Can we accurately read people's emotions through subtle cues?

[Kazza_765]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in S&D, but here we go.

I've found that I have a really strange ability to tell what people are feeling/thinking. It doesn't occur with everyone, sometimes it happens straight away, sometimes after I have known them for a while. Often I meet someone and just unexplainably get a really bad feeling about them, and so far its always turned out to be justified. There are some people that I know straight away whether they are telling the truth or not, but they can get away with lying to everyone else. I'm 21, and this has only started over the last few years. It often scares me when I meet someone that seems nice and then I get this overwhelming feeling of disgust towards them, but nevertheless, I've learned to trust it.

Now, I don't think this is any sort of psychic ability, but the way these feelings come to me often reminds me of that sort of thing. My theory about this is that my sub-conscious is picking up on something; body language, tone of voice etc. that I usually wouldn't be aware of. I know also that my mother has the same ability. I wonder if anyone else here experiences anything similar?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You may find this story interesting.

Blind man detects emotion
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56761

Of course there is the question of how often you are right, as compared to how often you think you are right.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in S&D, but here we go.

I've found that I have a really strange ability to tell what people are feeling/thinking. It doesn't occur with everyone, sometimes it happens straight away, sometimes after I have known them for a while. Often I meet someone and just unexplainably get a really bad feeling about them, and so far its always turned out to be justified. There are some people that I know straight away whether they are telling the truth or not, but they can get away with lying to everyone else. I'm 21, and this has only started over the last few years. It often scares me when I meet someone that seems nice and then I get this overwhelming feeling of disgust towards them, but nevertheless, I've learned to trust it.

Now, I don't think this is any sort of psychic ability, but the way these feelings come to me often reminds me of that sort of thing. My theory about this is that my sub-conscious is picking up on something; body language, tone of voice etc. that I usually wouldn't be aware of. I know also that my mother has the same ability. I wonder if anyone else here experiences anything similar?

I don't see anything mysterious here except your claim to be knowing what people are thinking. Being disgusted by people who are apparently nice is not too unusual when the "niceness" rings false and seems to cover alterior motives or darker emotions.

As for knowing what people are thinking, this may or may not be mysterious depending on how specifically you mean it, and how much of what they're thinking is obvious from the context of the situation or conversation.

 

[starsgoblue]

Although i won't go into the details, i know personally who can demonstrate that chillingly, and it has interested me so. If you don't mind my asking kazza, are you male or female. Second, have you ever been able to "somewhat" see or predict something that might happen in the future?

 

[Evo]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in S&D, but here we go.

I've found that I have a really strange ability to tell what people are feeling/thinking. It doesn't occur with everyone, sometimes it happens straight away, sometimes after I have known them for a while. Often I meet someone and just unexplainably get a really bad feeling about them, and so far its always turned out to be justified. There are some people that I know straight away whether they are telling the truth or not, but they can get away with lying to everyone else. I'm 21, and this has only started over the last few years. It often scares me when I meet someone that seems nice and then I get this overwhelming feeling of disgust towards them, but nevertheless, I've learned to trust it.

Now, I don't think this is any sort of psychic ability, but the way these feelings come to me often reminds me of that sort of thing. My theory about this is that my sub-conscious is picking up on something; body language, tone of voice etc. that I usually wouldn't be aware of. I know also that my mother has the same ability. I wonder if anyone else here experiences anything similar?

It sounds like you are very good at picking up on nuances that others miss. I am the same way. I either like or dislike a person immediately and my "intuitions" are very rarely wrong. I can also size people up quickly over the phone.

Unfortunately, I still let my emotions cloud my judgement at times.

It's a great skill to have, you'll probably find that you get better at it as you get older.

 

[loseyourname]

Now, I don't think this is any sort of psychic ability, but the way these feelings come to me often reminds me of that sort of thing. My theory about this is that my sub-conscious is picking up on something; body language, tone of voice etc. that I usually wouldn't be aware of. I know also that my mother has the same ability. I wonder if anyone else here experiences anything similar?

Do humans give off any kind of chemical signal regarding what types of emotions they are experiencing? I know other animals do this, and I was certain I had seen this posited as an explanation for certain empathic abilities, though just the everyday type, not the extraordinary type, if I recall correctly.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

Do humans give off any kind of chemical signal regarding what types of emotions they are experiencing?

I have read articles that say that we do. For instance, I read an article in Discovery (meaning it is automatically more rumor than fact) that says that females release a chemical after sex that usually makes their male partner feel like trusting them more. They were talking about harnessing the chemical in order to help untrustworthy people (car salesman and the like) do their job by releasing it into the office air or something.

Anyways, I do experience exactly the same thing you are experiencing. The problem is that emotions are not trustworthy...or sometimes they tell you mixed things and you need to try to use your intellect as much as possible to see past them. For example, last semester my "instincts" told me to watch out for this girl in my science class who appeared to have a crush on me (as you say, it picked up on something about her that made me uneasy)...then 5 minutes later, these same instincts told me "seems good, let's repopulate the planet with her." Clearly both impulses can't be correct.

It turns out that the uneasy instinct was probably "correct," but I only know this *after* impulse number 2 had taken over and I got to know her behavior a bit better over a couple of months. I used to trust those instincts outright, but seeing as how if I did that I probably would never be social with anyone (living in LA, everyone is a potential creep) now I use them more as a guide. If I have a bad feeling at first I look closer at things to see if I can find more information that justifies that feeling. Of course, as someone said on here, you always run the danger of trying to make your own prophecy true when you do this...so I try to make sure I have plenty of evidence before I rush to judgement on something.

I think the "feelings" or first impressions we get are based on instinct somewhat and the more experience we get the more information we have to feed those instincts (so I do think this aspect of us gets more and more dominant over our thinking with age). Be warned though, your instincts CAN mislead you into feeling a certain way about something irrespective of any facts or reality (TV ad execs bet on that).

