Planning a "human energy field" test, help appreciated.

[Kuko 4000]

Encouraged by the help everyone offered on our previous test, I decided to once again ask for advice and all kinds of suggestions from you guys.

The story:

An acquintance of mine is working as a healer in the biggest alternative healing center in my town.

The claim:

She claims to detect human energy fields.

The protocol:

We will do an open test before the real one.

The test will be randomized using a fair coin.

The claimant has tentatively agreed to a similar protocol that Emily Rosa used when she tested TT practitioners:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...Topics/tt.html

Originally Posted by Quackwatch

During the tests, the practitioners rested their forearms and hands, palms up, on a flat surface, approximately 10 to 12 inches apart. Emily then hovered her hand, palm down, a few inches above one of the subject's palms. A cardboard screen approximately 3 feet high and 1/8th of an inch thick was used to prevent the subjects from seeing which of their hands was selected.

NOTE! Our protocol will differ from the above in the following way:

The assistant will either hover both of his hands above both of the claimants hands or the assistant will not be in the room at all.

I'm thinking that we could do 2 trials again. 10 "sensings" would constitute 1 trial. We expect her to succeed 50% of the times simply by chance, so how high should we raise the bar for success? At least 8 out of 10 in both trials? Or how about 3 trials and at least 7 out of 10 in all trials?

Resources:

2 video cameras.

Aim:

I would like this test to be as scientifically valid as possible. I think this will be much easier to put together than our previous test, but I would still like to hear any possible precautions or suggestions you may come up with.

Timetable:

1-2 weeks from now, I hope we can test the claimant during the first week of October 2009.

This is where I am currently:

I would not like to use any ear plugs, gloves or anything else than a piece of cardboard between the claimant and the assistant. This could prove problematic. I guess we can overcome the sound cues by bringing the claimant in from another room for every "sensing". I am a bit worried about heat signals, but it shouldn't be a problem. We have to build the cardboard so that there is no way to see what's happening on the other side.

Anything else we should think about?

[TjW]

You are absolutely right to be concerned about heat signals. At the very least, put a horizontal piece of cardboard between the hands. Better would be some of the aluminized "bubble wrap" insulation from the hardware store.

Although I suppose technically the heat is "human energy" in some sense.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by TjW

You are absolutely right to be concerned about heat signals. At the very least, put a horizontal piece of cardboard between the hands.

Thanks TjW, but I'm afraid something like this is out of the question. We just have to think of something else. I'm pretty sure the distance of 25-30 cm alone will do the trick, I forgot to mention that in the OP. The distance is not decided yet, but we did a quick illustration today and my hands were about 30 cm from her hands. Of course we are also monitoring both the assistant and the claimant to prevent any sneaky stuff they might do to their hands. I might also end up being the assistant, this would leave all kinds of "negative energy" explanations for the claimant though.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

I would not like to use any ear plugs, gloves or anything else than a piece of cardboard between the claimant and the assistant. This could prove problematic. I guess we can overcome the sound cues by bringing the claimant in from another room for every "sensing".

I think this is going to be your biggest information leakage. It's going to be difficult to have the assistant be completely silent when present.

I do suggest that the claimant help you find out how far away a person has to sit from hands for their field to be undetectable. You could verify this even on the test day during the open/unblinded pretrial runs.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by blutoski

I think this is going to be your biggest information leakage. It's going to be difficult to have the assistant be completely silent when present.

I do suggest that the claimant help you find out how far away a person has to sit from hands for their field to be undetectable. You could verify this even on the test day during the open/unblinded trial runs.

I agree, on both counts. Although, I'm fairly sure she would agree to the use of new agey music on the background, this would eliminate the sounds from breathing, etc. I think 30 seconds is enough for her to decide. We do need to reconsider earplugs.

We could also move closer to the protocol that Emily used. Although, having the assistant in the same room would lessen the effect, even if we had agreed on the "zero-distance" beforhand.

