[ExI] Debate, EP and psi

[Damien Broderick]

On 6/30/2010 6:20 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> On 30 June 2010 10:41, BillK<pharos at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >  Damien keeps pointing out that psi appears to be a very weak effect (1 in 1000).
>
> ... which would make it scientifically interesting, but not very
> relevant for practical purposes (say, in determining whether and how
> much a casino should adjust its margins to take into account the
> infinitesimally better guessing by gamblers than statistics would
> allow).
>
> In fact, I am inclined to believe that "psi-like" effects are much
> more widespread than that, especially if one includes things such as
> telepathy between two people in front of each other trying to guess
> what the other thinks or is going to do.

I'm not saying psi is always that weak, just that this is the order of 
magnitude found in a lot of lab experiments that are, e.g., boring and 
repetitive, or in lotteries where behavior tends to be highly driven by 
patterns such as choosing birthdays, etc. Significant psi experiments 
using college students with no special aptitude or training typically 
produce low effect sizes, but trained remote viewers using disciplined 
protocols tend to get much more reliable results (but that doesn't mean 
every time or even half the time).

Even autonomic responses like those detected in most "presentiment" 
experiments need machine analysis to make them visible--but my guess is 
that the same process, "in the wild," is what gives good soldiers, cops, 
etc, that gut feeling advantage on patrol. Certainly this is reported as 
the experience of a star remote viewer like former Vietnam soldier Joe 
McMoneagle.

Damien Broderick