Do our eyes have the ability to sense when someone is looking at us?

[zoobyshoe]

I saw a program about two serious studies done to test the notion that people can tell when someone is behind them looking at them.
One study was conducted by a woman who explained to the volunteers that the point of the study was to show there was something to it.

The other study was conducted by a man who explained to volunteers the point was to prove it was nonsence.

The set ups were remarkable similar. People sat with their back to a two-way mirror watching TV. They were to click a button when they senced someone was behind the mirror looking at them.

The people in the woman's study had an amazingly high success rate. Those in the men's never got it right. The people who made the program felt this showed some such sense must exist, but that people are unconsciously willing to suppress it for an authority figure who doesn't want it to be so.

I have turned around to find people staring at me, but it seems, in retrospect, I had always turned to look for perfectly explainable reasons. Specifically, that they had been absent from their normal location in the room for a long time.

In what are reported to be authentic cases of this, people say they feel the hair on the back of their neck stand up, which is what alerts them to the fact they're being watched.

I'm wondering if anyone has stories to report, and ideas about why the woman's study could have produced the results it did?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I saw a program about two serious studies done to test the notion that people can tell when someone is behind them looking at them.
One study was conducted by a woman who explained to the volunteers that the point of the study was to show there was something to it.

The other study was conducted by a man who explained to volunteers the point was to prove it was nonsence.

The set ups were remarkable similar. People sat with their back to a two-way mirror watching TV. They were to click a button when they senced someone was behind the mirror looking at them.

The people in the woman's study had an amazingly high success rate. Those in the men's never got it right. The people who made the program felt this showed some such sense must exist, but that people are unconsciously willing to suppress it for an authority figure who doesn't want it to be so.

I have turned around to find people staring at me, but it seems, in retrospect, I had always turned to look for perfectly explainable reasons. Specifically, that they had been absent from their normal location in the room for a long time.

In what are reported to be authentic cases of this, people say they feel the hair on the back of their neck stand up, which is what alerts them to the fact they're being watched.

I'm wondering if anyone has stories to report, and ideas about why the woman's study could have produced the results it did?

Do you have any idea who did these studies? I have heard this claimed but I have never seen the credible evidence.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Unfortunately, no. The man was British, the woman American. I saw this program about a year ago. I believe they had communicated with each other casually about the subject, but had each decided to test it on their own. It was a third party who later investigated and uncovered the differences in how they psychologically prepared the test subjects. They had independently of each other arrived at pretty much the same setup for preventing the subject from directly sencing anyone behind them. There was a time limit but they were instructed to press the button anytime they thought someone was looking at them, be it twenty times or none.

 

[Jonathan]

Yes, I believe I saw that on TV too. I don't remember the names though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Unfortunately, no. The man was British, the woman American. I saw this program about a year ago. I believe they had communicated with each other casually about the subject, but had each decided to test it on their own. It was a third party who later investigated and uncovered the differences in how they psychologically prepared the test subjects. They had independently of each other arrived at pretty much the same setup for preventing the subject from directly sencing anyone behind them. There was a time limit but they were instructed to press the button anytime they thought someone was looking at them, be it twenty times or none.

Well Zooby, I have heard the explanation for this but one dare not mention this at logic parties: It requires belief in order to work. [The bible makes the same claim]. Of course, if true, this alone would not kill all laboratory results. The problem is this whole notion that analytical testing could destroy the mechanism for ESP. On one hand, with concepts like the uncertainty principle in mind this almost sounds plausible. On the other hand, the claim works painfully well as a cheap dodge. It is hard to see it otherwise.

 

[Jonathan]

I want to hear the explanation!

 

[zoobyshoe]

I found all that confusing because I'm not sure at any given point if you are referring to the ability to tell when someone is looking at you, or the notion that trying to test it kills it.

The sugestion for why the results were so bad in the man's case was that he had effectively enlisted their cooperation in his goal of disproving the phenomenon. This did not make any ability go away. It might, in fact, imply they used the ability to unconsciously neglect to press the button when they felt they were being watched and to press it when they felt they weren't.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I found all that confusing because I'm not sure at any given point if you are referring to the ability to tell when someone is looking at you, or the notion that trying to test it kills it.

The sugestion for why the results were so bad in the man's case was that he had effectively enlisted their cooperation in his goal of disproving the phenomenon. This did not make any ability go away. It might, in fact, imply they used the ability to unconsciously neglect to press the button when they felt they were being watched and to press it when they felt they weren't.

If this claim is true, then why can't it be reproduced?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If this claim is true, then why can't it be reproduced?

If it's true, it can be reproduced. I'm not aware of anyone saying it can't be.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
If it's true, it can be reproduced. I'm not aware of anyone saying it can't be.

It sounds like you are claiming proof of ESP.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It sounds like you are claiming proof of ESP.

Nay, I am trying to find some satisfying explanation for why the woman's study had the results it did. I am not suspecting esp.

I am wondering more on the lines of being able to detect EM fields as subtle as those given off by a human body. The precident for this being the animals who become agitated before a quake presumably due to EM disturbances. This, at any rate, is as whacky as I'm willing to go, if nothing better shows up.

I was actually hoping to attract more reports of people who felt this had happened to them. I really only know of one person
who seemed reliable who told me about this having happened to him. He was out in the woods, felt the hair stand up on the back of his neck, and turned around to see one of the local Indians staring at him. He may have heard an unusual russle of leaves, or noticed a squirrel chattering defensively behind him or whatever, so it is not inexplicable. The experimental set up is harder to explain.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I am wondering more on the lines of being able to detect EM fields as subtle as those given off by a human body..

