Water divination! It's real!

a reply to: TheRedneck

So what's your point?

You said that people tend to fixate on a moving light. In this case the light isn't actually moving, it's just getting bigger and brighter.

You realize in a way I am taking your side in this, right?

I hadn't noticed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

The bearing of an approaching vehicle doesn't change much until its very close. From a drivers point of view, the light is not moving. But it does get brighter.

Do you not drive much Phage?

Target fixation effects drivers too and watching the lights of an on coming car at night is a sure way to fall victim of it.
I was taught to pay more attention to the edge of my side of the road when approaching on coming cars at night decades ago. It's not new, untested information. (DuckDuckGo)
It is also more noticeable riding a motorcycle.

Another possibility for the feeling of wanting to ride a bike into a canal could be a sloping camber on the bike track.
Perhaps, as a rider becomes more tired, it takes more effort to compensate the slope of the track exaggerating the bicycle's lean towards the canal?

a reply to: Hammaraxx

Have you not read the thread? I am quite aware of target fixation.
My response was to a statement that humans tend to fixate on moving lights. My response was that oncoming vehicles display little to no change in bearing and are thus not moving as far as perception goes. I also pointed out that looking away from oncoming lights has to do with avoiding the effects of glare.

Use your low beams only, when following another vehicle to help that driver avoid glare in his or her mirrors.

When faced with oncoming traffic at night, avoid looking straight at it. Look down and to the right, looking at the painted line on the side of the road, if there, or where the road meets the shoulder until the vehicle passes. You can still see the vehicle and monitor its progress with your peripheral vision.

thechronicleherald.ca...

If target fixation were the issue, following this advice might you take you off of the road. Right?

a reply to: Phage

Yes, I have read the thread, right from the beginning, and you were indeed the first poster to bring up the subject of target fixation so I know you know what it is.

Your point about glare is also quite valid but glare is not the only reason to avoid fixating on approaching headlights.

Watching the line on the side of the road is a moving target, not a point of fixation. The point you are focusing on is moving with you. Even you would know that, if you drive that is. You didn't answer that question.

I don't know why you want to counter your point about target fixation, it is was quite a valid point to make.

a reply to: Hammaraxx

Looking at the side of the road, like looking at a ditch on the side of the road, can well be a target of fixation. But when confronted with approaching headlights the exposure is brief and glare effects are the primary risk.

While staring at a ditch, in daylight, while riding a bicycle, it is very easy for target fixation to become a problem.

Saying that humans tend to fixate on moving lights has nothing to do with either situation.

a reply to: Hammaraxx

This sort of reminds me of arguing with a fence post: the only way to 'win' is to keep arguing until it rots.

(incidentally, I have won such battles )

Right now I think our friend Phage has target fixation somewhere else.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, got 4 or 5 pans in the fire.
It's glorious.

a reply to: Phage
Alright, no worries. You can believe that.
I drive and have experienced all the things we've just been talking about so I'll stick with what I know from real life regarding this and slowly drift back to the conversation about divination.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Hammaraxx

Not quite sure I understand this question, but...

I have no doubt in my mind, if someone were to bury water pipes in an area and I had absolutely no knowledge of where (or if) they were there, I could walk across it with the wires and locate every single one within the space of a foot or two.

Awesome. You sound like the perfect person to answer, if I word my question better.

If my Dad and I were to try water divination to see if we could do it, do you think trying it over an area where we already know has water pipes underground would subconsciously bias our result? It would be the easiest way for us to confirm our results if it appeared to work, but I would still be sceptical about it especially if Dad can and I can't.

redletter mentioned Ouija boards which I admit to having played with as a kid too. I found it hard not to be sceptical then too, thinking that someone in the group was moving the planchette on purpose. I'm still not really a believer in those things.

a reply to: Hammaraxx

OK, I can understand that. I want to emphasize first and foremost that I am a scientist... well, a research engineer, which is like a scientist/engineer mix... so I have a healthy skepticism for most things as well.

