What happened with Wiseman's being watched research?

iain

Graduate Poster
I
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
1,292
I only remembered the other day that Richard Wiseman and an American investigator were going to run joint tests on their studies into whether people could detect they were being watched.

I never heard what the outcome was; some vague reference to differences in the initial briefing.

Can someone enlighten me?
 
iain said:
I never heard what the outcome was; some vague reference to differences in the initial briefing.
Click to expand...

There is 2 of them. The first one was with Schlitz. They was an experimenter effect for the psi experiment:

Wiseman, R. & Schlitz, M. Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring. Journal of Parapsychology,Â_ 61(3), 197-207,Â_ 1997.

The second one was with Watt. In this one, there is no experimenter effect for the psi experiment (but there is an experimenter effect for the other psychological variables):

You can read the Wiseman & Watt research on-line there.
 
I thought him say somewhere, rather politely, that he was getting no results while his counterpart was getting positive results. It might have been a different experiment though.

David
 
davidhorman said:
I thought him say somewhere, rather politely, that he was getting no results while his counterpart was getting positive results. It might have been a different experiment though.

David
Click to expand...
I think that was the one, but that was in the Spring of last year. They were going to get together in the summer/autumn in the US and conduct joint experiments with an agreed protocol to figure out what was going on.
 
It was the trials done with Marilyn Schlitz and Richard Wiseman (CSICOP) ..... Schiltz (believer PSI is possible) and Wiseman (believer PSI is very unlikely) got to some degree the anomalous effect that supported their paradigm ...... trial was repeated, same result.
 
I haven't found anything recent yet, but I did find a caltech thread where both Schlitz and Wiseman participated. Unfortunately, there's no complete conclusion by the end of the thread... BUT it seems to have terminated at a point where a possibly valid non-paranormal source for the positive results was found.

Here's the entire thread:
http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212.html

Here's the closing summary pointer:
http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212/22.html

And for those that are too lazy, here's the text from the closing:

by Dr. James Bonomo
The Potential Effect of Low Frequency Noise
The first question involved the potential of low frequency noise to corrupt the measurements in the remote staring experiment. As I've discussed, such noise seems likely to be present in these measurements, and the particular choice of patterns by Dr. Schlitz happened to have more sensitivity to such noise than those picked by Dr. Wiseman. Unfortunately, the experimenters were not able to supply the detailed results by trial (and thus by pattern), so we could not check whether the particularly sensitive patterns were the ones producing a positive result. Such a correlation, even if present, would only further imply a problem, but not prove its existence.

Still, this analysis should improve future remote staring effect experiments. Future experimenters should both measure the noise present at low frequencies and also use patterns that do not differ so dramatically in sensitivity as this set did. The latter can be accomplished by simple measures which restrict the set of potential patterns to those having similar sensitivities - for example, two time reversed patterns would have the same average response to this noise. By adding such measures, future replication of this experiment should be able to eliminate this potential source of error.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom