Back

Have Scientists Finally Discovered Evidence for Psychic Phenomena?

#1
Here's something--some 'woo-woo'? a small but 'properly done' study?--for Tzadeck. ^_^ Expect to see Deepak Chopra discuss this at some point.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...-phenomena

Dr. Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, conducted a series of studies that will soon be published in one of the most prestigious psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). Across nine experiments, Bem examined the idea that our brain has the ability to not only reflect on past experiences, but also anticipate future experiences. This ability for the brain to "see into the future" is often referred to as psi phenomena.

Although prior research has been conducted on the psi phenomena - we have all seen those movie images of people staring at Zener cards with a star or wavy lines on them - such studies often fail to meet the threshold of "scientific investigation." However, Bem's studies are unique in that they represent standard scientific methods and rely on well-established principles in psychology. Essentially, he took effects that are considered valid and reliable in psychology - studying improves memory, priming facilitates response times - and simply reversed their chronological order.

For example, we all know that rehearsing a set of words makes them easier to recall in the future, but what if the rehearsal occurs after the recall? In one of the studies, college students were given a list of words and after reading the list, were given a surprise recall test to see how many words they remembered. Next, a computer randomly selected some of the words on the list as practice words and the participants were asked to retype them several times. The results of the study showed that the students were better at recalling the words on the surprise recall test that they were later given, at random, to practice. According to Bem, practicing the words after the test somehow allowed the participants to "reach back in time to facilitate recall."

Original article (preprint): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8290411/FeelingFuture.pdf

Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect

Abstract: The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. Two variants of psi are precognition (conscious cognitive awareness) and premonition (affective apprehension) of a future event that could not otherwise be anticipated through any known inferential process. Precognition and premonition are themselves special cases of a more general phenomenon: the anomalous retroactive influence of some future event on an individual’s current responses, whether those responses are conscious or nonconscious, cognitive or affective. This article reports 9 experiments, involving more than 1,000 participants, that test for retroactive influence by “timereversing” well-established psychological effects so that the individual’s responses are obtained before the putatively causal stimulus events occur. Data are presented for 4 time-reversed effects: precognitive approach to erotic stimuli and precognitive avoidance of negative stimuli; retroactive priming; retroactive habituation; and retroactive facilitation of recall. The mean effect size (d) in psi performance across all 9 experiments was .21, and all but one of them yielded statistically significant results. The individual-difference variable of stimulus seeking, a component of extraversion, was significantly correlated with psi performance in 5 of the experiments, with participants who scored above the midpoint on a scale of stimulus seeking achieving a mean effect size of .42. Skepticism about psi, issues of replication, and theories of psi
are also discussed.
Reply
#2
Maybe it's just because it's 2:39 am right now, but...

WHAAAA!? o.0

分かぁない
Reply
#3
We can duplicate this dude's experiment pretty easily using anki, you know.

1)Make a deck of random crap
2)Randomly tag cards either 1 or 2
3)Quiz all cards
4)Separate them out into two decks based on their random tags
5)Record statistics/graphs
6)Flip a coin. If you get heads, delete deck 1. If you get tails, delete deck 2.
7)Study the other deck.


I predict that if we do this, the two decks will have no significant difference in card eases at step 5, and a chi-square analysis will show that any differences are due to pure chance.

This would disprove the entire dubious study.
Edited: 2010-10-15, 2:12 am
Reply
May 16 - 30 : Pretty Big Deal: Save 31% on all Premium Subscriptions! - Sign up here
JapanesePod101
#4
I say wait a decade or two until the human connectome is mapped and then things might become a little clearer in regards to the brains exact operation.
Reply
#5
hereticalrants Wrote:I predict that if we do this, the two decks will have no significant difference in card eases at step 5.
A measurement at step 5 will ruin the whole experiment.
This is all about quantum superposition.
Reply
#6
The fact that it will be published in JPSP does concern me - the content doesn't look like it would pass the scrutiny of an evidence-based journal that also wants a decent level of theory. But I'll be interested when and if it is published.

Several critical remarks immediately come to mind: causality seems to be violated in this psychological experiment with humans. The fact that causality has never been found to be violated in experiments with elementary particles, atoms or molecules does make me think that there must a much simpler, less impactful explanation for the results they got. Experiments with complex systems like humans, the human mind et cetera always deserve great care, just because they are so complex - you cannot control all the parameters of the experiment. And violation of causality is not to be taken lightly - all theories so far take causality as not to be violated, and not without reason. I'd say more research would need to be done to analyse their results.
I didn't look at their statistical analysis yet, but this is also a common place where human errors are introduced. All the more reason to look at the explanation the study gives with scepsis.

