Interesting Experiment

[LightBeam]

Hi all,

I remembered an experiment I did a while ago one summer when I went home to visit my family. I found a bunch of small plastic rings from a broken pen, but they were different colors, yet the same shape. I wanted to throw them away with the rest of the broken pen parts, but when I held the rings, I started having flashes of colors as they were in my hands. So I decided to hold them and put my hands behind my back. Then pick only one ring and try to pick up its color with my mind. To my surprise I was accurate 90% of the time. That evening, my sister and my mom were sitting on the terrace having dinner and I showed them this experiment. I wanted to see if I would succeed when other people were watching me. And I did, I picked the accurate color a few times on a row and on the third time I opened my eyes after I called the color. It was the right color and when I looked at my mom, I have never seen that expression on her face. Like she was thinking, are you a witch or something? haha.


So, if any of you want to try this experiment and let us know the results. Just find the same shape small objects but different colors. Hold them behind your back, pick one out of the bunch and start rubbing it between your fingers, absorbing its color, close your eyes and try to see if any flickers of color would appear. Don't try to guess and pick a color first because that will influence your perception which may be false. Empty your mind from opinion and wait for the true energy to come through. If you start seeing different colors that means that your mind is judging before true observation, making assumptions. Release that and empty your mind again and just wait while rubbing the object between your fingers. Try to visualize your fingers and see if you can also visualize the object and its true color.

[Nameless]

Love it. I've done similar in the past. Sometimes I do really great but other times not so great at all. When I was a kid it was so easy. I just tried with some colored toothpicks and got them all wrong.

I may just be tired so for now I'm not going to try anymore. Not for a while that is. I hope a number of our members give this a try. It could prove very interesting.

Great topic and great experiment and so easy as we don't need any special tools and such.

[Szaxx]

Hi,
I did this decades ago with zener cards. The results on a good day make you want to do the lottery in these manner. On a bad day it scored above average but nothing exciting. I didn't get many bad days though.
One test I correctly pulled 24 from 28 which was pure luck of course. Okay try it again, not expecting anything fancy though, sleep is a luxury once again that's in short supply.

[Stillwater]

Did it 8 times, got it right 7 times, with two choices ( there is about a 3.5% chance of an outcome that strong or better in 8 trials).

Is it statistically significant? Would have to do it 10,000 odd times and get back to you on that 

[Thread Killer]

Did it 8 times, got it right 7 times, with two choices ( there is about a 3.5% chance of an outcome that strong or better in 8 trials).

Is it statistically significant? Would have to do it 10,000 odd times and get back to you on that 

You start applying for a grant and I'll...wait.

[Stillwater]

Maybe in the 70's that grant would go through 

Princeton's little deal with the falling foam balls (PEAR) was always a neat little anomaly, but not sure if they ever eliminated all the alternative interference possibilities, like the gravity of people in the room, nearby obects, etc.

[Thread Killer]

Maybe in the 70's that grant would go through 

Princeton's little deal with the falling foam balls (PEAR) was always a neat little anomaly, but not sure if they ever eliminated all the alternative interference possibilities, like the gravity of people in the room, nearby obects, etc.

I'm not familiar. What did the distribution look like?

[Stillwater]

Something around .1% deviation from base chance toward the desired direction of the test subject.... which admittedly doesn't sound super impressive, but was consistent between 10's of thousands of trials. If the data is accurate and un-tampered with, it is actually extremely statistically significant against the number of trials done. 

PEAR was criticized for a few issues, like using the same test subjects in too high a percentage of the trials. Others also failed to replicate their data in other cities.