2009 PA Convention in Seattle

Register Now!

The Annual PA Convention is an international gathering of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of psi (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition. The convention features three days of papers and posters presenting the latest academic research taking place in laboratories and research centers around the world. PA conventions are open to the public, and provide ample opportunities for attendees to discuss and exchange ideas.

Donald Hoffman, Professor of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, will be the banquet speaker on Saturday night. Professor Hoffman's areas of expertise include Consciousness, Visual Perception, and the Mind-Body Problem. He is the author of the book Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See. His talk entitled "Consciousness and the interface theory of perception" will present a non-materialist solution to the mind-body problem.

Accommodations are available both in the dormitories on the University of Washington campus and at the Watertown Hotel. Use the registration form to book dorm room accommodations, but for hotel reservations, please contact the Watertown Hotel directly. Additional details on hotel accommodations, and tentative event schedule can be found at parapsych.org.

Review of Outside the Gates of Science

Damien Broderick is an Australian science-fiction author and critic with a PhD in the comparative semiotics of science and literature. A rare and chimeric blend of qualities which make him an engaging and sympathetic commentator on parapsychology- an enterprise which is viewed by establishment science somewhat in the same way that science fiction is viewed by the literary establishment- as a quirky and rather embarrassing enterprise driven by a desire for wish-fulfilment that anyone with respectable academic ambitions ought to have grown out of by the time they hit puberty. However Outside the Gates of Science: Why It's Time for the Paranormal to Come in from the Cold is not a book you’ll feel you have to read surreptitiously under the bedcovers. A fast-moving foray into the fascinating (and sometimes downright bizarre) world of parapsychological research.it’s a good introduction to the controversies of the field for the non-specialist reader.

The first section of the book is a recap of some of the most often cited evidence for ESP and PK starting with the work of Joseph Banks Rhine and his card-guessing experiments at Duke University. Broderick draws a firm line between this and previous research carried out by spiritualists and psychical researchers noting that the key distinction was one of method and perhaps more importantly, cast of mind. He argues that whereas nineteenth century psychical researchers resembled historians or geographical explorers accumulating anecdotes and taking copious notes to construct narratives Rhine’s 20^th century laboratory based approach emphasised scientific standards of rigour and repeatability. In short, there are two basic types of parapsychologist- story-tellers and bean-counters. Broderick apologises for this somewhat glib summing up of the paradigm wars but his whimsical and sometimes sardonic sense of humour adds a lot to the book’s charm although the more worthy and serious minded reader may find this off-putting. (Personally speaking, I shrieked with laughter and mentally assigned appropriately-sloganed t-shirts to every parapsychologist I’ve ever met and several more whom I haven’t). Creationist sensibilities may then be shaken with the declaration of support for Evolutionary Theory phrased as “Ancient Ignorant Guess vs. Darwin, Mendel, Crick and Watson, and the Human Genome Project” (p18-19) and then it is swiftly on to the work of the Princeton Anomalies Research Team (PEAR). Emphasis is placed on Jahn and Dunne’s avoidance of what they termed as “ ‘Gee Whiz’ experiments, flashy psychic bombshells of the Uri Geller spoon-bending variety” (p21) and statistical evidence is soberly and concisely presented before moving onto an absorbing account of Targ and Puthoff’s Remote Viewing experiments and the political intrigues of psychic spies, the Stargate Project and the hunt for Saddam Hussein. There is plenty of Gee Whiz to go round here, and the author is clearly enthralled with the topic, having discussed it in depth with key players such as Ed May and Joe McMoneagle. It would appear if ‘psi’ exists that the best evidence and applications might be found in these shadowy realms, but not all the stories can be told, at least in full, and the reader is left somewhat unsatisfied at unaccredited sources and hints at hidden knowledge while Broderick himself admits that the rules of the inner circles operate “rather like the first and second rules in the movie Fight Club (‘Do not talk about Fight Club’)” (p 88).

The shadows are swiftly dispelled with what I found to be a particularly lucid exposition of quantum theories which managed to convince me that I might actually have some notion about what they might mean. No doubt this illusion will vanish the next time I talk to a real physicist, but nevertheless this is a tribute to Broderick’s calibre as a thinker and clarity as a writer as much as a testament to my own vanity. Giving short-shrift to “ the pseudo-quantum song warbled by smiling new age irrationalists” and singling out Lynne McTaggart’s book The Field (2002) as a particularly flawed example of that genre, he tackles the issue of Quantum weirdness, noting that this “looks to some people suspiciously like psychic weirdness: instantaneous nonlocal connections, reversed-time aspects to causality. The most extraordinary aspect of this discussion, for the hardnosed lay realist, is surely that it is taking place at all." (p. 189). Pointing out the similarities between the role of an observer in both ‘psi’ and quantum experimentation he argues that this "must lie at the heart of the solution to the problem of psi phenomena; and, indeed, an understanding of psi phenomena and consciousness must provide the basis for an improved understanding of Quantum Mechanics" (p. 206).

Broderick is indeed persuaded of the reality of at least some ‘psi’ phenomena- but not all, he would rather “keep gods, demons and tricksters at bay as the hypothesis of last resort." (p 272). In what might be read as a rebuke to the novel ambitions of wannabe ‘clinical parapsychologists’, he notes that “we must not allow ourselves to forget that the most powerful paranormal phenomena ever claimed have been reported by schizophrenics and other mentally disordered people” (p 274) and the difference between reports of this sort and the claims of parapsychology research is, he asserts, “the witness of their accumulating evidence and theoretical apparatus, however incomplete, by people who are not mystics or cultists” (p 275). And there’s the rub. I don’t doubt that Broderick is indeed correct in his assertion that “if telepathy, remote viewing, precognition and psychokinesis become repeatably demonstrable, they will enter, at last the realm of regular science...” (p 310). However, given that previous chapters acknowledging the capricious nature of ‘psi effects’ it might be expected that this state of affairs might be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Furthermore, not all those individuals who have reported miracles can be easily written off as insane and whereas notions of a deity, or an afterlife or esoteric ruminations about consciousness may remain outside the gates of science, they have found well-appointed mansions of their own in departments of theology, philosophy and even anthropology across wide swathes of academia whilst academic parapsychology is still viewed with some suspicion. Perhaps we should not assume that respectability is inextricably wedded to materialism. In 1959 novelist and scientist C.P. Snow famously warned that science and arts were becoming two cultures, more recently Brockman (1995) has promoted the notion of a “third culture” to describe scientists- in particular evolutionary biologists, psychologists and neuroscientists- who may render visible “the deeper meanings in our lives” and supersede literary artists in their ability to “shape the thoughts of their generation.” So does parapsychology really need to be science and if so, why should it want to be seen as a hard, pure science?

In the last section of Outside the Gates of Science entitled “Tomorrow’s Psi” Broderick muses on the potentials of parapsychology’s future. There may well be those that feel that the here and now of psi is puzzling and fascinating enough, but time marches on and although after all that quantum discussion and talk of retro-causation I’m not entirely sure in which direction that march will proceed, I am rather persuaded that those parapsychologists who concern themselves purely with the here-and-now run the risk of finding themselves swiftly relegated to the realms of the been-and-gone. In this final flight of fabulous speculation, Broderick, as a science fiction writer, really comes into his own with some wide-ranging thoughts about how an acknowledged reality of ‘psi’ in the workaday world might reshape human experience.

An entertaining and thought-provoking read.

Wendy E. Cousins

References

Brockman, J. (1995) The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, Simon & Schuster:

McTaggart L. (2001) The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Snow, C.P. (1993) The Two Cultures, Cambridge University Press; New edition.

