Paranormal detection

[wardenclyffe]

reason1 said:
"i don't think i can detect when someone stares at my picture."

That is something that should definitely be self-tested. Anyone who is conducting this test will need to know if they can look at a live feed on a monitor or if they need to record it and look at it later. Also, can staring at something else be detected? Perhaps the ability can detect anyone staring at anything in the vicinity. Every precaution must be taken to eliminate any interference. This is what self-testing is for. It gives the testee all the advantage of knowing exactly how to eliminate potential problems that would make them fail in a formal test.

Ward

 

[Robert Oz]

Also there are some flaws in arthwollipot's protocol that will not make it suitable. I'll post them later and also answer your other questions

reason1,

As others have stated, your own protocol is not sufficient. I, too, am interested in hearing about the flaws in arthwollipot's protocol. I, personally, see none.

Re: Your suggested protocol.

1. A public place is no good for a controlled test. Way too many people to keep track of.

2. Many, many people will be staring at someone sitting a test in public. It would probably be harder to pick the person not looking at you.

3. Many people will begin to stare at you as you are turning your head and before you see them. This is one of the key problems with turning around to identify starers. It is also a main reason people believe they can tell when they are being stared at.

4. As you turn around, you might notice starers from your peripheral vision and zero in on them without even realising that this is the method you are using.

I think you need to keep in mind the following when preparing a protocol:

1. The test should be in a closed room.

2. The test should involve a small number of people.

3. The starers should be selected at random.

4. Ideally, you need to identify the starer without turning around.

Similar tests have already been suggested, but what is wrong with this:

You sit in a chair facing a wall. Behind you, spread out in an arch are six people. Each of the six people are given a number from 1 to 6 and stare at a monitor controlled by a seventh person. The seventh person rolls a die. He/she then displays the number on the monitor. The person with the corresponding number turns his/her head to stare at you. The seventh person announces the test has begun and you select the person (from 1 to 6) that is staring at you. Repeat the test 20 times.

Or if you are adamant on turning around, how about this:

You sit in a chair facing a wall. Behind you are two people, one to your left and one to your right. They are labelled heads and tails and stare at a monitor controlled by a third person. The third person flips a coin. He/she then displays the result on the monitor. The person with the corresponding label turns his/her head to stare at you. The third person announces the test has begun and you turn to your left or right and look at the person you believe is staring at you. Repeat the test 20 times.

 

[Hokulele]

Or, if you really want to include direction as well, you could sit inside a screened area with a video camera and with people distributed about outside the screen. After a random person is chosen to stare at you, you can point in the direction in which the staring is originating and the direction will be captured by the camera.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Can you be specific as to why it has to be a public place?

Does your ability only seem to you to work in large groups with sensations coming from all directions? Or is it that you think this is the best way to achieve volume, and thus prove that you're honing in on the precise starer.

If it's the former, then perhaps you could sit with your back to the audience in a small auditorium. Pre-ordain seat numbers and identify without turning which of them is staring at you whenever a light goes on to indicate "ready"(and the starer would be chosen by dice or random number selection).

If it's to achieve a sufficient volume of strangers, that could be achieved by taking Arthwollipot's method and instead of having a set number of persons behind you in the room, have a room with two doors, both behind you. 100 people could enter at a pace so that there are 1, 2, or 3 (or more, depending on the size of the room and the pace at which they pass through it) in the room at a time, and as they're passing through they would either stare or not stare at you (toss of a coin just before they enter the space).

In whichever method you propose, I think you have to get away from the notion that you'll identify the person by turning towards him/her. This may be a trick of your own perception, as metnioned already above. As you turn to observe the starer you see someone now looking at you and go "Ah ha!", but was that the person you were sure of a moment ago? The only way to know that is for you to identify the person before you turn.

Taking the "back to auditorium" model, I'd be impressed if you could simply put an audience of fifty people into five color groups and with your back turned consistently identify which of the groups had the starer for that particular round. If you could identify the specific person over and over (e.g. Blue 7), you'd prove your case.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Reason1 - does the person have to be in the same space as you? Could the person stare at you through, say, a sheet of glass such as a window?

Would you still be able to detect the person staring at you if you were completely blindfolded (say, a set of swimming goggles painted black on the inside)?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

See, here's the trick: you've got to come up with a test whose results are completely self-evident.

This means that neither you, nor JREF, should decide whether or not you were successful. You either were, or were not.

