Planning a "human energy field" test, help appreciated.

[Kuko 4000]

Encouraged by the help everyone offered on our previous test, I decided to once again ask for advice and all kinds of suggestions from you guys.

The story:

An acquintance of mine is working as a healer in the biggest alternative healing center in my town.

The claim:

She claims to detect human energy fields.

The protocol:

We will do an open test before the real one.

The test will be randomized using a fair coin.

The claimant has tentatively agreed to a similar protocol that Emily Rosa used when she tested TT practitioners:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/tt.html

During the tests, the practitioners rested their forearms and hands, palms up, on a flat surface, approximately 10 to 12 inches apart. Emily then hovered her hand, palm down, a few inches above one of the subject's palms. A cardboard screen approximately 3 feet high and 1/8th of an inch thick was used to prevent the subjects from seeing which of their hands was selected.

NOTE! Our protocol will differ from the above in the following way:

The assistant will either hover both of his hands above both of the claimants hands or the assistant will not be in the room at all.

I'm thinking that we could do 2 trials again. 10 "sensings" would constitute 1 trial. We expect her to succeed 50% of the times simply by chance, so how high should we raise the bar for success? At least 8 out of 10 in both trials? Or how about 3 trials and at least 7 out of 10 in all trials?

Resources:

2 video cameras.

Aim:

I would like this test to be as scientifically valid as possible. I think this will be much easier to put together than our previous test, but I would still like to hear any possible precautions or suggestions you may come up with.

Timetable:

1-2 weeks from now, I hope we can test the claimant during the first week of October 2009.

This is where I am currently:

I would not like to use any ear plugs, gloves or anything else than a piece of cardboard between the claimant and the assistant. This could prove problematic. I guess we can overcome the sound cues by bringing the claimant in from another room for every "sensing". I am a bit worried about heat signals, but it shouldn't be a problem. We have to build the cardboard so that there is no way to see what's happening on the other side.

Anything else we should think about?

 

[TjW]

You are absolutely right to be concerned about heat signals. At the very least, put a horizontal piece of cardboard between the hands. Better would be some of the aluminized "bubble wrap" insulation from the hardware store.

Although I suppose technically the heat is "human energy" in some sense.

 

[Kuko 4000]

You are absolutely right to be concerned about heat signals. At the very least, put a horizontal piece of cardboard between the hands.

Thanks TjW, but I'm afraid something like this is out of the question. We just have to think of something else. I'm pretty sure the distance of 25-30 cm alone will do the trick, I forgot to mention that in the OP. The distance is not decided yet, but we did a quick illustration today and my hands were about 30 cm from her hands. Of course we are also monitoring both the assistant and the claimant to prevent any sneaky stuff they might do to their hands. I might also end up being the assistant, this would leave all kinds of "negative energy" explanations for the claimant though.

 

[blutoski]

I would not like to use any ear plugs, gloves or anything else than a piece of cardboard between the claimant and the assistant. This could prove problematic. I guess we can overcome the sound cues by bringing the claimant in from another room for every "sensing".

I think this is going to be your biggest information leakage. It's going to be difficult to have the assistant be completely silent when present.

I do suggest that the claimant help you find out how far away a person has to sit from hands for their field to be undetectable. You could verify this even on the test day during the open/unblinded pretrial runs.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I think this is going to be your biggest information leakage. It's going to be difficult to have the assistant be completely silent when present.

I do suggest that the claimant help you find out how far away a person has to sit from hands for their field to be undetectable. You could verify this even on the test day during the open/unblinded trial runs.

I agree, on both counts. Although, I'm fairly sure she would agree to the use of new agey music on the background, this would eliminate the sounds from breathing, etc. I think 30 seconds is enough for her to decide. We do need to reconsider earplugs.

We could also move closer to the protocol that Emily used. Although, having the assistant in the same room would lessen the effect, even if we had agreed on the "zero-distance" beforhand.

 

[paiute]

You are absolutely right to be concerned about heat signals. At the very least, put a horizontal piece of cardboard between the hands. Better would be some of the aluminized "bubble wrap" insulation from the hardware store.

Although I suppose technically the heat is "human energy" in some sense.

A piece of plastic wrap stretched on a wire frame in between will block heat rising from the test hands. Will 0.5 mil of plastic block "human energy"?

A small fan blowing air across the table will sweep away the heat currents. Will moving air also sweep away the "human energy"?

