Paranormal detection

[reason1]

Again, reason1:

If you are arguing that there is real staring and passive staring, there is no way to test your claim.

Please answer this question. When you catch people staring, how do you know it is real staring and not passive staring? How do you know it isn't passive staring that you are feeling when you turn around?

I'm not saying that there are 2 types of staring.
there is one type which is when you look at something for a while because you desire to.
passive/acting staring is when you look at something for the sake of demonstrating a test and that shouldn't happen in a public place of random people that are not aware of any test being done

Many, many, many people like to look over the edges of balconies, buildings, cliffs, etc. I myself always look over edges when I'm up high. If someone is directly above you and looks over the edge, they are bound to be looking in your direction. Catching people doing this can be expected to happen from time to time.

there was no reason for me to suddenly look up exactly at a person at the fifth floor .
also how do you explain that all of those people suddenly tried to hide at that moment ?.

not ignoring any previous posts though

 

[Robert Oz]

I'm not saying that there are 2 types of staring.
there is one type which is when you look at something for a while because you desire to.
passive/acting staring is when you look at something for the sake of demonstrating a test and that shouldn't happen in a public place of random people that are not aware of any test being done

You can't have a controlled test with many people in a public place. There could be 20 people looking at you at any given time in public. If you happen to notice one, you count the hit, but you don't even know about the 19 misses you just made.

The test has to be smaller. There is no way around it. The type of test you propose just begs for confirmation bias. The types of experiences you have described are also most likely explained away by confirmation bias.

There are huge holes that allow for cheating in your protocol. And there would be no way other than subjective judging to determine hits and misses. The MDC does not work that way. The results have to be self evident.

there was no reason for me to suddenly look up exactly at a person at the fifth floor .

There's very little reason to look anywhere except where we are going. But we do it all the time. Our eyes are constantly shooting around and looking at our surroundings. Your eyes can dart to the side and focus on things in a fraction of a second and without any conscious effort by you to do so.

Like I said, it is very likely that you have looked up at balconies many times and seen nothing. These experiences are immediately forgotten without a second thought, because they are not out of the ordinary.

Also (and this is important), if you believe you can feel people staring at you, then you do have a reason to look up or behind you. If you catch someone, it confirms your belief. If you don't you forget about it and move on. This is exactly how confirmation bias works.

also how do you explain that all of those people suddenly tried to hide at that moment ?.

As I said, it may be possible that from time to time you have managed (by pure chance) to catch people looking at you. In which case, it is natural to look away. But this may be a handful of times versus hundreds of times you looked and no one was there.

 

[fromdownunder]

If we can get past the "active/passive", intentional/non-intentional" staring issue, how about this. (It's not a protocol, just some thoughts):

10 of reason1's closest friends are chosen as the starers. random1 gives them an incentive to "actively, emotionally" stare, by promising them, say, $50,000 each if he wins the Million.

random1 is seated, blindfolded and earplugged, with his back to 10 vacant seats.

The 10 friends enter the room, and sit down. Five of them are blindfolded by a pre-selected method, and by an idependant observor, and the remaining 5 of random1's friends are asked to stare at him. Keep this going for say, two minutes, so that it can be perfectly clear to random1 who is actually doing the staring - they WANT thir $50,000, so clearly, they have an emotional commitment to active staring, not passive staring (or cheating for that matter).

random1 selects which particular 5 are staring at him without turning around. Repeat as necessary

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

And just an off topic thought random1. Have you ever seen a portrait painting , walked past it while still looking at it, and got the impression that the eyes were following you?

Norm

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anecdotes might be entertaining to some folks, but they do not really have a place in this subforum.

Under the right circumstances anecdotes have their probative value just as serious skeptics puffing their chests can sometimes be entertaining. So please leave the moderation to the moderators or take your concerns to PM.

The relevance is that any self-perceived ability will be, we hope, based upon some sort of experience by the claimant. The claimant then articulates what he believes he can do. We then assist in devising a test to see if, in fact, he can do it.

As has been clearly demonstrated time and again, claims are rarely as simple as first stated. This case is no exception. There have been a number of questions trying to get Reason1 to clarify what he means. I believe that if we had an idea of what led him to believe he had this ability in the first place, we could better help him articulate his ability and possibly devise a test.

