uv ajed

Is Telepathy Sound? Bem et al. (2010) Scientific grant proposal

Background and Need
Recently, Bem et al. (2010) has raised a firestorm of controversy over statistics and a nova of controversy over their highly significant and nontrivial implications. Two keys to the scientific method are replicability and dissemination. New themes or directions should rely on studies that other could replicate to see whether similar results occur. One effort to replicate one experiment (Galak and Nelson 2010) did not produce an outcome supporting ESP. As its authors correctly noted, this failure to replicate results does not conclusively answer this very important research question. Hence, further efforts to assess this phenomenon are needed.

Opportunity
Furthermore, these efforts might be extended to improve the likelihood of detecting precognition. A recurring notion in Bem et al. (2010) is that persons could anticipate erotic stimuli (specifically, images presented on a monitor) statistically above chance because of ESP, and that they did not anticipate non-erotic stimuli above chance. This presumably occurs because only erotic stimuli are sufficiently titillating to produce arousal even a few seconds before their generation. Notably, these effects occurred in unscreened Psychology students, and hence could be validated by other persons who work in a Psychology environment, such as the grantwriter and his colleagues.
Hence, this proposal capitalizes on this opportunity by delivering a series of studies that replicate key elements of Bem et al. (2010). Furthermore, to increase the likelihood that precognitive effects (if existent) are observed, the emotional salience of the erotic stimuli will be substantially increased.

Research Procedure
This study will assess whether male persons who work in a Psychology environment can anticipate erotic events before they occur. Advertisements will be posted through numerous mechanisms to seek female Psychology students eager to contribute to a scientific endeavor of pivotal importance. To avoid ethical issues surrounding proper treatment of research subjects, these persons will not be research subjects (as noted below).

First, the grantwriter (or one of his colleagues who he alone may designate) will be seated in a comfortable leather chair. Next, this person (who is the research subject) will be asked to guess which of two curtains will contain the erotic stimulus. After the guess is recorded, the student will be asked to stand behind one of the curtains (decided completely randomly) and disrobe. Next, the curtain that the subject picked will be lifted. If the experimenter fails to correctly guess the curtain that would contain the erotic stimulus, he will receive a mild electric shock. If he successfully guesses, the subject will be told that, for the good of science, she must provide the most erotically exhilarating reward ever. Indeed, if humanity is ever to resolve one of the most pressing and pondering quandaries in its entire history. you must challenge conceivable limits of what two human beings can handle. The experimenter shall similarly so endeavor, thereby increasing the likelihood that any effect (if any) is found.

One methodological facet of Bem et al. (2010) that was noted in Alcock's reply is that study's reliance on images that the research subject selected. To maximize accord with the original article, we will also allow the subject to select the erotic stimuli in this study.

To ensure that any desired effects can be found, we will also replicate scientific procedures and attitudes regarding multiple comparisons and post-hoc testing. Specifically, all subjects will complete a questionnaire with numerous questions about background, lifestyle, phone number, and other details that may correlate with psychic ability. Next, we will conduct several t tests. We will assess whether the subject could correctly guess the curtain more often than chance for students with certain characteristics or combinations of them. We will not apply correction for multiple comparisons, thus increasing the likelihood of attaining significant results. We will then develop an hypothesis consistent with these results.

Our guarantee of this project's success is the exceptional enthusiasm of the consortium. Our consortium relies on experts with very strong experience wanting to conduct a study of this nature. While we recognize that consortia and proposals often espouse eagerness toward a certain research direction, we really really mean it this time. We are very open to negotiate as needed to make this project a success. For example, to both broaden the statistical base and facilitate the reviewing procedure, it may be scientifically appropriate for some of the persons reviewing this grant to also participate as research subjects.

Conclusion
In summary, we need to resolve whether ESP is real. Bem et al. (2010) suggested that people may be able to anticipate erotic stimuli through ESP, but effect sizes were small, and could be amplified via more erotic stimuli. The opportunity to capitalize on this potential Kuhnian paradigm shift can not be ignored.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1699970
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11esp.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/response_to_alcocks_back_from_the_future_comments_on_bem

ET Nay

I remember reading several months ago that ETA was trying to negotiate, and saw some updates last week. They said that ETA offered a cease-fire. I thought, good, that's progress. Then it said Spain said no. Oh, those scheming Nationalists, I thought! Then it explained why Spain said no: ETA only offered the ceasefire on the conditions that it not give up any weapons, and "progress" on Basque independence.

Why is this even news? Isn't this exactly the same position they held forever? "If you give us independence, then we will stop killing civilians." Duh. Yeah, we know that's what you what. The reason you did not get it is not that you didn't phrase it coyly enough. (Another reason is the Spaniards and French arrested half of you last year, so how about YOU make concessions?)

Is this an improvement of an earlier held position? Did they previously say: "If you give us independence, then we will continue killing civilians, and also cats" and then try to negotiate from there?




Berlin, 1945

Adolf Hitler complained about the Allied rejection of his cease-fire offer today, according to a man pointing a gun at me right now. "Why do they reject peace?" Hitler said, who is widely known for seeking peace, and being an underappreciated painter as well. "We made our offer and they chose war. How could they? What of all the innocent people?"

US President Roosevelt replied that he was always open to peace negotiations. However, he noted that the cease-fire offer included two conditions: first, the Nazi people would not give up weapons; and second, "progress" on non-German independence. Hitler agreed that the failed negotiations were America's fault. "If we could only resolve this nagging technicality regarding your independence, we could have a cease-fire. The world would be free of war. But no, the allies chose war, so we will push them all the way back to the Rhine!"

On Krampus

I spent some of today in the lab, catching up on things and recovering from two days of generous feasting. Since I am on campus, I thought it would be fitting to write on Krampus. More on Him later.

It was a pretty generous Christmas, much more than I expected so far from home. I was invited for Christmas Eve dinner at the home of one of my labmates, which was quite kind. I brought some wine, chocolate, and T-shirts, the latter two from California. We had very good chicken soup, and a huge and generous platter of meats and egg and potato salad and numerous breads and lots of other things, then for dessert, roasted apples with cinnamon and raisins and walnuts. And plenty of nice conversation in a cozy home. I was quite happy. Badly overfed, but happy.

The next day, I was invited to Christmas lunch at another home, with people I knew even less, so I thought it especially nice to be invited. I again brought that trio of gifts, with 4 bottles of wine this time. This Christmas lunch was around noon or one, so I am not sure exactly what to call it. It was certainly cozy and Christmasy, with trees and decorations and a happy family. They had me fooled until the whole Krampus thing. Anyway.

The meal was, again, quite generous and tasty. The main meat element doesn't really exist in English, but it is essentially a slab of meat, rolled up and cooked, with gravy. And dumplings. And red cabbage with chestnuts. Then dessert was a sliced fruit bowl with cream. All of this was new and sumptuous. Also, in both houses, they had huge platters of assorted mini cakes and cookies, just in case you hadn't eaten quite enough for the week. I talked about Christmas turkeys with mashed potatoes and gravy and stuffing and cranberry sauce. And I told of my brother, teaching the Chinese how to cook such turkeys, and other Amerikanisch fare. I talked about exchanging gifts, which seems to be similar to the American way, except for the timing. And they had a wonderfully charming Christmas tree, just like one at home, with lights and ribbons and tinsel and hanging red balls and little alcohol filled chocolates hidden amongst the needles. All the gifts were glistening and well wrapped and inviting. I told them about the stockings (or perhaps there was a grievous mistranslation on my part). I said that Santa would bring a lump of coal for bad children. Note: Yes, this really is the absolute worst thing that ever happens to kids in American Christmas mythology. At the very worst, very bad kids get no toys from Santa, only a lump of coal. I say this to contrast him with Krampus.