IceCream Wrote:Speaking of dubious things, i was looking for videos on event related potentials yesterday, and came across this:



i honestly couldn't decide the reliability of this guy as a source, and what level of scepticism to assign to it.

On one hand, he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, on the other hand, he's talking about memory being stored in a holographic form that is larger than the brain, and can be shared via a superconductor in the brain.
The man speaks utter nonsense. A superconductor in the brain? Ridiculous. There is a lot of research in superconductivity going on in _physics_ and it has nothing to do with psychology. The best superconducting material found to day only starts to superconduct below -140 degrees Celsius! The fact that I can't find anything about him in established sources, and his organisation also seems to be quite unknown in the scientific world, I'd say this case is clear.

You come across this quite often: people can talk complete nonsense when they start using terms from physics or other related bèta fields, terms of which they know the general public or alpha-scientists don't exactly know what they mean -but which everybody has read something about somewhere-, and a lot of effort is wasted in pursuing these delusions lacking empirical, theoretical or peer-reviewed scientific support.

To continue on my last paragraph:
iSoron Wrote:
hereticalrants Wrote:I predict that if we do this, the two decks will have no significant difference in card eases at step 5.
A measurement at step 5 will ruin the whole experiment.
This is all about quantum superposition.
Sorry, but quantum superposition has nothing do to with this. Quantum superposition is about quantum systems and we're looking at large ensembles of cells, which consist of large ensembles of atoms - a typical case of where the classical (non-quantum) laws hold. Not that I blame you, but this looks like a typical case of fitting a term you've read about somewhere to a situation to which it has no relation.

By the way, this reminds me of the fact that I haven't seen any decent research linking quatum theory with the brain yet - there is a lot written on it, but as far as I know it still falls in the pseudo-science basket.
Edited: 2010-10-15, 10:01 am
Reply
#7
KanjiDevourer Wrote:
iSoron Wrote:
hereticalrants Wrote:I predict that if we do this, the two decks will have no significant difference in card eases at step 5.
A measurement at step 5 will ruin the whole experiment.
This is all about quantum superposition.
Sorry, but quantum superposition has nothing do to with this. Quantum superposition is about quantum systems and we're looking at large ensembles of cells, which consist of large ensembles of atoms - a typical case of where the classical (non-quantum) laws hold.
True, but assuming that this "psi" effect does work, it's also probably a good idea to not let the test subject see the results at step 5 until after step 7 in my little experiment.

Record the data at step 5, but do not look at it until the end. Then do your analysis.

Also, the deck would have to contain material that you have no long term commitment to learn-- if it was a Japanese vocabulary list that you'd learn later anyway, for example, the effect would occur no matter which deck you studied and the experiment would be ruined.
Reply
#8
hereticalrants Wrote:We can duplicate this dude's experiment pretty easily using anki, you know.

1)Make a deck of random crap
2)Randomly tag cards either 1 or 2
3)Quiz all cards
4)Separate them out into two decks based on their random tags
5)Record statistics/graphs
6)Flip a coin. If you get heads, delete deck 1. If you get tails, delete deck 2.
7)Study the other deck.


I predict that if we do this, the two decks will have no significant difference in card eases at step 5, and a chi-square analysis will show that any differences are due to pure chance.

This would disprove the entire dubious study.
To make it better, have a second person prepare the deck. The subject will never see the tags.

Either way, studying and then remembering is more reliable than the other way around.
Edited: 2010-10-15, 3:29 pm
Reply
#9
Yes, a blind trial is key for something like this.

The less interference from regular ol' psychological effects, the closer the stats for the two decks will be.
This will make it easier to crush this crackpot theory.


I don't really feel that the time investment would be worth it (who wants to study useless information?), but if someone were to do it, you might as well do it properly.
Edited: 2010-10-15, 4:34 pm
Reply
#10
KanjiDevourer Wrote:Sorry, but quantum superposition has nothing do to with this.
I know; I was just kidding. Wink

But [off-topic]:
KanjiDevourer Wrote:Quantum superposition is about quantum systems and we're looking at large ensembles of cells, which consist of large ensembles of atoms - a typical case of where the classical (non-quantum) laws hold.
It is already known that macroscopic systems can behave quantum mechanically [1], so this is not a valid counterargument.
Edited: 2010-10-15, 10:21 pm
Reply
#11
Can you give an example of a macroscopic system acting quantum mechanically? Not trying to be a dick, just interested.
Reply
#12
I dunno, Schrödinger's cat?
Reply
#13
nadiatims Wrote:Can you give an example of a macroscopic system acting quantum mechanically? Not trying to be a dick, just interested.
Doesn't that article iSoron linked to have a list?