-------

Wendy E.Cousins is an Irish University lecturer/psychologist.

Labels: book reviews

Conference on Health, Mental Health, and Exceptional Human Experiences

A conference on Health, Mental Health and Exceptional Human Experiences will take place at Liverpool Hope University on Monday 7th September.

Review of The Spirit of Dr. Bindelof

The Spirit of Dr. Bindelof: the Enigma of Séance Phenomena, by Dr. Rosemarie Pilkington features the story of a little known episode of physical mediumship that took place among a group of teenage boys in New York City in the 1930’s. Dr. Pilkington is a musician, writer, and educator with a PhD in psychology from Saybrook Institute. She befriended one of the members of this sitter group, Gilbert Roller, later in his life and presents his autobiographical account of the boys’ experimentation with séance phenomena, and their contact with an alleged spirit named Dr. Bindelof.

Gilbert recalled his childhood home life as “monstrous and terrible” (p. 7). Early in the story, we learn that he was the focus of an outbreak of poltergeist activity in his home. Gil’s mother was absent much of the time, and she and her husband (Gil’s stepfather) fought often. When Gil was about 12 or 13, the family heard sounds from his mother’s bedroom and found hairpins that had apparently flown from the dresser and hit the door. Wooden knobs from her shoe tree came off and were flung across the room. As the phenomena progressed, dishes would come crashing off the counters, and the words ‘GO GO’ were found crayoned in huge letters on the wall. These and other events prompted Gil’s father to call in the well known psychical researcher, Howard Carrington, to investigate.

Later, Gil joined his mother in evening séances in which minor events occurred in his presence. Eventually, he started his own sitter group along with some of his teenage friends, including the late Montague Ullman, who later became a psychiatrist and parapsychologist and founder of the Dream Laboratory at Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, New York (whose own account of the sittings can be found here). The boys were dedicated to the task of facilitating paranormal phenomena and met regularly on Saturday nights for several years. Among the phenomena they reported were table levitations, raps, direct voice phenomena, direct writing, and communications with a ‘spirit’ by the name of Dr. Bindelof, who provided healing and medical advice. On the front of the book is a portrait of Dr. Bindelof, taken under the very specific guidance of the communicator.

Gilbert and Pilkington seem to agree that there was no ‘spirit’ of Dr. Bindelof. Rather, the doctor was the unconscious projection of the sitter group and that Gil was the source of major occurrences in and out of the séance room. In the next two sections of the book, Pilkington provides a brief history of physical mediumship, covering well known cases like the Fox Sisters, Daniel Douglas Home, Florence Cook, Eusapia Palladino, and Ted Serios, as well has lesser known cases such as Franek Kluski and Indridi Indridason. Throughout her narrative, Pilkington relates aspects of these cases to the Bindelof case, maintaining that these kinds of unusual events were likely paranormally produced by living beings, “although belief in outside or discarnate forces greatly helps in their production.” And if these phenomena are genuine, “our current knowledge of the mind and body, our whole concept of physical laws, is woefully limited” (p.226).

Despite my involvement in the field of parapsychology, my boggle threshold, the point at which I consider phenomena highly unlikely to be real, is admittedly pretty low. I was attracted to this field because I was impressed by laboratory studies of psi and the evidence for small-scale psi effects in environments where variables can be manipulated and performance measured. Time and time again, in laboratories around the world, well-educated and credible scientists have demonstrated that human consciousness may not be limited to space or time. I am more boggled that the work of parapsychologists doesn't receive more serious mainstream consideration than I am by the implications of their results.

However, many large scale psychokinetic effects do exceed my boggle threshold, and I find it difficult to accept the reality of such phenomena unless I can either investigate them myself or have their mechanisms explained to me. Pilkington’s narrative attempts to demonstrate to readers that these events are real, but I still remain unconvinced. However while reading The Spirit of Dr. Bindelof, I was impressed with the reality that credible and well-trained investigators have observed physical effects that seem to defy space or time, and that these observers were willing stake their reputations reporting them. Many of these investigations took place with cooperative subjects who were willing to be thoroughly examined and perform such feats under well-lit conditions. Quality investigations such as these have taken place around the world, decade after decade, yet the phenomena still remain a mystery.

After reading Pilkington's book, I am just a little bit more curious about sitter group phenomena, enough so that I might find the patience to try it myself. For those interested in forming such groups, Pilkington’s appendix, So You Want to Do It Too?, offers advice to novices.

However, for me the larger issue is understanding 'how it works', and unfortunately large scale psychokinetic (macro-PK) events have not yet been subjected to the volume of research that ESP and small scale psychokinetic (micro-PK) events have. A systematic, scientific research program into macroscopic psychokinetic phenomena would be absolutely groundbreaking. But unlike some of the phenomena described in The Spirit of Dr. Bindelof, scientific research programs don't drop out of thin air. Rather, they are supported by the research dollars of individuals and foundations with the vision and courage needed to support science on the cutting edge.

Gilbert Roller passed away on October 20, 2004 at the age of 89. Recently, his widow, Mrs. Marion Roller made a generous contribution to the Parapsychological Association (PA) in her husband's name to establish a new endowment for research. The Gilbert Roller Fund supports scientific field investigations into macroscopic psychokinetic phenomena such as those reported in sitter groups, séances, poltergeist activity, and/or theoretical approaches to help explain the nature of such large scale effects. Right now, the PA is in the midst of a matching funds drive for this endowment until Friday, May 1, 2009. Mrs. Roller is matching, dollar for dollar, donations made to this fund. So your tax-deductible contribution of $50 would not-so-mysteriously become $100 research dollars, and so on. Donations can be made online at the PA website. Your contributions would enable qualified researchers with professional knowledge of past research of this type to continue to explore large-scale psychokinetic phenomena.

Addendum: I just received the following from a representative of Mrs. Roller's estate:

Through May 1st your contribution will be matched TWO FOR ONE, that is for every $50 you donate, the fund will receive $150. If you have not yet contributed, please do so this week to help add to our knowledge and to take advantage of this generous offer.

Annalisa Ventola

www.publicparapsychology.org

Labels: book reviews

Lecture Review: Science and the Afterlife

Science and the Afterlife

A Review of a Lecture Presented at the San Diego Bereavement Consortium

March 20, 2009

Recently, Dr. Julie Beischel, a premier investigator in the fields of survival of consciousness and mediumship research, spoke before an audience of perhaps one hundred people in San Diego at a lecture at the Scottish Rite Event Center. Early in her presentation, Dr. Beischel requested a show of hands in the audience of those who believed that consciousness survives death, and not surprisingly, 90% raised their hands, though I was not among them. This was due to my agnosticism on the topic, despite my own first impulse to raise my arm.

“Survival after death,” reported Dr. Beischel, “has a body of data at least one hundred years old.” She described three established types of after-life research: 1). proof-focused (i.e. validity studies); 2). process-focused (phenomenology of the medium herself); and 3). applied (i.e. field work). Beischel’s approach is clearly proof-focused. She herself is well-schooled in laboratory science having earned her doctorate in Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Arizona—an impressive prelude to her present career as researcher/bridge-maker to the other side.

According to Beischel, researchers agree that “the perception is real” (regarding contact with the dead), though what actually is occurring in such cases is less conclusive. Of course, irrefutable scientific proof for survival, an afterlife, and direct communication with the “discarnate,” would most certainly be a gold ticket in the annals of science research, on a par with evidential proof of alien contact, the cure and eradication of cancer, or even a treatment for male-pattern baldness that worked. Moving from perception to causation in this controversial territory is like moving from the belief in faeries to having one sing with the band at your daughter’s wedding.