Hehe. If true, this is called ESP. What's in a name?

ESP is also known as pheromones.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
If it's true, it can be reproduced. I'm not aware of anyone saying it can't be.

Well, this would effectively prove that ESP exists. For this reason, since I don't recall any Earth'shaking papers about this, I have serious doubts about the claims. I have heard of such claims, but I have never seen a definitive case that locks it down.

I will spend some time looking for this in a few days. Those nasty work deadlines are beckoning right now.

 

[Zantra]

This is interesting. I'll see if I can find anything on this

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking Hehe. If true, this is called ESP. What's in a name?

Denotation and connotation. Vain Seeking has all the same letters as Ivan Seeking, but I suspect you'd object to the distorted arrangement even if I asked:"What's in a name?"

Persinger has proven that EM fields right up against a person's head can greatly alter their state of mind. From this, the question arises: how subtle does the field have to be before it has no effect anymore?
Is this extra-sensory? By definition, if you are sencing something it is not extra-sensory.

Why are you calling the sencing of pheromones extra-sensory? There is debate, I understand as to whether people sense pheromones, but I'm pretty certain the matter is settled in the case of insects.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Denotation and connotation. Vain Seeking has all the same letters as Ivan Seeking, but I suspect you'd object to the distorted arrangement even if I asked:"What's in a name?"

Yes it is funny how connotation gets in the way.

Persinger has proven that EM fields right up against a person's head can greatly alter their state of mind. From this, the question arises: how subtle does the field have to be before it has no effect anymore?
Is this extra-sensory? By definition, if you are sencing something it is not extra-sensory.

Why are you calling the sencing of pheromones extra-sensory? There is debate, I understand as to whether people sense pheromones, but I'm pretty certain the matter is settled in the case of insects. [/B]

First, I'm sure you know that I am not trying to detract from this subject. I just felt compelled by the gods of objectivity to point out that ANY SIXTH SENSE really settles the issue. ESP does exist...at least in insects. The term ESP means any sense beyond the basic five.

Next, if true, a sense of someone watching would pass the mustard for an ESP phenomenon. This does not imply anything about mind reading or fortune telling. Still, so as not to unfairly discredit your discussion, I will refrain for using the expression ESP.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes it is funny how connotation gets in the way.

I said "denotation and connotation." The denotation of "Vain Seeking" is quite different than the denotation of "Ivan Seeking"

First, I'm sure you know that I am not trying to detract from this subject. I just felt compelled by the gods of objectivity to point out that ANY SIXTH SENSE really settles the issue.

The authentic "sixth" sense has been well know to mankind since time immemorial. It our sense of balance. We use it all the time every day. The physical organs responsible for our sense of balance are located in the structures of the inner ear. It is an authentic, physical sence. It is not ESP. I suspect it was left out of the list because it lacks the on-off quality that help us recognize the other sences. If we put our hands over our ears sound is deadened, if we lift our hand from the table we can no longer touch it. If we leave the rose bed, it's smell stays behind, after we're done eating, the taste of the food goes away eventually, shut your eyes and you can't see. Balance can't be turned off like this. This makes it somewhat harder to recognise.

The prefix "extra-" means "outside" or "beyond" . It is not synonymous with the adjective "extra" which means "more than is due, usual, or necessary". Important distinction.

ESP does exist...at least in insects. The term ESP means any sense beyond the basic five.

I hope I have just shown why the latter assertion is not true and why pheromones cannot be considered ESP.

Next, if true, a sense of someone watching would pass the mustard for an ESP phenomenon. This does not imply anything about mind reading or fortune telling. Still, so as not to unfairly discredit your discussion, I will refrain for using the expression ESP.

ESP, in fact, denotes perception by means beyond or outside the sences; the connotation being: "inexplicable in any conventional terms - resulting from forces and energies outside those known to physics."

 

[Zero]

I think the methodology in both cases is flawed by interference from teh testers. It was just as bad for the woman to tell the subjects that she was supporting the idea, as it was for the man to say he was trying to disprove it. Beyond that, I would have to see the full evidence, including hopefully videotape evidence. There are all sorts of ways people could know they were being watched...were they accounted for?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Zero
I think the methodology in both cases is flawed by interference from teh testers. It was just as bad for the woman to tell the subjects that she was supporting the idea, as it was for the man to say he was trying to disprove it.

Absolutely true. It was completely unprofessional of both of them to express any desire for a specific outcome to the test subjects. Anyone trying this again has to arrive at a way to maintain neutrality. The point of the show, was in fact, to reveal how it is possible to skew study results with this sort of "preparation" of the test subjects.

Beyond that, I would have to see the full evidence, including hopefully videotape evidence. There are all sorts of ways people could know they were being watched...were they accounted for?

Exactly: full evidence is needed in a case like this. In fact they did have tapes of a couple people being tested, just to give the general layout of the set up, but these went by too fast in the one viewing I had to be able to examine where the holes might be.

 

[hypnagogue]

Ever hear of the sheep-goat effect? Here's a definition from http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/paraglos.htm#S :

Sheep-Goat Effect
Effect, discovered by the parapsychologist Gertrude Schmeidler, in which "sheep" score higher than mean chance expectation (MCE) on psi tests, while "goats" score lower than MCE.

Sheep
Name given to a subject in a psi test who believes in the phenomenon.

