RESEARCH ON THE SENSE OF BEING STARED AT

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

[unspun]

unspun, add Dean Radin to the list of those to check into.

[js1138]

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.

Even to suggest such a procedure borders of quackery. Those classes that have positive results will tend to report; those with negative results will tend to drop out. No one is deliberately lying or commiting fraud, but the experimental design is defective.

[Drango]

I read somewhere that military snipers are aware of this "phenomenon", real or not. In any case there is the belief that you can't watch a subject too long without some of them sensing it. Urban legend perhaps?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[dark_lord]

It is true that the "staring" experiments have been poorly controlled for methodology, but of course Sheldrake is not a practicing psychologist but rather is/was a biologist. The above article arose from this "Morphogenic field" hypothesis which rather contraversial. But there are interesting results in the field of parapsychology which have in fact met very rigorous methodological standards. I refer of course to the ganzfeld studies which go back to the mid to early 1980's.

There is an interesting discussion here which covers the meta-analyses of the ganzfeld studies. It has been determined that the ganzfeld results, even when controlling for or eliminating studies with suspect methodology, are quite satisfactory from a statistical perspective.

It is also the case that tests run in the 1990's and meta-analysis on those tests resulted in poorer results. There is a discussion of that here. At first glance this might be assumed to be caused by the application of superior and more rigorous methodology, and thus showing that earlier researchers were either biased or did poor science. That turns out not to be the case. Upon analysis of the root causes of the change in results, it was determined that the same kinds of experiments were not being performed. A relevant quotation from the 2nd link is: "Many psi researchers believe that the reliability of the basic procedure is sufficiently well established to warrant using it as a tool for the further exploration of psi. Thus, rather than continuing to conduct exact replications, they have been modifying the procedure and extending it into unknown territory. Not unexpectedly, such deviations from exact replication are at increased risk for failure. For example, rather than using visual stimuli, Willin (1996a, 1996b) modified the ganzfeld procedure to test whether senders could communicate musical targets to receivers. They could not. When such studies are thrown into an undifferentiated meta-analysis, the overall effect size is thereby reduced and, perversely, the ganzfeld procedure becomes a victim of its own success."

The whole field of ganzfeld research is very interesting partially because it become a litmus test of scientific inquiry itself. I am fully in favor of strong and stringent standards, but one thing that has become glaringly evident is that when the field of psi research is compared to the fields of research of other "soft" sciences, it appears that the really stringent conditions apply ONLY to psi research. The rest of psychology, and sociology get a complete pass -- those studies are NOT subject to the same rigorous analysis. As an example of the level of rigor that is applied to psi research, see this quote: "Have the ubiquitous doubters been swayed by Honorton's experiments? Some critics of parapsychology, such as S. Blackmore, opine that Honorton has come up with best best evidence yet for telepathy; but Blackmore still has her doubts. Already experimental flaws have been pointed out in Honorton's work. For example, the researchers scoring the experiments must be completely ignorant of which film clips were used, but surreptitious peeks at the automated equipment were possible, and there could have been subliminal cues as to film-clip identities from the time periods required to rewind the tapes. Then, in the scoring conferences with the receivers, the scorers could have subconsciously led the receivers along."

Now, think about this. It is possible that the researchers could have surreptitiously peeked, and there could have been subliminal cues with which the scorers could have subconsciously influenced the experimental subjects. Yes, true -- but is that same level of rigor applied to other experiments in the soft sciences? NO!!!

From the whole area of ganzfeld research I draw 2 conclusions -- 1st, that the level of rigor in the experiments in the soft sciences needs to be increased to the level that the ganzfeld experiments are expected to follow, and 2nd, that to a lot of ganzfeld critics are like kids covering their ears, shutting their eyes, drumming their feet on the ground and saying "Nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you!".

[Physicist]

Now, think about this. It is possible that the researchers could have surreptitiously peeked, and there could have been subliminal cues with which the scorers could have subconsciously influenced the experimental subjects. Yes, true -- but is that same level of rigor applied to other experiments in the soft sciences? NO!!!

Oh, don't get me started. Forget experimental psychology; I'm highly critical of the lapses of experimental rigor in medical research, ostensibly a much harder science. I'm forever seeing the wildest conclusions confidently based upon the shakiest statistics. (Witness the power line/cancer farce, for example.)

I've only had a few minutes to read up on the "ganzfeld" experiments, but one thing struck me as odd. They have a judge look at four video clips--one of which is the target clip--and compare his impressions to the "receiver's" impressions. What perplexes me is that they refer to the three decoy clips as "controls". They are not controls; they are part of the same experiment. The probability of one of them being selected is not independent of the probability that the target gets selected. A true control would be to preselect one of the clips as the "target" clip and (unbeknownst to the other participants) NOT show anything to the "sender". I don't see where this has been performed.

As Prof. Max Gottlieb always said: "Vere iss your control? Vere iss your control?"

[Hypothesis: the "psychic"--actually, empathetic--link exists not between the "sender" and the "receiver", but between the man who selects the video clips, and the judge. Suggested control experiment: for a random sample of trials, switch the "receiver" impressions around between the trials, and see whether the effect goes away. Never reuse video clips, in any case.]