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in S&D, but here we go.

I've found that I have a really strange ability to tell what people are feeling/thinking. It doesn't occur with everyone, sometimes it happens straight away, sometimes after I have known them for a while. Often I meet someone and just unexplainably get a really bad feeling about them, and so far its always turned out to be justified. There are some people that I know straight away whether they are telling the truth or not, but they can get away with lying to everyone else. I'm 21, and this has only started over the last few years. It often scares me when I meet someone that seems nice and then I get this overwhelming feeling of disgust towards them, but nevertheless, I've learned to trust it.

Now, I don't think this is any sort of psychic ability, but the way these feelings come to me often reminds me of that sort of thing. My theory about this is that my sub-conscious is picking up on something; body language, tone of voice etc. that I usually wouldn't be aware of. I know also that my mother has the same ability. I wonder if anyone else here experiences anything similar?

Odd that you consider this abnormal we all have this ability to one extent or another, after all most apsects of communication are non verbal, I seem to be able to tell if someone is lying or just joking or being positively delusional in what they believe about common instinctual interpritations of a situation, it would be hard to believe that some of these beneficial empathy traits weren't inherent in our genome at a subconscious level, after all I and we do this all the time. Sometimes we're right sometimes we're wrong but that's what makes the feed back loop of subconscious to conscious so interesting, the initial pattern of response and then the pattern that comes from experience; little is learned from applying accepted intuition to situations, do some personal research and see where the hit and miss lead you, as has been said.

Some psychics seem to think that there ability is paranormal because they devolve themself from what is really just a trained way to garner facts between the lines, if they were truly unusual or paranormal they would be able to prove it, but AFAIK no one has yet, and this goes for the broad realm of the sixth sense in all cases.

Here's an example I once was show an experiment that alowed me to move a pendulum with my mind, I tried and I tried hard but came to the conclusion that although it had moved several times, it was in fact because, the experiment was set up in a null way, the floor boards under the table moved the pendulum as people walked passed, and they asked people questions at times when this was happening, in the same way experiments in research need to find out parameters that are simply devolved from a persons conscious beliefs and that are absolutes, of course, it would be a waste of time to apply experiments like this all the time, but when you can sit down and show people where their mistaken ideas come from, it's a fine way to progress in real research. If they are wrong there are funds waiting to be collected by those who are truly and exemplary psychics, but they won't be won by people with simple human skills like yourself.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find that an amazing number of people believe that they can tell when someone else is lying. Frankly, I don't believe it. If I think that someone thinks that I'm lying, it makes me feel like I'm lying, and then I probably exhibit body language that would indicate such.

For example, if you are staring into someones eyes as if the person was being questioned in a murder investigation, an uncomfortable reaction is reasonably normal.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I find that an amazing number of people believe that they can tell when someone else is lying. Frankly, I don't believe it. If I think that someone thinks that I'm lying, it makes me feel like I'm lying, and then I probably exhibit body language that would indicate such.

For example, if you are staring into someones eyes as if the person was being questioned in a murder investigation, an uncomfortable reaction is reasonably normal.

I agree completely: MI5 agents and police detectives are taught to look out for signs of lying, under or over embelishment of story, nervousness, sweating, but no one can tell absolutely, especially if a person is a pathological liar, he may well then believe everything he says to be true and so there would be no tell tale signs, even a lie detector isn't 100% accurate. Everyone has some degree of talent in this area, I don't think it's paranormal though, just human.

 

[sneez]

Some ppl have high emotional intelligence. They can indeed "sense" how ppl feel emotionally plus they have enhanced "intuition" if a person is speaking truth or not. Those are facts connected to ourTEMPERAMENT. (http://www.keirsey.com/)

From another perspective, pheromones each one of us gives off freely communitace our basic "animalistic" state. Anger/fear/etc , its very plausible that certain ppl learned (through polaniy's tacit knowledge) to read this signals better than others.

i don't see nothing supernatural in this...

 

[waynecolts1]

I think I have the same kind of sense sometimes.. I would love to understand it better.. Backstory on why : I am not sure if its me being insacure or am I really senseing the truth.. I have been validated recently.. I was withthis girl for over a year and felt like she loved me and became comfortable enough to allow myself to fall head over heels in love with her.. Was considering asking her to marry me at one point.. Then it all changed... I felt like she loved her Ex still even though she talked **** about him everyday and always got pissed off when I said anything about it.. I kept telling myself it was my owm insacurities that was makeing me think that way.. So I kept giving myself futher and further. This girl cheated on me once before swears she didnt of course) and does things I disagree with and has a million tons of drama but I still want to love her for some reason.. I have never felt like that before.. SO I figured it was meant to be so I can't leave her and her kids.. about a month ago she left me on a sunday and moved her ex in the tuesday.. I was crushed.. after a couple of days I was at peace without the drama and extra stress but I stil missed her and her kids and still loved her even after all that ********.. Her ex only stayed a few days and left her and her kids again and now I am back in the picture.. I don't think it is the right thing for me but I can't get over the feeling that I am suppose to be with her.. but at the same time I feel like she only has me here cause he doesn't want to be here.. I think she takes me for granted.. She made me feel like she really regretted doing that to me and relized how good she had before and how much she loved me.. It onlt lasted a few days.. She isn't rude or mean to me now but I can't figure out if she really is actracted to me and really wants me to be her Man.. Like proud to be with me kinda.. It is a extremely hard thing to talk about and to figure out.. Are my instincs right and I just don't want them to be or is my judgment of my instincts clouded becasue of the things she has done in the past.. I am at a point where I need to follow a path one way or the other.. I have a friend who has showed interest in me and she is a great girl.. Funny Beautiful, and very loveing and careing but I haven't really done anything about it becaseu my head and my emotions are so screwed up.. If I go with her Iwill be leaveing a women I love to death and if I don't I am in a relationship that doesn't give me what I want.. WOW Sorry I went on so long but I have never actually said this before.. Now I know why my head is so clogged up.. What I meant to ask is How do you know if you are senseing the truth or worrying about what could happen.. IS there a way to make this sense stronger.. I know it comes from me and how I feel about me but any suggestions would great ! Thanks

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, I've always thought I was good at reading people (don't know if I really am).

But there's a catch 22. The better I know somebody, the harder it is to tell because the more complex our relationship is. It's more confusing to figure somebody out that you've known for a while and spent a lot of time with.

In the street or the office though, where I have shallow relationships with people, they're easier to read (or maybe I just never get a chance to confirm if I'm right, heheh!)

I wonder if this is because people are more self-conscious around people they're closer to. When people are self-conscious it's hard to read them at all (like an example given in a previous post... if you're being accused of murder you're going to be very self-conscious of your actions even if you're innocent)

 

[Anticitizen]

Tension in postures, breathing patterns, how quickly smiles fade after a laugh, where the eyes wander, fidgeting...

There are many indicators and many combinations of these indicators that can transmit information.

 

[LightbulbSun]

even a lie detector isn't 100% accurate.

Lie detectors can be easily manipulated. It is pseudo-science.

 

[a Mind at a Time]

IMO, personality-type probably has something to do with it (i.e. http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html)... Some people are better than others at picking up the details, putting details together to create an order or pattern that makes sense, and making better inferences as a results...

 

[jreelawg]

I have learned to do what you describe, but I am not a natural, I've had to learn the hard way. I have met a few people in my life and accepted them into my life that I wish I had not. Your lucky.

The unashamed wickedness of many many people here on Earth is fact, and those that I describe often try to appear quite the opposite. These people study psychology and know how to exploit your emotions. They appeal to your kindness by making you feel sorry for them. They bombard you with complements. Then when you let your guard down they bite you like a snake. After you realize their intent, and what kind of evils they are capable of, you just move on and try not to make them angry.

They will then move on to the next victim, and you can be free.

 

[Pythagorean]

Lie detectors can be easily manipulated. It is pseudo-science.

The polygraph is just one tool for the interrogator; The interrogator themselves are the ultimate lie detector. It's not really that easy to mess with the polygraph without pissing the interrogator off. The common result is that you make the results unreadable, not that you look truthful. This is a red flag to the interrogator.

 

[LightbulbSun]

The polygraph is just one tool for the interrogator; The interrogator themselves are the ultimate lie detector. It's not really that easy to mess with the polygraph without pissing the interrogator off. The common result is that you make the results unreadable, not that you look truthful. This is a red flag to the interrogator.

Ugh...

The reason the polygraph is not a lie detector is that what it measures--changes in heartbeat, blood pressure, and respiration--can be caused by many things. Nervousness, anger, sadness, embarrassment, and fear can all be causal factors in altering one's heart rate, blood pressure, or respiration rate. Having to go to the bathroom can also be causative. There are also a number of medical conditions such as colds, headaches, constipation, or neurological and muscular problems which can cause the physiological changes measured by the polygraph. The claim that an expert can tell when the changes are due to a lie and when they are due to other factors has never been proven. Even if the device measures nervousness, one cannot be sure that the cause of the nervousness is fear of being caught in a lie. Some people may fear that the machine will indicate they are lying when they are telling the truth and that they will be falsely accused of lying. Furthermore, even the most ardent advocate of the polygraph must admit that liars can sometimes pass their tests. One need only remember the spy Aldrich Ames, who passed the polygraph test several times while with the CIA. -http://www.skepdic.com/polygrap.html"

Perversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers frequently claim they can detect such countermeasures, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to do so, and peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't. -http://antipolygraph.org/"

 

[Pythagorean]

Ugh...

Yes, I see your point. I guess I should be clear that I don't think it's a science (yet...)

It has, however, been shown to work in revealing information. Some interrogators are better than others, and of course some subjects (like a trained spy) are better at deceiving the interogator.

It's like a super-complicated game of chess; there's no formulated way to guarantee a win, but it doesn't mean that you can't win at all. It also doesn't mean it's completely random and up to chance. Certain players are better at chess and succeed more often.

It's a feedback system, so every case will be unique and have exception, but there's general rules and codes to follow so that the feedback system works for you. The caveat being that the opponent can use the same rules and codes to the make the feedback system work for him (or her).

Also, how many women have been able to trick polygraphs, just out of curiousity. I've only heard of men tricking it, and mostly trained people. People that do it from a webpage on the internet often get caught because they make obvious attempt to sabotage and then the evidence is found in their home later after a warrant is made up.

This is where I would say that science doesn't encompass all reality; Do you use science in your relationships or making music? I don't; I use my gut, and it's worked out fine for me (errors happen... but they happen in science just as frequently).

Science doesn't work very well with human behavior, but that doesn't mean human behavior is completely unmanageable.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Yes, I see your point. I guess I should be clear that I don't think it's a science (yet...)

It has, however, been shown to work in revealing information. Some interrogators are better than others, and of course some subjects (like a trained spy) are better at deceiving the interogator.

It's like a super-complicated game of chess; there's no formulated way to guarantee a win, but it doesn't mean that you can't win at all. It also doesn't mean it's completely random and up to chance. Certain players are better at chess and succeed more often.

It's a feedback system, so every case will be unique and have exception, but there's general rules and codes to follow so that the feedback system works for you. The caveat being that the opponent can use the same rules and codes to the make the feedback system work for him (or her).

Also, how many women have been able to trick polygraphs, just out of curiousity. I've only heard of men tricking it, and mostly trained people. People that do it from a webpage on the internet often get caught because they make obvious attempt to sabotage and then the evidence is found in their home later after a warrant is made up.

