Dowsing by a Skeptic

[Garrette]

Can anyone point me at respectable journal articles on reproducing (or failing to do so) the Sheep-goat Effect? I am interested in what sort of controls were used. The controls attributed to the original experiment come up a bit short.

There are two versions of Sheep-Goat Effect. The first, and more accurate, usage is as Limbo has used it, i.e., the effect of belief vs. non-belief of the subject in regard to a subject's performance in an experiment.

The second, less accurate, usage is the effect of belief vs. non-belief of the experimenter in regard to the subject's performance in an experiment. This should be called the Experimenter Effect.

The term was coined by Gertrude Schmeidler in 1958, but I cannot find an actual paper of the studies, though there are multiple references to them. Whether they appeared in a reputable journal or not, I do not know. She has a couple of books out, though, which by their titles appear to be associated with the idea. Here's one.

I do not know if the British Journal of Psychology is a respectable journal, but here is an abstract of a paper regarding the Sheep-Goat effect. The paper itself requires payment; I have not read it, but the abstract is informative.
This is a paper regarding the Experimenter Effect.

Here is the abstract of another paper by the same author, this time in the Journal of Consciousness Studies.

 

[Olowkow]

Done it many times to find out who the good hypnotism subjects were. Also as a party trick under the guise of a lie detector.

I took an excellent course on pseudo-science a few years ago. The prof gave several demonstrations of all kinds of topics, but one really stuck with me.

In a class of 45 people, he had each of us write down H or T (heads/tails) in a random sequence as if we had flipped a coin 100 times.

He then asked, "How many of you had a sequence of 10 consecutive Head or Tails?" "How may had a sequence of 9....8...7...6...5....4....3 consecutive Heads or Tails?" He wrote the tallies on the white board.

The professor then had us do the same thing with a real penny, flipping it 100 times and recording the results. He actually let us keep the pennies! He then asked the same questions as above.

I will explain the results if anyone is interested. But I wonder if anyone can guess or intuit what might have happened? What was the noticeable difference between the two runs of 100: human simulated random, vs. real random events. Hint, the principles involved are actually used by law enforcement and have resulted in convictions, or so I'm told.

Here! I want to hear the rest of the story.

I'm guessing that the human generated sequences were more "random" than the coin generated sequences.

I think you are right...the human-generated sequences would have fewer long runs of T or H than the actual coin tosses (unless some evil old skeptic was messing with them).

Me too!

My intuition is that I'd try to break any patterns in order to be random. However, knowing myself to have a perverse impulse, I'd also include some repeats and patterns, just to break the break.

Tis a mess?

We have winners! Yes indeed. When we create what we believe to be a random sequence, we avoid lengthy sequences of Heads or Tails, while the actual random tosses produced a few sequences of 8, 7,6, etc.

Don't hold me to the exact numbers, memory fades, but IIRC there were no human created sequences of 8, 7, or 6 of the same coin side. One or two persons had a sequence of 5 H or T, out of 45 people in the class. Of course lots of people had sequences 4, 3, or 2 H/T.

We were all on the honor system to state that we had never heard of this phenomenon before. I liked the class so much I took it twice, and of course opted out the second time.

It turns out that investigators can put this principle to use in crime solving and is credible enough to hold up in court. Can't recall exactly the story, but there was podcast about it a while back.


ETA: Still looking for the court case to no avail.

By humans

Random number generation may also be done by humans directly. However, most studies find that human subjects have some degree of nonrandomness when generating a random sequence of, e.g., digits or letters. They may alternate too much between choices compared to a good random generator.[9]

 

[Olowkow]

I agree that the dowser's unconscious mind uses the ideomotor effect to communicate information to their conscious mind, but if the information had a paranormal origin they would get the same success rate in the blinded test as they do in the unblinded one. The dowser's unconscious mind simply makes the best guess it can based on the information available to our normal senses; when it has no such information it guesses randomly.

If I understand the claims of dowsers, it is the blinding of the test that in and of itself destroys the ability to dowse...creates stress, or takes away the spontaneity. Kind of like the double slit experiment. Detect one of the particles passing through a slit, and the interference pattern instantly disappears.

Quantum!

 

[Limbo]

They are just as much "out of their usual methodology and environment" when they do the open test immediately before doing the blinded one, yet it doesn't seem to bother them then.

And it's not "sometimes"; it's every single time. 100% success in the open test, no better than chance in the blinded one.

Why should it bother them? A dowser doesn't have to be familiar with the parapsychological literature in order to be a dowser. The only way a dowser could suspect the truth is through familiarity with the literature.

According to the research of Persinger, magnetic fields in the environment are involved in psychic functioning. Magnetic fields fluxuate. Change the environment and you change those, along with changing the psychology of the dowser. How is the MDC going to make sure that the magnetic fields are psi-conducive?