[paiute]

Originally Posted by TjW

You are absolutely right to be concerned about heat signals. At the very least, put a horizontal piece of cardboard between the hands. Better would be some of the aluminized "bubble wrap" insulation from the hardware store.

Although I suppose technically the heat is "human energy" in some sense.

A piece of plastic wrap stretched on a wire frame in between will block heat rising from the test hands. Will 0.5 mil of plastic block "human energy"?

A small fan blowing air across the table will sweep away the heat currents. Will moving air also sweep away the "human energy"?

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by paiute

A small fan blowing air across the table will sweep away the heat currents. Will moving air also sweep away the "human energy"?

This is a good idea, will have to ask how she feels about it. It would also help with the sound problem. Thanks paiute.

[GreyICE]

Agree on the fan and the white noise generator.

Another possibility if the fan proves 'disruptive' is to simply warm the room up to ~90 degrees, at least in the vicinity of the table. As long as the assistant doesn't have sweaty palms, this would work very well. You can't detect heat when the heat isn't there (hands are NOT 98.6). This also prevents the air currents from the fan from providing noticeable stimuli.

If heat AND fans interfere with the energy fields, I think we can safely conclude they're very similar to body heat.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Another possibility if the fan proves 'disruptive' is to simply warm the room up to ~90 degrees, at least in the vicinity of the table.

...

If heat AND fans interfere with the energy fields, I think we can safely conclude they're very similar to body heat.

Yep, controlling the room temperature is definitely one option. Agreed, that should make her at least stop and think a bit. I hope.

[Tapio]

Hi! Glad to see good suggestions!

First, I'm afraid that if the claimant has to move in and out of the room it will give her a possible 'cop out'. So I'd rather focus on different techniques of making it impossible for her to sense anything else than the supposed 'real deal'. Which brings me to...

I hope this time we could use more time prior to the real test in finding out how much 'interference' she can accept. I mean, that we go through several rounds of open testing with different setups, from no interference (ear plugs, fans, plastic sheets etc.) way up to the point where she claims not to be able to sense 'energy' anymore (even to the extent of her putting gloves on, or something like that). Always adding/removing one element at a time. After this we could go through blind testing with a similar agenda, but still keeping it as a sort of pre-test. Then we could possibly find out what interference she would be prepared to accept.

I suspect this would possibly (even probably) eliminate the need for the real test, because I think what she's sensing is heat. And by showing her that her performance is altered only by adding and reducing interference regarding that sense, maybe she'd be ready to back up on her claim...

[CatOfGrey]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

I'm thinking that we could do 2 trials again. 10 "sensings" would constitute 1 trial. We expect her to succeed 50% of the times simply by chance, so how high should we raise the bar for success? At least 8 out of 10 in both trials? Or how about 3 trials and at least 7 out of 10 in all trials?

7 or better out of 10 will happen by chance 17.1% of the time, meaning that if she was flipping a coin, she would 'pass' one time out of six. This is not a high enough standard.

8 or better out of 10 will happen by chance 5.47% of the time or 1 time in 18, which is not quite the 1-in-20 standard that I use in my statistical legal consulting. To me, this would be a 'weak pass' that wouldn't convince me, but would warrant further trials.

7 or better out of 10 in each of two trials would happen by chance about 2.95% of the time, or about 1 time in 34. If she met this standard, I would call that evidence (not proof) that she 'has the power'.

8 or better out of 10 in each of two trials would happen by chance about 0.3% of the time, or 1 time in 300. If I witnessed this, I would recommend she take steps toward the JREF prize.

Remember: 8 out of 10 in two trials is not the same as '16 out of 20'. The math is a bit different there - ask and I can calculate.

[GreyICE]

Asking her simply to say something whenever she feels a hand move above her raises the bar quite a lot. Have the volunteer move their hand or not for 5 minutes. Reasonably speaking, with no way of knowing when the volunteer is moving, she will generate both false positives and false negatives at a high rate, which is usually very convincing of 'fake.'