That said, here's my suggestion:

In my first post, I purposely went into pretty deep detail, in case someone else wanted to replicate what I did. Get two wire coathangers and straighten both, cutting off the areas near the hook where the wire is twisted so bad. Then make sure they are the same length. Now bend down between 8" and 12" (you don't have to be exact here apparently, as long as you bend both equally) at 90 degrees, and if needed cut the rest so that that leg is between 18" and 24" long. You want to make a loose fist with your hands, leaving a little hole under your fingers so that short leg sets in that running straight up and down. Do not squeeze! Hold the wires loosely, one in each hand, with the long side level and pointing directly in front of you. Then just start walking around with your hands shoulder distance apart and elbows at your side. If you have the same experience I did, the damn wires will cross every time you walk across water, the faster and harder they cross depending on how much/how close the water is.

I'd recommend starting somewhere that you know water lines are, but maybe you don't know exactly where they are. Try to locate those. If that works, then move on to a neighbor's yard, where you don't know where the water lines are (but they probably do). You want to prove to yourself it works at all first, then move to areas where you can prove to yourself that there's no subconscious bias. Yes, that is a concern... but a little imagination and you should be able to eliminate that. If you don't know where they are but someone else can later verify you found them, there can be no subconscioous bias.

This is something that you can do in a matter of a few minutes. So I'm looking forward to hearing your report back on what happened!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for those extra details.


It just so happens that I'll be visiting the folks today as it's Mother's Day down here.
I'll see if I can get the old man outside this afternoon to give it a shot and I'll let you know how it went.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd recommend starting somewhere that you know water lines are, but maybe you don't know exactly where they are. Try to locate those. If that works, then move on to a neighbor's yard, where you don't know where the water lines are (but they probably do). You want to prove to yourself it works at all first, then move to areas where you can prove to yourself that there's no subconscious bias. Yes, that is a concern... but a little imagination and you should be able to eliminate that. If you don't know where they are but someone else can later verify you found them, there can be no subconscioous bias.

That is a very poorly designed experiment. But it could be entertaining.

a reply to: Phage

He's asking the best way to prove it to himself, not the best way to write a paper on it. We're waiting on you for that.

ETA: Actually, looking back, it's not that bad for a qualitative experiment. He first establishes his potential to even participate by locating known targets, then attempts to find unknown targets (blind experiment).

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

He's asking the best way to prove it to himself

Exactly.

a reply to: Phage

See my edit above.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
I already provided an outline of the experiment I would design.

Yours lacks controls and is has no blinding, much less double blinding. There does not appear any way to statistically eliminate chance from the results.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Controlled.

Double blind.

Those words mean something and are important.

Can I design the experiment?

You can do the experiment yourself and it only involves a few steps.

1. Travel to Capetown and pick a random spot.
2. Wander around with dousing rods and act silly.
3. Refer to map detailing the Aquifer depth.
4. Drill a bore hole deep enough to reach the Aquifer.

After that you'll surely believe in the power of magic.

a reply to: Phage

I'm quite satisfied with TheRedneck's suggestion.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
...
I'd recommend starting somewhere that you know water lines are, but maybe you don't know exactly where they are. Try to locate those. If that works, then move on to a neighbor's yard, where you don't know where the water lines are (but they probably do).
...

I'd say the neighbour's yard, where I don't know where the water lines are (but they probably do) makes a pretty good control.

a reply to: Hammaraxx

That's not a control. A control would be a place where there were no pipes.

I would recommend that your neighbor stays out of the yard entirely whenever you are there. Before and during the "experiment."

a reply to: Phage

A known and an unknown. The unknown would be the control in this situation.
A place where there are no pipes is everywhere else that there isn't.

a reply to: Hammaraxx

The unknown would be the control in this situation.

It's not a control in determining the validity of the method. Which is what the point is. Right?

Unless you want to disregard false positives and only include good "hits", for some reason. That doesn't help in eliminating chance.


You need to be careful about that sort of thing. I came across this, which shows the pitfalls of experimenter biases. It can occur even in a fairly well designed experiment.
www.csicop.org...