 

[Kuko 4000]

A small fan blowing air across the table will sweep away the heat currents. Will moving air also sweep away the "human energy"?

This is a good idea, will have to ask how she feels about it. It would also help with the sound problem. Thanks paiute.

 

[GreyICE]

Agree on the fan and the white noise generator.

Another possibility if the fan proves 'disruptive' is to simply warm the room up to ~90 degrees, at least in the vicinity of the table. As long as the assistant doesn't have sweaty palms, this would work very well. You can't detect heat when the heat isn't there (hands are NOT 98.6). This also prevents the air currents from the fan from providing noticeable stimuli.

If heat AND fans interfere with the energy fields, I think we can safely conclude they're very similar to body heat.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Another possibility if the fan proves 'disruptive' is to simply warm the room up to ~90 degrees, at least in the vicinity of the table.

...

If heat AND fans interfere with the energy fields, I think we can safely conclude they're very similar to body heat.

Yep, controlling the room temperature is definitely one option. Agreed, that should make her at least stop and think a bit. I hope.

 

[Tapio]

Hi! Glad to see good suggestions!

First, I'm afraid that if the claimant has to move in and out of the room it will give her a possible 'cop out'. So I'd rather focus on different techniques of making it impossible for her to sense anything else than the supposed 'real deal'. Which brings me to...

I hope this time we could use more time prior to the real test in finding out how much 'interference' she can accept. I mean, that we go through several rounds of open testing with different setups, from no interference (ear plugs, fans, plastic sheets etc.) way up to the point where she claims not to be able to sense 'energy' anymore (even to the extent of her putting gloves on, or something like that). Always adding/removing one element at a time. After this we could go through blind testing with a similar agenda, but still keeping it as a sort of pre-test. Then we could possibly find out what interference she would be prepared to accept.

I suspect this would possibly (even probably) eliminate the need for the real test, because I think what she's sensing is heat. And by showing her that her performance is altered only by adding and reducing interference regarding that sense, maybe she'd be ready to back up on her claim...

 

[CatOfGrey]

I'm thinking that we could do 2 trials again. 10 "sensings" would constitute 1 trial. We expect her to succeed 50% of the times simply by chance, so how high should we raise the bar for success? At least 8 out of 10 in both trials? Or how about 3 trials and at least 7 out of 10 in all trials?

7 or better out of 10 will happen by chance 17.1% of the time, meaning that if she was flipping a coin, she would 'pass' one time out of six. This is not a high enough standard.

8 or better out of 10 will happen by chance 5.47% of the time or 1 time in 18, which is not quite the 1-in-20 standard that I use in my statistical legal consulting. To me, this would be a 'weak pass' that wouldn't convince me, but would warrant further trials.

7 or better out of 10 in each of two trials would happen by chance about 2.95% of the time, or about 1 time in 34. If she met this standard, I would call that evidence (not proof) that she 'has the power'.

8 or better out of 10 in each of two trials would happen by chance about 0.3% of the time, or 1 time in 300. If I witnessed this, I would recommend she take steps toward the JREF prize.

Remember: 8 out of 10 in two trials is not the same as '16 out of 20'. The math is a bit different there - ask and I can calculate.

 

[GreyICE]

Asking her simply to say something whenever she feels a hand move above her raises the bar quite a lot. Have the volunteer move their hand or not for 5 minutes. Reasonably speaking, with no way of knowing when the volunteer is moving, she will generate both false positives and false negatives at a high rate, which is usually very convincing of 'fake.'

 

[Kuko 4000]

CatOfGrey, yes I'm aware of that (pretty much thanks to our last thread ). I tried to be clear that we want to make 2 or 3 trials and that she would have to get at least x correct in ALL of them. I will appreciate all the statistical help we can get. How about 3 trials and getting at least 7 correct in each trial?

Oh, and if she passes our test, she is very much interested in contacting the JREF.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Asking her simply to say something whenever she feels a hand move above her raises the bar quite a lot. Have the volunteer move their hand or not for 5 minutes. Reasonably speaking, with no way of knowing when the volunteer is moving, she will generate both false positives and false negatives at a high rate, which is usually very convincing of 'fake.'

We are giving her a signal when she has 30 seconds to detect whether the assistant (or the hands) is there or not. We will repeat this 10 times, and this constitutes 1 trial.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Hi! Glad to see good suggestions!

