Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell studying ESP in autstic children.

#1
http://www.presidentialufo.com/comp...ticles-a-papers/546-a-nobel-prize-for-woo-woo

The family first thought their daughter was a mathematical savant, because she could provide answers to multiplication and division problems involving numbers over six digits, even though she couldn't do much simpler multiplication. Then her answers switched from an ordinary numerical format to an exponential one... immediately after the therapist began calculating on a device that displayed in exponential notation. This prompted the therapist to ask the girl how she knew the answer. The girl typed, "I see the numerators and denominators in your head." The therapist then tested her with pictures and sentences that were hidden from the girl's view. She was able to type accurate answers, even if the sentences were in a foreign language. These sessions were videotaped by the family and sent to me and Dr. Treffert. They are very intriguing and show 100% accuracy. Are these reports of telepathy real? Stay tuned.

A couple nights ago the results of the filmed scientific testing started to leak out. The results are absolutely staggering hinting that severely autistic children who exhibit ESP abilities may in fact be receiving a pure signal and be 100% accurate on the given targets.
...
This is fresh. I just did these experiments last month. That’s how fresh this information is… I have digit sequences that are 18 and 19 numbers long and 100% accuracy. The stats on that are incredible. I even had this one sequence where it’s 162 digits Out of 162 digits there was only 7 mistakes, and when told that is the wrong number this autistic child got it right on the second go. The stats on that are just staggering. That’s why I am saying it is well beyond the great Amazing Randi challenge.
 
#4
It does *sound* like it's in the same room, doesn't it? Unfortunately, that will not have any value, if it's the case. Neither will the person conducting the tests being involved in assessing the results. Any of that will just bump the whole thing back to square one again.
 
#8
What are you suspicious of exactly?
Well she does refer to Randi as "Amazing" instead of "Charlatan". ;)
Well, if the parent and child are in the same room, then they could be sending visual signals unconsciously.
I'm deeply suspicious of this. I'll be very disappointed if the child and parent are in the same room.
It does *sound* like it's in the same room, doesn't it? Unfortunately, that will not have any value, if it's the case. Neither will the person conducting the tests being involved in assessing the results. Any of that will just bump the whole thing back to square one again.
Fascinating, Jim. I see that the forthcoming conference where the results will be presented is Aug 14-17:

http://www.parapsych.org/section/46/2014_convention.aspx

I wish I could see the video now, but with luck we won't have too long to wait!
A good news for all the people participating here: some new information about the Powell's study, from the PA 2014 Convention Abstracts:

Autistic savants have not undergone rigorous scientific investigation for psi, although many of
their skills are very psi-like. For example, some give cube roots of six digit numbers without
knowing how to perform simple mathematical functions, such as addition or multiplication, and
with no conscious derivation of the answers. These remarkable skills are accepted by science
because they are reliably replicated.

By contrast, brief reports by physicians that are suggestive of psi in autistic savants have been
ignored or criticized. The psi ability most frequently reported by parents to the author in her
research has been telepathy, especially in nonverbal children. In 2013, the author received three
homemade videos of a nonverbal, nine year-old, severely autistic girl that were claimed to
demonstrate telepathy. The videos were intriguing, but scientifically insufficient. Two therapists
reported telepathic experiences with the girl, creating the opportunity to test both. The author
conducted two controlled, two-hour research sessions with “Therapist A”, and one two-hour
controlled research session with “Therapist B”. Randomized numbers, sentences, fake words,
and visual images were presented to the therapists out of view of the girl, who was asked to
“read the therapist’s mind.” The therapists were asked to write their own verbal descriptions of
the images for comparison to the girl’s answers. Random numbers were generated for
mathematical equations.

The girl was asked to give all the numbers involved in the equations and duplicate the answers
generated by the author with a calculator. The therapist and child could not be tested in separate
rooms, because even subtle changes to the environment are very distracting and disturbing for a
child with severe autism. The experimental set-up required the therapists and child to work with
a divider between them. The child typed her answers after choosing them from a stencil. To
assess for any possible visual and/or auditory cueing, five high definition point-of-view (POV)
cameras and three microphones were strategically placed in the experimental space to capture
coverage of the entire room, the therapist and child, and their separate workspaces. All cameras
were synchronized and time-stamped.