[Kuko 4000]

CatOfGrey, yes I'm aware of that (pretty much thanks to our last thread ). I tried to be clear that we want to make 2 or 3 trials and that she would have to get at least x correct in ALL of them. I will appreciate all the statistical help we can get. How about 3 trials and getting at least 7 correct in each trial?

Oh, and if she passes our test, she is very much interested in contacting the JREF.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Asking her simply to say something whenever she feels a hand move above her raises the bar quite a lot. Have the volunteer move their hand or not for 5 minutes. Reasonably speaking, with no way of knowing when the volunteer is moving, she will generate both false positives and false negatives at a high rate, which is usually very convincing of 'fake.'

We are giving her a signal when she has 30 seconds to detect whether the assistant (or the hands) is there or not. We will repeat this 10 times, and this constitutes 1 trial.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by Tapio

Hi! Glad to see good suggestions!

First, I'm afraid that if the claimant has to move in and out of the room it will give her a possible 'cop out'. So I'd rather focus on different techniques of making it impossible for her to sense anything else than the supposed 'real deal'. Which brings me to...

Yeah, we need to discuss this with her. It would be simplest and easiest for everyone if the assistant could stay on the same room. The way I see it, this would give her a chance to claim that "the energy was still in the same room", etc. But yeah, no reason to speculate further, better just make sure what her opinion is.

Quote:

I suspect this would possibly (even probably) eliminate the need for the real test, because I think what she's sensing is heat. And by showing her that her performance is altered only by adding and reducing interference regarding that sense, maybe she'd be ready to back up on her claim...

I agree that all that would be good, but I think we should not "waste" any of her time before the test. The test result is the perfect catalyst for the discussion. I'm pretty confident that she is more interested and open to discuss things constructively after the test than was the case with the previous claimant. And this is where the fun starts

In my opinion it's just her mind and the psychological investment rather than heat or anything else in this case. Of course sometimes (and in other conditions) it's the combination of many things, but we did a couple of quick tries today and my hand was about 30 cm above her hand, and VERY briefly, this is what we should concentrate on first, she is 100% confident about this ability. I think we should just do our best to locate the non-blind "zero-point" and then carry on with the test.

[George152]

Record the session sound independently of the video record.
Then compare the sound tracks

[TjW]

Originally Posted by CatOfGrey

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

I'm thinking that we could do 2 trials again. 10 "sensings" would constitute 1 trial. We expect her to succeed 50% of the times simply by chance, so how high should we raise the bar for success? At least 8 out of 10 in both trials? Or how about 3 trials and at least 7 out of 10 in all trials?

7 or better out of 10 will happen by chance 17.1% of the time, meaning that if she was flipping a coin, she would 'pass' one time out of six. This is not a high enough standard.

8 or better out of 10 will happen by chance 5.47% of the time or 1 time in 18, which is not quite the 1-in-20 standard that I use in my statistical legal consulting. To me, this would be a 'weak pass' that wouldn't convince me, but would warrant further trials.

7 or better out of 10 in each of two trials would happen by chance about 2.95% of the time, or about 1 time in 34. If she met this standard, I would call that evidence (not proof) that she 'has the power'.

8 or better out of 10 in each of two trials would happen by chance about 0.3% of the time, or 1 time in 300. If I witnessed this, I would recommend she take steps toward the JREF prize.

Remember: 8 out of 10 in two trials is not the same as '16 out of 20'. The math is a bit different there - ask and I can calculate.

Just out of curiosity, what does she claim her accuracy to be? Is she as confident as dowsers, who seem almost universally sure they'll get 10 out of 10?

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by TjW

Just out of curiosity, what does she claim her accuracy to be? Is she as confident as dowsers, who seem almost universally sure they'll get 10 out of 10?

