As part of a long-term program of research in states of consciousness and parapsychology, Etzel Cardeña and his associates at Lund University, Sweden are investigating the following themes in the department of psychology:
The nature of spontaneous and induced states of consciousness of targeted groups (e.g., high and low hypnotizables, beginning and long-term meditators) through various methodological tools, including experience sampling reporting, cognitive tasks, and measure of brain activity (e.g., EEG) and other physiological responses with the goal of establishing an empirically-based, phenomenological/physiological taxonomy of states of consciousness.
The relationship between hypnotizability and performance in controlled PSI experiments. Previous studies have revealed that: highly hypnotizable individuals report a high incidence of spontaneous anomalous experiences, including reputed psi phenomena such as clairvoyance and telepathy, and there is a significant positive association between a hypnotic context and performance in controlled, standardized tests measuring psi abilities. This part of the project focuses on: a) investigating the possible interaction between a hypnotic context, hypnotizability, and performance in controlled psi experiments, and b) developing and testing a long-term training program to potentially enhance performance in psi-experiments through immediate feedback and long term skill enhancement on groups most likely to perform significantly in standardized psi tests.
If interested in apply for their graduate program, contact: Dr Etzel Cardena or download the application.
The Ecology, Cosmos and Consciousness lecture series presents:
A New Science of Life: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake
Tuesday, 31st March, 2009 According to Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis of formative causation, all self-organizing systems, including crystals, animals and societies contain an inherent memory, given by a process called morphic resonance from previous similar systems. All human beings draw upon a collective human memory, and in turn contribute to it. Even individual memory depends on morphic resonance rather than on physical memory traces stored within the brain. This radical hypothesis implies that the so-called laws of nature are more like habits, and evolution, like human life, depends on an interplay between habit and creativity. Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and several books, including A New Science of Life (new edition, February 2008). His web site is www.sheldrake.orgOctober Gallery, 24 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AL (Tel: 44 (0)20 7831 1618). – email: rentals@octobergallery.co.ukPlease RSVP as space is very limited – Pay on the door or in advance by credit card Entry £7 /£5 Concessions, Arrive 6pm for a 6:30pm Start - Wine available
At 7pm on Friday, March 20th, please join Dr. Julie Beischel at the Scottish Rite Event Center in San Diego, CA. She will discuss how mediumship is investigated in a controlled laboratory setting, what conclusions can be drawn from the data collected to date, the practical applications of mediumship in grief recovery and hospice care, how mediumship can affect the lives of those who have lost a loved one, and how to choose a medium and get the most out of your reading. This event is co-sponsored by OpenSourceScience, the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) San Diego Community Group, and the San Diego Bereavement Consortium. For more information and to purchase tickets, please visit www.windbridge.org/sandiego.htm.
Julie Beischel, PhD, is the Co-Founder and Director of Research at The Windbridge Institute for Applied Research in Human Potential. Her research interests center on the survival of consciousness hypothesis ("life after death") and include proof-focused studies of mediums' communication with discarnates and process-focused studies of mediums' experiences of that communication. Dr. Beischel received her doctorate in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a minor in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona. She was the first recipient of the William James Post-doctoral Fellowship in Mediumship and Survival Research at the University of Arizona where she served as Co-Director of the VERITAS Research Program before moving the research and the screening and training of prospective research mediums to Windbridge in January of 2008. Dr. Beischel is currently a member of the Parapsychological Association and a member of the scientific advisory boards of the Rhine Research Center and the Forever Family Foundation. She is the recipient of a 2008 Bial Foundation research grant and has published peer-reviewed articles in journals including the Journal of Scientific Exploration, The Journal of Parapsychology, and Explore: the Journal of Science and Healing. More information about Dr. Beischel and the Windbridge Institute can be found at www.windbridge.org.
