![Page 1: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Agape Experiment:Further Statistical
Studies(in progress)
Dr Bernard Auriol
(EuroPA meeting, November 2003)
![Page 2: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
ProtocolAgape Experiment lasted seven years to test H1 :
The rate of hits could be increased by redundancy due to vote. To test it, there were a transmitting group (emission-strength of 1 to 16 senders) and a receiving group (1 to 16 voters), located in two separate isolate rooms. Everything was monitored and recorded thanks to several computers and a network especially designed for the experiment.
Three main protocols were tested with Two pictures , Three words, or Five words as possible target. Moreover, different parameters varied from one session to another in order to find the best conditions for later replications.
![Page 3: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
240 telepathic ESP group sessions,
27,845 collective trials
250,000 individual trials !
Participants : any voluntary
either sheep or goat
sender or receiver role generally chosen by the participants
274 female (2/3)
145 male (1/3)
target’s type : either pictures or words
possible answers’ number => 2, 3 or 5
![Page 4: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Individual Answers
Nb of tries Success P-value
2 pictures 27,081 49.94% 0.83
3 words 102,634 33.34% 0.95
5 words 120,347 20.13% 0.27
![Page 5: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Majority VoteMajority Vote
Possible Targets
Expected Mean
Observed Mean
2 images 0.500 0.498
3 words 0.333 0.329
5 words 0.200 0.202
![Page 6: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Targets Nb Salvos Obs.Var. Exp.Var.
2 196 3.08* 3.75
3 713 3.37 3.33
5 268 2.39 2.40
Variance of success got Variance of success got by voteby vote
(15 trials per salvo)
![Page 7: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Targets Nb Salvos Obs.Var. Exp.Var.
2 98 5.26* 7.50
3 356 6.32 6.67
5 134 4.72 4.80
Variance of success got Variance of success got by voteby vote
(30 trials per salvo)
![Page 8: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Targets Nb Salvos Obs.Var. Exp.Var.
2 49 11.92* 15.00
3 178 12.39 13.33
5 67 _9.03 _9.60
Variance of success got Variance of success got by voteby vote
(60 trials per salvo)
![Page 9: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Variance of intervalsVariance of intervals
To reach a better evaluation, we note the interval ( number of misses)
between two consecutive hits, and check the variance of these intervals
(at random or not ?).
![Page 10: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Variance of the Variance of the intervalsintervals
Targets Success Obs. Var. Exp. Var.
2 1463 1.93* _2.00
3 3512 6.42* _6.00
5 _777 20.05 20.00
![Page 11: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Instable Attitudes of Receivers ?
That apparently inconsistent set of variances
shifting according to the protocol
could be linked to an alternation along the sessions
of Goal-Oriented Socio-psychological Attitudes
producing in turn
Psi-Nothing, Psi-Hitting and Psi-Missing.
![Page 12: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Majority Strength and Majority Strength and
Success of VoteSuccess of VoteIf some answers are not due to chance but to ESP,
this should have an impact on the majority: Strong majorities could be more linked to success than weak ones.
Unlike what we expected, strong majorities didn’t get better results than weak ones
![Page 13: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
ConclusionConclusionof the hypothesis test
The results did not fulfil our hope regarding a possible improvement of the Signal to Noise ratio (S/N)
(redundancy got from majority vote).
This way of carrying out the experiment, did not strongly increase the Psi-Hitting rate as we expected,
but seems to have made the results random, regarding either individual answers or answers obtained by vote.
![Page 14: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Prospective purpose:
Covariance Analysis
![Page 15: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Nevertheless, for heuristic purpose,we undertook a covariance analysis on collective trials which are significantly different from chance (p < 0.05)
In order to test the effect of each variables modality, we used a transformation of the « percentage of hits »
to be able to compare the results for the protocols with two pictures, three or five words.
where:- is the percentage of right answers in the trial
p is the expected percentage
![Page 16: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
We can test if the percentage of hits got for each tria l issignificantly lower than chance, significantly higher than chance,
or equal to chance,thanks to a test of Khi2.
The statistic of this test, calculated for each trial, is
with po = expected percent of successes; = observed percent of successes
~Khi2 (one df)
![Page 17: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Collective trials Collective trials significantly significantly differentdifferent from chance (p <0.05)from chance (p <0.05)
Nb. of tries Percent of tries
Higher than chance __1079 _3.87
Lower than chance ___413 _1.48
Equal to chance 26.353 94.64
![Page 18: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
We focused on the trials where the percentage of hits differed significantly from chance expectation.
The effect of different parameters on the answers kept was outlined with a covariance analysis.
The significant variables were selected thanks to a stepwise procedure
and kept under a threshold of 5%.
We get significant parameters with a p-value close to 0.0001
![Page 19: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Collective trials significantly departing from chance
Estimate Higher than chance Lower than
chance Constant + 1.06 - 1.12
Instruction given to transmitters
+ 0.10 …
Targets’ list chosen - 0.34 + 0.26 Relevant reward - 0.13 …
The time left once half the receivers answered equals the time already
spent
+ 0.27 - 0.02
(…) twice the time already spent
+ 0.30 - 0.12
Qualitative Variables
![Page 20: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Collective trials significantly departing from chance
Estimate Higher than chance Lower than chance
Constant + 1.06 - 1.12 Time to answer - 0.01 + 0.01
Ratio nb. of transmitters / nb. of participants
- 1.46 …
Ratio nb. of transmitters / nb. of receivers
+ 0.96 …
Quantitative Variables
![Page 21: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Effect of the relationship Effect of the relationship between participantsbetween participants
Variable Mark given to
Estimate Success Distance from chance
P-value
RecGr Receivers -1,54 < 0.0001 TransGr Senders +0,58 __0.0003
Familiarity between Receivers moves the results closer to chance.
Familiarity between Senders and Receivers moves the results away from chance.
For the trials significantly higher than chance expectation,adjusted R² equals 10.8% (« small » effect according to Cohen’s convention)
![Page 22: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Conclusion
If there was any Psi manifestation in our experiment,there would be a strong tendency to reject the right answeras an aggression coming from the transmitters’ sub-group.
Couldn’t that be the need for each individualto avoid his own dissolution,
especially if the individual belongs to a group,(situation which favours the fusion among the members) ?
Is Psi-Missing a cross-boarder defense system
?
![Page 23: Agape Experiment: Further Statistical Studies (in progress) Dr Bernard Auriol (EuroPA meeting, November 2003)](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56649e485503460f94b3b527/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Sybil
We plan to devise a protocol to test the following hypothesis:
We can hope for success with groups only if we build sub-groups so that there is more affinity between receivers and senders than among receivers. A simple sociometric test should be enough to achieve this, provided the results for each sessions help to distribute the roles of transmitter and receiver.