:lmnuendo:
Ok, honestly now.
The basics of the experiment: I will roll a six-sided die 100 times, recording the sequence of the results: 1-4 (L), or 3-6 (H). I will then PM those results to Rat and Cain. I will also PM 000 and Nigel, and tell them my expectations and assumptions of this experiment.
BabylonH will them attempt to use magic to determine each roll. He will send those results to Cram and Fomenter.
We will then compare my rolls to his predictions. As far as my math can determine, he has a 66% chance of getting each roll correct purely by chance. We will see if by magic we can predict with a 25% better accuracy; 25% of 66% is 16.5%, so we are looking for about 82 correct guesses out of 100.
Details:
1. BabylonH, do you want to predict before, during, or after I roll 100 times?
2. What should be the timeframe for this experiment?
3. Do you want any additional safeguards to assure I will be fair and impartial?
I think you should just challenge him to 10 games of Blackjack.
Card counting > magic, every single time.
I think we still think we need two controls
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 10:19:30 PM
I think we still think we need two controls
In that case, I'll predict it 100 times, and PM the results to two other people?
Ok, Thurnez and TBS will also make 100 predictions, and I'll throw in 100 coin flips, as well.
That is to say, I will flip a coin 100 times. Heads will be (L), tails will be (H), to randomize the prediction.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 10:17:23 PM
:lmnuendo:
Ok, honestly now.
The basics of the experiment: I will roll a six-sided die 100 times, recording the sequence of the results: 1-4 (L), or 3-6 (H). I will then PM those results to Rat and Cain. I will also PM 000 and Nigel, and tell them my expectations and assumptions of this experiment.
BabylonH will them attempt to use magic to determine each roll. He will send those results to Cram and Fomenter.
We will then compare my rolls to his predictions. As far as my math can determine, he has a 66% chance of getting each roll correct purely by chance. We will see if by magic we can predict with a 25% better accuracy; 25% of 66% is 16.5%, so we are looking for about 82 correct guesses out of 100.
Details:
1. BabylonH, do you want to predict before, during, or after I roll 100 times?
2. What should be the timeframe for this experiment?
3. Do you want any additional safeguards to assure I will be fair and impartial?
To get the best mindframe I need to have a slightly different physical environment than I have at the moment, but what time you roll vs when I predict is irrelevent for me, so you can roll and record the results whenever you like. I plan to do the predictions a bit later tonight (between 8 and 10 hours from now).
I trust in your fairness, I don't think you'd rig the results, and you have enough safeguards built in that I don't see any other measures that need to be taken.
This is starting to sound like an episode of Hustle, only without Jaime Murray as eye candy.
Right. I'll PM my results to Cainad and Suu, when I make them, which should probably be in a few hours.
Sounding good?
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2009, 10:26:25 PM
This is starting to sound like an episode of Hustle, only without Jaime Murray as eye candy.
:lol:
as will I after I eat
She can act quite well, you know. Actually, really well. You'd never guess, from watching the series.
Ok I sent my guesses to Jenne and BRIS to keep it fair
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 11:10:02 PM
Ok I sent my guesses to Jenne and BRIS to keep it fair
HA HA . Bris.
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2009, 10:32:14 PM
She can act quite well, you know. Actually, really well. You'd never guess, from watching the series.
i thought she was pretty ace in Dexter, if you've ever watched that, but um.. to be on topic...
What happens if Babylon "wins"... is science broken?
x
edd
Quote from: TSosBR! on July 01, 2009, 11:50:17 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2009, 10:32:14 PM
She can act quite well, you know. Actually, really well. You'd never guess, from watching the series.
i thought she was pretty ace in Dexter, if you've ever watched that, but um.. to be on topic...
I've only seen a few episodes actually, so I didn't know she was in it. But yeah, when given a decent role and good lines, she is excellent.
My results are PM'd.
Quote from: TSosBR! on July 01, 2009, 11:50:17 PM
What happens if Babylon "wins"... is science broken?
no but it lends some validity to his claim
science's job is not to say a certain claim is crap
its to test the claim
that's what all those anti-science new age magic freaks don't understand
if they could perform a certain task
IT IS SCIENCE
Correct.
I think there is a difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism. Scientists need to be skeptics, they assume X is unknown and look to see if they can find data that may prove or disprove. Pseudo-skeptics though start from the assumption that X is false, unless data proves otherwise.
I think this is one of the key bits that some people label 'fundie'.
Really Real Skeptics start with the null hypothesis and then try to prove that wrong. Start with the assumption that there is nothing there and then try to find evidence that there is.
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis
QuoteIn statistics, the only way of supporting your hypothesis is to refute the null hypothesis. Rather than trying to prove your idea (the alternate hypothesis) right you must show that the null hypothesis is likely to be wrong – you have to 'refute' or 'nullify' the null hypothesis. Unfortunately you have to assume that your alternate hypothesis is wrong until you find evidence to the contrary.
Ok, i'm going to do this at noon, EST. Be prepared.
1-4 low 5-6 high.
of course that gives you roughly 66.6..% but sometimes you must make do.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 02, 2009, 03:05:34 AM
1-4 low 5-6 high.
of course that gives you roughly 66.6..% but sometimes you must make do.
No, High is 3-6. Which means roughly one third of the results will be both High and Low. Babylon's magic apparently works best if he has a 2/3rds chance of getting it right anyway.
You must have seen my pre-edit post.
So, I will roll the die, and record the number.
For example, if I roll
1
2
3
4
5
6
It can be scored in the following ways:
1 L
2 L
3 L,H
4 L,H
5 H
6 H
We will be matching the numbers v. the predictions.
what's interesting with this is that while in one sense he gets a 66% chance of being correct, in another sense, he can be RIGHT 33% of the time, and LUCKY 33% of the time.
I'd really like to figure another way to get a 2/3 probability much more cleanly.
On a roll from 1-4 is low
on a roll from 5-6 is high.
He should average 2/3rds merely by picking low.
However Long Walk statistics lets us know that this is not the case. He will most likely not reach the target goal of +25% percent using that technique, and he will definitely not make it if the Long Walk goes against his favor. He will most likely have to mix up his guesses in order to make the goal.
My predictions are sent to Cram and Fomenter.
I included numerical predictions as well as High Low, to see how close those are.
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2009, 10:19:03 PM
I think you should just challenge him to 10 games of Blackjack.
Card counting > magic, every single time.
THIS.
would it be cheating to also send my prediction to LMNO prior to him rolling the dice? I don't wanna step outside the established rules, I just think that might make it more likely he'll roll the way I predicted.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 02, 2009, 05:04:51 AM
would it be cheating to also send my prediction to LMNO prior to him rolling the dice? I don't wanna step outside the established rules, I just think that might make it more likely he'll roll the way I predicted.
:lulz:
This shouldn't be interesting. But I will have plenty to think about if it is.
Also: this experiment should be done at least twice, to ensure that the results can be reliably replicated. Not necessarily immediately after this one, but at some point.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 10:17:23 PM
:lmnuendo:
Ok, honestly now.
The basics of the experiment: I will roll a six-sided die 100 times, recording the sequence of the results: 1-4 (L), or 3-6 (H). I will then PM those results to Rat and Cain. I will also PM 000 and Nigel, and tell them my expectations and assumptions of this experiment.
huh what? do I need to do anything?
here's 100 dice rolls: http://bit.ly/trips-secret-stash-of-random-numbers knock yourself out. it's my prediction.
if they are not correct, then maybe the gods messed it up and this is actually the correct prediction for that sports picks game thingy I did a while ago when I used a coin and failed horribly.
In which case the coin from back then is the correct prediction for today.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 02, 2009, 08:04:28 AM
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 10:17:23 PM
:lmnuendo:
Ok, honestly now.
The basics of the experiment: I will roll a six-sided die 100 times, recording the sequence of the results: 1-4 (L), or 3-6 (H). I will then PM those results to Rat and Cain. I will also PM 000 and Nigel, and tell them my expectations and assumptions of this experiment.
huh what? do I need to do anything?
here's 100 dice rolls: http://bit.ly/trips-secret-stash-of-random-numbers knock yourself out. it's my prediction.
if they are not correct, then maybe the gods messed it up and this is actually the correct prediction for that sports picks game thingy I did a while ago when I used a coin and failed horribly.
In which case the coin from back then is the correct prediction for today.
You need to reveal his expectation afterwards.
okay. he didnt PM me yet btw.
also dont click the link, you! those numbers are mine. get your own.
Quote from: Cainad on July 02, 2009, 05:32:10 AM
This shouldn't be interesting. But I will have plenty to think about if it is.
Also: this experiment should be done at least twice, to ensure that the results can be reliably replicated. Not necessarily immediately after this one, but at some point.
I would suggest at least three times, and with a sceptic doing the guessing once.
Also, someone with statistics experience (NIGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!) should look at the results, because there is a particular test (chi-squared? I can't remember) which you can apply to tell you if deviations in answers fall within a reasonable range or if they indicate something else is going on.
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2009, 11:40:26 AM
Quote from: Cainad on July 02, 2009, 05:32:10 AM
This shouldn't be interesting. But I will have plenty to think about if it is.
Also: this experiment should be done at least twice, to ensure that the results can be reliably replicated. Not necessarily immediately after this one, but at some point.
I would suggest at least three times, and with a sceptic doing the guessing once.
Also, someone with statistics experience (NIGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!) should look at the results, because there is a particular test (chi-squared? I can't remember) which you can apply to tell you if deviations in answers fall within a reasonable range or if they indicate something else is going on.
i'm not sure how applicable chi is to this situation, but then again im not sure I entirely remember how to do the test :P I think it basically lets you calculate whether there is a significant difference between expected values and actual values, normally you'd use it on the whole data set, so, how many times BH guessed correctly against how many times he was expected to guess correctly or something.
there are probably other ways of testing the results for significance, like a Mann-Whitney U test, which could be used to calculate whether there was a siginificant difference between BH's guesses and a random skeptics guesses. I think...
x
edd
That might be the one I was thinking of, then. I only did statistics as a part of my biology and psychology courses and that was a long time ago, so I cannot really remember the names of various tests very well.
I now realize I probably could have used Wikipedia to check. Oh well.
I have Thurney's predictions.
Ok, I decided to start early. Here are the die and coin:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/Dieadcoin.jpg)
I am putting this in an excel spreadsheet.
You can see where he's injected lead into the dice, if you look carefully.
:lulz:
OK, I have the results.
Anyway, I have sent the results to Cain and Rat.
I have also flipped a coin, and recorded those results.
In addition, Ratatosk has sent me a binary number chosen at random, with the ones and zeros translated to Highs and Lows.
So, I was thinking: Any 3 or 4 I roll is automatically right.... the only real predictive ability comes between 1 & 2 and 5 & 6...
...So doesn't that just set the odds back to 50%?
Statistics majors, check the fuck in!
Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2009, 02:58:35 PM
Anyway, I have sent the results to Cain and Rat.
I have also flipped a coin, and recorded those results.
In addition, Ratatosk has sent me a binary number chosen at random, with the ones and zeros translated to Highs and Lows.
So, I was thinking: Any 3 or 4 I roll is automatically right.... the only real predictive ability comes between 1 & 2 and 5 & 6...
...So doesn't that just set the odds back to 50%?
Statistics majors, check the fuck in!
Are we only checking Low and High or are we crosschecking numbers as well?
I think the terms of the experiment are that Babylon will predict either Low or High.
I still think that if the predictive ability will come from deciding low or high, and two of six numbers don't count, then there's still just a 50% chance of being right.
if 3 & 4 are considered both high and low, then they're always right. We can discount them. However many 3s and 4s I roll will automatically be recorded as "correct", which will artificially inflate the predictive ability.
Sure, the "probability" that you'll either get a roll in the set of [1-4] or [3-6] is 2/3, but if we're testing the ability to predict the correct set, isn't there a 1 in 2 chance of predicting a roll that will actually be wrong?
Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2009, 03:49:13 PM
I think the terms of the experiment are that Babylon will predict either Low or High.
