New Quirkology Video!

I haven’t posted a new Quirkology video for a long time because they are a tad tricky to create.  However, about a month ago I came across a nice use of the blind spot by bored lawyers. Apparently during a tedious court case they occasionally pass the time by covering one eye, looking at the judge with the other eye, and seeing if they can make the head of the witness disappear!

This got me thinking, and after a bit of experimentation I came up with the following video….

Hope that you like it. Getting the black bar bit to work was problematic, but we got there in the end (and my thanks to everyone involved in the creation, filming, editing and testing process, including Caroline, Emma, Sarah, Peter, William and Ringo).

When researching the idea I came across several nice blind spot demos, but my favourite allows you to map the actual size and shape of your blind spot. Have fun playing with it here.

It’s the Friday puzzle!

You may remember that last week we helped young Albert open the company safe in his bid to get access to a rare clock. Well, it seems that the company are especially hot on security. When he opened the safe door, Albert was confronted with three boxes. Each had a picture of a different form of transport (a speedboat, a racecar and a horse).

The note simply said….

Hi ,
The rare clock is in one of these boxes. You only get to open one box and your task is to open the one containing the clock. Here is a clue that might help – “I am the same going forwards as backwards”

Good Luck

Bob (company director)

Which box should Albert open?

As ever, please do not submit your solution, but feel free to say if you think that you have solved it and how long it took. Answer on Monday! Have a good weekend.

Update: For those that get it straight away, Briantist has posed a nice follow-up question – how do you spell ‘a hungry horse’ in four letters?

It’s a genuine Tardis!

Thanks to everyone who re-tweeted about the illusion yesterday. It was great to see such a great response, and a special nod to Phil Plait and Dave Gorman for helping spread the word.

Tis another busy day. Have the final meeting about the campaign for ’59 Seconds’ today. This is my new book exposing the myths that abound in the self-help industry, and describing scientifically supported techniques that make people more creative, happy, attractive etc. and take less than a minute to carry out (thus the 59 Seconds title). It’s all a bit hush hush at the moment, but launches in the UK in 10 days time (on Amazon here). Then off to the Natural History Museum in London for the opening of a new exhibit that I have been working on with artists Jeremy Deller and Matthew Killip about facial expressions and Darwin.

So, what’s all this about a Tardis, I hear you say. Well, Dr Who travels through time in a police box that appears small on the outside and huge on the inside. Earlier this week I went along to the opening of the Walking In My Mind exhibition at the Hayward Gallery in London, and saw a real Tardis. Well, kinda.

Actually, it was a very clever exhibit that looked like this on the outside….

But used the ‘wall of mirrors’ illusion to appear huge on the inside….

It is a nice idea. Let’s imagine that someone made a wardrobe like this – would you have one in your house?

The best optical illusion I have seen all year

A few days ago i was sent this amazing illusion (thanks Karen). The illustration below appears to show green and blue spirals…..

But in fact the apparent green and blue are exactly the same colour! Don’t believe me? Well, I put the image into photoshop and changed all of the other colours to black and you get this…..

I find that utterly jaw dropping. What do you think?

Update: A few people have pointed out that you can have the creepy experience of the illusion vanishing as you zoom in in the image!

Update2: Another great version of it here.

P.S. I am not sure who created this, so if anyone can find out let me know and I will obviously credit it. the link I was sent it here. Just found out that it was created by Kitaoka (thanks Rob).

Chiropractic evidence: The curious case of the missing study

As many of you may know, my mate Simon Singh is currently being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. Chris French has recently put a great summary of the issues in the Guardian, and I would urge you to support Simon’s campaign for freedom of speech in science.

Aspects of the case revolve around the evidence (or lack of it) for the chiropractic treatment of children with colic. Although there is some anecdotal support for this notion, in my opinion such stories would not cut the mustard in the scientific arena (as the gag goes, the plural of anecdote is not evidence). After all, mothers may be give an inaccurate report of their children’s behaviour, or may have sought out treatment when the condition was especially bad and thus any effect could simply due to the symptoms becoming less severe over time.