[dark_lord]

Yeah, the experiment has been performed in different ways. The basic technique is this. The subject is placed into isolation (ping pong ball cut in half, cotton ball placed into each half, one of each half placed over subjects eyes and then held down with blindfold so they can see nothing, white noise generator playing, laying in comfy reclining chair). Then the "sender" looks at a short video clip (best on a tape loop or other repeating sequence) and thinks about it for 1/2 hour. The "receiver" then verbalizes their impressions. At the end of the session, the "receiver" views 4 video clips. One of the clips is the one the "sender" was viewing. The "receiver" ranks the clips in order of best fit to what they "received".

If the experiment is done properly, random chance will dictate that the correct video clip is chosen only 25% of the time. But repeated experiments have in fact shown that the "correct" clip is chosen more often at a statistically significant rate. And then come the arguments over the experimental methodology. The better experiments are "double blind", which means that the person showing the 4 clips to the "receiver" does not themselves know which clip was shown to the "sender" -- and yes, those experiments do in fact show that the correct clip is chosen at a statistically significant rate better than chance.

The twist is -- unlike experiments with particles or inanimate objects, some "senders" and "receivers" do better than others, repeatedly. This would logically be expected, as people vary in all other skills as well. So other interesting results are also noticed. For example, some people test regularly at the random level -- no skill, just chance. But some people regularly test at a negative level -- consistently worse than chance! What psychological implications there are of this can be left to the shrinks. And some people test consistently better than chance. No one would be ordinarily surprised at this, as in basically every other kind of test applied to humans there is variation. But since psi is "voodoo" and no one wants to be associated with it (its not "respectable", unlike feminist deconstruction theories), not that many researchers care anymore.

[templar]

Experiments and speculation of this type always seem to drift toward an "esp" type of explanation. There is a distinct possibility that the phenomenon is real (I have had this and related experiences, to the extent of saving my and others lives) but do not believe they need to be explained by some psychic power type of thing. The explanation could lie in unobserved physical causes ranging from pheromones broadcast by the starer to sub audible verbalizations the starer is giving that are perceived unconsciously by the staree (so maybe I invented some new words here, the meaning is obvious). It could be that people have unconcious primitve survival mechanisms in place that make themselves almost supersensory in observational powers and that these are unconsciously active or inactive at various times. It's like the well known phenomenon of 'womens intuition' that always seems to let your wife/girlfriend etc. know when you're lying to them. Probably just an innate sense of a combination of pheromones and natural voice stress analyisis that women aren't consciously aware they are doing, just that they are aware that something's not quite right. Laboratory experiments would likely cause these things to be supressed.

[unspun]

Thank you for sharing. Hmm. Well I think Sheldrake's take on it may just include your own.

I'd be very interested in hearing about the case(s) where your sensitivity/response saved lives.

[Physicist]

Ping.

[Djarum]

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.

I have the same problem, only they sometimes comment, "Those aren't my eyes." The sense of being stared at indeed.

[betty boop]

Here's a little do-it-yourself ESP test.

Oftentimes, they will even look at you after a while!

I've been playing this game with one of my pet cats, the one who is especially "attached" to me. When she's sleeping on the sofa, I look at her intently, and repeat her name silently in my mind. Usually she wakes up, sooner or later, and looks at me; and seems to say "What do you want???".

Plus there are other things that I really can't explain that involve consciousness events, or even unconscious ones (dream states).

Once I'd been traveling in Europe for about three months, out of contact with my family. And one night, my grandmother appeared to me in a dream. She was weeping, and told me she came to say goodbye. A couple of weeks later, I learned that she had passed away the very day of the dream.

Or how about this -- which has happened on several occasions: I dream of tornadoes all night long. And the next morning, I learn from TV reports that twisters had torn through the country, literally while I slept.

Or a very recent experience, of hoping to hear from someone who'd been absent for a while. I dream of this person, a detailed dream. Next morning, I check my e-mail -- and there is the hoped-for communication.

Coincidences all??? Some, perhaps. But all? I have my doubts that these events were coincidence.

[Phaedrus]

I have my doubts that these events were coincidence.

To say the very least IMHO.

[BMCDA]

"Staring at you" placemarker

[Physicist]

Ah, good old Earl. I wrote to Max Cannon one time to ask him whether the line underneath his hairline (the complete line, not the half line) was a stray hair, or the top of his head. In other words, is it possible to "see daylight" beneath Earl's hair?

His answer was that it is an appendectomy scar. For some reason, the doctors thought it best to go in "the long way".

Another time, he used an idea I gave him for a "Johnny Lemonhead" strip.

[BMCDA]

Aw, an other RedMeat fan ;)
His answer was that it is an appendectomy scar. For some reason, the doctors thought it best to go in "the long way".

ROFL

Another time, he used an idea I gave him for a "Johnny Lemonhead" strip.

Cool, which one?

Hey, maybe I should share some ideas for "Earl" and "Milkman Dan" strips with him ;^D