Who's Staring (At Rupert Sheldrake) ? [Archive]

CFLarsen

16th August 2003, 11:51 PM

"If it's tails, he looks away and thinks of something else."

Right.

Try not to think of an elephant.

You can't.

So, how can we know that Sheldrake thinks of "something else"?

"No, I was looking," he answers.

Ehhh...who checks if Sheldrake looks or not?

So let's get back to our scientific experiment. "You may or may not feel the difference," Mr. Sheldrake says as I try to connect with his field and feel his eyes boring into the back of my head.

Sounds eerily familiar to the opening line from psychic mediums: "The spirits might come through tonight, or they might not. If they don't, please don't take that as evidence that they don't exist"

As chance would have it, Mr. Sheldrake's coin flips split his looking and not-looking tests evenly. I guessed correctly in seven of the 10 "looking" trials. And in the "not-looking" trials, I was right five out of 10 times.

Well within the limits. Nothing proved.

On several occasions, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), the largest skeptical organization in the world, has attempted to refute his research by carrying out its own experiments.

"Their results were identical," Mr. Sheldrake says, smiling smugly. "They actually replicated the phenomenon."

Yeah? Where can I see this identical result?

Mr. Sheldrake says the skeptics, who have also questioned his various techniques of randomization, are almost evangelical in their objections. "It's like talking to creationists. They're just so narrow-minded and bigoted and stupid, really."

Let me get this straight, Rupe: If they have replicated your experiment...why are they stupid?

Dragon

17th August 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by claire
...

Sounds dodgy!!

Oh yes - Sheldrake is the "morphic resonance" guy isn't he?
A prince among woowoos.

Anyway, here's a link (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html) to the CSICOP review - which refutes Sheldrake.
Quote -"The biased nature of Sheldrake's sequences has several unfortunate implications. First, it leads to implicit or explicit pattern learning when feedback is provided. When the patterns being guessed mirror naturally occurring guessing patterns, the results could go above or below chance levels even without feedback. Thus significant results might occur purely from nonrandom guessing."

The CSICOP authors conclude- "The evidence reviewed here provides no support to the claim that people can consciously detect unseen staring."

Ceinwyn

17th August 2003, 12:10 AM

Well, I would guess that if he supplies answers while performing his own experiments-- "No, I was looking"-- that pretty much invalidates any kind of "research" this dimwit was conducting.

CFLarsen

17th August 2003, 12:11 AM

Whoa........wait a second.

IF (CSICOP has replicated Sheldrake's experiment) AND (CSICOP has found no evidence of the claim) THEN
.......Sheldrake's experiment must have shown no evidence either
ENDIF

Right? :D

Either this, or Sheldrake is lying. I don't really see any other options.

Jeff Corey

17th August 2003, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Well within the limits. Nothing proved.
Yes, Claus, by the binomial test, 12 out of 20 gives a p of about .12, not statistically significant

Iamme

17th August 2003, 01:37 PM

Interesting. I think most of us at one time or another have thought that we knew when someone was behind us. And sometimes there IS...but then sometimes there isn't, either.

But supposedly THOUGHT cna manifest itself into results. There have been gurus who try to get the whole world to pray for something, so that an event takes place..

And all I am hoping for, is that this one girl that I pine over can 'hear' my pleads for her. If we as humans possess any mind-control...surely this girl would 'hear' me, as I have thought about her and called out her name fo thousands of hours. I will not though divulge any more intimacies about this however. I am just making a point here. I entertained the notion that my mind had a power force to it when I started to get near some street lights, and the lights would go out, when I was under extreme mental strain and in deep, deep thought. Then I started entertaining the fantasy that women who I fantasize over could perhaps 'receive' my secret thoughts. But I guess not.

Yet, there supposedly is 'proof' that people who are secretly prayed for, get better sooner than the other test subjects who were sick, and NOT prayed for.

All these mysteries in this life that everyone debates and are never conclusively proven. Ain't it fun?

Interesting Ian

17th August 2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Dragon

Oh yes - Sheldrake is the "morphic resonance" guy isn't he?
A prince among woowoos.

Anyway, here's a link (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html) to the CSICOP review - which refutes Sheldrake.

It refutes him does it? Do you believe everything CSICOP says? :rolleyes:

Quote -"The biased nature of Sheldrake's sequences has several unfortunate implications. First, it leads to implicit or explicit pattern learning when feedback is provided. When the patterns being guessed mirror naturally occurring guessing patterns, the results could go above or below chance levels even without feedback. Thus significant results might occur purely from nonrandom guessing."