There are two opportunities for European students interested in studying parapsychology at the University of Northampton in the UK. Act quickly because the deadline is coming up soon! Details below.Research Degree Studentship: ESP project
£8,125.00 per annum plus tuition fees for 3 years (including £1,000 research expenses p.a.) The University of Northampton invites applications for a three-year part-time (.65) PhD studentship to support a research project that will investigate performance at a laboratory-based implicit psi task and test predictions made by the Psi-Mediated Instrumental Response theory. The successful applicant will be based in the Centre for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes (CSAPP), an institutionally recognised Research Centre within The University of Northampton. Supervisory support and research training shall be provided by staff from CSAPP and the School of Social Science within the University. The bursary is part of a project led by Dr Chris Roe and funded by the Fundação Bial, Portugal, and will involve a series of four experimental studies to assess the effects upon psi-task performance of * Contingent rewards * Participant latent inhibition * Participant lability * Overt versus covert forms of the task * some details of these studies are determined by the conditions of funding, but there will be scope for the successful candidate to modify or extend the research goals Applicants should possess a good Honours or Masters Degree in Psychology or a related discipline and be able to demonstrate some familiarity with Parapsychological research methods and findings. The studentship is open to EU nationals only. Deadline for applications: 4 March, 2009 It is intended that interviews will be held: week beginning 16th March, 2009 Start date: To be negotiated For an application pack, please email: david.watson@northampton.ac.uk, or call 01604 892812.
Additional informal enquiries can be made to chris.roe@northampton.ac.uk
Please quote reference: UN09CSAPPPMIR
Research Degree Studentship: Micro-PK project
£8,125.00 per annum plus tuition fees for 3 years (including £1,000 research expenses p.a.)
The University of Northampton invites applications for a three-year part-time (.65) PhD studentship to support a research project investigating the role of lability in performance at a computer-based micro-psychokinesis task. The successful applicant will be based in the Centre for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes (CSAPP), an institutionally recognised Research Centre within The University of Northampton. Supervisory support and research training shall be provided by staff from CSAPP and the School of Social Science within the University.
The bursary is part of a project led by Dr Chris Roe and funded by the Fundação Bial, Portugal, and will involve
* survey work to develop and psychometrically evaluate a new questionnaire-based measure of lability;
* a series of three experimental studies to assess the relationship between lability and performance at a laboratory-based micro-psychokinesis task
* some details of these projects are determined by the conditions of funding, but there will be some scope for the successful candidate to modify or extend the research goals
Applicants should possess a good Honours or Masters Degree in Psychology or a related discipline and be able to demonstrate some familiarity with Parapsychological research methods and findings. The studentship is open to EU nationals only.
Deadline for applications: 4 March, 2009
It is intended that interviews will be held: week beginning 16th March, 2009
Start date: To be negotiated
For an application pack, please email: david.watson@northampton.ac.uk, or call 01604 892812.
Additional informal enquiries can be made to chris.roe@northampton.ac.uk
Please quote reference: UN09CSAPPMICROPK
THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE BRAIN
Interdisciplinary Perspectives On Paranormal And Anomalous Experiences
Muncaster Castle in the English Lake district is an atmospheric and historic site where much research has been done into reports of hauntings. On the weekend of Spetember 18th- 20th 2009 this stunning location will host a unique conference - "Things that Go Bump in the Brain: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Paranormal and Anomalous Experiences". A line-up of excellent speakers will present talks on a wide range of topics, from some of the latest developments in parapsychology, to skepticism and the cutting edge neuroscience of anomalous experiences. The aim of the conference is to take a balanced view of anomalous experiences and so there will be talks from both proponents and skeptics in the hope of increasing understanding of the issues and generating a healthy debate. The Conference organisers are Dr Jason Braithwaite (Birmingham University Neuroscientist), Dr Wendy E. Cousins (Parapsychology Association International Liaison for Ireland) and John Jackson (Director of Uk-Skeptics). Speakers and topics include: ·Prof Chris French: The Psychology of Anomalous Experiences ·Dr Jason Braithwaite: The Haunted Brain: Towards a Cognitive Neuroscience of Anomalous Cognition ·Dr Christine Mohr: A Neuroscientist looks at the paranormal ·Dr Chris Roe: Psi as Unconscious: A review of some recent research developments in parapsychology ·Nick Pope: The Ministry of Defence X-files ·Dr Karen Douglas: The Social Psychology of Conspiracy beliefs ·David Wilde: Interpreting the anomalous: finding meaning in out-of-body and near-death experiences ·Emma Louise Rhodes: A Matter of Life and Death: A Sceptical Look at Spiritualism ·Dr John Walliss: Between the Worlds: Mediumship in the 21st Century ·Xavier Mendik: The Lure of the Dark side: Sex, death and the paranormal in cult movies. The delegate rate for both days of the conference will be only £65 at the Early-Bird booking discount (£75 if booked after July 1st). This price includes access to both days of the conference (10 talks, 5 per-day); an invitation to the Friday night welcoming wine reception to be held in the castle; tea, coffee and biscuits each morning and afternoon session; a two course hot fork buffet style lunch on Saturday and Sunday, and full access to the castle and grounds for the duration of the conference. An optional conference Banquet for speakers and delegates in the castle on Saturday evening is priced separately at £45. For further updates on the conference, more information on the castle, its surroundings, accommodation details, and how to order your booking pack please see the conference website: http://www.muncaster.co.uk/muncaster-castle-paranormal-conference
The Rhine Research Center's website has recently gotten a face lift and their latest newsletter is available for download. Enjoy!
