• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New PSI forum

Lucianarchy said:
Just because you have not found evidence of the paranormal, that does not mean that you are not deluding yourself. Indeed, given the huge body of evidence (not proof, evidence, don't forget that), which you apparently dismiss, it is highly likely that you are, in fact, deluding* yourself. None of the issues which have been raised in this thread, for example, have been debunked. As such, they are they remain supporting evidence for a 'paranormal' effect.

( * In psychology, we call this effect - 'cognitive dissonance'. )
Click to expand...

Body of a grown man -- mind of a teenager who has read 'Psychology for Dummies'.

Who is the 'we' in:

( * In psychology, we call this effect - 'cognitive dissonance'. )

Is Lucianarchy a psychologist now?

A true Legend in his own mind


:(
 
Lucianarchy said:
The bottom line, it's a security threat, until it is controlled.
Click to expand...

This is rather funny: You have absolutely no problem with coming up with these predictions in public, and even boasting - and boosting - about them.

But when they turn out not to become true, you try to paint a picture of cloak-and-dagger, with references to secret services, national security, etc.

You are very, very transparent.
 
Lucianarchy,

Just answer my questions - or at least have the decency to point me to links or threads where you believe they have been answered.

As for the "security issue":
:bs:
 
Lucianarchy said:
Just because you have not found evidence of the paranormal, that does not mean that you are not deluding yourself. Indeed, given the huge body of evidence (not proof, evidence, don't forget that), which you apparently dismiss, it is highly likely that you are, in fact, deluding* yourself. None of the issues which have been raised in this thread, for example, have been debunked. As such, they are they remain supporting evidence for a 'paranormal' effect.

( * In psychology, we call this effect - 'cognitive dissonance'. )
Click to expand...
Wrong again.
Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is a hypothetical state that occurs when two cognitions contradict eachother. For example, "I believe I have magical predictive powers" and "I am not a looney", in your case.
These two thoughs are contradictory and produce a drive to reduce that dissonance, according to the theory. Thus you rationalize your repeated failures to predict anything with lame excuses that satisfy no one but you.
That's what "we" call cognitive dissonance.
 
Parapsychological, and even psychological experiments, may yield different outcomes depending upon the experimenters who conduct them. Personal characteristics of experimenters may influence the results of experiments in which humans or animals participate. Many such experimenter effects are quite likely mediated by conventional sensory cues. Experimenters may use slightly different instructions, different vocal intonations, gestures, and other forms of nonverbal communication and these "messages" could influence participants in the studies. Dr. Robert Rosenthal of Harvard University has conducted the most extensive work in this area.
Experimenter effects, however, can also be psi-mediated. Experimenters (or other involved personnel) can apparently influence their subjects without ever coming into physical contact with them. The parapsychological literature is filled with possible psi-mediated experimenter effects. For example, a famous series of ESP experiments indicated that people who simply checked results after an experiment seemed to have consistent influences upon their subjectsÂ’ earlier psi performance. A second example: It is well known that certain experimenters obtain consistently good results in their experiments, while other experimenters are well known for their negative findings. Many of the psi-conducive experimenters are known to have demonstrated strong psi performance themselves when participating in their own or othersÂ’ experiments. So it is not inconceivable that some experimenters may use their own psi, quite unconsciously, to influence the success or failure of their own studies.

The problem with the psi-mediated experimenter effect is that it can be used as an empty, untestable excuse or pseudo-explanation for all sorts of findings, if we are not careful. Also, since we know of no way to remove such an effect, it is difficult to know which of our findings are discoveries of lawful relationships and which are psi-fulfilled expectations of psi-talented investigations. Hopefully, in the future we may develop some adequate methodologies for dealing with this important issue.

Excellent examples of research on experimenter effects in psi research can be seen in two recent experiments by Dr. Marilyn Schlitz and Dr Richard Wiseman. Dr. Schlitz, the director of research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, designed a rigorous randomized trial evaluating whether subjects could detect another person staring at them from a distance (over a closed-circuit television system). The study yielded statistically significant positive results. When her skeptical colleague, British psychologist Richard Wiseman, failed to replicate the results, he invited her to England to repeat the experiment along with him in two separate but equal trials using the same subjects and the same equipment, and once again she got positive results and he got negative ones.
Click to expand...