Dr. Beishal reviewed her fairly rigorous eight-step process at The Windbridge Institute to screen and train competent mediums as subjects (often on the phone) for controlled experiments. Both mental mediums and “trance mediums” (who remain dissociated during their transmissions) are utilized. Training includes grief counseling to help mediums better relate to their bereaved sitters during contact sessions. Curiously, the words ‘ghost’, ‘apparition’, or ‘spirit’ are not used in this vocabulary, and Beischel admits a double-edged sword in the current pop culture fascination with mediums, spirit possession, ghost hunters, and the like, which, at once, trivializes her research as a kind of thrill-ride for hormonally-ravaged teenagers, but also raises public awareness for the much-needed funding in this universally relevant area.

I found especially interesting Beischel’s discussion of the three likely mechanisms researchers use to explain ‘anomalous information receptions’ (AIR): namely, 1) consciousness survives death. 2) a super psi effect is triggered in such cases (in which case, what’s actually occurring is psi, not survival). 3). A ‘psychic reservoir’ or universal data bank (ala the Akashic records, etc.) is tapped.

The first option feels circular to me, and not mutually exclusive of the others. Receptions occur “because consciousness survives” seems like saying “we float in the water because the ocean is wet.” There must be a second half to this explanation. Option 2--the super psi effect--seems to be the confounding factor that ambiguously follows this work to its conclusion (or stalemate) without ever being ruled out, or adequately control for. What may appear like valid contact between medium and discarnate may actually be some telepathic snatching up of the sitter’s memories (with, or without, anyone realizing it). In that case, the after-life has not been unwrapped so much as hijacked by super-psychics! Option 3, however, the ‘psychic reservoir hypothesis’, despite its Aquarian acoustic, resonates most with my own sympathies as a Jungian psychologist and tarot expert. I can easily visualize The High Priestess channeling subtle, subliminal, collective memories accessed from her deeply intuitive predisposition.

Option 3 also suggests ‘absolute knowledge’ (Jung) arising synchronistically between medium, sitter, (and possibly discarnate as well). The connection, however, is ‘acausal’ in nature, i.e. emitting no energy exchange between senders and receivers (the holy mantra of synchronicity theorists!). Like in divination procedures, a transpersonal intelligence or awareness seems simply to open up (or is recognized as having always been there) under the proper conditions. Whereas super psi posits something is happening here (albeit subtle)— an energy still is exchanged (and sought after for measurement by scientists). In any event, Dr. Beischel admitted without hesitation to the audience that the question itself remains open.

The psychology of abundance seems another relevant piece to the life-after-death puzzle. Unlimited amounts of anything—cash, phone minutes, refills, or lifetimes—make sudden ceasing to be seem so less pressured and irredeemable. Could survivability, and its implied endlessness, have such a paradoxical effect? Might surviving into the afterlife take some of the umph out of the “now or never?” Beischel reports that grief-stricken family members feel better after consulting a medium than after consulting a mental health worker. (Why am I not surprised?). Could this artifact be merely some opiate effect in the service of denial? Or could something far less predictable be going on here-- the foreshadowing of a vast paradigm shift with respect to consciousness surviving after death. As Dr. Julie Beischel noted at the end, perhaps the greatest effect of her findings for the medical community is simply that: “Death is then viewed more as a transition, than a failure.” Could this be the larger hypothesis that we are looking for?

Arthur Rosengarten, Ph.D.

http://www.moonlightcounseling.com

http://geocities.com/tarotpsych/

Dr. Art Rosengarten is a Jungian psychologist in Encinitas, California, The Director of Moonlight Counseling, the author of Tarot And Psychology: Spectrums Of Possibility (2000), and the creator of Tarot Of The Nine Paths: A Guide For The Spiritual Traveler (2009). He completed the first scientific study of tarot divination for his doctoral dissertation at the California Institute Of Integral Studies (1985) and has since researched domestic violence through the synchronisitic lens of tarot readings. Dr. Rosengarten is owner/moderator of tarotpsych: an online discussion group for tarot experimentation and community. His articles, services, books and deck can be found on his website: www.artrosengarten.com

Windbridge Institute Study

The Windbridge Institute is in need of research volunteers for an online study. Participants in this study will be asked to visit a specific website and listen to a selection of different sounds (audio files). Participants will then be asked to complete an on-line survey with questions about what they heard. The study takes about an hour to complete.

More details are available at http://www.windbridge.org/study.html. Please use 'pubpara' as your participant code.

Labels: calls for participants

New Parapsychology Blog

JJ Lumsden, parapsychologist and author of The Hidden Whisper, has recently started his own blog at parapsychologist.tumblr.com. Starting off with a few short essays and quotes, this looks like a promising blog to watch.

Matching Funds Drive for PK Research

The Parapsychological Association (PA) recently received a generous donation from Mrs. Marion Roller to establish a new endowment for research. The Gilbert Roller Fund supports scientific field investigations into macroscopic psychokinetic phenomena such as those reported in sitter-groups, séances, and poltergeist activity, and/or theoretical approaches to help explain the nature of such large-scale effects.

Between now and May 1, 2009, Mrs. Roller will match, dollar for dollar, any donations made to the Gilbert Roller Fund to support this important line of research. Traditionally most of the modest support for parapsychological research has come from individuals and foundations with the vision and courage needed to support science on the cutting edge. Your contributions will enable qualified researchers with professional knowledge of past investigations of this type to continue to explore large-scale psychokinetic phenomena in the real world.

The PA provides a professional "home" for scientists and scholars around the world who dare to investigate phenomena shunned by mainstream science. Donations can be made to the Gilbert Roller Fund electronically by visiting their members site, or by check mailed to the Parapsychological Association at P.O. Box 24173, Columbus, OH 43224. The PA is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization and donations are tax-deductible in the USA.

A Brain Response to a Remote Stare?

“I have the feeling that we’re being watched...” is a familiar saying to most of us, and in some instances, we may turn around and find someone is watching us from afar. This experience of remote staring detection, as it is sometimes called, seems to be rather common among the general population, with surveys in the United States and Europe estimating that between 68 and 94% of people have had the feeling on at least one occasion (Braud et al., 1993; Sheldrake, 2003, Ch. 8). To better exclude the possibility that the feeling is merely due to coincidence or to subtle sensory cues, at least 15 experimental psi studies have attempted to reproduce it under carefully controlled conditions since the early 1990s. With their results combined, the studies reveal a small but statistically significant overall effect (Schmidt et al., 2004), hinting that there might be something to the “feeling of being stared at.”

In these studies, the observed effect comes as a small change in the skin’s electrical activity, which is controlled by the body’s autonomic nervous system. It may be argued that if the nervous system can register a response to an unseen gaze, then perhaps the brain can register one, as well. To explore this possibility, Ian Baker at the University of Derby, and Paul Stevens at Bournemouth University, presented a remote staring study that included brain wave monitoring using the electroencephalograph (EEG) at the 51^st Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association in Winchester, England. In particular, Baker and Stevens (2008) examined the event-related potentials (ERPs) produced on the EEG charts during the study to see if they might serve as brain processing correlates of remote staring.