The CSICOP authors conclude- "The evidence reviewed here provides no support to the claim that people can consciously detect unseen staring."

I actually posted something about this a few weeks back. This is what I said before:

{quote}
If what they say is true, and it wasn't properly randomised, then it is impressively incompetent of Sheldrake. CSICOP are notorious though for giving misleading information, if not outright lies. I suppose I could do a search to try and establish if what they say is true {YAWNS}

[/QUOTE]

I found this (http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staring/followup_full.html)

Marks and Colwell then postulated that the subjects' success when they were given feedback was due to an implicit learning of structures hidden in my randomized sequences. They showed by means of several tests that my sequences deviated from "structureless" randomness.

So Sheldrake explicitly admits it. But then he goes on to say:

Ironically, this was because I adopted a recommendation by Wiseman and Smith (1994) to use counterbalanced sequences containing equal numbers of looking and not-looking trials. Like Marks and Colwell, Wiseman and Smith (1994) obtained an unexpectedly positive result in a staring experiment and then tried to explain it as an artifact of the randomization procedure, but in their case they attributed it to a lack of counterbalancing.

Ah! There is a problem then in that it is not possible to have both a wholly random sequence as well as a equal number of looking and not looking trials. He followed Wiseman's and Smith's recommendation, but then gets hammered for his procedure not being wholly random. On the other hand if it had have been wholly random, then there would have been a lack of counterbalancing, and the skeptics could again call into question his results for the same reasons as those given by Wiseman and Smith in their staring experiment.

So it seems Sheldrake can't win :(

Of course, even if it is not wholly random, this doesn't mean to say there are patterns. It's like guessing the colours of cards one at a time. You know there are 26 red cards and 26 black cards. So if the first card you guess is black and you get it correct, then there is a very slightly higher probability that the next card is red.

Would that be enough to explain Sheldrakes results? I have no idea. What I'd like to know is why it is necessary to have equal numbers of staring and not staring trials. Is it simply because Wiseman got a positive result using this procedure and therefore it must be flawed? Or does he have independent reasons?

Anyway, now we know the bare facts of the case, I think your charge that Sheldrake was being incompetent cannot be upheld. This does not mean to say that the less than wholly random procedure is not a concern, but he was put in a situation that no matter what procedure he used, he would have been accused of incompetence.
{/quote}

Interesting Ian

17th August 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by claire
[B]Hullo! I came across this article in my newspaper last week on Rupert Sheldrake's staring experiment (he claims he has proven that people can tell when they are being stared at):

Globe and Mail Science : The Eyes Have It (http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20030809/FCSHEL/Science/science/science/3/3/7/)

I dunno, it sounds kinda dodgy to me.

It sounds kinda dodgy? What's dodgy about it?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

17th August 2003, 05:45 PM

I think people can tell when they're being looked at. That's why it's so weird walking on the streets of New York City.

Ian said:It sounds kinda dodgy? What's dodgy about it?
If it were just my being able to read your mind when you're looking at me, it would be fine. But what's really going on is that I'm remote viewing your eyes. That's just yucky.

~~ Paul

thaiboxerken

17th August 2003, 07:12 PM

I'm using my remote viewing powers now.. I see that Ian will think about me after reading this post. Ian is a fool.

T'ai Chi

17th August 2003, 10:23 PM

Got any actual content ken?

Just comedy? yeah, probably

Kerberos

18th August 2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

There is a problem then in that it is not possible to have both a wholly random sequence as well as a equal number of looking and not looking trials. {/quote}
How about just randomizing an equal number of looking and non-looking tests and not tell the subject if his guesses are correct until the test is over. In that way the subject would have no way to figure out the result.

You could also just flip a coin or use a similar, but more scientific randomization procedure to determine if you should look or not. While this wouldn't necessarily give an equal number of looking and non-looking test that wouldn't matter if you didn't tell the subject how many there'd be of each.

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

How about just randomizing an equal number of looking and non-looking tests and not tell the subject if his guesses are correct until the test is over. In that way the subject would have no way to figure out the result.

You could also just flip a coin or use a similar, but more scientific randomization procedure to determine if you should look or not. While this wouldn't necessarily give an equal number of looking and non-looking test that wouldn't matter if you didn't tell the subject how many there'd be of each.