I still think that if the predictive ability will come from deciding low or high, and two of six numbers don't count, then there's still just a 50% chance of being right.
if 3 & 4 are considered both high and low, then they're always right. We can discount them. However many 3s and 4s I roll will automatically be recorded as "correct", which will artificially inflate the predictive ability.
Sure, the "probability" that you'll either get a roll in the set of [1-4] or [3-6] is 2/3, but if we're testing the ability to predict the correct set, isn't there a 1 in 2 chance of predicting a roll that will actually be wrong?
I agree with you, I thought if it were weighted with the guessed number as well... then maybe that would help the numbers, but otherwise this looks like a 50/50 to me.
First... thing... in the... morning...
should not have clicked... too much math talk--GAH! :asplode:
Oh, um, I have BDS's predictions.
If you want to PM them to me, I can add it to the spreadsheet.
1 L
2 L
3 L, H
4 L, H
5 H
6 H
If BH guesses H, the odds of him being right are 4/6
If BH guesses L, the odds of him being right are 4/6
I suck at stats, but I'm pretty sure we should see a 66% success rate
Yes, if he made 100 guesses, it is very likely he would get 50 to 60 of them correct.
Yeah, like I said, the probability he'll be right is 66%.
But the probability his predictions will have any effect on his final score seems to be 50%.
The only time a prediction can be considered "wrong" is if he says rolls of 1&2 are "High", and rolls of 5&6 are "low".
That really seems to me to be a more elaborate way of calling heads and tails.
Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2009, 04:15:31 PM
Yeah, like I said, the probability he'll be right is 66%.
But the probability his predictions will have any effect on his final score seems to be 50%.
The only time a prediction can be considered "wrong" is if he says rolls of 1&2 are "High", and rolls of 5&6 are "low".
That really seems to me to be a more elaborate way of calling heads and tails.
It essentially is, except it is a really wide coin that lands on its side roughly every third flip.
For example, I could roll the die, and ask, "is it 1&2, or is it 5&6?", and simply re-roll if it's 3&4, because either answer would be correct.
So, with a randomized rolling process, it should come up 1&2 equally as often as 5&6. That's 50%, right?
Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2009, 04:07:47 PM
If you want to PM them to me, I can add it to the spreadsheet.
Sent.
And it does seem like an awfully complicated version of a coin flip. Why couldn't we do that, again?
Babylon claims his magic works best if he starts with a 2/3 chance of being right. Which, technically, this does.
Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2009, 04:18:19 PM
For example, I could roll the die, and ask, "is it 1&2, or is it 5&6?", and simply re-roll if it's 3&4, because either answer would be correct.
So, with a randomized rolling process, it should come up 1&2 equally as often as 5&6. That's 50%, right?
Sounds right. Though, if you want to get technical, I think it would be 50% over a series of 100 rolls. Cause in any one set of 100 rolls, you might, by chance, get an inordinate amount of one of the sets of numbers.
True. Probability and actuality are fairly different.
Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2009, 04:07:47 PM
If you want to PM them to me, I can add it to the spreadsheet.
I'll forward Thorney's shall I?
Go for it.
K, on it.
Cheers.
So, uh...
Anyone hear from Babylon today?
no why? spreadsheet done?
I don't have his predictions, and I'm going away for the weekend.
So, results on Monday!
Quote from: LMNO on July 02, 2009, 08:02:43 PM
I don't have his predictions, and I'm going away for the weekend.
So, results on Monday!
I sent them to Cram and Fomentor. Didn't know if I was supposed to send them to you too or not.
Ah. You can send them to me.
predictions, including the actual numbers predicted, just for fun
6,1,2,2,6,5,1,2,1,5,4,1,5,1,4,6,1,2,3,2,5,1,1,3,4,2,2,5,6,3,1,3,1,5,3,3,6,3,4,3,3,1,3,2,6,4,6,3,2,3,3,3,1,1,2,5,2,4,2,3,2,5,1,2,5,1,5,3,4,5,1,2,4,1,6,5,1,6,5,1,6,5,1,6,1,3,2,3,4,5,5,2,3,2,3,5,2,3,5,1
H,L,L,L,H,H,L,L,L,H,H,L,H,L,H,H,L,L,L,L,H,L,L,L,H,L,L,H,H,L,L,L,L,H,L,L,H,L,H,L,L,L,L,L,H,H,H,L,L,L,L,L,L,L,L,H,L,H,L,L,L,H,L,L,H,L,H,L,H,H,L,L,H,L,H,H,L,H,H,L,H,H,L,H,L,L,L,L,H,H,H,L,L,L,L,H,L,L,H,L
BTW, has anyone contacted James Randi yet? If Babylon actually does have something going here then we might be eligible for a million bucks.
Quote from: Iason Gayle on July 02, 2009, 08:40:52 PM
BTW, has anyone contacted James Randi yet? If Babylon actually does have something going here then we might be eligible for a million bucks.
You're just trying to evoke skeptic energy to mess with the results.
SPERIMENT ROONT.
:argh!:
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2009, 11:40:26 AM
Quote from: Cainad on July 02, 2009, 05:32:10 AM
This shouldn't be interesting. But I will have plenty to think about if it is.
Also: this experiment should be done at least twice, to ensure that the results can be reliably replicated. Not necessarily immediately after this one, but at some point.
I would suggest at least three times, and with a sceptic doing the guessing once.
Also, someone with statistics experience (NIGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!) should look at the results, because there is a particular test (chi-squared? I can't remember) which you can apply to tell you if deviations in answers fall within a reasonable range or if they indicate something else is going on.
What? Oh hi. What am I supposed to do? Interpret the statistical deviation of the results if they fall outside of the expected range of probability?
Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2009, 09:01:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2009, 11:40:26 AM
Quote from: Cainad on July 02, 2009, 05:32:10 AM
This shouldn't be interesting. But I will have plenty to think about if it is.
Also: this experiment should be done at least twice, to ensure that the results can be reliably replicated. Not necessarily immediately after this one, but at some point.
I would suggest at least three times, and with a sceptic doing the guessing once.
Also, someone with statistics experience (NIGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!) should look at the results, because there is a particular test (chi-squared? I can't remember) which you can apply to tell you if deviations in answers fall within a reasonable range or if they indicate something else is going on.
What? Oh hi. What am I supposed to do? Interpret the statistical deviation of the results if they fall outside of the expected range of probability?
I think the first question was about the existing probabilities:
So Babylon picks L or H (low or high) and 1234=L 3456=H
What is the statistical likelihood that he will randomly pick the right one, we're looking for 66% or something near there. LMNO thinks this boils down to 50/50 and I'm inclined to agree.
WHAT DOES THE NIGEL THINKS?
Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2009, 09:01:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2009, 11:40:26 AM
Quote from: Cainad on July 02, 2009, 05:32:10 AM
This shouldn't be interesting. But I will have plenty to think about if it is.
Also: this experiment should be done at least twice, to ensure that the results can be reliably replicated. Not necessarily immediately after this one, but at some point.
I would suggest at least three times, and with a sceptic doing the guessing once.
Also, someone with statistics experience (NIGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!) should look at the results, because there is a particular test (chi-squared? I can't remember) which you can apply to tell you if deviations in answers fall within a reasonable range or if they indicate something else is going on.
What? Oh hi. What am I supposed to do? Interpret the statistical deviation of the results if they fall outside of the expected range of probability?
Yes. And also to generally correct any grievous mistakes made on our part about statistics and probability (of which I personally see none, but I don't know much about this sort of thing and I am also kinda dumb).
It's pretty much a binary question, so yeah, it boils down to 50/50 if we're just looking at a high/low ration and not sorting his guesses by accuracy.
The problem, if there is one, I think lays Nigel is that both 3 and 4 are both high and low
I mean, if we're throwing away the threes and fours, and the fives and sixes count the same and the ones and twos count the same, what's the point of this exercise? It's just a complicated way to use a die as a coin.
Unless I am missing something really crucial in the interpretation...
I don't think so, Nigel. Seems that way to me too...
Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2009, 09:17:19 PM
Unless I am missing something really crucial in the interpretation...
its because he claims he can predict 66% accuracy not 50%
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 02, 2009, 09:41:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2009, 09:17:19 PM
Unless I am missing something really crucial in the interpretation...
its because he claims he can predict 66% accuracy not 50%
33% not 50%
He's basing that on a line by Pete Carroll where Pete says that if something is 2/3's likely, magic has a higher likelihood of impacting the results. Though, to be fair to Pete, he would probably not consider this a useful experiment in magic.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 02, 2009, 09:50:37 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 02, 2009, 09:41:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2009, 09:17:19 PM
Unless I am missing something really crucial in the interpretation...
its because he claims he can predict 66% accuracy not 50%
33% not 50%
He's basing that on a line by Pete Carroll where Pete says that if something is 2/3's likely, magic has a higher likelihood of impacting the results. Though, to be fair to Pete, he would probably not consider this a useful experiment in magic.
Flipping a low 1-4 is a 2/3 occurrence. Flipping high on a 5-6 is a 1/3 occurrence.
Since you seem to have a problem finding a way to model predictions as correct 2/3rds of the time you should have the experiment be to influence the outcome of the results in one direction or the other.
since the number range I list above has a 2/3 chance of being low it's the low numbers that need to be affected.
Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2009, 09:01:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2009, 11:40:26 AM
Quote from: Cainad on July 02, 2009, 05:32:10 AM
This shouldn't be interesting. But I will have plenty to think about if it is.
Also: this experiment should be done at least twice, to ensure that the results can be reliably replicated. Not necessarily immediately after this one, but at some point.
I would suggest at least three times, and with a sceptic doing the guessing once.
Also, someone with statistics experience (NIGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!) should look at the results, because there is a particular test (chi-squared? I can't remember) which you can apply to tell you if deviations in answers fall within a reasonable range or if they indicate something else is going on.
What? Oh hi. What am I supposed to do? Interpret the statistical deviation of the results if they fall outside of the expected range of probability?
Thats what I was hoping for.
Though devising a better test might seem like a plan as well.
Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on July 02, 2009, 10:33:26 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 02, 2009, 09:50:37 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 02, 2009, 09:41:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 02, 2009, 09:17:19 PM
Unless I am missing something really crucial in the interpretation...
its because he claims he can predict 66% accuracy not 50%
33% not 50%
He's basing that on a line by Pete Carroll where Pete says that if something is 2/3's likely, magic has a higher likelihood of impacting the results. Though, to be fair to Pete, he would probably not consider this a useful experiment in magic.
Flipping a low 1-4 is a 2/3 occurrence. Flipping high on a 5-6 is a 1/3 occurrence.
Since you seem to have a problem finding a way to model predictions as correct 2/3rds of the time you should have the experiment be to influence the outcome of the results in one direction or the other.
since the number range I list above has a 2/3 chance of being low it's the low numbers that need to be affected.
This might work. Something about it is bothering me.
I guess one of the things that bugs me is that it's still a binary test. You can "give" him a certain percentage of the guesses, but it's still basically coin-flipping.
5's could be medium and 6's could be high which would give a high medium and low results. it would leave the initial 2/3 chance alone yet add a higher chance of being wrong. Since the experiment is about the initial chances it would not be unfair to do. I just saw the problem to be finding a experiment that gives something a 2/3 chance of occurrence of happening and devising a test based on that occurrence.
I want to create a pention to ban probability from our mahdjique
something about mathemagicians using our own dice rolls against us as coin flips
or :?
I apologize for that post. It was supposed to be a semi-intelligent post that would be my attempt to help us discuss our way out of this confusion, but I panicked.
low = 1-4
high = 5-6
?
2/3 probability of being right if you randomly guess high or low.
x
edd
its low 1 - 4
high 3 - 6
3,4 are both low and high
i know i was suggesting an alternative, in which the probability of being correct is actually 2/3 rather than 1/2 :D
edit: course we'd have to repeat the experiment if we wanted to do that
edit2: with our current experimental results, as well as looking at LMNO's "is magic 25% better" hypothesis, we could also calculate whether there is a significant statistical difference using a normal distribution (as the mean correct answers would be 50 p=0.5, n<10 so its basically a perfect set-up for that test... i think... nigel?)
