Talk:Zener cards

reinforcement -- "negative reinforcement" incorrectly used

In the Ghostbusters example, the term "negative reinforcement" is used in the non-technical (that is, incorrect) sense of "reinforcement that is bad" -- i.e., to refer to what is technically termed "punishment." "Negative reinforcement" properly refers to no enforcement at all, "negative" here meaning "none, nothing." Seinfeld capitalizes on this misunderstanding -- Geroge receives a "negative prognosis" and panics. He understanding "negative" to mean" "bad;" in medicine, however, as in science generally, "negative" means nothing, no cancer, for example, is present -- a negative prognosis is a good thing! The example ought to be changed so as not to be misleading and further "reinforce" this common misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeletaylor (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

poor explanation of the law of averages/law of large numbers

This article's rather poor explanation of the law of averages/law of large numbers should be replaced with a link. -Smack 03:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How is this explanation "poor"? If you didn't link it, what would you say instead? Wiwaxia 21:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Doesnt this article violate NPOV? I mean, it seems to be throwing ESP around quite casually, while the ESP page itself is careful to refer only to 'people who believe in ESP' or 'proponents of ESP'. Is a change warranted? - Aparajit

Mathematical analysis of clairvoyance using Zener Cards

I've created an online experiment that utilizes zener cards to test for clairvoyance/precognition in a statistically meaningful manner; I plan to include a reference to it in this wikipedia article if there are no objections. Also, the mathematics in this article is lacking, I (being a professional mathematician and Masters in Applied Mathematics) can correct it, also if there are no objections. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 10:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just implemented my edit, which comprised an additional paragraph in "Use in Experiments" to describe online tests and an added reference. In addition I swept up the "Statistics" section a little to make it more mathematically accurate. I can expand on this much more but I figured I'd let my edits sit for a while and give you guys a chance to poke holes in them. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues with Psi Assumptions

This article could use a lot of rewriting to balance out the POV, it seems to me. Particularly galling is how it throws about the Psi assumption (yeah, I plan to write an article on that soon. For now, see [1]). Basically, the problem is how it implies that any score over 20% would definately indicate Psi. Why Psi, and not God sending messages to the subject? For that matter, why not use it as evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is manipulating the cards with His Noodly Appendage?

Additionally, the statistical analysis is flawed. Zener cards are presented in decks of 25, with five of each card. With the predisposition of a subject to not guess the same card twice, the hit rate immediately rises to around 25%.

I'm putting the NPOV tag on this now to inform readers, but I'll try to get back to it and fix it myself. ---DrLeebot 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, any result far away from 20% is statistically improbable. A consistent score of 0% would indicate PSI powers as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizzardi (talk • contribs) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the card experiment itself is flawed. It probably requires a review and some research to find people debunking it though, as it is old. Its a good idea in theory, and a clever test, but it falls short as an experiment. No one has come along to fix it though :\ Titanium Dragon 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid experiment. It test whether the subject is receiving information about the deck. That's it. You're right to say that there's no diagnosis of what that information is, nor what the source of that information is, but to say that it's not an experiment is to fundamentally misunderstand the scientific method. 02:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I just added some stuff, needs more. Possibly should just be merged with the page this links from, as it seems to be largely the same thing. Titanium Dragon 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the hit rate rises to about 25% as you say, if the person doesn't get any feedback on if they guessed correctly or not. Secondly, it depends on how far above 20% it is in order to be significant, and that varies according to the number of tests (and assumes that they are done correctly). Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, finite size of the deck affects it. No that only helps if they are given feedback along the way. Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Psi present/missing

Should a short explanation of psi present and psi missing be included in this article? (i.e. low scores also indicate a possible existence of psi) or should that be confined to articles on general explanations on research? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.114.88 (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Psi_hit has its own stub. It might overwelm this short article to explain such concepts here, but it certainly seems relevant. Perhapse this article could benefit from a "See Also" section, referring the curious reader to such related topics as Psi missing, Probability, Sheep-Goat effect, and Statistical_significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.31.212 (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Two N's?

Aren't there 2 N's in the word Zener, and not one? SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected Zenner Card to here, so that is no longer a problem. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But the article is still not consistent. The title says Zener, the lead says Zenner and the rest of the article flip-flops. Surely it cannot be that hard to figure out if Karl's last name is Zener or Zenner? Shinobu (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Any testing with colored cards?

Just curious if there is any better/worse statistics if each card was a different color? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Other uses

Has somebody devised alternate uses for Zener cards? Such as playing cards? --Error (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Zener cards also known as Rhine cards —Redirect?

Zener cards are also known as Rhine cards —Shouldn't there be a redirect? 67.243.186.3 (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Done.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Are Zener cards trademarked or patented?

Or can people freely print them and sell them without violating anyone's intellectual property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crenchaboodar (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the number of various decks out there for sale by different vendors, I'd say that they ARE being rather freely printed and sold. Not sue if this is violating any one's intellectual property rights, though.

Although a deck of cards could potentially be patented, it is more likely (and usual) for the artwork printed on the cards to be copyrighted. I have not turned up any evidence that the Zener designs are copyright protected, either.

It might be worth mentioning in the article that, while Zener decks are available from multiple sources, it extremely difficult to find an unmarked set of Zener cards. The vast bulk of them seem to be sold for use as props in stage magic, and are marked in various ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

POV work

Need a bit of work here, especially regarding an impartial skeptical perspective. Material gathering begins for me now. I would, of course, enjoy help and suggestions and concerns and etc... her and on my talk page.

Will likely be sandboxed as a copy of the article and rewritten in parts, rearranged in others, and hopefully substantially added to. Cheers.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm working this off page I will be watching here in order to incorporate any changes made to the current article in between now and when am ready to paste in the work.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Will shortly begin replacing the article with my re-work. I will do it in stages so that the changes I made are clearer than they would be if I did a wholesale paste over.

1. I refreshed references and added language where appropriate.
2. Rewrote sections for clarity.
3. Added several citations to clarify criticism, especially the statistics section.

Given the age of the topic and it's largely dead-in-the-water nature there is not a lot of super current stuff out there on it. I did what I could and hopefully it'll spur some activity and people can expand/revise to create an ever better piece of work. Cheers.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Colored Cards in Infobox

Zener cards are always printed with black on white background. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not always, although they were originally.

Color cards are quite common, these days. See, for example: https://www.amazon.com/Low-Cost-Zener-UNMARKED-Testing/dp/B01MS003JE/

Note also that while many sellers claim to be selling "unmarked" decks, most of these decks actually ARE marked in some way. This is easily verified through various magic forums on the web.