We haven't talked about details yet, but I'm quite sure she will claim 100% accuracy. Going by the demonstration she gave yesterday, it seemed as accurate as her vision I'm fine with 2 trials and at least 8 correct in both of them for a pass mark. This will give her some room for error, which should make the test situation more relaxed and comfortable for everyone. It could also serve as an eye opener in the post-test discussion.

[NoZed Avenger]

I am still concerned about other sensory leakage.

In the initial Quackwatch test, the person being tested knew a person was on the other side of the screen, regardless of the other factors -- so it wasn't as important.

People have pointed out some problems: (1) noise of movement (chair scraping, etc.); (2) heat from hands. But what about general body heat from being in or out of the room? How do you block off the other side so completely from sight and sound while still allowing hands through whatever screen you are using?

And what about vibrations? From walking into the room, to sitting down, to possible contact betwen the elbow, there are a lot of things that might provide some subtle clues.

I guess it goes without saying the person should not be wearing cologne or perfume; even a semi-strong shampoo might allow a hint of their presence.

I think some tests should definitely be run with several people to check for *anything* they can pick up before a definite protocol is offered.

ETA: Perhaps the person being tested could be kept in a darkened part of the room and a brighter light could shine toward the opening for the applicant's hands, hiding anything behind the light a bit and preventing shadows from appearing on the screen?

[CatOfGrey]

7 out of 10 on three successive trials is a p-value of 0.5%, or 1 in 200.

Sorry - I'm coming in late to this one...Happy to help!

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

I am still concerned about other sensory leakage.

In the initial Quackwatch test, the person being tested knew a person was on the other side of the screen, regardless of the other factors -- so it wasn't as important.

People have pointed out some problems: (1) noise of movement (chair scraping, etc.); (2) heat from hands. But what about general body heat from being in or out of the room? How do you block off the other side so completely from sight and sound while still allowing hands through whatever screen you are using?

And what about vibrations? From walking into the room, to sitting down, to possible contact betwen the elbow, there are a lot of things that might provide some subtle clues.

I guess it goes without saying the person should not be wearing cologne or perfume; even a semi-strong shampoo might allow a hint of their presence.

I think some tests should definitely be run with several people to check for *anything* they can pick up before a definite protocol is offered.

ETA: Perhaps the person being tested could be kept in a darkened part of the room and a brighter light could shine toward the opening for the applicant's hands, hiding anything behind the light a bit and preventing shadows from appearing on the screen?

Thanks for your post NoZed! Even though all these concerns could be eliminated with a little work, it's so much simpler to just have both of the participants in the same room at all times. So, I've decided that...

From now on, both the claimant and the assistant will remain in the same room during the entire test. We will just have to pay extra attention to the open test and make sure that she can "detect" the difference comfortably.

The open test:

A cardboard blocking any visual clues is placed between the claimant and the assistant. The claimant will put her hands through the holes in the cardboard. The assistant will tell her when his hands are above her palms and when they are not. If she confirms that she can feel the difference we will proceed to the real test. Everything else is identical to the real test. If she cannot feel the difference in the open test, we are going to have to discuss the possible reasons for this.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by CatOfGrey

7 out of 10 on three successive trials is a p-value of 0.5%, or 1 in 200.

Sorry - I'm coming in late to this one...Happy to help!

Thanks Cat, I think we will go again with 2 trials and at least 8 / 10 hits in both of them for a PASS.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

Thanks Cat, I think we will go again with 2 trials and at least 8 / 10 hits in both of them for a PASS.

I recommend one trial, instead of two.

The reason is just from experience. If you do two trials and they pass one, but fail the other (eg: 8/10 in one and 2/10 in the other) they will be tempted to rationalize that they passed.

You can get p<=.05 by doing one run of 20 and requiring 14+ hits (assuming binomial distribution).

[CatOfGrey]

Originally Posted by blutoski

I recommend one trial, instead of two.

The reason is just from experience. If you do two trials and they pass one, but fail the other (eg: 8/10 in one and 2/10 in the other) they will be tempted to rationalize that they passed.

