known or rare animal species the topic of cryptozoology are in some ways very similar to the witnessing of a crime or of an accident. In particular, crimes, accidents, UFOs, and unidentifiable animals are all phenomena that present considerable challenges to accurate perception, interpretation, and recall. In the present paper, we first very briefly review some recent findings on the alteration of human recollection. This review is necessarily less than com- prehensive, but we hope that it gives at least the flavor of recent research.
Next, we suggest some applications of recent recollection-change research to the evaluation of reports from persons who claim to have witnessed anomalous events, such as the appearance of UFOs. The Alteration of Eyewitness Recollections Numerous experiments have been conducted showing that memory for details of a complex event, such as a crime or an accident, can under some circumstances be affected by both pre- and post-event experiences. The ex- perimental paradigm used in recollection-change studies can be described in terms of two essential stages.
A subject views for the first time a slide sequence or a film depicting an event, such as a simulated automobile accident or a crime. A subject encounters and incorporates additional information subsequent to the original event. New information might be embedded in a misleading message or in a biasing question, or even in a sketch or a photograph. Private rehearsal of the event, or discussion with friends or family, or even questioning by a careless inves- tigator, can be a source of misleading opinions and information.
Whatever the source, additional information is acquired and is often readily integrated with original memory for the event. Thus, both pre-or post-event information has in fact altered the content of what is recalled or recognized. Once created, the new memory can be as real and as vivid to the person as a memory acquired as the result of "genuine" perception. Loftus, Miller, and Burns' experiment can be regarded as a prototype of the recollection-change procedure.
In that experiment, subjects viewed a slide sequence that depicted an automobile accident. In the middle of the sequence one group of subjects viewed a red Datsun stopped at a yield sign, while a second group of subjects viewed the same red Datsun stopped at a stop sign. Either immediately after the slide presentation, or following some longer interval of delay, one of two sets of questions was distributed to each subject. Some subjects were given questions that included a potentially misleading item of information, whereas other subjects received questions that included no misinformation.
For example, the item "Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was stopped at the stop sign? Finally, subjects were tested for recollection of details of the original incident, including recollection of the sign. Specifically, they recalled a stop sign when a yield sign had actually been seen, or a yield sign when a stop sign had been seen. Thus, memory for a complex natural event appears to be vulnerable to the influence of information received subsequent to the event itself.
What follows is a summary of some of the major experimental variables that have been found to moderate the alteration of memory by post-event information. Critical Factors in Recollection Change It is not possible in this paper to offer a comprehensive review of the growing body of recollection change literature. Short of being comprehensive, it is possible to briefly describe several variables that are already fairly well understood, and to summarize some of the experiments that served initially to demonstrate the significance of these variables.
Such relatively well understood variables include 1 the intervals between an event, a subsequent misleading message, and a final test of recollection; 2 the presence of warnings; 3 the syntactic form of questions and messages; and 4 attitude change. Intervals of Delay The intervals of delay between viewing an initially unexpected event, encountering a subsequent potentially misleading message, and Alterations in recollection engaging in a final test of recollection have all been found to be major determinants of change in memory for an event Loftus et al.
In this research, the number of subjects for whom a change in recollection occurred increased with longer as opposed to shorter intervals before encountering the post-event misinformation. Additionally, the number of subjects for whom a change in recollection occurred was greatest when the final test of recollection occurred immediately after reading the post-event misinformation rather than after some delay. Thus, recollection change appears to be enhanced by the fading of original memory with the passage of time, and the change is most readily secured if tested while the post-event misinformation is still relatively current.
Warnings A series of experiments reported by Greene, Flynn, and Loftus indicates that the alteration of recollection can often be minimized if subjects are warned that a post-event message that they are about to receive might contain misinformation. However, the immediacy of the warning appears to be critical. That is, to be effective, the warning must be given immediately before presentation of the otherwise misleading message.
NEU IN DER BOLLY.THEK
Subjects began by viewing slides that depicted a wallet snatching. Five minutes after viewing, subjects were exposed to a version of the event ostensibly written by another witness. For some subjects the version included some items of misinformation. Some of the misinformed subjects were warned that the message might contain inaccuracies. For different groups of subjects, the warning was given either immediately before the slides were presented, immediately after the slide presentation, immediately before the misleading message was presented, or immediately before the final test of recollection.
