Quote:
Originally Posted by alextsakiris  - Finally, common sense tells you that any result like the first two videos doesn't require a lot of advanced statistics to measure success -- it's OBVIOUS! The only question is repeatability. |
It's obvious that the spot you choose is arbitrary (and in a really small space), and it obvious that the dog seems to be sleeping there. I woudn't call that "waiting behavior", I would call that "sleepy behavior".
When you're saying that he's "waiting", it's really an anthropomorphisation. You're the one saying that he's "waiting". Doesn't look like waiting for me. How do you know his not "waiting" for his owner when he's sleeping on the chair? You're making so many assumptions, and then call them "obvious". That's really annoying.
It's also arbitrary that you're correlating his behavior with the son in the second video. Even if thelepathy is real, maybe he's assuming is favorite "sleepy behavior" spot because the mother tough somewhere "What a crappy day".
You're the one making the assumption in the second video that he's reacting to the coming back of the son (by the way, who many people are they in this family? I mean he can react to the mother, father, son and son on).
There is nothing obvious about those videos. You want us to believe that all that stuff is obvious (because you think so, because of your prior strong belief in this phenomena), but I don't see anything obvious about them.
So try to be a better scientist. Improve you're controls. Decide what's a hit and what's not a hit.
For the moment, when I watch your videos, I understand a lot more the concept of "experimenter effect". Because you believe in the phenomenum, you're doing all you can to obtain data that will confirm you're prior belief, and discard everything that doesn't confirm it. Very interresting.