Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Klawz wrote:To small of a testing pool to be accurate. Also, no control.

The testing pool can be as large as every one who uses this website. It can also be as large as every combination of ritual or chant. It might be small now but we got room to grow.

As for a controlled condition, that is easy, we got plenty... All kinds of studies have already been made against luck, parallel experiments have been going on for years for us to compare with. People are welcome to pick the category of luckless or indifferent as well, and compare their results to those who consider themselves lucky. Perhaps instead, we can also think of this as more trial and error, or an innovative type study with no bases of comparison.

We still have plenty of time too... I wasn't going to stop with just Luco's results and call it a victory.
Whoo HOOOO! Luck wins 1 to nothing!
Just kidding... Although I must say those where some pretty darn good rolls to start the game with Luco.

It is still important to have a control (without muttering) for your expieriment, because what if it is your dice that are corrupt? Also, one roll for each isn't enough to rule out other variables. What if that was, well, "chance"?

I figure I might as well join the game too. Although, I must say, today I do NOT feel lucky at all. Here I am working on thanksgiving instead of consuming mass quantities of food with the family. So this Lucky Magician, is feeling like his luck has been turned (-)ff

I found some dice that are older than I am. They had been sitting in the back of my dresser since we moved in, and in a box for a few years before that. Old bland monochromatic dice from the original D&D adventure packs. I brought them to work and I'll be using these old dead die. It could take a moment for the dice to get warmed up after facing the chill of death for so long.

Psyker_9er wrote:Examples:
a) How many tries does it take for you to roll double six using 3d6?
b) My troops inflicted 2 wounds against your troops; pick a basic troop choice from your favorite 40k codex and roll 2d6 to save. Roll 5+ if you don't normally play 40k. Count how many times it takes for you to pass with both dice.
c) You are trying to pick the lock on a treasure chest, roll one d20, you succeed on a roll of 15 or above. You have one chance to get this right before a trap is sprung, so you can only roll once.

**********
I got these die that I think are dead.
Found them in the bone yard outback by the shed.
Older than me, you, and thee; I've heard it once said.

How does one awaken dead die from the dead?
The dead, use those numbers to put thoughts in your head.
Or the dead can use those die to tell lies instead.

Why, o' why, do I roll the die of the dead?

a) (#, blue, pip)= (4,2,4)(3,4,2)(2,6,2)(6,3,5)(6,3,1)(1,4,2)(1,6,2)(2,3,2)(6,1,4)(5,1,3)(6,3,6) 11th try
b) Genestealers need 5+(#,blue)=(3,6)(5,3)(1,6)(1,3)(4,4)(4,1)(5,3)(5,3)(3,1)(3,5)(2,2)shook extra, blew on dice (5,6) 12th try
c) Monochrome orange dead d20=Failed for the first try(4) then for curiosity I rolled again(20)
**********

Klawz wrote:It is still important to have a control (without muttering) for your experiment, because what if it is your dice that are corrupt? Also, one roll for each isn't enough to rule out other variables. What if that was, well, "chance"?

The challenges can be expanded upon, new ones can be made up, or the same ones can be taken over and over again. I just started with those three random examples. We still have to trust in the honor system that no one is purposefully using flawed dice. We can safely presume that every one of us potentially owns and uses at least one flawed dice. But that is part of the magic of luck too. That one flawed dice traveled the world while butterflies were flapping their wings and trees were falling in the forest, just to end up in our collection.

I've been personally keeping track of which one of my dice rolls what, looking for flaws. I am pretty leery of these since they did spend so much time in a hot attic box. If I do find a flawed one, that actually gives me something to add to this experiment. If I know a dice is more prone to roll certain numbers, I can practice different methods of trying to force it to roll something else. In that respect, we can think of this fiasco I've created as more than just a lab, but training grounds as well.

Also, we are trying to recreate an environment where luck can occur as a natural element: A casual gaming atmosphere. So we shouldn't be too strict with the rules, otherwise we could start to cut into the casual fun factor.

Psyker_9er wrote:Ok, well... We have heard plenty from the side of Science. Don't go away you guys, we still may have a use for you yet.

Consider this thread to be your safe haven away from the cold hard stare and scorn of science. Any game you play, and little things you do to feel lucky, post it here.

This thread is just stupid, so much so it actually annoys me to read it. It's probably because I seem to have read the same thread several times this week.

What's this hint of victimisation being peddled here, making out science is cold and hard and how you need to be sheltered from it? This in itself I could ignore, but posts are littered with pseudo-scientific language like "blind studies" when this isn't scientifically rigorous at all.
ie...

Most importantly, with this type of blind study it helps prevent cross contamination.

Just words, this isn't scientifically rigorous.

Scientifically speaking, the act of observation can change that which is being observed.

Been buffing up on quantum physics? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...and it's inappropriately applied here, the idea that someone feeling lucky or unlucky will affect their die roll is cobblers, as is whether their "opponent" is watching them will affect their luck. Jeeze.

I have noticed whom ever wears "The One Ring", even though it is not the actual ring of power, rolls considerably better than every one else and usually wins the game.

Bollocks, or more likely Confirmation Bias.

The random elements are more or less what we are trying to remove in a sense. If we discover this common energy/force/luck/magic and randomness will be almost entirely out of the picture. We wouldn't have to predict what the dice will roll exactly, we would simply be able change the energies surrounding those dice to better fit our needs.

Bollocks. This is like reading some pseudo-science book from the 70s, I had one once about pyramid power that claimed with enough meditation and concentration you could produce piles of money and sex slaves out of mid air.

Sometimes I have noticed a feeling of dread just before I roll, and usually I fail at rolling the dice afterward.

Confirmation bias in action.

Psyker_9er wrote: Nicely done!

A single try to get (6,6,3) and then a single try again rolling double six. That is a pretty impressive dice whispering skill you have... Keep up the good work! You might want to have a little talk with your d20 though...

A single result in your favour and you're congratulating them. So much for scientific rigour. If this even had the pretence of being a "blind" experiment shouldn't you wait until you get a sizable number of result before reporting them and seizing upon them to make some sort of conclusion? The fact that you are so quick and keen to leap upon them well need I say again....Confirmation Bias.

Psyker_9er wrote:I think the reason luck has been deemed a fallacy, is because no one had access to such a huge database of info like Dakka Dakka. Until now.

Rubbish, do you think no one has ever done serious work into probabilities and even psychic powers? The reason they fell out of serious consideration was that they never turned up results.

And all the other talk about 'happy halos', 'magic auras' etc. If we are going to have a "theoretic debate" what's the fething point in not basing it in any form of logic or science? I wish you'd pack in claiming to do science or being logical, if you want to believe in magic at least drop the pseudo-bollocks. No one is lucky all the time. In any set of repeated random events, like die rolling, you get the odd string of unusual results. Over the long term these are not significant, if they are significant it's because the die has a bias. The person experiencing the cluster of unusual results draws attention because it's out of the ordinary, if they are rolling lots of ones they are called unlucky, if they are getting sixes they are lucky/ Humans are very good at spotting patterns that are not really there. There's no all powerful mystical energy field that people can tap into to control the die rolls they throw, or some cosmological constant that requires that once you throw a one you should have a greater chance of throwing a six to even it out. 'Luck' is only an attribute one has in games like D&D, they are fantasy. Lets not forget the person starting this thread has such a poor grasp of probability that, contrary to his claims are arguments he's had with people in his LGS, we've already been through a thread this week trying to explain why rolling a one does not in fact make is easier to roll a six next time.

Why do we need about three threads on this matter?

I'll give you a treat. Because I almost never...ever...do this. But this thread is deserving of a true illustration of my feelings and frustration at trying to cope with the so much text can fly in the face of maths, probability, science, logic and common sense.

You are entitled to your opinions Howard A Treesong, and you are entitled to go read something else too. Sure, there have been many topics like this springing up lately. There is a difference though. Where most of the other topics closed down, buried beneath demands for scientific studies and name calling, I am still trying.

There have been demands for proof, so I am conducting an experiment.

There has been slander, accusations, and an over all rudeness much like the tone of your latest post Howard A Treesong. So yes, I have tried to make this "a safe haven away from the cold hard stare and scorn of science."

If this is not scientifically rigorous enough for you, you have three options: (1) Go do your own experiment, (2) provide constructive criticism, or (3) Shut up...

As for me, I'm going to roll some dice, tell some stories, compare notes, and discuss results amongst friends. You are still welcome to pick a category and roll some dice too. Every one is welcome here, even science-minded people. The only people not welcome are those who would rather be a jerk than have some fun.

Howard A Treesong wrote:A single result in your favour and you're congratulating them. So much for scientific rigour. If this even had the pretence of being a "blind" experiment shouldn't you wait until you get a sizable number of result before reporting them and seizing upon them to make some sort of conclusion? The fact that you are so quick and keen to leap upon them well need I say again....Confirmation Bias.

I was more commenting on Luco's bravery for joining in the experiment. It takes a lot of guts to get up here in front of people and claim to be lucky. The game didn't suddenly end right then and there when I congratulated him on dice well rolled, did it? No. Honestly, and please believe me when I say this because it is the truth, I would have congratulated any one who went first regardless of what they actually rolled or what category of luck they have chosen. I would congratulate anyone who rolled as awesome as Luco did, live game, online study, or not. It is part of the casual gaming atmosphere I'm trying to create here.


