Re:

david, if you can do th= name to photo test. in a 25 picture test. i= could be an interesting begining, I suggst you take t=enty women all availbel on google or facebook and try. =C24/0 ,

Great meeting you. David

Hi Jeffrey and Gino,

Earlier toda=, I sat down with 15 pictures and 15 names and tried to match them. It tur=ed out to be quite a struggle -- primarily because people were very simila=. For instance, I'd have descriptions like this:

Shy but relatively happy on the outside Filled with frustrati=n and anxiety Burning with rage deep down

But out of the 15 people, that could vaguely describe 3 or 4 them. So my=matching ending up looking like a convoluted chart.

What I concluded was that I need a bit more help designing this ex=eriment. Ideally, rather than matching 15 names to pictures, I have a bunc= of binary decisions (A or B). One would expect me to get 50% right. IF th= people are emotionally different enough (happy v. sad, for instance) I hy=othesize 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.

Open to any and all =houghts. Science, clearly, is not my gift. Very b=st, David

I greatly appreciatei the honesty,=C2* I dont think will work with pictures. but might wo=k face to face. if it will work at all. if so I would t=y 10 women, and ten names. . you willl need to touch eac= one. .

I would lo=e to do that. Definitely has higher probability of success.

That's cool.

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

Jeffrey,

Just an additional thought.=A vision, actually--

What if I did readings blindfolded? So = held someone's hand and felt into them. With such limited visual/tact=le 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 Hs ability to read people?

Just brainstormi=g here...

Very best,
David

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

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

I'm confused. You did an experiment with 200 girls where you h=ld their hands and rating them? Or that's what you're suggesting f=r me?

I like you, I am tr=ing to be kind, that is not science. . if you make peopl= feel better and no one is injured , all the best to you. 4,=A0 how about being blindfolded and guessing their name. =he outcome must be verifiable, not you are shy , sometim=s. angry other times . the trick of mentalists that do m=ch better than that. they could take a strength tinder test,=C24, and then you could take it with empathy for them, there =re 100 questions see if you got the more than 80 percent right=

you dont =ave to be a scientist to underatnd the concept of proof. =C240 does massage work? not a science question , but so=e think it does. can you prove to anyone that your intui=ive abilities are repeatable. verifiable, . =robably not. but is ok. with vast experience, chi=ese doctors can tell if someones kidneys are working properly, t>=A0 the eyes are a little dull and yellow, its not science but = pretty good predictor. . the other experiment you can t=y if you want is hold their hands. write down what you feel.=C240 , and afterwards have them choose which best descr=bes their charcateristics. I did this with 200 gir=s. each one had to rate the accuracy of diagnosisi on a scale =f 1-10. the results ranged from 3-10. =C21> however, the written diagnosis was exa=tly the same for each, no one like the results . belive=ng is more fun

i told them that the astroler in the room could tell them the=r diagnosis. they all received the exact same piece of p=per , however they all rated the astrologer as between good an perfe=t

if you said she had brown eyes, it wouldnt appy to j=st anyone. you said she was girlie, the dress was a girl=e dress. you said she was rigid, astro=ger language. . there were many photos of people in the room, = chose not to ask you to pick names given in random order. Q=A0 have your subjects write their own desci[tions of themselvesQ=A0 . shy - 1- 10. rigid 1-10. cu=ious 1-10. then choose who wrote which=one. try 20 people.