Talk:Zener card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This article's rather poor explanation of the law of averages/law of large numbers should be replaced with a link. -Smack 03:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How is this explanation "poor"? If you didn't link it, what would you say instead? Wiwaxia 21:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Doesnt this article violate NPOV? I mean, it seems to be throwing ESP around quite casually, while the ESP page itself is careful to refer only to 'people who believe in ESP' or 'proponents of ESP'. Is a change warranted? - Aparajit

[edit] NPOV issues with Psi Assumptions

This article could use a lot of rewriting to balance out the POV, it seems to me. Particularly galling is how it throws about the Psi assumption (yeah, I plan to write an article on that soon. For now, see [1]). Basically, the problem is how it implies that any score over 20% would definately indicate Psi. Why Psi, and not God sending messages to the subject? For that matter, why not use it as evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is manipulating the cards with His Noodly Appendage?

Additionally, the statistical analysis is flawed. Zener cards are presented in decks of 25, with five of each card. With the predisposition of a subject to not guess the same card twice, the hit rate immediately rises to around 25%.

I'm putting the NPOV tag on this now to inform readers, but I'll try to get back to it and fix it myself. ---DrLeebot 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the card experiment itself is flawed. It probably requires a review and some research to find people debunking it though, as it is old. Its a good idea in theory, and a clever test, but it falls short as an experiment. No one has come along to fix it though :\ Titanium Dragon 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added some stuff, needs more. Possibly should just be merged with the page this links from, as it seems to be largely the same thing. Titanium Dragon 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the hit rate rises to about 25% as you say, if the person doesn't get any feedback on if they guessed correctly or not. Secondly, it depends on how far above 20% it is in order to be significant, and that varies according to the number of tests (and assumes that they are done correctly). Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

~~OK, finite size of the deck affects it.~~ No that only helps if they are given feedback along the way. Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psi present/missing

Should a short explanation of psi present and psi missing be included in this article? (i.e. low scores also indicate a possible existence of psi) or should that be confined to articles on general explanations on research? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.114.88 (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).