Luck is not logical, so being scientifically rigorous wont do us much good on this topic. Instead of fighting fire with fire, you might say we are fighting crazy with crazy.

GAME ON!!!!

Klawz wrote:

Luco wrote:Lucky Magician
- Dice whispering, mentally focusing on the numbers

a) A single try to get two 6’s on 3d6. (6,6,3)
b) A single try to save two guardsmen (6,6)
c) Two tries to get 15+ on a d20 (10, 16)

To small of a testing pool to be accurate. Also, no control.

I just did what was asked, it'll get bigger as more people participate.

Psyker_9er wrote:
There have been demands for proof, so I am conducting an experiment.

The way your experiment is setup can not prove anything.
Of course, you will reject any setups with a chance of proving you wrong, because you specifically reject the very notions of statistic and probability.

Things similar to your waste-of-time ('cause it's not an experiment) were tried before, using rigorous methodologies, and were found not working.
Scientists are right, and you are wrong. Deal with it.

Psyker_9er wrote:You are entitled to your opinions Howard A Treesong, and you are entitled to go read something else too. Sure, there have been many topics like this springing up lately. There is a difference though. Where most of the other topics closed down, buried beneath demands for scientific studies and name calling, I am still trying.

There have been demands for proof, so I am conducting an experiment.

There has been slander, accusations, and an over all rudeness much like the tone of your latest post Howard A Treesong. So yes, I have tried to make this "a safe haven away from the cold hard stare and scorn of science."

If this is not scientifically rigorous enough for you, you have three options: (1) Go do your own experiment, (2) provide constructive criticism, or (3) Shut up...

As for me, I'm going to roll some dice, tell some stories, compare notes, and discuss results amongst friends. You are still welcome to pick a category and roll some dice too. Every one is welcome here, even science-minded people. The only people not welcome are those who would rather be a jerk than have some fun.

Seeing as you effectively told me to go away or shut up I don't think you have to look far to find that rudeness of which you speak. You want to do an experiment, fine. Why then ignore scientific input? Why shun the stare of science? Your approach is confused are you trying to prove something with experimentation or have fun and tell anecdotes? Because one does not add up to the other.

Your 'experiment' is hopeless. I have actually thought about this, there's a million different ways to approach it but I've slimmed it down to something basic that addresses a few ideas raised. If you could find 30-40 people willing to participate it might be worthwhile, to prove a point.

It may be hard to separate, but keep in mind that reason is only one way of looking at life in general. To expand the point, it isn't necessary to be reasonable to life happily or get through your own journey. Science and reason are not the end all be all regardless of the general acceptance of it as such, merely one way of knowing.

Let's calm down alright? Take a minute and chill before continuing on before it gets nasty.

If it helps I'd be willing to repeat the scenario as many times as need be or a variety of scenarios and see how it turns out.

Luco is right, a good chill pill is in order for all of us.

I do want scientific input, I really do...but not when that input comes with facepalms and insults.
No one wants that kind of input.

This website is what we have to work with. Working together with scientific input and crazyish input with a simulated casual gaming atmosphere we might be able to discover something here. It might not be the holy grail end all discovery that leads to dodging bullets and bending spoons like the Matrix movies... But something... I'm still willing to work with this, and you too are welcome to help out Treesong.

I'm curious, what kind of study did you have in mind Treesong? I would be willing to help out with yours if I'm able.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrondeau wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:
There have been demands for proof, so I am conducting an experiment.

The way your experiment is setup can not prove anything.
Of course, you will reject any setups with a chance of proving you wrong, because you specifically reject the very notions of statistic and probability.

Things similar to your waste-of-time ('cause it's not an experiment) were tried before, using rigorous methodologies, and were found not working.
Scientists are right, and you are wrong. Deal with it.

I am not just going to stop because some tells me to quit. I'm not going to give up because other people tell me to deal with it. I am not going to give up because others have tried and failed. If I am wrong though, then I will find out for myself in my own way. Having said that, what constructive criticism do you have that could possibly be more helpful than just telling me to give up and stop wasting time?

Psyker_9er wrote:I'm curious, what kind of study did you have in mind Treesong? I would be willing to help out with yours if I'm able.

Broadly speaking I would have two groups of people and split the people into each of these groups into pairs. I would then ask them each day to roll some dice against their opponent, say four dice several times, who ever gets the highest wins. They do this each day for five or ten days. In one group I would not tell them if they were winning or not, they would only find out at the end of the week/fortnight, in the other group I would tell each player at the end of each day if they had won or not.

Overall this would hopefully test if anyone scored an unusual number of wins and high die rolls, we could cross-reference that by asking them before hand if they considered themselves a lucky person to see if their perception of their luck made any difference. Also by examining the two groups we'd be testing if knowing the outcome, whether you were winning or losing, or being kept ignorant, made any difference to the die rolls and the number of wins

And of course there has to be an incentive. The person who wins the most games, if there's a tie the highest overall total from all their die rolls, gets a prize of some sort. That means that there is a desire to win. Of course people would have to be totally honest and preferably do things like all use GW dice, that's the best I can come up with on an internet forum.

That is a pretty good idea, instead of using GW dice though I might suggest using casino dice. There is an article right here on dakkadakka that studies the different types of dice.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/That%27s_How_I_Roll_-_A_Scientific_Analysis_of_Dice

Your concept and my "experiment" are actually not that different. You have 2 test groups, I have 8. The 8 categories I came up with I obtained through reading responses on my thread and posts from other topics like this one. If three or more different people said the same sort of concept about how luck works, I made it into a category. The reason for the 8 different types of categories is because no one knows how luck actually works yet. Hopefully I can get enough participants for each concept of luck to compete against each other representing their chosen categories. Instead of 5-10 days I was planning on dragging this out for a few months and post the winning category at the end of each cycle.

There are a lot of variables in my "experiment" because, as I mentioned before, no one knows how luck works yet. So I didn't want to accidently exclude the one thing that might actually make a difference. I wanted the people who consider themselves lucky to actually feel lucky too, so I didn't want to put too many restraints. Yes, I do think people can be adversely effected by their opponents or by too much scrutiny.

Also, much to my dismay, I do not have a super cool underground super villain lair in my back yard. So I wont be able to conduct the proper experiments with super cool high tech gadgets. Unfortunately all we have to work with is this forum.

Let me get this straight.

You want to run an actual scientific experiment to prove that performing a meaningless ritual changes the outcome of a random event.

I suggest you perform the following steps:
1) Stop posting on an internet message board
2) Do some research about how experiments are actually performed
3) Take some statistics classes and learn how probability can be calculated, both expected results and the frequency of outliers
4) Talk to some scientists about doing some research on this
5) Try not to get too upset when they laugh in your face

If you don't want to participate, then don't.

If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read it.

If you think it is meaningless, then don't get upset when I continue on.

This has potential to be fun and we might discover something. Since this website is based on wargames and having fun, I don't see why we can't tell anecdotes and do something that resembles an experiment at the same time.

Would you feel better if I called it an "experimental game" instead of just an "experiment"?

If you are too afraid to roll dice against people like me then just say so

This is, after all, a challenge to a game of Luck... If you feel like there is no such thing then I don't see what you have to be afraid of (jokes... see... I'm telling anecdotes)

so...uh anyone else have any results to submit?

trial 2
first try for double 6 (6,6,1)
Tau saves 3rd try (6,4)
D20... six tries this time around. Tried focusing more and less talking and ended up with 3 straight 15+'s. (18, 16, 15)

A good deal worse this go around eh? Dice weren't blessed today as they had been last time though.

Anyone else wanna have fun and give it a go?

Here are some real life scenarios, interesting videos, and reading material loosely related to 3 of the categories of luck I have written out. Take from them whatever you want...

Lucky Warrior:= http://wethearmed.com/index.php?topic=7867.0;wap2 (a true story)

Lucky Magician:= http://theosophywatch.com/2010/09/08/the-body-field/ (a good read and great videos)

Lucky Divinity:= http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-07/st_gadgetshrine (an interesting read)

Psyker_9er wrote:If you are too afraid to roll dice against people like me then just say so

Sigh. It's not about being "afraid" of "people like you", its that your approach isn't organised or productive and you can't take any constructive criticism or other suggestions.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:If you are too afraid to roll dice against people like me then just say so

Sigh. It's not about being "afraid" of "people like you", its that your approach isn't organised or productive and you can't take any constructive criticism or other suggestions.

He made an Appeal to Bravery logical fallacy.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Sigh. It's not about being "afraid" of "people like you", its that your approach isn't organised or productive and you can't take any constructive criticism or other suggestions.

I really was just trying to be funny by the way.

However, I have been asking for constructive criticism, but hardly any one is giving any out. Most of what I get are snood comments about how "Bollocks" my ideas are, how I should stop trying, how I should leave it up to the "real scientists", or how science is right and I am wrong so deal with it. Nothing constructive about that at all...

Plus, not only am I fighting with people online, but the collective unconscious at this point in human history says the topic I am trying to discuss is taboo. Science says it is taboo, therefore it must be false and any one trying to think otherwise is obviously an idiot... That is what I am up against.

Treesong, you suggested a different experiment, but that is your idea. I said I would help you if I could, and I meat it. But because there are well over 6 billion people in the world I think a test group of 20-40 people is a bit small. What I've proposed may seem unorganized, but everything we discuss or post on here is well documented. We are still trying to gather info at this stage of the game. If you think what I am doing is not productive, that is because no one besides Luco and me have actually started to roll dice. Instead I am still getting the same comments that say if it isn't scientific it is not right and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously.

Phase 1 of the game was to get everyone on the same page of understanding what it is I am trying to do here, but we can back it up. Would you like a hypothesis then? A run down of what I am trying to do? Would that make it feel more scientific'y and organized?

Hypothesis:=
As was stated in my original post: "Since all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration; "luck" could be considered as one projecting their own energies to try and sway a particular event or object towards desired results."

Resources that support, or are similar to, the idea of untapped energies within us:
http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/nordenstrom-electrical.htm
http://learn-telekinesis-training.com/
http://www.ial.org
http://www.gerardsenehi.com/home.html
(picked four random websites, there are many others)

Through a series of experimental games we can test to see if we can: learn to actually manipulate these energies, have these energies bestowed upon us, or if it is merely an unexpected thing that can not be controlled. Different people have different views on luck, I've provided 8 generalized descriptions of these different categories of views. To be fair I have included the category that luck does not exist and the category of indifference. Contestants will roll dice against each other and the results will be recorded for later research.

Psyker_9er wrote:Treesong, you suggested a different experiment, but that is your idea. I said I would help you if I could, and I meat it. But because there are well over 6 billion people in the world I think a test group of 20-40 people is a bit small.

I think it would be enough if they all made lots of die rolls, I was considering the fact that you need to get people on board. The more the better, but I thought that 40 might be possible to get together on the forum, and comparing two groups of 20 people rolling dice many times would be statistically viable.

Resources that support, or are similar to, the idea of untapped energies within us:
http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/nordenstrom-electrical.htm
http://learn-telekinesis-training.com/
http://www.ial.org
http://www.gerardsenehi.com/home.html

Oh come one, these aren't authoritative sources for anything, they don't support anything. Anyone can write a webpage, all this "untapped energies" stuff just sounds like crystal healing and the like. The first one I looked at was a close up of a person turning a page in a book. Shame it wasn't a long shot so we could see what else was going on.

Simply, someone off camera was blowing the page. You don't have to be a genius to work that one out. People have even done this in front of people and claimed to be psychic. This simplest more obvious tricks are often the best as you can see here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc&feature=player_embedded

Contestants will roll dice against each other and the results will be recorded for later research.

Therein lies the problem. You have no structure, you have too many categories and will likely only have one or two people for each. The data will be anecdotal at best. The first study of any kind should be tightly focused to prove any sort of principle before expanding to collection on many variable groups. You need an experimental design to stick to, not just a woolly approach to getting people to roll dice and then trying to fit the research onto it as an afterthought. To be worth something you need to construct it in a way that allows for some statistical analysis for the "math heads to chew on".

You confuse hypothesis with wild speculation. The test for the experiment should be that a group of people considering themselves "lucky" score differently to those that don't believe in luck, or that there's a difference in die rolls if you tell a person if they are winning each time or keeping them ignorant until the end. IF you prove a difference then you could speculate on a cause. But you have got way ahead of yourself by declaring an unfounded belief in projecting untapped energies that comes from vibration of matter before even proving a difference. Aside from being total pseudo-science you're front loading the experiment's conclusion, if you do discover a difference between people then you would leap on the idea that it's proof of "untapped energies". It isn't, it's proof of a difference, the causes could be manifold.

Hey this is like a recreation of that scene from "2001: a Space Odessy"...

Da... Da... Da... DA DA

Thank you Treesong, that was actually very constructive.

Those 4 websites I posted where kind of chosen at random, and I agree the videos of telekinesis could easily be discredited since we ourselves where not there to witness. But two of those links are actually medical doctors with a list of credentials as long as my arm.

Quotes from the the first medical website: http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/nordenstrom-electrical.htm
"Why I am so impressed with Dr. Nordenström's work: I met Dr. Nordenström in 1987 when he was touring the United States telling doctors about his work. He had discovered there is a difference in the charge of the blood in the arteries compared to blood in the veins. This means that there is a flow of charge between arteries and veins. In physics, when there is a flow of ions along a wire there is also an electromagnetic field generated around the wire. Thus, Dr. Nordenström has established that the human body has an immense network of blood vessel "cables" that are surrounded by electromagnetic fields. It is these fields that I propose hold in place the Hyaluronic Acid molecules that create functional "tubules" (protected zones) inside of which flow ions. This is the flow of ions that is known as "Chi" or "Qi". It only happens when a person is alive, when they die the blood stops flowing, the electromagnetic field disappears, the hyaluronic acid tubules relax and disappear, and no anatomy dissection will ever find an acumeridian tubule in a dead person. (There have been studies where radioactive dye was injected into an acupuncture point and the dye moved up the leg along the traditional line described in acupuncture literature and not along any known blood or lymph vessel.)"