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on July 03, 2009, 10:26:48 PM
low = 1-4
high = 5-6
?
2/3 probability of being right if you randomly guess high or low.
x
edd
This is what I was going to suggest, actually. In this case he knows he has a 2/3 chance of being right if he guesses low, so the trick is achieving significantly better than 2/3 accuracy.
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2009, 02:41:34 PM
You can see where he's injected lead into the dice, if you look carefully.
fact: easiest way to load a die is to leave it in the sun
thread needs more pie
It's not quite a coin flip. If the game was structured a little differently, with Babylon calling four numbers for each roll, and scoring a 'hit' if one of those four were correct, ('miss' otherwise,) I think you would agree that the game wouldn't be a coin flip exercise. The current version is just a special case of the above, where Babylon limits himself to only two groups of four numbers to call. In fact, you could argue that it works a little against him in that if he mahgiqueally manipulates the dice to roll more 3's and 4's, the control groups will also score more accurately.
What happened to this experiment? I've been lurking and anticipating the results. Now I'm kind of disappointed. Did Babylon puss out?
Babylon and the roller both posted their results/predictions, we're pretty much waiting for the receivers to confirm that Babylon made the predictions first and for someone to tally everything up.
Oh, sorry.
This is what LMNO sent me:
4
4
3
2
2
5
4
5
2
3
4
2
5
3
2
6
2
6
5
5
3
5
6
3
4
2
2
4
4
1
3
4
2
4
2
4
2
5
1
4
6
1
4
6
2
1
6
2
1
1
4
5
1
6
3
3
4
2
1
4
2
5
3
6
5
5
3
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
6
3
1
4
6
3
5
2
1
6
4
1
3
3
4
1
4
1
3
4
5
6
3
Does someone want to do a tally or something?
workin on it
Can't wait for the results to come out
my calculations aint perfect, as two of LMNO's rolls went awol. So my tally is out of 98.
BH correctly predicted 66 rolls as L/H, meaning he was correct 67.3% of the time. whether this is significant is yet to be decided (in my opinion).
He correctly predicted the exact number 16.3% of the time.
So we can test this more thoroughly, I'd like everyone who did control samples to send me the number correct guesses they made (i don't really need the actual results). Then we calculate a mean+standard deviation and see if BH's result is significantly above the avg. If a few of you also want send me the number of correctly guessed numbers then I can do a similar test on that result.
thanks,
edd
Morning, everyone.
I'm working up a spreadsheet now. I've got predictions from a coin flip, Rat, TBS, TI, and Babylon. I've also shown what would happen if you guessed "All High" or "All Low".
On top of that, I've shown the results if we take out all "guaranteed hits" (3&4).
I'll post the spreadsheet when I'm done with it.
I've also come up with a more satisfying way of getting a 2/3 chance, but we'll get to that later.
Ok, here are the results:
First, 100 rolls of a 6-sided die:
4
4
3
2
2
5
4
5
2
3
4
2
5
3
2
6
2
6
5
5
3
5
6
3
4
2
2
4
4
1
3
4
2
4
2
4
2
5
1
4
6
1
4
6
2
1
6
2
1
1
4
5
1
6
3
3
4
2
1
4
2
5
3
6
5
5
3
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
6
3
1
4
6
3
5
2
1
6
4
1
3
3
4
1
4
1
3
4
5
6
3
Something to note: 3 and 4 came up 45 times, which will raise everyone's score higher. So, I've calculated the percentages both with and without the "automatic hits" of 3 and 4.
For example:
If I simply guess "All High", I would be right 69% of the time, but only 43% for the ones that mattered.
If I guess "All Low", I'm right 76%, with a 56% chance of being right if we discount the 3s and 4s.
Onward!
ALL HIGH: 69% / 43%
ALL LOW: 76% / 56%
COIN FLIP: 70% / 45%
RATATOSK: 72% / 49%
TBS: 73% / 51%
THURNEZ: 78% / 60%
And now...
For Babylon's "straight" picks (that is, predicting the actual number): 21% accuracy.
For picking High or Low: 77%
When excluding the Guarantees: 58%
Conclusions: the Hypothesis was that when given a 2/3 chance of being correct, Babylon would guess 25% better than random, which is [25 x .66 = 16.5] [16.5 + 66 = 82.5] 82.5% correct.
Compared to the four other random picks (if you guys want, you can explain how you randomized your picks), it doesn't look like Babylon was significantly better than anyone else (if you notice, Thurnez beat him); in fact, someone who simply chose all low without guessing at all was only a one-guess difference from Babylon.
And, for my prediction (as told to Rat and Nigel): I predicted you'd do better than statistically average, but you wouldn't reach 82% correct.
So, am I psychic?
Anyway, if you want to do this again, I have a better method for 66% using tarot cards. Let me know.
PS - if you want to check my work (please do - I probably fucked something up), the spreadsheet is here: http://ifile.it/zojq5a3
casts Phantasmal Killer on LMNO.
LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT!
:mittens: to LMNO for the crunch
My numbers were created by taking a random string of data as binary 1's and 0's, then I turned the first 100 bits into Low for 0 and High for 1.
However, as LMNO points out this wasn't a test that really met the 2/3'rds rule, so I'd like to see his next idea :)
We should only keep going with this if we want to stack randomness up next to Magick. If someone wants to try magical divination, and really believe in it, we'll try again. If it's just for shits and giggles, there's no real point.
So far, Babylon is the only one willing to put his money where his mouth is. Anyone else want to give it a go?
I'd offer to use the process BH used to get his numbers and repeat the experiment, only my access is decidedly shifty right now.
As an aside, I've been reading Disinfo's Book of Lies again. There is some quite useful material in there for any budding fiction or creative writer.
this reminds me of the Science Experiment: Chaos Magic (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=17920.0) thread, except that this thread actually produced results.
One of the problems I have with this experiment is that I've never met anyone (aside from Babylon) who claims that they can use magic to influence (or predict) concrete stuff like this. AFAIK Magic is typically used for more vague stuff with less measurable outcomes. (hence the argument that it doesn't do anything)
I know there are number of people onboard who have utilized sigils. If we could agree on something to measure and a related statement of intent, I'm sure a few people (myself included) would be willing to put that method to the test.
I don't know that Sigil magic, in and of itself, would produce something measurable from relative positions... that is, for me it seems to nudge things, generally things in my own environment that I can have an impact on. However, memetic magic seems far more likely to create an impact in some measurable way. Meme Magic, at least in some of the ways I've seen it presented are loosely related to Sigil magic, but have the added function of externalizing the sigil and promoting it through some social group.
I'll dig through the Book of Atem tonight and see if anything jumps out as inspiring.
I'm sitting here in the psychological model, and from where I'm sitting, we're about to hit a semantic bump because there are two different definitions of magic we're trying to test:
A) Magic is just the application of will to change the universe (in which case, getting out of bed this morning was a sort of magic)
B) Magic is the application of supernatural forces to change the universe.
we can test the second one, but the first one might be too vague for empiricism.
As far as I can tell, the experiment in this thread was testing to see if accurate predictions can be made when separated from all known forms of external information.
If accurate predictions can be made, that either points to a faulty experiment, or an unknown source of information* which can be accessed through certain processes currently referred to as Magic.
*there are a few other explanations as well, but fuck it.
Quote from: LMNO on July 06, 2009, 02:02:14 PM
it doesn't look like Babylon was significantly better than anyone else (if you notice, Thurnez beat him);
considering I chose from looking at 100 random porn jpgs, and testing if it gave me a slight stiffy
that doesn't bear well
Or it might be THE ONLY ONE TRUE MAGICK.
I was going to run it through a normal distibution test, to see whether there was a significant difference looking at z-values, but as soon as I calculated the standard deviation I realised it was a waste of time to go any further. All the results were within one standard deviation from the mean, which means none of them would have satisfied the criteria of the test.
Anyways: more magick testing! this is fun... sorta...
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on July 06, 2009, 01:10:56 PM
my calculations aint perfect, as two of LMNO's rolls went awol. So my tally is out of 98.
BH correctly predicted 66 rolls as L/H, meaning he was correct 67.3% of the time. whether this is significant is yet to be decided (in my opinion).
He correctly predicted the exact number 16.3% of the time.
So we can test this more thoroughly, I'd like everyone who did control samples to send me the number correct guesses they made (i don't really need the actual results). Then we calculate a mean+standard deviation and see if BH's result is significantly above the avg. If a few of you also want send me the number of correctly guessed numbers then I can do a similar test on that result.
thanks,
edd
So, in other words, in both cases he predicted the statistical norm. :lulz: I'd do precisely as well drawing numbers out of my arse.
So much for "magickque".
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2009, 05:48:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 06, 2009, 02:02:14 PM
it doesn't look like Babylon was significantly better than anyone else (if you notice, Thurnez beat him);
considering I chose from looking at 100 random porn jpgs, and testing if it gave me a slight stiffy
that doesn't bear well
That sounds like magic to me.
Sorry everyone for not managing to pull impressive magic out. Not that it is any real excuse but I was at the beginning of one of the worst bouts of physical illness I can remember.
And thank you LMNO for setting this up and putting in the work to figure out the statistics and whatnot. I think 21% dead on might be statistically significant, since the chance of getting it dead on purely randomly is more like 16.6 but thgat could also just be wishful thinking on my part.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 07:26:54 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2009, 05:48:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 06, 2009, 02:02:14 PM
it doesn't look like Babylon was significantly better than anyone else (if you notice, Thurnez beat him);
considering I chose from looking at 100 random porn jpgs, and testing if it gave me a slight stiffy
that doesn't bear well
That sounds like magic to me.
Sorry everyone for not managing to pull impressive magic out. Not that it is any real excuse but I was at the beginning of one of the worst bouts of physical illness I can remember.
And thank you LMNO for setting this up and putting in the work to figure out the statistics and whatnot. I think 21% dead on might be statistically significant, since the chance of getting it dead on purely randomly is more like 16.6 but thgat could also just be wishful thinking on my part.
Don't worry about it. You're hardly the first Mahdgjickque freak to be
made a total fool of discredited.
Babylon, if you want to try another experiment, let me know.
in a sample of only 100 tosses, the difference between 16.6% and 21% correct is covered by random chance. You're only beating the average by four guesses.
what are your thoughts on this BH?
it sounds like you're attributing the numbers to your illness - if you think that's the case, we certainly could rerun this experiment later when you're healthy.
I'm curious if the results have changed your mind about your abilities or if you have another explanation for what happened.
My hat is off to you for putting your money where your mouth is and allowing us to test your hypothesis.
Needs to be repeated. Probably at least 5 times.
"Mysticism derives from the Greek root mu, which means silent or mute. In ancient Greece, the adjective mystikos referred to secrets revealed only to those initiated into esoteric sects; mystical knowledge was that which should not be revealed. Over time, mystical knowledge came to be defined as that which transcends language and so cannot be revealed." -(Wouldn't You Like to Know....)
Quote from: Cramulus on July 06, 2009, 07:37:28 PM
in a sample of only 100 tosses, the difference between 16.6% and 21% correct is covered by random chance. You're only beating the average by four guesses.
what are your thoughts on this BH?
it sounds like you're attributing the numbers to your illness - if you think that's the case, we certainly could rerun this experiment later when you're healthy.
I'm curious if the results have changed your mind about your abilities or if you have another explanation for what happened.
My hat is off to you for putting your money where your mouth is and allowing us to test your hypothesis.
Four guesses is approx 1/4 of 16% so that comes in right at my 25% figure.
You are right though, that isn't really statistically significant out of 100 rolls of the die.
I might try it again another time when I am feeling better, but I think I am leaning toward the idea put up by a few others that guessing die rolls is not a very useful (or possible) use of magic.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 08:27:39 PM
I might try it again another time when I am feeling better, but I think I am leaning toward the idea put up by a few others that guessing die rolls is not a very useful (or possible) use of magic.
Yeah. A few more experiments and you might pursue this line of thought to its inevitable conclusion.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2009, 08:32:20 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 08:27:39 PM
I might try it again another time when I am feeling better, but I think I am leaning toward the idea put up by a few others that guessing die rolls is not a very useful (or possible) use of magic.