Also, you have to think of all of the other mundane things that might be happening, then control for them, so that the only explanation left is that you actually are paranormally detecting someone staring at you. You should not, for example, be able to see them with your peripheral vision, or hear them moving around.

This is why I suggest separate rooms, and why I suggest a blindfold -- it controls for you hearing people move, and turning your head unconsciously to see someone with your peripheral vision.

So I would suggest something like this:

Materials:
1 blindfold (swimming goggles painted black*)
1 6-sided die
two rooms separated by a viewing window
Table (in the sender room)
Photo (taped to the table)
a screen
two chairs, in the claimant room, facing the wall opposite the viewing window and at least 15' away from the viewing window. The screen is placed between one chair and the window (this is the claimant's observer's chair) and the other is placed square in the center of the viewing window's field of view (this is the observer's chair).
2 digital watches
two two-way radios with key capability (preferably radios that will send a tone of a set duration, rather than ones that will key as long as the button is held)
Sufficient video cameras to record the proceedings.

Participants:
claimant
"sender"
two observers/assistants, each equipped with clipboard, paper, and pen

Protocol:
The sender pair (sender & observer) and the claimant pair (claimant and assistant) each take a digital watch and synchronize the watches together. The claimant pair then goes into the room with the chairs and the sender pair goes into the other room. The claimant takes a seat in the claimant's chair and puts on the blindfold. The claimant's observer sits in the screened chair.

Procedure:
When everyone is in place and the claimant is ready, the claimant's observer sends a single key tone to the sender's observer via the radios.

After this tone is received and when the sender is ready, the sender's observant waits until the top of the minute and sends a single key tone to the claimant's observer. This lets the claimant's observer know that the first sending attempt will occur at the top of the NEXT minute.

The sender rolls the die. On a roll of 1-3, the target is the claimant. One a roll of 4-6, the target is the photo taped to the table. The sender announces the roll and target (for example: "Two, claimant.") and continues to look at the die. The observer records the roll and the target (e.g., "2,C"). Then, at the top of the next minute, the observer says "go" and the sender either stares through the window at the back of the claimant's head, or at the photo taped to the table, as indicated by the roll.

At precisely x** seconds after the sender has started staring at the indicated target, both observers say "stop". The sender stops staring and the claimant announces whether the sender was or was not staring at him or her. The claimant's observer records the answer. When the sender is ready to proceed, the claimant's observer keys the radio and the process is repeated.

This process shall be repeated for a total of 10 tests.

When all ten tests have been completed, the sender pair will go into the claimant's room. The observers will compare lists.

The test is considered a success of the claimant is able to correctly determine whether he/she was or was not the target all ten times. On a score of 9 or less, the test is considered a failure.

(I say 10 out of 10 to fulfill the 1:1000 chance that's usually used with protocols of this type. You could say 10 out of 15, or repeat the ten attempts in several sets, if you find that your success rate is not 100% in ten tries.)

*You'll need some way of determining that the claimant is well and truly unable to see. Perhaps you could tape quarters to his/her eyelids too, or otherwise find some kind of test to make sure that the claimant can't see.

**To be determined by reason1. How long does it take for you to make your determination?

-=-=-=-=-

You should try this at home. An easy way to do this would be to use a porch or patio, if you have one. Your "sender pair" is inside the house and your "claimant pair" is outside on the porch.

You might wonder what the business is with the key tone from the radio, the top of the minute, and the screen. This is all to keep the observers from communicating with one another, or your observer from seeing what's going on in the sending room and then either sending you intentional or unintentional signals as to what the result was. Remember, we want to control for all kinds of conscious or subconscious cueing, so that we are absolutely sure that the only possible remaining explanation is that you're doing this paranormally.

 

[arthwollipot]

Hi all,
regarding arthwollipot protocol:
i didn't mean that i want many people around me for the test ,i meant the public place will have many people that are passing by in all directions and i will identify the ones who stare at me among the crowd passing around me.

Random passersby are impossible to control, and therefore render the scientific investigation of a claim invalid. All variables need to be controlled, otherwise you cannot avoid ambiguity.

I mean what are the chances that I'll identify for example 5 people who stare out of 100 random people ?

Quite good actually. It all depends on your definition of "stare". How long a look constitutes a "stare"? 1 second? 5 seconds? Furthermore, as someone else has pointed out, once you look at someone, they will look back.

