ESP AND PSYCHOKINESIS
mind map of ESP: ganzfeld and auto-ganzfeld, and psychokinesis: macro-PK and micro-PK
- Created by: alice
- Created on: 15-12-12 15:20
View mindmap
- ESP and PSYCHOKINESIS
- ESP
- ESP refers to the perception of objects or events without any of the known physical senses being involved, 'extra-sensory'
- Ganzfeld
- Honorton (1974) developed the Ganzfeld technique because it would allow subjects to relax and thus be more receptive to psi communication
- Lack of success with previous research, ESP researchers put down to psi phenomena being weak and gets drowned out by other senses
- Procedure
- Subjects are typically isolated in a red-lit room, with halved table-tennis balls over their eyes and ear phones playing white noise. Sensory deprivation is used so that telepathic messages can be red more clearly
- The sender is in another room and is thinking about a picture randomly selected from 4 other pictures
- Honorton (1985) ---analysis of 28 ganzfeld studies reporting a success rate of 38% (13% higher than chance)
- Conclusions were challenged by Hyman(1988) ---claimed the studies were flawed in lack of security and erronous statistical analysis. Hyman re-analysed the data and concluded there was no evidencefor psi
- Honorton also re-analysed the data and found continuing supporting evidence
- Conclusions were challenged by Hyman(1988) ---claimed the studies were flawed in lack of security and erronous statistical analysis. Hyman re-analysed the data and concluded there was no evidencefor psi
- Schmeidler and McConnel (1958) ---collected evidence from over 1000 subjects that sheep scored higher than chance and goats at chance level or lower (psi missing)
- Therefore there is an interaction between subjects beliefs, the researchers belief and the results of the research
- Methodological critisms
- Most of the reports were meta-analysis's. The outcomes change depending on the studies included or left-out.
- The 'file-draw' effect refers to researchers filling away studies with negative outcomes ---the views of the researcher may influences with studies are left in or out, and so the outcome
- Procedural criticisms
- The technique involves the reviewer describing the image being sent - there is clearly scope for subjective interpretation as to what a match is (Carroll, 2003)
- Wooffitt (2007) ---found evidence of researcher bias. He analysed ganzfeld interviews and found that goat researchers didn't encourage ppts to elaborate where as sheep researchers did which led to more positive results
- Carroll (2005) ---argues that psi does not explain any significant results. It could only be the case if all other possibilities are excluded (e.g. selective reporting, poor experimental design, etc).
- Also if psi exsists, why aren't subjects correct 100% of the time
- Honorton (1974) developed the Ganzfeld technique because it would allow subjects to relax and thus be more receptive to psi communication
- Auto-Ganzfeld
- Procedures under automated computed control and the receiver was placed in a sound-proof, steel-walled and electromagnetically shielded room
- Honorton et al (1990) ---reported the results of 11 studies involving 8 different researchers. Produced a hit rate of 34% -statistically significant
- Milton and Wiseman (1999) ---reviewed 30 well-controlled ganzfeld studies and concluded that the studies showed no significant effects
- Has been critisised becuase it includes studies that did not follow the Ganzfel protocol. When these studies were removed and replaced with more recent studies the result was significant (Bem et al. 2001)
- Psychokinesis (PK)
- Macro-PK
- Batcheldor (1984) ---claimed that people often feel inhibitied and self-conscious about displaying macro-PK
- Successfully dealt with this by beginning his 'training' with a fake levitation event and then gradually building belief -leading to impressive displays of levitation of objects
- Leads to the belief that most people posses such powers but there needs to be a way to prevent the conscious mind from interfering
- Successfully dealt with this by beginning his 'training' with a fake levitation event and then gradually building belief -leading to impressive displays of levitation of objects
- Wiseman Greening (2005) ---demonstrated the importance of belief. Ppts were shown a video of a fake psychic place a bent key on a table. In 1 condition the ppts heard him say the key was still bending- these ppts were more likely to report further bending than those who heard noting and had no expectation
- Randi (1983) ---arranged a hoax where magicians volunteered for testing at the McDonnel laboratory for Psychical research at Washington University. They were able to fool the scientists for 4 years (160 hours of experiments)
- Batcheldor (1984) ---claimed that people often feel inhibitied and self-conscious about displaying macro-PK
- Pk is the movement or manipulation of objects or events without any physical contact, Movement with the mind.
- PK abilities are divided into macro-PK, where the effects can be seen with the human eye, or micro-PK, small effects on probabilistic systems such as changing the throw of a dice
- Micro-PK
- Stevens (1998) ---used the internet where remote ppts were invited to try to influence the activity of a split-beam lazer (experimental condition). Comparison was with ppts who did nothing (control condition). -Lazer out0put was more effective with the experimental condition
- Micro-PK is more appealing to the scientifically-focused paranormal psychologists because it can be tested under control conditions. However if accepted, they violate well-established laws of physics.
- Bierman (2000) ---analysed a large number of paranormal studies conducted since the time of J.B. Rhine, including micro-PK studies. Concluded there had been a steady decrease in effect size.
- One would expect that with better control and identification of errornous variables that the effect size would steadily increase -suggesting the phenomena isn't real
- RED (Random Events Generator) is like an electronic coin flipper producing an equal amount of heads and tails over a certain amount of flips. Micro-PK is demonstrated by asking ppts to influence the REG and make the amounts unequal
- Jahn et al. (1997) ---reported the results of a 12 year program. The effect sizes for individual trials were very small (marginally better than chance). But when combines the effect size was very large, exceeding the probability of 1 in 10 to the power of 13
- Found effect occur when 'operators' are at some distance from the machine and when the machines aren't operating. Also when 2 people with a strong emotional attachment work together
- Jahn et al. (1997) ---reported the results of a 12 year program. The effect sizes for individual trials were very small (marginally better than chance). But when combines the effect size was very large, exceeding the probability of 1 in 10 to the power of 13
- Macro-PK
- ESP
- Found effect occur when 'operators' are at some distance from the machine and when the machines aren't operating. Also when 2 people with a strong emotional attachment work together
Comments
No comments have yet been made