Yeah. A few more experiments and you might pursue this line of thought to its inevitable conclusion.
the problem is.. is by chance your bound to eventually get something by luck alone... and for many people this then becomes confirmation
its kind of like a compulsive gambler. You win once and that offsets all the loses
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2009, 08:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2009, 08:32:20 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 08:27:39 PM
I might try it again another time when I am feeling better, but I think I am leaning toward the idea put up by a few others that guessing die rolls is not a very useful (or possible) use of magic.
Yeah. A few more experiments and you might pursue this line of thought to its inevitable conclusion.
the problem is.. is by chance your bound to eventually get something by luck alone... and for many people this then becomes confirmation
its kind of like a compulsive gambler. You win once and that offsets all the loses
That's where the Canada Bill Jones Principle comes in.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2009, 08:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2009, 08:32:20 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 08:27:39 PM
I might try it again another time when I am feeling better, but I think I am leaning toward the idea put up by a few others that guessing die rolls is not a very useful (or possible) use of magic.
Yeah. A few more experiments and you might pursue this line of thought to its inevitable conclusion.
the problem is.. is by chance your bound to eventually get something by luck alone... and for many people this then becomes confirmation
its kind of like a compulsive gambler. You win once and that offsets all the loses
Actually, considering it is die rolls, it is almost exactly like a gambler.
Although I do tend to do better than break even when I gamble. On the other hand I don't gamble often and I do it with friends, not on the lottery or in Vegas or in other systems where I know the odds are stacked against me.
Survivor bias. Lots of stock brokers do real well too....until they don't and lose hard.
The House always wins in the long run. Unless you cheat.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2009, 08:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2009, 08:32:20 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 08:27:39 PM
I might try it again another time when I am feeling better, but I think I am leaning toward the idea put up by a few others that guessing die rolls is not a very useful (or possible) use of magic.
Yeah. A few more experiments and you might pursue this line of thought to its inevitable conclusion.
the problem is.. is by chance your bound to eventually get something by luck alone... and for many people this then becomes confirmation
its kind of like a compulsive gambler. You win once and that offsets all the loses
Actually, the compulsive gambler is usually so far in debt that even a big win won't offset the losses. It will however, as you say, be confirmation that they've somehow struck lady luck and will continue on into financial oblivion.
I send my regards to Babylon for actually doing it. Ballsy, sir, thank you for taking part in that experiment.
It seems like everyone involved did pretty well, considering there was 2/3 chance of predicting the roll, and everyone who participated did better than 67%.
Perhaps posting on pd makes one more in touch with magic?
Quote from: rubickspoop on July 07, 2009, 01:22:10 AM
I send my regards to Babylon for actually doing it. Ballsy, sir, thank you for taking part in that experiment.
It seems like everyone involved did pretty well, considering there was 2/3 chance of predicting the roll, and everyone who participated did better than 67%.
Perhaps posting on pd makes one more in touch with magic?
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnn....
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnn....
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Um, statistically speaking the accuracy of both Horuv and all 4 guessers as a whole was above what should have been guessed, if not quite up to what Horuv claimed.
Horuv should have gotten 56.6-76.6 correct, he got 77, just outside the statistical expectation. The 4 guessers together got 300/400 right, they should have had 253.1-279.7, which is *way* outside.
If those results are repeated at similar levels then I'm dragging you assholes down to vegas.
Checking my numbers, the 4 guessers as a whole had about a .5% chance to be that accurate. Doing that twice in a row would be a statistically impossible event.
Not statistically impossible. Nothing is statistically impossible. It would be pretty damn close to impossible, a tiny fraction of a percent possible. But if this is repeated with similar results, it would support a hypothesis that pd is magic!
Quote from: Requia on July 07, 2009, 05:32:58 AM
Checking my numbers, the 4 guessers as a whole had about a .5% chance to be that accurate. Doing that twice in a row would be a statistically impossible event.
"Improbable".
Quote from: rubickspoop on July 07, 2009, 07:34:35 AM
Not statistically impossible. Nothing is statistically impossible. It would be pretty damn close to impossible, a tiny fraction of a percent possible. But if this is repeated with similar results, it would support a hypothesis that pd is magic!
Shoot yourself in the face. Thanks.
'Statistically Impossible' means less than a .01% chance of occurring. Which is why its 'statistically impossible', not 'impossible'.
requia what method are you using to approximate statistical improbability?
x
edd
Quote from: Requia on July 07, 2009, 05:29:26 AM
Um, statistically speaking the accuracy of both Horuv and all 4 guessers as a whole was above what should have been guessed, if not quite up to what Horuv claimed.
Horuv should have gotten 56.6-76.6 correct, he got 77, just outside the statistical expectation. The 4 guessers together got 300/400 right, they should have had 253.1-279.7, which is *way* outside.
If those results are repeated at similar levels then I'm dragging you assholes down to vegas.
What about the fact that 3 and 4 came up 45 times out of 100?
The "average" for either 3 or 4 to come up is 33.3%. The fact that it came up 45% of the time should significant, as it means that any guesser, no matter what, will get 45 right.
Everyone's score was raised because of it. Is there a way to account for that statistical deviation?
I calculated the mean from your percentages where the guaranteeds were rejected. Then I worked out standard deviation of the data. None of the values fell outside 1 standard deviation. Considering a result would normally be considered an outlier if it was more than 2 standard deviations from the mean, we can probably conclude that all the results are statistically probable.
For those wondering, the mean I calculated was 51% which is much closer to our expected value when disregarding 3's and 4's
EDIT: This is why I was asking requia about his method, its quite possible I made a mistake/used a different possibly inferior method
Gotta love the standard deviation.
I just realized that I hardly understood any of that, and now be forced to read "statistics for dummies" until I figure it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
Admittedly, you might need to use Wikipedia to look up the terms explaining the article as well...
Quote from: LMNO on July 07, 2009, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: Requia on July 07, 2009, 05:29:26 AM
Um, statistically speaking the accuracy of both Horuv and all 4 guessers as a whole was above what should have been guessed, if not quite up to what Horuv claimed.
Horuv should have gotten 56.6-76.6 correct, he got 77, just outside the statistical expectation. The 4 guessers together got 300/400 right, they should have had 253.1-279.7, which is *way* outside.
If those results are repeated at similar levels then I'm dragging you assholes down to vegas.
What about the fact that 3 and 4 came up 45 times out of 100?
The "average" for either 3 or 4 to come up is 33.3%. The fact that it came up 45% of the time should significant, as it means that any guesser, no matter what, will get 45 right. Everyone's score was raised because of it. Is there a way to account for that statistical deviation?
That actually solves the reason for high accuracy across the board nicely. No reason to expect anything unusual in repeat experiments then.
As for my method, standard deviation = +/- (sqrt(n)/n)% (so with a sample of 100 the SD is +/-10%, with 400 its +/- 5% the group as a whole was off by a whopping 12%*, significant until you take into account what was pointed out above). Though given the variance caused by a high or low number of 3s and 4s in this rolling method, this looks like it fails, at least when multiple guessers for the same rolls are considered, I'm not as sure what will happen with one guesser yet, this whole experiment may actually fall completely outside what standard deviation is capable of handling in a simple matter.
*Except of course I did make a mistake here, the SD is percent of total not percent of the percentage, so its really only 8.5 % off.
Which is why I want to try another experiment, this time ensuring that there are only two possible choices every instance, and a 66% chance to pick one of them right.
Thats not really possible. if there are two possible choices and each has a 2/3 chance of happening, there *has* to be overlap 1/3rd of the time. Even if you have working magic you can't violate that.
Repeating the original experiment and seeing if 3s and 4s show up with high frequency repeatedly has merit though, at least to the extent the experiment as a whole has merit.
Ok, tell me what you think of this experiment:
I have six tarot cards: the 10 of cups, 10 of swords, 10 of coins, 10 of wands, the Fool and the Devil.
I shuffle each time I draw a card.
I draw 100 times.
You choose whether I drew a 10 or a Major Arcana.
As far as I can see, I have a 4/6 chance of picking a 10, with no overlap of possibilities. That's a 66% chance, right?
Quote from: Requia on July 07, 2009, 05:29:26 AMHoruv should have gotten 56.6-76.6 correct, he got 77, just outside the statistical expectation. The 4 guessers together got 300/400 right, they should have had 253.1-279.7, which is *way* outside.
outside what expectation?
QuoteChecking my numbers, the 4 guessers as a whole had about a .5% chance to be that accurate. Doing that twice in a row would be a statistically impossible event.
huh?? :?
I suppose it's time for me to re-check the figures myself. They're all posted ITT, right?
cause I'm hearing a littlebit too much of vague pseudo statistics here (not only Requia btw, and perhaps it's just that I'm used to different terminology).
so, a .5% chance to be what accurate? exactly that accurate? that accurate or more accurate? or this large or larger deviation from the norm? they all have different chances, I suppose you mean the second though (but I doubt the chance would be that low). The first would be (nearly) zero, and the third would be about twice the probability of the second.
either way, doing that twice in a row, would be a possibility of 0.0025%, a chance of 1 in 40,000. unlikely maybe, but to call it "statistically impossible" is going quite far.
in fact, if an event X happening is "statistically possible", then (given that both events are independent--which they are in this case), X happening twice is also "statistically possible", because numbers don't just go from "pretty small" to "arbitrarily small" just by squaring them.
anyway, I'll run some calculations myself and post the results.
by the way, people using the Normal distribution for checking the probabilities on this one should be careful, it averages out well enough on 100 tries, but in the end it still is a discrete problem with uniform probabilities (to throw a 1 to 6 on a die).
At least according to my physics professors, statistically impossible is anything with a probability worse than 1 in 10000.
I also fucked up my standard deviation on the group as a while (was 1.6 SDs not 2.5). Also see the stuff LMNO pointed out.
Quote from: Requia on July 07, 2009, 10:27:34 AM
'Statistically Impossible' means less than a .01% chance of occurring. Which is why its 'statistically impossible', not 'impossible'.
say what now?
sir, where I'm from, we define our confidence intervals
before qualifying them, preferably before even executing the experiment. also we give a rationale for choosing them. what is so special about a 1 in 10,000 chance?
Quote from: Requia on July 07, 2009, 02:19:08 PMAt least according to my physics professors, statistically impossible is anything with a probability worse than 1 in 10000.
get yourself some new physics professors. that is retarded.
i hope you just misunderstood them.
are you sure they didnt say "
for this experiment/hypothesis, we will call a probability lower than 1 in 10,000 statistically impossible"?
cause I can flip a coin 14 times and call the result "statistically impossible" that way, after all, it's only a 1 in 16,384 chance that it ended up that way.
and especially in computational physics, with some monte carlo methods you're dealing with cumulative probabilities much lower than that.
:lulz: this thread rules in so many ways
I'm glad you guys can grok the stats. I struggled through my stat class. So this all sounds very familliar to me, but it's only one step removed from clicks and whistles.
LMNO: a six-card pull might not be a great method for generating random outcomes. when shuffling six cards, it'll be hard to return them to a truly randomized state. With a 52 card deck, the randomness is related to the number of shuffles1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuffling#Randomization). With a six card deck... hard to say. If you shuffle basically the same way every time for all 100 pulls, patterns will emerge in the results.
Quote from: LMNO on July 07, 2009, 02:13:03 PMOk, tell me what you think of this experiment:
I have six tarot cards: the 10 of cups, 10 of swords, 10 of coins, 10 of wands, the Fool and the Devil.
I shuffle each time I draw a card.
I draw 100 times.
(i see cram just said this, but)
unfortunately, shuffling cards by hand is quite difficult to do properly, random.
if you repeat 100 times a bias might show.
better roll a die and assign a card to each number.
better yet to get your random numbers from random.org, as those numbers are guaranteed to be "clean" (gathered from thermal noise with some whitening transformations applied to it), which avoids the possibility of any manufactoring faults in the die.
I'm not understanding the need for the 66% part of things. Is it just an artificial constriction, or is there something significant statistically or mathematically regarding the 2/3 thing? All it really seems to be doing is artificially inflating the number of probable hits, which was confirmed in the 45 "both" results.