Quotes from second medical website: http://www.ial.org
"In 1976, Dr. West made a Major Life-Saving Discovery which revealed that the sodium-potassium pump that is in every cell, in every organ and in every part of your body - actually generates electricity."


The tests have already been done to determine that there are energies within us. And they where done by actual factual for real doctors. So the speculation that the energies are there is not so wild, just the part where I claim we can manipulate those energies. That is the part considered taboo by the vast majority of people.

Psyker_9er wrote:The tests have already been done to determine that there are energies within us. And they where done by actual factual for real doctors.

Neither of those are medical websites, and I'm still waiting to see evidence of 'actual factual for real doctors.' You REALLY need to check the settings on your bs detector, because it does not seem to be working at all.

Bookwrack wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:The tests have already been done to determine that there are energies within us. And they where done by actual factual for real doctors.

Neither of those are medical websites, and I'm still waiting to see evidence of 'actual factual for real doctors.' You REALLY need to check the settings on your bs detector, because it does not seem to be working at all.

Another quote from the first website:
"If you study the career of Dr. Nordenström you will see that after he lectured in the U.S.A. about his research with cancer, he was ignored by the American cancer industry. He announced his discovery of the charge difference in cancer tumors and told doctors and researchers in the U.S. how he was able to make tumors disappear when he hooked up an electrical current and reversed the charge in the tumor. Eventually he went to China and they immediately understood the value of his discovery and began applying it to treating cancer patients."

Studies done by Dr. Björn Nordenström, M.D. delve into the energies within us... Look him up.

The other website is a nonprofit medical organization based on the works of Dr. C. Samuel West... Look him up too...

Of course, it actually helps if you actually read the information before passing judgement.

Scott-S6 wrote:I would suggest that need does not affect the dice rolls but rather the perception of them.

Example, you roll twenty dice needing 4+
You roll 10x 3 and 10x 6.
That's a result with a significantly higher than average roll, however you don't perceive it as being particularly lucky because that increased average did not have an effect on the outcome that you desired.

Example, you roll three dice needing a 6
You roll 3x 5
That's perceived as a un-lucky result even though it was, again, well above average.

What you're demonstrating is a human's perception in one case accurately understanding the probabilities and in the second case, not understanding the probabilities. The reason for this is that you have an underlying assumption that numerically higher values are more valuable, when in actuality the value is arbitrary.

In the first case, you have made an average roll, because each roll had a 50% success chance, and out of 20 dice, 50% passed the roll. This is the most logical outcome to expect. The actually numerical value of the dice doesn't matter, because the outcome is binary. Thus, rolling half the dice as 1, 2, or 3 and the other half as 6 doesn't mean you rolled above average. It would be above average if the outcome were determined by, for example, the average numerical value rolled. But it isn't.

In the second case, because of the binary nature of outcome (only succeeding on a 6), you have again rolled average. This is because the statistical average is 0.42 or 42% chance of rolling a six. If you look at a sum of successes, (any six has a value of success, so two sixes is two successes) then the average becomes 0.5. So again, you haven't rolled above average.

Understanding probabilities is very difficult. I've certainly gotten it wrong before.

It's like the puzzle they showed in the movie "21". You're a contestant in a game show. There are three doors, one of which has a car, and two of which have nothing. You pick a door and round 1 ends. Then the gameshow host, knowing which door the car is behind, opens one of the doors the car isn't behind and offers you the chance to change your guess. Do you?

On the surface, you would expect to have a 50/50 chance of winning at this point. But that's not actually the case. The door your originally picked only has a 1/3 chance of winning. This is because by picking the second door, you're effectively getting to choose two doors. Another way to think about it is imagine if it was a million doors. You pick one, with a 1 in a million chance of winning. Then the gameshow host opens all but one door, revealing no car behind those doors. Do you change in this case? Yes, because your original guess only has a one in a million chance of winning, meaning the last door represents a 999,999 out of a million chance of winning.

In the short run, there is luck due to statistical deviation. In the long run, there is no luck. If you think you're lucky or unlucky, you just haven't had enough of a sample size to hit the statistical mean.

Psyker_9er wrote:Of course, it actually helps if you actually read the information before passing judgement.

The sad thing is, I was going to say the EXACT same thing to you, except I figured it'd come off as too snarky. However, if you're going to quote anything, especially trying to prove someone has legitimate credentials for anything, it helps if you actually read what else is on the exact same page you quote from so that stuff like this doesn't bite you in the ass.

