Sheldrake tests telephone telepathy

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The 571 trials agrees with the first paragraph under "Discussion" in the first paper cited:

Combining the results of all our experiments, and adding in the trials conducted by Sam Bloomfield, there were 63 participants altogether. They made 231 correct guesses in 571 trials, a success rate of 40%, well above the mean chance expectation of 25% (Table 8). The 95% confidence limits of this result are from 36% to 45%. This effect was robust and repeatable and was hugely significant statistically (p = 4 x 10-16). Not all participants scored at levels above chance, but the great majority did so.

Yet clearly the paper says they picked up the phone before guessing, while the book says the opposite.

Ah, hold on a minute. To repeat from the book:

At a prearranged time, the subject received a call from one of these four people. Before answering the phone he or she had to guess who was calling. In trials that were not videotaped, the caller answered the phone by saying "hello, [name]" before the other person had spoken.

It doesn't say when they wrote down their guesses, so we don't know if they really guessed after they picked up the phone.

Juninho mentioned caller ID. Interesting.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've sent a message to Sheldrake to clarify when subjects guess and when they record their guesses.

Meanwhile, tonight I'm going to read the second paper about the videotaped experiments.

By the way, the first paper is a classic example where the hypotheses (which aren't even stated explicitly) are about the outcome of the experiment, rather than about a theory of telepathy.

Edited to add: Message to Sheldrake acknowledged by Matthew Clapp.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

I've sent a message to Sheldrake to clarify when subjects guess and when they record their guesses.

Meanwhile, tonight I'm going to read the second paper about the videotaped experiments.

By the way, the first paper is a classic example where the hypotheses (which aren't even stated explicitly) are about the outcome of the experiment, rather than about a theory of telepathy.

Edited to add: Message to Sheldrake acknowledged by Matthew Clapp.

~~ Paul

Ok good. Be interesting to hear what he has to say. I must say though that I cannot see the point of the unfilmed experiments, especially if they make their guess after they have answered the phone! So why not just film all the experiments? Or why bother with the unfilmed experiments at all??

 

[Interesting Ian]

Hmmmmm . . .maybe the unfilmed experiments, in and of themselves, were never meant to provide good evidence for telephone telepathy. Perhaps his intention was simply to compare the results of the unfilmed and filmed experiments to see if the results were more or less the same. And if they hadn't have been, then that might have been interesting. For example if the unfilmed experiments were of a 40% success rate (the actual result), where as the filmed experiments had a success rate of say 23% (instead of the actual 46%), then that might suggest that there were sensory leakage in the unfilmed experiments.

 

[JamesM]

Perhaps his intention was simply to compare the results of the unfilmed and filmed experiments to see if the results were more or less the same.

The filmed experiments took place after the unfilmed experiments, so I assume the filmed experiments were carried out to clear up some of the holes in the original design.

There are some notable changes between the non-video and the video experiment.

1. It is explicitly stated that:

In all tests, the participants used landline telephones rather than cell phones, and in all cases only telephones without caller identification system were used

Unfortunately, it is not stated whether the callers were similarly restricted in the type of telephone they could use.

2. The guessing procedure takes place as follows:

In all cases, when a trial was taking place and the phone started ringing, the participant said his or her guess to the camera before picking up the phone. [...] Immediately upon picking up the phone, the participants again stated their guess by saying that person's name before the caller said anything.

Again, there is an unfortunate omission about whether anyone changed their guess after picking up the phone - e.g. due to picking up a cue from a noisier cell phone (if that was indeed allowed).

3. In most cases, the videotaping was done by the participants. However, in one series, there was a cameraman present in the room with the participant and a cameraman in a room with the caller. Combined with the fact that Pamela Smart was one of the callers in one of the trials and once again, the experimenters knew who was going to make the call, if there is some sort of psi effect going on to explain the results, it's rather hard to know who was reading whose mind - the cameramen were brothers, to further confuse matters!

I look forward to reading others' comments.

 

[CFLarsen]

This forum is the greatest! It is an incredible, unlimited well of knowledge and good ideas! I simply don't understand why paranormal experimenters don't ask for input before they engage in their botched experiments!

Wait....

Duh!

Of course I know why they don't do that....!

 

[Thanz]

On a somewhat related note, "telephone telepathy" of a different sort of kind has happened to me twice. Both times, the phone call was unexpected and the news was bad. Both times, I knew what the news was as soon as the phone rang.

Cue Twilight Zone music.....

It was pretty freaky.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The filmed experiments took place after the unfilmed experiments,

Ah! It doesn't state that in the book. Since both sets of experiments finished at the same time that seemed to me to suggest they were carried out contemporaneously. But it explicitly states otherwise?

 

[Interesting Ian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all tests, the participants used landline telephones rather than cell phones, and in all cases only telephones without caller identification system were used
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Unfortunately, it is not stated whether the callers were similarly restricted in the type of telephone they could use.

Why does that matter?

2. The guessing procedure takes place as follows:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all cases, when a trial was taking place and the phone started ringing, the participant said his or her guess to the camera before picking up the phone. [...] Immediately upon picking up the phone, the participants again stated their guess by saying that person's name before the caller said anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, there is an unfortunate omission about whether anyone changed their guess after picking up the phone - e.g. due to picking up a cue from a noisier cell phone (if that was indeed allowed).

Hell I hope not! Be impressively bad if they were allowed!

 

[Darat]

Why didn't he just design a very simple protocol and stick to reporting the results?

Starting with the "observation" “there are some people who can identify a caller more often then chance alone would account for” a very simple experiment could be devised to see if the observation is repeatable under "test conditions"

And another thing within the results themselves he is speculating, he can’t just keep to reporting results.