Goat
Name given to a subject in a psi test who does not believe in the phenomenon.

Here's a link arguing for the salience of the sheep-goat effect in psi experiments: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node6.html

As applied to the staring experiments in question, from http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/observer/observer3.htm :

The best known recent instance of the Sheep-Goat effect was that in which Marilyn Schlitz ( a sheep) and Richard Wiseman (a supergoat) carried out experiments with the same subjects and on two occasions got very different results, hers positive and his negative. In the October 2002 issue of The Paranormal Review, Caroline Watt asked each of them what kind of preparations they make before starting an experiment. Their answers were: Schlitz: "I usually pray, actually. I usually pause and ask the Divine that the highest purpose be revealed through the experiment. When she met her subjects, she added: "I tell people that there is background research that's been done already that suggests this works... I give them a very positive expectation of outcome. Wiseman: "In terms of preparing myself for the session, absolutely nothing."
That says it all, really.

So we have the names of our experimenters! Marilyn Schlitz and Richard Wiseman. There is actually some more excellent information to get to the bottom of all this.

An article at http://www.hf.caltech.edu/ctt/show212/essay212.shtml discusses scientific experimentation of psi through the prism of the Wiseman/Schlitz experiments, and includes links to Schiltz's original papers and the subsequent Wiseman/Schlitz joint paper. On the basis of this topic, a forum (now closed) was set up to discuss relevant questions, located at http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212.html . The forum discussion is of the highest quality and actually includes commentary from both Schlitz and Wiseman. Schlitz has an especially nice post about psi's place in scientific inquiry at http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212/6/1.html .

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well Zooby, I have heard the explanation for this but one dare not mention this at logic parties: It requires belief in order to work. [The bible makes the same claim]. Of course, if true, this alone would not kill all laboratory results. The problem is this whole notion that analytical testing could destroy the mechanism for ESP. On one hand, with concepts like the uncertainty principle in mind this almost sounds plausible. On the other hand, the claim works painfully well as a cheap dodge. It is hard to see it otherwise.

The claim that belief is a critical part of psi can indeed be used as a cheap dodge, but on the other hand we certainly can't deny the power of belief. Belief has well-chronicled somatic effects in medicine and health. You posted an article a couple of weeks ago that stated that patients who are more receptive to believing in hypnosis are more readily hypnotized. The quality of a psychedelic drug experience is often conditioned by the user's beliefs and expectations of the experience prior to the ingestion the drug. And so on.

So while we can and should recognize that belief is a dangerous thing to be referencing in our discussion, we should also recognize that we cannot write it off with a wave of the hand either. The beliefs of an individual have unmistakable causal effects on his/her mental and physical state; the trick in discussions of psi is determining if the power of belief extends beyond the individual's own body and mind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is another source: Dr. Rupert Sheldrake.
Note that I am still looking at this guy.

http://www.sheldrake.org/

http://www.lifebridge.org/bridgingtree/science.htm

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...000.pdf+"Dr.+Rupert+Sheldrake"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Stare Struck:
Testing the Psychic Sensation of Being Watched:
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a former research fellow at Cambridge University who now specializes in the metaphysical reaches of fringe science, has collected test data indicating that some people are correctly able to identify when an unseen observer is looking at them. The margin of success among Sheldrake's experiment subjects is not huge -- he says they could accurately tell when they were being watched 55% of the time -- but he contends that the results are nevertheless too significant to have occurred by chance.

http://www.noveltynet.org/content/paranormal/www.parascope.com/articles/0997/starestruck.htm

The Telepathic Terrier

He has conducted a series of experiments on the seeming ability of pets to sense when their masters are about to come home. Sheldrake claims to have found some measure of psychic talent in a number of domesticated species, including cats, birds and snakes. But dogs, he believes, are the most clairvoyant pets of all. The most amazing subject of Sheldrake's study has been a mongrel terrier named Jaytee.

http://www.noveltynet.org/content/paranormal/www.parascope.com/articles/1196/dogw.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hypnagogue:

Thanks for the exhaustive information.

I hadn't heard of the sheep-goat effect as such. That particular term seems only to be applied to "Psychic Powers" testing, but that such an effect would exist is inevitable since it exists in all fields of human effort: those who believe they can succeed have a clear advantage over those who don't.

Nevertheless, in order for that to apply here, the ability has to be proven to exist in the first place.

I had a hard time making any sense out of the statistics at the link on that subject. I just had the vague impression there was some squeak-by indication that the ability seems to exist.
The author said it was more definite than this, but I couldn't follow his reasoning. (Terminology was a barrier).

To complicate that point, Fz+ turned me on to Chaos a few weeks ago and I've been reading about it. It has convinced me that statistics are the wrong way to go about understanding what is going on on a system; that the laws of averages are not applicable in explaining dynamcal systems.

So when I asked what might explain the woman's results, what I meant was: how could the fact anyone seems to be able to do it be explained? What is the mechanism? I don't think believing you can do it gives you the ability to do it. It may, however, give you the confidence to use a preexisting ability if it exists. Likewise not believing could cause you not to use it.

At this point in my thinking, though, Zero's point about needing to be able the examine tapes of the sessions, and the actual physical setup itself, is the most important one that has to be taken care of. The Fox sisters fooled people for years and were never debunked: eventually one confessed. I am suddenly extremely suspicious of the woman who prays for certain results! I don't recall that from the program I saw, and learning about it add a certain distinct aroma of fish to the subject. It makes me wonder if proving psychic powers = proving the existence of God, in her mind, and how far she'd be willing to go to achieve that.

