Hoping for some psychic feedback here

#1
Wasn't sure if the CDAP&S was the correct section for the informal eye exercise I started (and inspired by this thread and this post), so I thought I'd copy it into this area as well. This is an exercise, and not a test of ability, and is meant to be constructive and/or fun for the user. Because I set this up myself I cannot logically take part, but another forum member was kind enough to offer to set one up for me over the weekend, so I'm excited to see what kind of results I get as well.

Here's the info for anyone who would enjoy taking part. Each thumb below opens to a new page with the full image of one pair, as to avoid distraction and aid focus. Craig has pointed out that this type of exercise done over the internet may have some inherent problems, so one suggestion is to print out the images of the eyes and work with other people in person, perhaps in a small group, to see what kind of feedback you get.

IMO it would be best if feedback is sent to me in a PM where I will gather all the info so no one is influenced by another's entry. Then after a period of time I will post all the feedback in bulleted form, maintaining user anonymity. I'm happy too if you would like to share feedback but not have it posted in the informal results.

In terms of the information/feedback, I think it prudent to not limit it to any particular conditions. It could be anything from a feeling about the type of person, their career, their disposition, or any kind of personal emotions they elicit from you.

I hope many of you participate. I've already had several posters send over PMs and I'm interested to see more. Thanks!


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.


14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.


20
.
 
Last edited:
#2
I'm really hoping for some feedback from some of the members here on the forum who actually possess some ability.
In my experience with these kind of forums, 'ability' is always something someone else has. Never the ones who actually debate about it.
 
#3
In my experience with these kind of forums, 'ability' is always something someone else has. Never the ones who actually debate about it.
There are certaintly members here who have affirmed their own abilities, or are affiliated with others who do. And they have no problem debating skeptics on it.

Perhaps I'm not sure what you're suggesting. No one is expected to participate if they don't feel like it.
 
#4
In my experience with these kind of forums, 'ability' is always something someone else has. Never the ones who actually debate about it.
If they had it, they wouldn't need to debate it would they? :)(Saving Frank's presence of course).
 
#5
How many members said they can make psychic predictions from photographs?

Then why do you think this is an appropriate test?

It is not appropriate to test a claim of one type of ability with a test for a different type of ability.

You can't demand that any phenomenon obey your own preferences for how it should behave. You have to find out first when and where it actually occurs, or is claimed to occur, and then study it under those circumstances. Some animals don't breed in captivity. Do you think that means they don't breed in the wild?

Also, showing a photograph of the subject is actually a poor experimental design because it might cause the psychic to make inferences and deductions that would interfere with perception of psychic impressions. That is why remote viewers generally are just given a random number that corresponds to the target.

There is a large literature on experimental design to demonstrate ESP. Why don't you try to take advantage of what has already been done instead of inventing your own naive protocol? Why does every person who wants to investigate ESP start off without reading the literature because he thinks he is the first person to investigate it?
 
Last edited:
#6
How many members said they can make psychic predictions from photographs?

Then why do you think this is an appropriate test?

You can't demand that any phenomenon obey your own preferences for how it should behave. You have to investigate it when and where it actually occurs, or is claimed to occur, and then study it under those circumstances. Some animals don't breed in captivity. Do you think that means they don't breed in the wild?

Also, showing a photograph of the subject is actually a poor experimental design because it might cause the psychic to make inferences and deductions that would interfere with perception of psychic impressions. That is why remote viewers generally are just given a random number that corresponds to the target.

There is a large literature on experimental design to demonstrate ESP. Why don't you try to take advantage of what has already been done instead of inventing your own naive protocol? Why does every person who wants to investigate ESP start off without reading the literature because he thinks he is the first person to investigate it?
Dude. Relax for cripes sake. This is an informal experiment meant for fun and based exaclty on an exercise described in a post by Frank Matera who I linked to in my OP.
 
#7
Dude. Relax for cripes sake. This is an informal experiment meant for fun and based exaclty on an exercise described in a post by Frank Matera who I linked to in my OP.
Bishop, I think that your intentions are honorable and your attempt at an experiment is made in good faith. However Jim Smith has raised a valid point.