ERPs are tiny brain wave voltage changes that often reflect the brain’s electrical activity in response to sensory stimulation (Kolb & Whishaw, 1990, p. 372). For example, when a bright light is flashed in their eyes, an ERP can appear on a person’s EEG a fraction of a second later, usually in the area around the visual cortex in the occipital lobe at the brain’s rear. In addition, an ERP can occur when we are shown a picture of someone’s face, as our brain works to determine if we recognize the face or not, as well as react to its gaze. In some sense, remote staring might be seen as a form of facial or gaze processing at a distance, wherein a person’s brain somehow detects and processes the presence the gaze of a distant face. If it can be thought of in this way, then perhaps remote staring utilizes similar (if not the same) brain processes as those used in direct facial and/or gaze processing. Baker and Stevens (2008) made an initial attempt to explore the plausibility of this using ERPs.[1]

Three remote staring experiments were reported. In each one, a participant relaxed in front of a computer screen while their EEG was monitored. During part of the experiment, a facial portrait [2] was shown on the screen to evoke an ERP on the participant’s EEG; at other times, it was left blank. In addition, a starer in a distant room watched the participant at random times on another computer screen that was connected to a video camera aimed at the participant. Because of the random timing, there were occasions in which the conditions overlapped (i.e., the participant looked at the face on the screen while being remotely watched by the starer), and other times in which they did not. The results showed indications of a remote staring effect, but it only occurred when the conditions overlapped. When the participant’s ERPs generated during the overlapping condition were compared to the ERPs produced when the participant was shown the face on the screen (but not watched from afar), they were notably similar. This began to suggest that remote staring and face/gaze processing may use the same or similar brain processes.

However, the third experiment uncovered signs of a possible artifact that potentially confounded the results. When examined further in a control test, a small difference in luminance was discovered when facial portraits were being presented on the screen, which may have either affected the generation of ERPs, or provided participants with a subtle sensory cue as to the test condition. While this potentially weakens the study findings, it may have the important purpose of uncovering a procedural issue relevant to other studies in the neuroscience literature that use a similar method of ERP generation. If a similar artifact is seen in other studies, then it may affect the interpretation of many mainstream findings and draw attention to a procedural concern that must be addressed in future ERP studies. For parapsychology, further studies that control for this artifact are needed to better determine whether or not remote staring does indeed involve brain processes utilized in direct facial/gaze processing.

Bryan Williams

Notes

[1] Incidentally, Norman Don, Bruce McDonough, and Charles Warren of the University of Illinois at Chicago conducted a series of ESP studies that found evidence to suggest that ERPs can sometimes serve as unconscious brain wave indicators of precognition (e.g., Don et al., 1998; Warren et al., 1992).

[2] This facial portrait was of the starer in the distant room (see text).

References:

Baker, I. S., & Stevens, P. (2008). An investigation into the cortical electrophysiology of remote staring detection. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 51st Annual Convention (pp. 8 – 23). Columbus, OH: Parapsychological Association, Inc.

Braud, W., Shafer, D., & Andrews, S. (1993). Reactions to an unseen gaze (remote attention): A review, with new data on autonomic staring detection. Journal of Parapsychology, 57, 373 – 390.

Don, N. S., McDonough, B. E., & Warren, C. A. (1998). Event-related brain potential (ERP) indicators of unconscious psi: A replication using subjects unselected for psi. Journal of Parapsychology, 62, 127 – 145.

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1990). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology (3rd Ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.

Schmidt, S., Schneider, R., Utts, J., & Walach, H. (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 235 – 247.

Sheldrake, R. (2003). The Sense of Being Stared At, and Other Aspects of the Extended Mind. New York: Crown Publishers.

Warren, C. A., McDonough, B. E., & Don, N. S. (1992). Event-related brain potential changes in a psi task. Journal of Parapsychology, 56, 1 – 30.

Volunteer Opportunities at the Rhine Research Center

Do you have some extra time during the day or afterhours to help develop and promote the Rhine Center’s expanding research and educational programs? Here are some of the current needs—

Handling & Shipping: Help in screening incoming calls, signups for programs and membership, sales and mailings of books and products.

Friendly Greeters: Program registration, hosting and sales activities at the regular evening talks, workshops and yearly conferences.

Publicity Paragons: Preparing notices for email and website posting of programs as well as expanding the overall media contacts to better publicize Rhine Center events...

Book Buddies: Help with general library work such as logging in of new books, adding onto software program, writing selected book reviews for the newsletter, and/or developing a lending library of extra library books.

For the Record: Backup assistance to audiovisual technical staff in audio and video-recording of programs

Historians: Assistance in organizing and preserving archival materials from the Rhine Center past.

Research Acolytes: Occasional assistance to research staff on selected research projects or grant proposals.

Development Demons: Assist in fund-raising and general promotional activities of the Center.

If you are interested, please contact Sally or call 919-309-4600 during weekday hours.

Editor's note: The Rhine Research Center is located in North Carolina, however, notice that a couple of their volunteer needs (i.e. publicity, research, and development) could probably be handled long distance. Send Sally an email and see how you can lend a hand.

Science of Hauntings Conference in Edinburgh

On 4th April 2009, psychologist Professor Richard Wiseman and a host of leading experts will gather to examine the science and history of hauntings.

This unusual event will explore the results of scientific investigations into 'haunted' houses, how the brain can be fooled into seeing apparitions, whether spirit photographs offer evidence of the afterlife, and how poltergeists once panicked the nation. There will also be a unique opportunity to witness a genuine Victorian phantasmagoria, and meet the man who creates ghostly goings-on in Harry Potter movies.

The event will take place in the University of Edinburgh's Anatomy Lecture Theatre - an atmospheric, spectacular and historical venue not usually open to the public.

Talks:

Investigating haunted locations: A scientific approach (Prof Richard Wiseman: Uni of Hertfordshire)

Imaging the impossible: Investigating spirit photography (Gordon Rutter: Writer)

Things that go bump in the mind: The psychology of apparitions (Dr Caroline Watt: Univ of Edinburgh)

The haunted: A social history of ghosts (Prof Owen Davies: University of Hertfordshire)

"No more ghosts!": The regency phantasmagoria (Dr Mervyn Heard: Historian and performer)

"Dialogue with the dead": Creating ghosts for television (Stephen Volk: Writer of Ghostwatch and Afterlife)

Grappling with ghosts: The practicalities of staging ghost effects in the modern theatre (Paul Kieve: Illusionist and film consultant)

Hauntings is part of the Edinburgh International Science Festival.

Further details at: www.scienceofghosts.com

PhD Opportunity in Parapsychology at Lund University

Project for Doctoral Studies in States of Consciousness and Parapsychology
Etzel Cardeña, Ph.D., Thorsen Professor

DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN PARAPSYCHOLOGY

As part of a long-term program of research in states of consciousness and parapsychology, Etzel Cardeña and his associates at Lund University, Sweden are investigating the following themes in the department of psychology:

The nature of spontaneous and induced states of consciousness of targeted groups (e.g., high and low hypnotizables, beginning and long-term meditators) through various methodological tools, including experience sampling reporting, cognitive tasks, and measure of brain activity (e.g., EEG) and other physiological responses with the goal of establishing an empirically-based, phenomenological/physiological taxonomy of states of consciousness.

The relationship between hypnotizability and performance in controlled PSI experiments. Previous studies have revealed that: highly hypnotizable individuals report a high incidence of spontaneous anomalous experiences, including reputed psi phenomena such as clairvoyance and telepathy, and there is a significant positive association between a hypnotic context and performance in controlled, standardized tests measuring psi abilities. This part of the project focuses on: a) investigating the possible interaction between a hypnotic context, hypnotizability, and performance in controlled psi experiments, and b) developing and testing a long-term training program to potentially enhance performance in psi-experiments through immediate feedback and long term skill enhancement on groups most likely to perform significantly in standardized psi tests.

If interested in apply for their graduate program, contact: Dr Etzel Cardena or download the application.

