Kundalini and the Output of a Random Number Generator.
In the original self-test, in which 1,000 runs were conducted with a Random Number Generator (each run being 100 trials long), a comparison was made between the 46 runs in which I reported the presence of sensations of Kundalini and those 954 runs in which Kundalini was absent. The mean deviation sc...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 70; no. 2; pp. 303 - 334 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Rhine Research Center
Fall 2006
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=510655327&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 510655327 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00223387 PAY jtl: Journal of Parapsychology issn: 00223387 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Fall 2006 vid: 70 iid: 2 pid: 533 pub: Rhine Research Center artinfo: ui: 510655327 ppf: 303 ppct: 31 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1.3MB tig: atl: Kundalini and the Output of a Random Number Generator. aug: au: Thalbourne, Michael A. su: Parapsychology Random number generators sug: subj: Parapsychology Random number generators ab: In the original self-test, in which 1,000 runs were conducted with a Random Number Generator (each run being 100 trials long), a comparison was made between the 46 runs in which I reported the presence of sensations of Kundalini and those 954 runs in which Kundalini was absent. The mean deviation score for Kundalini runs was above chance to a degree approaching significance; the mean for non-Kundalini runs was at chance; and the mean for the Kundalini runs was higher than that for non-Kundalini runs to a degree approaching significance. It was concluded that these results merited follow-up, and there were in fact 4 replications. In Replication 1, the mean for Kundalini runs was below chance to a marginal degree (p = .066); unexpectedly, the mean for non-Kundalini runs was below chance to a significant degree (p = .013); and the difference between the two types of run was also significant (p = .005). Also in this study was the only group significance obtained with the magnitude scores: the mean magnitude score for Kundalini runs was significantly above chance, as was the difference between Kundalini and non-Kundalini runs. In Replication 2, Kundalini runs gave scores significantly above chance (p = .002), non-Kundalini runs gave significantly negative scores (p = .003), and the difference between the two types was highly significant (p = .00002, ω2 = .02). In Replication 3, the overall mean deviation score for the 600 runs was significantly below chance. Finally, in a Confirmatory Study, Kundalini runs gave significantly higher scores than non-Kundalini runs at the first 17 sessions but not at the 20th and final runs. For the first 3 studies (and the 3 combined), 11 ostensibly necessary conditions were measured and produced a significant multiple correlation for magnitude scores on 2 occasions out of 8 (though the beta coefficients were significant in relation to just one necessary condition, lack of tension). Thus, the 5 experiments have produced a considerable amount of significance, but whereas Kundalini runs tended to give positive scores, the non-Kundalini condition unexpectedly produced significantly negative scores rather than nonsignificant scores, with significant differences between Kundalini and non-Kundalini. These results are discussed in relation to the theory of psychopraxia. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|