Also, this is just from Googling, but a quantum microphone maybe? http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...microphone

Soon we will be able to use graphene or p-doped graphane or something to superconduct our quantum brain computer thingies. Also, 2+2 = 4 e = mc2.
Edited: 2010-10-15, 11:18 pm
Reply
#14
hereticalrants Wrote:I dunno, Schrödinger's cat?
ionoeder
Reply
#15
SNAKE YOU CAN'T DO THAT! YOU'VE CREATED A

T I M E P A R A D O X

(I'm sorry)
Reply
#16
IceCream Wrote:i guess the problem is that junk science is usually fairly obvious to spot, because it's totally illogical. But if you're trying to learn about exactly what the junk science is about, and don't know enough of the terms used, it just comes across as plain confusing rather than obviously illogical...
Well, some notions from modern science are absolutely illogical or somehow unnatural or counterintuitive, so that doesn't make it any easier either.

iSoron Wrote:
KanjiDevourer Wrote:Sorry, but quantum superposition has nothing do to with this.
I know; I was just kidding. ;)
Great :)

Quote:
KanjiDevourer Wrote:Quantum superposition is about quantum systems and we're looking at large ensembles of cells, which consist of large ensembles of atoms - a typical case of where the classical (non-quantum) laws hold.
It is already known that macroscopic systems can behave quantum mechanically [1], so this is not a valid counterargument.
You're right, there are cases where sufficiently isolated (decoupled), many-particle systems can behave quantummechanically. The article also mentions another case: superconductors. But I think the argument still stands considering that we're not looking at decoupled systems in a lab conditions. Not that it's impossible, but at least not very probable, and not to be theorised about without some very strong evidence.

nadiatims Wrote:Can you give an example of a macroscopic system acting quantum mechanically? Not trying to be a dick, just interested.
I couldn't think of any, except a superconducting piece of ceramic. Or perhaps some nanodevices, but more macro than that, no...
Reply
#17
hereticalrants Wrote:I predict that if we do this, the two decks will have no significant difference in card eases at step 5, and a chi-square analysis will show that any differences are due to pure chance..
Bring on the chi-square analysis!
Reply
#18
I don't have any data, so ... no.
Reply
#19
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201...re-psychic

"Scientists are buzzing over a peer-reviewed study that suggests humans have predictive powers, but it’s too early to predict whether or not the research will hold up...

... Bem acknowledged that the experiments would have to be replicated in order to confirm that precognition is a real effect. Two other researchers, Jeff Galak of Carnegie Mellon University and Leif Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley, have already tried to replicate one of Bem's experiments (the one with the word recall test) and failed to get any significant results...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a...id=1699970

... Bem said Galak and Nelson went ahead with their trial without having full information about how his own experiments were conducted. They also had their experimental subjects take the test over the Internet rather than in person. When the test is conducted online, "you lose total control over it," Bem said. (Galak and Nelson admit that it's "unclear" how closely their subjects attended to the key elements of the experiment.)

But never fear: Since word about Bem's results got out, he's received dozens of requests for information about how the experiment was done. The experiments are sure to be repeated, and the results from those experiments should confirm whether precognition is for real. Who knows? Some of you may already have a sixth sense about this."
Edited: 2010-11-13, 12:15 pm
Reply
#20
Somewhat related the Web Bot. Not a scientific experiment; but nonetheless I find the idea really cool: data gathered by web crawlers is used to make predictions.

Google recently bought a company that uses a similar idea. Google invests in company that predicts the future. No one saw it coming.
Reply
#21
Regarding my last post, I found this today:

Large-Scale Sentiment Analysis for News and Blogs (system demonstration)

Link from Google blog.
Reply
#22
Talking about Psychic Phenomena... why is this post stickied? Lol. No idea. Must have misclicked.

Unstickied!
Reply
#23
ファブリス Wrote:Talking about Psychic Phenomena... why is this post stickied? Lol. No idea. Must have misclicked.

Unstickied!
Ha, I wondered about that. I was like, "Wow, Fabrice is really into this stuff!"
Reply
#24
*tip toes out with head down*
Reply
#25
"reach back in time to facilitate recall."

Cognitively speaking, the brain often edits our memories retroactively. There's no causality issue here (altho judging from the quote, the author of the paper misunderstands?).
Edited: 2011-01-25, 2:13 pm
Reply