That’s why controlled studies are so important. In my opinion, the only decent study to date was carried out by Olafsdottir and colleagues in 2001. Unlike the handful of other experiments into the topic, this study used proper blind procedures and controls, with, for example, the mothers involved not knowing whether their child was receiving chiropractic treatment or simply being held. The results showed that chiropractic spinal manipulation was no more effective than the placebo condition. I am not the only one to think that this is a vital study. For example, a 2002 review of chiropractic treatment for infant colic in the Archives of Disease in Childhood (here) only cited 4 studies – one of which was the Olafsdottir experiment, which was singled out for its sound methodology.

Yesterday I put in the search terms ‘chiropractic research infant colic’ into Google, and looked at the chiropractic sites that offer evidence about the efficacy of the chiropractic treatment for infant colic. I couldn’t find one that described the Olafsdottir study.

Of course, it is up to them which evidence they list, but I would have thought that a major study like that deserved a mention somewhere. Am I missing something? Can you find one?

It’s the Friday puzzle!

An easy one this week!

Albert’s been having a tough week at the clock factory.  First he designed an odd Roman Numeral clock face, and then can’t work out how long it would take his favourite clock to chime 10 o’clock.   However, things are looking up.  He has been asked to go down to the basement and retrieve a rare clock from the company safe.  When he gets there he sees the following numbers on the safe door….

77 – 49 -  36 – xx
the next number in the sequence will open the safe.  What number should Albert use to get at the rare clock?

The answer to this puzzle, and 100 others,  can be found in a new kindle ebook called PUZZLED, and is available in the UK here and USA here.

Want to live here?

This is a lovely illusion created by Roy Lichtenstein. So simple and yet utterly compelling….

I say we have one in every Science Museum the world. What thinks you?  Oh, and talking of puzzle houses – who wants to live here?

Catch the cat!

I sent this out on Twitter earlier today and it got quite a response, so thought I would post it here.  Basically, it is a fun game in which you have to catch the cat (thanks David).

Before you click the link,  I should warn you it is highly addictive and you might spend the rest of your life playing it.  OK, here is the link.

So, what is the best strategy for success? I think there is a way of winning, but it is very counter-intuitive.

Twitter Psychic Expts – More Results

Many thanks for all of the feedback on the Twitter experiment. I thought it might be interesting to give a bit more detail about one of the most important analyses – the findings from those people who thought that they were psychic and were confident about their performance.

On each trial about 16% thought that they were psychic (that is, ticked either the ‘definitely yes’ or ‘probably yes’ to the ‘Do you believe that you have psychic abilities?’ question). I isolated these, and then looked at those that were confident about their choice of target (that is, ticked the ‘Very confident’ or ‘Quite confident’ to the ‘How confident are you about your choice?’ question).

On Trial 1,the majority of these participants (35%) thought that I was in the woods when I was standing by the tall building. On Trial 2, the majority (29%) went with me near the stairs when I was in the children’s play park. On Trial 3, the majority (26%) went with the underpass when the answer was the unusual canopy. Finally, on Trial 4, the majority (30%) went with the canal when I was at the postbox. Thus all of the trials were misses.

Some people have suggested that I should perhaps do the opposite type of analysis. Rather than look at how alleged psychics score, look for high scorers (perhaps those who obtained 4 out of 4) and re-test them. What do you think? Is it worth the effort? Did you get top marks and, if so, would you join in with another study?

P.S. If anyone want the original data sheets (obviously minus people’s email addresses) then please email me.

At Death’s Door

I put this wonderful poster out on Twitter yesterday and it received a bit of a strange reaction.

It is a great ambiguous image, but some people could only see it one way and it took them quite some time to see any other interpretation. So, what did you see the first time that you saw it and what does that say about you?

BTW, the poster is to promote a new film, At Death’s Door. It looks amazing…if you like that type of thing, which I do. Very much.

Update: Two more similar images below….

Update 2: And another….

It’s the Friday Puzzle!

Last week I described how Albert made a terrible mistake whilst creating a clock. Well, this week we are sticking with Albert as he continues to work in a clock factory…..

Albert has noticed that his favourite clock in the factory takes 7seconds to strike 7 o’clock. How long will the same clock take to strike 10 o’clock?

Update: I have had loads of emails about this arguing that it is impossible to solve! So, here is the new question ‘Albert thinks that they answer will definitely be 10 seconds. Is he right?’ 10 points for anyone who gets the right answer to that, and 100 points for anyone who tries to work out an answer to the original question!

The answer to this puzzle, and 100 others,  can be found in a new kindle ebook called PUZZLED, and is available in the UK here and USA here.

