Started by typhonblue, Oct 24, 2004, 01:13 AM
I've read some stuff by Rupert Sheldrake. On the borderline, but he is (or was) a qualified scientist. I'm not sure what I think about him, but I am fairly open to thinking about (plausible) new ideas.
I would start getting bored with that, because it ultimately has nothing to do with your real worth, but they never seem to.
The data also display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent series position effects are observed in individual and collective results.
Segregation of the total REG database described above into male and female operatorcomponents reveals several striking disparities. As evident in Figure 4, although three of thefemale operators have produced the largest individual z-scores, the overall correlations of meanshifts with intention are much weaker for the females than for the males. In fact, while amajority of the males succeed in both directions of effort, most of the females' low intentionresults are opposite to intention. Specifically, some 66% of the male operators succeed inseparating their overall HI and LO scores in the intended direction, compared to only 34% of thefemales. In other words, there is some indication that the total operator performance distributionhas three components: a) three outstanding female datasets; b) 38 female datasets indistinguishablefrom a chance distribution; and c) 50 well-distributed male datasets compounding tosignificant positive performance.
Hmmm... well i guess the disparity is in favour of female operators. If that is so then this just confirms thousands years old common folk knowledge that women are more "magical" than men. If women inherently have a more developed ability for energy manipulation than men, then do we have any hope ?And it also explains why the gender interrelationship now is the way it is.
Women don't seem to get tired of their games.