Most animals have a natural reaction to seeing eyes, even in their peripheral vision. You can try it with a cat. Stare at a cat for a while and the moment they notice that you're staring at them, their eyes will lock on to you. Humans do this too.

Also your protocol will not allow me to tell the exact location of the staring person
what do you say ?

This is very true. But I was working only on one claim at a time. You have claimed that (a) you can detect when someone is staring at you and (b) you can identify in what direction they are. Since the second claim is absolutely dependent on the validity of the first, only the first needs to be tested in order to determine whether you have a true ability. To test this ability we need to cut out as many variables as possible. In this case, one starer means that there is a simple binary choice. Are you being stared at? Yes/No. If you get results that are stastically greater than guessing, then you may have an actual ability.

Adding multiple people staring, milling about in a public place, etc, serves only to complicate the issue. The question is whether you can detect when you are being stared at. My protocol isolates this question and provides an unambiguous answer.

As noted in a previous post, my protocol is almost identical to the one used by Rupert Sheldrake in his morphic field/extended mind studies. However, he incorporated immediate feedback in the form of "Am I staring now?" "Yes." "No, you're wrong." I never saw a need for this, and I have eliminated it from my protocol.

Again, the question is "can you detect when you are being stared at?". There is no need to complicate the question.

 

[reason1]

Thanks everyone,
Regarding your protocol arthwollipot:
How do I guarantee that the staring did actually occur, people could easily cheat!.
Maybe no one stared at all, pretended to stare while looking just beside me or looked at me but not see me. We all know that we can look at a thing while we are not seeing it, for example while we are intensively thinking about something else.
This is uncontrolled test that will also allow cheating on part of the individuals who are chosen to stare.

Actually this doesn't even count as staring, this is acting staring:
Staring is when you look at something for a while because you desire to,
If you are looking at a beautiful girl for a while, it's staring.
If you are looking at a new car for a while, it's staring.
The telepathy happens between the unconscious mind of the staring person and mine and if we get some people to look at me from behind, it will be acting staring that will not involve any unconscious telepathy and I'm not sure that I'll be able to detect anything

How on earth would you keep track of which people stared, and whether or not you correctly identified the ones who did? How would you set success criteria in advance for such a test? Such an experiment would be a nightmare to design, set up and execute. And it's all completely unnecessary; a much simpler test would be more than adequate to prove you have the ability you claim to have.

I have this ability, also! It's amazing. When I look at a crowd of people and see a pair of eyes looking back at me, I know for a fact those eyes are staring at me.

My protocol:
I'll be sitting in the chosen public place (maybe pretending that I'm reading a book)
When someone stares at me (whether from behind, above, right or left) I'll detect that and I'll suddenly look back exactly at that person.
The staring one will be caught off guard and will try to avoid being caught staring, by suddenly turning his/her head away which proves that he/she was staring at me.
It will be a sudden move from my side followed instantly by a sudden move form the staring one.
It's self-evident protocol that proves that I have scientifically unexplainable ability to detect people who stare at me.

Also this experience happened with me thousands of times before. I'll give examples later.

I'm still thinking about the confirmation bias but I'd appreciate it if someone helps.

What do you think guys/girls ?
Thanks.

 

[reason1]

to wardenclyffe:
thanks and i'm sure i don't have the ability to detect when someone stares at my picture

 

[IMST]

I'll be blunt: as you describe it, this protocol would never be accepted by the JREF. There is no control. Suppose no one stares? What's the definition of staring in your protocol? What does "caught off guard" mean exactly? What does "sudden move" mean exactly? How will my last 3 questions be demonstrated self evidently?

If you are serious about this, get to work on detecting staring in controlled circumstances as described in arthwollipot's protocol or a variation thereof. Without that kind of control, your plan is dead before it starts.

 

[nathan]

Actually this doesn't even count as staring, this is acting staring:
Staring is when you look at something for a while because you desire to

You mean there's a significant difference between voluntarily looking at something for an extended period of time because one desires to test a paranormal claim and voluntarily looking at something for an extended period of time because one has some other emotional desire? If your claim involves the emotional state of a participant other than you, it's probably untestable.

In your self tests in a public place, how do you know you identified the lookers who fancied you, as opposed to those who looked at you and wondered what the guy in the chair was doing? Or for that matter those who looked at you as you turned around? (You don't seem to have answered that question -- it's been asked a number of times.)