Well that seems to me to be ok yes. But Wiseman and Smith got a positive result when doing it this way. Wiseman (being a skeptic) thought the positive result must have been an artifact of the fact that there were not an equal number of looking and non-looking tests!

So that is why Sheldrake didn't do it that way. But then it is not properly random! I feel what CSICOP said about this was fair enough. But blame Wiseman and Smith! As I say Sheldrake can't win.

Nothing will ever satisfy skeptics. This is the problem. They will always dream up some excuse, no matter how implausible and far-fetched, or even whether it is a valid excuse at all!

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

How about just randomizing an equal number of looking and non-looking tests and not tell the subject if his guesses are correct until the test is over. In that way the subject would have no way to figure out the result.

Obviously this has been done. Actually the best experiments are those using closed-circuit television. This is a sophisticated experimental procedure using CCTV, with the subjects and lookers in separate rooms. The subjects were not asked to guess whether or not they were being looked at. Instead they could relax while their galvanic skin response was recorded automatically, as in lie detector tests.

Most of these experiments have been successful, with statistically significant positive results.
Braud, Shafer and Andrews (1990, 1993a, 1993b); Schlitz and LaBerge (1994, 1997); Delanoy (2001); Schlitz and Braud (1997). For reviews see Delanoy (2001); Schmidt, Schneider, Utts and Walach (2002).

thaiboxerken

18th August 2003, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Got any actual content ken?

Just comedy? yeah, probably

Not really much left anymore. Trying to actually debate rationally with believers is pointless. A rational discussion requires reason from both sides, not just one. Since believers throw reason out the door, one cannot have a rational discussion with them. The fallacies, fabrications and evasions by the believers are just sickening anymore. So, I am just here to have fun with the superstitious now.

My RV skills are getting Whodini.

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by buki

"Every few minutes, Mr. Sheldrake flips a coin. If the coin comes up heads, he stares at my back. If it's tails, he looks away and thinks of something else. As soon as his mind and eyes are in position, he snaps a clicker, which is my cue to guess whether he's looking at me or not.

Click.

"Looking," I say.

"Correct," replies Mr. Sheldrake, marking down my response.

Click.

"Not looking," I guess.

"No, I was looking," he answers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh huh. Very scientific.

I absolutely agree. But was it intended to be, or was it just a quick demonstration? What about the experiemnts with CCTV that I mention just above?

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Dragon
[B]

Oh yes - Sheldrake is the "morphic resonance" guy isn't he?
A prince among woowoos.

Anyway, here's a link (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html) to the CSICOP review - which refutes Sheldrake.

This doesn't at all refute Sheldrake. See my response above. Also there is a difficulty with this. If pattern learning indeed occurs then, as Sheldrake points out " i(t) should in principle enable participants to improve equally in looking and not-looking trials. But this is not what happened. Significant improvements occurred only in the looking trials".
http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staring/followup_full.html

I do agree though that the randomness should be structureless. But he was simply following the procedures recommended by skeptics!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

18th August 2003, 06:57 AM

But even if I can tell psychically when someone is staring at me, pattern learning should still occur. If I don't feel that I'm being stared at, then I'll say I'm not. Both types of trials should improve.

The same is true in the telephone telepathy experiments. The callees did much better when their familiars called than when someone else called. Regardless of how they were telling who called, why didn't they do better with unfamiliars?

It's as if the subject is thinking "Okay, I feel that I'm being stared at, so I'll say so. . . . Now I don't feel as if I'm being stared at, so I'll guess randomly." Perhaps they trust themselves when they get "the feeling," but don't trust themselves when they do not.

~~ Paul

Kerberos

18th August 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Well that seems to me to be ok yes. But Wiseman and Smith got a positive result when doing it this way. Wiseman (being a skeptic) thought the positive result must have been an artifact of the fact that there were not an equal number of looking and non-looking tests!

So that is why Sheldrake didn't do it that way. But then it is not properly random! I feel what CSICOP said about this was fair enough. But blame Wiseman and Smith! As I say Sheldrake can't win.

Nothing will ever satisfy skeptics. This is the problem. They will always dream up some excuse, no matter how implausible and far-fetched, or even whether it is a valid excuse at all!

The problem is that I’ve only heard Sheldrake's version of the events. However if what he claims is actually true why doesn't he apply for the million dollar prize? His claim is easily testable, doesn’t really on anecdotical evidence and should be repeatable.

