Psi Experimental Signatures - What Are They?

[Wowbagger]

I want to make it clear, from the start, that in this context, I am referring to a phenomenon in experimental results, that I will elaborate on below. I am NOT referring to claims of "unique energy signatures" or auras emanating from a person, nor anything like that.

So, I am reading this book entitled Outside the Gates of Science by Damien Broderick, as part of a book reading challenge. The first chapter notes that, yes, there have been lots of hits and misses in psi experiments. But, it also claims that performance (level of failure or success) is persistent within individuals. It seems to support a claim promoted by a psi experimenter, named Dr. Robert Jahn, that we all have measurable "signatures".

To quote the book's own words:
A "signature", as mentioned above, is nothing more mysterious than a graph showing an individual's accumulated experimental record. These, to Jahn's eye, prove to retain a certain persistent identity over time and despite variations in the experimental design. Critics fail to see these patterns. (page 29)

I never heard of that concept before, in the context of psi experiments, and I have not been able to find much skeptical information about it, yet. (I did find lots of stuff about "psi energy signatures", emanating from our "spirits", and stuff like that, but again, that is not the type of "signature" I am referring to.)

Perhaps some of you could clue me in to this. Is the phenomenon real?

If not, what would account for this persistence (or appearance of persistence)?

If so, why isn't more attention brought to this "world-shattering" concept?

[cj.23]

It's a really old idea - the Experimenter Effect (parapsychology). In the 90's it was generally considered to be replicable, with some very interesting studies, but I believe more recent studies have thrown cold water on it, so jury open. I'll find out if you are interested what the latest is.

Good description at the KPU - halfway down page - http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/Psi.html

I remember writing a scathing response to something by James Alcock about this issue. Many sceptics have suggested that the experimenter effect is highly suspicious - and on the surface it appears to be so - people who believe get results, sceptics don't. So it is implied th whole thing is a nonsense. Yet in fact philosophically this is exactly what one might expect to find if GESP is true - after all, the experimenters consciousness then becomes a variable in the experiment. With that in mind there have been some excellent studies - Sue Blackmore was in one that I recall.

And there is a classic "signature" -- no psi effects manifest for Dr Blackmore. :)

cj x

[blutoski]

I want to make it clear, from the start, that in this context, I am referring to a phenomenon in experimental results, that I will elaborate on below. I am NOT referring to claims of "unique energy signatures" or auras emanating from a person, nor anything like that.

So, I am reading this book entitled Outside the Gates of Science by Damien Broderick, as part of a book reading challenge. The first chapter notes that, yes, there have been lots of hits and misses in psi experiments. But, it also claims that performance (level of failure or success) is persistent within individuals. It seems to support a claim promoted by a psi experimenter, named Dr. Robert Jahn, that we all have measurable "signatures".

To quote the book's own words:
(page 29)

I never heard of that concept before, in the context of psi experiments, and I have not been able to find much skeptical information about it, yet. (I did find lots of stuff about "psi energy signatures", emanating from our "spirits", and stuff like that, but again, that is not the type of "signature" I am referring to.)

Perhaps some of you could clue me in to this. Is the phenomenon real?

If not, what would account for this persistence (or appearance of persistence)?

If so, why isn't more attention brought to this "world-shattering" concept?

I've heard this claim before, although I admit I haven't specifically heard if from Broderick.

I think the lack of interest in this is that the examples are pretty obviously confirmation bias, regression to the mean, or even pareidolia.

An analyst will find an infinite number of patterns that look familiar in a long enough random walk, especially if he is not restricted to comparing patterns within the same scale.

eg: Bob got a hit and then the rest of the day was misses. Bob produced a month of statistically significant positive results, but has since produced garbage. Hey: this is a pattern! Is this 'pattern' meaningful? Well, to reasonable psi investigators and skeptics alike, it's proof of mundane regression to the mean.

An unreasonable psi advocate is jumping through some shaky rationalizations to assert that a pattern of repeated psi failures is proof of psi because it's a pattern.


I'm reminded of conspiracy nuts who argue that their consistent failure to locate evidence of their conspiracies is itself evidence of the conspiracy. Likewise, these unreasonable psi advocates believe that ordinary natural statistical artefacts like random walks or regression to the mean are actually proof of psi because they're persistent.



There is a way to test for this, of course. Give the claimant a set of blinded psi test results from two testees, and ask them if they can sort them into two groups If they can really identify signatures from individuals, they should be able to do this better than random chance.

[Wowbagger]

Whether psi is real or not, if such patterns really are persistent, that would still be a significant discovery, of some sort, I imagine. Perhaps the experimenters accidentally stumbled upon some other effect they did not previously fathom.

Perhaps it might be, as was suggested, Experimenter Effects. But, if the parapsychologists can get their act together, and develop formal tests to see just how persistent these patterns are, it might yield something even better than that! (Even if it does not turn out to be actual psi.)

Remember Pavlov's study of dogs? He was studying measurements of dog saliva, and accidentally hit upon Classical Conditioning. I think more of these fringe "scientists" should consider that they might be observing something else aside from what they think they are studying.