A dowser off the street would have no reason to suspect that, and no way to control all the variables that influence psi.

 

[EHocking]

Funny how the MDC seems to banish all dowser's "capabilities" . . . . . . but they are still capable of taking money from the gullible farmer who needs to drill a well.

 

[Olowkow]

I'm sure that's the case, sometimes. Take a dowser out of their usual methodology and environment, and you introduce psychological changes. You change their attitude, and introduce uncertainty. Many variables can and do influence psychic ability. Environmental, psychological, physiological. Change a few, and you screw up the flow of information.

Dangle a million dollars in front of their nose and you really screw up their psychology.

It's a very clever scam you guys got going.

How about doing the test for free, no million bucks?

After a tantric massage, perform a preliminary or calibration run with the target in view to assure the dowser's powers are not being compromised by surrounding magnetic, quantum or dark matter effects, have only minimal disturbance such as a neutral agreed upon assistant calmly holding a paper with pleasant pictures of happy squid, gerbils or bunny rabbits in front of the dowser's eyes, while a machine randomly and silently moves the target beneath the device that hides it?

After a gentle nod as a "ready" signal from the assistant holding the blinder card and diverting his eyes in the subdued light of scented candles, of course, dowsing could be done in calm serene meditative silence with Pandit Ravi Shankar sitar, tabla, or harmonium music quietly droning in the background, and sandalwood incense or any other amenities requested by the dowser, providing the perfect mood.

Would that work?

 

[Pixel42]

By "it doesn't bother them" I meant it doesn't stop them being 100% successful. They are invariably utterly convinced that they will do just as well in the blinded test, yet they don't.

Your hypothetical fluctuating magnetic fields don't seem to stop them being 100% successful in the open test either. Nothing does, yet when it comes to the blinded test they don't even do a tiny bit better than chance.

 

[Limbo]

How about doing the test for free, no million bucks?

After a preliminary run to assure the dowser's powers are not compromised by surrounding magnetic, quantum or dark matter effects, have only minimal disturbance such as a neutral agreed upon assistant calmly holding a paper with pleasant pictures happy squid or bunny rabbits in front of the dowser's eyes, while a machine randomly and silently moves the target beneath the device that hides it?

After a gentle nod as a "ready" signal from the assistant holding the blinder card and diverting his eyes in the subdued light of scented candles, of course, dowsing could be done in calm serene meditative silence with Pandit Ravi Shankar sitar, tabla, or harmonium music quietly droning in the background, and sandalwood incense or any other amenities requested by the dowser, providing the perfect mood.

Would that work?

If JREF really wanted to give away a million bucks, it would go hang out with Dr Persinger and Sean Harribance for a few weeks.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9l6VPpDublg

 

[Limbo]

By "it doesn't bother them" I meant it doesn't stop them being 100% successful. They are invariably utterly convinced that they will do just as well in the blinded test, yet they don't.

Your hypothetical fluctuating magnetic fields don't seem to stop them being 100% successful in the open test either. Nothing does, yet when it comes to the blinded test they don't even do a tiny bit better than chance.

As I said, there are environmental, psychological, and physiological variables. If you can find a way to blind someone without changing their psychology, go for it.

Then after that, find a way to make sure that the unconscious psychic functions of the testers aren't interferring with the money shot.

 

[Olowkow]

If JREF really wanted to give away a million bucks, it would go hang out with Dr Persinger and Sean Harribance for a few weeks.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9l6VPpDublg

First of all, please answer the question. Would my scenario work as a protocol for dowsing or not?

Second, the way the game works is, you get to believe whatever you want to believe. I get to believe whatever I want. In order for you to get me to believe what you believe, which seems to be one of your goals, you need to convince me with evidence, not merely with weight of claims and obscure posts.

Third, it is quite rude to drop a poorly formatted YT video of probably an hour's length into a conversation with no comment. I think most of us know what he has to say.

I don't care if you think Persinger is a genius. I don't, but you get to think whatever you want.

I am interested in knowing how we can proceed in a credible way to decide whether dowsing can be successfully tested to the satisfaction of both parties, your derails notwithstanding.

 

[Olowkow]

As I said, there are environmental, psychological, and physiological variables. If you can find a way to blind someone without changing their psychology, go for it.

Then after that, find a way to make sure that the unconscious psychic functions of the testers aren't interferring with the money shot.

Please tell us how to proceed to fulfill these requirements, and we will.

 

[Garrette]

If JREF really wanted to give away a million bucks, it would go hang out with Dr Persinger and Sean Harribance for a few weeks.

Giving away a million bucks is neither the goal nor the point. Having someone earn it by demonstrating the claim is the point. Having read your posts for some time now, I know that you know this.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9l6VPpDublg

[/quote]Why was that spoilered? I didn't watch it all, but the bits I did were unconvincing. To summarize: (1) The earth's geomagnetic field works to either create or enhance the connectedness of all human brains (2) The earth's geomagnetic field stores the knowledge, experience, consciousness of all humans which is therefore accessible by all other humans.

