ESP Researcher Upset the World of Psychology

[essentialsaltes]

Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real
Which means [psychology] is broken.

Long, but interesting story.

Headline is catchy, but misleading. Bem's paper largely met the accepted psychological standards for a positive result. The conclusion that most people are coming to is not that ESP is real, but that the standards of publication in psychology are weak.

What I take away from it is that the ESP skeptics have pushed parapsychology researchers to go from having test protocols that are shoddier than the average psychology test (think Bill Murray's ESP test in Ghostbusters) to being more rigorous than the average psychology test.

And now it's becoming clearer that many accepted psychology experiments were never properly replicated, and as a discipline they are finally stepping up their game.

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then ordinary claims still require ordinary evidence. And the discipline was a little weak on that point.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, Psychology and Psychiatry have always been a bit flaky as sciences. It is just very difficult to set up experiments in such subjective fields. Psychiatry can at least employ EBM methods to a lesser or greater extent, especcially for medications, but Psychology is damned by its nature to have debatable conclusions.

Note: EBM is evidence based medicine, the statistics-based and exclusionary model favoured by modern medicine.

 

[Sanoy]

The Army investigated ESP a few decades back under Project Stargate. That project is now declassified and we can see at least some of the paper work. When they looked at the successful data vs the non successful they determined it unverified, but they were also highly shocked over the depth of the successes.

If it is a case of singular incredible insights juxtaposed by absolute failure then are we going about the right way in studying it?

Imagine an archer that arrives for accuracy testing between the hours of 4pm and 5pm once a month. Every minute he fires an arrow and the result is noted. When the tally is calculated it seems he misses the target erratically almost every time but when he hits it he hits it dead center. They conclude that the archer has no talent however what they don't realize is that the setting sun is in his eyes every day except for a short window where the sun passes behind a tree branch or slides behind a cloud and he can see the target clearly.

Is it wrong to check only for proficiency? or would it be better to check for occasions of extreme accuracy? I don't know...

 

[Dave-W]

The Army investigated ESP a few decades back under Project Stargate. That project is now declassified and we can see at least some of the paper work. When they looked at the successful data vs the non successful they determined it unverified, but they were also highly shocked over the depth of the successes.

The problem here is one of world view.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real
Which means [psychology] is broken.

Long, but interesting story.

That's rather depressing (that so much research effort has been wasted), but also reassuring, in as much as the problems were (eventually) recognised and addressed - although it had been known for some years that the better the experimental design and controls, the less significant the positive results, asymptotic to zero for the very best; but the counter-argument, that the quality judgement was biased according to the results obtained, was problematic.

I love how, using the standard methodology of psychology papers (including Bem's), researchers showed that almost any result could be obtained at acceptable significance levels, by demonstrating that (using the standard methodology) listening to The Beatles song "When I'm Sixty Four", not only made people feel younger, it actually made them physically younger (!) - see False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Army investigated ESP a few decades back under Project Stargate. That project is now declassified and we can see at least some of the paper work. When they looked at the successful data vs the non successful they determined it unverified, but they were also highly shocked over the depth of the successes.

If it is a case of singular incredible insights juxtaposed by absolute failure then are we going about the right way in studying it?

The problem with remote viewing is the vagueness of the descriptions and the subjective nature of the judgements - and when a possible 'hit' is obtained, it's tempting to reinforce it by further interpreting the description with hindsight knowledge.

When neutral (uninformed) panels are used to match descriptions with images of target locations randomly interspersed with non-target locations (as in ID parades), they generally get chance results. If the 'hits' are re-examined, confirmation bias can make them seem more accurate; but if the 'misses' are re-examined, they can also look more like the non-target they were matched with.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm convinced that remote viewing works just based on the fact that the U.S. and Soviet militaries both said it didn't work. If it hadn't worked, they'd have said it did.

 

[Radrook]

I'm convinced that remote viewing works just based on the fact that the U.S. and Soviet militaries both said it didn't work. If it hadn't worked, they'd have said it did.

So if they say that there are aliens on the moon then there aren't.

 

[Sanoy]

The problem with remote viewing is the vagueness of the descriptions and the subjective nature of the judgements - and when a possible 'hit' is obtained, it's tempting to reinforce it by further interpreting the description with hindsight knowledge.

When neutral (uninformed) panels are used to match descriptions with images of target locations randomly interspersed with non-target locations (as in ID parades), they generally get chance results. If the 'hits' are re-examined, confirmation bias can make them seem more accurate; but if the 'misses' are re-examined, they can also look more like the non-target they were matched with.

One of the reasons why the project of 17 years was cancelled was due to an inability to describe what is happening. There are a lot of declassified files to go through but I could of sworn they talked about it working in great detail when it did work.