Krampus is a mythical Austrian tormentor who hangs out with Santa Claus. While Santa rewards good children, Krampus punishes them, by beating them with chains and sticks and then putting them in baskets and hauling them away. They tell this to little 4 year old kids! Wide eyed and trusting, vulnerable, sweet. And I was just getting to trust Austrian people. Huh. Well, it figures. Same people who make little kids learn German.

On December 5, Austrian men play Krampus. This means that they dress up badly, go out in public, and get drunk. So far, no problem. I do this during Weinachtsfest a lot. It sounds like lots of holidays. But here is the evil Krampus part. They have chains and bells to frighten children. They go to shopping malls and other places, hit little kids (yes, I confirmed this part), chase them, ring bells, and try to scare them. Oddly, they do this indiscriminately, without even determining whether the kids were bad. I asked my hostess, and she said that she was chased and beaten as a little girl by scary Krampus man. In public. Didn't the other people do anything, I asked? Yes, she said. After a while, they told the Krampus men to stop. I said this would go much differently in the US, Texas in particular.

I had brunch this morning with a colleague and his family, including 2 little kids. I asked about Krampus. They confirmed it. They said it is used sometimes to motivate kids. Clemens told me something like this, but I didn't take it seriously, because he seems like a nice man. Sorry. Seemed.

I said that we have nothing like that in our Christmas mythology. We do have an old man that visits, sometimes two. He is often badly dressed, and sometimes drunk. But, he is not mean, but very loving and happy to see the kids. He brings presents and sometimes dresses up like Santa Claus. The men are not called Krampus, but Grampas.

One of the big headlines in Graz last year was when a man kidnapped his daughter and locked her in the cellar, where he beat her and was generally mean to her for 35 years. A few months later, it happened again. The Austrians were in shock. No, they said. Why? Why do they do this? I asked about it, and people said it was just a fluke. Yeah. They said that. Then, when I wasn't watching, they dressed up like Krampus, and went to public places, and threatened them with bells and chains and cellar damnation. Don't act all innocent.

To be fair, we do have Halloween. Old men dress badly, get drunk, go out in public, and scare children with bells, chains, ghost moaning, and bad breath. Other people confuse the kids by giving them candy. But that's totally different. For example, we also have the slutty costumes I mentioned before. What about that? (Not for the drunk old men.) What about some cultural merging, and we also say that on Dec 5, appropriate people also dress slutty? And, to further draw from this opportunity for cultural exchange, I should also tell you of the other part of our Halloween mythology, which is that they buy drinks for American BCI scientists. Let's get that tradition going, and it will really counter that Krampus grumpiness, at least for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krampus

The Eternal SiSiSi

Greetings from Rome, where the second TOBI workshop just ended. The workshop was generally successful, although bad weather and other factors caused all kinds of travel problems for many attendees. I was no exception; took me 14 hours to get from Graz to Rome, and the arrival time of my luggage remains unknown.

Rome is quite charming nonetheless. Our local hosts did a great job organizing, and were characteristically effusive and enthusiastic. I noticed that the locals seem unable to say yes once. Instead, just as Spaniards tend to say "vale" three times instead of once, Italians usually say "si" three or more times. Hence I redub the Eternal City: The Eternal SiSiSi.

And I bet it will catch on! Someday. If the city really is eternal, then I have lots of time.

The eternality of the city is best reflected in this conversation, which I had while sharing a taxi from the hotel to the conference site:

Me: "And so the hybrid BCI approach we are doing now is different from the - hey, look, Roman ruins!" (Everyone stops and stares.)
Colleague: "Yes. Um. Right. Uh. Where were we? Oh yes, hybrid BCIs. So - look, more ruins!" (everyone stares.)

After a few iterations of this, we kind of habituated, and even kept on topic for a little while.