This is where I would say that science doesn't encompass all reality; Do you use science in your relationships or making music? I don't; I use my gut, and it's worked out fine for me (errors happen... but they happen in science just as frequently).

Science doesn't work very well with human behavior, but that doesn't mean human behavior is completely unmanageable.

I agree science doesn't encompass all of reality because relationships or making music isn't about finding out the truth. However, I think the lie detector is just wishful thinking. Until they can rule out other possible causal factors for changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration then I remain skeptical. A lot of people feel uncomfortable naturally when you want them to look you straight in the eye. It's an uncomfortable situation. A lot of people will say that's an indication that the person is lying. They maybe lying, but they could also look uncomfortable due to the uncomfortable situation you put them in of having to stare you straight in the eye.

This is why collaborating evidence is the best method for telling whether someone is lying or not. Let's stop wasting our time and money on pseudo-science junk.

 

[Pythagorean]

*snip*
Until they can rule out other possible causal factors for changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration then I remain skeptical. A lot of people feel uncomfortable naturally when you want them to look you straight in the eye. It's an uncomfortable situation. A lot of people will say that's an indication that the person is lying. They maybe lying, but they could also look uncomfortable due to the uncomfortable situation you put them in of having to stare you straight in the eye.

This is why collaborating evidence is the best method for telling whether someone is lying or not. Let's stop wasting our time and money on pseudo-science junk.

As far as I understand, law enforcement officers (and federal interrogators) well understand that innocent people can be uncomfortable. They also agree with you (as do the courts) that the polygraph and the interrogator's word aren't enough to convict somebody.

Polygraphs are just one tool used to eventually find the collaborating evidence, or get a confession out of weaker-minded convicts.

 

[matteo_92]

I am 16 years old and I have had the same thing happen to me, the thing that happens to me is I can not read everythng but I can read if someone has been hurt, or is they have something that is eating them up inside. The look in their eyes tells it all, I can do it better with guys, which is weird because I am a guy, it probably happens more often with men because I am one myself and understand how emotions work with men, but it is also happening a lot with girls lately, I can see them and see if they are hiding certain feelings from someone, or if they are lying. Which it can be a bad thing for me too, I can see if someone is insecure about themselves, and they are desparate. But it only happens with certain people which I never have known in my life and I can read them immediately. With people I know well or almost very well I can not tell anything else about them, any hurt they are hiding seems to go away. And then it comes back every once in a while when they have had something wrong like my friend recently was cheated on and she did not let anyone know but I knew immediately by her eyes that she was hiding something. It's an interesting gift to have but I don't know if it is really a gift or maybe a curse because some people do not want to be helped, they do not want to be bothered with, it might get me in trouble one day.

 

[Chronos]

People are complicated. That is not mysterious. Everyone is, in some way, flawed in the eyes of others. By the time you are 30, it will be less confounding.

 

[Chronos]

As Kirk once said - I need my pain. It defines me. We are who we are by living life one day at a time and making mistakes. You cannot correct the past, but, you can avoid repeating your mistakes. I spent half my life making mistakes, another half repenting, and the last half accepting I may be fallible.

 

[Monolie_69]

I am also 21 years of age. I thought i was the only one. I live in a small enough town and I've talked with a lot of people and no one knew the term or what i was talking about. they all said you can read people because of they eyes, body motion, or tone of voice. I all told them it was probly why. Until i was 18 and a half i started having weird feelings inside my head and i started ready people more and more often. I have found that reading friends were harder cause they knew you could sense them. But strangers were awesome. I could read them like as if they were an open book. I acting went to a lot of partys and stunned a lot of people. This one person i met was a stranger and i knew her for like five minutes and we were talking about something and i told her i could tell her everything about her life. I visually saw inside my head when she was a kid, fights she's been in with her mother, how it happened where it was, i even knew where all her birth marks where, and even her middle name. Usually i don't have a lot of details i know the main facts...its like being in a fully furnitured house and all i can see is me and the person inside of a greyish white room and faded shades of black where the furniture is suppose to be. I don't believe that this is chemical induced. I do believe this is something unexplanable now after all my experience. it is a gift in a way but It has gotten me into trouble before cause I am not suppose to know things...and i tell people how to avoid things but it ruins two when i try and save them from a future accurance. I can only see the future in dreams...ive had up to three straight days of like a day jae vous. which i also think this is part of the senseing people thing. I don't think its your subconscious doing either. but to hone in on your skills i found that complete control of your emotions and balance in your life helps to keep a stable image and prediction. I also found that mediation helped a lot just to get intuned with your body.

 

[junglebeast]

I visually saw inside my head when she was a kid, fights she's been in with her mother, how it happened where it was, i even knew where all her birth marks where, and even her middle name.

There are some tricksters who are very good at reading people, but they have all been debunked; their methods usually consist of secret investigation (ie, they have a partner who innocently engages a person in conversation to leverage details, then reports back to the magician who pretends to know everything about the person, and uses these details as evidence). These people are often also very good at mentioning general things that could apply to everyone. People have so many experiences in their lives and they want or are afraid that the ability is real, and this causes them to believe it is real, and associate the made up events with real events. For example, how many times have you looked at your fortune in the newspaper and thought "hm..that does apply to me"? In another example, there's an episode of Mindfreak where Chris Angel pretends to know people's past history, he makes up one random event, and tells it to about 10 different people...every single one is amazed that he is able to read their past and is completely convinced that it's actually about their life.