Sheldrake Lecturing on Morphic Resonance in London

October Gallery, 24 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AL
(Tel: 44 (0)20 7831 1618). – email: rentals@octobergallery.co.uk
Please RSVP as space is very limited – Pay on the door or in advance by credit card
Entry £7 /£5 Concessions, Arrive 6pm for a 6:30pm Start - Wine available

Mediumship Research Presentation in San Diego

At 7pm on Friday, March 20th, please join Dr. Julie Beischel at the Scottish Rite Event Center in San Diego, CA. She will discuss how mediumship is investigated in a controlled laboratory setting, what conclusions can be drawn from the data collected to date, the practical applications of mediumship in grief recovery and hospice care, how mediumship can affect the lives of those who have lost a loved one, and how to choose a medium and get the most out of your reading. This event is co-sponsored by OpenSourceScience, the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) San Diego Community Group, and the San Diego Bereavement Consortium. For more information and to purchase tickets, please visit www.windbridge.org/sandiego.htm.

Julie Beischel, PhD, is the Co-Founder and Director of Research at The Windbridge Institute for Applied Research in Human Potential. Her research interests center on the survival of consciousness hypothesis ("life after death") and include proof-focused studies of mediums' communication with discarnates and process-focused studies of mediums' experiences of that communication. Dr. Beischel received her doctorate in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a minor in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona. She was the first recipient of the William James Post-doctoral Fellowship in Mediumship and Survival Research at the University of Arizona where she served as Co-Director of the VERITAS Research Program before moving the research and the screening and training of prospective research mediums to Windbridge in January of 2008. Dr. Beischel is currently a member of the Parapsychological Association and a member of the scientific advisory boards of the Rhine Research Center and the Forever Family Foundation. She is the recipient of a 2008 Bial Foundation research grant and has published peer-reviewed articles in journals including the Journal of Scientific Exploration, The Journal of Parapsychology, and Explore: the Journal of Science and Healing. More information about Dr. Beischel and the Windbridge Institute can be found at www.windbridge.org.

Two PhD Opportunities at University of Northampton

There are two opportunities for European students interested in studying parapsychology at the University of Northampton in the UK. Act quickly because the deadline is coming up soon! Details below.


£8,125.00 per annum plus tuition fees for 3 years (including £1,000 research expenses p.a.)

The University of Northampton invites applications for a three-year part-time (.65) PhD studentship to support a research project that will investigate performance at a laboratory-based implicit psi task and test predictions made by the Psi-Mediated Instrumental Response theory. The successful applicant will be based in the Centre for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes (CSAPP), an institutionally recognised Research Centre within The University of Northampton. Supervisory support and research training shall be provided by staff from CSAPP and the School of Social Science within the University.

The bursary is part of a project led by Dr Chris Roe and funded by the Fundação Bial, Portugal, and will involve a series of four experimental studies to assess the effects upon psi-task performance of
* Contingent rewards
* Participant latent inhibition
* Participant lability
* Overt versus covert forms of the task
* some details of these studies are determined by the conditions of funding, but there will be scope for the successful candidate to modify or extend the research goals

Applicants should possess a good Honours or Masters Degree in Psychology or a related discipline and be able to demonstrate some familiarity with Parapsychological research methods and findings. The studentship is open to EU nationals only.

Deadline for applications: 4 March, 2009

It is intended that interviews will be held: week beginning 16th March, 2009

Start date: To be negotiated

For an application pack, please email: david.watson@northampton.ac.uk

Conference: Things That Go Bump in the Brain

Muncaster Castle in the English Lake district is an atmospheric and historic site where much research has been done into reports of hauntings. On the weekend of Spetember 18th- 20th 2009 this stunning location will host a unique conference - "Things that Go Bump in the Brain: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Paranormal and Anomalous Experiences". A line-up of excellent speakers will present talks on a wide range of topics, from some of the latest developments in parapsychology, to skepticism and the cutting edge neuroscience of anomalous experiences.

The aim of the conference is to take a balanced view of anomalous experiences and so there will be talks from both proponents and skeptics in the hope of increasing understanding of the issues and generating a healthy debate. The Conference organisers are Dr Jason Braithwaite (Birmingham University Neuroscientist), Dr Wendy E. Cousins (Parapsychology Association International Liaison for Ireland) and John Jackson (Director of Uk-Skeptics). Speakers and topics include:

·Prof Chris French: The Psychology of Anomalous Experiences
·Dr Jason Braithwaite: The Haunted Brain: Towards a Cognitive Neuroscience of Anomalous Cognition
·Dr Christine Mohr: A Neuroscientist looks at the paranormal
·Dr Chris Roe: Psi as Unconscious: A review of some recent research developments in parapsychology
·Nick Pope: The Ministry of Defence X-files
·Dr Karen Douglas: The Social Psychology of Conspiracy beliefs
·David Wilde: Interpreting the anomalous: finding meaning in out-of-body and near-death experiences
·Emma Louise Rhodes: A Matter of Life and Death: A Sceptical Look at Spiritualism
·Dr John Walliss: Between the Worlds: Mediumship in the 21st Century
·Xavier Mendik: The Lure of the Dark side: Sex, death and the paranormal in cult movies.

The delegate rate for both days of the conference will be only £65 at the Early-Bird booking discount (£75 if booked after July 1st). This price includes access to both days of the conference (10 talks, 5 per-day); an invitation to the Friday night welcoming wine reception to be held in the castle; tea, coffee and biscuits each morning and afternoon session; a two course hot fork buffet style lunch on Saturday and Sunday, and full access to the castle and grounds for the duration of the conference. An optional conference Banquet for speakers and delegates in the castle on Saturday evening is priced separately at £45. For further updates on the conference, more information on the castle, its surroundings, accommodation details, and how to order your booking pack please see the conference website:

http://www.muncaster.co.uk/muncaster-castle-paranormal-conference

Labels: conference announcements

Rhine Research Center Newsletter Online

The Rhine Research Center's website has recently gotten a face lift and their latest newsletter is available for download. Enjoy!

Super Bowl XLIII Field RNG Demonstration (Part Four)

Super Bowl XLIII was marked by several notable moments, including the longest yard run in Super Bowl history, a valiant comeback effort by the Arizona Cardinals, and the Pittsburgh Steelers becoming the most winning Super Bowl team. It might be reasonable to think that the attention and emotional response to these and other moments might be conducive to a mass “group mind” effect, and to explore that idea, we tested two basic predictions for this field RNG demonstration (Part Two): one for the football game itself, and one for halftime.

Figure 1 shows the graphical representation of the resulting field RNG output throughout the duration of the football game.


Figure 1. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during Super Bowl XLIII, 4:31 – 8:39 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 1, 2009. The level of statistical significance at p = .05 (i.e., odds of 20 to 1 against chance) as time passes is indicated by the smoothly curved red arc.

Similar to the previous four Super Bowls (Part 3), the data from this year’s Super Bowl are mostly random, with no clear signs of a directional trend. The statistical outcome further confirms its random nature overall (Chi-Square = 14888.75, 14880 df, p = .478). It is perhaps of interest, however, that the data show a deep “valley” around halftime, marked by a rather steady decreasing trend, followed by a counterbalancing steady positive trend. Falling within the range of halftime, this was explored further in the second prediction test.


The “valley”-shaped trend can be seen in more detail in Figure 2, which displays the RNG data output during halftime.


Figure 2. Graphical representation of the RNG data from the Super Bowl XLIII halftime show, 5:55 – 6:28 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 1, 2009.

The data begin to rather steadily decrease around 6:00 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), lasting until about three minutes before the end of the concert given by Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. This trend extends so far below expectation that it begins to approach statistical significance, indicated by the bottom red curved arc. A counterbalancing positive trend then brings the data level again with chance expectation overall (Chi-Square = 1979.18, 1980 df, p = .501). While it looks interesting on the surface, it must be kept in mind that such trends are expected to occur in random data from time to time, so there is no clear indication that it is “group mind” related.