Super Bowl XLIII Field RNG Exploration (Part Four)
by, Bryan Williams Results: Super Bowl XLIII – Feb. 1, 2009
Super Bowl XLIII was marked by several notable moments, including the longest yard run in Super Bowl history, a valiant comeback effort by the Arizona Cardinals, and the Pittsburgh Steelers becoming the most winning Super Bowl team. It might be reasonable to think that the attention and emotional response to these and other moments might be conducive to a mass “group mind” effect, and to explore that idea, we tested two basic predictions for this field RNG demonstration ( Part Two): one for the football game itself, and one for halftime. First Prediction: Football Game
Figure 1 shows the graphical representation of the resulting field RNG output throughout the duration of the football game.
 Figure 1. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during Super Bowl XLIII, 4:31 – 8:39 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 1, 2009. The level of statistical significance at p = .05 (i.e., odds of 20 to 1 against chance) as time passes is indicated by the smoothly curved red arc.Similar to the previous four Super Bowls (Part 3), the data from this year’s Super Bowl are mostly random, with no clear signs of a directional trend. The statistical outcome further confirms its random nature overall (Chi-Square = 14888.75, 14880 df, p = .478). It is perhaps of interest, however, that the data show a deep “valley” around halftime, marked by a rather steady decreasing trend, followed by a counterbalancing steady positive trend. Falling within the range of halftime, this was explored further in the second prediction test. Second Prediction: Halftime Show
The “valley”-shaped trend can be seen in more detail in Figure 2, which displays the RNG data output during halftime. 
Figure 2. Graphical representation of the RNG data from the Super Bowl XLIII halftime show, 5:55 – 6:28 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 1, 2009.The data begin to rather steadily decrease around 6:00 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), lasting until about three minutes before the end of the concert given by Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. This trend extends so far below expectation that it begins to approach statistical significance, indicated by the bottom red curved arc. A counterbalancing positive trend then brings the data level again with chance expectation overall (Chi-Square = 1979.18, 1980 df, p = .501). While it looks interesting on the surface, it must be kept in mind that such trends are expected to occur in random data from time to time, so there is no clear indication that it is “group mind” related. Combined Results: Five Consecutive Super Bowls
With Super Bowl XLIII, I (B.W.) have collected field RNG data from five consecutive Super Bowls from 2005 to 2009. Given the weak and subtle nature of the effects involved in RNG-based PK and field RNG studies, it might be instructive to examine a combined result across all five games to see what it might have to say about the mass “group mind” effect. Figure 3 shows such a combined result across all five Super Bowls, with the data combined by way of a Stouffer’s Z-score taken across the five RNG outputs for each second ( Part Two), covering the period from the moment of kickoff to the end of the game and the trophy presentation. On average, halftime began about 88.4 minutes into the game and lasted 29.4 minutes. The game lasted about 215.4 minutes on average. The approximate moments of these events are indicated in the graph. 