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]But even if I can tell psychically when someone is staring at me, pattern learning should still occur.

There is no patterns anymore than when guessing each colour card from a randomly shuffled deck of cards. But if the initial 5 cards are all black, then there would be slightly more probability that the next card would be red.

If I don't feel that I'm being stared at, then I'll say I'm not. Both types of trials should improve.

But they don't. And I disagree that people will equally feel when they're not being stared at as they feel when they are being stared at. Does anyone ever get the feeling "you know I could swear no-one is looking at me!" LOL

Anyway, since both staring and non-staring trials do not improve, but only the staring trials do, this suggests that the positive results are not due to the structured randomness.

The same is true in the telephone telepathy experiments. The callees did much better when their familiars called than when someone else called. Regardless of how they were telling who called, why didn't they do better with unfamiliars?

Because the effectiveness of ESP is tied up with emotion and empathy? Why is that not possible?

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

The problem is that I’ve only heard Sheldrake's version of the events. However if what he claims is actually true why doesn't he apply for the million dollar prize? His claim is easily testable, doesn’t really on anecdotical evidence and should be repeatable.

You've read CSICOP's version as well haven't you? I think that people prefer to have a proper scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena. Properly conducted parapsychological research is more likely to do this than testing by Randi.

Kerberos

18th August 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You've read CSICOP's version as well haven't you? I think that people prefer to have a proper scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena. Properly conducted parapsychological research is more likely to do this than testing by Randi.

Oops I overlooked the CSICOP's version, having read that it does seem to indicate that the sequences weren't random and thus not useful. Sheldrake says he was earlier criticized for using truly random data but I still have only his word for that and no details.

As for Randi's tests I think that he uses professional scientistsm and in any case I certainly wouldn't say no to a million dollars just because I didn't think the results would have any proper scientific value.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

18th August 2003, 09:41 AM

Ian said:But they don't. And I disagree that people will equally feel when they're not being stared at as they feel when they are being stared at. Does anyone ever get the feeling "you know I could swear no-one is looking at me!"
I agree they won't get any "feeling" when they're not being stared at. So why, then, don't they say they aren't being stared at? Since there are only two choices, they should do just as well when not being stared at. They don't seem to pick up on the pattern "feeling -> stared at; no feeling -> not stared at." The same goes for telephone telepathy. And the same goes regardless of whether they are psychic or picking up on some subtle mundane clues.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]Ian said:
I agree they won't get any "feeling" when they're not being stared at. So why, then, don't they say they aren't being stared at? Since there are only two choices, they should do just as well when not being stared at.

I disagree. I contend that in this instance it will be more difficult to detect a negative (someone not looking) than a positive (someone looking). And all the evidence backs me up on this.

TLN

18th August 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I disagree. I contend that in this instance it will be more difficult to detect a negative (someone not looking) than a positive (someone looking). And all the evidence backs me up on this.

What?!

What evidence?

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by TLN

What?!

What evidence?

I've supplied it above with the closed circuit television experiments. I repeat:

Actually the best experiments are those using closed-circuit television. This is a sophisticated experimental procedure using CCTV, with the subjects and lookers in separate rooms. The subjects were not asked to guess whether or not they were being looked at. Instead they could relax while their galvanic skin response was recorded automatically, as in lie detector tests.

Most of these experiments have been successful, with statistically significant positive results.
Braud, Shafer and Andrews (1990, 1993a, 1993b); Schlitz and LaBerge (1994, 1997); Delanoy (2001); Schlitz and Braud (1997). For reviews see Delanoy (2001); Schmidt, Schneider, Utts and Walach (2002).

TLN

18th August 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...as in lie detector tests.

Which are useless...

BNiles

18th August 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Which are useless...

I agree...even when they show a galvanic response there’s no way of knowing what caused it. Cold chills happen all the time, but mostly as a result of some macabre thought; but not necessarily from a stare.

A better test would be to simply let the person say when they thought they were being stared at only. This would easily score for positive and negative hits (they’re either right or wrong). And if they were being stared at and they didn’t respond, it would score as negative. In both cases, the correct answer is withheld until the test is complete.

JamesM

18th August 2003, 01:59 PM

Kerberos suggested:
How about just randomizing an equal number of looking and non-looking tests and not tell the subject if his guesses are correct until the test is over. In that way the subject would have no way to figure out the result.