Edit to include: I haven't read the discussion forum yet. Big reading assignment beween you and Ivan.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hypnagogue,

The forum was, as you characterized it: of high quality.

That whole link is very good. My memory of the program must be very garbled because I didn't recall them using the closed circuit TV system to watch the subjects, but a two way mirror, for some reason. It is very hard to see how they could sense being watched over a TV circuit. That is about the most secure setup they could have arranged.I still need to understand how much better the woman's subjects did. A small margin, even three times in a row, isn't convincing enough, for me. I don't understand the meta-statistics technique, obviously. My recollection from the show, once again, seems to be twisted because I came away with the impression that her results were so far above chance that there was no disputing what they indicated.

Edit: I have now read the Schlitz paper and am convinced this is not the same woman I saw in the show. She had the subject's skin conductance being monitored. I'm positive the subjects in the experiment in the show I saw pressed a button whenever they felt they were being watched.

Schlitz mentions in the intro to her paper that the history of these kinds of experiments goes back to the 1800s. She also mentions smoone in the 70s who used a two way mirror, so I'm pretty sure the show I saw must have primariy been about someone elses study, but that it included something about this one as well; the sheep-goat aspect.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I still need to understand how much better the woman's subjects did. A small margin, even three times in a row, isn't convincing enough, for me. I don't understand the meta-statistics technique, obviously. My recollection from the show, once again, seems to be twisted because I came away with the impression that her results were so far above chance that there was no disputing what they indicated.

Zooby, here's a brief discussion on statistical techniques in an experimental design:

When it comes to experimental testing of hypotheses, the important measure of statistical discrimination is the p-value. The experiment is set up to test a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is typically conservative and generates predictions that the experiment aims to empirically contradict. If the the null hypothesis is empirically refuted, an alternate hypothesis (formulated before the experiment) is adopted as an explanation for the observed data.

In the case of the Schlitz experiments, the null hypothesis would be "there is no psi phenomenon; therefore, we should not observe a statistically significant correlation between the subjects' EDAs and the experimental observation periods"; the alternate would be "there is some psi phenomenon occurring; therefore, we should observe a statistically significant correlation between the subjects' EDAs and the observation periods." "Statistically significant" here means that the correlation is much stronger than pure chance would allow, or (equivalently) that there is a very low probability that we would observe such a strong correlation if the underlying processes really were random.

The null hypothesis is accepted or rejected on the basis of the p-value, which is the probability that the experimentally established correlation between subjects' EDAs and observation periods would be as strong (or weak) as it was observed to be if their EDA fluctuations really were random and not aided by some psychic ability. So, a high p-value means that the experimental data fits nicely into the null hypothesis, whereas a low p-value indicates that the null hypothesis is inadequate to explain the data. It is decided before the conducting of the experiment what constitutes a sufficiently low p-value to reject the null hypothesis. Typically accepted threshold values for rejection are .05 and .01.

It is important to note that highly significant p-values can occur even if the difference of the observed data from the expected parameters seems trivial on the surface, if the sample size of collected data is large enough. For instance, suppose we conduct an experiment to test whether a certain coin is fair or biased (null hypothesis = fair). If we flip it 100 times and see that it comes up heads 52 times, we will conclude that this deviation is well within the expected value of 50 heads and that we can't reject the null hypothesis with great confidence; that is, there is a fairly high probability that even if the coin is perfectly fair, we will see it come up heads 52 times in 100 flips, so the observed deviation from the expected value of 50 is not statistically significant. However, if we flip the coin 10 trillion times and see that it still comes up heads 52% of the time, we will have an extraordinary low p-value, since there is a very low probability that a perfectly fair coin will be this far from 50% heads over so many trials; that is, the observed deviation is highly statistically significant and we can reject the null hypothesis with confidence.

In Schlitz's original paper, she recorded a p-value of p < .005, meaning that there is less than a 0.5% chance that she would have recorded the correlation data she did if her subjects' EDAs really were fluctuating randomly in synch with observation periods, rather than being aided by some kind of psychic ability. In the Schlitz/Wiseman paper, Schlitz recorded p = 0.04. It is worth noting that the first p-value was calculated using a one-tailed test while the second used a two-tailed test; the gist of this is that two-tailed tests are more conservative in that p-values are higher for two-tailed tests than for one-tailed tests.
-----

Here's a brief introduction to how meta-analysis works:

The technique of meta-analysis involves performing statistical analysis on a hypothesis using data congolmerated from experiments that have already been run. These experiments all should test the same hypothesis and use fundamentally equivalent experimental designs.

The advantage of meta-analysis is that it can be conducted on a vast array of data, allowing one to establish extremely significant p-values for even miniscule effects (see this old thread for an example of meta-analysis supporting psi phenomena). The obvious disadvantage of meta-analysis is that the designs of the separate experiments are not all completely identical. There is also the problem of the file drawer effect, which basically is the phenomenon that papers which establish positive results tend to be published while those that do not tend to be 'stuffed into the file drawer,' never to be accessible to analysis. The file drawer effect can be offset by further statistical meta-analysis, however, by showing that in order for the file drawer effect to statistically negate the conclusions of a certain meta-analysis, X number of papers that failed to establish positive results would have to have been compiled but never published. Establishing X to be a high number minimizes the likelihood that the file drawer effect is really salient grounds for doubting a particular meta-analysis.
-----

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
To complicate that point, Fz+ turned me on to Chaos a few weeks ago and I've been reading about it. It has convinced me that statistics are the wrong way to go about understanding what is going on on a system; that the laws of averages are not applicable in explaining dynamcal systems.

So when I asked what might explain the woman's results, what I meant was: how could the fact anyone seems to be able to do it be explained? What is the mechanism? I don't think believing you can do it gives you the ability to do it. It may, however, give you the confidence to use a preexisting ability if it exists. Likewise not believing could cause you not to use it.

I agree that the statistics aren't going to uncover the precise mechanisms of how psi works, if it exists. It is an invaluable tool, however, for establishing the existence of psi in the first place.

I'm not very knowledgeable on chaos theory myself; however, whatever it says, it can't negate the usefulness of statistics in describing, if not explaining, sensitive and dynamic systems. Physics on the quantum scale is exquisitely sensitve and even, as far as we can tell, non-deterministic. Yet on the macro scale of classic physics we observe regular, deterministic behavior, thanks to the macroscopic statistical tendencies of all those little and unpredictable quantum particles.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I think the methodology in both cases is flawed by interference from teh testers. It was just as bad for the woman to tell the subjects that she was supporting the idea, as it was for the man to say he was trying to disprove it.

I'm not sure why I didn't read this thread before. It seems to me that the one thing this study proved is that studies like this need to be double-blind. It almost appears it was set up for that specific purpose.

A few years ago a teenager did an experiment for a science fair where she tested "touch therapist's" (misnomer - they don't actually touch their subjects) ability to sense when their hands were in close proximity to another person's. Since "touch therapy" was the profession of the subjects, all of them believed they had such an ability. The test was double-blind and considered of good enough scientific merit to be published in the NE Journal of Medicine.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not sure why I didn't read this thread before. It seems to me that the one thing this study proved is that studies like this need to be double-blind. It almost appears it was set up for that specific purpose.

Granted that telling the subjects the intent of the experiments wasn't the most scientific thing to do. But based on the experimental methodology, it is still eminently unclear how Wiseman and Schlitz could have achieved their respective results. How could they have unfairly tipped their subjects into their respective favors when the subjects' skin conductances were the dependent variables and the remote observation periods were completely blind and random?

Under this design, the conventional view says that there still should be absolutely no correlation between EDA and observation period, no matter what they told the subjects at the outset (so long as the observation periods continued to be blind and random).

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hypnagogue,

Your explanation of statistics gave me a good boost in understanding what the numbers presented were meant to demonstrate. I am still going to have to read it several more times.

In reference to statistics and Chaos you said:

Yet on the macro scale of classic physics we observe regular, deterministic behavior, thanks to the macroscopic statistical tendencies of all those little and unpredictable quantum particles.

Chaos was spawned by the fact that the above is actually not true. Classic physics arrives at the concept of "regular, deterministic behaviour" by ignoring irregular looking behaviour under various pretexts. The bulk of differential equations cannot be solved; a very small percentage can. If you study differential equations you will be herded toward those that can be solved. That is the grossest example. It becomes more insidious the more negligible what is being dismissed seems.

Chaos is the result of people starting to pay attention to, and come to grips with, the "irregularities" that have traditionally necessarily been dismissed in order to have a clear picture to look at. One way of defining Chaos might be to say that it is the study of the fact that systems will not settle into equilibrium. Periods of apparent order arise and seem stable, but in fact they eventually destabilize, and reverse.

Chaos might predict something more along these lines if the two researchers were engaged in ongoing, non-stop testing of the "Staring" phenomenon: The results would remain stable for a while. Then the woman would start to get less and less confirmation for her hypothesis, and the man: more. A reversal would happen where the woman couldn't prove her theory for the life of her, and the man couldn't disprove the ability for the life of him. Things would stay that way for a while, then reverse again.

There are many other kinds of "Chaos" dynamics that might be at work. That one, is just the most famous, as far as I know. Chaos wants to uncover the patterns and dynamics behind the fuzzy edges and hitherto dismissed swirleys and random-seeming (but not random) bumps and crevices. Statistics, to the best of my knowledge, is an attempt to derive information from data by making those irregularities go away, and sticking to the "big" picture.

It is clear to me that you know more about statistics than I know about Chaos. Since neither of us knows much about the science the other is basing their perspective upon we may not be able to get too far, but I find it interesting. (Easy reading on Chaos is Chaos by James Gleik: very clear expository prose, excellent illustrations).

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Under this design, the conventional view says that there still should be absolutely no correlation between EDA and observation period, no matter what they told the subjects at the outset (so long as the observation periods continued to be blind and random).

I agree, and from that I can only conclude there must be some unknown experimental error at work here. It seems like a relatively simple study - I'm wondering if it has been redone with slight variations in method (such as not using those two experimenters).

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Statistics, to the best of my knowledge, is an attempt to derive information from data by making those irregularities go away, and sticking to the "big" picture.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say statistics (to the best of your knowledge) makes irregularities 'go away.'

Statistics is a method for estimating probabilities. When we do not have complete information about a population of data, we analyze data from samples of that population and use rigorous mathematical methods for extrapolating what we can from the sample data. For instance, take TV ratings. It would be impractical to monitor the viewing habits of every household in the US with a TV; therefore, we take samples of data from a subset of all households with TVs and extrapolate what we can from that data to make educated guesses about the viewing habits of the entire population. Using this method, we might be able to say something like "We are 95% confident that between 5 million and 7 million households watched Gilligan's Island on Fox last night." The idea is that even with incomplete information about a population we can narrow our range of uncertainty as to certain claims about that population.