Colleague: "But how can you resolve the - ah, more ruins up there, we must ignore them - how can you resolve the increased illiteracy risk?"
Me: "Well, it can reduce illiteracy if - wow, those ruins are huge! Anyway, so, um. You know, that looks a lot like the Coliseum."
Taxi driver: "That is the Coliseum." (everyone stops and stares.)

Long delay. Quite a shock to see one of the great edificies of world history, just, well, there, on the side of the road, coincidentally along our taxi ride. I guess I assumed it would be elevated, cloudborne, gleaming, surrounded by gold and the finest possible staff in resplendent raiment.

Me: "Dudes, why don't we enjoy the ride through Rome, and discuss work later?"
No objection.
"Sir, can you tell us about these new ruins up here?"
Taxi driver: "Si, si, si."

Don't Feed the Bear Story

I did say I was over the Colorado bear mauling. I implied it would not reflect well on me to obsess on it further. What would it say about my perspicacity, creativity, and wit if I couldn't find something new to talk about?

But, the media keep feeding that tail. Animal Planet created a series called Fatal Attractions, which exploits tales of animals hurting people to produce sensationalist, subtlely violent TV. Evdiently, they couldn't get enough viewers with pretty videos of deer and whales, let alone mollusks or obscure cnidarians. Hm, some clever producer though, maybe we can pull some viewers from wrestling, cage fighting, and Jackass reruns by offering comparable content. Season 1, Episode 6, titled "Don't Feed the Bears", focuses on the tale of Donna Munson.

Hard to say what I thought of this episode. It was nice to see professional film of Ouray, Colorado. They repeatedly interviewed the sherriff (my uncle), who handled himself quite well, though there was a bit of a gleam in his eye when he told about how his third shotgun blast finally "put the bear down". That seemed a bit insensitive, but then, bears don't watch TV, and would probably have found the episode horrific. The bigger problem is that the filming, editing, pacing, music, and detached narration all accomplished the goal of building tension and fear within the viewer. So I was watching the show with my parents, with happy thoughts and discussion of places we hiked or at least recognized, while the show instead tried to adumbrate doom and death.

Well, loyal blog readers (both of you) know how the story ends. But it turns out my speculation in the Tragedy of the Scented Scarf - quite surprisingly - was totally wrong. I admit I had to speculate on some details of bear courtroom procedures, but I thought it was a good guess. Reality is even more bizarre. Truth is danger than fiction.

The underlying incident was a big bear attacking a smaller bear. Donna Munson complained about this to her friends, stating that the big bear was a bully, and she intended to swat the big bear to teach him a lesson. I wish I could take credit for using that particular word, but no, "swat" is an exact quote from the newspaper (not mentioned in the Animal Planet story). This is by far the greatest use of "swat" in English, and totally explains how differently the situation was perceived. For my non-English speaking reader, "swat" is about the most playful formulation of "attack" or "hit" possible. A swat does not really hurt, or threaten.

Flashback to Cognitive Science 101C, when Prof. Gilles Fauconnier explained blending and its relation to humor and metaphor. We looked at examples of jokes based on miscommunication, in which one person has a certain view of the world, but fails to completely communicate it. So here is Donna Munson's mental model:

"Big bear attacked small bear. Swatting big bear would effectively convey my disappointment, and help big bear to appreciate the mental anguish he inflicted on small bear. Big bear would then re-evaluate his actions, and his overall world view, entailing an apology to small bear, possible restitution, and perhaps joining the Peace Core."

Here is big bear's mental model:

"Kill attacker!"

Hence, contrary to my supposition, the inciting incident didn't really have to do with food at all. The bear was defending himself. He might have been especially anger-prone, given that he had attacked a smaller bear, which might have served as a hint that he might not appreciate the swat. He probably calmed down, and only later thought, hmmm, I notice Donna didn't put out any new food recently. And I'm all tuckered out after clarifying the word "swat" to that vicious little attacker. Tired. And a bit peckish. And she smells kinda good.....