You could also just flip a coin or use a similar, but more scientific randomization procedure to determine if you should look or not.
to which Ian replied

Well that seems to me to be ok yes. But Wiseman and Smith got a positive result when doing it this way.
Ian, can you clear something up for me? Kerberos suggests two different randomisation schemes, which one is it you think is ok and that Wiseman and Smith used? Is the Wiseman and Smith test you're talking about the same as the one discussed in the SI article? The authors say that this was a replication of the work of Braud et al, which used a setup "similar" to that of Williams, except using SSR. However, the Williams work did not, according to the article, control for randomisation.

From your comments, it seems that the Wiseman and Smith results did not use proper randomisation, which the SI article criticises due to the possibility of "a matching in bias between experimental and response sequence". Are there any studies that used both randomisation and no feedback?

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by TLN
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...as in lie detector tests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which are useless...[/B]

Indeed! I would certainly feel inclined to agree with you. Human beings responses are not as predictable as an electron's.

But do you truly not understand this is totally irrelevant? You're an intelligent guy so I have to suspect you're being awkward purely for the sake of it. Am I wrong?

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by BNiles

I agree...even when they show a galvanic response there’s no way of knowing what caused it. Cold chills happen all the time, but mostly as a result of some macabre thought; but not necessarily from a stare.

It seems you genuinely don't understand. Ah well :(

A better test would be to simply let the person say when they thought they were being stared at only. This would easily score for positive and negative hits (they’re either right or wrong). And if they were being stared at and they didn’t respond, it would score as negative. In both cases, the correct answer is withheld until the test is complete. [/B]

Of course this experimental protocol has been carried out also. But tell me why they are not allowed immediate feedback as to whether they have the correct answer? How does that allow them to predict the next trial? Why doesn't CCTV eliminate any possible sensory leakage?

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by JamesM
Kerberos suggested:

to which Ian replied

Ian, can you clear something up for me? Kerberos suggests two different randomisation schemes, which one is it you think is ok and that Wiseman and Smith used? Is the Wiseman and Smith test you're talking about the same as the one discussed in the SI article? The authors say that this was a replication of the work of Braud et al, which used a setup "similar" to that of Williams, except using SSR. However, the Williams work did not, according to the article, control for randomisation.

From your comments, it seems that the Wiseman and Smith results did not use proper randomisation, which the SI article criticises due to the possibility of "a matching in bias between experimental and response sequence". Are there any studies that used both randomisation and no feedback?

Wiseman and Smith did not use proper randomisation?? :confused: Not according to my understanding of what Sheldrake says. That was my understanding of what Sheldrake said. But I only have Sheldrakes word for it. How do you get the impression from what I said that they didn't use proper (unstructured) randomisation?? I certainly never said that.

I repeat yet again from what Sheldrake said! http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staring/followup_full.html

{Quote}

Marks and Colwell then postulated that the subjects' success when they were given feedback was due to an implicit learning of structures hidden in my randomized sequences. They showed by means of several tests that my sequences deviated from "structureless" randomness. Ironically, this was because I adopted a recommendation by Wiseman and Smith (1994) to use counterbalanced sequences containing equal numbers of looking and not-looking trials. Like Marks and Colwell, Wiseman and Smith (1994) obtained an unexpectedly positive result in a staring experiment and then tried to explain it as an artifact of the randomization procedure, but in their case they attributed it to a lack of counterbalancing.

{/Quote}

So a lack of counterbalancing meaning there was not equal numbers of staring and not staring trials. That's what I understand by his statements. Is my understanding incorrect?

If it is correct I think that counterbalancing is not the ideal experimental protocol. I submit however that I know absolutely nothing about this subject!

I'm reading the CSICOP article now. I'd just like to say why on earth do they have to drone on and on and on about complete irrelevancies before they get to the nitty gritty?? It infuriates me! :mad:

OK first paragraph of CSICOP article wholly irrelevant.

Second paragraph states:

{Quote}

Apart from their reluctance to change paradigms, it has been shown elsewhere (Marks and Kammann 1980; Marks 2000) what can happen when research on the paranormal is left purely to a few of the professionals. They can mess up badly.

{/Quote}

They can do? Does that mean they typically do or what?? If so in what way do they mess up?? Details please.

Rest of second paragraphy wholly irrelevant.