Finally, a test of recollection was given and subjects were urged to respond on the basis of their personal memories. The results indicated that warning given immediately prior to the presentation of misinformation increased subjects resistance to the misinformation and minimized the changes in recollection. However, warnings given at other times, earlier or later, were of little or no value to subjects. Another variable in the study, the amount of time taken by subjects to read the message, provided a clue to the interpretation of these results. In brief, subjects who received warnings immediately prior to reading the misinformation read more slowly, and no doubt more carefully, than did subjects who received warnings at other points in time.
In sum, there appears to be one optimal moment when warnings are effective in reducing subjects' usual gullibility and lack of caution. That critical moment comes just as subjects are about to be exposed to post-event misinformation. The Syntactic Form of Misleading Questions We have seen that properly timed warnings make it possible for subjects to detect discrepancies in a post-event message. In arathcr similar manner, 6 D.
Immediately following the unexpected event, students answered a 15 item questionnaire calling for recollection of details of the incident. For some students, the questionnaire included one item that referred mis- leadingly to a nonexistent moustache. In fact, two versions of the misleading question were presented to different groups of subjects. In one version, the moustache was the subject of a simple interrogative sentence: Was the mous- tache worn by the tall intruder light or dark brown? In the second version, the moustache was the object of an auxiliary clause: Did the intruder who was tall and had a moustache say anything to the professor?
A third group was not asked anything about the moustache at all. Two days later, subjects were once more tested for recollection of details of the incident. In this final test, subjects were asked to indicate whether they had actually seen a moustache on the intruder. Many of the subjects who had been misleadingly questioned about the moustache reported that the intruder had indeed been wearing a moustache. Few of the subjects who had not encountered a misleading question believed that there had been a moustache.
Equally significant, subjects were more likely to falsely recall the nonexistent facial hair if it had been suggested in an auxiliary clause than if it had occurred as the subject of a question. A clue to explaining the greater effectiveness of the auxiliary clause lies in the complementary finding that most subjects, upon further interrogation, were typically unable after two days to recall having read a reference to a moustache when the moustache had been mentioned in an auxiliary clause.
However, subjects were more likely to recall having read about a moustache when it appeared as the focus of an intervening question. It seems plausible that more attention would be given to the subject of a simple sentence than to the object of a minor clause in a complex sentence. We conclude that subjects' recollections are more readily altered by misinformation that has been casually or unintentionally assimilated than by information that has been given direct and critical attention.
We also conclude that misinformation that has been slowly scrutinized is likely to be rejected, whereas misinformation that is quickly assimilated with minimal attention can be added indiscrimi- nately to the existing store of information about an event. Altitude Change Apparently, a change in attitude can under some circumstances induce a corresponding change in recollection. The message was attributed either to a highly credible source, a leading researcher in the area of exercise, or alternatively, to a less credible source, a spokesperson for the Fat is Beautiful Organization.
Not surprisingly, attitude change was greatest in subjects for whom the persuasive message had been attributed to a credible source. Finally, subjects were asked to recall their own recent exercise programs. Interestingly, subjects exposed to the credible communicator re- called their exercise routines as having been less vigorous than did subjects exposed to the less persuasive communicator. In short, people sometimes alter recollection of their own recent behavior to conform to newly acquired attitudes.
In summary, we have reviewed a number of studies indicating the capacity of several variables to affect the alteration of recollection. In several of these studies, the subjects' detection of discrepancies in a post-event message, or failure to detect discrepancies appears to have been a crucial factor. Indeed, retention intervals, warnings, and syntax are all variables that appear to affect subjects' ability to detect discrepancies. Thus, the detection of discrepancies appears to be an important mediating variable, that is, a common underlying factor in the operation of a number of circumstantial variables.
In a similar vein, if people assume a correspondence between their present attitudes and their past behavior, then they are likely to recall selectively supporting evidence and to overlook, or to fail to recall, that which is less supportive. Thus, attitude- consistent information is strengthened in the process of recollection, and at- titude-inconsistent information fades or is replaced. In any case, the basic fact that newly acquired information, as well as recently changed attitudes, can alter recollection has been well established. We will turn now to the specific problem of assessing the likelihood of recollection alteration in eyewitness accounts of UFOs.
In any case, enough has been reported about the Hill case to allow consideration of several factors that could have contributed to the al- teration of Betty Hill's recollection of an unusual event. Betty Hill believes that she and her husband, Barney, were abducted by humanoids on the night of September 19, , taken aboard an extrater- restrial vehicle, examined, and then apparently hypnotized by the humanoids before finally being released. According to Betty Hill's account, the humanoids had hypnotized the captives to prevent them from being able to recall the encounter.