Such claims rest on assumptions, typically assumptions as to the probabilistic distribution of data across a population. However, even these assumptions can be tested; for instance, once we draw a goodly amount of data, we can see how well it retro-fits into the assumed population probability distribution.

Irregularities aren't made to vanish by statistics; they vanish by themselves. But they only vanish by themselves if the data supports it. If the data is not indicative of any regularity, it's not as if one is artificially created.

One instance where regularities are almost automatically generated by statistics is encapsulated by the Central Limit Theorem. This theorem goes as follows: if you take a group of samples of data from a population, where each sample is comprised of n points of data, and you take the average value of each sample, then this average sample value will follow a normal (bell-shaped) distribution, provided n is sufficiently large-- regardless of the probability distribution you are drawing from. An excellent java demo of this effect is at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/stat_sim/sampling_dist/index.html .

How chaos ties into all this I can't say, but hopefully this will give you some more insight into how statistics works.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I agree, and from that I can only conclude there must be some unknown experimental error at work here. It seems like a relatively simple study - I'm wondering if it has been redone with slight variations in method (such as not using those two experimenters).

You can only conclude unknown experimental error because you are not willing to entertain the idea that some unknown but actual phenomenon might be at work here.

Not using these two experimenters would seem to defeat the point of the results, which show a correlation between data gathered and experimenter: an 'experimenter' effect. If anything, I think a sort of meta-experiment is appropriate using different variations of experimenters-- using Schlitz and Wiseman as the designated 'observors' while letting a third party run the rest of the experiment; letting Schlitz and Wiseman talk to participants while using third parties as 'observors' (although this has already been done in each of their initial experiments, with similar results to their joint experiment); letting Wiseman and Schlitz instruct a 3rd and 4th party how they conducted the subject conversation and observing, and letting those new parties take their respective places in the joint experiment; and so on.

But clearly we must pay special attention to what, if any, causal roles these experimenters have been playing in the experiments, without automatically attributing it to experimental error. Further research is needed to see what is truly responsible for the observed data.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by hypnagogue How chaos ties into all this I can't say, but hopefully this will give you some more insight into how statistics works.

James Gleik talks about the bell curve and Chaos starting on page 84 of the book. It's about a four page story about how a early pioneer in Chaos got an insight as to what was really happening in a situation where the bell curve just wouldn't work. Too long to quote here, but it gives me the notion that, knowing all you do about statistics, you would appreciate Chaos far more than I am capable of doing.

 

[hypnagogue]

Thanks zooby, I'll definitely have to look into that.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You can only conclude unknown experimental error because you are not willing to entertain the idea that some unknown but actual phenomenon might be at work here.

Quite right. I belong to the "extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence" camp. To convince me that its even POSSIBLE that there is some actual phenomenon at work here would require, at the very least, an experiment that is NOT fundamentally flawed. I don't think that's much to ask.

Not using these two experimenters would seem to defeat the point of the results, which show a correlation between data gathered and experimenter: an 'experimenter' effect.

Thats true if the goal is analyzing flaws in research methodology. If the goal is exploring the phenomenon, then an experiment that is not flawed should be done. If people have such a power, an experiment that is not flawed will show it. This seems self-evident to me...

...unless you are suggesting that step has already been covered. If such a power has already been proven, then certainly you could do an experiment about outside effects on this power. But as with MANY other types of off the mainstream science, it appears to me that the first step is being purposefully overlooked.

Further research is needed to see what is truly responsible for the observed data.

Which is why I think an experiment should be done that does NOT include experimentor effects. If a non-flawed experment is run, it will show whether the phenomenon exists and by implication what the actual effect of the experimentor is.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Quite right. I belong to the "extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence" camp. To convince me that its even POSSIBLE that there is some actual phenomenon at work here would require, at the very least, an experiment that is NOT fundamentally flawed. I don't think that's much to ask.

What a catch 22 this is! You seem to be operating with the logic of the following two statements:

1) If and only if there is no experimental flaw, I will consider that there is a genuine psi phenomenon.
2) If an experiment produces positive results in favor of psi, there must be an experimental flaw.

Given the two conditionals above, it is impossible to get from "an experiment produces positive results in favor of psi" to "I will consider that there is a genuine psi phenomenon." Obviously the flaw is in the 2nd conditional.

Assume for a moment that psi exists. Just how are we ever to establish that an experiment that produces positive results in favor psi is not experimentally flawed?

For that matter, what is the flaw in the Schlitz/Wiseman experiments? If you consider it to be the 'priming' done before their respective trial runs, I can only reiterate what I have said before:

1) Whether the data supports the existence of psi or not appears to be contingent upon who runs the experiment. So there seems to be an 'experimenter effect.' To replace the two experimenters with any 2 arbitrary experimenters and thus to remove the attitudes they display to the subjects ignores that the critical variable in this experiment appears to be the effect of the experimenter him/herself on the subjects before they produce the experimental data.