First, I'm afraid that if the claimant has to move in and out of the room it will give her a possible 'cop out'. So I'd rather focus on different techniques of making it impossible for her to sense anything else than the supposed 'real deal'. Which brings me to...

Yeah, we need to discuss this with her. It would be simplest and easiest for everyone if the assistant could stay on the same room. The way I see it, this would give her a chance to claim that "the energy was still in the same room", etc. But yeah, no reason to speculate further, better just make sure what her opinion is.

I suspect this would possibly (even probably) eliminate the need for the real test, because I think what she's sensing is heat. And by showing her that her performance is altered only by adding and reducing interference regarding that sense, maybe she'd be ready to back up on her claim...

I agree that all that would be good, but I think we should not "waste" any of her time before the test. The test result is the perfect catalyst for the discussion. I'm pretty confident that she is more interested and open to discuss things constructively after the test than was the case with the previous claimant. And this is where the fun starts

In my opinion it's just her mind and the psychological investment rather than heat or anything else in this case. Of course sometimes (and in other conditions) it's the combination of many things, but we did a couple of quick tries today and my hand was about 30 cm above her hand, and VERY briefly, this is what we should concentrate on first, she is 100% confident about this ability. I think we should just do our best to locate the non-blind "zero-point" and then carry on with the test.

 

[George 152]

Record the session sound independently of the video record.
Then compare the sound tracks

 

[TjW]

I'm thinking that we could do 2 trials again. 10 "sensings" would constitute 1 trial. We expect her to succeed 50% of the times simply by chance, so how high should we raise the bar for success? At least 8 out of 10 in both trials? Or how about 3 trials and at least 7 out of 10 in all trials?

7 or better out of 10 will happen by chance 17.1% of the time, meaning that if she was flipping a coin, she would 'pass' one time out of six. This is not a high enough standard.

8 or better out of 10 will happen by chance 5.47% of the time or 1 time in 18, which is not quite the 1-in-20 standard that I use in my statistical legal consulting. To me, this would be a 'weak pass' that wouldn't convince me, but would warrant further trials.

7 or better out of 10 in each of two trials would happen by chance about 2.95% of the time, or about 1 time in 34. If she met this standard, I would call that evidence (not proof) that she 'has the power'.

8 or better out of 10 in each of two trials would happen by chance about 0.3% of the time, or 1 time in 300. If I witnessed this, I would recommend she take steps toward the JREF prize.

Remember: 8 out of 10 in two trials is not the same as '16 out of 20'. The math is a bit different there - ask and I can calculate.

Just out of curiosity, what does she claim her accuracy to be? Is she as confident as dowsers, who seem almost universally sure they'll get 10 out of 10?

 

[Kuko 4000]

Just out of curiosity, what does she claim her accuracy to be? Is she as confident as dowsers, who seem almost universally sure they'll get 10 out of 10?

We haven't talked about details yet, but I'm quite sure she will claim 100% accuracy. Going by the demonstration she gave yesterday, it seemed as accurate as her vision I'm fine with 2 trials and at least 8 correct in both of them for a pass mark. This will give her some room for error, which should make the test situation more relaxed and comfortable for everyone. It could also serve as an eye opener in the post-test discussion.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I am still concerned about other sensory leakage.

In the initial Quackwatch test, the person being tested knew a person was on the other side of the screen, regardless of the other factors -- so it wasn't as important.

People have pointed out some problems: (1) noise of movement (chair scraping, etc.); (2) heat from hands. But what about general body heat from being in or out of the room? How do you block off the other side so completely from sight and sound while still allowing hands through whatever screen you are using?

And what about vibrations? From walking into the room, to sitting down, to possible contact betwen the elbow, there are a lot of things that might provide some subtle clues.

I guess it goes without saying the person should not be wearing cologne or perfume; even a semi-strong shampoo might allow a hint of their presence.

I think some tests should definitely be run with several people to check for *anything* they can pick up before a definite protocol is offered.

ETA: Perhaps the person being tested could be kept in a darkened part of the room and a brighter light could shine toward the opening for the applicant's hands, hiding anything behind the light a bit and preventing shadows from appearing on the screen?

 

[CatOfGrey]

7 out of 10 on three successive trials is a p-value of 0.5%, or 1 in 200.

Sorry - I'm coming in late to this one...Happy to help!