Twitter Experiment – Results!

Last week I teamed up with New Scientist magazine to conduct the first scientific experiment using Twitter. First, a huge ‘thank you’ to everyone who participated. So, what do we do and what did we find?

The experiment examined remote viewing – the alleged psychic ability to “see” distant locations.

The first trial was an informal affair, and involved me travelling to a secret location and then sending out a “tweet” asking participants to tweet back their thoughts concerning my location. Twenty minutes later, I sent a second tweet containing the address of a website that allowed everyone to view a photograph of the location (a weir). I also asked the participants to rate both their belief in the paranormal and the degree to which their thoughts matched the target.

More than 1000 people participated, with paranormal believers claiming high levels of correspondence between their thoughts and the actual location.

The formal part of the study took place over four days and tested both whether the group as a whole was psychic and whether believers outperformed disbelievers. On each day I travelled to a randomly selected location and asked everyone to send tweets describing their thoughts about the location.

In the judging phase, participants were presented with five photographs, one showing the location and four decoys, and asked to select the target. The photograph that received the most votes was taken as the group’s decision.

If the group were psychic, the majority would vote for the correct target. In the first trial I was looking up at a striking, modern-looking building. Unfortunately, the group voted for some woods.

On trial two I was sitting in the middle of a playground, but the group thought I was standing at the foot of a long stairway. The third trial found me under an unusual-looking canopy; the group voted for a graveyard.

On the final trial I stared intently at a red postbox. The group believed that I was standing at the side of a canal. In short, all four trials were misses.

When I analysed believers and sceptics separately, the results were the same, with no difference between the groups. So the study didn’t support the existence of remote viewing, and suggested that those who believe in the paranormal are good at finding illusory correspondences between their thoughts and a target .

But perhaps the most important outcome was to demonstrate that thousands of people are happy to take part in an instant Twitter study. Any ideas on possible studies? And any thoughts about the results?

Finally, here is a great video from the Wall Street Journal showing the study in action here.

Update: I have just looked at the data from those who claimed some kind of psychic ability, and had a high confidence in their choice of target.  This sub-group of participants also scored zero out of four.

Campaign for new element to be called Kryptonite

The BBC have just reported the very exciting news that scientists in the US (update – sorry, actually it was in Germany – thanks Dr Bob!) have discovered a new element. I thought it might be fun to start a campaign for it to be called Kryptonite. If you like his idea, leave a comment pleading your support or come up with a better name!

Happiness or wealth?

Yesterday I posted the following scenario….

Imagine being offered two jobs. In terms of working hours, duties, location, and career prospects, Job A is absolutely identical to Job B. In fact, the only difference between the two positions is the disparity between your salary, and that of your future co-workers.

In Job A, your annual pay will be $50,000 and your colleagues will be earning $30,000. In Job B, you will be earning $60,000, and your fellow employees will be on $80,000.

This was based on an experiment originally run by psychologist Amos Tversky.  Tversky was interested in decision making, and came up with two versions of the task.  In one version he just asked people which job they would prefer, and discovered that the vast majority chose B because of the higher salary.  However, when Tversky asked people which job would make them happier, the majority went with A because they realised that being surrounded by others earning more is not great for your self-esteem.

Yesterday morning I posed Tversky’s first question and, as predicted, almost everyone went with Job B.  Then, in the afternoon I switched to the happiness question and there seemed to be a shift.  More people were undecided or went with Job A.

And there is the issue.  The choices we make are often heavily influenced by the questions we are asked, or ask ourselves. In this scenario it is easy to see how we could choose an option that makes us unhappy and yet feel we have done the right and logical thing.

What thinks you?  Did you decide on the basis of your happiness or your wallet?

Which job would you take?

Time for a quick psychology test. Imagine being offered two jobs. In terms of working hours, duties, location, and career prospects, Job A is absolutely identical to Job B. In fact, the only difference between the two positions is the disparity between your salary, and that of your future co-workers.

In Job A, your annual pay will be $50,000 and your colleagues will be earning $30,000. In Job B, you will be earning $60,000, and your fellow employees will be on $80,000.

Update: This morning I asked ‘Would you be more tempted by Job A or Job B? ‘ – but now I am going to change the question to ‘Which job do you think will make you feel happier, Job A or Job B?’