Today I put out a message on Twitter announcing a special project that will take place next week. I have teamed up with New Scientist Magazine to stage the first mass participation study via Twitter. This will build on some of my other large-scale work, including the scientific search for the world’s funniest joke, and experiments into the psychology of lying. The actual experiment will be announced on Monday, and take place throughout the rest of the week. If you want to participate simply join my Twitter stream at https://twitter.com/richardwiseman. We really do need as many people as possible to participate, so feel free to spread the word.
Advertisement
May 29, 2009 at 4:21 am |
Hello!
The link above written as http://www.twitter.com/richardwiseman is actually:
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/mystery-twitter-experiment/www.twitter.com/richardwiseman
Oops! = )
It’ll spread much faster sans confusion… XD
Pressing on Regardless,
Kathleen
May 29, 2009 at 5:34 am |
It’s not really a mass participation experiment if *you* are only following 3 people on Twitter, now is it?
May 29, 2009 at 6:47 am |
You need to add an http:// to the beginning of your twitter address – it currently renders as http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/mystery-twitter-experiment/www.twitter.com/richardwiseman . Have RTed, and happen to agree with the Neurocritic on the number of people you follow. Even if you don’t fancy following some of those who follow you, surely you could add some people you respect in your field, as a helpful guide for others?
May 29, 2009 at 8:19 am |
Who cares how many people you follow? There’s an interesting bit of psychology at work here if people feel aggrieved that you choose to do your own thing for your own reasons.
Looking forward to the experiment.
May 29, 2009 at 8:30 am |
Ooh. Interested Richard. Have a lovely weekend.
May 29, 2009 at 8:39 am |
Entirely agree with previous comments. Not only is Twitter about communicating + reciprocating – Neurocritic as people person would also tell you – but following certain people might be beneficial to you . Interaction! As for the experiment – to RT to gain these hordes of tweeples the text should have been shorter. In addition, i would have liked *some* idea of the nature of the experiment. I would feel a total ninny to have RTd + then discover the experiment is not to my liking. Other than that – i am all 4 experimenting + gathering together diverse tweeples. Now follow me. —- PS: Cannot find Neurocritic’s Twitter address – please HELP. Cheers.
May 29, 2009 at 10:58 am |
Yes, I’m also willing to take part in an experiment. Let’s hope it’s worth it and not some half-thought through piece of marketing. Will drop like a hot brick if it ain’t good. Not retweeting until I know what it is.
May 29, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
Have RT. I kind of agree with the comments about following more people, especially since those that follow you will often see who you are following as a guide on who else might be worth looking at.
Certainly worth following a few greats from the sceptical movement.
I personally don’t think you are obliged to follow a certain number of people or all the people that are following you. But just three does reflect badly on the notion of mass participation as Neurocritic so delightfully put.
May 29, 2009 at 9:53 pm |
Why use twitter when there’s http://pub.lica.me ? better, faster, cooler
May 30, 2009 at 12:36 am |
[...] Mystery twitter experiment Today I put out a message on Twitter announcing a special project that will take place next week. I have teamed up with [...] [...]
May 30, 2009 at 6:08 am |
to :: Stefan Aichholzer — Good try at irony – don’t we have enough problems trying 2 interest masses on Twitter without having 2 answer ludicrous questions > “better, faster, cooler” – but one minor drawback: Italian. -
May 30, 2009 at 6:08 am |
to :: Stefan Aichholzer — Good try at irony – don’t we have enough problems trying 2 interest masses on Twitter without having 2 answer ludicrous questions > “better, faster, cooler” – but one minor drawback: Italian. -
May 30, 2009 at 6:35 am |
to :: Stefan Aichholzer — Good try at irony – don’t we have enough problems trying 2 interest masses on Twitter without having 2 answer ludicrous questions > “better, faster, cooler” ?? – but one minor drawback: Italian. -
May 30, 2009 at 6:35 am |
to :: Stefan Aichholzer — Good try at irony – don’t we have enough problems trying 2 interest masses on Twitter without having 2 answer ludicrous questions > “better, faster, cooler” ?? – but one minor drawback: Italian. -
May 31, 2009 at 1:36 pm |
Sorry, but how do you expect people to follow you on Twitter (although you have a decent number) if you do not reciprocate with following them?
Last I checked, you have 3,064 followers, while you follow just 7.
My first impression gives me the gut feeling not to participate. I just wanted to give you something to chew on (think about).
Hope it goes good for you!
May 31, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
I don’t get you people. What does how many people Richard chooses to follow on Twitter have to do with an experiment he is trying to conduct using that site as a forum. Just because he may have better things to do (like nurture real relationships in real life) than busily follow as many people as he can on Twitter, doesn’t mean the experiment isn’t worth participating in.
