Psychic sport-predicting animals

{{Psychic}}
'''Psychic sport-predicting animals''' have become one of the regular features of big sporting events such as the FIFA Football World Cup. These animals supposedly have the ability to predict the result of a game. There is a tendency to use animals known for their intelligence such as a [[goat]], parrot, octopus, [[cat]], and [[pig]], although predictions have also been made using ants, a kangaroo, meerkats, and penguins. 

Occasionally animals are also called upon for other predictions, such as [[Groundhog Day|weather]], the US Presidential election, or a referendum result.<ref name=huffpo>[https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/psychic-animals-election-predicitons_us_5820b4fbe4b0e80b02cb7e04 Psychic Animals Favor Trump In The Election], Huffington Post, 7 Nov 2016</ref>

==Examples==
===Paul the Octopus===
{{main|Paul the Octopus}}
[[Paul the Octopus]] got many results right at the 2010 World Cup. However, the media reported on several other animals whose predictions proved less successful (such as Mani the parakeet, below), so Paul's accuracy was probably a matter of luck.

===Mani the parakeet===
It is claimed that Mani, a rose-ringed parakeet, worked for a few years assisting a [[psychic]] in [[Singapore]] before being called upon to preduct football results. Mani reportedly practiced [[cartomancy]], choosing between two white cards which are placed face down. During the 2010 World Cup, Mani predicted the winners of all 4 quarter finals and one semi-final, but then got the other semi-final and the final wrong (while Paul the Octopus was correct).<ref>{{wpa|Mani the parakeet}}</ref>

===Flopsy the Kangaroo===
According to ''Salon'', this marsupial at Australia Zoo got 1 game right and 1 game wrong<ref name=salon/>, which is no better than chance.

===Boots the Goat===
A political pundit, the [[Scottish]] goat Boots got the [[Brexit]] referendum right but the 2016 US Presidential election wrong.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20161110003240/http://digg.com/2016/presidential-pridictions-2016-right-wrong The Human, Animal And Robot Pundits That Predicted The Election Wrong (And Right)], Digg, 9 Nov 2016</ref> 1 right, 1 wrong is no better than chance.

===Mystic Marcus===
This English micro-[[pig]] supposedly predicted the winner of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the [[2016 U.S. presidential election]], a Wimbledon winner, and the Brexit referendum result.<ref name=bbc2018/><ref name=natgeo/> It makes its choices by selecting apples placed on the ground.<ref name=telegraph>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/15/psychic-pig-mystic-marcus-predicts-world-cup-semi-final-line/ Psychic pig Mystic Marcus predicts World Cup semi-final line-up ], Daily Telegraph, 15 June 2018</ref> It's not clear how many events he failed to predict.

===2016 election sharks===
{{main|2016 U.S. presidential election}}
In 2016, [[Donald Trump|Trump]] the [[shark]] swam 652 miles while [[Hillary Clinton|Clinton]] the shark swam only 510, reflecting the [[electoral college]] result (although not the popular vote).<ref name=huffpo/> It is unknown how many other animals named after Trump were caught by sports fishermen.

===2018 FIFA World Cup===
The [[BBC]] reported on a number of animals. Phoenix the [[cat]] reportedly had "mixed results", incorrectly predicting [[Uruguay]] to beat [[France]] and [[England]] to beat [[Belgium]]. The BBC also reported on meerkats, leafcutter ants, a goat and penguins.<ref name=bbc2018>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44681304 World Cup 2018: 'Psychic' animals predict England v Sweden result], BBC, 7 July 2018</ref>

===Achilles the Cat===
Another predictor for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, a cat who lives in the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg. The cat is also blind, which somehow makes the predictions more impressive even though it shouldn't. Achilles got 3 out of 4 in the 2017 Confederations Cup.<ref name=natgeo>[https://web.archive.org/web/20180709054938/http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/animals/the-science-behind-psychic-animals-that-predict-the-world-cup.aspx The science behind 'psychic' animals that predict the World Cup], National Geographic Australia, 9 July 2018</ref>

==Possible explanations==
===Human influence===
Predictions are not carried out in the manner of a [[Double blind|double-blind]] [[experiment]], and the animal's choice may be far from [[random]] because of [[bias]]. Typical methods of prediction involve the animal being given the choice of two objects or being allowed to wander into one of two places, and the one touched or visited is considered the choice. This allows many opportunities for human beings to influence the result:
* baiting one choice with tastes or smells to make it more appealing, which could be deliberate or accidental. In cases where the animal chooses a bowl of food, one bowl may be fuller.<ref name=natgeo/>
* encouragement or subtle directing towards one choice, as with the [[Ideomotor effect]] that helped the supposedly intelligent horse Clever Hans.
* many animals including cats have a natural preference for one side over the other.<ref name=natgeo/>
* preference for certain colours.
Hence it can become a test of the animal handler's prediction skills and skill at manipulating the animal.

===Selection biases===
The media tends to focus on successful predictions, with claims of "10 successful predictions" without any indication of how many unsuccessful predictions were made.<ref name=bbc2018/> Or another report Marcus the pig: "Admittedly Marcus previously picked Belgium, Argentina, Nigeria and Uruguay to reach the semis, but no-one can be right all the time."<ref name=bbc2018/>

Additionally, there is a tendency to only report an animal once several results are correct, while ignoring all the animals who fail to predict any results: "dog gets football score wrong" is hardly an interesting news story. This allows the media to select the animal which has randomly made the best positions from a large field of candidate animals. If you have 64 animals and 6 games you would expect one animal to predict the correct result, because (excluding draws) there are 2<sup>6</sup>=64 possible combinations. You can then promote your animal as having got 6 in a row, and the chances of the next being correct are at least 50%.

This may be an example of the [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]].

===Interpretation===
It often requires interpretation to judge which choice an animal makes. If the animal wanders first to one side, then the other, spectators will have to make a decision of which one the animal actually picked. Inevitably, [[patriotism]] and the desire to see the animal succeed will come into play. For instance the BBC reported on Barley the penguin in 2018 who managed to predict England beating [[Sweden]] but who "almost headed for the bucket marked Sweden, before changing her mind."<ref name=bbc2018/>

The prediction of a result is generally between two options: team A wins or team B wins. However, many games end in a draw, and this may leave grounds for interpretation.

A misunderstanding of probability may also be involved. The BBC reported on Corbie the Tortoise who managed to predict 3 games correctly and 1 wrong, which carries a probability of 31% (at least 3 out of 4 correct), or nearly 1 in 3.<ref name=bbc2018/> In some cases results may be no better than chance: an animal getting a success rate of 50% is sometimes presented as impressive, as with Flopsy the Kangaroo, or as with Shaheen the Camel where a few good results were followed by several incorrect predictions.<ref name=salon/>

==Social impact==
Many of the animals became media [[Appeal to celebrity|celebrities]]. It is unclear how many people bet on the animals' choices and won or lost money. Lori Marino, a [[neuroscientist]] specialising in animal behaviour has suggested that it may lead people to feel more fondly towards animals, but it also turns animals into "objects or commodities", and overall the practice of getting animals to predict sports results is "much more negative than positive".<ref name=natgeo/>

The animals are often reported in an uncritical or humorous way by otherwise respected news sources and magazines such as the BBC,<ref name=bbc2018/> ''[[Daily Telegraph]]''<ref name=telegraph/> and ''Salon'',<ref name=salon>[https://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/meet_the_psychic_animals_that_can_predict_world_cup_winners_partner/ 5 psychic animals that can predict World Cup winners], Salon, 22 June 2014</ref> and therefore they could be seen to be promoting [[irrationality]] and belief in psychic powers, even if a lightly [[skeptical]] or [[humor]]ous approach is taken.

==External links==
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42286871/war-of-the-world-cup-animals A BBC video]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Animals]]

Categories: Animals