2) We can control for this as indicated in my last post, by running a sort of 'meta-experiment' where data is collected to concentrate on and map out any potential correlation between the experimenter and the experimental data. Such a meta-experiment would not necessarily be flawed in the way you seem to think the Schlitz/Wiseman experiment is, but the 'flaw' in that lower level experiment by necessity cannot be eliminated, since it is the critical variable differentiating the two sets of data. If we are comparing the differing behaviors of two systems that are identical except for one parameter P, then obviously we will not learn anything about the nature of the differing behaviors by setting P to be equivalent in both systems. Rather, we try to see exactly what kind of effect P has in influencing the systems to behave in their different respective manners by deliberately varying P and observing the different systematic behaviors it illicits.

 

[Zero]

hypnagogue, wouldn't it be better to change the experimental parameters, rather than juggle the data until you get the result you seek?

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
hypnagogue, wouldn't it be better to change the experimental parameters, rather than juggle the data until you get the result you seek?

No one is juggling data. Have you read the Schlitz/Wiseman paper?

The experimental parameters were identical. The only different parameter in the 2 sets of data were the experimenters themselves-- Schlitz or Wiseman. Therefore, the Schlitz/Wiseman experiment indicates that the differences in the data sets (supporting psi or not) lies not in the experimental parameters but in something to do with Schlitz or Wiseman themselves. (And before you say it, they took careful measures to prevent data tampering both by themselves and outside parties.)

Thus, it only makes sense to carry out further experiments to try to discern such an 'experimenter effect.'

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
No one is juggling data. Have you read the Schlitz/Wiseman paper?

The experimental parameters were identical. The only different parameter in the 2 sets of data were the experimenters themselves-- Schlitz or Wiseman. Therefore, the Schlitz/Wiseman experiment indicates that the differences in the data sets (supporting psi or not) lies not in the experimental parameters but in something to do with Schlitz or Wiseman themselves. (And before you say it, they took careful measures to prevent data tampering both by themselves and outside parties.)

Thus, it only makes sense to carry out further experiments to try to discern such an 'experimenter effect.'

Haven't read the paper...is there a link I missed?

You know, this reminds me of something else...hearing tests. I know it is possible to pass those and be stone deaf at the same time. I wonder how people do it, but I know it can be done. I'm intersted to see how the evaluation of the results is done. Do you subtract the misses from the hits, and count a positive score as a positive result?

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
Haven't read the paper...is there a link I missed?

There are a bunch of links in a post of mine on the 2nd page of this thread. You can read all about the methodology and such there. One of the compelling things about this experiment is that they didn't measure 'psychic correlation' or whatever it should be called via a deliberate choice/hit or miss setup, but rather unconscious fluctuations of nervous system activity as measured by skin conductace.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
What a catch 22 this is! You seem to be operating with the logic of the following two statements:

1) If and only if there is no experimental flaw, I will consider that there is a genuine psi phenomenon.
2) If an experiment produces positive results in favor of psi, there must be an experimental flaw.

Given the two conditionals above, it is impossible to get from "an experiment produces positive results in favor of psi" to "I will consider that there is a genuine psi phenomenon." Obviously the flaw is in the 2nd conditional.

#1 is fine and I don't see why there is anything wrong with it. #2 is not what I am saying. I'm saying it is possible to set up ahead of time, an experiment without the known flaws of this experiment.

By implying #2, YOU seem to be suggesting that only a flawed experiment could produce positive results. Are you suggesting that this phenomenon can only be explored through flawed experiments?

Assume for a moment that psi exists. Just how are we ever to establish that an experiment that produces positive results in favor psi is not experimentally flawed?

I really did already cover this. An experiment which by design has no experimentor impact: a simple (not just an extraneous word - a truly simple test eliminates ambiguity) and double-blind test. The test I described earlier about "touch therapy" was such a test. Unbiased tests really are a piece of cake to set up!

The catch-22 cuts both ways, zooby, and given my bias toward not accepting extrordinary claims without extrordinary evidence, I will NOT assume psi exists. It must be PROVEN to exist through experiments. I'm sorry, but that's how science works and MUST work.

Whether the data supports the existence of psi or not appears to be contingent upon who runs the experiment. So there seems to be an 'experimenter effect.'

"Experimenter effect" is synonomous with "experimenter error" so to me (and frankly, most scientists) such a statement is tantamount to an acknowledgment that there is no psi phenomenon at work here. A test for "experimenter effect" would have both the experimenter and the test subjects only THINKING the stated experimenter was the experimenter. But then - to those who assume psi does exist, such a test would not be satisfactory. I'm afraid there is no way out of that cath-22. It is unreasonable to demand that tests on phenomenon depend on a fundamental flaw in the test.

I know it is possible to pass those and be stone deaf at the same time. I wonder how people do it, but I know it can be done.

I am quite certain I've done it. I had a ruptured ear drum in high school that almost disqualified me from military service. I've taken so many ear tests, I'm sure being "trigger-happy" gives false-positive results.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by russ_watters
#1 is fine and I don't see why there is anything wrong with it. #2 is not what I am saying. I'm saying it is possible to set up ahead of time, an experiment without the known flaws of this experiment.

By implying #2, YOU seem to be suggesting that only a flawed experiment could produce positive results. Are you suggesting that this phenomenon can only be explored through flawed experiments? I really did already cover this. An experiment which by design has no experimentor impact: a simple (not just an extraneous word - a truly simple test eliminates ambiguity) and double-blind test. The test I described earlier about "touch therapy" was such a test. Unbiased tests really are a piece of cake to set up!

