I would like to propose a "psycic test"

[DRBUZZ0]

I'd like to propose a test for self-proclaimed psychics which I do not think has been done and which should produce results which would be difficult to contest.


Rather simple: Find a few self-proclaimed psychics and make sure that they have made claims and "readings" indicating that they can pick up on spirits based on locations or objects. Those involved with "haunted house" investigations would be best.

Take these subjects, separately, to a proported "haunted" location which has a very well established haunting, based on historically verifiable information.

for example, (hypothetically): "This tavern was formerly the home of a woman who committed suicide after her husband was found cheating. She is said to haunt the place, but primarily the upstairs. Employees claim to have seen a woman dressed in white and that they can hear the noose swinging from the rafters. They have also reported broken dishes and that her black cat still lurks in the basement"


The place should be well established as "haunted" but not so famous or well known that non-locals would be very aware of the history.

Each "psychic" is allowed to spend as much time on the premises, but with noone familiar with the story. They will then each fill out a multiple-choice and short-answer test, which will be compared to the historical record and to those of other "psychics."

Questions might include:



How many spirits haunt this location: One, Two, Three or more, Many-But one of them dominates, Many-none dominate

Explain any more details: _________________

If more than one, are they in conflict? Yes/No

Gender? M/F (if more than one explain)

What areas of the structure are especially signifficant: Basement, Attic, Main Floor, Bedroom (front), Bedroom (read), kitchen, Porch...

Are there any indications of the time frame of the haunting's spirit's life:

Recently (past 20-30 years), mid-late 20th century, Early 20th century, 1800's, Pre-1800's.



Any additional info____________


Does the spirit have any traits which may indicate status, occupation or other traits (such as a soldiers uniform, work clothing, or the gown of a society woman)?


Can you give any approximate age of the spirit (IE: Infant, Child, Adolecent, Young Adult, Middle Aged, Elderly)?



Any indication of manner of death or Illness: (such as choaking feeling or burning heat or chest pressure)?



This ghost is: Benovelant toward those here now / A joking poltergeist / An evil spirit / Unaware of the passage of time


Was this ghost:

Murdered?
Accused of a crime not committed?
Lost a loved one, such as a child?
Mentally troubled?
Persecuted or rejected by the community?
Had a romantic falling out?
Committed suicide?
Suffered a long illness?
Died on the battlefield or due to war?



Physical Description (IE: Tall, Short, long hair ect):


What is the significance of this place? Burried here, Lived Here - In this structure, Lived here - on this place but before this structure was built, Died here, Frequented here, Was last seen here

[Curnir]

all the "psychic" need to say to render that protocol worthless is:

"Oh it's become a focal point for spirits, so the ones I saw was only the ones most attuned to 'insert X' others might see other spirits."
or
"Oh this is the spirit of someone who once stayed here and was frightened, it stands to reason that his/her spirit would go to haunt here as well"

Hucksters are masters of the post hoc.

[DRBUZZ0]

all the "psychic" need to say to render that protocol worthless is:

"Oh it's become a focal point for spirits, so the ones I saw was only the ones most attuned to 'insert X' others might see other spirits."
or
"Oh this is the spirit of someone who once stayed here and was frightened, it stands to reason that his/her spirit would go to haunt here as well"

Hucksters are masters of the post hoc.



Well if that's the case, then the psychic has no business in doing any sort of "haunting investigation" since they have demonstrated that they are completely incapable of determining the reported spirit from the background "noise" of other spirits.

[RemieV]

That's not why it's a poor protocol... it's a poor protocol because you're working off the assumption that there is, in fact, a haunting. Prove the premise first. Then worry about validating their claims.

[RemieV]

Well if that's the case, then the psychic has no business in doing any sort of "haunting investigation" since they have demonstrated that they are completely incapable of determining the reported spirit from the background "noise" of other spirits.

Are you saying there's a psychic out there who *has* done well enough to pick out the spirits from the background noise? Because, I'm pretty sure (but could be wrong) that no psychic has ever proven anything except faking powers is an excellent way to make some cash.

[DRBUZZ0]

That's not why it's a poor protocol... it's a poor protocol because you're working off the assumption that there is, in fact, a haunting. Prove the premise first. Then worry about validating their claims.