Dr. C. Samuel West announced:

Every healing art on earth involves getting oxygen to cells! This site teaches the Medical Research that reveals:
The cause of pain, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and every other degenerative disease on Earth
How it is now possible for you to relieve pain and suffering at home faster and easier than you've ever dreamed possible
How to keep your body free from pain and disease as long as you live.The speed-healing process is now revealed...

A baby blind and brain damaged - doctors said for life - healed in five days!
Man given up to die with five by-pass valves - healed in 2 months!
Broken fingers - set in five hours and healed within eight!

THAT is who you're quoting as an authority on 'The tests have already been done?' It's fake science, made up by phonies who invented a medical group so that the rubes would think it had some sort of legitimacy. (mission accomplished, although if you'd bothered to read the site, you might not have fallen for it).

The awarding of Certification as a Lymphologist by the Academy is not intended to convey any licenses, or any special legal qualifications to diagnose, prescribe or even to treat any type of patients.

These are qualified by the Academy to teach the Pure Laws & Principles of Health,
and to speak on the subject of Lymphology, 'The Art of Lymphacising',
various Self-Help Pain Relief Techniques, and
the process by which the body heals itself according to intelligent design.

Bookwrack wrote:

Psyker_9er wrote:Of course, it actually helps if you actually read the information before passing judgement.

The sad thing is, I was going to say the EXACT same thing to you, except I figured it'd come off as too snarky. However, if you're going to quote anything, especially trying to prove someone has legitimate credentials for anything, it helps if you actually read what else is on the exact same page you quote from so that stuff like this doesn't bite you in the ass.

Dr. C. Samuel West announced:

Every healing art on earth involves getting oxygen to cells! This site teaches the Medical Research that reveals:
The cause of pain, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and every other degenerative disease on Earth
How it is now possible for you to relieve pain and suffering at home faster and easier than you've ever dreamed possible
How to keep your body free from pain and disease as long as you live.The speed-healing process is now revealed...

A baby blind and brain damaged - doctors said for life - healed in five days!
Man given up to die with five by-pass valves - healed in 2 months!
Broken fingers - set in five hours and healed within eight!

THAT is who you're quoting as an authority on 'The tests have already been done?' It's fake science, made up by phonies who invented a medical group so that the rubes would think it had some sort of legitimacy. (mission accomplished, although if you'd bothered to read the site, you might not have fallen for it).

The awarding of Certification as a Lymphologist by the Academy is not intended to convey any licenses, or any special legal qualifications to diagnose, prescribe or even to treat any type of patients.

These are qualified by the Academy to teach the Pure Laws & Principles of Health,
and to speak on the subject of Lymphology, 'The Art of Lymphacising',
various Self-Help Pain Relief Techniques, and
the process by which the body heals itself according to intelligent design.

The ial.org website is only based on the studies done by Dr. C. Samuel West. The website itself is not his work. You can Google Dr. C. Samuel West and find more information about him and his studies about the energies within us. The legal license clause you quoted at the end has to be there simply because, as mentioned before, this type of medical research is considered to be taboo.

Did you look up Dr. Björn Nordenström? Google him too. The 4 websites I posted, as mentioned before, where chosen at random, there are many many many other websites.

Psyker_9er wrote:
The dice part of the equation predicts the end result towards a probable product based on constant odds. (may not always produce the product we want but the odds do not change)
And what we do as the variable, based on random willy nilly sillyness, also changes the product as well. (may not always produce the product we want but it sure is fun to dance a jig)

The point of this experiment is to try and find common "luck", or what ever you want to call it. Once we find it, the gaming industry will never be the same

You haven't actually eliminated the effect of probability, you've simply added a set of variables that are controlled for by the assumption of an unbiased roller.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Oh come one, these aren't authoritative sources for anything, they don't support anything.

More to the point, simply stating that something is "authoritative" is basically meaningless. You're an authority if someone else calls you one, that's basically the only criteria. And while that may inspire someone to read your work, it isn't pertinent to whether or not the person in question is making a useful, or accurate, argument.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Anyone can write a webpage, all this "untapped energies" stuff just sounds like crystal healing and the like.

Well, I think the biggest issue is that the majority of people who believe in these sorts of things have a seeming aversion to making logically coherent arguments.

The OP, as an example, has previously argued that those who think logically cannot understand luck, which is interesting given that he's basically trying to develop a logically consistent method to isolate a causal sort of variation for luck; using what was essentially a variant of a standard methodological test from the 60's, when this sort of thing was in vogue.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
You confuse hypothesis with wild speculation.