Look at this quote "This result implies that for the successful identification of callers, emotional closeness was more important than physical proximity. "

How on earth could he know what degree of "emotional closeness" there was?! Is there a protocol that gives an objective measure of "emotional closeness".

 

[Darat]

Why does that matter?

...snip...

My mother always knows when I call her on my mobile - she says the "ring ring ring" starts at a different point when I call via the mobile network.

 

[john_v_h]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

They have to say immediately who the caller is.

What does that mean? Within 1 second of putting the receiver to the ear? Within 5 seconds of picking up the receiver? As long as it takes to say, "Er . . . um . . . I think this is Aunt Maybelle"?

How is this a problem? One should only pick people who do not believe they have any telepathic ability??

A subject who believes he or she has a special ability has an ego stake in maintaining the belief. That is, he or she is motivated to cheat when necessary. This is one reason that the best psychology experiments hide the true nature of the experiment from the subject.

What do you mean? Either they "guess" correctly or don't "guess" correctly. Presumably this is verified. Explain please.

I mean verification that the self-recorded response is actually how the subject responded. Sheldrake says he can't believe that a majority of subjects would cheat, but his argument proves only that he is a Pollyanna.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

They have to say immediately who the caller is.
-----------------------------------------------
What does that mean? Within 1 second of putting the receiver to the ear? Within 5 seconds of picking up the receiver? As long as it takes to say, "Er . . . um . . . I think this is Aunt Maybelle"?
------------------------------------------------

He carried out this experiment on ch 5 in the uk a few weeks ago on the Nolan sisters on this programme on telepathy. I think they said it immediately as in they picked up the phone and immediately said the name. But the same phone was being used all the time in that instant. Notwithstanding this though I think that really they should make thier guess, and let it be known to other people, before picking up the phone.

How is this a problem? One should only pick people who do not believe they have any telepathic ability??

A subject who believes he or she has a special ability has an ego stake in maintaining the belief. That is, he or she is motivated to cheat when necessary. This is one reason that the best psychology experiments hide the true nature of the experiment from the subject.

On the other hand I feel rather skeptical that a "skeptic" of telepathy will actually receive any telepathic impressions. So your point is appreciated, but I feel that using "skeptics" as subjects will not result in any statistically significant results (arguably statistically significant in the opposite direction!)

What do you mean? Either they "guess" correctly or don't "guess" correctly. Presumably this is verified. Explain please.

I mean verification that the self-recorded response is actually how the subject responded. Sheldrake says he can't believe that a majority of subjects would cheat, but his argument proves only that he is a Pollyanna. [/B]

Pollyanna?

 

[Dogwood]

This forum is the greatest! It is an incredible, unlimited well of knowledge and good ideas! I simply don't understand why paranormal experimenters don't ask for input before they engage in their botched experiments!

On a serious note, I've related this idea to Schwartz twice now. Either directly or through SG, that it would be advantagous to involve "skeptical consultants" to review experimental designs before one is implemented. If nothing else, it would allow the experimenters to consider and compensate for potential skeptical (so-called) "nit-picking" in advance.

To Schwartz's credit, he does involve a "friendly's devil advocate" committee to anticipate such criticisms, but I frequently get the impression that they are not as complete in their constructive criticisms as some of us might be.

 

[Jeff Corey]

[BPollyanna? [/B]

A completly immaterial being. A fictitional character.
The quintessential simpleton.
Presents a very chipper persona, but has a more serious aspect.
Like duct tape.
A light side and a dark side. .

 

[Pyrrho]

Forgive my ignorance of statistics, but isn't the arrangement pseudorandom and not truly random at all? It's not blinded, either.

Oh well, leave it to Sheldrake and Smart to concoct significance to something already explained by coincidence. Maybe they can make another book out of it.

I'm amazed that such BS gets published at all, let alone by a pro-paranormal journal.

 

[Lucianarchy]

He carried out this experiment on ch 5 in the uk a few weeks ago on the Nolan sisters on this programme on telepathy. I think they said it immediately as in they picked up the phone and immediately said the name. But the same phone was being used all the time in that instant. Notwithstanding this though I think that really they should make thier guess, and let it be known to other people, before picking up the phone.

But that is *exactly* what the strongest hitters were doing on that show with the Nolan sisters.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Darat asked:

Why didn't he just design a very simple protocol and stick to reporting the results?

Sheldrake always seems to make everything complicated and variable.

My mother always knows when I call her on my mobile - she says the "ring ring ring" starts at a different point when I call via the mobile network.

Hold on there! What do you mean? Are you saying the rings on her telephone are different from normal rings?

I've read about half of the second paper describing the videotaped experiments. The protocol seems much better here; I haven't found anything obviously silly yet. This paragraph keep nagging at me:

There was a striking difference between Sue’s performance with familiar and unfamiliar callers. With the two familiar callers, she was right 25 times out of 35 (71%; p = .00000001). With the unfamiliar callers, she was right only 5 times out of 35 (14%), not significantly different from the chance level (see Figure 1). The difference between success rates with familiar and unfamiliar callers was very significant statistically ( p = .000001).

~~ Paul

 

[Pyrrho]

Paul, one problem is that they're computing significance using a very small sample size. It's silly and meaningless. The set of available callers is limited and known to the guessers and the randomization isn't truly random.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know, I'm often left with a nagging feeling about the statistics in these psi experiments, but I don't know near enough statistics to really delve into that aspect of the experiments. We need a couple of resident statisticians at our beck and call; ones who won't mind reading whacky paper after whacky paper in great gory detail.

Perhaps we should form the Committee for the Statistical Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. We'd have a great acronym, anyway.

~~ Paul