Perhaps, but if you cannot get the psychics to agree on whether or not a place is haunted, even if it has been "confirmed" by various ghost-hunters, eyewitnesses and other psychics who have investigated the area.

Well...that doesn't say much for the whole damn idea of hauntings, does it?

[RemieV]

There's a lot of wiggle room there. People don't believe in psychics and ghost hunters because of the evidence. They believe because they want to believe.

[cj.23]

Hi Dr B.


It's not a bad protocol, but it has been in use with variants in parapsychology for over 40 years. It was pioneered by Dr. Getrude Schmeidler, in her article A Quantitative Assessment of a Haunted House. She used maps, and psychics were sent round, with independent guides with no knowledge of the supposed haunting, to prevent NVC signals. The results were then compared with maps generated to represent the witness statements, intelligent sceptics ideas of where they would imagine to be a ghost, and a control group.

Word lists of adjectives were also used. The UK group Parasoc www.parasoc.org -has used the method for some years, and tried to refine the protocols, but still have not managed to actually provide a sufficiently tight experiment to please everyone on the committee (like me.)

The idea is sound, but you need to tighten up your controls. I can certainly advise if interested. And the show I used to work on Most Haunted demonstrated you can get amazing results - particularly if someone is leaking you the location in advance, as is alleged with very good reason by Ciaran there. So really, thsi could be hard to set up. Cryptomnesia and prior knowledge need to be factored in as well. Doable, but hard... Will be happy to assist if i can

cj x

[DRBUZZ0]

Hi Dr B.


It's not a bad protocol, but it has been in use with variants in parapsychology for over 40 years. It was pioneered by Dr. Getrude Schmeidler, in her article A Quantitative Assessment of a Haunted House. She used maps, and psychics were sent round, with independent guides with no knowledge of the supposed haunting, to prevent NVC signals. The results were then compared with maps generated to represent the witness statements, intelligent sceptics ideas of where they would imagine to be a ghost, and a control group.

Word lists of adjectives were also used. The UK group Parasoc www.parasoc.org -has used the method for some years, and tried to refine the protocols, but still have not managed to actually provide a sufficiently tight experiment to please everyone on the committee (like me.)

The idea is sound, but you need to tighten up your controls. I can certainly advise if interested. And the show I used to work on Most Haunted demonstrated you can get amazing results - particularly if someone is leaking you the location in advance, as is alleged with very good reason by Ciaran there. So really, thsi could be hard to set up. Cryptomnesia and prior knowledge need to be factored in as well. Doable, but hard... Will be happy to assist if i can

cj x

Well...this is a relatively simplistic test with basic controls. It would have to be refined further. If the psychics showed very promising results in the test, then it would be taken to the next level: Doing the test under more strictly controlled circumstances.

I think the key would be to make sure there weren't too many people who knew the location or anything before hand. As Ben Franklin has said "Three men can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead."

But as far as the test not being satisfactory to many, my guess is that if it is conducted and the results are not positive, one of two things would happen:

Either

A. The pro-ghost folks would cry flowl and demand the rules be tweaked and retweaked until they got a good result.

B. The pro-ghost folks would nit pick the damn thing to death and, if they could not get a positive, they'd rule the test "inconclusive"

I can see them saying "Okay, well she said there was the presence of a little girl from the 1800's, with blond hair. And that she committed suicide" "Well, Mr. Smith, who is the ghost of the house, had a daughter...she died in 1986, but she would have been a little girl in the early part of the 20th century and she had light brown hair, which is close. Maybe he was remembering her. And mr. Smith was killed with a gun, which is kinda similar to suicide, because he basically was asking for it"

[CLD]

Take these subjects, separately, to a proported "haunted" location which has a very well established haunting, based on historically verifiable information.

The place should be well established as "haunted" but not so famous or well known that non-locals would be very aware of the history.

Each "psychic" is allowed to spend as much time on the premises, but with noone familiar with the story.

Psychic hucksters ace this type of "test" all the time, most notably Derek Acorah. It's a simple matter to find out details of the location beforehand and do the necessary research via confederates. (I can think of at least 10 ways to get vital information from you without seeming to). Answers to such questions like "how many spirits are there" and "are the spirits angry" can easily be ad-libbed since there is no way to confirm such "facts".