Figure 3. Graphical representation of the field RNG data combined across five consecutive Super Bowls (XXXIX – XLIII) by way of a Stouffer’s Z-score. The approximate times for halftime and the game end, averaged across all five Super Bowls, are indicated by black tickmarks along the pink line of expectation.The data across all five games are clearly within the range of chance (Chi-Square = 15011.38, 14880 df, p = .223), although they are in the predicted direction overall and some degree of structure seems to be visible. Keeping in mind that these visible trends may be random artifacts (and thus we should be cautious about attributing too much meaning to them), it is rather interesting that a strong positive trend occurs about 45 minutes into the game, along with a sharp “valley” following halftime (120 minutes). Visually, the strong positive trend occurring toward the end of the game seems consistent with the kind of trend posited in the first prediction, and seems subjectively consistent with the idea that as the game comes down to its exciting conclusion and a winning team is determined, peoples’ attention becomes focused and their emotions strong. But again, we cannot say with certainty that this trend reflects a mass focused “group mind” effect, since such a trend occurs by chance every once in a while in the fluctuations of random data. 
Figure 4. Graphical representation of the field RNG data combined across five consecutive Super Bowl halftimes by way of a Stouffer’s Z-score.Figure 4 shows the combined result across all five Super Bowl halftimes. Rather than showing a steady positive trend as predicted, these data show a somewhat steady decreasing trend, opposite to the second prediction, that approaches statistical significance. Overall, these data begin to level out, bringing them well within chance (Chi-Square = 2122.8, 2170 df, p = .762). What Can We Say About the Super Bowl So Far?
In a manner very similar to other sporting events ( Part One), it seems so far that the Super Bowl does not clearly produce persuasive field RNG results for a mass “group mind” effect as predicted. Yet, keeping in mind the possibility of statistical artifacts, it also seems that some degree of structure may occasionally be seen in the field RNG data that is at least in line with the proposed effect. So why doesn’t the Super Bowl clearly show a mass “group mind” effect, if it regularly draws the mass attention and emotion of millions of Americans each year? It’s a good question, but not an easy one to answer. Let’s take a brief look at some of the possible answers. The answer that most skeptics would probably rush to is that the mass “group mind” effect simply does not exist. However, considering the significant field RNG results obtained by other researchers for various kinds of events aside from sports (e.g., Bancel & Nelson, 2008; Hirukawa & Ishikawa, 2004; Nelson, 2001; Nelson et al., 1996, 1998; Radin, 1997, Ch. 10; Rowe, 1998), this answer does not seem to be the most plausible one. Considering the weak and subtle nature of the effects seen in RNG-PK and field RNG studies, another possible answer could be that the effect is there somewhere in the random noise, but it is so weak that it is simply “drowned out” by the noise. To get an idea of this, we might take a football analogy: Finding such a weak and subtle effect would be analogous to trying to hear what the person sitting next to you in the stadium is whispering while you’re sitting in the midst of a roaring crowd of football fans. And to explore this, the combined result across all five Super Bowls was examined. Assuming for the moment that it is not due to noise or statistical artifacts, some structure began to become visible in the data (Figures 3 & 4), at least hinting at the plausibility of this answer. Additional explorations could perhaps shed better light on this issue. Yet another possible answer may be found in consideration of the venue and how it might relate subjectively to the generation of a mass “group mind.” While the Super Bowl draws mass attention and emotion, the possibility that these are shared is not always clear-cut. While one part of the crowd gets excited and focused as their team is winning, the other part of the crowd may be discouraged and lose interest as their team unfortunately loses. In such a case, we might think of the subjective situation as being rather “unfocused” or even counterbalanced. The venues where group mind effects tend to be found have been ones where there appears to be great attentional focus, strong rapport, and shared emotions across all involved. Coming from the above perspective, the Super Bowl and other sporting events may be somewhat counter to that situation, and thus may not be fully conducive to a mass group mind. Lastly, there might be an “experimenter effect” at work in the data, wherein the experimenter (unconsciously) affects his own data by way of method, perspective, or even psi ability (Kennedy & Taddonio, 1976; White, 1976). In my case, such an effect would appear to be a suppressive one, such that the group mind effect is somehow prevented from showing up in the data. The likelihood of this answer may be somewhat lessened by the observation that the overall RNG outcomes over the five Super Bowls have not conformed to my predictions, and are thus not in line with my