There are a ton of already-in-existence tests and methods for determining accuracy of predictions, like the Zener Cards (here (http://www.psychicscience.org/esp3.aspx) is an online card test for those interested in seeing the style). Why are we reinventing the wheel, and only using statistically meaningless sample sizes? Only 100 rolls/cards/whatever is FAR too small a sample size to determine any meaning beyond "random luck", especially with the results being weighed towards so many potential hits via the 1-4/3-6 methodology.
It's a neat parlor trick, I guess, but I'm having trouble figuring out what this might actually show, other than that random chance is, in fact, random.
Quote from: LMNO on July 07, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
Ok, tell me what you think of this experiment:
I have six tarot cards: the 10 of cups, 10 of swords, 10 of coins, 10 of wands, the Fool and the Devil.
I shuffle each time I draw a card.
I draw 100 times.
You choose whether I drew a 10 or a Major Arcana.
As far as I can see, I have a 4/6 chance of picking a 10, with no overlap of possibilities. That's a 66% chance, right?
If he guesses Arcana he only has a 33% chance to be right though. So he only gets to use the theoretical magic power on half the guesses.
Quote from: That One Guy on July 07, 2009, 02:38:47 PM
I'm not understanding the need for the 66% part of things. Is it just an artificial constriction, or is there something significant statistically or mathematically regarding the 2/3 thing? All it really seems to be doing is artificially inflating the number of probable hits, which was confirmed in the 45 "both" results.
The 2/3 is to accomodate Babylon's pre-conditions. He claimed that his kind of Magick worked better when given a 66% chance to be right, rather than 50/50.
QuoteThere are a ton of already-in-existence tests and methods for determining accuracy of predictions, like the Zener Cards (here (http://www.psychicscience.org/esp3.aspx) is an online card test for those interested in seeing the style). Why are we reinventing the wheel, and only using statistically meaningless sample sizes? Only 100 rolls/cards/whatever is FAR too small a sample size to determine any meaning beyond "random luck", especially with the results being weighed towards so many potential hits via the 1-4/3-6 methodology.
It's a neat parlor trick, I guess, but I'm having trouble figuring out what this might actually show, other than that random chance is, in fact, random.
As I stated at the beginning of the thread, if anyone has a better idea of how to generate a good test with a 66% chance of being right, I'll gladly substitute that method in it's place.
oh there's this: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/
"Retropsychokinesis is the claimed ability of certain subjects to alter random data generated, but not examined, prior to the time the data are presented to the subject.... We neither accept nor dismiss the existence of retropsychokinetic effects—instead we make experiments available to anybody with access to the World-Wide Web in order to discover if there is anything genuinely there."
Quote from: Cramulus on July 07, 2009, 02:56:11 PM
oh there's this: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/
"Retropsychokinesis is the claimed ability of certain subjects to alter random data generated, but not examined, prior to the time the data are presented to the subject.... We neither accept nor dismiss the existence of retropsychokinetic effects—instead we make experiments available to anybody with access to the World-Wide Web in order to discover if there is anything genuinely there."
Cool, I'll see if anything applies.
Also,
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 07, 2009, 02:14:20 PM
I suppose it's time for me to re-check the figures myself. They're all posted ITT, right?
Spreadsheet with all results here: http://ifile.it/zojq5a3
it's interesting. I used to take a retroPK test every morning as part of my wakeup routine.
It produces output like this:
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/bin/rpkoutput.jpg)
I'm still confused as to why it needs to be prediction and not be the changing the percentages of occurrence.
Please explain the difference in the end result.
We could do that 3 doors, 2 goats, and 1 car game. Y'know, the one where you pick a door, and are shown a goat in one of the other two doors, then can choose to switch doors (with the 3rd, unopened door) or not. The object is to pick the car, as it's worth more than a goat.
You can get a 2/3rds chance of winning out of that, easy. (Which isn't bad, since common sense says you should only get 1/3 or 1/2 cars.)
Can I be Monty Hall?
Side Point: (Made in relation to James Randi earlier on in the discussion).
James Randi is not actually a scientist. He's a former stage magician.
I don't think Randi would ever give up $1 million dollars to anyone now matter how much evidence they provided. If the research was on any phenomena that Randi says doesn't exist, then I doubt he would ever present someone with one of those big cardboard checks.
Randi paying up the cash is about as likely as the Vatican explaining that that Bible is a really badly compiled volume of Middle Eastern mythology.
(Dean Radin observed that the amount of time & money you would need to conduct a well controlled study would cost more than the prize money. Even in the extremely unlikely event that JR accepted the findings, you'd still be out of pocket.)
Impressing some dude who used do card tricks and saw women in half on stage should not be considered a benchmark for scientific credibility.
You can look at the Challenge yourself.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
QuoteThe Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."
To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.
I don't see anything fishy there. To test claims of supernatural powers they ask claimant what they can do under what circumstances. They then run a preliminary test with protocols agreed upon by everyone. It's not their fault that no one can get past the prelims.
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Well, sure. That is what the people who don't really have supernatural powers will say. However, if you read the FAQs:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html
QuoteNeither the Foundation nor the claimant can force a testing procedure without the approval of the other side. The testing procedure is a negotiation, and no one can put their foot down. If at any time it a deadlock is reached, the application process will be terminated, and neither side will be blamed or considered at fault.
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
Speaking of reductionist worldviews...
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
Quote from: Cain on July 11, 2009, 03:46:27 PM
Speaking of reductionist worldviews...
It seems the debate method de jour around here lately, I figured I might as well avail myself of it ;-)
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 11, 2009, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
Sure, because riding a unicorn with Jesus is ther sort of 'magic' that people like Mang, Telarus, Me and most other sane people that play around in that model are trying to do.
Useless debate is useless.... Its obvious that one should not risk thinking for themselves on this topic and should instead stick with their comfort zones, beliefs about reality and dogmatic ideas about what Magic is or isn't.
OK LMNO, and guys, think I've got the answer. If you've got 1-4 being low and 3-6 being high it does give you an expected correct rate of 66.6% (repeating) and if you discount the threes and fours what's left is expected 50%. If you leave it in then the number of 3&4 results also effects the expected results.
Also if you made 1-4 'low' and 5-6 'high' you would expect 66% by choosing all lows, and for every high you choose you would simply reduce your expectation a notch, eg. down to 50% if you choose 50% 'high's, and down to 33% if you choose all 'high's.
What you need is a third 'type' that balances the die rolls. Since "LOW" and "HIGH" overlap at 3&4, those results make it unbalanced. If we predict from three types, say 1-4 'low', 3-6 'high', and (1,2,5,6) as 'outer' then each die roll will be correct for 2/3 solutions, which are all equally 66.6% true.
roll result
1 L,O
2 L,O
3 L,H
4 L,H
5 O,H
6 O,H
Rematch? I would like to make predictions too.
edited to fix the bold bit
Quote from: bones on July 11, 2009, 05:24:38 PM
OK LMNO, and guys, think I've got the answer. If you've got 1-4 being low and 3-6 being high it does give you an expected correct rate of 66.6% (repeating) and if you discount the threes and fours what's left is expected 50%. If you leave it in then the number of 3&4 results also effects the expected results.
Also if you made 1-4 'low' and 5-6 'high' you would expect 66% by choosing all lows, and for every high you choose you would simply reduce your expectation a notch, eg. down to 50% if you choose 50% 'high's, and down to 33% if you choose all 'high's.
What you need is a third 'type' that balances the die rolls. Since "LOW" and "HIGH" overlap at 3&4, those results make it unbalanced. If we predict from three types, say 1-4 'low', 3-5 'high', and (1,2,5,6) as 'outer' then each die roll will be correct for 2/3 solutions, which are all equally 66.6% true.
roll result
1 L,O
2 L,O
3 L,H
4 L,H
5 O,H
6 O,H
Rematch? I would like to make predictions too.
Damn.
And each result has a 2/3 chance of happening.
This works!
Now, all Magick Boy has to do is correctly predict a statistically improbable percentage of the rolls.
how many times are we running the experiment to be reasonably conclusive?
Quote from: fomenter on July 11, 2009, 08:09:10 PM
how many times are we running the experiment to be reasonably conclusive?
Too many fucking times.
Problem with mahdjgickque is that if the test is set up accurately, mahdgickque doesn't work.
Let me restate that:
It doesn't fucking work. It's fucking wish-fulfillment fantasy bullshit, and anyone who believes in beyond the age of about 8 is fit only for the mockery and scorn of those around them.
That is all. You may now return to testing for non-existent shit.
stating the obvious doesn't help milk the funny cow,
i don't think anyone is putting money on magic boy being successful (if you are i will take the bet) its experimenting for fun and laughs
Quote from: fomenter on July 11, 2009, 08:33:14 PM
stating the obvious doesn't help milk the funny cow,
i don't think anyone is putting money on magic boy being successful (if you are i will take the bet) its experimenting for fun and laughs
And I'm yelling for fun and laughs.
Or is there a rule against pointlessly spazzing out, now?
not at all, not at all :lulz:
Quote from: fomenter on July 11, 2009, 08:36:06 PM
not at all, not at all :lulz:
I mean, it's not like I'm gonna convince anyone, right?
Most of you agree with me, apparently, and the mushy-headed hippies won't listen anyway.
de mushing a hippie brain is not easy to do for sure :lulz:
i expect great squirming and epic funny excuse making when the magicians fail to predict or influence the numbers in this experiment, i doubt it will straighten out there ideas about magic much though..
I will be willing to generate experimental results for the next run-through. Whether you consider my results to be in the magic group or the control group is up to you -- I don't see any difference.
If I get 85% right, though, I am going to blame magic.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 11, 2009, 08:17:33 PM
Quote from: fomenter on July 11, 2009, 08:09:10 PM
how many times are we running the experiment to be reasonably conclusive?
Too many fucking times.
Problem with mahdjgickque is that if the test is set up accurately, mahdgickque doesn't work.
Let me restate that: It doesn't fucking work. It's fucking wish-fulfillment fantasy bullshit, and anyone who believes in beyond the age of about 8 is fit only for the mockery and scorn of those around them.
That is all. You may now return to testing for non-existent shit.
I don't see what's wrong with testing those claims. I assumed you'd be
100% in support of rigorous scientific inquiry into people's alleged supernatural powers. It's so much more lulzy to have a hard, replicable result we can point to, rather than just underlining the words "it's bullshit" over and over and over again.
the cry for RESULTS forces people to explain magdick in realistic, pragmatic terms - what's it
actually useful for? It can influence random numbers? cool! Let's test out that claim...
...it didn't work?? shit! really??! :lulz:
Quote from: Enki-][ on July 12, 2009, 02:46:06 PM
I will be willing to generate experimental results for the next run-through. Whether you consider my results to be in the magic group or the control group is up to you -- I don't see any difference.
If I get 85% right, though, I am going to blame magic.
If so, your magic is FAIL. USELESS. A statistical deviation? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Get 100% correct, and we'll talk.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 12, 2009, 04:02:22 PM
I assumed you'd be 100% in support of rigorous scientific inquiry into people's alleged supernatural powers.
I am.
I just wanted to hate on someone.
I gotta be me. :)
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 11, 2009, 03:46:27 PM
Speaking of reductionist worldviews...
It seems the debate method de jour around here lately, I figured I might as well avail myself of it ;-)
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 11, 2009, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
Sure, because riding a unicorn with Jesus is ther sort of 'magic' that people like Mang, Telarus, Me and most other sane people that play around in that model are trying to do.
Useless debate is useless.... Its obvious that one should not risk thinking for themselves on this topic and should instead stick with their comfort zones, beliefs about reality and dogmatic ideas about what Magic is or isn't.
But that's not what this particular experiment is about, now is it? It's not about your definition of magic, and it's not about you.
Imagine that.
Quote from: Nigel on July 12, 2009, 11:39:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 11, 2009, 03:46:27 PM
Speaking of reductionist worldviews...
It seems the debate method de jour around here lately, I figured I might as well avail myself of it ;-)
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 11, 2009, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
Sure, because riding a unicorn with Jesus is ther sort of 'magic' that people like Mang, Telarus, Me and most other sane people that play around in that model are trying to do.