Nevertheless, Betty had disturbing dreams that suggested the ex- periences of a humanoid abduction. Eventually, in , Betty Hill was able under hypnosis to recount a rather peculiar experience to psychiatrist Ben- jamin Simon. It matters not at all, for purposes of the present analysis, whether the Hills were really abducted by humanoids. Obviously, we have no basis for answering 8 D. What we can accomplish is simply to identify some salient factors that are likely to have affected recollection in such a case. First, it is significant that Betty Hill first recalled the event three years after it is purported to have occurred.
As we have noted, the passage of time between an event and eventual recollection increases the likelihood of recollection change. Second, Betty Hill had dreams that included images of humanoids and of spheroidal craft. Such dreams are apparently common, even among people who have never been abducted by extraterrestrials Jung, 1 Betty discussed these dream images with her husband and with her psychiatrist.
It is con- ceivable, from the perspective of the present analysis, that dream images could have been a source of misleading and erroneous information. That is, Betty Hill could have incorporated the memory of a dream with the memory of a waking experience. Third, Betty Hill's psychiatrist, Benjamin Simon, evidently supported Betty's interpretation of her memories, including the interpretation of her dreams and of hypnotically induced experiences, as being recollections of a genuine encounter with extraterrestrials.
Thus, by placing his client in a state of hypnosis, and by allowing her to discuss dream images while in that hypnotic state, psychiatrist Simon may have in- advertently facilitated the alteration of recollection. Betty Hill evidently interprets many events as being paranormal and is usually able to recall details that support such paranormal interpretations. It appears quite plausible that Betty Hill's recollections, regardless of their validity, have been affected by her favorable attitude towards paranormality as an explanatory concept.
In brief, dreams, hypnotic imaginings, and discussions with her spouse and with her psychiatrist are likely to have provided an adequate amount of mis- leading information to result in at least some degree of change in memory for Betty Hill. The length of time that elapsed between the original incident and eventual recollection and the witness's favorable attitudes towards para- normality may have contributed to memory alteration, too.
The Hill case is one of the most widely credited UFO sightings. We have shown that the possibility of recollection change must be considered in an analysis of any such eyewitness account of a complex and obscure event. Alterations in recollection 9 1. A considerable period of time has elapsed since the original event. There are no absolute temporal bounds for reliable recollection. However, laboratory studies have shown that intervals of 30 minutes or less can be critical in memory for the kind of complex events that we have been considering.
The witness has been recently exposed to potentially misleading post- event information. Such information might be acquired through messages, interviewers' biasing questions, the witness's own reminiscence, discussion with friends or family, dreams, reading material, or any of a number of other sources. Often, subtle, easily overlooked sources of misinformation have been shown to have the most devastating effects on the reliability of eyewitness reports.
The witness holds attitudes, or has recently undergone a change of at- titude, that would induce a particular bias in the recollection of details of an event. Some exposure to potentially misleading information and some consequent risk of adulteration of eyewitness reports is, perhaps, unavoidable. The impact in any given case of such factors as the witness's own reminiscences or of conversations with friends can only be roughly assessed.
Other sources of potentially misleading information can, however, be controlled. Biases of the principle investigator or of the field interviewer, for example, are sources of potentially misleading information, but researcher- and interviewer-bias effects can be curtailed with procedural and methodological controls Rosenthal, ; Barber, Such controls would include the following: Controlling the effects of researcher-and-interviewer bias is especially important when the research depends on the validity of an eyewitness's report of an otherwise unverifiable and nonreplicable event.
In short, biased questioning by a careless investigator or recent discussion with family or friends can be a source of misleading opinions and information. Added information is acquired and is often readily combined with original memory for the event. When created, the new memory can be as real to the person as a memory acquired as the result of true perception. Pitfalls in human research: Inducing resistance to misleading information.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. A modem myth of things seen in the sky R. Harcourt, Brace, and World. Alterations in memory produced by bonding of new in- formation to old. Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior, 4. Semantic integration of verbal information into visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4. Hypnosis and distortions in eyewitness memory. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
Experimenter effects in behavioral research. The effect of attitude on the recall of personal histories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, Reciprocal relation between attitudes and behavior recall: Committing people to newly formed attitudes. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 45, Use of hypnosis to enhance eyewitness accuracy: Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, Talks with Betty Hill: Flying Saucer Review, Flying Saucer Review, 23, Garden City, New Yorlc Doubleday.