You can get p<=.05 by doing one run of 20 and requiring 14+ hits (assuming binomial distribution).

Here's the stats using that structure:
14 or better of 20: p=0.0739, or 1 in 17
15 or better of 20: p=0.0207, or 1 in 48
16 or better of 20: p=0.0059, or 1 in 169
17 or better of 20: p=0.0013, or 1 in 776
18 or better of 20: p=0.0002, or 1 in 4970
19 or better of 20: 1 in 49,932
20 of 20: 1 in 1,048,576

[Kuko 4000]

Thanks Blutoski and Cat.

Originally Posted by Blutoski

You can get p<=.05 by doing one run of 20 and requiring 14+ hits (assuming binomial distribution).

If I've understood correctly p<=.05 is considered as a threshold for something other than noise in this field of study? If we end up doing only one trial of 20 guesses, what would you set as a pass mark?

[wardenclyffe]

There are a number of good ideas here. The fan is one. I don't think it even needs to be blowing directly across the table. I think if it is set on low and creates a general air current around the room, that would probably be sufficient. A hot room is also good. Since you are in Finland, the whole test could be conducted in a (comparatively) cool sauna.

Will there be no one in the room except the claimant and the assistant? I don't know if that's a good idea. I think you need observers on both sides of the screen. There should probably be someone on the claimants side of the screen who is just guessing whether the hands are there or not. First, the person guessing might, by chance, do better than the claimant. Second, the guesser will be looking very carefully for any sensory leakage.

I think you need more than two cameras. One on each side of the barrier, one that's a close-up of the hands (and there should probably be a piece of paper on the table that can be seen on camera which changes between each trial or test, kind of like a clapper board that they use in the movies) and ideally, there would be a camera mounted in the ceiling which shows both sides of the barrier at once.

If there are more volunteers in the room, it would be easier to mask the sounds of coming and going although it sounds like you've eliminated that from the protocol.

Just a few thoughts,
Ward

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

If I've understood correctly p<=.05 is considered as a threshold for something other than noise in this field of study? If we end up doing only one trial of 20 guesses, what would you set as a pass mark?

That's entirely up to you. There is no fixed rule for paranormal investigation that I'm aware of.

[Sherman Bay]

Why was the protocol changed from the "only one hand" to "no one present"? It seems to me that someone coming & going in the room presents a greater leakage problem than the original protocol.

As far as the heat from a hand is concerned, I talked to Emily Rosza shortly after she did her paper and expressed a concern about exactly that. She said that she & her mother had considered it, but felt (and found) that a few inches of distance was sufficient to avoid fraud. However, I believe one of the rules was that if a subject inadvertently touched an eperimenter's hand, that test was thrown out. And the subjects tended to curl their fingers or wave them around a little, so that has to be limited or watched.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

This is where I am currently:

I would not like to use any ear plugs, gloves or anything else than a piece of cardboard between the claimant and the assistant. This could prove problematic. I guess we can overcome the sound cues by bringing the claimant in from another room for every "sensing". I am a bit worried about heat signals, but it shouldn't be a problem. We have to build the cardboard so that there is no way to see what's happening on the other side.

Anything else we should think about?

Increase the number of sensings. Have 10 testers choose a hand 10 times each, and call this 100 tests one trial run. That should allow much less room for chance to intervene, for both parties - assuming she indeed can pick the right hand 8 out of 10 times can easily lead to picking the right hand 8 times, 3 times, or 10 times in 10 tries. It will also allow you to be more confident that at least some of your testers were honest. A major discrepancy between various should be viewed with suspicion, or investigated further.

Secondly, heat the room up. That should mask the heat from the palm quite well. 25-27°C should still be comfortable enough, and also mask the body heat well enough. She can argue that the human energy field is masked by a certain object, but not the air.