I know that the suggestion you make is a scientifically accountable way of testing it. And I agree that the more science has tried to eliminate external variables the success goes down. But given that we don't know how it works when it works how do we know that these accountability measures are not interfering with the process. In the case of remote viewing the people are being asked to mentally target a place and time, sometimes just by coordinate. What if the things that are being stripped out for scientific accountability are also stripping out the proficiency of the subjects? I remember from some of the declassified files that I read that there were methods to increase proficiency which entails there should be measures to decrease it as well.

I personally experience ESP and I have no idea how it works. It's not in my control. When it happens it's fully accurate, but then it might not occur for months. I know that it exists, but until someone has ESP and is a savant I have serious doubts that the measures of scientific accountability will allow for a determination. I know it can't for me because the bar of scientific accountability is beyond my proficiency. We aren't asking them to throw a football through a hole were asking them to do the seemingly impossible.

That is mainly why I think accuracy would be more appropriate than proficiency. From my experience it's too great an expectation for someone to be proficient at it.

Project Stargate may be going on today. They tortured people under MKUltra so we can't expect them to be honest about the closure of a project. All this stuff seemed to play a huge part in the cold war between Russia and the US. If it amounted to nothing then we have everything. If it was useful we only have the dregs. It was ostensibly ended based on statistics, but it continued for 17 years based on the potential it yielded when it did work.

I'd like to find a method of scientific accountability that meets the conditions of it's behavior. Unfortunately those conditions are unknown.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know that the suggestion you make is a scientifically accountable way of testing it. And I agree that the more science has tried to eliminate external variables the success goes down. But given that we don't know how it works when it works how do we know that these accountability measures are not interfering with the process.

I think the point is that we don't know that it works at all. When you perform a large number of trials of this type you will have a number of 'hits' purely by chance. If the experiment isn't well designed & controlled (e.g. small number of samples, use of well-known places and landmarks, or common structures & geographical features, target areas familiar to the subject(s), and so-on), chance hits can have high degree of accuracy because they may be describing the actual target. 'Hits' that are generic descriptions (e.g. 'a river, maybe with a bridge') have quite a high probability of finding a match, and in the studies I've seen that claimed 'conclusive' results, the significant hits were all enhanced by post-hoc interpretation by people who knew what the target was. Enthusiasm is no substitute for procedural care.

What if the things that are being stripped out for scientific accountability are also stripping out the proficiency of the subjects? I remember from some of the declassified files that I read that there were methods to increase proficiency which entails there should be measures to decrease it as well.

If you mean the old, "it doesn't work while you're watching/if you try to measure it/when you put it in a lab/under unaccustomed conditions/etc." excuse, a decent protocol will give the subjects a 'dry run' to test that their powers work under the specified controlled conditions. This would usually involve giving them some significant information about a test target so they can check that they can remote view it successfully - admittedly, this isn't so effective with vague and subjective phenomena like remote viewing, as it is with all-or-nothing hokum talents like dowsing (there's a lovely video of James Randi testing Australian water dowsers who all profess 100% confidence after the dry run, and all score no better than chance on the real thing), but vagueness and subjectivity are always hard to control for - one reason to be particularly skeptical of such claims.

I personally experience ESP and I have no idea how it works. It's not in my control. When it happens it's fully accurate, but then it might not occur for months. I know that it exists, but until someone has ESP and is a savant I have serious doubts that the measures of scientific accountability will allow for a determination. I know it can't for me because the bar of scientific accountability is beyond my proficiency. We aren't asking them to throw a football through a hole were asking them to do the seemingly impossible.

You may be convinced it exists, but if it does exist, there ought to be a good deal of at least plausible evidence for it, and one would expect it to have been put to productive use. There are billions of people in the world and although the number of reports are high, the quality of evidence for it is abysmal, in line with ghosts, alien visitations, premonitions, and such-like - pretty much in line with what you'd expect from a small number of coincidences, a lot of wishful thinking and folk psychology/pseudo-science, and a few charismatic con-artists trying to make a living touting paranormal phenomena and powers to a gullible audience.

That is mainly why I think accuracy would be more appropriate than proficiency. From my experience it's too great an expectation for someone to be proficient at it.

I suspect Richard Feynman's aphorism on gaining knowledge is appropriate here, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

If it amounted to nothing then we have everything. If it was useful we only have the dregs. It was ostensibly ended based on statistics, but it continued for 17 years based on the potential it yielded when it did work.

They eventually realised the utility of the results they were getting were no better than chance, even if they'd been persuaded that it might work once in a blue moon. And don't forget that military forces are not the most reliable of investigators - around the world (including US allies) they were conned into spending millions on radio antennae set into blocks of plastic on a swivel bearing as sophisticated 'bomb detectors' (and a lot of people have lost their lives as a result) - see, for example, the ADE 651.

I'd like to find a method of scientific accountability that meets the conditions of it's behavior. Unfortunately those conditions are unknown.

It doesn't surprise me; it's a form of Darwinian evolution - the less amenable such claims are to rigorous investigation, the more likely they are to survive as, 'not proven false'.

 

[Sanoy]

I think the point is that we don't know that it works at all. When you perform a large number of trials of this type you will have a number of 'hits' purely by chance. If the experiment isn't well designed & controlled (e.g. small number of samples, use of well-known places and landmarks, or common structures & geographical features, target areas familiar to the subject(s), and so-on), chance hits can have high degree of accuracy because they may be describing the actual target. 'Hits' that are generic descriptions (e.g. 'a river, maybe with a bridge') have quite a high probability of finding a match, and in the studies I've seen that claimed 'conclusive' results, the significant hits were all enhanced by post-hoc interpretation by people who knew what the target was. Enthusiasm is no substitute for procedural care.

If you mean the old, "it doesn't work while you're watching/if you try to measure it/when you put it in a lab/under unaccustomed conditions/etc." excuse, a decent protocol will give the subjects a 'dry run' to test that their powers work under the specified controlled conditions. This would usually involve giving them some significant information about a test target so they can check that they can remote view it successfully - admittedly, this isn't so effective with vague and subjective phenomena like remote viewing, as it is with all-or-nothing hokum talents like dowsing (there's a lovely video of James Randi testing Australian water dowsers who all profess 100% confidence after the dry run, and all score no better than chance on the real thing), but vagueness and subjectivity are always hard to control for - one reason to be particularly skeptical of such claims.

You may be convinced it exists, but if it does exist, there ought to be a good deal of at least plausible evidence for it, and one would expect it to have been put to productive use. There are billions of people in the world and although the number of reports are high, the quality of evidence for it is abysmal, in line with ghosts, alien visitations, premonitions, and such-like - pretty much in line with what you'd expect from a small number of coincidences, a lot of wishful thinking and folk psychology/pseudo-science, and a few charismatic con-artists trying to make a living touting paranormal phenomena and powers to a gullible audience.

I suspect Richard Feynman's aphorism on gaining knowledge is appropriate here, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

They eventually realised the utility of the results they were getting were no better than chance, even if they'd been persuaded that it might work once in a blue moon. And don't forget that military forces are not the most reliable of investigators - around the world (including US allies) they were conned into spending millions on radio antennae set into blocks of plastic on a swivel bearing as sophisticated 'bomb detectors' (and a lot of people have lost their lives as a result) - see, for example, the ADE 651.

It doesn't surprise me; it's a form of Darwinian evolution - the less amenable such claims are to rigorous investigation, the more likely they are to survive as, 'not proven false'.

yeah those who don't experience it are not going to know it works at all. Not unless some savant is born. I wouldn't even count a river as a success. The only success should be a fully accurate picture. A river here, the bunker here, the road here, the gate here etc all of it. That is what should be looked for, the whole package.

I didn't say it doesn't work when you watch. I'm saying laboratory conditions like the ones you suggested, minimal target knowledge. That makes perfect sense given what is being asked of a RVer.

If one values science, they shouldn't make blanket assumptions about people in the world. We can't expect laboratory results for one thing, but not about our own speculations about every person in the world.

Unless you are in the government you cannot determine that a project has ceased. I am aware that we are told the project has ended. But that is meaningless coming from the same government that tortured it's own people for military gain. Whether it was stopped or not is incapable of being known by a civilian.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Unless you are in the government you cannot determine that a project has ceased. I am aware that we are told the project has ended. But that is meaningless coming from the same government that tortured it's own people for military gain. Whether it was stopped or not is incapable of being known by a civilian.

That's true - but given that they're pouring vast resources into reasonably accurate and reliable remote surveillance technology (satellites, aircraft, drones, advanced radars, and others), it seems unlikely they're spending much time on a 'maybe-it-works-maybe-it-doesn't' system based on flaky guesswork. YMMV.

 

[Sanoy]

That's true - but given that they're pouring vast resources into reasonably accurate and reliable remote surveillance technology (satellites, aircraft, drones, advanced radars, and others), it seems unlikely they're spending much time on a 'maybe-it-works-maybe-it-doesn't' system based on flaky guesswork. YMMV.

Yeah, that makes sense. With our current technology, and the lack of reliability of RV it makes perfect sense to shift that funding to technology. I accept your point there. Odd to think that our technology is now doing what seemed so impossible before that we spent money on psychics to try and accomplish it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah, that makes sense. With our current technology, and the lack of reliability of RV it makes perfect sense to shift that funding to technology. I accept your point there. Odd to think that our technology is now doing what seemed so impossible before that we spent money on psychics to try and accomplish it.

I suspect it was a calculated gamble, hoping for a cheap shortcut - much like their investments in low energy fusion projects and the like.