Improbability Principle

Desperado mentioned this book on a thread in the Extended Consciousness forum. Andy Paquette and his dream studies were brought up as well. I have previously written on this idea, and criticized Andy's attempt at torturing probability on the Skeptiko forum (e.g. http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skept...post154713, http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/jr...#post-1222).

The problem is that most people identify "psi" by identifying improbable connections (hence the need for anomalous information). And most people intuitively estimate probability and are wildly off when they do so. A common mistake is to do what Andy did - estimate the probability of a specific connection post hoc, rather than estimating the probability of any connection. There's no point in estimating the probability that Andy's dream about his uncle's painting would be accurate (for a very loose definition of "accurate") given that nobody specified that this was the one dream out of thousands that was going to be accurate beforehand, and in what way it was going to be accurate.

The Birthday Problem, mentioned in the article, is a good way to illustrate this. These events come to our attention post hoc. So when you're at a party and it is discovered that two people in the room were both born on April 16, your first instinct is to estimate the probability of being born on April 16 (it's not 1/365, by the way). So you think the probability of the event is 0.27% (some people even go so far as to estimate the probability as 1/365 x 1/365 or 0.00075%), yet in actuality the event has a probability of 50%. Nobody specified beforehand which birthday pair would be found.

And in daily life, it gets even worse, because nobody specifies beforehand just what kind of synchronicities are going to come to our attention, which leaves us with a wide open list of possibilities. If it hadn't been a shared birthday, it may have been a license plate with your initials and birthdate, or running into someone with the same name as you and your spouse, or a randomly generated PIN which coincides with your home phone number, or winning the lottery by playing your family's birthdates, or dreaming about an infrequently seen relative who shows up on your doorstep the next day unexpectedly, etc.

Linda

Desperado mentioned this book on a thread in the Extended Consciousness forum. Andy Paquette and his dream studies were brought up as well. I have previously written on this idea, and criticized Andy's attempt at torturing probability on the Skeptiko forum (e.g. http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skept...post154713, http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/jr...#post-1222).

The problem is that most people identify "psi" by identifying improbable connections (hence the need for anomalous information). And most people intuitively estimate probability and are wildly off when they do so. A common mistake is to do what Andy did - estimate the probability of a specific connection post hoc, rather than estimating the probability of any connection. There's no point in estimating the probability that Andy's dream about his uncle's painting would be accurate (for a very loose definition of "accurate") given that nobody specified that this was the one dream out of thousands that was going to be accurate beforehand, and in what way it was going to be accurate.

The Birthday Problem, mentioned in the article, is a good way to illustrate this. These events come to our attention post hoc. So when you're at a party and it is discovered that two people in the room were both born on April 16, your first instinct is to estimate the probability of being born on April 16 (it's not 1/365, by the way). So you think the probability of the event is 0.27% (some people even go so far as to estimate the probability as 1/365 x 1/365 or 0.00075%), yet in actuality the event has a probability of 50%. Nobody specified beforehand which birthday pair would be found.

And in daily life, it gets even worse, because nobody specifies beforehand just what kind of synchronicities are going to come to our attention, which leaves us with a wide open list of possibilities. If it hadn't been a shared birthday, it may have been a license plate with your initials and birthdate, or running into someone with the same name as you and your spouse, or a randomly generated PIN which coincides with your home phone number, or winning the lottery by playing your family's birthdates, or dreaming about an infrequently seen relative who shows up on your doorstep the next day unexpectedly, etc.

Linda

Here, here! This point was made over and over on skeptiko, but never gained any traction amongst the "stand in awe crew" (Weiler, Andy, Alex, etc). The birthday problem is an excellent analogy to use.

Here, here! This point was made over and over on skeptiko, but never gained any traction amongst the "stand in awe crew" (Weiler, Andy, Alex, etc). The birthday problem is an excellent analogy to use.