It's up to you how high you set the bar. Assuming she has a 50% chance at random guessing, 70 out of 100 is already quite good. I'd say anything over 60 out of 100 is enough to attempt to replicate, but that's just me

Report on whatever you get

McHrozni

[Sherman Bay]

Here's an idea. Have an application form for the MDC nearby, and announce that anyone who passes your test has provided the "media presence" requirement, and should apply immediately, using the same protocol. Just to provide a little extra incentive, as it were.

[Holler Hoojer]

You might use a control test with a person who has a prosthetic forearm but who is able to duplicate all the motions.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

Why was the protocol changed from the "only one hand" to "no one present"? It seems to me that someone coming & going in the room presents a greater leakage problem than the original protocol.

It seemed like a good idea for me at the time. It would make the effect even stronger if she does not pass the test. This would however complicate things unnecessarily and I've decided that no-one is going to leave the room during the test. There is going to be at least the claimant and the assistant in the room at all times, probably two observers as well.

Quote:

As far as the heat from a hand is concerned, I talked to Emily Rosza shortly after she did her paper and expressed a concern about exactly that. She said that she & her mother had considered it, but felt (and found) that a few inches of distance was sufficient to avoid fraud. However, I believe one of the rules was that if a subject inadvertently touched an eperimenter's hand, that test was thrown out. And the subjects tended to curl their fingers or wave them around a little, so that has to be limited or watched.

Interesting, thanks for this. If we notice any touching or unnecessary hand movements during the test the whole test will be disqualified. We are going to set pretty strict rules for the test.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

Here's an idea. Have an application form for the MDC nearby, and announce that anyone who passes your test has provided the "media presence" requirement, and should apply immediately, using the same protocol. Just to provide a little extra incentive, as it were.

Hehe, the only problem is that she's been on the papers and other media enough already. I would think she has the academic testimonial covered as well. She has a lot of incentive as it is, she does energy healings, etc. for a living and really believes in what she is doing. We have known each other through a mutual friend (her boss and colleague) for 5 years or so, she knows I'm sceptical, so her reputation is on the line as well.

If she does not pass the test, I am mostly interested in how she is going to explain the results away. She is the kind of a person who does not shy away from difficult questions, but it has never been as concrete before as it is know.

[Tapio]

Kuko, I'll talk with you more about this live, but interested in other points of views I'll post some thoughts here as well.

As much as I'm genuinely interested in the (im)possibility of the claimant having the power she claims she has, there's an aspect to this kind of testing that I find far more rewarding to focus on. That is the actual possibility to help a believer (which I also was only a short while ago) 'expand their vision' on things. And because, as with our previous subject, we're dealing with people who are highly respected and trusted in their community, I see this kind of test also as a great possibility to help endorse critical thinking in a positive way for a larger number of believers through her.

But we have to get through to her first.

This is where I feel the way in which this kind of test in performed plays a great role. The more confident and relaxed we can make her feel, the less 'cop outs' there can and will be for her. The less intimidating and controlled (meaning setting rules which she feels restricting) the test situation is, the more emotionally open and receptive she will be afterwards to discuss things.

Of course the test has to be strict and professional in a way that the result can be counted as an indicator of what we're testing. But based on the conversations I've had with our previous claimant, I feel we could achieve more by requiring less, so to speak. So, as Kuko poined out in the OP, I'd really like to keep it as simple as possible.

Example: Let's say we put a fan in the room (sensible idea) to help discard the effect of body heat and/or sound. She could say she'd be comfortable with the idea at first. But it just might be that in the middle of the test when it's only natural for her to feel a bit anxious and sensitive, the fan could become a real distraction for her. And that could mean a world of difference, not necessarily to the outcome (I really have no doubts about her failure), but to how she perceives the situation of testing. And that might then turn into a 'cop out' in her head . There might be hesitation in her mind to consider the fan as such a big deal at first, maybe she could even actually show signs of genuine wonder and questioning her abilities, but given due time she might simply conclude the situation was just too distracting and intimidating and that's why things didn't work out (this is what has happened to our previous claimant)...and that's a goodbye (maybe for ever) to the chance of actually accomplishing some precious consciousness raising. Of course these 'cop outs' can arise regardless, even if it all went exactly and only according to her wishes. But I'd like us to reduce the possibilities as much as possible.