Third paragraph adumbrates Sheldrakes theory behind staring effect. Wholly irrelvant since they are denying there is such an effect. (and for what's it's woth I'm not particularly enthralled by Sheldrakes attempts at scientific explanations of this alleged phenomenom).

Fourth paragraph continues to drone on about Sheldrakes speculations on scientific theories behind this alleged phenomena. For the same reasons, it is totally irrelevant.

Fifth paragraph also wholly irrelevant. Drones on about possible causes behind peoples feelings they are being stared at.

OK, taking a quick break at this juncture. Get a tad tired of scrolling down hoping to see anything of any remote relevance.

Soapy Sam

18th August 2003, 04:05 PM

I'm missing something here.
If there are two possibilities-
1. I am being stared at.
and
2.I am not being stared at.

-and some individuals can tell when (1.) applies, then they must be able to tell when (1.) does not apply, which is logically equivalent to saying that (2.) applies.

Surely there should be symmetry in the ability to tell, assuming that the individuals actually CAN tell when (1.) applies.

If they can NOT tell when (1.) applies, then we should expect some assymetry in response. Which is what we see.

So what am I missing?

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 04:25 PM

6th paragraph wholly irrelevant.

After this it states:

{quote}
There are two basic methods that Sheldrake's revolutionary experimenters are expected to use:

Pairs of schoolchildren divide into starers and starees with the starer sitting at least one meter behind the staree. Using random number sequences and a method for signalling trials such as a "clicker," the starer signals the start of each of a sequence of twenty trials. The staree wears airline blindfolds, and responses are recorded on data sheets by the starer. After a block of twenty trials, the two children change roles.

Starers and starees are isolated with starers inside and starees outside of the school building.

Early results reported in the British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph (Matthews 1997) obtained from 18,000 trials with schoolchildren suggest that non-staring trials produce chance guessing by the starees, whereas staring trials produce a 60 percent accuracy rate, a statistically significant result.

{/quote}

Ah, just one sentence later it's starting to get to the nitty gritty! :D

It's now describing the experimental protocol. Feedback gives positive results but non-feedback doesn't.

Now talks about structured randomisation protocol possibly giving biased results. It states

{quote}
starees may have been able to learn the sequence structure from the feedback.
{/quote}

This implies there is a pattern which there isn't. It's kinda like predicting the colour of the next card in a deck of cards by the proceding number of black and red cards. At best what they say is deeply misleading as they are no patterns to be discerned.

It then talks about the defects of counterbalancing. I have no particular problems with what they say although whether it is sufficient to account for the positive results I have no idea. I cetainly do not have the knowledge to criticize. Nevertheless I agree that one should emply structureless randomness. But tell that to the skeptics Wiseman et al.

Ok, now to experiment 2. I shall continue this in another post.

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I'm missing something here.
If there are two possibilities-
1. I am being stared at.
and
2.I am not being stared at.

-and some individuals can tell when (1.) applies, then they must be able to tell when (1.) does not apply, which is logically equivalent to saying that (2.) applies.

Surely there should be symmetry in the ability to tell, assuming that the individuals actually CAN tell when (1.) applies.

If they can NOT tell when (1.) applies, then we should expect some assymetry in response. Which is what we see.

So what am I missing?

Are you being absolutely serious?? :confused: You honestly are saying that it necessarily must be the case that people can detect non-staring as readily as staring!?? :eek: I sure as hell am certain that I wouldn't be able to do so!

You know what makes this much much worse is that here we get skeptics saying that psi definitely does not exist, but even if it did exist, it must be of a certain character! :eek: This is despite what believers say on this issue.

If you don't understand you'll just have to take it from me that detecting a negative such as somewhat not looking, will be more difficult than detecting a positive ie someone is[ looking. If you still don't understand then I am genuinely stumped

{throws arms up in air}

BTW Yeah, I am drunk at the mo.

One last attempt.

People cannot tell when they are being stared at. They might have a vague feeling. If they do not have this vague feeling then this obviously doesn't imply they are not being stared at! :eek:

Sheesh!!

Interesting Ian

18th August 2003, 04:47 PM

2nd Experiment

From CSICOP's account it seems very straight forward. There is no statistically significant result.

