PSI Experiments (Phase 2, protocol) [frozen copy of original DreamViews post]

[For the DreamViews thread, see here: https://www.dreamviews.com/research/165777-psi-experiments-phase-2-a.html]

As described in my first post, the below is the draft of the full list of questions (and answers) which I will eventually be using to summarize the "phase 2" period's results. (I will make a post soon declaring its start/activation [at which point the protocol will be finalized], and it will continue until a corresponding "end of phase" post is made sometime in the future.)

Official question/answer set
==========
* How many "substantial learnings" occurred? (ie. observations or theory-advancements occurring during the experiment, which you consider significant steps forward in understanding the situation)
Options: [number]

* For the learnings that occurred, roughly what percentage of them were the result of "obvious lines of inquiry", ie. things that the majority of people attempting a similar experiment would, on their own, think of testing? [the answer may not exactly match a ratio of the count in question 1, due to some instances being "in-between" obvious and non-obvious]
Options: [percentage]

* Was there anything distinct, and very unexpected, that happened? (ie. beyond the isolation-effect you theorized, and a general psi effect, regardless of strength) [it is expected that this will be a no, but is included on the off-chance of some highly bizarre/specific sequence seen in the data]
Options: Yes, No, Unclear/Other

* For whatever patterns in the data seemed most plausible to be a psi effect, were those patterns roughly homogeneous, or rather, multi-stage? (ie. appearing to have distinct shifts in operation at certain points)
Options: Single-Stage, Multi-Stage, Unclear/Other

* Overall, how "interesting" were the results? Express this in terms of how many hours/days you'd be willing to spend isolated (in an empty-room/void, though comfortably and with external time paused), to unlock the ability to share it freely. [think your answer through carefully; it should match with what you'd actually assent to]
Options: [number of hours/days; max answer: "30+ days"]

* For the most interesting results obtained, what likelihood do you give that it would be replicable by a random other, if they sincerely attempted to follow the same protocol? (with isolation, same mindset, equivalent variants and duration, etc.) [this may be difficult to guess prior to any sort of external feedback, and not possible to directly confirm [due to externalization of the protocol being a gradual process, with possible unavoidable changes along the way], but do your best to guess anyway]
Options: [percentage]

Notes
==========
* The sharing restrictions are only for "in system" results, ie. the standard data that is recorded by the experiment software. "Out of system" observations are fine to share. For example, if the HRNG device starts glowing and emitting sparks that fries all the electronics in my bedroom (!), this would qualify as an "out of system" observation, which I would not be restricted from reporting. So rest assured, my lack of reporting such things does indeed imply that they did not happen. ^_^

* The intention of the experimentation period is to not share the in-system results with anyone, for the rest of my time on earth (for reasons explained in the main post above). That said, there is a part of me somewhat hesitant about making oaths of this sort, as they could theoretically lead to disruptive situations I didn't anticipate, making me somehow regret it. Because of this hesitance/abundance-of-caution, I offer the following "safety hatch" to my future self: If there is some aspect of the data or situation, such that the restriction of sharing causes distinct real-world negatives (excluding my regular motivations, eg. the general desire to advance understanding), then you are permitted to share the full data with up to three people (but no more). Furthermore, you must obtain a clear (and, as far as you can tell, sincere) statement from such people, stating that they intend to not subsequently share the data (or even "revealing derivations" of it) with a wider audience. This is a generic sort of safety hatch, which I intend to use for any future "oaths", to ease my overly-cautious personality, while also having minimal potential impact on the experiment itself.

Responses to future questions/concerns
==========
> What options are available for questions readers may have about the experiment, that were not answered in these original explanation posts?

Well, it's not a problem to ask them, even after the experiment has started; I just might not be able to answer in detail. However, a good portion of questions will still be able to be answered, because they deal purely with clarification on the "intent" I had prior to the experiment's start. Those questions are generally fine, because they don't reveal information about the results of the experiments. Occasional questions of that sort may be left unanswered though, if they are of a type that I'm concerned may lead to my answer being "tainted" by knowledge of the actual results (or highly specific details of methods utilized, as exact replication is intended for a later phase); but I think this would be rare, unless a person specifically designed it for that.

> Why are the questions/answers included left so vague? For example, why do you not include specific questions about the highest rarity-by-chance value obtained, the number of variations tried, etc?

I can see why this would seem frustrating or suspicious to readers, perhaps even seeming as though I'm intentionally trying to "induce mystery" around the experiment artificially. However, the main reason I don't include questions of that sort (with answers highly informative about the results and/or methods) is because for this "phase 2" experiment, one of the main things I'm trying to test, is on whether there is some sort of "intention/reporting effect" for psi experiments.

That psi has eluded detailed understanding for so long makes me think that, if it is real, we need to question deeper assumptions about how to perform experimentation on it -- and one of these assumptions (which I'm trying to test here) is the [generally left implicit] one that "Whatever effect is being studied will not be impacted by the reporting intentions of the researcher, and/or the societal impact likely to result from the experiment" (while far-fetched, there are some reasons I find this worth questioning -- some from inside the field and some from out). And I think a step in checking this assumption, involves preventing "overly informative windows" into the results of the experiment, through means of potential significance-signaling/worldview-disrupting question-and-answer sets.

Apologies! But I expect that I will be able to reduce these restrictions in future experiments, as I get a better handle on how much (if at all) they may be a factor.

> Taking a step back, does the overall premise of this "phase 2" experimentation not seem a bit delusional to you? Like, do you have no regard for the possibility that you've walked yourself into this odd malformation of standard protocol (which values full transparency) on account of your "psi effect" ultimately being illusory, rather than just "evasive" as you call it?

First of all, let me assure you that I value transparency very highly. I think it is tremendously valuable for readers to have complete information about an experiment, empowering them to perform replication attempts, look for errors the researcher may have made, etc. It goes against my regular nature/aspirations to be performing an experiment of this type, with results that will never get to be shared in detail with the wider world. I'm experimenting where I am only because: a) it avoids the concern of selective reporting with relation to the many variations tried [by pre-committing to the minimal sharing defined above], b) it's a response to the observation that the field of parapsychology has "stalled" somewhat for the last 50 years -- with some remarkable successes, some new developments (such as the Radin double-slit experiment), and *some* level of replicability (eg. as seen in the meta-studies of Ganzfield trials), but still failing to produce the "100% replicable experiment" that has long been sought. Rather than forming another "open-air experiment", I want to look into an area that I haven't seen much attention placed, relating to variations on the design process and intent for sharing the results.

Secondly, I think there is, in fact, a fair chance that the skeptics are right, and the "evasiveness" of psi is instead an artifact of the effect being illusory, and the striking results obtained at various points being due to a variety of traditional explanations that merely combined in hard to unravel ways. That said, there are many experiment results I've seen which just do not seem to fit into any of the traditional explanations (even after looking at them closely, and hearing out the skeptics' arguments), and so while it's possible a *combination* of those factors may ultimately explain it, the situation is far from solved/confirmed in my eyes. And overall, I think the evidence does tilt toward there being an actual effect, even after accounting for the lower "base plausibility" of the concept (though I also think this "base plausibility" is higher than traditionally assumed, due to most people not taking the time to research/construct theories which elegantly -- or at least semi-elegantly, at this point -- explain a large portion of the results [including observations outside of the field] in a consistent way).

In any case, I think it's worth at least testing the ideas. It's an example of the "low probability, high reward" concept. For me, the reward of finding a piece of the puzzle for better understanding psi, would be tremendously rewarding; so I consider it worth trying, even if realistically I will most likely not find anything earth-shattering (since, probably, someone has tried something like this before; that said, I haven't read of any such explicit tests yet, with the follow up intent of gradually reducing the restrictions to "find the point of psi diminishing", anyhow). Besides, I enjoy the process of experimentation inherently; so even if it ends up a dead end, I would not view it as a total waste, as even a negative result is interesting to confirm, and I will have had some fun in the process.

Time of activation
==========
I will leave the description above up for a few days, on the chance that someone has specific thoughts, questions, or criticisms to add. If you have some, please share! -- as in a few days I will make a post declaring the "official start" of phase 2, and I won't be able to make changes to the protocol after that point. (as explained, this is mostly done to avoid [understandable] concerns of selective/skewed reporting, from the potential changing of the information set to be shared, after having obtained partial results)