I feel with these kind of home tests this is the true challenge worthy of attempting to succeed in, more than trying to get it as scientific and airtight as possible. I'm not saying they couldn't both be achieved, but with these kind of people involved...well, you just have to be a bit more flexible...

So I'd like to keep the main focus on how to keep the test situation simple and calm. I believe we can make it happen without having to compromise on necessary precautions. I'd be willing to put a bit more effort on this one, so as to even do a first test with her exactly the same as Emily's and if it yielded a pass (which I don't believe it would), only then focus on a tighter protocol. As little cameras, outsiders, props and gadgets as possible.

I'd also like to arrange a bit of more time with her to go through the test, it's results and possible implications after it's all been done.

[GreyICE]

House fans and high speed fans do occasionally have unacceptable levels of noise. Much quieter alternatives are possible, including a simple desk-mounted, low RPM fan. After all, we're trying to create wind in a cube roughly 3 feet on each side, not move air in the room. A small computer fan would do fine for that purpose.

[Kuko 4000]

I agree Tapio, for the reasons you just mentioned the balance of a non-threatening / relaxed atmosphere and strict enough controls is a bit tricky. We could do a pre-test of minimal controls (similar to Emily's test) and if that shows promise we could move on to the more controlled test on another date. This seems like the most constructive approach right now.

We were supposed to go over the details today, but the claimant just got home from Hong Kong yesterday and was a bit feverish, so the next time I'm going see her is probably this friday.

Pre-test aka "show us what you can do":

Pretty much similar to Emily's test. No cameras, no fans, no change in room temperature.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by Tapio

Of course the test has to be strict and professional in a way that the result can be counted as an indicator of what we're testing. But based on the conversations I've had with our previous claimant, I feel we could achieve more by requiring less, so to speak. So, as Kuko poined out in the OP, I'd really like to keep it as simple as possible.

Example: Let's say we put a fan in the room (sensible idea) to help discard the effect of body heat and/or sound. She could say she'd be comfortable with the idea at first. But it just might be that in the middle of the test when it's only natural for her to feel a bit anxious and sensitive, the fan could become a real distraction for her. And that could mean a world of difference, not necessarily to the outcome (I really have no doubts about her failure), but to how she perceives the situation of testing. And that might then turn into a 'cop out' in her head . There might be hesitation in her mind to consider the fan as such a big deal at first, maybe she could even actually show signs of genuine wonder and questioning her abilities, but given due time she might simply conclude the situation was just too distracting and intimidating and that's why things didn't work out (this is what has happened to our previous claimant)...and that's a goodbye (maybe for ever) to the chance of actually accomplishing some precious consciousness raising. Of course these 'cop outs' can arise regardless, even if it all went exactly and only according to her wishes. But I'd like us to reduce the possibilities as much as possible.

I feel with these kind of home tests this is the true challenge worthy of attempting to succeed in, more than trying to get it as scientific and airtight as possible. I'm not saying they couldn't both be achieved, but with these kind of people involved...well, you just have to be a bit more flexible...

My bold, and I agree. An open test with all the controls in place is necessary for obvious reasons, but we still need to prepare for the very likely rationalisations on why she couldn't pass the test this time. No matter how much we stress beforehand that it's important for us all to agree 100% on the protocol, the explanations will probably follow.

After the test, we should be able to present some easy to grasp examples of how and why people can fool themselves to think that they have special powers. Has anyone else done similar tests? Would be nice to hear stories.

[McHrozni]

Another idea, have a non-claimant or two subjected to the same test as the claimants. If their results are greatly different, and the testers don't know who is on the other side, that would confirm the claim. If both are above expectations, that could indicate a mistake somewhere in the protocol.