But hey! Guess what?? They've cheated! Well what do you know! :rolleyes:

One crucial factor they left out. They changed the bloody starer!! :eek:

As Sheldrake points out:

{quote}
There is already experimental evidence that different starers can obtain very different results. In tests carried out through closed-circuit television, Richard Wiseman, a skeptic, obtained results at chance levels when he was the starer. In the same experiment, another starer, Marilyn Schlitz, obtained statistically significant positive results (Wiseman and Schlitz 1997), replicating her significant positive results in previous experiments of this kind (Schlitz and LaBerge 1994, 1997).

{/quote}

OK there is some more on the CSICOP page. But I'm a bit tired of reading this complete unadulterated ***** for tonight. Might address the rest of the page tomorrow.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

18th August 2003, 05:40 PM

Ian said:Are you being absolutely serious?? You honestly are saying that it necessarily must be the case that people can detect non-staring as readily as staring!?? I sure as hell am certain that I wouldn't be able to do so!
They aren't detecting that they aren't being stared at. But you'd think that, when they don't sense that they are being stared at, they would guess that they aren't.

Maybe what happens is this: When they don't sense they are being stared at, then they guess at random. After a few trials, they figure out that it isn't always the case that they aren't being stared at when they don't get the feeling, so they continue with the random guess strategy.

There is already experimental evidence that different starers can obtain very different results. In tests carried out through closed-circuit television, Richard Wiseman, a skeptic, obtained results at chance levels when he was the starer. In the same experiment, another starer, Marilyn Schlitz, obtained statistically significant positive results (Wiseman and Schlitz 1997), replicating her significant positive results in previous experiments of this kind (Schlitz and LaBerge 1994, 1997).
This is an interesting result. They should continue to do these experiments, making small changes to the protocol, and try to figure out what is going on. Unless, of course, they just want to assume that Wiseman's staring telepathy broadcast unit is busted because he's a skeptic.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

18th August 2003, 06:02 PM

Here is an exchange about a possible problem in the stare/no-stare sequences of the Wiseman and Schlitz experiments:

http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212/7.html?nogifs

It seems to stop without reaching a conclusion. I'll see what I can dig up . . . sent an email to James Bonomo.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

19th August 2003, 05:08 PM

Here is Bonomo's analysis of the patterns in the Schlitz and Wiseman experiments. He thinks they could account for the results, but still needs more information:

http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212/18.html?nogifs

~~ Paul

asthmatic camel

20th August 2003, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Anyway, since both staring and non-staring trials do not improve, but only the staring trials do, this suggests that the positive results are not due to the structured randomness.

As I am not the brightest firework in the display, could someone please confirm that this statement makes no sense whatsoever ?

Much obliged,

AC.

Interesting Ian

20th August 2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by asthmatic camel

As I am not the brightest firework in the display, could someone please confirm that this statement makes no sense whatsoever ?

Much obliged,

AC.

No that doesn't make sense. I can't find where I said this though. I think I'm referring to people getting better when they get feedback and there are an equal number of staring and non-staring trials (hence structured randomness). The staring trials improve but the non-staring trials don't.

asthmatic camel

20th August 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

No that doesn't make sense. I can't find where I said this though. I think I'm referring to people getting better when they get feedback and there are an equal number of staring and non-staring trials (hence structured randomness). The staring trials improve but the non-staring trials don't.

For your information Ian....

Interesting Ian quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]But even if I can tell psychically when someone is staring at me, pattern learning should still occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no patterns anymore than when guessing each colour card from a randomly shuffled deck of cards. But if the initial 5 cards are all black, then there would be slightly more probability that the next card would be red.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I don't feel that I'm being stared at, then I'll say I'm not. Both types of trials should improve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But they don't. And I disagree that people will equally feel when they're not being stared at as they feel when they are being stared at. Does anyone ever get the feeling "you know I could swear no-one is looking at me!" LOL

Anyway, since both staring and non-staring trials do not improve, but only the staring trials do, this suggests that the positive results are not due to the structured randomness.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same is true in the telephone telepathy experiments. The callees did much better when their familiars called than when someone else called. Regardless of how they were telling who called, why didn't they do better with unfamiliars?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the effectiveness of ESP is tied up with emotion and empathy? Why is that not possible?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of any further assistance,

Regards,

AC.

Interesting Ian

20th August 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by asthmatic camel

For your information Ian....