Useless debate is useless.... Its obvious that one should not risk thinking for themselves on this topic and should instead stick with their comfort zones, beliefs about reality and dogmatic ideas about what Magic is or isn't.
But that's not what this particular experiment is about, now is it? It's not about your definition of magic, and it's not about you.
Imagine that.
Everything is about Ratatosk. Everything.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
Useless debate is useless.... Its obvious that one should not risk thinking for themselves on this topic and should instead stick with their comfort zones, beliefs about reality and dogmatic ideas about what Magic is or isn't.
Keeping an open mind does not mean letting your brain fall out.
Quote from: LMNO on July 06, 2009, 02:02:14 PM
Anyway, if you want to do this again, I have a better method for 66% using tarot cards. Let me know.
I'd like to try this using the pendulum method to test the cards. I claim no clairvoyant ability and maintain that the pendulum only gives you back your subconscious opinion but I think it would be fun to do.
Also I refuse to believe in any of this until it has been tested and proven to 6sigma accuracy.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 07:26:54 PM
Sorry everyone for not managing to pull impressive magic out. Not that it is any real excuse but I was at the beginning of one of the worst bouts of physical illness I can remember.
Well I am glad to see that Voodoo still works.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 11, 2009, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
More important than the question of whether or not something works in the "objective world" is the question of "which world do I live in?"
Quote from: ☂Faust☂ on July 13, 2009, 12:16:23 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 07:26:54 PM
Sorry everyone for not managing to pull impressive magic out. Not that it is any real excuse but I was at the beginning of one of the worst bouts of physical illness I can remember.
Well I am glad to see that Voodoo still works.
:spittake:
Quote from: Nigel on July 12, 2009, 11:39:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 11, 2009, 03:46:27 PM
Speaking of reductionist worldviews...
It seems the debate method de jour around here lately, I figured I might as well avail myself of it ;-)
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 11, 2009, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
Sure, because riding a unicorn with Jesus is ther sort of 'magic' that people like Mang, Telarus, Me and most other sane people that play around in that model are trying to do.
Useless debate is useless.... Its obvious that one should not risk thinking for themselves on this topic and should instead stick with their comfort zones, beliefs about reality and dogmatic ideas about what Magic is or isn't.
But that's not what this particular experiment is about, now is it? It's not about your definition of magic, and it's not about you.
Imagine that.
OMGZ! And this little conversartion is not directly related to the general discussion here... threaddrift doesn't always stay on topic... Imagine That!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 13, 2009, 12:01:36 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
Useless debate is useless.... Its obvious that one should not risk thinking for themselves on this topic and should instead stick with their comfort zones, beliefs about reality and dogmatic ideas about what Magic is or isn't.
Keeping an open mind does not mean letting your brain fall out.
Repeating stupid cliches doesn't mean you think for yourself.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 13, 2009, 03:37:37 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 12, 2009, 11:39:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 11, 2009, 03:46:27 PM
Speaking of reductionist worldviews...
It seems the debate method de jour around here lately, I figured I might as well avail myself of it ;-)
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 11, 2009, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
Sure, because riding a unicorn with Jesus is ther sort of 'magic' that people like Mang, Telarus, Me and most other sane people that play around in that model are trying to do.
Useless debate is useless.... Its obvious that one should not risk thinking for themselves on this topic and should instead stick with their comfort zones, beliefs about reality and dogmatic ideas about what Magic is or isn't.
But that's not what this particular experiment is about, now is it? It's not about your definition of magic, and it's not about you.
Imagine that.
OMGZ! And this little conversartion is not directly related to the general discussion here... threaddrift doesn't always stay on topic... Imagine That!
This wasn't "drift" as much as it was you trying to pry it with a crowbar.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 13, 2009, 06:25:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 13, 2009, 03:37:37 PM
Quote from: Nigel on July 12, 2009, 11:39:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 04:19:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 11, 2009, 03:46:27 PM
Speaking of reductionist worldviews...
It seems the debate method de jour around here lately, I figured I might as well avail myself of it ;-)
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 11, 2009, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 11, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: Telarus on July 11, 2009, 06:43:35 AM
++approving the conditions under which a test will take place.++
This is the +5 magic club that Randi wields.
Nope there's no such thing as anything that can't be easily cataloged and explained... haven't you been reading the really real Discordian view of Magic Telarus? It's not real, doesn't exist and there's nothing more to talk about. :lulz:
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
Sure, because riding a unicorn with Jesus is ther sort of 'magic' that people like Mang, Telarus, Me and most other sane people that play around in that model are trying to do.
Useless debate is useless.... Its obvious that one should not risk thinking for themselves on this topic and should instead stick with their comfort zones, beliefs about reality and dogmatic ideas about what Magic is or isn't.
But that's not what this particular experiment is about, now is it? It's not about your definition of magic, and it's not about you.
Imagine that.
OMGZ! And this little conversartion is not directly related to the general discussion here... threaddrift doesn't always stay on topic... Imagine That!
This wasn't "drift" as much as it was you trying to pry it with a crowbar.
Funny, looks to me like a comment spun from comments about James Randi and Cain's little barb about Jesus and Unicorns (neither of which Babylon mentioned... unless I missed something).
You can, of course, see whatever you like, Nigel.
Hey! Get your opinions out of my science experiment!
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg)
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 13, 2009, 07:21:34 PM
Funny, looks to me like a comment spun from comments about James Randi and Cain's little barb about Jesus and Unicorns (neither of which Babylon mentioned... unless I missed something).
You can, of course, see whatever you like, Nigel.
Speaking of people who see whatever they like...
This thread is now successfully about Ratatosk taking something personally.
Whatever it is.
My non-existant barbs concerning Jesus and Unicorns, I think.
:retard:
Quote from: ☂Faust☂ on July 13, 2009, 12:16:23 AM
Quote from: LMNO on July 06, 2009, 02:02:14 PM
Anyway, if you want to do this again, I have a better method for 66% using tarot cards. Let me know.
I'd like to try this using the pendulum method to test the cards. I claim no clairvoyant ability and maintain that the pendulum only gives you back your subconscious opinion but I think it would be fun to do.
Also I refuse to believe in any of this until it has been tested and proven to 6sigma accuracy.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 07:26:54 PM
Sorry everyone for not managing to pull impressive magic out. Not that it is any real excuse but I was at the beginning of one of the worst bouts of physical illness I can remember.
Well I am glad to see that Voodoo still works.
You voodoo'd me? oh you bitch.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 13, 2009, 03:37:37 PM
Repeating stupid cliches doesn't mean you think for yourself.
And believing in mahdjgickque means you don't think at all.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 11, 2009, 04:06:21 PM
If your magical powers suddenly don't work any time they are placed under scrutiny then they aren't very useful in the real world, are they? Sure you can find all kinds of ways to mindfuck yourself and make yourself think that you are riding a unicorn with Jesus but that doesn't do anything to the objective world.
Magic is real for very narrow definitions of "magic" and "real".
I think Rat had every right to defend against this, shame it turned into another flamefest.
It seems to me that controlled scientific measurement of Rat's magic would be similar to controlled scientific measurement of how much happiness a person gets from cuddling kittens. It's not meant to be an objective thing, like you wouldn't demand that I give you a measurement of how happy kitten cuddles make me, or prove that such happiness exists.
If you reveal your wish it won't come true. Crowley says you should find your true will, but you should keep it hidden, so how can you measure it without affecting the result? I would get bored of kitten cuddles if you started trying to measure my mood changes by them.
On the other hand if someone claims that they can expect 25% more accuracy than random chance go right ahead and prove that they're talking shit... If you can even be bothered.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 06, 2009, 07:26:54 PM
Sorry everyone for not managing to pull impressive magic out. Not that it is any real excuse but I was at the beginning of one of the worst bouts of physical illness I can remember.
Apology accepted BH :), though imo you didn't fail at magic because you were getting sick, you got sick as an excuse for your failure. THAT is much more likely something the mind could have the power to do.
How did you conclude that your prediction magic works better when you have a 2/3 chance of being right, anyway? Was it a controlled experiment such as this one? or the same law of fives that convinces gambling addicts to put more money in the slot?
Quote from: Cain on July 13, 2009, 08:34:03 PM
My non-existant barbs concerning Jesus and Unicorns, I think.
I didn't realize that we looked so much alike.
Quote from: bones on July 14, 2009, 05:08:42 AM
It seems to me that controlled scientific measurement of Rat's magic would be similar to controlled scientific measurement of how much happiness a person gets from cuddling kittens. It's not meant to be an objective thing, like you wouldn't demand that I give you a measurement of how happy kitten cuddles make me, or prove that such happiness exists.
If you reveal your wish it won't come true. Crowley says you should find your true will, but you should keep it hidden, so how can you measure it without affecting the result? I would get bored of kitten cuddles if you started trying to measure my mood changes by them.
We can totally measure happiness*, BTW. You might get bored eventually, but modern tech will have significant brain function measurements long before then. Heck, we can measure how funny you find a joke, how much revulsion and stress you feel from a disturbing image, and how turned on you are by an even more disturbing image.
Having not read Crowley, I'm a little curious about the statement to the effect that one should keep your true will hidden. If you will yourself to be successful (for a given definition of success) and then actually become successful, are you supposed to pretend that that wasn't what you really wanted? And I'm not really sure how one could put will into practice without revealing it - if you practice for something, it's pretty obvious that you want to get better at it. Does Crowley suggest doing all your practicing in secret so nobody else finds out that you're training for your life's goal?
*Strictly speaking, we can give mood surveys and measure neurological and physiological responses that are very closely correlated with different (reported) emotions. But functionally it's pretty much the same.
Ok, look.
Magic1 = self-hypnosis, NLP, metaprogramming, etc.
Magic2 = pre-cognition, telekenisis, telepathy, et al.
IN THIS THREAD (BECAUSE IT'S MY THREAD, FUCKOS), PLEASE USE THE ABOVE TERMS WHEN SHITTING ON EACH OTHER.
KTHXBYE.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 14, 2009, 06:09:16 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 13, 2009, 08:34:03 PM
My non-existant barbs concerning Jesus and Unicorns, I think.
I didn't realize that we looked so much alike.
Only for people who see what they want to see, I think.
Quote from: LMNO on July 14, 2009, 03:12:08 PM
Ok, look.
Magic1 = self-hypnosis, NLP, metaprogramming, etc.
Magic2 = pre-cognition, telekenisis, telepathy, et al.
IN THIS THREAD (BECAUSE IT'S MY THREAD, FUCKOS), PLEASE USE THE ABOVE TERMS WHEN SHITTING ON EACH OTHER.
KTHXBYE.
Good idea.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 14, 2009, 06:09:16 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 13, 2009, 08:34:03 PM
My non-existant barbs concerning Jesus and Unicorns, I think.
I didn't realize that we looked so much alike.
Fail Reading Embedded Quote is Fail... Please redirect my comment at Iason.
Quote from: LMNO on July 14, 2009, 03:12:08 PM
Ok, look.
Magic1 = self-hypnosis, NLP, metaprogramming, etc.
Magic2 = pre-cognition, telekenisis, telepathy, et al.
IN THIS THREAD (BECAUSE IT'S MY THREAD, FUCKOS), PLEASE USE THE ABOVE TERMS WHEN SHITTING ON EACH OTHER.
KTHXBYE.
This.
I could do it, but we all know i'd be cheating.
it's always cheating, even if it actually works (magic1 or magic2- though magic1 has a higher success rate in testing, and magic3 [illusionism and obfuscation] is pure cheating.)
[for the record my interest in Magicn is limited to 1 and 3]
that and a snuff box is all i have to contribute.
Wait, all cheating is the same?
Would Magic1 be doing Magic3 on yourself, and Magic2 being doing Magic3 on Magic1? If we assume that Magic2 is Magic1 without its rationalization, I mean.
Quote from: Enki-][ on July 15, 2009, 09:42:35 PM
Would Magic1 be doing Magic3 on yourself, and Magic2 being doing Magic3 on Magic1? If we assume that Magic2 is Magic1 without its rationalization, I mean.