http://www.psiexplorer.com/experimenter_effect.htm
 
FREQUENTLY, WHEN SOMEONE claims a positive psi result, Dr. Richard Wiseman appears in the media giving reasons why it probably isn't psi, often quoting a similar experiment that he has done which has failed. To his credit, he has been exploring his consistent failure with Marilyn Schlitz (1998) and they have discovered that whether in his lab or hers just by having Richard involved as experimenter the experiment will fail. However, I have never yet heard Richard mention this when telling the media of yet another of his failed experiments. I also know him as an accomplished stage magician and member of the Magic Circle who performed at the SPR Christmas meeting in 1998. The use of magicians in psychical research is important. They are aware of all the tricks that can be used to manipulate people and can thus help separate true results from false ones. However, it seems dubious that they should be performing experiments themselves. With their powers of manipulation they could easily, even subconsciously, be getting the results they want. Perhaps this is the origin of the Wiseman experimenter effect.
Click to expand...

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/O'Neill.htm
 
REFERENCES

BRAUD, W., SHAFER, D., & ANDREWS, S. (1993a). Reactions to an unseen gaze (remote attention): A review, with new data on autonomic staring detection. Journal of Parapsychology, 57, 373-390.

BRAUD, W., SHAFER, D., & ANDREWS, S. (1993b). Further studies of autonomic detection of remote staring: replications, new control procedures, and personality correlates. Journal of Parapsychology, 57, 391-409.

COOVER, J. E. (1913). The feeling of being stared at. American Journal of Psychology, 24, 570-575.

PALMER, J. (1986). ESP research findings: the process approach. In H. L. Edge, R. L. Morris, J. Palmer, & J. H. Rush (Eds.), Foundations of parapsychology (pp. 184-222). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

PALMER, J. (1989a). Confronting the experimenter effect. Parapsychology Review, 20, 1-4.

PALMER, J. (1989b). Confronting the experimenter effect. Part 2. Parapsychology Review, 20(5), 1-5.

PETERSON, D. M. (1978). Through the looking glass: an investigation of extra-sensory detection of being stared at. M.A. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

POORTMAN, J. J. (1959). The feeling of being stared at, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 40, 4-12.

ROBSON, C. (1983). Experiment, design and statistics in psychology. London: Penguin Books.

SCHLITZ, M. J., & LABERGE, S. (1997). Covert observation increases skin conductance in subjects unaware of when they are being observed: A replication. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 185-196.

TITCHENER, E. B. (1898). The feeling of being stared at. Science, 8, 895-897.

WILLIAMS, L. (1983). Minimal cue perception of the regard of others: The feeling of being stared at. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Southeastern Regional Parapsychological Association, West Georgia College, Carrollton, GA. See Journal of Parapsychology, 47, 59-60.

WISEMAN, R., & SCHLITZ, M. (1996). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 39th Annual Convention, 149-157.

WISEMAN, R., & SMITH, M. D. (1994). A further look at the detection of unseen gaze. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 37th Annual Convention, 465-478.

WISEMAN, R., SMITH, M. D., FREEDMAN, D., WASSERMAN, T., & HURST, C. (1995). Two further experiments concerning the remote detection of an unseen gaze. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 38th Annual Convention, 480-492. Dept. of Psychology University of Hertfordshire College Lane Hatfzeld, Hertfordshire England AL10 9AB UK Institute of Noetic Sciences 475 Gate Five Road Suite 300 Sausalito, CA 94965
 
What made these results even more notable was what happened next. To ensure the validity of her data, Schlitz enrolled the assistance of a skeptical researcher from England, named Richard Wiseman. Following all of the same protocols that Schlitz had, Wiseman did not get any significant results. To see if he had done anything different, Schlitz went to England and did the experiment together with Wiseman. What they found is that the subjects who did the experiment with Schlitz produced significant results, while Wiseman’s did not. These findings were repeated in a second study conducted in Schlitz’ lab in California. Altogether, this has lead Schlitz to postulate that there is a significant "experimenter effect" that is occurring. She believes that it is likely that her own openness and positivity, in contrast to Wiseman’s skepticism, had, in fact, influenced their results. Even the skeptical Wiseman now believes there is something significant going on in the studies, although he is not certain what it is yet. After hearing about the results of their series of experiments, George Leonard coined the term "the Schlitz-Wiseman Effect" to describe how the intentions of the experimenter have a definite influence upon the results.
Click to expand...

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=8&pageid=77&pgtype=1
 
Your point??

Does this bring anything new to the table?

Or is it simply a rehash of debunked material?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom