I see a cynical ploy to milk what some (no, not me of course!) say is a manufactured narrative and completely artificial sequence of highly visible events. By “discovering” the “impact” thereof, they demonstrate their woke bona fides and thus their worthiness to receive a reliable stream of donor/taxpayer money.
They believe it no more than they believe in the tooth fairy.
On an unrelated note, a fox killed 11 of my chickens the other night. The release of psychic energy caused my internet to go down. What else could it have been that but that?
I think your analysis is highly likely. My first thought about calling the George Floyd trial a worldwide event was— was it really though? No doubt much of Europe paid attention, but millions of people in China, India, and Africa probably didn’t care or didn’t know it was happening. For something to show evidence of a “global consciousness” they would have needed to pick an actual more universal event/thought. And I would have thought they would need to show more evidence that such an event was actually experienced by many more people all around the world. Given that, choosing this particular event does seem very contrived.
What you failed to mention is that if you ran these trials say 50 times, you would likely get 30 with nice positive numbers and 20 with horrible negative numbers (or vice versa). Blame the negative numbers on experimental error or outside causes , then use the positive numbers (nicely ordered of course) to prove that the cause is whatever you want and that it is getting worse.
PhD guaranteed and find a sponsor to get you a life time of playing with numbers and eating Pizza (Pineapple optional).
OMG, William! It's like these Princeton-lite people have shattered the very fabric of statistics. It is fascinating though. Personally, I'm skeptical of anything claiming to be "random" when it involves computers or anything electrical. It’s all just man-made pseudo-random nonsense. Actually, I recall doing something like this maybe 4 decades ago. As I recall it would not converge to zero as expected. HAHAHA.
I think that's the point what William says about probability and also what I observed during my poker "career". When the first 5 randoms go -5 for you and you had only 5 events in your life then theoretical probability is totally useless for your case. And in general that's how our everyday life goes. We have a limited amount of events.
Interesting. I tried your “cumulative sum of a million flips” using MATLAB. Essentially the same results: a random walk. But things look a lot different if you divide the cumsum by n and plot with Y-axis limits of [-1,1]. Without zooming way in, it just looks like a straight line: y=0. Same thing for n=1e7 and 1e8. Standard deviation tends to be around 2e-4. For this engineer, that’s zero. Btw, the cumsum equals zero hundreds and even thousands of times in a single run.
I see a cynical ploy to milk what some (no, not me of course!) say is a manufactured narrative and completely artificial sequence of highly visible events. By “discovering” the “impact” thereof, they demonstrate their woke bona fides and thus their worthiness to receive a reliable stream of donor/taxpayer money.
They believe it no more than they believe in the tooth fairy.
On an unrelated note, a fox killed 11 of my chickens the other night. The release of psychic energy caused my internet to go down. What else could it have been that but that?
I think your analysis is highly likely. My first thought about calling the George Floyd trial a worldwide event was— was it really though? No doubt much of Europe paid attention, but millions of people in China, India, and Africa probably didn’t care or didn’t know it was happening. For something to show evidence of a “global consciousness” they would have needed to pick an actual more universal event/thought. And I would have thought they would need to show more evidence that such an event was actually experienced by many more people all around the world. Given that, choosing this particular event does seem very contrived.
I like what I don’t totally understand sometimes. But any time I read an article poking fun at the Nobel committee, I’m game.
My mind is already filling with cheeky hypotheses. "Here we demonstrate the causal link to tranny porn consumption..."
Line goes up - effect!
Line goes down - effect!
Line stays stable after going up or down- effect!
Seems good odds that an effect will be Found no matter what happens.
Climate change!
What you failed to mention is that if you ran these trials say 50 times, you would likely get 30 with nice positive numbers and 20 with horrible negative numbers (or vice versa). Blame the negative numbers on experimental error or outside causes , then use the positive numbers (nicely ordered of course) to prove that the cause is whatever you want and that it is getting worse.
PhD guaranteed and find a sponsor to get you a life time of playing with numbers and eating Pizza (Pineapple optional).
If psi were real, I know what I would do with it.
Has anyone looked at the professional gambler population for folks who win more often than they should?
OMG, William! It's like these Princeton-lite people have shattered the very fabric of statistics. It is fascinating though. Personally, I'm skeptical of anything claiming to be "random" when it involves computers or anything electrical. It’s all just man-made pseudo-random nonsense. Actually, I recall doing something like this maybe 4 decades ago. As I recall it would not converge to zero as expected. HAHAHA.
I did the random +1/-1 experiment on my home computer decades ago, it very rarely converges at zero.
I think that's the point what William says about probability and also what I observed during my poker "career". When the first 5 randoms go -5 for you and you had only 5 events in your life then theoretical probability is totally useless for your case. And in general that's how our everyday life goes. We have a limited amount of events.
Interesting. I tried your “cumulative sum of a million flips” using MATLAB. Essentially the same results: a random walk. But things look a lot different if you divide the cumsum by n and plot with Y-axis limits of [-1,1]. Without zooming way in, it just looks like a straight line: y=0. Same thing for n=1e7 and 1e8. Standard deviation tends to be around 2e-4. For this engineer, that’s zero. Btw, the cumsum equals zero hundreds and even thousands of times in a single run.