In this case, you've made a mistake that other well intentioned researchers into psi have also made. You're conflating an on line experiment with a lab based one. The former will almost always fail, the latter, succeed. There is something about being on line that dimities psychic ability. The speculation is that there are just too many distractions to get a good "signal." Ed May did a paper where he referenced this effect, although I don't have it handy.
 
#8
Bishop, I think that your intentions are honorable and your attempt at an experiment is made in good faith. However Jim Smith has raised a valid point.

In this case, you've made a mistake that other well intentioned researchers into psi have also made. You're conflating an on line experiment with a lab based one. The former will almost always fail, the latter, succeed. There is something about being on line that dimities psychic ability. The speculation is that there are just too many distractions to get a good "signal." Ed May did a paper where he referenced this effe]ct, although I don't have it handy.
So if they print out the pictures of the eyes will it be different than in Frank's exercise?
 
#10
I think it is good advice for psychics to avoid all tests and experiments. It takes a sophisticated knowledge of statistics to know if the test is giving the psychic a fair chance, most psychics aren't trained in statistics or scientific protocols, and there has been a lot of deception of psychics by charlatans pretending to be holding fair tests. Amateurs may not know how to design a good experiment or analyze the results fairly. Even if a reputable scientist has a track record of doing good science in the field and follows a policy on the ethical treatment of human subjects in science experiments, and even if the experimental protocol tests the psychic in the way they are used to working, some parapsychologists will still twist the results to support theories that the psychic may know are false. When the scientific community is ready to recognize that psychics are human beings with feelings and not guinea pigs or lab rats, and gives psychics the respect they deserve by treating them as subject matter experts and respecting their knowledge of the phenomena, and also recognizes them as collaborators not test subjects, it might be time to consider cooperating.
 
Last edited:
#11
I think it is good advice for psychics to avoid all tests and experiments. It takes a sophisticated knowledge of statistics to know if the test is giving the psychic a fair chance, most psychics aren't trained in statistics or scientific protocols, and there has been a lot of deception of psychics by charlatans pretending to be holding fair tests. Amateurs may not know how to design a good experiment or analyze the results fairly. Even if a reputable scientist has a track record of doing good science in the field and follows a policy on the ethical treatment of human subjects in science experiments, and even if the experimental protocol tests the psychic in the way they are used to working, some parapsychologists will still twist the results to support theories that the psychic may know are false. When the scientific community is ready to recognize that psychics are human beings with feelings and not guinea pigs or lab rats, and gives psychics the respect they deserve by treating them as subject matter experts and respecting their knowledge of the phenomena, and also recognizes them as collaborators not test subjects, it might be time to consider cooperating.
Could you at least acknowledge that this entire thing is based on an exercise that Frank described in this post, within which he explaied they achieved excellent results? This is out of hand for absolutely no reason. People need to lighten up and stop being so defensive.

Also, Craig, thanks for your vote of confidence. Indeed I'm not trying to prove anything or make some point here beyond simply replicating what Frank was talking about, which I thought could be constructive and/or informative and/or fun. But to that end I'm not sure I understand how your criticisms relate to the set-up he described and the one I've presented here.
 
#12
Could you at least acknowledge that this entire thing is based on an exercise that Frank described in this post, within which he explaied they achieved excellent results? This is out of hand for absolutely no reason. People need to lighten up and stop being so defensive.

Also, Craig, thanks for your vote of confidence. Indeed I'm not trying to prove anything or make some point here beyond simply replicating what Frank was talking about, which I thought could be constructive and/or informative and/or fun. But to that end I'm not sure I understand how your criticisms relate to the set-up he described and the one I've presented here.
Frank's experiment was done in person. This one is over the Internet. These are much different situations. To give you an idea, I'm currently writing a paper, following this conversation, following a baseball game and occasionally stopping to play a flash game. I am also aware that I'm getting zero exercise doing this. So I'm pre-occupied. I suspect others are too.