Yeah, the biggest difference I notice between proponents and non-proponents is this fundamental misunderstanding of probability (it is seen in everything from mediumship readings ("they couldn't have known that") to evolution denial ("the chance of this mutation was impossibly remote")). The Birthday Problem makes it clear, and I keep pounding on it. But I haven't actually noticed a light bulb moment in anyone, yet. 

Linda

So when you're at a party and it is discovered that two people in the room were both born on April 16, your first instinct is to estimate the probability of being born on April 16 (it's not 1/365, by the way). So you think the probability of the event is 0.27% (some people even go so far as to estimate the probability as 1/365 x 1/365 or 0.00075%), yet in actuality the event has a probability of 50%. Nobody specified beforehand which birthday pair would be found.
...
Yeah, the biggest difference I notice between proponents and non-proponents is this fundamental misunderstanding of probability ...

Of course, half the problem with probability theory is being careful how you specify the event whose probability you're trying to calculate. Unfortunately, you've ended up there telling us that the probability of any two people at a party both being born on April 16 is 50%. What you meant, I think, was the probabilty of any two people at a party of 23 having the same birthday.

Similarly, in the old mind-energy.net post you linked to, you asked what was the probability of John and Mary, while at a party of 23, discovering they both had the same birthday. There, I think you meant not just John and Mary having the same birthday, but any two of the party.

Probability can be tricky. Think of all the professionals who got the Monty Hall problem wrong. Stone-throwing is best left to the sinless.

Yeah, the biggest difference I notice between proponents and non-proponents is this fundamental misunderstanding of probability (it is seen in everything from mediumship readings ("they couldn't have known that") to evolution denial ("the chance of this mutation was impossibly remote")). The Birthday Problem makes it clear, and I keep pounding on it. But I haven't actually noticed a light bulb moment in anyone, yet. 

Linda

I've interacted with a colossal number of skeptics who think they understand how probability works and also have not even the slightest clue what it actually means for a study; further, probabilities and arguments surrounding them oftentimes are one of those ways that people manage to completely obscure other substantially important considerations regarding any one of a variety of psi phenomena, as if the probability arguments somehow are dispositive to the legitimacy of the phenomena at large. You never cease to amaze me in painting proponents with a large (and absurd) brush. Get off your high horse for once.

Not only do you have science on your side, but more informed individuals as well? How is there even a debate anymore?

I've interacted with a colossal number of skeptics who think they understand how probability works and also have not even the slightest clue what it actually means for a study; further, probabilities and arguments surrounding them oftentimes are one of those ways that people manage to completely obscure other substantially important considerations regarding any one of a variety of psi phenomena, as if the probability arguments somehow are dispositive to the legitimacy of the phenomena at large. You never cease to amaze me in painting proponents with a large (and absurd) brush. Get off your high horse for once.

Not only do you have science on your side, but more informed individuals as well? How is there even a debate anymore?

Hi Dante,

I was just going by my own experience here and on the prior Skeptiko forums.

I have yet to see a proponent comment on Andy's invalid use of probability, but I guess that doesn't mean that it's unrecognized, though.

Linda

Unfortunately, you've ended up there telling us that the probability of any two people at a party both being born on April 16 is 50%. 

That isn't at all what she did. When she references "the event" it's obvious that she's referring to a shared birthday, which simply happened to be April 16 on this occasion, but I'm sure you already know that and just feel like busting chops.

That isn't at all what she did. When she references "the event" it's obvious that she's referring to a shared birthday, which simply happened to be April 16 on this occasion, but I'm sure you already know that.

I agree it's obvious - at least to someone already familiar with the example - that what she was thinking was "two people in the room shared a birthday". But what she wrote was "two people in the room were both born on April 16". As a result, she did exactly what I said.

That isn't at all what she did. When she references "the event" it's obvious that she's referring to a shared birthday, which simply happened to be April 16 on this occasion, but I'm sure you already know that and just feel like busting chops.

Ha ha. You are right - I was careful about what I said/how I said it. But if I said the sky was blue, Chris would be busting my chops over it.

Linda

I was careful about what I said/how I said it.