 

[arthwollipot]

I'll just add here to the mix - a sudden move on your part will draw the eye of someone nearby. You may end up looking at people who are staring at you for no other reason than you suddely looked at them.

 

[steenkh]

Regarding your protocol arthwollipot:
How do I guarantee that the staring did actually occur, people could easily cheat!.
Maybe no one stared at all, pretended to stare while looking just beside me or looked at me but not see me. We all know that we can look at a thing while we are not seeing it, for example while we are intensively thinking about something else.
This is uncontrolled test that will also allow cheating on part of the individuals who are chosen to stare.

You may be able to take your own test persons with you if that will make you more confident that you can detect their staring and that there will be no cheating.

 

[arthwollipot]

You may be able to take your own test persons with you if that will make you more confident that you can detect their staring and that there will be no cheating.

In fact, I would insist on it.

 

[Pixel42]

How do I guarantee that the staring did actually occur, people could easily cheat!.

As you have confirmed that you cannot detect people staring at your picture, the option of videoing the whole thing is available. You, or anyone else, will be able to watch the video afterwards and confirm that the starer was staring when they said they were.

Maybe no one stared at all, pretended to stare while looking just beside me or looked at me but not see me. We all know that we can look at a thing while we are not seeing it, for example while we are intensively thinking about something else.

All that can be tested is whether or not someone was looking at you, their mental state is unknown. The passersby in your own protocol could just happen to be looking in your direction whilst thinking about something else entirely too. If your claim requires the starer to be in a particular mental state then you could dismiss any miss (you fail to correctly detect someone who was staring at you) as the result of them not being in that state. So such a claim is untestable.

My protocol:

... is utterly useless, for the reasons already explained by me and others.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Thanks everyone,
Regarding your protocol arthwollipot:
How do I guarantee that the staring did actually occur, people could easily cheat!.
Maybe no one stared at all, pretended to stare while looking just beside me or looked at me but not see me. We all know that we can look at a thing while we are not seeing it, for example while we are intensively thinking about something else.
This is uncontrolled test that will also allow cheating on part of the individuals who are chosen to stare.

Actually this doesn't even count as staring, this is acting staring:
Staring is when you look at something for a while because you desire to,
If you are looking at a beautiful girl for a while, it's staring.
If you are looking at a new car for a while, it's staring.
The telepathy happens between the unconscious mind of the staring person and mine and if we get some people to look at me from behind, it will be acting staring that will not involve any unconscious telepathy and I'm not sure that I'll be able to detect anything

Given your reasons above, for your claim and the protocol you would have to describe "staring" very carefully and unambiguously.
This is the beauty of these tests: They will be designed to test what you and the JREF want to be tested.

Have you read up on confirmation bias?

My protocol:
I'll be sitting in the chosen public place (maybe pretending that I'm reading a book)
When someone stares at me (whether from behind, above, right or left) I'll detect that and I'll suddenly look back exactly at that person.
The staring one will be caught off guard and will try to avoid being caught staring, by suddenly turning his/her head away which proves that he/she was staring at me.
It will be a sudden move from my side followed instantly by a sudden move form the staring one.
It's self-evident protocol that proves that I have scientifically unexplainable ability to detect people who stare at me.

Also this experience happened with me thousands of times before. I'll give examples later.

I'm still thinking about the confirmation bias but I'd appreciate it if someone helps.

What do you think guys/girls ?
Thanks.

This protocol is not yet good enough.

1. Again, there will be no test in a public place. It is too complex to control all the variables.

2. You will need to define "staring" exactly. Otherwise you - or the tester - could claim, that the person you chose was not "staring".

3. For the sake of understanding the process of a controlled test:

The staring one will be caught off guard and will try to avoid being caught staring, by suddenly turning his/her head away which proves that he/she was staring at me.

3a. How would you propose to control this? By control I mean: Make it indeed self-evident and exactly replicable at least 20 times.

Save the examples of the thousands of times this happened to you for later. Anecdotal evidence will not qualify as convincing.
What are your thoughts on confirmation bias? More specifally: Do you understand that you might have subjected yourself - involuntarily, subconsciously - to said confirmation bias?

To eliminate the defintion of staring, you should test yourself with a friend of yours which you trust completely. Test yourself ten times with him staring at you - or not - and have him record the results. (This is a pretty much uncontrolled test - we'll install the controls later.)