intentions. However, the experimenter effect remains to be a complicated and persistent issue within parapsychology, so this answer must still be considered. Thus, we are faced with a range of possible answers, all equally applicable in this case and worthy of further study. Perhaps the best thing to come out of this Super Bowl exploration is that it allowed us to look at what kinds of events might be more conducive to the group mind effect, and what kinds might not be. Though it is counter to what we might intuitively expect, the current field RNG evidence from the Super Bowl and other sporting events suggests that these events mostly fall within the latter category. Examining events in this manner could have the advantage of allowing us to better determine which events we might focus on for further replication and closer study of the mass group mind effect. It was with this aim that the previous Super Bowl explorations, as well as the current demonstration, were carried out. It is hoped that the other, more primary aim for the current demonstration – that it would be interesting and instructive for readers of Public Parapsychology – was also met over the course of the Super Bowl weekend. The rest of the series can be found in Parts One, Two, and Three. Bryan Williams Bryan Williams is a Native American student at the University of New Mexico, where his undergraduate studies have focused on physiological psychology and physics. He is a student affiliate of the Parapsychological Association, a student member of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and a co-moderator of the Psi Society, a Yahoo electronic discussion group for the general public that is devoted to parapsychology. He has been an active contributor to the Global Consciousness Project since 2001. Acknowledgments
This long-term field RNG exploration of the Super Bowl by B.W. was made possible in part by support from the Parapsychology Foundation in New York. Appreciation must be extended to Dean Radin of the Institute of Noetic Sciences for making available software for data collection, and to Roger Nelson of the Global Consciousness Project and PEAR for helpful suggestions and advice on field RNG methodology. References
Bancel, P., & Nelson, R. (2008). The GCP event experiment: Design, analytical methods, results. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22, 309 – 333. Hirukawa, T., & Ishikawa, M. (2004). Anomalous fluctuation of RNG data in Nebuta: Summer festival in Northeast Japan. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 47th Annual Convention (pp. 389 – 397). Cary, NC: Parapsychological Association, Inc. Kennedy, J. E., & Taddonio, J. L. (1976). Experimenter effects in parapsychological research. Journal of Parapsychology, 40, 1 – 33. Nelson, R. D. (2001). Correlation of global events with REG data: An Internet-based, nonlocal anomalies experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 247 – 271. Nelson, R. D., Bradish, G. J., Dobyns, Y. H., Dunne, B. J., & Jahn, R. G. (1996). FieldREG anomalies in group situations. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10, 111 – 141. Nelson, R. D., Jahn, R. G., Dunne, B. J., Dobyns, Y. H., & Bradish, G. J. (1998). FieldREG II: Consciousness field effects: Replications and explorations. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12, 425 – 454. Radin, D. I. (1997). The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. San Francisco: HarperEdge. Rowe, W. D. (1998). Physical measurement of episodes of focused group energy. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12, 569 – 581. White, R. A. (1976). The limits of experimenter influence on psi test results: Can any be set? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 70, 333 – 369.
Super Bowl XLIII Field RNG Demonstration (Part Three)
By, Bryan Williams
Super Bowl Field RNG Explorations: 2005 – 2008
To further explore the plausibility of a mass “group mind” effect occurring in conjunction with the widespread attention and emotional response to the Super Bowl, I collected field RNG data during the past four consecutive Super Bowls. Here, we provide a brief summary of the results, which add further basis for the planned field RNG demonstration here on Public Parapsychology. As described in Part Two, two individual predictions were made each year for the Super Bowl: one for the football game, and one for the halftime show [1]. First Prediction: Football Game Based on all of the hype I had heard about it around my local university, I first decided to collect field RNG data during Super Bowl XXXIX in February 2005 (this is the only year in which the two test predictions were not specified in advance of the event, so examination was made after the fact). Figure 1 shows the graphical representation of the RNG output during the game.  Figure 1. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during NFL Super Bowl XXXIX, 4:37 – 8:14 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 6, 2005. The level of statistical significance at p = .05 (i.e., odds of 20 to 1 against chance) as time passes is indicated by the smoothly curved red arc.Ordinarily, one would expect to see RNG data produce a nominally random sequence over time that hovers around mean chance expectation (MCE; indicated in the graph by the pink horizontal line at zero) with no steady directional pattern. The data in Figure 1 show such a sequence throughout the first 90 minutes of the game, but then seem to take on a steadily increasing trend during the halftime period. The data even out following halftime, then steadily decrease around 7:00 PM Mountain time, and gradually return to a random sequence towards the end of the game. Overall, the result is consistent with chance (Chi-Square = 13066.37, 13055 df, p = .470) [2]. With the two predictions pre-specified for the first time in 2006, a follow-up exploration was done during Super Bowl XL, and the result is shown in Figure 2.  Figure 2. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during NFL Super Bowl XL, 4:27 – 8:03 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 5, 2006.The data are mostly random as expected, with the exception of a sharply increasing trend soon after the first score that lasts until halftime, after which it sharply decreases back to MCE. In all, the result is almost exactly at chance and statistically non-significant (Chi-Square = 12955.93, 12955 df, p = .496). Super Bowl XLI on February 4, 2007, once again drew a lot of hype in my local university community, mainly because one of the Chicago Bears players was a New Mexico native. Interested to see if this might help facilitate a mass group mind, I again collected data, which are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during NFL Super Bowl XLI, 4:27 – 7:58 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 4, 2007.The data in Figure 3 show a modest increasing trend throughout most of the game, reversing into steady decreasing trend during the last hour of play. Although in the predicted direction, the overall result is nonsignificant (Chi-Square = 12693.98, 12685 df, p = .476).  Figure 4. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during NFL Super Bowl XLII, 4:28 – 8:03 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 3, 2008.The data from the most recent Super Bowl XLII on February 3, 2008, shown in Figure 4, are mostly random throughout, with little sign of a clear trend, and very close to chance overall (Chi-Square = 12890.83, 12901 df, p = .524). Second Prediction: Halftime Show
Given that the halftime concerts tend to draw great attention (and in some cases, participation) by the crowd, the second prediction focused on the RNG data during the halftime period. Initially, when analyzed with theoretical mean and SD, these data seemed to produce some promising results for Super Bowls XXXIX and XL. However, after being reanalyzed using the empirical mean and SD of their datasets, the results fell to chance, suggesting that they are statistical artifacts due to the difference between the theoretical values, and the empirical values obtained from the RNG output [3, 4]. Since these and the other halftime results are mostly consistent with chance expectation, we will not present them here. Tentative Conclusion
In general, the field RNG explorations conducted over the past four consecutive Super Bowls have not shown clear statistical evidence for a mass “group mind” effect. At times, some graphical results appear to show some brief trends in line with the predictions (e.g., the game results for Super Bowl XLI), although these are not clearly distinguishable from pure chance fluctuations that are expected to occasionally occur in random data. It is also important to keep in mind that the magnitude of the effect observed in both RNG-based PK studies and field RNG studies is appreciably small, so obtaining clear results on the level of individual events can often prove difficult. Given this, we will examine a combined result using the data from all of the Super Bowl explorations (including those for the upcoming Super Bowl XLIII) in Part 4. Will the results for Super Bowl XLIII and its halftime be similar to those described here? The answer will be revealed in Part 4, to appear in the days following Super Bowl Sunday... The rest of the series can be read in Parts One, Two, and Four. Bryan Williams Bryan Williams is a Native American student at the University of New Mexico, where his undergraduate studies have focused on physiological psychology and physics. He is a student affiliate of the Parapsychological Association, a student member of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and a co-moderator of the Psi Society, a Yahoo electronic discussion group for the general public that is devoted to parapsychology. He has been an active contributor to the Global Consciousness Project since 2001.Notes
[1] A description of the procedure, statistical analysis, and predictions used in each exploration is provided in the second post.
[2] An important technical note: When the analyses for Super Bowls XXXIX – XLI were first carried out, the theoretical mean and standard deviation (SD) were used in calculating the statistical outcomes (see Post 2). Following the decision to use the empirical mean and SD of the device output in May 2007, each result for the football game and the halftime show was recalculated using the empirical mean and SD of its respective dataset. As a result, the results for the above three Super Bowls have changed from their original results as first calculated with theoretical mean and SD (See Notes 3 & 4). Having been originally calculated with empirical mean and SD, the Super Bowl XLII results remain unchanged.
|
