Arenât they just describing âbad luckâ?
I always thought the RandomNumberGod just had it in for meâŚbut now I know that I was doing it to myself all this time!
Spectacular!
So, many people score âfar higherâ than chance, many âfar lowerâ and many in middleâŚthat would seem to indicate that probability is working just fine.
So THATâS why I keep picking losing lottery numbers.
In a sense efforts like these are not describing bad luck so much as they are trying to measure the existence of what they speculate is the âforceâ of bad luck.
Ontologically, bad luck is even worse than ESP.
Well I donât get any better results with letting the computer pick them either.
Whatâs the rule about headlines that are questions?
Yeah, that.
Your computer clearly has negative ESP. You should keep buying new ones until you get a good one.
So it isnât when I psychically select the response that will turn out the worst for me?
If so, Glen Runciter from the Prudence Organization has a lucrative employment offer for you.
It seems like a better description would be Extra-Sensory Klutziness.
And thatâs why you should always use two-sided t-tests when youâre reducing your parapsychological data!
Its called being blitheringly unaware. Instead of an extra 6th Sense, your current 5 are dulled and you are clueless. I believe Ben Carson suffers from this condition.
Not sure if youâre joking, but just in case you arenât: Statistics donât really work that way. It would be totally possible to have an experiment where things regress to a mean but are still highly significant.
I find that testing psychic ability only is effective when it involves arbitrary use of electric shocks.
The 50âs were a great time to be a psychologist, especially if you were a bit sadistic.
I didnât see that one coming.
Plus all you had to do is have a couple of weird shaped tubes full of bubbling colored liquid in your office and people believed every crackpot idea you said under the guise of doing SCIENCE!!!
