ariable, which was the amount of cards identified correctly.There were a couple of confounding variables that might have biased the results of the experiment. The place in the house that the test took place, and the amount of background noise could have increased or decreased the performance of the subjects. The surroundings and colors of each room might have some effect on the flow of the brain. Randomization took place in the way the subjects were picked. The population was the town of Savanna (pop. 852). This could have hurt the experiment because the subjects might have been uninterested and apathetic toward the experiment. Therefore, their brains would not have been properly tuned to achieve best performance.The main strength of the experiment was that it shows that telepathy could definitely be possible. Even though the alternate hypothesis was not proven at the .95 confidence level, a difference of 17 percent is definitely a big jump. With a larger study, the alternative hypothesis might have been proven.There were obvious weaknesses in the study. The experiment was no doubt too small. The environments in which the test took place were not appropriate for the subjects to give complete concentration. The test was almost too simple. The forced-choice aspect makes the jump in percentage a little less exciting. The many other factors that have been listed that could have biased the data were not taken into account.ConclusionThe study failed to prove my hypothesis, but I still believe that a 17 percent difference in the number of correct answers is something worth looking into. With a larger experiment, under the right circumstances, telepathy might someday be proved to be a reality. Source ConsultedUtts, Jessica. “An Assessment for the Evidence of Psychic Functioning.” 1995. Internet: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html....
