Twitter Test

In “the first scientific experiment conducted via Twitter,” participants tweeted from their minds’ eyes to guess the location of psychologist and test administrator Richard Wiseman. The results were very conclusive- The twitterers guessed zero out of four locations correctly, meaning that those 1,000 participants are, supposidely, not adept at remote viewing. But before remote viewing can be dismissed, it’s important to understand Wiseman’s methodology: “On each day I travelled to a randomly selected location and asked everyone to send tweets describing their thoughts about the location. In the judging phase, participants were presented with five photographs, one showing the location and four decoys, and asked to select the target. The photograph that received the most votes was taken as the group’s decision.” The groups were also asked to “rate their belief in the paranormal and the degree to which their thoughts matched the target.”
Interestingly, when he analyzed skeptics and believers separately the results were the same, which led him to conclude that “those who believe in the paranormal are good at finding illusory correspondences between their thoughts and the target.” In other words, believers looked for similarities between their thoughts and the correct location. Wiseman, himself a twitterer, magician, and author as well as psychologist, suggests that “perhaps it’s the ability to see these illusory correspondences that makes people believe in the paranormal.” Although the results may be disheartening for “believers,” this and future experiments may help clarify Twitter's role in the noosphere.
image: "Tweet" by prettywar-stl on Flickr via Creative Commons licensing.
Tweet- 6-16-09
- Erin Shaw's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version









Comments
Interesting
Interesting study--thanks for the synopsis.
The methodology proves that a group of people untrained in remote viewing sucks at remote viewing, and sucks at knowing how bad they are at remote viewing!
But then again, so do optimists generally, as per Martin Seligman's research on optimists and pessimists. Optimists have a distorted but positive outlook on their performance, pessimists are more accurate but more unhappy. Perhaps believers are more optimistic and this accounts for their unrealistic appraisal of their performance. Food for thought: "do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?" Ideally truth and happiness are not a compromise of course...
http://twitter.com/duffmcduffee
Real Magic
When I was about 10, I was open to psi phenomenon. When I was 15, I was convinced that it was real. By the time I was 25, I was an atheist, and believed in none of it. When I was 30, I had a renewed spiritual awakening.
I realized that it was the imagination itself that was at the heart. We are not psychic, but we wish that we were psychic, because we perceive the numinous with our minds, and seek what is like ourselves. It truly does exist -- it's our own very nature. We projected it onto the material world, ("psychic powers in real life!") because our hearts just have to burst out and assert themselves. But integrity, man! Integrity! And science is our path of integrity.
Today, we find ourselves in a bind: Either science is true and our hearts are wrong, or our hearts are wrong, and science is true. I have found that the crux of the problem lies in how we perceive the imagination: We either believe that imagination means "not real," or that "imagination is real," taken to mean that -- Wow, cosmic, I have powers that the scientists don't know about.
Neither of these is correct - there is the imaginal real: A parent's love, the vision that makes a society, a plan of action, the virtues and hopes and ideals that guide, the story of a life, -- all are in the realm of the imaginal real.
I find a mature synthesis of science and spirit -- not a faux synthesis. It is authentic-artistic, action-oriented, magical, and real. Only the Real can guide us to true magic; Never superstition.