A negative control, so to speak

McHrozni

[Sherman Bay]

Kuko 4000, if you can set up the test with a plastic, cardboard, glass or other barrier between the experimenter's hand and the subject's, that would remove any worry you would have about heat detection (as long as each test was short enough or the glass thick enough that heat couldn't be transmitted). It should also allow the hands to be brought closer together. Just make sure that the baseline test includes this apparatus as well, so the subjects can verify that the barrier is no obstacle to a valid performance. For this reason -- to make the subject confident -- a transparent barrier would be best, since they have full view during the baseline test.

I'm concerned about experimenters getting up and sitting down, which is more likely to produce sounds, air currents, etc., that have to be handled also.

Also, while it may seem to you that "no one present" should be the least energy, the subject can always say that someone was present nearby and that was the energy field she detected. Using the one hand or the other method, there is always an "energy field" over one of her hands, close by, and it makes it harder to claim that she was actually detecting someone across the room.

Another thing...make sure the experimenter's hand is held in exactly the same place (distance from subject), like directly on a glass barrier, during both baseline and actual tests, and this can be verified on a video. This will remove one possible objection that the hand was closer or farther away at one time, throwing off the energy field detection.

You may think that's a stupid objection, but I recall a "treatment" session given me by a Reiki proponent friend, and she said she determined the correct distance to hold her hands by feeling the "energy" -- not too far, not too close. In your test, the subject won't be able to adjust for this factor and it could give her an out.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

Kuko 4000, if you can set up the test with a plastic, cardboard, glass or other barrier between the experimenter's hand and the subject's...

Unfortunately anything like this is out of the question. It's just too big of an out for her if she fails the test. Even if we agree 100% in the open test that it will not be a problem, it would just make it too easy for her to rationalise it later in her own head. It's also too far removed from the healing situation that she routinely does.

Quote:

I'm concerned about experimenters getting up and sitting down, which is more likely to produce sounds, air currents, etc., that have to be handled also.

True, they are going to sit in wooden chairs and are required to stay still and silent throughout the test, no extra movements are allowed. Our observer will end the test immediately if any of the rules are broken.

Quote:

Also, while it may seem to you that "no one present" should be the least energy, the subject can always say that someone was present nearby and that was the energy field she detected. Using the one hand or the other method, there is always an "energy field" over one of her hands, close by, and it makes it harder to claim that she was actually detecting someone across the room.

I think the test will be very similar to what Emily did, but possibly our two options are different - either the assistant will hover both of his hands above the claimants hands, or the assistant will keep his hands behind his back / crossed in front of him. I think the effect is greater this way and it doesn't require any major controls. We already have the music (one of her own healing CD's) playing on the background to mask any slight noises that might come from moving the hands, I think this will be sufficient for our pre-test.

*pauses to think again*

Actually, now that I think about it more, your point is very good. The original protocol is better than it first seemed to me. I will ask the claimants opinion on this, whatever she feels is more accurate and comfortable is the way we will proceed.

Quote:

Another thing...make sure the experimenter's hand is held in exactly the same place (distance from subject), like directly on a glass barrier, during both baseline and actual tests, and this can be verified on a video. This will remove one possible objection that the hand was closer or farther away at one time, throwing off the energy field detection.

You may think that's a stupid objection, but I recall a "treatment" session given me by a Reiki proponent friend, and she said she determined the correct distance to hold her hands by feeling the "energy" -- not too far, not too close. In your test, the subject won't be able to adjust for this factor and it could give her an out.

It is a very reasonable objection, and we have this under control. We are taping two horizontal lines to the cardboard. The assistant must keep his hands in the area between the tapes, which is at the correct height, agreed by all participants beforehand and in the open test. If we can stick to the protocol and everything goes nicely, I don't think this will be a problem. It is the same distance that she routinely uses when working.