July 14, , copyright by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Is modem parapsycho logical research worthy of serious consideration? The volume of literature by reputable scientists, the persistent interest of students, and the goverment funding of ESP projects make it difficult to evade this question. Over the past ten years, in the capacity of statistician and professional magician, I have had personal contact with more than a dozen paranormal experiments. My background encourages a thorough skepticism, but I also find it useful to recall that skeptics make mistakes.
For example, the scientific community did not believe in meteorites before about Indeed, in when a meteorite fell in Weston, Connecticut, an extended investigation was made by Professors Silliman and Kingsley of Yale. When Thomas Jefferson-then President of the United States and scientist of no small repute-was informed of the findings, he reportedly responded. Critics of ESP must acknowledge the possibility of missing a real phenomenon because of the difficulty of designing a suitable experiment.
However, the characteristics that lead many to be dubious about claims for ESP-its sporadic appearance, its need for a friendly environment, and its common association with fraud-require of the most sympathetic analyst not only skill in the analysis of nonstandard types of experimental design but appreciation of the differences between a sympathetic environment with flexible study design and experimentation that is simply careless or so structured as to be impossible to evaluate. In this article I use examples to indicate the problems associated with the generally informal methods of design and evaluation of ESPexperiments-in particular, the problems of multiple endpoints and subject cheating.
I then review some of the commentaries of outstanding statisticians on the problems of Reprinted with permission from Science, July 14, , copyright by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Finally, as an instance of using new analytic methods for non-standard experiments, I give examples of some new statistical techniques that permit appropriate evaluation of studies that allow instant feedback of information to the subject after each trial, an entirely legitimate device used to facilitate whatever learning process may be involved.
Sometimes the problem can be dealt with by setting up a second experiment to verify the manticipated but interesting outcome of a first experiment. In a much discussed card-guessing experiment reported by Soal and Bateman , a receiving subject tried to guess the name of a card that was being thought about by a sending subject. When the data were first analyzed, no significant deviations from chance were observed. Several years later the experimenters noticed that the guessing subject seemed to name not the card the sender was thinking about but rather the card two cards down in the deck an example of precognition.
Once this hypothesis was clearly formulated, the data were reanalyzed and new data were collected. The results stood up. The validity of Soal's experiment is still being debated there are claims that the records are unreliable [Scott and Haskell ; Hansel ; see also Chapter 11 of this volume] , but that he subjected the data to reanalysis after finding an unusual pattern seems acceptable to almost everyone.
Whatever the view about reanalysis, the design and evaluation of the later experiments fall squarely within the domain of familiar scientific practice. The problems are more acute in the next example. Three papers from the Journal of Parapsychology describe experiments with a young man called B. Kelly and Kanthanani ; Kanthanani and Kelly These experiments took place at J. The effects described, if performed under controlled conditions, seem like an exciting scientific break-through.
In May , 1 witnessed a presentation by B. I was asked to observe as a magician and made careful notes of what went on. Although the experiments were not controlled, I believe they highlight many problems inherent in drawing infrences from apparently well controlled experiments. Persi Diaconis Most of the demonstrations I witnessed B. In one experiment, two onlookers were invited to shuffle two decks of cards, a red deck and a blue deck. Two other onlookers were asked to name two different cards aloud: Both decks were placed face down on a table. We were instructed to turn over the top cards of each deck simultaneously and to continue turning up pairs in this manner until we came to either of the named cards.
The red-backed three of hearts appeared first. At this point, B. We were amazed to find that the fourteenth card was the blue-backed three of hearts. Many other tests of this kind were performed. Sometimes the performer guessed correctly, sometimes he did not. Close observation suggested that B. Consider the effect just described.
Suppose that, as the cards were turned face upwards, both threes of hearts appeared simultaneously. This would be considered a Making coincidence and the experiment could have been terminated. The experiment would also have been judged successful if the two aces of spades appeared simultaneously or if the ace of spades was turned up in one deck at the same time the three of hearts was turned up in the other.
There are other possibilities: Suppose that, after 14 cards had been counted off, the next fifteenth card had been the matching three of hearts. Certainly this would have been considered quite unusual. Similarly, if the fourteenth or fifteenth card had been the ace of spades, B.
What if the fourteenth card had been the three of diamonds?
AFU Book Library 2010 Author-Title
In one instance, after he had been "close", B. A major key to B. The odds against a coincidence of some sort are dramatically less than those against any prespecified particular one of them. For the experiment just described, including as successful outcomes all possibilities mentioned, the probability of success is greater than one chance in eight.