[cj.23]

It is also worth noting that I did better than Derek one night, entirely without research or notes (obviously enough on a show I was not researcher for!). A particular building brought a name top mind, and then many more facts. As it happened i was at home that night, so I started typing my hunches on the MH forum - sat might well recall.

Anyway after it finished i just thought where did I recall this from? I kept seeing snow, and recalled a grave or memorial stone. I checked out the old 13 volume part work the unexplained, and sure enough there was the story, with the picture I recalled.


Yet I could very easily have concluded I was psychic that night, if I had not thought "I must have read this somewhere".


cj x

[CLD]

If I were being tested, I'd be victim of an attack of diarreah upon arrival at the location ("the psychic vibrations are so intense" etc.) After 20 minutes ensconced in a loo, I'd be seen to feel slightly better, and within a short time of touring the premises, I'd give forth stunningly accurate details of the haunting and be proclaimed Britain's Most Accurate Psychic.

(Of course while I was in the loo, I'd have been silently text-messaging my mate equipped with an internet search engine to give me all the details I need)

[Joe_Black]

Or a protocal can be, 6 targets (6-12 would be best the higher the better but also makes it harder to get it right, by both chance alone and also as the can only be so many extremely contrasting targets) with random numbers assigned to them in duplicate. The psychic chooses the target pictures (or there friend who understands psychic functioning does) which relate to real world locations. They are all sufficantly different to avoid any confusion, IE: "ivy mike" nuclear test 1 second after detonation might be one target and another would be a waterfall, bruce lee, a race car etc.

Then both sets are all put in evelopes the psychic keeps one set and one of the other envelopes is marked as the target by a 3rd party who does not even see the target or know which target it is. The duplicates with the target marked by the 3rd party are all put in a timelocked safe or some secure place.

The psychic then works the target and chooses the target which he/she think it is. If it matches a hit. if it does not a miss. Repeate 50 times changing the targets each time.

Its long winded but very easy for the psychic. Any psychic can do this, who ever claims any sort of psychic functioning should be able do this else they are probably not a very good psychic. I would expect anyone with a reasonable degree of ability to get at least 50%+ hit and if there really good perhaps 100%, they can work the target over and over again and its probably best if its worked at least a few times till they are confident in its basic makeup to avoid error.

[DRBUZZ0]

Psychic hucksters ace this type of "test" all the time, most notably Derek Acorah. It's a simple matter to find out details of the location beforehand and do the necessary research via confederates. (I can think of at least 10 ways to get vital information from you without seeming to). Answers to such questions like "how many spirits are there" and "are the spirits angry" can easily be ad-libbed since there is no way to confirm such "facts".

Eh...I don't know about being able to find out ahead of time. I live in Connecticut, for example. If you limit yourself to a three-four hour drive, you have all of Connecticut, all of Rhode Island, Most of Massachusetts's, New York City, All of Long Island, A good portion of upstate New York (westchester all the way to north of albany). Some of New Jersey and portions of New Hampshire and vermont.

Okay...well..it would depend on traffic, but any of those areas would qualify for a "Day Trip".

I highly doubt that a person could memorize the details of all the reported haunted places, even those which aren't well known outside the community, on the entirety of 5 or 6 states.

Obviously, part of the test would be to choose locations which are not obvious and to make sure ahead of time nothing indicates the possible haunting.

Take this individual to a group of buildings, with the person taking them there also having no prior knowledge. The buildings all look pretty non-descript. However one of them is "known to be haunted." And has had many mediums there "confirm" it and such.

There is actually an example of that near me. There are some private homes in a small area, several of which are rather old (1700's-1800's) and one of them is supposedly haunted by the spirit of a resident who was a local fisherman who's boat was lost at sea...

I highly doubt that anyone from outside my area would have memorized the details of that house and be able to identify it from a mental database of haunted newengland homes

[Dave_46]

Don't forget to fabricate some false history, and plant the fabrication where "research" will find it.

And document your fabrication and planting.

Dave

[DRBUZZ0]

Don't forget to fabricate some false history, and plant the fabrication where "research" will find it.

And document your fabrication and planting.

Dave

I think it might be worthwhile to pick something which is misleading. For example, a building near the coast, and then put a lot of nautical stuff around the place. However the legend is of a framer who haunts the place.

Or perhaps place items which indicate a different era than the one of the aleged spirit.

Don't lie...just sort of... misslead....