With Super Bowl XLIII, I (B.W.) have collected field RNG data from five consecutive Super Bowls from 2005 to 2009. Given the weak and subtle nature of the effects involved in RNG-based PK and field RNG studies, it might be instructive to examine a combined result across all five games to see what it might have to say about the mass “group mind” effect. Figure 3 shows such a combined result across all five Super Bowls, with the data combined by way of a Stouffer’s Z-score taken across the five RNG outputs for each second (Part Two), covering the period from the moment of kickoff to the end of the game and the trophy presentation. On average, halftime began about 88.4 minutes into the game and lasted 29.4 minutes. The game lasted about 215.4 minutes on average. The approximate moments of these events are indicated in the graph.


Figure 3. Graphical representation of the field RNG data combined across five consecutive Super Bowls (XXXIX – XLIII) by way of a Stouffer’s Z-score. The approximate times for halftime and the game end, averaged across all five Super Bowls, are indicated by black tickmarks along the pink line of expectation.

The data across all five games are clearly within the range of chance (Chi-Square = 15011.38, 14880 df, p = .223), although they are in the predicted direction overall and some degree of structure seems to be visible. Keeping in mind that these visible trends may be random artifacts (and thus we should be cautious about attributing too much meaning to them), it is rather interesting that a strong positive trend occurs about 45 minutes into the game, along with a sharp “valley” following halftime (120 minutes). Visually, the strong positive trend occurring toward the end of the game seems consistent with the kind of trend posited in the first prediction, and seems subjectively consistent with the idea that as the game comes down to its exciting conclusion and a winning team is determined, peoples’ attention becomes focused and their emotions strong. But again, we cannot say with certainty that this trend reflects a mass focused “group mind” effect, since such a trend occurs by chance every once in a while in the fluctuations of random data.


Figure 4. Graphical representation of the field RNG data combined across five consecutive Super Bowl halftimes by way of a Stouffer’s Z-score.

Figure 4 shows the combined result across all five Super Bowl halftimes. Rather than showing a steady positive trend as predicted, these data show a somewhat steady decreasing trend, opposite to the second prediction, that approaches statistical significance. Overall, these data begin to level out, bringing them well within chance (Chi-Square = 2122.8, 2170 df, p = .762).


In a manner very similar to other sporting events (Part One), it seems so far that the Super Bowl does not clearly produce persuasive field RNG results for a mass “group mind” effect as predicted. Yet, keeping in mind the possibility of statistical artifacts, it also seems that some degree of structure may occasionally be seen in the field RNG data that is at least in line with the proposed effect.

So why doesn’t the Super Bowl clearly show a mass “group mind” effect, if it regularly draws the mass attention and emotion of millions of Americans each year? It’s a good question, but not an easy one to answer. Let’s take a brief look at some of the possible answers.

The answer that most skeptics would probably rush to is that the mass “group mind” effect simply does not exist. However, considering the significant field RNG results obtained by other researchers for various kinds of events aside from sports (e.g., Bancel & Nelson, 2008; Hirukawa & Ishikawa, 2004; Nelson, 2001; Nelson et al., 1996, 1998; Radin, 1997, Ch. 10; Rowe, 1998), this answer does not seem to be the most plausible one.

Considering the weak and subtle nature of the effects seen in RNG-PK and field RNG studies, another possible answer could be that the effect is there somewhere in the random noise, but it is so weak that it is simply “drowned out” by the noise. To get an idea of this, we might take a football analogy: Finding such a weak and subtle effect would be analogous to trying to hear what the person sitting next to you in the stadium is whispering while you’re sitting in the midst of a roaring crowd of football fans. And to explore this, the combined result across all five Super Bowls was examined. Assuming for the moment that it is not due to noise or statistical artifacts, some structure began to become visible in the data (Figures 3 & 4), at least hinting at the plausibility of this answer. Additional explorations could perhaps shed better light on this issue.

Yet another possible answer may be found in consideration of the venue and how it might relate subjectively to the generation of a mass “group mind.” While the Super Bowl draws mass attention and emotion, the possibility that these are shared is not always clear-cut. While one part of the crowd gets excited and focused as their team is winning, the other part of the crowd may be discouraged and lose interest as their team unfortunately loses. In such a case, we might think of the subjective situation as being rather “unfocused” or even counterbalanced. The venues where group mind effects tend to be found have been ones where there appears to be great attentional focus, strong rapport, and shared emotions across all involved. Coming from the above perspective, the Super Bowl and other sporting events may be somewhat counter to that situation, and thus may not be fully conducive to a mass group mind.

Lastly, there might be an “experimenter effect” at work in the data, wherein the experimenter (unconsciously) affects his own data by way of method, perspective, or even psi ability (Kennedy & Taddonio, 1976; White, 1976). In my case, such an effect would appear to be a suppressive one, such that the group mind effect is somehow prevented from showing up in the data. The likelihood of this answer may be somewhat lessened by the observation that the overall RNG outcomes over the five Super Bowls have not conformed to my predictions, and are thus not in line with my intentions. However, the experimenter effect remains to be a complicated and persistent issue within parapsychology, so this answer must still be considered.

Thus, we are faced with a range of possible answers, all equally applicable in this case and worthy of further study. Perhaps the best thing to come out of this Super Bowl exploration is that it allowed us to look at what kinds of events might be more conducive to the group mind effect, and what kinds might not be. Though it is counter to what we might intuitively expect, the current field RNG evidence from the Super Bowl and other sporting events suggests that these events mostly fall within the latter category. Examining events in this manner could have the advantage of allowing us to better determine which events we might focus on for further replication and closer study of the mass group mind effect. It was with this aim that the previous Super Bowl explorations, as well as the current demonstration, were carried out. It is hoped that the other, more primary aim for the current demonstration – that it would be interesting and instructive for readers of Public Parapsychology – was also met over the course of the Super Bowl weekend.

The rest of the series can be found in Parts One, Two, and Three.

Bryan Williams

Bryan Williams is a Native American student at the University of New Mexico, where his undergraduate studies have focused on physiological psychology and physics. He is a student affiliate of the Parapsychological Association, a student member of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and a co-moderator of the Psi Society, a Yahoo electronic discussion group for the general public that is devoted to parapsychology. He has been an active contributor to the Global Consciousness Project since 2001.


This long-term field RNG exploration of the Super Bowl by B.W. was made possible in part by support from the Parapsychology Foundation in New York. Appreciation must be extended to Dean Radin of the Institute of Noetic Sciences for making available software for data collection, and to Roger Nelson of the Global Consciousness Project and PEAR for helpful suggestions and advice on field RNG methodology.


Bancel, P., & Nelson, R. (2008). The GCP event experiment: Design, analytical methods, results. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22, 309 – 333.

Hirukawa, T., & Ishikawa, M. (2004). Anomalous fluctuation of RNG data in Nebuta: Summer festival in Northeast Japan. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 47th Annual Convention (pp. 389 – 397). Cary, NC: Parapsychological Association, Inc.

Kennedy, J. E., & Taddonio, J. L. (1976). Experimenter effects in parapsychological research. Journal of Parapsychology, 40, 1 – 33.

Nelson, R. D. (2001). Correlation of global events with REG data: An Internet-based, nonlocal anomalies experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 247 – 271.

Nelson, R. D., Bradish, G. J., Dobyns, Y. H., Dunne, B. J., & Jahn, R. G. (1996). FieldREG anomalies in group situations. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10, 111 – 141.