LMNO, What have you unleashed?? :eek:
That's just Enki being a fucktard as usual.
Quote from: LMNO on July 15, 2009, 08:42:57 PM
Wait, all cheating is the same?
What I want to know is, if Magic
1 is cheating, then whats wrong with cheating anyway?
Quote from: Kai on July 16, 2009, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 15, 2009, 08:42:57 PM
Wait, all cheating is the same?
What I want to know is, if Magic1 is cheating, then whats wrong with cheating anyway?
Nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
A stage magician might claim to have supernatural talents, but is actually using misdirection and similar psychological tricks. However, when all is said and done, the audience is entertained and the magician has the audience's money. IT'S MAGIC!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0884349/bio:1fap:
Quote from: Kai on July 16, 2009, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 15, 2009, 08:42:57 PM
Wait, all cheating is the same?
What I want to know is, if Magic1 is cheating, then whats wrong with cheating anyway?
I am still trying to figure out how its cheating to begin with.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2009, 04:00:16 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 16, 2009, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 15, 2009, 08:42:57 PM
Wait, all cheating is the same?
What I want to know is, if Magic1 is cheating, then whats wrong with cheating anyway?
I am still trying to figure out how its cheating to begin with.
If it works, it's cheating.
Quote from: Enki-][ on July 17, 2009, 04:44:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2009, 04:00:16 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 16, 2009, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 15, 2009, 08:42:57 PM
Wait, all cheating is the same?
What I want to know is, if Magic1 is cheating, then whats wrong with cheating anyway?
I am still trying to figure out how its cheating to begin with.
If it works, it's cheating.
How so? It seems to me, that if Magic1 works... its just making use of tools to play with your head. Where's the cheating bit at?
We are testing whether or not it's possible to cheat. So, if it works, it's cheating, and is therefore valid.
Quote from: Enki-][ on July 17, 2009, 05:14:27 PM
We are testing whether or not it's possible to cheat. So, if it works, it's cheating, and is therefore valid.
Ok... I am apparently confused, which seems normal for me at this point. ;-)
i think enki has trouble with the difference between mag1 and mag2 the introduction of cheating has me baffled as well, if cheating = knowing results ahead of time by some means other than mag2 and it works and you trick someone with it you are not a successful mag2 magician you are doing mag 3 an illusionist...
cheating and mag1 don't seem to have any connection since the mag1 definition is self-hypnosis, NLP, meta-programming, etc.
I was being silly, hence my ambiguity. If I want to ruin the joke (and I do, since it wasn't funny anyway) I can explain:
Magic2 and Magic1 both, in the case of the experiment in this thread, are what may be being tested for. The way that it is being tested is determining whether or not someone does significantly better than they should given the rules (i.e., cheating) but is not breaking explicit rules (i.e., not cheating). So, we are checking for a method of cheating that we have yet to explain well enough to forbid it: getting into LMNO's computer and fudging the results is obviously against the rules, but breaking into LMNO's head in the future or using telekinetic mind bullets to screw with the random number generator or simply gaining insight into what the numbers are likely to be from having normal conversations with people who have seen them is not.
mag2 is being tested for, mag1 is being preformed but only in the situation that the believers of mag2 may have there programing changed when the results effect there views on magic (maybe), changing the definition of cheating to include the magic2 you are attempting to perform is adding unnecessary confusion..
Quote from: LMNO on July 15, 2009, 08:42:57 PM
Wait, all cheating is the same?
I said it was all cheating, not that all cheating is the same.
let's say that
Cheating
1 is employed by conscious self deception.
Cheating
2 is employed by unconscious self deception.
cheating
3 is employed by conscious decieving of others.
for the sake of convenience, the numbers of cheating and magic correspond.
Magic1 bould be cheating1 in action. It would be cheating because it reworks systems
that your brain has set in place for the sake of its own survival.
Magic2 is cheating2 because you believe in means that (as far as we know) aren't at work,
the results of said magic2 (when there are any at all) are typically comprable to the results
of magic1. Should the results of magic2 be significantly different than magic1, or something
that is impossible using only magic1, i may reconsider.
i shant droll on further with magic3.
i would also like to throw in there that i read pg.1-5 ish and then jumped to about 13. there's probably backstory i haven't had time to read anyway.
Quote from: Philly Fillet on July 17, 2009, 07:34:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 15, 2009, 08:42:57 PM
Wait, all cheating is the same?
I said it was all cheating, not that all cheating is the same.
let's say that
Cheating1 is employed by conscious self deception.
Cheating2 is employed by unconscious self deception.
cheating3 is employed by conscious decieving of others.
for the sake of convenience, the numbers of cheating and magic correspond.
Magic1 bould be cheating1 in action. It would be cheating because it reworks systems
that your brain has set in place for the sake of its own survival.
Magic2 is cheating2 because you believe in means that (as far as we know) aren't at work,
the results of said magic2 (when there are any at all) are typically comprable to the results
of magic1. Should the results of magic2 be significantly different than magic1, or something
that is impossible using only magic1, i may reconsider.
i shant droll on further with magic3.
i would also like to throw in there that i read pg.1-5 ish and then jumped to about 13. there's probably backstory i haven't had time to read anyway.
I see where you're coming from... but for me Magic1 seems more like modifying your own BiP, than cheating your brains survival system.
why not call
conscious self deception. = conscious self deception.
unconscious self deception. = unconscious self deception.
cheating is employed by conscious deceiving of others.
it seems far simpler than creating multiple definitions for a word that has an understood definition already
yeah, well enough people 'round here have no problem calling something "magic" when they have other, viable terms. Why aren't you bitching at them?
stop causing a threadjack.
Quote from: Seightly Played on July 17, 2009, 08:08:39 PM
yeah, well enough people 'round here have no problem calling something "magic" when they have other, viable terms. Why aren't you bitching at them?
stop causing a threadjack.
PErhaps because magic is a viable term for what they're discussing? If you go read Crowley, he says "magic" and means Magic1. If we go through the works of Abremelin the Mage, what he calls Magic looks like Magic1. Same for Peter Carroll, Antero alli, Phil Hine, Phil Farber, Israel Regardie... etc.
Then of course, there are many modern writers like Silver Ravenwolf that use magic to describe magic2. And modern stage performers who use it to describe magic3.
As opposed to making up new definitions here in a PD.com thread for the word cheat ;-)
Not that I'm opposed to making up new words... as long as they're clearly defined for the use intended... or conveniently obscure in order to intentionally cause more chaos ;-)
what rata just said... the 1 2 and 3 are pretty common and have been well established definitions for a long time
Quote from: fomenter on July 17, 2009, 08:25:09 PM
what rata just said... the 1 2 and 3 are pretty common and have been well established definitions for a long time
Still a crock.
You have dime-store psychology, wish fulfillment fantasies, and sleight of hand.
Why do we need new terms for these?
tilting at windmills... in an effort to patently explain the difference between the three to the dirty hippies and mush heads we are trying to clarify the difference for them by adding numbers
Quote from: fomenter on July 18, 2009, 05:21:58 PM
tilting at windmills... in an effort to patently explain the difference between the three to the dirty hippies and mush heads we are trying to clarify the difference for them by adding numbers
I see. Why not just feed them more dope and let them sink back into the land of unicorns and fluffy white clouds?
there does seem to be a certain masochistic feel to the endeavor....
i am still holding out for the sadistic pay off laughing at their pain when their fluffy bunny harry potter world crashes down around them and they thrash around looking for excuses for why they failed to prove their power,
but the experiment seems to be derailed, the magic believers aren't lining up to prove their powers for some reason :lulz:
Quote from: fomenter on July 18, 2009, 07:04:46 PM
there does seem to be a certain masochistic feel to the endeavor....
i am still holding out for the sadistic pay off laughing at their pain when their fluffy bunny harry potter world crashes down around them and they thrash around looking for excuses for why they failed to prove their power,
but the experiment seems to be derailed, the magic believers aren't lining up to prove their powers for some reason :lulz:
Because they realized the first of two horrible truths.
1. They aren't attracting females with their mahdgjickque on this board.
All that remains is the second horrible truth, which they will figure out eventually.
2. They will not attract any females ANYWHERE by talking about mahdgjickque. I mean, outside of the ones that live in the bus station.
if you like the bus station panhandlers/rainbow-family gathering dirty hippie chicks with a fifth covered baby on their hip and enough body hair to braid a rope magic is the gig for you...
Quote from: fomenter on July 18, 2009, 07:15:42 PM
if you like the bus station panhandlers/rainbow-family gathering dirty hippie chicks with a fifth covered baby on their hip and enough body hair to braid a rope magic is the gig for you...
And they still won't get any. :lulz:
The dirty hippies are now mostly part of the Jesus crowd, anyway. No nookie unless its an after-marriage deal, and that could take some time. Not to mention any talk of any magic, including stage magic, will invoke cries of devil worshipper (see: Florida teacher and the amazing vanishing pen for more)
Quote from: fomenter on July 18, 2009, 07:04:46 PM
but the experiment seems to be derailed, the magic believers aren't lining up to prove their powers for some reason :lulz:
I volunteered for the next round several pages ago. I am pretty sure we are waiting on someone to tell us when to start.
Quote from: Cain on July 18, 2009, 07:26:51 PM
The dirty hippies are now mostly part of the Jesus crowd, anyway. No nookie unless its an after-marriage deal, and that could take some time. Not to mention any talk of any magic, including stage magic, will invoke cries of devil worshipper (see: Florida teacher and the amazing vanishing pen for more)
Yeah, that was a hoot. It made me proud to be an American
TM.
Quote from: fomenter on July 17, 2009, 08:25:09 PM
what rata just said... the 1 2 and 3 are pretty common and have been well established definitions for a long time
i was addressing all who spoke up about my calling it all cheating. i gave explaination invoking the current metaphor system (semantic labeling with subscript numbers, introduced here by the OP, assholes) and digressed why i felt all three forms were cheating.
and rat- i know you're trying to be diplomatic and bridge the differences, etc... but with all due politeness, fuck off. i've read crowley and regardie and some carrol (he's not as fun), et cetera, and those experiences are exactly why i perceive magic1 as cheating.
when a wiccan casts a spell and claims change occured, and you ask for proof, they take the (usually) subjectivity route and yadda yadda their way around logic and science. in that sense, people employing magic2 are cheating by refusing adequet testing and measurement (or really, any testing or measurment).
Not to meantion that almost any renouned psychic or such that 'employs" magic2 has aactually been someone using a form of magic3.
so it may have well been more accurate to say that all discussed forms of magic require one to cheat at some point, but that was too much typing. so yeah. fuck. off.
Quote from: Seightly Played on July 20, 2009, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: fomenter on July 17, 2009, 08:25:09 PM
what rata just said... the 1 2 and 3 are pretty common and have been well established definitions for a long time
i was addressing all who spoke up about my calling it all cheating. i gave explaination invoking the current metaphor system (semantic labeling with subscript numbers, introduced here by the OP, assholes) and digressed why i felt all three forms were cheating.
and rat- i know you're trying to be diplomatic and bridge the differences, etc... but with all due politeness, fuck off. i've read crowley and regardie and some carrol (he's not as fun), et cetera, and those experiences are exactly why i perceive magic1 as cheating.
What experiences? "Those" don't seem to be describing much of anything here. I don't give a shit if you like or dislike Crowley, Carroll etc... I'm just stumped on 'cheating' in any sense there.
Quote
when a wiccan casts a spell and claims change occured, and you ask for proof, they take the (usually) subjectivity route and yadda yadda their way around logic and science. in that sense, people employing magic2 are cheating by refusing adequet testing and measurement (or really, any testing or measurment).
Don't disagree... if you say you can guess random die rolls and fail, or just can't under testing etc... then its cheating to still claim you can. That seems reasonable to me.
Quote
Not to meantion that almost any renouned psychic or such that 'employs" magic2 has aactually been someone using a form of magic3.
so it may have well been more accurate to say that all discussed forms of magic require one to cheat at some point, but that was too much typing. so yeah. fuck. off.