Interesting Ian quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]But even if I can tell psychically when someone is staring at me, pattern learning should still occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no patterns anymore than when guessing each colour card from a randomly shuffled deck of cards. But if the initial 5 cards are all black, then there would be slightly more probability that the next card would be red.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I don't feel that I'm being stared at, then I'll say I'm not. Both types of trials should improve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But they don't. And I disagree that people will equally feel when they're not being stared at as they feel when they are being stared at. Does anyone ever get the feeling "you know I could swear no-one is looking at me!" LOL

Anyway, since both staring and non-staring trials do not improve, but only the staring trials do, this suggests that the positive results are not due to the structured randomness.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same is true in the telephone telepathy experiments. The callees did much better when their familiars called than when someone else called. Regardless of how they were telling who called, why didn't they do better with unfamiliars?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the effectiveness of ESP is tied up with emotion and empathy? Why is that not possible?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of any further assistance,

Regards,

AC.

Yes I made an error. But I was drunk so don't get too euphoric.

Mercutio

20th August 2003, 06:40 PM

I just got Sheldrake's book in the mail today. Ian (or anyone else who finished the thing), is there anything I should be reading first, to get up to speed on this, or should I just wade through it? (I am looking forward to it, but hey, any shortcut is welcome)

asthmatic camel

21st August 2003, 12:56 AM

Am I the only person who finds the idea of a grown man sitting in a room tossing a coin and then either staring or not staring at someone else just a touch ludicrous ?

Funny old world isn't it ?

Regards,

AC.

Interesting Ian

21st August 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
I just got Sheldrake's book in the mail today. Ian (or anyone else who finished the thing), is there anything I should be reading first, to get up to speed on this, or should I just wade through it? (I am looking forward to it, but hey, any shortcut is welcome)

I've only got about half through it so far. I'm reading 3 books at once at the moment :) Just read it through as it comes. We'll compare our thoughts perhaps when we both finish the book?

Interesting Ian

21st August 2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Am I the only person who finds the idea of a grown man sitting in a room tossing a coin and then either staring or not staring at someone else just a touch ludicrous ?

Funny old world isn't it ?

Regards,

AC.

Well it certainly is not ludicrous is it? If people can really have some sort of awareness when they are being stared at, the implications could scarcely be more earth shattering.

asthmatic camel

21st August 2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Well it certainly is not ludicrous is it? If people can really have some sort of awareness when they are being stared at, the implications could scarcely be more earth shattering.

Ian, imagine this scenario...

A party, somewhere,

Hi, I'm Rupert, I toss coins, stare and don't stare at people and then write books about how earth shattering it is.

Sounds pretty ludicrous to me.

Regards,

AC.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

21st August 2003, 06:09 AM

AC said:Am I the only person who finds the idea of a grown man sitting in a room tossing a coin and then either staring or not staring at someone else just a touch ludicrous ?
And what happens if the starer thinks about the staree but looks the other way? Or looks at the staree but thinks "I am not looking at you"? Will it work if the starer is blind?

Ian said:Well it certainly is not ludicrous is it? If people can really have some sort of awareness when they are being stared at, the implications could scarcely be more earth shattering.
I agree. Wake me up when the earth begins to shatter from one of these many earth-shattering paranormal claims.

~~ Paul

Mercutio

21st August 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I've only got about half through it so far. I'm reading 3 books at once at the moment :) Just read it through as it comes. We'll compare our thoughts perhaps when we both finish the book? I'm only on the introduction right now (about page 12) and I'm already wanting to pull my hair out. The good news is, from the things that he is saying that I am irritated with, I cannot imagine a better person to discuss the book with than you.

I do have a specific question for you, but I want to hold off in case he explains something a bit better after the introduction.

Marvel Frozen

21st August 2003, 05:37 PM

I'm currently staring at a picture of him. Do you think he'll be able to tell?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd August 2003, 01:24 PM

Sheldrake would like more money for his research:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/articles/science_funding.htm

~~ Paul

Pyrrho

22nd August 2003, 03:22 PM

Anyone who believes this crap...

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/staring/

This idea is so staggeringly simple that it is hard to grasp. Although in perfect accord with immediate experience, it undermines everything we have been brought up to believe about the nature of the mind, the interiority of subjective experience, and the separation of subject and object. Instead of the usual assumption that vision involves a one-way process, it implies a two-way process. As well as light coming into the eyes, images and perceptions are projected outwards through our eyes into the world around us.

...is no scientist and doesn't deserve a dime of grant money.

The idea is simple, all right, but not in the sense Sheldrake thinks it is.