May 31, 2009 at 8:04 pm |
I am interested in taking part in the experiment. I signed up to follow you, not sure what the next step will be , however, hopefully you will send out a mass email as well as Tweet, there is a very good chance I will miss it with all the hundreds of tweets people leave a day. Would be interested to know more about the experiment.
May 31, 2009 at 8:12 pm |
Well, Rebecca – perhaps the point of how to keep the Twitter engine working has escaped you: Communication – happens to be a two-way thing. Although *information* is welcome + needed, that should be balanced by talking. How someone having acquired more than 3 Twitter friends (Richard’s count on Friday) could clutter up his “real life” to the extent that “nurturing relationships” is being neglected – please, let’s stick to the point here. Also, just because some of us have made comment on Richard’s lack of Twitter friends – you are immediately + irrationally taking this to the extreme: No-one suggested or implied that Richard should do an “aplusk” – just show a semblance of willingness to interact rather than just doing a job he likes. Had he acquired – for arguments’s sake – 5oo friends before starting this experiment, he may well be looking at the required number of entrants by now. Simple math. PS: If you want a “site as a forum” only – stick to blogging.
May 31, 2009 at 11:22 pm |
Wow, why does everyone care who he is following, he is doing an experiment and using a social network to contact people. AT least 3,000 people are following him, so , it must be working for him.
I just do not get why people care…. if you do not like what he is doing, just do not follow him or participate. I am confused… however, we all have different expectations. Maybe his not following people is part of his experiment and he is watching to see people’s response…
June 1, 2009 at 12:58 am |
if your twittering can be geotraced then your location will be detectable.
June 1, 2009 at 4:53 am |
@ william
If you write a return address on your mail, the recipient will know where you state you live
June 1, 2009 at 12:41 pm |
Hi there, I direct yr attn to 2 things: this tweet of mine: “Just posted on GoodReads “Cognitive Dissidents” Group under “Robopaths” topic re experiments w/ Twitter – both mine & Richard Wiseman’s.” & this relevant link: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/19326?utm_medium=email&utm_source=comment_instant
June 2, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
The problem I encountered this morning, when looking at the photos was that there was too much similarity in a key feature (which shall go unnamed so as not so skew the results). I’ve tested my remote viewing abilities before and the disadvantage I was under was that I had clear impressions of my target but the disconnect came through in my interpretation of those impressions. It turned out, after interviewing my assistant in this experiment, that I was probably right about the location but the things that jumped out at me were not what caught the eye of the person on location. Once I described the features I was seeing in more detail we realized we were talking about the same location, just two different perspectives of that location.
June 2, 2009 at 8:20 pm |
Interestingly, my tweets describing the imagined place mentioned a hole in a roundabout surrounded by buildings taller than 3 stories. Picture C is of a hole in a roundabout AND PICTURE D (the correct one) is of a building taller than 3 stories. I voted for picture C & was, therefore, wrong – HOWEVER, my tweet description cd be considered more correct if one considers the possibility that I was Remote Viewing the PICTURES rather than the locations. I believe there may be some precedent for this type of thing in psychic research.
June 9, 2009 at 11:05 pm |
I really liked your blog!
July 1, 2009 at 8:40 am |
Hmmm, that was interesting. Looks like somethings will always remain mystery.
I myself has been trying to solve the mystery of the legend that forces you to have “earn it before
having it”, for a wile now. Could not understand much though.
Let me know in case you get to understand the mystery of the
Old Hound and the Legend
By the way, good writing style. I’d love to read more on similar topics
July 11, 2009 at 11:35 am |
I admire the courage and the organization to do this wonderful project.
I am a scientists too. I can’t help to wonder… Could it be that science is just only one perspective of the “bigger” picture of the universe? Could it be that if we use “lower” logic and way of thinking to interpret something of higher dimension is a big mistake?
There are things of higher power and higher dimensions that cannot be measured by our 3-dimensional way of thinking. From my understanding of “spiritual” things, you are not supposed to measure it, especially using 3-dimensional equipments and 3-dimensional logic. Could it be that the minute we try to measure this, the information dissipates.
Thinking back in history, Einstein, modern astrophysics… is it true that just because something is not measurable, then it does not exist or it is not true? Many theories were first proven to be true mathematically, and still were not measurable up to this day. In real life can you measure love? yet, without a doubt, we know it exists.
In physics, imagine you are provided only with 2-dimensional tools and 2-dimensional way of thinking, and you are forcing yourself to measure a 3-dimensional object. It is physically impossible to find anything consistent. You will therefore conclude it doesn’t exist. It’s like us 3-dimensional beings trying to measure something that could be 4 dimensional or higher!
I just wish scientists can sometimes just take a step back and realize that the more you think you know, the more you know nothing of. That is what I learned from my past mistakes as a scientist. Step out of the box. Sometimes experiments fail, we put the blame on the theory. But if you step out of the box…. you might find some other way out…. like changing your perspective, equipment and technique.