I'm afraid there's nothing there there, as is made clear by one of the comments which points out that the good Dr. Persinger misrepresents entanglement (he says measuring the spin of one particle "changes" the spin of the other; this is fundamentally wrong and does not bode well for the rest of his ideas).

As I said, there are environmental, psychological, and physiological variables. If you can find a way to blind someone without changing their psychology, go for it.

Nope. You have a claim; find a way to demonstrate it. Til now, what you and everyone else have done is continued the claim, modifying its parameters to excuse its failures while consistently failing to demonstrate its success.

Then after that, find a way to make sure that the unconscious psychic functions of the testers aren't interferring with the money shot.

Nah. See above.

 

[Pixel42]

As I said, there are environmental, psychological, and physiological variables.

And as I said, these variables do not seem to stop dowsers achieving 100% success in the open test. If they're sufficient to affect the blind test - affect it so much that the dowser doesn't just have a reduced success rate but a zero one - then they should also affect the open one at least a little. So why don't they?

 

[Limbo]

First of all, please answer the question. Would my scenario work as a protocol for dowsing or not?

I don't know. I doubt it.

I think most of us know what he has to say.

I doubt it.

Please tell us how to proceed to fulfill these requirements, and we will.

I already did. Awakened consciousness. Without that, the trickster tales of the MDC go on and on.

"Coyote was going along..."

 

[Dubious Dick]

So, the nub of the Limbo argument, as was predictable from the first post, and is explicitly stated in the signature lines, is that all we have to do is believe and have faith and all will become clear.

This is just the Tinkerbell argument, and deserves as much credit as one should give to any fairytale.

Faith is belief without evidence. An utterly pointless exercise in fantasy fulfillment.

There are plenty of fascinating things that can be discovered using the scientific method. What on earth is the point in wasting time on anything else. Life is just too damn short.

 

[Olowkow]

Dowsing has that tiny grain of plausibility, like cold fusion did. At first blush, it doesn't seem totally bonkers as claimed. We hear stories of Aborigines finding water in the desert using their highly developed skills or even senses such as smell, taste or feeling of some sort. So, this may be why dowsers have ever even had any place at all within the realm of potentially interesting phenomena, rather than being relegated to the group of persons claiming to be Napoleon.

Dowsing could very well be a process that permits humans to display, via their dowsing rods, inner knowledge of water locations produced by means of very real natural senses we don't fully access all the time. But the minute the skeptic begins to question the talent of dowsers, it seems to quickly run for cover amid the supernatural phenomena that enjoy more popularity among the general public. They then proceed to circle the wagons and prevent any further elucidation of dowsing.

Since dowsers don't bother to pursue understanding their talents, they mistakenly extrapolate what just might be interesting abilities to a broad range of woo, like dowsing on maps or for information, meteorites or asking the rods how deep something is.

 

[Giordano]

I'm sure that's the case, sometimes. Take a dowser out of their usual methodology and environment, and you introduce psychological changes. You change their attitude, and introduce uncertainty. Many variables can and do influence psychic ability. Environmental, psychological, physiological. Change a few, and you screw up the flow of information.

Dangle a million dollars in front of their nose and you really screw up their psychology.

It's a very clever scam you guys got going.

But it works almost every time under the same methodology and environment when the dowser knows where the target is. And getting paid to find a well is very different from getting the prize money. Or when using the correct methodology informally when just trying it for yourself. Has anyone taken the test but turned down in advance the money?

Clever scam: offering $ 1 million for doing what you claim you do all the time. Devious.

 

[Rincewind]

OK - I'm curious.

Too much psi would not help us to survive, and neither would too little.

Why?

 

[Lorentz]

People seem to like the word believe a lot here. I hate the word. I believe in nothing. Belief only possible in the absence of Knowledge, in other words when you don't know, and if you don't know then what's the point ?

I know literally nothing.
I think some things likely. Some things very likely.
Dowsing... not likely at all.
If you can do it despite my disbelief, pick up an easy fortune by dowsing for oil, I say. Also, send me 10 bucks.

 

[tsig]

So, the nub of the Limbo argument, as was predictable from the first post, and is explicitly stated in the signature lines, is that all we have to do is believe and have faith and all will become clear.

This is just the Tinkerbell argument, and deserves as much credit as one should give to any fairytale.

Faith is belief without evidence. An utterly pointless exercise in fantasy fulfillment.

There are plenty of fascinating things that can be discovered using the scientific method. What on earth is the point in wasting time on anything else. Life is just too damn short.

The scientific method is hard, you have to study, research and experiment, IOW you have to do something, the mystic merely has to look into their own mind and lo there is the secret of the universe.

The first step on the mystical path is to fool yourself.