And please don't take it so personally from Jim. This is a REALLY touchy subject. I personally feel very strongly just like Jim does. I just know you from other conversations and understand that you're not an ideologue trying to prove that psychics are fakes. You are genuinely curious. So I put my feelings aside.
 
#13
Bishop,

I do realise and accept that there's a fun element to this (even though I gave Jim Smith's post a "like"). As such, all power to your elbow and have at it: the results could be interesting.

That said, is this even a test of psychic ability? Or is it rather a test of the ordinary ability of people to judge others from their eyes? I mean, we spend a lot of time looking at the faces and eyes of others, and make judgements based on those, even if we don't necessarily always judge correctly...
 
#14
Frank's experiment was done in person. This one is over the Internet. These are much different situations. To give you an idea, I'm currently writing a paper, following this conversation, following a baseball game and occasionally stopping to play a flash game. I am also aware that I'm getting zero exercise doing this. So I'm pre-occupied. I suspect others are too.

And please don't take it so personally from Jim. This is a REALLY touchy subject. I personally feel very strongly just like Jim does. I just know you from other conversations and understand that you're not an ideologue trying to prove that psychics are fakes. You are genuinely curious. So I put my feelings aside.
Thanks, I'm totally fine with this. I would say that moving forward I won't ramp up expectations and I'm going to take your feedback about the nature of such exercises at face value, because I trust your knowledge about these things. If anyone is still interested they can simply PM me. It's still open to anyone who would like to take part, and as I mentioned before I've already gotten some interesting responses.
 
#15
Bishop,

I do realise and accept that there's a fun element to this (even though I gave Jim Smith's post a "like"). As such, all power to your elbow and have at it: the results could be interesting.
Thanks, I agree. I especially like the idea of seeing what kind of "median" picture emerges based on all feedback.

That said, is this even a test of psychic ability? Or is it rather a test of the ordinary ability of people to judge others from their eyes? I mean, we spend a lot of time looking at the faces and eyes of others, and make judgements based on those, even if we don't necessarily always judge correctly...
I have no idea. As mentioned in the links I posted in the OP, David Baily asked how such readings (in Frank's example) would be possible under a materialistic paradigm. And as Frank described it, there was definitely something going on. But you'd probably want to ask him if he would consider a non-psychic explanation.
 
#19
Frank's experiment was done in person. This one is over the Internet. These are much different situations. To give you an idea, I'm currently writing a paper, following this conversation, following a baseball game and occasionally stopping to play a flash game. I am also aware that I'm getting zero exercise doing this. So I'm pre-occupied. I suspect others are too.
A solution to the personal issue you raise is simply to choose to take the process seriously. If you choose not to, I agree that the results may suffer, but you could just as easily choose to do so. If you can't be bothered to take something seriously simply because you have a web browser open, well, that's your choice, of course, but I don't see how that keeps you from just tuning in and taking it seriously if you choose to. Would the "results" Bishop gets be possibly tainted by those people that are not capable of taking the process seriously? Sure. Would you need to be included in that group that didn't take the process seriously? Only if you chose to be distracted instead of taking the process seriously.
 
#20
A solution to the personal issue you raise is simply to choose to take the process seriously. If you choose not to, I agree that the results may suffer, but you could just as easily choose to do so. If you can't be bothered to take something seriously simply because you have a web browser open, well, that's your choice, of course, but I don't see how that keeps you from just tuning in and taking it seriously if you choose to. Would the "results" Bishop gets be possibly tainted by those people that are not capable of taking the process seriously? Sure. Would you need to be included in that group that didn't take the process seriously? Only if you chose to be distracted instead of taking the process seriously.
I have to admit that like Craig, I frequently multitask, and when I choose to concentrate, may do it by instalment. Some of my posts here are composed over several hours, with breaks in between watching TV or checking out favourite blogs or working on some other task with concentration. For me, I find taking the break and doing something else for a while helpful and possibly more productive in aggregate. If some people can concentrate on the one thing for extended periods, good for them, but there are different ways to skin a cat. Women are often geniuses at multitasking: maybe my feminine side is a little bit stronger than some males? ;)
 
Top