Talk:Zener cards

Paranormal Start‑class

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

poor explanation of the law of averages/law of large numbers

This article's rather poor explanation of the law of averages/law of large numbers should be replaced with a link. -Smack 03:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How is this explanation "poor"? If you didn't link it, what would you say instead? Wiwaxia 21:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Doesnt this article violate NPOV? I mean, it seems to be throwing ESP around quite casually, while the ESP page itself is careful to refer only to 'people who believe in ESP' or 'proponents of ESP'. Is a change warranted? - Aparajit

Mathematical analysis of clairvoyance using Zener Cards

I've created an online experiment that utilizes zener cards to test for clairvoyance/precognition in a statistically meaningful manner; I plan to include a reference to it in this wikipedia article if there are no objections. Also, the mathematics in this article is lacking, I (being a professional mathematician and Masters in Applied Mathematics) can correct it, also if there are no objections. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 10:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just implemented my edit, which comprised an additional paragraph in "Use in Experiments" to describe online tests and an added reference. In addition I swept up the "Statistics" section a little to make it more mathematically accurate. I can expand on this much more but I figured I'd let my edits sit for a while and give you guys a chance to poke holes in them. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues with Psi Assumptions

This article could use a lot of rewriting to balance out the POV, it seems to me. Particularly galling is how it throws about the Psi assumption (yeah, I plan to write an article on that soon. For now, see [1]). Basically, the problem is how it implies that any score over 20% would definately indicate Psi. Why Psi, and not God sending messages to the subject? For that matter, why not use it as evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is manipulating the cards with His Noodly Appendage?

Additionally, the statistical analysis is flawed. Zener cards are presented in decks of 25, with five of each card. With the predisposition of a subject to not guess the same card twice, the hit rate immediately rises to around 25%.

I'm putting the NPOV tag on this now to inform readers, but I'll try to get back to it and fix it myself. ---DrLeebot 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any result far away from 20% is statistically improbable. A consistent score of 0% would indicate PSI powers as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizzardi (talk • contribs) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the card experiment itself is flawed. It probably requires a review and some research to find people debunking it though, as it is old. Its a good idea in theory, and a clever test, but it falls short as an experiment. No one has come along to fix it though :\ Titanium Dragon 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly valid experiment. It test whether the subject is receiving information about the deck. That's it. You're right to say that there's no diagnosis of what that information is, nor what the source of that information is, but to say that it's not an experiment is to fundamentally misunderstand the scientific method. 02:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I just added some stuff, needs more. Possibly should just be merged with the page this links from, as it seems to be largely the same thing. Titanium Dragon 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the hit rate rises to about 25% as you say, if the person doesn't get any feedback on if they guessed correctly or not. Secondly, it depends on how far above 20% it is in order to be significant, and that varies according to the number of tests (and assumes that they are done correctly). Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, finite size of the deck affects it.~~ No that only helps if they are given feedback along the way. Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psi present/missing

Should a short explanation of psi present and psi missing be included in this article? (i.e. low scores also indicate a possible existence of psi) or should that be confined to articles on general explanations on research? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.114.88 (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Two N's?

Aren't there 2 N's in the word Zener, and not one? SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Zenner Card to here, so that is no longer a problem. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is still not consistent. The title says Zener, the lead says Zenner and the rest of the article flip-flops. Surely it cannot be that hard to figure out if Karl's last name is Zener or Zenner? Shinobu (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any testing with colored cards?

Just curious if there is any better/worse statistics if each card was a different color? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses

Has somebody devised alternate uses for Zener cards? Such as playing cards? --Error (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]