And so, by the time it dawned on Donna that he was munching on Munson, it was too late.

free whine

I am on a jet sitting on the ground in Chicago. I'm in 30K of a Boeing 777, which means I am in an exit row seat immediately behind the mid galley bulkhead. I seem to have gotten this exit row seat due to a computer glitch, since I was supposed to be charged extra. Some guy just came and took the (empty) seat next to me, and just got booted by an observant flight attendant. It's tough out here. So I end up with an exit row, quite literally. 30K and 30J are effectively the only seats in this row; there seems to be a 30A and 30B off to my left somewhere, on the other side of some lavatories, which is so far away it can be ignored. So I got a row to myself. Palatial. This could revolutionize my airline stretch routine.

My flight from Europe was one month sgo. Hard to believe that, since then, I hiked Moonshine Park and dropped down the Ridgway side of the ridge, plus saw so many people, went to a conference, and endured a deeply hauntingly rainy trip to San Diego. On the flight here, I got unlimited free wine. Now, they say it is 6 bucks a cup (not glass), since this is a United flight and not a Lufthansa flight. Yet I keep getting free wine out of them, based only on the promise of giving them more Mozartkügeln once I get to baggage claim. I could attribute this to me being charming, but I think it gets down to the tipping culture, and the underlying social underpinnings.

As I mentioned in many previous posts, the American vs. European differences in tipping culture speak tomes. Europeans consider good service routine. Why pay for good service, or for a couple cups of wine, when it should be assumed? Americans instead whine for such service from both directions; customers demand (not expect) it, and workers want some bonus for it. So they get it, in the form of tips, even though I strongly suspect they don't really make more than their European counterparts. Same trick here. I think I am clever and just charmed a stewardess, but in fact, she's probably giving free wine to everyone on the plane. Slut.

The rest of the flight was similarly uneventful. The flies in Munich airport were as tenacious as always. The flight from Munich to Graz was quite pretty, with snowy Alps jutting defiantly above clouds that rolled off the slopes like lazy avalanches. I did not get any photos of them, since I was near a wing, but I shall try to sate eager readers with snowy mountains in Colorado from just a few weeks ago:








The trip to Colorado opened with a massive snowstorm. I tried to be accepting. It was almost November, after all, and the snow did make everything pretty. Yet it did not portend good hiking. I still had fun seeing the family and everything, but then noticed it ceased snowing after I arrived. And so I did get in some good hikes, with good pictures, of an unprecendentedly wintery hiking retinue. I found lots of good new hikes, and discovered that snow creates some new adventures in old favorites. Yellowjacket Mine, for example, is a whole different hike in the snow and ice. I lost two walking sticks just making it through. I promised them they would be recorded, and they are. To my two loyal former walking sticks, Mini Wally and Wally Nuevo, you did your jobs well, and saved me from a nasty tumble down a ravine. May you thrive on the bottom of the ravine, in whatever way a dead log may wish to thrive.

But the big news around town was not the weather, but the election for Sherriff. My uncle was up against his toughest competition yet, who took out full page ads slandering him, and used all kinds of dirty tricks. We all told ourselves it was politics as usual, but it wasn't, cause this was our family. I was there for over a week before the election, which was 2 Nov, and the biggest local contest was the race for sherriff. I tried to contribute with clever writing, but was badly humbled and upstaged by the master. Mom wrote such a persuasive and sweet Letter to the Editor that I was left dumbfounded. It was like having my tongue wrapped in a towel. Vastly superior English skills. I hope I can write like that when I grow up. Fortunately, Uncle Dominic was re-elected for the third time, sending a strong message that the locals like him. Local humans, anyway. I doubt the local bear community does, but they cannot vote.

Fire at Will

Here are some pictures that were shot at the Hoopes-Ferrell wedding in Berkeley during Aug 2010.

Before



















During


















After