This is a common mistake. Hypotheses are very specific, testable claims. For example, in this case, a valid hypothesis would be "Thinking of kittens while rolling dice produces successful dice rolls at a greater than expected rate." That's still a claim of dubious testability, given our inability to verify the kitten thought directly, but its better than nothing.

DOGMA!! I was wondering when you would show up... It is about time too. I do love masterful debaters (joke)

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Oh come one, these aren't authoritative sources for anything, they don't support anything.

More to the point, simply stating that something is "authoritative" is basically meaningless. You're an authority if someone else calls you one, that's basically the only criteria. And while that may inspire someone to read your work, it isn't pertinent to whether or not the person in question is making a useful, or accurate, argument.

So basically, even though the random websites where poor choices to represent their work, Dr. C. Samuel West and Dr. Björn Nordenström are authorities on the energies within us... 'Cause I said so

I bet if those two doctors knew what I was doing to their "good name", they would be rolling in their graves. At least for the purpose of my theory though, they are authorities on the fact that there is an electrical current and electromagnetic fields running through all of us. I just take it a wilder step forward saying we can manipulate those energies through will alone.

However, that is really only 'my' theory. There are the other categories of 'luck' to choose from, and many variations for each.

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Anyone can write a webpage, all this "untapped energies" stuff just sounds like crystal healing and the like.

Well, I think the biggest issue is that the majority of people who believe in these sorts of things have a seeming aversion to making logically coherent arguments.

The OP, as an example, has previously argued that those who think logically cannot understand luck, which is interesting given that he's basically trying to develop a logically consistent method to isolate a causal sort of variation for luck; using what was essentially a variant of a standard methodological test from the 60's, when this sort of thing was in vogue.

Well, yes and no. I do think that logical minded people are prone to be unable to recognize it when they see it because it is so illogical. And really what I am trying to do is help bridge the gap between both sides of the looking glass. Which is why my methods are still seemingly unorganized, not scientific enough, unorthodox, or simply willy nilly silly.

Btw, what is with you and like the 60's dude man? Like where you there totally surfing those acid waves or what man? You don't have to answer that 2nd question But seriously, free thinking has been around for many generations. Heck, on the flip side, not too long ago I would have been burned at the stake already.

dogma wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:You confuse hypothesis with wild speculation.

This is a common mistake. Hypotheses are very specific, testable claims. For example, in this case, a valid hypothesis would be "Thinking of kittens while rolling dice produces successful dice rolls at a greater than expected rate." That's still a claim of dubious testability, given our inability to verify the kitten thought directly, but its better than nothing.

I can tie myself to my hypothesis, but I didn't want to tie any one else down from the other categories, so I left it more open ended before:
Trying to manipulate the energies in my body, once mastered, can produce successful dice rolls greater than expected rates... Is that better? it might be the kitten...

So, umm... is any one else going to roll dice yet? I'm open for more constructive criticism if not.

Psyker_9er wrote:So basically, even though the random websites where poor choices to represent their work, Dr. C. Samuel West and Dr. Björn Nordenström are authorities on the energies within us... 'Cause I said so

You did call them authoritative. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should have chosen a different word.

Psyker_9er wrote:
At least for the purpose of my theory though, they are authorities on the fact that there is an electrical current and electromagnetic fields running through all of us. I just take it a wilder step forward saying we can manipulate those energies through will alone.

Well, they're not the authorities on that fact. The reason that their research was dismissed is that we have known, for a long time, that our bodies use electrical current to function.

As far as conscious manipulation, there have been at least a few physics studies that demonstrated an apparent correlation between human desire and physical movement of particles.

Psyker_9er wrote:
Btw, what is with you and like the 60's dude man? Like where you there totally surfing those acid waves or what man? You don't have to answer that 2nd question But seriously, free thinking has been around for many generations. Heck, on the flip side, not too long ago I would have been burned at the stake already.

My issue is that you interpret "free thinking" as though it came right out of the Beat Generation play book.

There are very few things new under the sun, and they aren't exclusive with respect to logic, philosophy, or anything else. In essence, if you came to it, then it was free, and if you didn't then it still might have been free. Free will being the odd nebulous thing that it is, there's no way to know.

To put it another way: your understanding of "free thought" reminds me of grading freshman philosophical papers.

Psyker_9er wrote:
I can tie myself to my hypothesis, but I didn't want to tie any one else down from the other categories, so I left it more open ended before:
Trying to manipulate the energies in my body, once mastered, can produce successful dice rolls greater than expected rates... Is that better? it might be the kitten...

So, umm... is any one else going to roll dice yet? I'm open for more constructive criticism if not.

That's not better. You need to specifically state what you're testing (kittens once, maybe God next) otherwise we don't really knowwhat you're doing; "manipulation" is too vague.