[ExI] psi yet again.

[Mike Dougherty]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Incidentally, the 1 in 1000 extra correct is not just an arbitrary
> postulate; it derives from a lot of results in somewhat similar
> forced-choice parapsychology experiments. (Ganzfeld and remote viewing by
> trained operators tend to have better results, but they take a lot more
> intensive work).

Do you consider remote viewing to be in the same class of phenomenon
as precognition?  Are there no well-controlled studies of precog
because they're more difficult to construct than remote viewing
experiments?

I imagine the number of parameters to get a good read on fusion also
requires a very carefully controlled environment (I immediately hear
John Clark's "That's bullshit too!")  If not something so new, perhaps
something more mundane like EMF detectors corroborating the creepy
feelings people have in old, poorly wired houses (or under ceiling
fans with shorted motor windings)  In the case of EMF, those
less-sensitive will claim to feel nothing at all - while those more
sensitive do actually have central nervous system responses.  I
imagine EMF-sensitivity could be dismissed.  What about the alleged
danger of death by peanut.  Millions of people eat peanuts with no ill
effects, others suffer anaphylactic shock from surprisingly small
amount of the antigens.  Are we to dismiss people with peanut
allergies as freaks who don't really count because they're abnormal?
Or EMF-sensitive?  Or are coincidentally in the right place at
apparently the right time?

> (by-the-way-2: I'm not directing these posts only to whichever individuals I
> happen to be citing at the top, but to everyone who's reading this
> thread...)

Hopefully they'll stop merely lurking and add their $0.02.  We'll be
lucky if we get a dime among us.


I think game shows would be an interesting body of data to study for
psi.  I have previously mentioned Jeopardy answers leaping to mind
right before the answer is spoken (answers I could not even imagine
encountering previously).  I also imagine the format of Match Game
would yield interesting questions (if not answers)  Why, for example,
was Richard Dawson chosen for the big-money match so frequently that
they had to implement a semi-random celebrity chooser in later years?
Is it because Dawson was the quintessential every-man with the
most-popular answer always at the ready or was he able to sense the
answer to be chosen by the contestant?  Of course the number of likely
answers was usually limited by the zeitgeist of 1960's & 1970's but
casual observation makes me wonder why he seemed so much better at
matching answers than any other celebrities.  Also the $XXk Pyramid
would be a source for distilling psychology from parapsychology given
that some clues must be paired with answers in much the same way as
matches on Match Game (or even Rorschach's ink blots have most-common
answers)  However, some players (and celebrities) seemed noticeably
better at exploiting these pairings of clue+answer.  Were they simply
more intelligent and their better play explained-away by high IQ or is
there a possibility there was another channel of communication between
clue and answer?  Maybe there wasn't enough control in the environment
to be a good experiment.  Surely John will claim Bullshit.  I concede
immediately that subtle body language conveys a great deal of content
to those perceptive enough to utilize the information.  The same can
be observed at any bar/club.  I imagine Keith would be explain the EP
advantages of exploiting this kind of game for mate selection.  The
suggestion that psi-enabled individuals should have an edge is a
compelling argument.  I haven't had that idea completely saturate
every facet of this topic yet.