Tell us how you did it and how it went.

 

[Jackalgirl]

My protocol:
I'll be sitting in the chosen public place (maybe pretending that I'm reading a book)
When someone stares at me (whether from behind, above, right or left) I'll detect that and I'll suddenly look back exactly at that person.
The staring one will be caught off guard and will try to avoid being caught staring, by suddenly turning his/her head away which proves that he/she was staring at me.
It will be a sudden move from my side followed instantly by a sudden move form the staring one.
It's self-evident protocol that proves that I have scientifically unexplainable ability to detect people who stare at me.

I agree with everyone else who've said that this isn't a very good protocol. Having it out in the open makes it very difficult to institute controls. For example, you've pointed out that people could easily cheat -- which is the case with your protocol, too. How, for example, could the JREF determine that there weren't, say, 20 of your friends in the crowd, whom you'd instructed to walk in front of you (so you could track them) and then stare at you, and then execute the "guilty behavior" you've mentioned after you look at them?

Then comes the possible arguments: "oh, that person wasn't looking away because he was embarrassed at being caught out -- no, he was just suddenly distracted by the release of steam over at Starbucks".

A protocol with a single "sender" and you is much, much simpler.

Can you detect someone starting at you from behind? Can you do it blindfolded? Do you think my protocol would work? If not, why not?

 

[reason1]

hi all,
my protocol is still general. it's open for any modification you think is appropriate and this is why we all are here....to design one right ?.
Also if someone wants to propose another completely different controllable protocol, I'm open for it

to GzuzKryzt :
never was my intention to present my previous experiences as an evidence, i was just responding to your post about self testing.
Also thanks GzuzKryzt...i'm learning from you and all the forum members

I'll respond later, got to get some sleep now. this thing is killing me !
love you all

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The two biggest challenges are:

1) Reason1 must not have any normal means of identifying that he is being stared at. That means eliminating sight, sound, smell, and touch. Preferably, the Starer could see Reason1, but Reason1 could not see the Starer (even if Reason were looking right at the Starer. I think the best option would be to blindfold Reason1 and have the Starer at a remote location--perhaps in a dark room in another building far away peeking through a curtain, or perhaps using two way mirrors.

2) People must stare at Reason1. If Reason1 can tell when someone is staring at him, but not just looking at him, this becomes very tricky. The best I can think of is to have a group of volunteers who are unaware of the actual test and are given instructions that would involve staring at Reason1. For example: Reason1 sits on a chair with his back to the window, volunteers are told, "You will look out the window at the man sitting on the chair for 15 seconds and you must report how many times he looks at you." Of course Reason1 would not look back at any of them, but the volunteers would have to "actively" stare at Reason1. Or perhaps Reason1 would wear a shirt with words on the back and volunteers would be told to memorize the words and only those who can repeat the words are counted (because they were actively staring in order to read the words).

Of course to me this just sounds like a natural phenomenon that everyone experiences where they pick up subtle cues or catch something in their periphery vision and look to see if someone is there looking at them. And sometimes someone is there looking at them.

 

[H3LL]

....... post your thoughts and questions and I'll sum up my answers and post them later.
thanks

I will answer all the questions, just taking my time.
.......

........ Got to get some sleep now .post your questions and suggestions and I'll answer when i wake up.

..... more to come....

........I'll post them later and also answer your other questions

.....I'll discuss it with you further later
thanks everyone

........ I'll give examples later.

...... I'll respond later, got to get some sleep now. this thing is killing me !
love you all

Hmmm.

De ja vu.

Unsubscribing for now. I'll pick up the thread later..... probably.



.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

hi all,
my protocol is still general. it's open for any modification you think is appropriate and this is why we all are here....to design one right ?.
Also if someone wants to propose another completely different controllable protocol, I'm open for it
...

There are different protocols already suggested in this thread: Arthwollipot's in post #2, L The Detective's in post #22, Robert Oz's in post #42, Jackalgirl's in post #45 and this:

...
To eliminate the defintion of staring, you should test yourself with a friend of yours which you trust completely. Test yourself ten times with him staring at you - or not - and have him record the results. (This is a pretty much uncontrolled test - we'll install the controls later.)

Tell us how you did it and how it went.

Do you have someone you trust to run this self-test with you? It would simplify the test procedure enormously. And it would undoubtedly add to you feeling comfortable in a controlled test.

Please try the simple self-test, reason1.