I agree with the bit about renouned psychics... but I'm still confused on your conclusion. However, I'll fuck off if you'd rather not discuss it.
forgive myself if i've been a bit rude in unwarranting situations, rat. it's been hell in a retail shopping bag for me these past few weeks and i'm feeling a bit disgruntled.
back to why systems of magic1 are (IMO) cheating: whether it's Crowley, Jung or The Next Big Thing™, we're talking about systems of psychology and parapsychology aimed at (basically) brain-hacking and recoding. Nature already does this, infirming a whole lot more than just survival strategies and social behaviors. Is it cheating to alter your brain in such fashion? No, not necessarily. I never said cheating is inherently wrong either, but then i also try to approach semantics and behavior in a post-moral fashion.
if a person had behavior "A"- something ungainful and deleterious to that person, perhaps immobilizing depression or paranoid delusions or an obsession with rubber ducks- and said person wanted to alter behavior A or replace/negate it altogether, there are two basic options available: quick-fix and long-hauling. Long-hauling can take years, even decades of work and guidance through things such as psychotherapy, self-analysis, etc...things that magic1 might be considered a precursor to. Quick-Fix solutions include pharmacology (prescribed or not), self-help gurus, hypnosis, brainwashing and the like, and typically produce "results" in a person in a much shorter time, though such results tend to be shorter lived when used alone.
That said, my position is that Crowley, et al, fall somewhere between self-help and parapsychology. They and other mystical systems may indeed take certain "students" years to understand, let alone master (and i am no master), but they are simultaneously aimed at long-term and short-term brain-change.
So cheating, in my choice of definition, is a strategy that makes something easier than it would otherwise be. and i never said there was something wrong with it (but it may be unfair in a test such as the one LMNO was/is conducting.)
again, apologies about the hostilities, but someone telling me to "go read crowley, carrol and that other guy" is akin to that newb who recently suggested members of the board read up on the 8-circuit model, general semantics and e-prime, etc...
Ah Oh! You probably think computer hacking is cheating too whereas I simply consider it making use of my knowledge of information systems :lulz:
I think I grok what you're saying... we're cheating the 'norm'... that is rather than accepting the mental programs we picked up along the way like a good little primate, we modify, change, break, poke, rewrite, buffer overflow, crosssite script our own heads... which is cheating compared to the more passive self-programming that most humans do.
?
Yeah, cheating is basically defined as acting outside of the "rules of the game".
In that sense, perhaps one of the most distinguishing features of Discordianism compared to traditional religion, is that cheating is considered a good thing.
Hm I never considered it like this, but the above makes a very good "one paragraph explanation of Discordia", IMO.
(and the fact that it is actually two paragraphs makes it nicely self-referential)
That could be a really nice essay, actually. I should give it some thought.
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2009, 06:57:24 PM
That could be a really nice essay, actually. I should give it some thought.
I agree... its a catchy concept. For some reason it brought to mind Capt. Kirk's solution to the Kobayashi Maru simulation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 18, 2009, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: fomenter on July 18, 2009, 07:04:46 PM
there does seem to be a certain masochistic feel to the endeavor....
i am still holding out for the sadistic pay off laughing at their pain when their fluffy bunny harry potter world crashes down around them and they thrash around looking for excuses for why they failed to prove their power,
but the experiment seems to be derailed, the magic believers aren't lining up to prove their powers for some reason :lulz:
Because they realized the first of two horrible truths.
1. They aren't attracting females with their mahdgjickque on this board.
All that remains is the second horrible truth, which they will figure out eventually.
2. They will not attract any females ANYWHERE by talking about mahdgjickque. I mean, outside of the ones that live in the bus station.
Might be surprised there. But I'm guessing that's because you've never used the tactic because you don't see how sounding like a whackjob could possibly attract females.
Females are weird, they like a certain level of whackjob.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 23, 2009, 07:55:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 18, 2009, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: fomenter on July 18, 2009, 07:04:46 PM
there does seem to be a certain masochistic feel to the endeavor....
i am still holding out for the sadistic pay off laughing at their pain when their fluffy bunny harry potter world crashes down around them and they thrash around looking for excuses for why they failed to prove their power,
but the experiment seems to be derailed, the magic believers aren't lining up to prove their powers for some reason :lulz:
Because they realized the first of two horrible truths.
1. They aren't attracting females with their mahdgjickque on this board.
All that remains is the second horrible truth, which they will figure out eventually.
2. They will not attract any females ANYWHERE by talking about mahdgjickque. I mean, outside of the ones that live in the bus station.
Might be surprised there. But I'm guessing that's because you've never used the tactic because you don't see how sounding like a whackjob could possibly attract females.
Females are weird, they like a certain level of whackjob.
This is the correct motorcycle. I have lots of girls that really dig that I'm a Discordian, into tarot, astrology, magic etc. especially when I make it sound like something sensible rather than "I can astral project" "I can throw fireballs out of my tummy" etc etc. 5 out of the last 7 women that I've attracted are really into that sort of thing... and none of the are particularly pagan or anything close to it...
Well, one's a SCAdian, but more from a historical perspective than a fantasy/pagan/hippie one.
But its OK, TGRR needs to think he has a clue on everything, even Rain Gods are occasionally Cosmic Schmucks. :horrormirth:
False dichotomy, rat. TGRR said "mahdgjickque", you're talking about NLP.
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2009, 08:20:36 PM
False dichotomy, rat. TGRR said "mahdgjickque", you're talking about NLP.
The funny spelling usually implies a derivative of Crowley (the guy who started adding the k on the end) NLP would fall under that category.
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2009, 08:20:36 PM
False dichotomy, rat. TGRR said "mahdgjickque", you're talking about NLP.
Actually, I'm talking about NLP, Invocation, Evocation, Ritual, Tarot, Astrology, Sigils and all the other toys.
But TGRR wasn't. Context, darling.
also women often fall for players (a form of nlp)( see the game Neil strauss) regardless of the BS they spout its how the BS is used to pick up chicks, it would be a case of using magic2 as a tool to perform magic1
You fuckers just don't listen, do you?
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2009, 08:34:03 PM
You fuckers just don't listen, do you?
TGRR already stated that ALL magic is bullshit. I see nothing in his post that indicates he's only talking about Babylon's number guessing magic. Further, even if we were only discussing Magic2, TGRR's statement still looks like drivel.
Calling all of Magic1, NLP seems unnecessarily vague anyway.
i am not defending any broad brush statements about magic 1, 2 or 3
i am just having fun confusing the issue by proposing using magic2 (imaginary stuff) as a prop in an effort to attract women using magic1 (nlp physiology), you could use magic3 in the same way.. :lulz:
or magic1 as a prop in the same way (how meta) { :wink: rata}
So, um, should I read all 17 pages or just assume BH failed?
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on July 23, 2009, 09:04:07 PM
So, um, should I read all 17 pages or just assume BH failed?
Yes.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on July 23, 2009, 09:04:07 PM
So, um, should I read all 17 pages or just assume BH failed?
Yes, I failed.
Also got really sick, which may have caused me to fail, or I may have made myself sick as a way to excuse myself failing, or they may have been unrelated. I've been abstaining from trying again based on the possibility of the second option, cause I was REALLY sick.
Also, voodoo.
Quote from: LMNO on July 24, 2009, 12:38:20 PM
Also, voodoo.
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/10ommm03.jpg)
lots more and some wonderful fivei5m on
http://niemann.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/master-of-the-universe/?ex=1263268800&en=1483290f331a3594&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=OP-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M106-ROS-0709-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click
...so, wtf was the upshot of this, I am coming to this thread like 18 pages into it having left it at about pg 4 or so...? /lazy, begs forgiveness
experiment preformed
failure resulted
excuses presented
illness blamed
magic1 now = self-hypnosis, NLP, meta-programming, etc.(science of self transformation)
magic2 now = i can change the world with a wave of my wand nutters (precognition, telekinesis, telepathy, et al.)
magic3 now = stage magic or illusionists
the concept of cheating was added and is awaiting a clear explanation
debate about whether believing in magic2 can get you laid is underway
Sure it can. You just need cultists and a basic reading of Crowley (I know, I know, this is technically Magic1...).
Quote from: LMNO on July 24, 2009, 12:38:20 PM
Also, voodoo.
Voodoo would have totally worked.
interesting at 21.48 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0sLuRsu1Do
Quote from: Cain on July 25, 2009, 02:09:13 PM
Sure it can. You just need cultists and a basic reading of Crowley (I know, I know, this is technically Magic1...).
Zoom goes the Motorcycle... though, I'd almost argue that the best way to get girls with magic is to use all three in some sense... Use 1 and 3 to make them believe 2. Then sex0rs.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 28, 2009, 05:02:27 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 25, 2009, 02:09:13 PM
Sure it can. You just need cultists and a basic reading of Crowley (I know, I know, this is technically Magic1...).
Zoom goes the Motorcycle... though, I'd almost argue that the best way to get girls with magic is to use all three in some sense... Use 1 and 3 to make them believe 2. Then sex0rs.
Remove number 2, and you have "The Mystery Method" in 20 words or less.
but i think the original point was believing you can do magic 2 wont get you laid (the belief making you a probable basement dweller and a born to be shoved in a muddy ditch by bullies) and the secondary argument gets raised by ratts idea of using mag1 and 3 is dude if you have the mind and talent to do mag 1 and 3 why do you need to sleep with the kind of bubble head skank girls that pull train on hippie gatherings or would screw guys that believe in magic2.
1. i am not entirely convinced belief in magic 2 precludes one from getting laid but i would say the chances diminish with every increase in the amount of magic2 you think you can do
2. i suspect the quality of the women diminishes in a similar way..
Oh yeah, totally.
I'm just saying, sex cults, yanno?
In one of the more depressing Truth in Television (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TruthInTelevision) moments I've experienced, I have realized that the Vast Majority of sex cults/swinger's clubs/freelove(sex) movements are indeed what is depicted in the HBO Real Sex series: A group of unattractive, aging, lonely, uninspired people who have decided to pretend that Sex is Love, rather than Love is Sex.
Quote from: LMNO on July 28, 2009, 07:20:54 PM
In one of the more depressing Truth in Television (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TruthInTelevision) moments I've experienced, I have realized that the Vast Majority of sex cults/swinger's clubs/freelove(sex) movements are indeed what is depicted in the HBO Real Sex series: A group of unattractive, aging, lonely, uninspired people who have decided to pretend that Sex is Love, rather than Love is Sex.
It's definitely a dominant stereotype that has a lot of supporting evidence. reason Number Two that we only went to the local swinger club a couple times.
Reason number one... Columbus Ohio Swingers
:horrormirth:
Quote from: LMNO on July 28, 2009, 07:20:54 PM
In one of the more depressing Truth in Television (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TruthInTelevision) moments I've experienced, I have realized that the Vast Majority of sex cults/swinger's clubs/freelove(sex) movements are indeed what is depicted in the HBO Real Sex series: A group of unattractive, aging, lonely, uninspired people who have decided to pretend that Sex is Love, rather than Love is Sex.
Well thats why there needs to be an empahsis on the cult aspect.
If the sexy people will not go normally, then they must be tricked, lured there under false pretences, held against their will, starved, beaten, deprived and brainwashed until they come of their own free will.
I just realized the meaning of that sentence changes entirely, depending on how you interpret the sixth from last word.
Well, that's the final door to enlightenment. SO SAYETH THE PROPHET.
LMNO
- High Priest: First Church, Mary of the Nice Rack and Tight Ass.
Quote from: fomenter on July 25, 2009, 05:23:59 AM
experiment preformed
failure resulted
excuses presented
illness blamed
magic1 now = self-hypnosis, NLP, meta-programming, etc.(science of self transformation)
magic2 now = i can change the world with a wave of my wand nutters (precognition, telekinesis, telepathy, et al.)
magic3 now = stage magic or illusionists
the concept of cheating was added and is awaiting a clear explanation
debate about whether believing in magic2 can get you laid is underway
Thank you!
Bump.
Babylon, willing to give this another go on TSC? Do you think the others would be willing to give it a go?
TSC would eat this shit up. :lulz: