Re:

David, if you can do the name to photo test in a 25 picture test, it could be an interesting beginning. I suggest you take twenty women all available on Google or Facebook and try.

Hi Jeffrey,

Sorry it took a beat to respond.

This weekend, when I have space and time, I'll ask a friend to lay out some pictures and names and see how I do. And I'll report back what I learn.

I've been thinking about this for a while -- and I do feel we ultimately need a more rigorous experiment. But I like your idea, at least to start, of just giving it a good and seeing.

Great meeting you.
David

Sent from my mobile device

Hi Jeffrey and Gino,

Shy but relatively happy on the outside. Filled with frustration and anxiety. Burning with rage deep down.

But out of the 15 people, that could vaguely describe 3 of them. So my matching ended up looking like a convoluted chart.

What I concluded was that I need a bit more help designing this experiment. Ideally, rather than matching 15 names to pictures, I have a bunch of binary decisions (A or B). One would expect me to get 50% right. IF the people are emotionally different enough (happy v. sad, for instance) I hypothesize I will do considerably better than chance. Does that make sense?

I have started to go down this road with my friend at NYU. Happy to discuss with Gino as well.

And of course, happy to submit to MRI machines and the like to figure what's happening on that end.

Open to any and all thoughts. Science, clearly, is not my gift.

Very best,
David

I greatly appreciate the honesty, I don't think it will work with pictures, but might work face to face. If it will work at all. If so, I would try 10 women, and ten names. You will need to touch each one.

I would love to do that. Definitely has higher probability of success.

Sent from my mobile device

Jeffrey,

Just an additional thought. A vision, actually--

What if I did readings blindfolded? So I held someone's hand and felt into them.

With such limited visual/tactile information, it would be a real test of my empathic abilities. It would almost validate "the sixth sense."

Then maybe we could compare my ability to read people with an average person's ability to read people?

Just brainstorming here...

Very best,
David

I don't mind anything you're saying - I am definitely not a scientist, don't claim to be, and don't know much about experiments and design.

I feel like it'd be good to talk it out? I say what I can do, and somebody who knows science tells me how we can test that, until we arrive at a solution that works both ways?

I'm confused. You did an experiment with 200 girls where you held their hands and rated them? Or that's what you're suggesting for me?

Question for you: when I read your lady-friend in the room, did you feel I was tapping into something real? Or did you feel I was just saying random stuff that would apply to anyone, like the astrologer?

I like you, I am trying to be kind, that is not science. if you make people feel better and no one is injured, all the best to you. how about being blindfolded and guessing their name. the outcome must be verifiable, not you are shy, sometimes. angry other times. the trick of mentalists that do much better than that. they could take a strength finder test, and then you could take it with empathy for them, there are 100 questions see if you got the more than 80 percent right.

you dont have to be a scientist to understand the concept of proof. does massage work? not a science question, but some think it does. can you prove to anyone that your intuitive abilities are repeatable, verifiable, probably not. but is ok. with vast experience, chinese doctors can tell if someone's kidneys are working properly, the eyes are a little dull and yellow, its not science but a pretty good predictor. the other experiment you can try if you want is hold their hands. write down what you feel, and afterwards have them choose which best describes their characteristics. I did this with 200 girls. each one had to rate the accuracy of diagnosis on a scale of 1-10. the results ranged from 3-10. however, the written diagnosis was exactly the same for each, no one liked the result. believing is more fun.

i told them that the astrologer in the room could tell them their diagnosis. they all received the exact same piece of paper, however they all rated the astrologer as between good and perfect.

4 you said she had brown eyes, it wouldnt apply to just anyone. you said she was girlie, the dress was a girlie dress. you said she was rigid, astrologer language. there were many photos of people in the room, i chose not to ask you to pick names given in random order. have your subjects write their own descriptions of themselves. shy - 1- 10. rigid 1-10. curious 1-10. then choose who wrote which one. try 20 people.

I'd need some help with this... especially if it requires interacting with 20 people in a row. Am open to whatever. But can't manage it all on my own.

Also I had another idea of how to still use photos, make it objective and verifiable, and control for the problem of people being too similar. Something like the below... Jon is my friend at NYU.

What's your guess. In your heart of hearts, am I for real or am I delusional?

Study design idea #1

Jon gives David 50 pictures without names.

David classifies based on their emotions.

People who have clear emotions that "come through" are then put into the experiment People who don't are discarded.

Let's say there are 20 pictures left.

David classifies them into HAPPY CLUSTER or SAD CLUSTER

Jon divides the pictures into ten groups of two, so each group of two pictures has one HAPPY and one SAD Jon then reads/shows David one name per group that fits either the happy guy or the sad guy David matches A or B Chance puts me at 50% I predict I'll get it right 95% If we do this 10 times I believe I will get 9 or 10 right per cycle We can do lots of cycles