Data from the first session with Therapist A includes 100% accuracy on three out of twenty
image descriptions containing up to nine letters each, 60 to 100% accuracy on all three of the
five-letter nonsense words, and 100% accuracy on two random numbers: one eight digits and the
other nine. Data from the second session with Therapist A includes 100% accuracy on six out of
twelve equations with 15 to 19 digits each, 100% accuracy on seven out of 20 image descriptions
containing up to six letters, and between 81 to 100% accuracy on sentences of between 18 and 35
letters. Data from the session with Therapist B showed 100% accuracy with five out of twenty
random numbers up to six digits in length, and 100% accuracy with five out of twelve image
descriptions containing up to six letters. There was no evidence of cueing or fraud. The data is
highly suggestive of an alternative, latent and/or default communication mechanism that can be
accessed by people born with severely impaired language abilities.
Well, in the same room, but with security measures. Well, we really need to see the videos!

And, BTW, I understood why Diane Powell did it. She had some some serious ethical concerns about the well-being of the autistic kid (as well as, I suppose, methodological ones: being under stress, girl is unlikely to perform well).

I'm afraid, that skeptics won't have any such concerns - neither ethical nor methodological.

I suspect that the publicity of the study will result in fury and fervor from the skeptics, and demands for the girl to be tested by them, in the style of psychic girls Natasha Demkina and Natasha Lulova.

Both girls was publicily defamed and slandered by skeptics, despite their successes. Their testing at the infamous James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge cost them (especially Lulova) severe distress as well.

If mentally stable, non-autistic girl can be driven into tears by the agressive "debunkery", one could only be horrified by the prospects of the autisitc child, for whom even the change of evironment may be the source of stress. Becoming the target of the agression of Randi or some other "debunker", she may be driven into the state of shock, if not trauma.

And if she really a full-scale telepathic sensetive, I can't even imagine what it's like for her to enter the hostile, enraged, zealous minds of skeptics gathered to "debunk" her. Maybe something like jumping into a psychic pit of fire. A mental breakdown is the likely result.

So, if Diane Powell has a real concern for the girl's condition (I think she have), she won't let her into the hands of skeptics. It will let skeptics to start the company of character assasination and defamation, claiming that Powell is afraid of facing the challenge... I suspect, however, that they will start such campaign anyway, as soon as the case will become well-known. No evidence would be enough for them - if Demkina and Lulova, with their veridical macro-scale abilities, was humilated in public, some autistic girl don't have a chance, no matter how telepathically gifted she is.
 
#10
People really need to rethink where skeptics and proponents are able to post. The administrators know that the meat of the conversation won't get moved to a section where a proper debate will happen, one that allows both sides to talk, yet they want that type of conversational dialogue within their forums? Uh huh..

I use this forum less and less lately because of these ridiculous rules. Why would I want to participate in a forum where everyone is patting each other on the back but the people who want to speak up with issues are not allowed to? I am not advocating internet trolling/derailing of conversation, argumentum ad hominem, insults, banter, etc. but I cannot be the only one who is sick of these one sided discussions that the moment a so-called "Skeptic" even makes a joke, or a comment, or links, the conversation is derailed in to, "Oh no, (Paul as example) better not post here! Let's go get Alex or Andrew to give him a time out."

Who are these "Banned of Seven" that Paul so hilariously mentioned above?

By the way, some of the best discussion on this "forum" happen when Malf, Linda, Steve001, Paul and other "skeptics" have something useful to add to the conversation. Banning them entirely seems like it is doing a disservice to this forum.

That being said.. I am not standing up for any skeptic or proponent. I enjoy the discussion from both sides and I just want to sit on the fence and observe for a while until I can make a decent decision and try to grasp some of these concepts people here are so ready to believe in or damn right from the start. But how can I do that when proponents just want the skeptics banned and the skeptics just think the proponents are morons? Why even bother posting on this forum if you're just a troll? Point is.. those four I mentioned aren't, it seems, trolls. They bring decent conversation to the table, albeit, riddled in their ideology - like the rest of us. So just deal with it, and discuss with them, and maybe you'll be able to get the higher ground of the discussion and prove them wrong. That goes for both sides.


Sincerely, ranting a-hole that has been listening to Alex since the beginning.


