New German "Randi Prize"

In a card-guessing test with a 1 in 5 chance of success, if it was 50 trials long you'd only need 26 correct to get 1,000,000 to 1 odds. If it was 25 trials, you'd need 16. At least one person on here has got 11/25 a few times in those tests, so it seems doable.

11 or more out of 25 would only be odds of 200 to 1, though.

11 or more out of 25 would only be odds of 200 to 1, though.

Right, but even 11, if repeated in 4 trials (so 44/100), would surpass a million to 1. And according to this post, it's been done by a user of this forum. I wonder if other users of this forum consistently get around 11/25 on tests? If so we could try and put them forward for it.

Yes - no doubt people claim extraordinary abilities. I was asking whether people here believed in the existence of the kind of abilities that could produce odds of ten million to one without a lengthy series of experiments.

Likely they do. Some I recall believe the PEAR Rearch group clearly showed evidence for micro-pk.

Likely they do. Some I recall believe the PEAR Rearch group clearly showed evidence for micro-pk.

You're not reading what I'm writing. I said without a lengthy series of experiments.

Right, but even 11, if repeated in 4 trials (so 44/100), would surpass a million to 1. And according to this post, it's been done by a user of this forum. I wonder if other users of this forum consistently get around 11/25 on tests? If so we could try and put them forward for it.

As Doug said, that kind of performance would be "so awesome as to border on the miraculous". I'd be inclined to think there might have been some problem with the online test that generated the figures.

As Doug said, that kind of performance would be "so awesome as to border on the miraculous". I'd be inclined to think there might have been some problem with the online test that generated the figures.

I've checked the site and it chooses the card with client-side JS, the standard Math.random() function ( Math.floor(Math.random()*5) +1 ). So if TheRaven reported the results correctly and it's not psi, he/she would have to be predicting the browser's random number generation (perhaps subconsciously). That is possible I suppose but a remarkable ability in itself!

I've checked the site and it chooses the card with client-side JS, the standard Math.random() function ( Math.floor(Math.random()*5) +1 ). So if TheRaven reported the results correctly and it's not psi, he/she would have to be predicting the browser's random number generation (perhaps subconsciously). That is possible I suppose but a remarkable ability in itself!

Well, we don't really have any way of knowing quite what happened, because the test wasn't done under controlled conditions. If those results could be repeated under controlled conditions, they would probably be the most remarkable demonstration of psi ever recorded.

You're not reading what I'm writing. I said without a lengthy series of experiments.

Mediocre (sp)? comes to mind.

Mediocre (sp)? comes to mind.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Anyone can make a mistake.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Anyone can make a mistake.

Karmy made fun of me after I didn't spell check Larry Krouce's name.