Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!watrose!rpjday From: rpjday@watrose.UUCP (rpjday) Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: a mathematical problem in psi (read it anyway, ok?) Message-ID: <8250@watrose.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Nov-86 07:17:23 EST Article-I.D.: watrose.8250 Posted: Mon Nov 10 07:17:23 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Nov-86 22:15:33 EST Distribution: sci Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 29 Now that the furor about my original posting requesting analog models of computation has died down, how about another problem -- the use of statistics in psychic experiments (this is a MATHEMATICAL article, so just keep reading). I'm sure that we are all familiar with the 25-card deck that is commonly used to test psychic ability. There are 5 shapes used, with 5 of each shape in the deck (wavy lines, cross ... whatever). Since the subject knows the shapes and their frequency distributions, we would expect that, just by guessing, any subject should get 5 out of 25 correct. Nothing deep here. But this takes into account that the subject does not get any feedback. We could imagine that there are two kinds of feedback he may receive: 1) He may be told whether he is correct or not. 2) He may actually be shown the card. Based on either of the above types of feedback, what is the expected number of "hits" now? I'm more interested in this value for case 2). The strategy in case 2) seems clear (at least to me). The subject keeps track of which cards have come up, and always guesses the shape for which there are the most cards left in the deck. This, however, does not supply the expected number of hits. Anyone have an answer and the accompanying justification? On a different note, psyshic experimenters also like to bandy about the phrase "psi missing", when the subject does particularly poorly (eg. 1 or 2 hits out of 25). Given the feedback in case 2), how can a subject get the LOWEST possible score and what is the expected value of this score? DISCLAIMER: Yeah, sure, it's mine, so what?