PS I use proponents and skeptics as a general term tossed around here. I understand all here would be labelled skeptic or proponent depending on the discussion we are having. But for this case I am using proponents/skeptics in the sense of any subject they are agreeing with, or not, and discussing.

EDIT: If I named you and offended you by calling you a skeptic, oh well, deal with it. :P But actually, just mention it to me. Just basing it off of the many discussions I've read here and the type of "tone" one can get from wording.
 
#11
Well.. since I stopped this thread dead in it's tracks (I'm sorry!) and because I have been away for almost two months on summer holidays, I was hoping someone would lend me the time to continue this discussion.

First off, once again, I apologize if this is in the wrong thread or if the correct one has been moved since my derailing comment almost nine days ago but I was curious on any updates on this study? - ESP in autistic children. I started to read some links provided in this thread, as well as the PA abstracts thread and I was curious about this comment from the article at, www.supernaturalworldview.com, to which I have linked the article below and which is the one linked by someone in a previous posting,

http://www.supernaturalworldview.co...ntific-evidence-for-esp-in-autistic-children/

Powell’s conclusion: “The data is highly suggestive of an alternative, latent and/or default communication mechanism that can be accessed by people born with severely impaired language abilities."

To me, that's a fascinating idea. A separate means of communication within nature's system but one that is available to only a select few... or something along those lines, I'm not bound to any belief system :P.

I understand that it is (probably) most people's dream (if they're interested in this idea) to discover that mechanism and I'm sure there has been lots of discussion on it in the past, and under different names. So, I was curious if somebody could point me in the right direction for literature to buy or read online. Literature that discusses the idea of the mechanism for anomalous data transfer.

EDIT

Oh!

Or lack of mechanism, I am open to idea that there is nothing supernatural going on also.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#12
I don't think there's much to say.

Either she's wrong, and there's a trick...or the scientific world is about to get a huge upset.

Sadly what I suspect is that, assuming this is real Psi, after a certain point more and more stringent controls will be placed until some unknown variable dampens the effect and we're left in ambiguity once more.
 
#13
The way she is talking about the evidence she has gives some weight to it. I don't mean for psi itself, but for her credibility. If she is willing to rant and rave over this fantastic evidence and then it turns out to be an error in procedure, or a trick, like you say, or something not psi lol then that will just do such a disservice to the pro-psi community, imo. I've had people cite her work in articles I've read, and say that she has amazing credentials, which according to her site seem quite fair but there isn't that much detail (but I may have missed it!). That will just give psi skeptics another piece to link to about a psi researcher following poor procedures.
 
#14
I was at the conference and while I couldn't attend the day she spoke, she did show me the videos privately. It's quite something.
The parent is not in the room and the researcher is behind a curtain to the child's right. There is no body language for the child to either see or interpret. There is very little instruction either. The child chose the number or letter from a roughly 8" X 12" board with either letters or numbers on it. The child was looking forward the whole time. If you know anything about autistic children, they don't focus on anybody anyway. They're in their own world. This is not a Clever Hans type situation.

There are two cameras, one above the child and one above the researcher. On the video they are played simultaneously so that you can see both angles. In the video, the child picks the symbol, and then enters it into an electronic device to her left. It all goes pretty quickly. Every indication points to the child receiving incredibly accurate psychic information. If there were mistakes in any given calculation, the child would repeat that mistake verbatim.

When the child did make mistakes, all of them were from adding extra letters/numbers. If those were removed, then the answer would be correct.

I should point out that autistic children do. not. cheat. Nor are they motivated to please others.

I personally found it convincing. The researcher did have a clipboard, the top of which occasionally got set on the table in front of her, which would have been peripherally visible to the child. Since the child always looked forward, and peripheral vision is not good enough for anything except noticing movement, I'm not convinced that this is a problem. I'm going to email her about that anyway, but recently I've been on the road all week and only coming home on weekends. It hasn't left me with much brain power to follow up.
 
#15
I was at the conference and while I couldn't attend the day she spoke, she did show me the videos privately. It's quite something.
A bit more info... thanks for that...

