RESEARCH ON THE SENSE OF BEING STARED AT

the author's site ^ | December 2000 | Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D.

[unspun]

Resonate? BTW, who is watching you?

[Ronin]

All I know is that it has happened to me and it is spooky when it does.

It's a little itchy feeling right at the base of the neck and my immediate reaction is to whirl around and try to find who is staring at me. There is usually someone doing it.

I have heard that men who have been in combat have this "sense" to a much higher degree.

[unspun]

Have a feel for some empiricism?

[unspun]

Interesting, thanks.

[general_re]

Quit staring at me...

[unspun]

I'm not.
And please put a robe on.

[unspun]

How could I not have pinged you too?

[general_re]

Dang. Well, I had a fifty-fifty chance. ;)

[Ronin]

I think you should ping the Freeper veterans and ask them to add their two cents to this.

I have also heard that there is something similar to this for fugitives. Those with finely honed instincts "know" when the noose is tightening -- and they split.

People figure they must have been tipped off somehow, but in actuality, all that happens is they listen to their instincts and they book.

[LibKill]

I get a lot of this, in reverse.

If I look at someone it's about 3 out of 4 that they will immediately turn and look in my general direction, obviously looking for whatever it is that they sensed.

[Consort]

[js1138]

I know these tests sound very scientific, but they also sound like the Duke University tests that were done over a couple of decades during the 50s and 60s. These were eventually discredited on several grounds, the most blatent of which was disgarding negative results. If these instructions are followed by hundreds of volunteer groups, there will be a tendency for groups having negative results to simply not report at all.

The description of results matches a trend found in all ESP experiments: the stronger the controls, the weaker the phenomenon. Combined with the first argument -- that negative data tends to be unreported -- this raises red flags.

It is particularly interesting that when these kinds of experiments are supervised by competent stage magicians, people skilled at detecting deception, the effects go away completely.

[PatrickHenry]

Can you tell when I'm lurking?

[dark_lord]

This situation has been reported in the world of nature as well. Specifically, there are bow hunters who say that when they get close to their game they won't stare at it, but will keep their vision "wide" and not look directly at the animal until they are ready to take their shot. Apparently this improves their succuss rate. Otherwise, often the animal will suddenly look right at them (while the hunter is not moving or making a sound) and then bound away. Proof? No. Interesting? Yes.

[Phaedrus]

Here's a little do-it-yourself ESP test. In a social setting, let your eyes fall on someone who in not looking in your direction and engaged in some other activity, such as conversation. A significant minority of these people will blink when your eyes fall on them. Coincidence? You decide. Not surprisingly, females are more sensitive to this "test" than are males. Doubt it? Try it. It will spook you out ... ;-}.

Here's a book on the subject, The Conscious Universe, by Dean Radin. His work is rigorous and scientific. Now, please, skeptics and Materialists, don't trash the messenger at least until you've done your homework. Book reviews by those who have not read the book are not worth much and ad hominem attack is the last refuge of those who are losing the debate.

[js1138]

Can you tell when I'm lurking?

You are always lurking, even when you are asleep? Besides you leave little marks that betray your presence.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Thanks. I'm honored to be on the same ping with physicist.

I can't comment on the post though because I think somebody is watching me. ;)

[Physicist]

Rupert Sheldrake? Aw, come on, you're not going all New-Age on us, are you?

In keeping with the tenet that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, let's examine this claim and evidence.

Is the claim extraordinary? Not particularly. People are extraordinarily sensitive and empathetic. It is entirely likely that using only your five senses you will have a better-than-average chance of guessing when people are staring at you, even when you can't see their eyes. Perhaps you subconsciously register a change in the sound of their breathing. Perhaps you hear the rustle of their clothes as they turn towards you. Perhaps they give an unconsious "tell", like clearing their throats, or fidgeting. You don't know how you know this, it just comes to you as a "feeling". This is a well-known phenomenon.

(The claim that the "feeling" is the result of some paranormal influence certainly would be an extraordinary claim, but that's not actually what is being tested.)

To eliminate these effects would require a strictly controlled environment. His suggestion that schoolkids carry out these trials in the classroom--and send the results to him for analysis--tells me that strict controls are not being made a high priority.

Is the evidence extraordinary? No. The most compelling thing he's presented is an ensemble of 100 trials, which came out 56 to 44. With a pure 50-50 binomial, the probability of finding this big a deviation (or larger) from 50-50 in 100 trials is 27%. If I had to go to press with statistics this poor (he didn't), and I were measuring some physical quantity (say, searching for a particle in some energy range), the words I would use in my conclusion would be "Consistent with a null hypothesis."

[unspun]

Thanks. I'll want to look further into a couple issues you bring up, when I get a chance.

[unspun]

Thanks. I'll want to look into Sheldrake's controls when I get a chance.