Nelson, R. D., Jahn, R. G., Dunne, B. J., Dobyns, Y. H., & Bradish, G. J. (1998). FieldREG II: Consciousness field effects: Replications and explorations. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12, 425 – 454.

Radin, D. I. (1997). The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. San Francisco: HarperEdge.

Rowe, W. D. (1998). Physical measurement of episodes of focused group energy. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12, 569 – 581.

White, R. A. (1976). The limits of experimenter influence on psi test results: Can any be set? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 70, 333 – 369.

Labels: bryan williams

Super Bowl XLIII Field RNG Demonstration (Part Three)

To further explore the plausibility of a mass “group mind” effect occurring in conjunction with the widespread attention and emotional response to the Super Bowl, I collected field RNG data during the past four consecutive Super Bowls. Here, we provide a brief summary of the results, which add further basis for the planned field RNG demonstration here on Public Parapsychology. As described in Part Two, two individual predictions were made each year for the Super Bowl: one for the football game, and one for the halftime show [1].


Based on all of the hype I had heard about it around my local university, I first decided to collect field RNG data during Super Bowl XXXIX in February 2005 (this is the only year in which the two test predictions were not specified in advance of the event, so examination was made after the fact). Figure 1 shows the graphical representation of the RNG output during the game.


Figure 1. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during NFL Super Bowl XXXIX, 4:37 – 8:14 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 6, 2005. The level of statistical significance at p = .05 (i.e., odds of 20 to 1 against chance) as time passes is indicated by the smoothly curved red arc.

Ordinarily, one would expect to see RNG data produce a nominally random sequence over time that hovers around mean chance expectation (MCE; indicated in the graph by the pink horizontal line at zero) with no steady directional pattern. The data in Figure 1 show such a sequence throughout the first 90 minutes of the game, but then seem to take on a steadily increasing trend during the halftime period. The data even out following halftime, then steadily decrease around 7:00 PM Mountain time, and gradually return to a random sequence towards the end of the game. Overall, the result is consistent with chance (Chi-Square = 13066.37, 13055 df, p = .470) [2].

With the two predictions pre-specified for the first time in 2006, a follow-up exploration was done during Super Bowl XL, and the result is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during NFL Super Bowl XL, 4:27 – 8:03 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 5, 2006.

The data are mostly random as expected, with the exception of a sharply increasing trend soon after the first score that lasts until halftime, after which it sharply decreases back to MCE. In all, the result is almost exactly at chance and statistically non-significant (Chi-Square = 12955.93, 12955 df, p = .496).

Super Bowl XLI on February 4, 2007, once again drew a lot of hype in my local university community, mainly because one of the Chicago Bears players was a New Mexico native. Interested to see if this might help facilitate a mass group mind, I again collected data, which are shown in Figure 3.


Figure 3. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during NFL Super Bowl XLI, 4:27 – 7:58 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 4, 2007.

The data in Figure 3 show a modest increasing trend throughout most of the game, reversing into steady decreasing trend during the last hour of play. Although in the predicted direction, the overall result is nonsignificant (Chi-Square = 12693.98, 12685 df, p = .476).

Figure 4. Graphical representation of the field RNG data collected during NFL Super Bowl XLII, 4:28 – 8:03 PM Mountain Time (+2 Eastern), February 3, 2008.

The data from the most recent Super Bowl XLII on February 3, 2008, shown in Figure 4, are mostly random throughout, with little sign of a clear trend, and very close to chance overall (Chi-Square = 12890.83, 12901 df, p = .524).


Given that the halftime concerts tend to draw great attention (and in some cases, participation) by the crowd, the second prediction focused on the RNG data during the halftime period. Initially, when analyzed with theoretical mean and SD, these data seemed to produce some promising results for Super Bowls XXXIX and XL. However, after being reanalyzed using the empirical mean and SD of their datasets, the results fell to chance, suggesting that they are statistical artifacts due to the difference between the theoretical values, and the empirical values obtained from the RNG output [3, 4]. Since these and the other halftime results are mostly consistent with chance expectation, we will not present them here.


In general, the field RNG explorations conducted over the past four consecutive Super Bowls have not shown clear statistical evidence for a mass “group mind” effect. At times, some graphical results appear to show some brief trends in line with the predictions (e.g., the game results for Super Bowl XLI), although these are not clearly distinguishable from pure chance fluctuations that are expected to occasionally occur in random data.

It is also important to keep in mind that the magnitude of the effect observed in both RNG-based PK studies and field RNG studies is appreciably small, so obtaining clear results on the level of individual events can often prove difficult. Given this, we will examine a combined result using the data from all of the Super Bowl explorations (including those for the upcoming Super Bowl XLIII) in Part 4.

Will the results for Super Bowl XLIII and its halftime be similar to those described here? The answer will be revealed in Part 4, to appear in the days following Super Bowl Sunday...

The rest of the series can be read in Parts One, Two, and Four.

Bryan Williams

Bryan Williams is a Native American student at the University of New Mexico, where his undergraduate studies have focused on physiological psychology and physics. He is a student affiliate of the Parapsychological Association, a student member of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and a co-moderator of the Psi Society, a Yahoo electronic discussion group for the general public that is devoted to parapsychology. He has been an active contributor to the Global Consciousness Project since 2001.


[1] A description of the procedure, statistical analysis, and predictions used in each exploration is provided in the second post.

[2] An important technical note: When the analyses for Super Bowls XXXIX – XLI were first carried out, the theoretical mean and standard deviation (SD) were used in calculating the statistical outcomes (see Post 2). Following the decision to use the empirical mean and SD of the device output in May 2007, each result for the football game and the halftime show was recalculated using the empirical mean and SD of its respective dataset. As a result, the results for the above three Super Bowls have changed from their original results as first calculated with theoretical mean and SD (See Notes 3 & 4). Having been originally calculated with empirical mean and SD, the Super Bowl XLII results remain unchanged.

Labels: bryan williams

Super Bowl XLIII Field RNG Demonstration (Part Two)

Super Bowl XLIII Field RNG Demonstration (Part Two)

By, Bryan Williams

In this post, I provide a basic summary of the procedures, statistical analysis, and predictions to be used for the planned Super Bowl XLIII field random number generator (RNG) demonstration at Public Parapsychology. The methods follow those used in my previous Super Bowl field RNG explorations (coming in Part Three), and are closely modeled after those developed by the PEAR Laboratory for use in their field RNG studies (Nelson et al., 1996, 1998), and by the Global Consciousness Project for individual event analysis (Bancel & Nelson, 2008; Nelson, 2001). For more complete details, interested readers are referred to these publications, as well as to other field RNG studies that have used these same methods (e.g., Bierman, 1996; Crawford et al., 2003; Hirukawa & Ishikawa, 2004; Nelson & Radin, 2003; Rowe, 1998). We invite any questions, comments, or concerns from readers regarding these methods.

Procedure

For each Super Bowl exploration, an Orion RNG [1] is set up to run continuously on a personal computer (PC) one hour before the football game. This PC is located in a room about twelve feet from where B.W. usually watches the televised Super Bowl broadcast in the living room of his central New Mexico (USA) home. In order to mark the occurrence of notable events (such as kickoff, the scoring of the first two goals, and the halftime period), a paper time log is kept by B.W. as he watches the game, and the time for each event is noted in Mountain Standard Time using a wristwatch that is roughly synchronized to the PC’s internal clock beforehand. The PC’s clock is itself synchronized in advance with an Internet-based timeserver to ensure accurate time. Following the game, the RNG is allowed to run for up to 15 minutes, then it is shut off and the data stored in the PC’s memory is saved to hard disk for analysis.

Analysis

The PC uses a custom software package [2] developed by researchers at the Institute of Noetic Sciences to collect 200 random bits per second (= 1 test “trial”) from the RNG. Each bit consists of a binary number (either a “1” or a “0”) that is randomly determined by sampling the electronic noise source. For simplicity, this process can be thought of as being analogous to flipping a coin, with “heads” representing the “1”-bit, and “tails” representing the “0”-bit. When we flip a coin, each side has a 50/50 chance of turning up, and the same goes for each kind of bit (i.e., the theoretical probability of occurrence for each kind of bit is 1/2, or p = .5). Thus, the RNG can be seen as flipping 200 electronic “coins” per second. The software then counts the number of “heads” (i.e., “1”-bits) that came up in the 200 flips, and stores the number as the trial outcome value. Given the 50/50 probability of occurrence in theory, roughly 100 “heads” and 100 “tails” should be generated on average by the RNG over a long sequence of trials. In a traditional test of psychokinesis (PK), the goal is to attempt to upset this balance of heads and tails through mental intention on the RNG, such that more of one outcome is produced over the other. If the mass “group mind” effect is related to PK, then presumably the same should be observed in the field RNG data during moments of focused group attention and emotional response.

Statistical analysis of the RNG data proceeds using techniques that follow from classical statistical methods (Aron & Aron, 1997; Snedecor & Cochran, 1980). For those readers with a technical mind who are curious about the details, the following steps are taken in the analysis (those of you unfamiliar with statistics may want to skip ahead to the predictions):

1.) The trial output of the RNG follows a binomial distribution that has a theoretical mean of 100 and a theoretical standard deviation (SD) of 7.071. [3] To represent a basic measure of the deviation from the mean, each trial outcome value is converted into a z-score using the equation:

z = (x – M) / SD

where x is the outcome value for each trial, M is the mean, and SD is the standard deviation. Initially, the theoretical mean (100) was used for M, and the theoretical SD (7.071) for SD in the analysis of the Super Bowl data. However, it should be pointed out that, although the Orion RNGs tend to closely match the theoretical values for the binomial distribution overall, it is possible for an individual RNG to produce a small bias of the mean due to the nature of its random source. In other words, the mean and SD of each RNG should not be expected to exactly equal the theoretical values each and every time [4]. For that reason, in May of 2007, I made the decision to begin using the mean and SD empirically calculated from all of the RNG trial outcome values for M and SD, respectively, as a way to account for any potential mean bias in the RNG. This issue becomes relevant for the results of my previous Super Bowl explorations (discussed in Part Three).

2.) Each resulting z-score is squared to form a positive value that is Chi-Square distributed, and that has one degree of freedom (df).

3.) Given that Chi-Square values can be summed together as they are in the standard calculation of the Chi-Square statistic (e.g., Aron & Aron, 1997, p. 235), all of the individual values are added together across time to represent the overall measure of the deviation from the mean in the RNG data. Their associated degrees of freedom are similarly added together. A probability value can then be obtained from the total Chi-Square and degrees of freedom.

4.) The values can be cumulatively plotted over time in a graph as Chi-Square – 1 (i.e., the 1 df is subtracted from each of the associated Chi-Square values) to visualize the trends in the RNG data as time passes.

With the accumulation of RNG data that I collected from previous Super Bowls, it is also possible to examine a combined result across all Super Bowls using a Stouffer’s Z-score, calculated by adding together the z-scores for each individual second (Step 1) from each year, then dividing by the square root of the number of scores added (the analysis then proceeds as in Steps 2 – 4). This will be done with the previous field RNG data, along with the data collected during the planned demonstration, in order to assess the combined result across five consecutive Super Bowls.

Predictions

To explore a mass group mind effect, two test predictions are annually made for the Super Bowl. The first test prediction is for the football game itself, covering the time spanning from the moment of kickoff to the end of the televised broadcast (the latter was included to allow for any residual effects that may occur in conjunction with the trophy presentation and crowd response). Throughout this time period (averaging around 3.5 hours total), it is predicted that a steadily increasing non-random pattern (i.e., a positive deviation from the expected mean) will be observed in the field RNG data, which overall will be significantly different from chance (based on the resulting probability value for the total Chi-Square and df values).

Considering the excitement and focused crowd attention that is often generated by the halftime concerts, the second test prediction specifically concerns the halftime show, covering the time from the start of the halftime highlights to the beginning of the 3rd Quarter. During this halftime period (averaging around 30 minutes total), another steadily increasing non-random pattern is predicted to occur in the RNG data.

To be consistent with my previous Super Bowl explorations, both of these predictions will be further tested for the planned demonstration. In the next post, we will examine the results of my previous explorations.

The rest of the series can be found in Parts One, Three, and Four.

Bryan Williams

Bryan Williams is a Native American student at the University of New Mexico, where his undergraduate studies have focused on physiological psychology and physics. He is a student affiliate of the Parapsychological Association, a student member of the Society for Scientific Exploration, and a co-moderator of the Psi Society, a Yahoo electronic discussion group for the general public that is devoted to parapsychology. He has been an active contributor to the Global Consciousness Project since 2001.

Notes

[1] In brief, the Orion RNG is a small external hardware circuit that uses electronic noise as its source of randomness. It is manufactured by Orion/ICATT Interactive Media in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and detailed specifications of the device can be found on the company’s website.

[2] This is the Microsoft Windows-based “FRED” software package, developed by researchers associated with the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, CA.

[3] This value can be obtained by the statistical equation for the standard deviation of a binomial random variable: SD = Sqrt [Npq], where N is the total number of bits per trial (200), p is the theoretical probability for a bit (.5), and q = 1 – p (Utts & Heckard, 2006, Section 8.4)

[4] Put another way, whenever the mean and standard deviation of all the trial outcome values generated by the RNG are calculated, they should not be expected in every case to be exactly equal 100 and 7.071, respectively. Instead, they tend to fluctuate somewhere around these two values.

References

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1997). Statistics for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice-Hall.

Bancel, P., & Nelson, R. (2008). The GCP event experiment: Design analytical methods, results. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22, 309 – 333.

Bierman, D. J. (1996). Exploring correlations between local emotional and global emotional events and the behavior of a random number generator. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10, 363 – 373.

Crawford, C. C., Jonas, W. B., Nelson, R., Wirkus, M., & Wirkus, M. (2003). Alterations in random event measures associated with a healing practice. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 9, 345 – 353.

Hirukawa, T., & Ishikawa, M. (2004). Anomalous fluctuation of RNG data in Nebuta: Summer festival in Northeast Japan. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 47th Annual Convention (pp. 389 – 397). Cary, NC: Parapsychological Association, Inc.

Nelson, R. D. (2001). Correlation of global events with REG data: An Internet-based, nonlocal anomalies experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 247 – 271.

Nelson, R. D., Bradish, G. J., Dobyns, Y. H., Dunne, B. J., & Jahn, R. G. (1996). FieldREG anomalies in group situations. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10, 111 – 141.

Nelson, R. D., Jahn, R. G., Dunne, B. J., Dobyns, Y. H., & Bradish, G. J. (1998). FieldREG II: Consciousness field effects: Replications and explorations. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12, 425 – 454.

Nelson, R. D., & Radin, D. I. (2003). FieldREG experiments and group consciousness: Extending REG/RNG research to real-world situations. In W. B. Jonas & C. C. Crawford (Eds.) Healing, Intention, and Energy Medicine: Science, Research Methods and Clinical Implications (pp. 49 – 57). Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone.

Rowe, W. D. (1998). Physical measurement of episodes of focused group energy. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12, 569 – 581.

Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical Methods (7th Ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Utts, J. M., & Heckard, R. F. (2006). Mind on Statistics (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

Labels: bryan williams