The child chose the number or letter from a roughly 8" X 12" board with either letters or numbers on it.
That's interesting. I'd love to have a top down view of the experimental layout showing the girl and therapist (therapist arm), dividing screen, stencil, tables and other equipment etc. :D

When the child did make mistakes, all of them were from adding extra letters/numbers. If those were removed, then the answer would be correct.
That's very interesting... do you mean that these were additional insertions by the girl, so that if the target was 9 characters in sequence, and the girl guessed 12 characters, the three wrong characters could be removed leaving the 9 character target sequence intact? Example:

Target: A B C D E F G H I
Guess: A B X C D E X F G X H I


If that's the case, can I ask another question for further clarification...

Were these extra insertions ever duplications of either the preceding, or the next successive character within the sequence? Example:

Target: A B C D E F G H I
Guess: A B B C D E F F G H H I

or, were they just random incorrect character insertions that were not related to either the preceding, or the next successive character?
 
Last edited:
#16
A bit more info... thanks for that...



That's interesting. I'd love to have a top down view of the experimental layout showing the girl and therapist (therapist arm), dividing screen, stencil, tables and other equipment etc. :D



That's very interesting... do you mean that these were additional insertions by the girl, so that if the target was 9 characters in sequence, and the girl guessed 12 characters, the three wrong characters could be removed leaving the 9 character target sequence intact? Example:

Target: A B C D E F G H I
Guess: A B X C D E X F G X H I


If that's the case, can I ask another question for further clarification...

Were these extra insertions ever duplications of either the preceding, or the next successive character within the sequence? Example:

Target: A B C D E F G H I
Guess: A B B C D E F F G H H I

or, were they just random incorrect character insertions that were not related to either the preceding, or the next successive character?
Hi Max,
Unfortunately, the video will not be generally available until after the study gets published. (I asked.) The video was shot from above and over the shoulder. IIRC, the left shoulder of the girl and the right shoulder of the therapist. I can tell you that the girl sat on the left, there was very little clutter on the table. IIRC there were a few odd toys sitting in front of her. There was an electronic device to the left that would speak aloud whatever the girl entered into it. I don't remember what the device was. The therapist on the right would reach with her right arm and show the girl the tablet to select the answer. The girl would point and the therapist would remind her to then enter her selection into the device, which she did. Once this was done the therapist lifted the tablet up and back to her side, wait half a second and then hold it in front of the girl again. The selection happened within 3 seconds or so, like clockwork.

Your first example is correct. The selections were mostly random AFAIK except that if it was a string of numbers the extra symbol would be a number and usually, but not always a zero and if it was letters the extra symbol would be a letter.
 
#17
Hi Max,
Unfortunately, the video will not be generally available until after the study gets published. (I asked.) The video was shot from above and over the shoulder. IIRC, the left shoulder of the girl and the right shoulder of the therapist. I can tell you that the girl sat on the left, there was very little clutter on the table. IIRC there were a few odd toys sitting in front of her. There was an electronic device to the left that would speak aloud whatever the girl entered into it. I don't remember what the device was. The therapist on the right would reach with her right arm and show the girl the tablet to select the answer. The girl would point and the therapist would remind her to then enter her selection into the device, which she did. Once this was done the therapist lifted the tablet up and back to her side, wait half a second and then hold it in front of the girl again. The selection happened within 3 seconds or so, like clockwork.

Your first example is correct. The selections were mostly random AFAIK except that if it was a string of numbers the extra symbol would be a number and usually, but not always a zero and if it was letters the extra symbol would be a letter.
Thanks, craig, sorry I'm really confused now... was the set up like this mock up I did, so that therapist and girl were facing opposite directions, and separated by the divider (although from what you've said, the girl should be moved to the left, and the therapist moved to the right, so that it is the therapists right arm which is used, rather the the left arm as I have shown here). Am I understanding this correctly?

 
#18
Oh, I see your confusion. I suck at drawing so here's a picture to show the orientation:

Where the phone is would be the divider screen except between them rather than on the table. The therapist sits where the woman is.
 
#19
Oh, I see your confusion. I suck at drawing so here's a picture to show the orientation:

Where the phone is would be the divider screen except between them rather than on the table. The therapist sits where the woman is.
Cheers... that's really helpful with understanding the set up. Can you say whether the stencil board the girl poked the pencil through was made of a thick sheet with cut outs (like a sheet of plywood), or a thin sheet like a sheet of plastic?

Although, I think I'm just going to have to wait to see the video like everyone else to really understand things...
 
Top