Furthermore, many of us (including you) encourage people to self-test. If we understood what events led him to believe he had some paranormal ability, we could offer suggestions about how to look at those events in another light. They might even inspire ideas for testing.

It's like being a mechanic or a computer support person. Sometimes it's better if the customer tells you what they experienced rather than what they think is going on.

 

[reason1]

And just an off topic thought random1. Have you ever seen a portrait painting , walked past it while still looking at it, and got the impression that the eyes were following you?

Norm

this was scary for me as a child,we had at home a picture of one of my uncles with his eyes wide open.where ever i go in the room he just kept staring at me.
later found why this happens ; the picture has only 2 dimensions

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

And to make things clear, Reason1…

The creepy, uncanny feeling of being able to sense being stared at is something experienced fairly frequently by almost everyone, not just you.

And there are perfectly sound practical non-paranormal scientific explanations for the phenomenon, many of which have been brought up in this thread.

And professional woo-woos like Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin have covered the topic quite extensively.

And skeptics have reviewed this phenomenon and conducted tests of claims similar to yours.

Before proceeding further, I strongly suggest you read the following: http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html

 

[yairhol]

Very easy to overcome the intentional/unintentional and the noises of the person staring by placing the person staring behind a glass wall looking at reason1 sitting with his (reason1) back to the glass wall. While staring there is no problem. while not staring the person is rotated so that his back is towards the glass wall (and thus towards reason1 who is still sitted with his back to the glass wall).

The glass wall eliminates the noises and allows the staring person to rotate/stare according to a dice thrown.

Kind of like a 2 way mirror.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

to GzuzKryzt:
the self test will not eliminate staring because acting staring (or if i may say passive staring) can easily become active staring,what if for example the staring person noticed something about my hair

And here is why we have introduced the element of trust. If you have someone you trust doing the staring, you trust him staring the way you need him to.

Reason1, do you have someone who could do that?

Furthermore, have you thought about how to get a media profile and an academic affidavit?



By the way, how have you ruled out that in the thousands of times this has allegedly happened to you the persons weren't acting staring? This is of course a rhetorical question: One can't.
That is why I referred you to confirmation bias. Do you understand what confirmation bias means and how it refers to what you describe?

 

[reason1]

Before proceeding further, I strongly suggest you read the following: http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html

WOW....Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
Is he still alive... i mean Rupert Sheldrake...how do i contact him ?
i think i'll be getting my media profile and affidavits quicker than i thought.
this is going to be huge....i'm too excited.

thanks DevilsAdvocate !

 

[reason1]

You can't have a controlled test with many people in a public place. There could be 20 people looking at you at any given time in public. If you happen to notice one, you count the hit, but you don't even know about the 19 misses you just made.

well...that will be like when all 20 people call my name at the same time.
I only can detect one person at a time and as the intensity of staring varies from one person to another (like the volume of their voices when they call me),I'll surely identify at least one of them which should end that person's staring and if the others kept staring I'll identify another one.
This will be repeated Until no one is staring anymore.

As I said, it may be possible that from time to time you have managed (by pure chance) to catch people looking at you. In which case, it is natural to look away. But this may be a handful of times versus hundreds of times you looked and no one was there.

I don't look when i detect when someone is staring, it's a sudden turn of my head towards that person, it's like a reflex

ps:
i found Rupert Sheldrake email address, i will invite him to this discussion.I hope he signs up

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
i found Rupert Sheldrake email address, i will invite him to this discussion.I hope he signs up

Obviously, there is very little to discuss at the moment, reason1, unless you would call your dodging of simple questions "discussion".

Reason1, do you have someone you trust - a friend, a relative, a life partner - doing the "staring" the way you need it to detect it?

Furthermore, have you thought about how to get a media profile and an academic affidavit?

Do you understand what confirmation bias means and how it could refer to what you describe?

 

[Robert Oz]

I don't look when i detect when someone is staring, it's a sudden turn of my head towards that person, it's like a reflex

reason1,

Many previous posters (including me) have said this a number of times in this thread. Confirmation bias explains ALL of your experiences.

You seem to ignore the very ordinary explanations provided for your experiences.

You also seem to only be interested in tests that allow for further confirmation bias. Please answer GzuzKryzt's question:

Reason1, do you have someone you trust - a friend, a relative, a life partner - doing the "staring" the way you need it to detect it?

If you can't get even a trusted friend, relative or life partner to do the staring the way you need it to be done to be able to detect it, discussing protocol becomes pointless, because your test cannot be objective and it cannot be self evident. Your application will most likely be rejected.

 

[Robert Oz]

I don't look when i detect when someone is staring, it's a sudden turn of my head towards that person, it's like a reflex

I'll repeat myself:

There's very little reason to look anywhere except where we are going. But we do it all the time. Our eyes are constantly shooting around and looking at our surroundings. Your eyes can dart to the side and focus on things in a fraction of a second and without any conscious effort by you to do so.

Like I said, it is very likely that you have looked up at balconies many times and seen nothing. These experiences are immediately forgotten without a second thought, because they are not out of the ordinary.

Also (and this is important), if you believe you can feel people staring at you, then you do have a reason to look up or behind you. If you catch someone, it confirms your belief. If you don't you forget about it and move on. This is exactly how confirmation bias works.

 

[arthwollipot]

i found Rupert Sheldrake email address, i will invite him to this discussion.I hope he signs up

I'll hold my breath.

 

[Chris H]

reason1,

What if you were seated in front of a one way mirror? This would theoretically rule out the "unconscious signals" issue. The event could be recorded from the opposite side, to clarify for you when the starer was looking and when they were not. Infact, they should be able to leave the room and re-enter silently, and based on what you have said, you will know when they have re-entered and are staring at you.

Would this be suitable?

Cheers,

Chris

 

[fromdownunder]

Chris, I doubt that reason1 will accept anything that does not conform with his current delusion, and his confirmation bias. He commented on a post of mine while completely ignoring an earlier post of mine which offered a potential (admittedly half-arsed) protocol that I suggested which would have made his delusion difficult to maintain, but could be tested with tweaks.

And (from another thread) if JREF does not accept his challenge, he has already stated that he will bring a law suit on to get hold of the Million. I really think that he is nothing but an attention whore.

Norm

 

[H3LL]

Chris, I doubt that reason1 will accept anything that does not conform with his current delusion, and his confirmation bias. He commented on a post of mine while completely ignoring an earlier post of mine which offered a potential (admittedly half-arsed) protocol that I suggested which would have made his delusion difficult to maintain, but could be tested with tweaks.

And (from another thread) if JREF does not accept his challenge, he has already stated that he will bring a law suit on to get hold of the Million. I really think that he is nothing but an attention whore.

Norm

I noticed that too. It was the post you mentioned from this thread that drew me back to see if there was any progress.

I wasn't surprised.

I'm beginning to suspect we have a "The Professor" wannabe. The evasive tactics are depressingly familiar.



reason1 has more than enough information to put together his claim(s) and a protocol from this thread alone. Other than that, Magic Cafe has a sizeable audience to ooh! and ahh! over his fascinating anecdotes.

Maybe he doesn't realise that his exciting, cunning and evasive tactics are not new to most people here but very, very old and stale and rather dull.

 

[H3LL]

reason1, please prove my suspicions wrong;

Go away, learn about confirmation bias, write a protocol that uses that knowledge and information here, self test and then get back to us.

 

[reason1]

Do not insult other posters. See rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

I shall continue my case:
As i said before, this is overwhelming for me and it will take me sometime to respond to some posts. also some questions have a higher priority to respond to than others.
I'm not skipping/ignoring any posts and accusing me of that is just unfair!
i will respond....just be patient ok ?

regarding me cheating at the test:
although i choose the date and maybe the kind of the place,i will not be aware of the actual place and the time of the day that the test will be done.
I won't have any wireless communication mean or a mean to tell the exact time of the day.
So under these settings I'll will not be able to synchronize any sudden moves with anyone.
can anybody think of way that will make me cheat under these conditions?

You seem to ignore the very ordinary explanations provided for your experiences.

Maybe i should do that as these explanations are actually off-topic !