This is an example of exploiting multiple endpoints. To further complicate any analysis, several such ill-defined experiments were often conducted simultaneously, interacting with one another. The young performer electrified his audience. His frequently completely missed guesses were generally regarded with sympathy rather than doubt, and for most observers they seemed only to confirm the reality of B. During several trials, I saw him glance at the bottom card of the deck he was shuffling. He then cut the cards, leaving a quarter of an inch step in the pack. This fixed the location of the card he had seen.
Do You Feel Lucky?
The cards were then spread out, and a card was selected by one of the onlookers. When the selected card was replaced in the deck, B. He disregarded the first number named and asked someone else to name another small number-this time the difference in location between the card B. One of the observers counted down in the pack until he came to the "randomly" named card. Addressing the observer who originally selected a card, B. When presented in the confusing circumstances I have described, the trick seemed impossible.
About ten of the observers were psychology faculty, the remaining five were graduate students. When they tried to reconstruct the details of this presentation, they could not remember exactly who had thought of the number and who had selected the card. They muddled the circumstances of this particular test wih those of previous tests.
I call this blending of details the "bundle of sticks" phenomenon. It is a familiar element in standard magic tricks: An effect is produced several times under different circumstances with the use of a different technique each time. When an observer tries to reconstruct the modus operandi the weak points of one performance are ruled out because they were clearly not present during other performances. The bundle of sticks is stronger than any single stick.
Later, some of the observers realized that B. However, his performance must have made quite an impression on some of the observers because the july 13, , issue of Science reported that B. My personal curiosity about the possibility of B. This position is further discussed below. Another expose of which I have first-hand knowledge concerns Ted Serios. Serios claimed that he could create psychic photographs on Polaroid film in cameras he had never seen before. A group of scientists in Chicago and Denver had become convinced that there was no trickery involved: I became involved when Eisenbud's book.
A team of experienced magicians went to Denver to take a close look at Serios's performance. Several news teams were present, each team having brought its own Polaroid film.
After a short time, I managed secretly to switch about 20 boxes of their film with marked film we had brought along. We wanted to determine whether their film had been previously exposed. It had not been. The fact, however, that it had been so easy for me to switch the film by sleight of hand clearly indicated that the investigators did not have adequate control over the essential materials.
Conditions remained like this during our several days stay, and our observation revealed irreparable methodological flaws in all phases of the experiments. Serios openly used a small paper tube that he placed on his forehead pointing toward the camera "to help focus the thought waves". I observed that he occasionally placed this tube in front of the camera lens.
On one trial, I thought I saw him secretly load something into the tube. When I asked to examine the tube, pandemonium broke loose. Several of the Denver scientists present jumped up, shouting things like, "You can't do that! He was not searched. We were later able to duplicate Serios's pictures in several ways. After our expos6 of how we believe Serios obtained his results Eisendrath and Reynolds ; Eisenbud , Life magazine published an article about Serios's psychic powers, with no mention of our findings.
- Lucia di Lammermoor (The Bride of Lammermoor), An Opera in Three Acts: For Solo, Chorus/Choral and Orchestra with Italian and English Text (Vocal Score): 0 (Kalmus Edition) (Italian Edition).
- Do You Feel Lucky?.
- .
- Deceptions: A Connor Hawthorne Mystery (Connor Hawthorne Mysteries Book 1).
- .
- .
- .
Paranormal claims tend to receive far more media coverage than their exposes. There are many other reports of subject cheating in ESP experiments. For example, Gardner figured, out how Russian women "saw" with their fingertips and, in a later paper a exposes Uri Geller's supposedly "foolproof alteration of the internal memory of several pieces of Nitinol wire. Nitinol is an alloy of nickel and titanium that has a memory. Under intense heat, a piece of Nitinol wire can be given a shape. When cold, it can easily be reshaped between the fingers.
After being heated, it snaps back to the original shape. One of the most persistently quoted proofs of Geller's paranormal powers is Eldon Byrd's claim that "Geller altered the lattice structure of a metal alloy in a way that cannot be duplicated" Byrd As usual, there is a story of amazing feats performed under test conditions. I'm not sure I pulled it off very well. It was supposed to be just a bit of gentle fun poked at the idea of memery itself.
Or perhaps, poking fun at the idea of Brett Favrery itself. Some folks on a messageboard were complaining about the endless propagation of Brett Favre throughout the internet, and I said to myself, "HEY! Do You Feel Lucky? Tuesday, September 22, Brett Favre Meme! I don't think it's truly been called out and recognized for the meme that it is!
It's pretty clear to me that the Brett Favre meme is in full swing!