On the other hand, being able to tell someone's middle name or the location and description of unique birth marks is a descriptive and verifiable thing (note: saying they have a mole on their back is not descriptive and counts for nothing. it would only be relevant for people who actually have unique birth marks). If you can demonstrate to a scientist that you are capable of predicting unusual birthmarks at a statistically significant rate, or predicting middle names at a statistically significant rate, then this phenomena will become scientifically recognized as a fact of life. If you truly have this ability, you can also become extremely rich and famous as a magician or TV star. You would be the first person in human history ever documented to have this ability. It would be the most profound and exciting discovery of the century.

Of course, it's far more likely that you have tricked yourself into thinking that you have abilities that you don't really have, because you want to believe, and accepting that belief makes you feel less insignificant. Try doing some experiments with yourself to see if it is TRULY repeatable. If it is, then contact a scientist and they do some more rigorous experiments and have it published in a journal if its real..then start going on TV shows and become famous.

 

[Math Is Hard]

In another example, there's an episode of Mindfreak where Chris Angel pretends to know people's past history, he makes up one random event, and tells it to about 10 different people...every single one is amazed that he is able to read their past and is completely convinced that it's actually about their life.

Wow - all 10? He's good. Funny how easily false memories can be created. People will actually sometimes create such rich false memories that they can even provide all kinds of details about the event that never happened. I wonder if he asked any of them about the time they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique" .

 

[cr0ssfire]

+1 to junglebeast , same opinion :)

 

[SDetection]

I also can detect people who are interested in me wherever they are and from whatsoever distance, and without having any contact with those people. I did it thousands of times and I'm 100% sure that they were interested in me at the time of the detection. What could be the explanation for this?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I also can detect people who are interested in me wherever they are and from whatsoever distance, and without having any contact with those people. I did it thousands of times and I'm 100% sure that they were interested in me at the time of the detection. What could be the explanation for this?

What form does this "detection" take?

 

[SDetection]

What form does this "detection" take?

I sense something and then suddenly look in a certain direction and there is someone staring at me. When the starer is caught off guard, he/she suddenly turns his/her face away to avoid being caught staring, and that actually proves the intention. It happens so quickly, It's like a reflex on my part followed instantly by a reflex on part of the starer. Also those people were not in my sight. I know that all people can do that but how could this happen?.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I sense something and then suddenly look in a certain direction and there is someone staring at me. When the starer is caught off guard, he/she suddenly turns his/her face away to avoid being caught staring, and that actually proves the intention. It happens so quickly, It's like a reflex on my part followed instantly by a reflex on part of the starer. Also those people were not in my sight. I know that all people can do that but how could this happen?.

I'd say 80% of the time a person is in a public place they are the object of "people watching". Personally I do this all the time: observe people. Anyone who seems positioned so they can't directly see me is a better target: you can stare longer. It doesn't surprise me you catch someone staring at you so often. People are fascinated by people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I also can detect people who are interested in me wherever they are and from whatsoever distance, and without having any contact with those people. I did it thousands of times and I'm 100% sure that they were interested in me at the time of the detection. What could be the explanation for this?

Then you should go and get tested. Let us know when the results are published.

For that matter, you should take Randi's challenge and win a million bucks.

 

[atyy]

https://www.technologyreview.com/communications/22480/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...12/AR2009021204220.html?wprss=rss_print/style

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...12/AR2009021204220.html?wprss=rss_print/style

Do you know the story "The President's Speech" in The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat?

 

[atyy]

Do you know the story "The President's Speech" in The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat?

No. What's the story?

 

[russ_watters]

I sense something and then suddenly look in a certain direction and there is someone staring at me. When the starer is caught off guard, he/she suddenly turns his/her face away to avoid being caught staring, and that actually proves the intention. It happens so quickly, It's like a reflex on my part followed instantly by a reflex on part of the starer. Also those people were not in my sight. I know that all people can do that but how could this happen?.

It is called "being on alert". You are actively looking for something that exists and therefore you find it.

 

[Redbelly98]

Or a person could be much taller than average, or have an unusual hairstyle, or have something about them that attracts stares fairly often.

Impossible-to-answer followup question: how often does one get stared at without even realizing it?

 

[zoobyshoe]

No. What's the story?

I'm not going to spoil it.

 

[junglebeast]

Then you should go and get tested. Let us know when the results are published.

For that matter, you should take Randi's challenge and win a million bucks.

Seriously, SDetection, why are you wasting your time here? Go claim your prize.

 

[SDetection]

I'd say 80% of the time a person is in a public place they are the object of "people watching". Personally I do this all the time: observe people. Anyone who seems positioned so they can't directly see me is a better target: you can stare longer. It doesn't surprise me you catch someone staring at you so often. People are fascinated by people.

Yes staring happens mostly in public places because of course no one will stare at you when you're alone in your room. Also in normal situations, it's unlikely for someone who knows you very well to stare at you.
But I guess you mean that I detect staring just because people stare at me from all directions most of the time?...
Well, this could be true if I don't sense the direction of the starer, but I do. I don't just look around and accidentally catch someone staring at me, and I did it even when I thought I'm alone. I even tried once not to look when I sensed staring but I got very anxious and uncomfortable and finally had to look in the direction of the starer. After that I was mentally relieved because that ended the staring. You can't do anything when someone is staring at you, you just can't...

Also it's not a normal look, it's a sudden, unexpected and mostly atomic turn of my head in a certain direction. Everything happens almost unconsciously, it's like when you respond to someone who is calling your name from behind. If you're expecting that call, you can prevent yourself from responding but it's going to be uncomfortable for you. And I think in the short time of a sudden, fast and atomic turn, people can detect the location of starers by more precision than the senses of hearing, sight and smell combined claim.

There was no good reason for me to suddenly look in the directions of the starers. Many times it was nearly impossible for me to know that there is someone staring at me because the starers were at a long distance from me. But my sudden and unexpected turn of my head in their direction caught them off guard. they thought I could see them and suddenly they tried to hide and that visually revealed their position. their lame attempt to hide the intention actually proved the opposite.

Then you should go and get tested. Let us know when the results are published.

Hi, I want to tell you the story behind https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=311781:
I was discussing this phenomenon at James Randi's forums. In the beginning everyone was nice and helping and then some people suggested protocols for testing me. But when I proved that these protocols allow James Randi to cheat, everybody got mad at me!. I don't know why that happened, after all he is a magician not a scientist!.
After explaining how this detection happens someone tried to mock me by posting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40&feature=related" (notice the gecko's tail at 0:25).
It's ironic that people who tried to mock me are the most ones who actually helped me!.

Without watching the videos, a simple statistical analysis on the thousands of comments which these videos are getting at YouTube, will reveal that they contain the same phenomenon. One of the people who posted the videos tried to explain the animal's behavior and came up with this http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=y8Kyi0WNg40&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3Dy8Kyi0WNg40%26feature%3Drelated" :

Dude did you actually record this? what happened to that poor squirel?

hi hellsingiscool,
the original footage is from a Japanese children's program i think. It's bee around for a while. I think the prairie dog was play a sound of another prairie dog and he turns to look.
they have like a distinctive bark noise.

Although this could be a very good explanation for the animals behavior, it's not the case in the videos. People who were holding the cameras, were not aware of anything regarding this phenomenon, and they were not trying to make the animals look at the camera.

These videos were not proof for me but I'm sure they refer to the same phenomenon that happened to me thousands of times. I just wanted some unaffected opinions regarding the animals behavior before posting my own experiments at that thread.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html" show that many people experience this phenomenon, and there have been many experiments to prove it. Sometimes the subjects were not aware of the test but in all of these experiments the starers were always aware of it. From my experiments, these are not the right conditions because the starers are the ones who shouldn't be aware of any testing regarding this phenomenon. Staring simply can't be simulated in the lab...

For that matter, you should take Randi's challenge and win a million bucks.

I don't think James Randi wants to test me for this if he doesn't want to lose his money and reputation. But I'm willing to do it without any money and also join his foundation, it will surely undo any bad reputation to the skeptics community, after all I'm a skeptic too, and I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. But if he rejected my offers I will just have to sue him. I guess it's somewhat my fault, I should have been making fool of myself and making up foolish things regarding my claim, skeptics like that . But they kept throwing simple protocols at me. Those protocols simply will make me fail and I had to prove them wrong, and that blew my cover. My problem now is that in order to qualify for the challenge I must have a media profile first. But frankly I think all the challenges and the awards are just publicity stunts!...

Seriously, SDetection, why are you wasting your time here? Go claim your prize.

But I must also design a controlled test first, as James Randi will not do it for me.

It is called "being on alert". You are actively looking for something that exists and therefore you find it.

Yeah but I didn't get any misses when I suddenly looked in a certain direction after I sensed the staring. Also I do look around all the time when I don't sense anything and yet I didn't catch any staring.

Or a person could be much taller than average, or have an unusual hairstyle, or have something about them that attracts stares fairly often.

Yes, people tend to stare at me because I look somehow different and this is why I got so many hits. But I'm sure it happens to all of us by a certain degree. Also I detected people who were about to physically attack me.

Impossible-to-answer followup question: how often does one get stared at without even realizing it?

This is a very good question but does it matter if there are false negatives when there are no false positives?. I mean sometimes you don't hear someone that is calling your name and that doesn't prove that you don't have sense of hearing. We're not perfect, all of our normal senses fail us sometimes...

I'm sure there is some kind of unconventional mechanism regarding this phenomenon, but what could it be!. What do you think of the controlled test that could prove this detection ability?.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Also I detected people who were about to physically attack me.

Tell us this story.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Although this could be a very good explanation for the animals behavior, it's not the case in the videos. People who were holding the cameras, were not aware of anything regarding this phenomenon, and they were not trying to make the animals look at the camera.

The videos tell us absolutely nothing. That is why I locked the thread. If you continue to make a point of this, I will delete everything.

These videos were not proof for me but I'm sure they refer to the same phenomenon that happened to me thousands of times. I just wanted some unaffected opinions regarding the animals behavior before posting my own experiments at that thread.

You have no way to know what happened in the video. You are drawing conclusions based on nothing.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html" show that many people experience this phenomenon,

It shows that many people think they experience this.

and there have been many experiments to prove it.

You need to post a reference to a paper in an appropriate journal in order to make this claim. The journal must be found http://scientific.thomson.com/index.html" , in the master journal list. See the lower right corner of the page. What you are citing is not qualified for discussion here.

I don't think James Randi wants to test me for this if he doesn't want to lose his money and reputation.

If you are to make this claim, then you need to post proof that you applied but were rejected.

after all I'm a skeptic too,

I see no evidence to support that.

and I'm sure there is a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. But if he rejected my offers I will just have to sue him. I guess it's somewhat my fault, I should have been making fool of myself and making up foolish things regarding my claim, skeptics like that . But they kept throwing simple protocols at me. Those protocols simply will make me fail and I had to prove them wrong, and that blew my cover. My problem now is that in order to qualify for the challenge I must have a media profile first. But frankly I think all the challenges and the awards are just publicity stunts!...

But I must also design a controlled test first, as James Randi will not do it for me.

Please quote and link the information that makes this clear. I am no Randi fan, but you will have to back up each claim that you make with proof.

Here is the problem that I have with your claims here. You are claiming a repeatable phenomenon. That can be tested, so we don't need to take your word for it. You could go to a university and find someone that will allow you to demonstrate your claim.

You can return and make your claims when you have credible scientific evidence. Until then, I am suspending any further discussion of it. You are only allowed to post the evidence and information requested.

 

[SDetection]

The videos tell us absolutely nothing.

The videos only refer to a behavior that can happen normally and can have normal explanations. And I did say that it's the same behavior that happens when someone calls your name from behind. Sometimes you can be so close to your ideas that you don't see things clearly, and all I wanted is a second opinion about my analysis not the videos themselves.

That is why I locked the thread. If you continue to make a point of this, I will delete everything.

Fine with me, in fact I don't have much more to say about the videos but I wished that you deleted my previous thread instead of locking it without any discussion.

You have no way to know what happened in the video. You are drawing conclusions based on nothing.

But this is actually my claim: animals (including humans) can do that. I'm not referencing the videos as scientific evidence.

It shows that many people think they experience this.

But what is the difference?:

Unquestionably the most vocal supporter of this claim is the British biologist Rupert Sheldrake who, in chapter four of his book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World: A Do-It-Yourself Guide To Revolutionary Science (Riverhead Books, New York, 1995), argues that not only do our minds "extend beyond the body" but also suggests, "If our minds reach out and 'touch' what we are looking at then we may affect what we look at just by looking at it. If we look at another person, for example, we may affect him or her by doing so" (107). Sheldrake, moreover, insists that the sense of being stared at is not only very "well known" but in informal surveys in both Europe and America, "I have found that about 80 percent of the people I have asked claimed to have experienced it themselves." Sheldrake also notes it is accepted as a premise in countless works of fiction and it plays an important part in the relationship of people with animals and their pets.

It is, therefore, of considerable importance and significance to determine if such "mental influence," independent of other possible material means of human-to-human communication, does exist.

You need to post a reference to a paper in an appropriate journal in order to make this claim. The journal must be found http://scientific.thomson.com/index.html" , in the master journal list. See the lower right corner of the page. What you are citing is not qualified for discussion here.

I'm sorry, Why should experiments that failed to prove or explain anything be published in this journal?, as I'm not a scientist.

If you are to make this claim, then you need to post proof that you applied but were rejected.

But why should I provide proof for what I think could happen while it conforms to the common sense?. Also the situation at James Randi's forums is not promising. most people there, including his forum managers, say that Randi will refuse to test me. Here is a summary of the discussion (I'm sorry, I don't want any referrals to this thread at their forums that might jeopardize my application):

let me tell you a little bit about the Invisible Dragon.

Me: There's a dragon in my garage.
You: Cool! Could you show me a picture of it?
Me: Sorry, but no. It's invisible. But there really is a dragon in my garage.
You: Invisible, huh? What about IR?
Me: Sorry, it emits a magical kind of heat the doesn't show up on IR scopes.
You: Perhaps you could throw some flour into the garage? Surely some of it would stick to the dragon, or at least reveal its shape and footprints.
Me: Good idea! Only it's not really a very large dragon, so I probably wouldn't be able to catch it with the flour. Oh, and it's constantly levitating, so putting flour on the floor shouldn't show any footprints, sorry.
You: What about hitting the garage with a wide-angle spray from a fire hose?
Me: Ah, terrific! Only...the garage is too big to be completely covered by the spray and the dragon would just move out of the way as we panned it back and forth.
You: Multiple fire hoses?
Me: It might work, but the dragon is also telepathic. It could sense where we were going to play the hoses and move out of the way. Plus, I don't want that much water damage in my garage, sorry!
You: So there isn't any way to really prove that the dragon is there, is there?
Me: But it is there. Didn't I tell you that?

What's going on here is that the claim starts out simple, but as you try to brainstorm ideas for ways to actually test my claim, the claim starts to get more and more complex. Ultimately, the claim is untestable.

I am suggesting that your description of your ability to detect staring is turning out to be absolutely no different from my claim of a dragon in my garage.

Hi, I think the analogy here is wrong in regard to my claim .Here is my version of it :

Me: Dragons come to me in my garage.

skeptic: Cool! Could you show one to me?.

Me: Sorry, but no. they're invisible, i myself can't see them. But i can really sense when there is one in my garage.

skeptic : Invisible, huh? What about IR?.

Me :No, there is no scientific method to measure their existence but I'm sure there will be one in the future.

skeptic: but if you don't see them,how are you being so sure they're there ?.

Me:The Dragons somehow subconsciously transmit their existence to me by some kind of telepathic mean ,and when I receive this signal I shout at one of them saying "INVISIBLE DRAGON".at the same moment when i do that ,the Dragon will be trying to run and the whole house will be just like going down, it's like an earthquake.

skeptic: Yea, but there is confirmation bias here, you do speak loudly in your garage all the time and there would be no effect.

Me: True, but I've never shouted "INVISIBLE DRAGON" in my garage when I didn't sense the Dragons.

skeptic: Yea..but there is a possibility that when you shout "INVISIBLE DRAGON" and there will be no effect.also there could be an actual earthquake at the same moment.

Me: True, this is possible, but I can do this many times.

skeptic: You seem to be delusional here , how about I get you an elephant from behind, and you shout when you sense it ?.

Me: No, I only can do that with those invisible Dragons and I've never tested it with elephants.

skeptic: But this makes your claim untestable.

Me: Why? .The same moment I shout "INVISIBLE DRAGON" there will be an earthquake.

skeptic: Yea right ... How about you tell your Dragon to come to my lab,so we can test your claim ?.

Me: No, I can't order the dragons to do anything , they come and go by their wish ,they're afraid of humans, and they don't want anyone to know about their existence. Also even if one of the dragons came to me in the lab, it will not be caught off guard and won't try to escape, the dragon will be prepared and will not do anything that can actually prove its existence.

skeptic: OK, how many times you can do this in your garage ?.

Me: I can do it thousand times.

skeptic: hmmm...But how about if there are also thousand actual earthquakes at the same moment ?.

Me: What! ... I'm hanging myself in my the garage.

Maybe it's not perfect but it's pretty close

There is no actual difference between my analogy and yours: both are untestable scenarios.

By "untestable" I mean, of course, a test in which all other possibilities that could explain your claim are controlled for -- in other words, the test rules them out. So the only possible explanation is that what you claim is actually happening.

However, your own analogy points to a scenario in which these types of controls are impossible. Therefore, it is an analogy of an untestable scenario; the end result is exactly the same as my scenario, which is also an untestable scenario.

So, in conclusion, you are stating that your claim is untestable.

The only protocol you have suggested does not provide the necessary controls to rule out other explanations for what you are experiencing, leaving only your explanation. Therefore, it is unsuitable.

Because it is unsuitable, you have to come up with a better protocol. Kindly stop pointing to that protocol as evidence that you have a protocol. It is not an acceptable protocol, therefore you do not have an acceptable protocol.

A number of protocols have been proposed that have pretty good controls

Many people there are so obsessed with the confirmation bias that they're actually biased to the disconfirmation!.

I see no evidence to support that.

Well, I'm a believer in science (implied by my previous post), my god is the evolution of my species and my definition of skepticism is: not to accept anything without proof but also not to reject anything that can be proved. Does this make a good skeptic?.

Please quote and link the information that makes this clear. I am no Randi fan, but you will have to back up each claim that you make with proof.

I heard him say that in a video at YouTube. I don't have the link now but I'm searching for it.

Here is the problem that I have with your claims here. You are claiming a repeatable phenomenon. That can be tested, so we don't need to take your word for it. You could go to a university and find someone that will allow you to demonstrate your claim.

I still can't find anyone at home who are willing to test me, but are you willing to accept a test that is done in a public place?. I mean can a test be controlled in a public place?.

You can return and make your claims when you have credible scientific evidence. Until then, I am suspending any further discussion of it. You are only allowed to post the evidence and information requested.

There is no reason for me to be here if I have this evidence because this is exactly why I'm here. I want some opinions about the controlled test that should be accepted as credible scientific evidence, and also the one that James Randi should accept. I'm not here to prove anything and I don't have much more to say about my claim.

I must say that I'm confused. I can almost say that this is a peer-reviewed journal, not a public forum that allows its members to discuss their opinions that are at least backed by logical evidence or the common sense. After all this is the S&D forum, right?.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I must say that I'm confused. I can almost say that this is a peer-reviewed journal, not a public forum that allows its members to discuss their opinions that are at least backed by logical evidence or the common sense. After all this is the S&D forum, right?.

I told you the problem: You are making a claim of a repeatable phenomenon. So, no, this is not a place to make claims that cannot be supported.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You have been allowed to share your story, but any repeatable phenomenon can be properly tested and the information published. That is a job for science and journals and there is no need to duplicate the effort. It is also far beyond the scope of this forum. Here, for perspective, we discuss and explore claims that are more difficult to test or quantify.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyone who believes they have so-called paranormal abilities that can be demonstrated on demand, could try contacting the SSE.

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, ufos, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology. All topics amenable to scientific inquiry are welcome...

http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Note however that the Journal of the SSE is not found in our master journal list, so it is not acceptable here as a scientific reference. It may be used as anecdotal evidence.

 

[SDetection]

You have been allowed to share your story, but any repeatable phenomenon can be properly tested and the information published. That is a job for science and journals and there is no need to duplicate the effort. It is also far beyond the scope of this forum. Here, for perspective, we discuss and explore claims that are more difficult to test or quantify.

Yes but it's hard to get the scientific attention for this phenomenon because of the prejudgment. But passing the skeptics will be a major step in getting the researchers attention.

I just want to say something: It's not repeatable by the obvious meaning.
Because in normal everyday life no one will stare at something without having a strong interest in doing so, it's certainly a matter of the brain not the eyes. So, I can't make this phenomenon happen literally "on demand".
In my suggested protocol which is in a public place, neither me nor the testers are aware of the starers, and these are not aware of anything. So, no one knows where or when a hit will happen.
It's impossible for the testers to count any misses, and there is a rare possibility of fake false positives. Also, on the testers demand, there will be simulated detections on my part to eliminate the possibility of tester's confirmation bias in case most people stare at me most of the time.

I don't know what this kind of test can be called but I'm sure it can prove, beyond doubt, that this phenomenon actually has no known conventional explanation. But, until now, no one seems to agree with me, and most people at the JREF forums say that this protocol is inappropriate and will be rejected, I still don't know why. They wanted something like this simple and the first suggested protocol:

How's this:

You sit in a chair. Another person sits or stands behind you. There is a light in front of you, which both of you can see.

When the light comes on, the person behind you flips a coin. If it comes up heads, he stares at you. If tails, he stares at something else. You write down whether you think he is staring at you or not. The person behind you writes down whether he actually stared at you.

Repeat many times. Start with ten and work up from there.

At the end of the test, compare notes.

I can't do that!. If it was that easy it would have been proved already!.

It's easy for me to test myself, but because the testers can't measure this sense nor simulate people's intentions, testing this is not easy as you think.

Anyone who believes they have so-called paranormal abilities that can be demonstrated on demand, could try contacting the SSE.

It seems that you checked the discussion. Well, I didn't tell them that everyone can do that, and I used words like 'paranormal' or 'telepathy' because that what they expect to hear from a claimant. I pretended the ignorance sometimes and used Law[/URL]. I don't believe in everything I said there.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Note however that the Journal of the SSE is not found in our master journal list, so it is not acceptable here as a scientific reference. It may be used as anecdotal evidence.

OK, thanks . I wish I was a scientist or have the resources to do the research by myself.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes but it's hard to get the scientific attention for this phenomenon because of the prejudgment. But passing the skeptics will be a major step in getting the researchers attention.

No it won't. I will make this as clear as I can without issuing a citation. You are done. Any further responses about your claim will be deleted and a citation issued.