The catch-22 cuts both ways, zooby, and given my bias toward not accepting extrordinary claims without extrordinary evidence, I will NOT assume psi exists. It must be PROVEN to exist through experiments. I'm sorry, but that's how science works and MUST work. "Experimenter effect" is synonomous with "experimenter error" so to me (and frankly, most scientists) such a statement is tantamount to an acknowledgment that there is no psi phenomenon at work here.

First of all, I'm not zooby.

Secondly, I think your insistence on thinking of the experiment as 'flawed' has no true basis. It is 'flawed' only insofar as it did not follow ideal scientific protocol exactly. However, you have even admitted that the 'flaw' in the Schlitz/Wiseman experiment, according to the currently accepted scientific worldview, cannot fully account for the results they got. How is the 'flaw' an 'experimental error' when it cannot even be explained how the flaw systematically produced the data that it did? You are positing an 'experimental error' that we cannot explain using the current scientific paradigm, which doesn't really win you any points but only contradicts your position.

The Schiltz/Wiseman experiment seems to show a meaningful effect arising from the interaction between experimenter and test subject that cannot be accounted for by the currently accepted scientific worldview. Of course making the experiment double-blind could only hinder or even outright destroy this effect. But once again, the nature of the experimental data is such that the data cannot be explained even by the non-double blind nature of this experiment if we adhere to the currently accepted paradigm. This is why I think it is perfectly acceptable that these tests have not been completely double blind.

By not making them completely double blind, Schlitz and Wiseman seem to have uncovered an interesting affect that cannot be explained by currently accepted scientific paradigms-- whether you think of it as an 'error' or not. The existence (and reproduction) of data that cannot be accounted for intelligibly should should lead us to scrutinize more closely the apparent 'experimenter effect' in future experiments to see what (if anything) there really is to it, NOT to revert to experimental designs that necessarily prevent us from scrutinizing this effect altogether.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
First of all, I'm not zooby.

Oops. Sorry.

Secondly, I think your insistence on thinking of the experiment as 'flawed' has no true basis. It is 'flawed' only insofar as it did not follow ideal scientific protocol exactly.

Thats by definition of course. If an experiment doesn't follow the scientific "protocol" it is by definition, flawed.

However, you have even admitted that the 'flaw' in the Schlitz/Wiseman experiment, according to the currently accepted scientific worldview, cannot fully account for the results they got. How is the 'flaw' an 'experimental error' when it cannot even be explained how the flaw systematically produced the data that it did? You are positing an 'experimental error' that we cannot explain using the current scientific paradigm, which doesn't really win you any points but only contradicts your position.

I don't think so. There is a difference between finding that there is a flaw and figuring out what that flaw is. I see no reason to require that a flaw be explained in order to show it exists. Indeed, that's again the way science works. Data is data. It doesn't require a theory to explain it to be valid. It would be nice, but either way, the data must always come first.

The existence (and reproduction) of data that cannot be accounted for intelligibly should should lead us to scrutinize more closely the apparent 'experimenter effect' in future experiments to see what (if anything) there really is to it, NOT to revert to experimental designs that necessarily prevent us from scrutinizing this effect altogether.

I didn't say we shouldn't scrutinize this effect. Indeed, I suggest just the opposite: experiments be constructed in ways that could help pinpoint the source of the error.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
There are a bunch of links in a post of mine on the 2nd page of this thread. You can read all about the methodology and such there. One of the compelling things about this experiment is that they didn't measure 'psychic correlation' or whatever it should be called via a deliberate choice/hit or miss setup, but rather unconscious fluctuations of nervous system activity as measured by skin conductace.

What is compelling is that the experimenter suggested that she believed in it, which could skew the skin conductance results, in the same way that nervousness at the doctor's office raises blood pressure.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats by definition of course. If an experiment doesn't follow the scientific "protocol" it is by definition, flawed.

Right... but if this is a truly valid psi effect, then it is really scientific protocol itself that is flawed (in this instance, at least-- not saying that science is suddenly invalid, but rather that there would be an existing phenomenon that it couldn't detect without considering the experiment flawed. Which is bad.)

I don't think so. There is a difference between finding that there is a flaw and figuring out what that flaw is. I see no reason to require that a flaw be explained in order to show it exists. Indeed, that's again the way science works. Data is data. It doesn't require a theory to explain it to be valid. It would be nice, but either way, the data must always come first.

How do you know that there is a flaw without knowing what it is? Just because you defined it that way? That's not a good way to conduct our thinking.

The point is that if you believe that everything said in the paper is true, then you cannot come up with an explanation for how this error works WITHOUT assuming some kind of psi effect anyway. Or, if you think you can, I'd like to hear it.

I didn't say we shouldn't scrutinize this effect. Indeed, I suggest just the opposite: experiments be constructed in ways that could help pinpoint the source of the error.

Right, fine-- but these experiments must be 'meta-experiments' of the type I have outlined. If you destroy the unique interaction between experimenter and subject, then you have destroyed the hypothesized cause of the effect-- in other words, you're not really testing for it in the first place. This is why I proposed that the experimenter/subject interaction continue to take place, and to allow a meta-experimenter overseeing the entire thing to be the truly objective one, just observing the effects of the interactions between the lower level 'experimenter' and his/her subjects.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
What is compelling is that the experimenter suggested that she believed in it, which could skew the skin conductance results, in the same way that nervousness at the doctor's office raises blood pressure.

The compelling evidence is not that the average skin conductance for Schlitz's subjects were higher. The compelling evidence is that their skin conductances jumped precisely when they were being observed via the closed circuit TV. That is really something entirely different from what you implied in your response.