Bizzare - and if you believe it, most think you are a crackpot

trendlover · Sep 8, 2008

It is a good experiment that Nutmeg showed, like Pabst said.
So maybe some people have more confidence in listening to what their unconscious is telling them, but others become fearful.

Fractals 'R Us · Sep 8, 2008

in the real world your unconscious, your gut, can tell you all sorts of things if they are emotionally upsetting. That is the threshold for detection for the gut. If you learn to watch your daydreams you will find that they are talking to you before shit happens, usually not more than 5 seconds though. The premonition thingy is my wife's specialty, mine is the 5 second warning though she gets the 5 second warning sometimes, it saved her from a horrendous auto accident once, something told her to stop and she did.

In any kind of contrived test with cards or whatever I doubt either one of us could show any talent for these things at all, it has to be real world. Wifey wins at slot machines every single time we go to a casino, and bingo too somehow, that bingo thingy is really unexplainable, you don't even use your intuition.....

nutmeg · Sep 8, 2008

Quote from killthesunshine:

Total BS.

Only picking from the red decks got you slapped. After a few slaps your mind begins to associate "red" with "slap ". Choosing Red creates stress.

Simple as that.

Associations can form between anything. They are more often wrong than right.
More...

The experiment is a sample of "intuitive repulsion", although it could be mistaken for "association" it was not designed in that context.

They didn't know why they knew, the just knew.

nitro · May 5, 2010

Quote from nitro:

If you believe in this stuff, how much can trading "talent" be attributed to it?

BTW, this is a sub-category of Noetics:

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

nitro
More...

See this post:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2828699#post2828699

afto · May 8, 2010

The journalist Tors Norretranders (sp?) in his book The User Illusion cites numerous experiments which indicate that the human mind is conscious of between 15 to 60 bits of information per second out of millions.
Bottom line is we're totally clueless over whats really going on.
I know that's hard to accept but even Einstein on the distinction between past, present and future talks about a " stubbornly persistent illusion."
Incidentally I was born a few miles away from the village mentioned in the article and my next door neighbor, a teacher at the school, was late for work that day. Saved his life but his hair seemed to turned grey overnight. Many other stories but suffice to say a eleven year old never forgets those things.
-

Quote from nutmeg:

Imagine that I asked you to a play a very simple gambling game. In front of you, are four decks of cards--two red and two blue. Each card in those four decks either wins you a sum of money or costs you some money, and your job is to turn over cards from any of the decks, one at a time, in such a way that maximizes your winnings. What you don't know at the beginning, however, is that the red decks are a minefield. The rewards are high, but when you lose on red, you lose a lot. You can really only win by taking cards from the blue decks, which offer a nice, steady diet of $50 and $100 payoffs. The question is: how long will it take you to figure this out?

A group of scientists at the University of Iowa did this experiment a few years ago, and what they found is that after we've turned over about fifty cards, most of us start to develop a hunch about what's going on. We don't know why we prefer the blue decks. But we're pretty sure, at that point, that they are a better bet. After turning over about eighty cards, most of us have figured the game out, and can explain exactly why the first two decks are such a bad idea. This much is straightforward. We have some experiences. We think them through. We develop a theory, and then finally we put two and two together. That's the way learning works. But the Iowa scientists did something else, and this is where the strange part of the experiment begins. They hooked each gambler up to a polygraph--a lie detector machine--that measured the activity of the sweat glands that all of us have below the skin in the palms of our hands. Most sweat glands respond to temperature. But those in our palms open up in response to stress--which is why we get clammy hands when we are nervous. What the Iowa scientists found is that gamblers started generating stress responses to red decks by the tenth card, forty cards before they were able to say that they had a hunch about what was wrong with those two decks. More importantly, right around the time their palms started sweating, their behavior began to change as well. They started favoring the good decks, and taking fewer and fewer cards from A and B. In other words, the gamblers figured the game out before they figured the game out: they began making the necessary adjustments long before they were consciously aware of what adjustments they were supposed to be making.

The Iowa study is just an experiment, of course, a simple card game involving a handful of subjects and a polygraph machine. But it's a very powerful illustration of the way our minds work. Here is a situation where the stakes were high, where things were moving quickly, and where the participants had to make sense of a lot of new and confusing information in a very short time--and what does the Iowa experiment tell us? That in those moments our brain uses two very different strategies to make sense of the situation. The first is the one we're most familiar with. It's the conscious strategy. We think about what we've learned, and eventually come up with an answer. This strategy is logical and definitive. But it takes us eighty cards to get there. It's slow. It needs a lot of information. There's a second strategy, though. It operates a lot more quickly. It starts to kick in after ten cards, and it's really smart because it picks up the problem with the red decks almost immediately. It has the drawback, however, that it operates--at least at first--entirely below the surface of consciousness. It sends its messages through weirdly indirect channels, like the sweat glands on the palms of our hands. It's a system in which our brain reaches conclusions without immediately telling us that it's reaching conclusions.
More...

dcraig · May 9, 2010

Quote from nitro:

"...But this scanner is engaged in one of the most profound paranormal experiments of all time, one that may well prove whether or not it is possible to predict the future..."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/scienc...vinced_that_man_can_see_the_future/index.html

nitro
More...

The article cites the Daily Mail as it's source. The Daily Mail is not a credible source for science reporting (or much else for that matter). Why would any scientist in their right mind release their results "exclusively" to the Daily Mail. Wake me up when there is something from a credible source.

spd · May 9, 2010

I can predict the future, within 99.999% accuracy

In the very near future I will take a shit and drink some Jack Daniels. Im also sensing some text messages with my friends and possibly some pancakes.

Prove me wrong.

beginnerjohn · May 9, 2010

I would like to second that. Nice post.
Best
John

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Interesting that your post has been uncommented upon. One of the few really decent, thought provoking things I've read here in ages. I'm grateful nutmeg.
More...

nitro · May 9, 2010

Quote from dcraig:

The article cites the Daily Mail as it's source. The Daily Mail is not a credible source for science reporting (or much else for that matter). Why would any scientist in their right mind release their results "exclusively" to the Daily Mail. Wake me up when there is something from a credible source.
More...

Not nearly as shocking as the topic of this thread, but _almost_ is the Global Consciousness Project:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

Redneck · May 9, 2010

Quote from nutmeg:

The Iowa study is just an experiment, of course, a simple card game involving a handful of subjects and a polygraph machine. But it's a very powerful illustration of the way our minds work. Here is a situation where the stakes were high, where things were moving quickly, and where the participants had to make sense of a lot of new and confusing information in a very short time--and what does the Iowa experiment tell us?

That in those moments our brain uses two very different strategies to make sense of the situation. The first is the one we're most familiar with. It's the conscious strategy. We think about what we've learned, and eventually come up with an answer. This strategy is logical and definitive. But it takes us eighty cards to get there. It's slow. It needs a lot of information. There's a second strategy, though. It operates a lot more quickly. It starts to kick in after ten cards, and it's really smart because it picks up the problem with the red decks almost immediately. It has the drawback, however, that it operates--at least at first--entirely below the surface of consciousness. It sends its messages through weirdly indirect channels, like the sweat glands on the palms of our hands. It's a system in which our brain reaches conclusions without immediately telling us that it's reaching conclusions.
More...

Nutmeg,

Very insightfulâ¦

And once a person gets the two together (in sync) â maximum efficiency, maximum effectiveness..., and the sky is the limitâ¦

IMHO of course

RN