A Test to Test the Influence of Belief on Precognition Testing

I noticed a repeated claim by believers in psychic phenomenon in response to negative or inconclusive results to scientific testing. They say: "Well, it didn't work because the testers (scientists or whatnot) didn't BELIEVE in it, and therefore essentially had a negative influence on the outcome." Occasionally they then make claims that there is something to it when they do it, or when it is done in the company of sympathetic persons. Typically they point to the quantum physics concept of the observer influencing the outcome of an experiment.

Now, I don't know if there's anything to their claims. It's an interesting idea, but are they jumping to a bunch of conclusions and extrapolating quantum physics particle experiments far beyond reason?

I came up with an idea for an experiment this afternoon to test the validity of a hypothesis.

The hypothesis: "I hypothesis that the belief in psychic ability of participants in an experiment to test for psychic ability can influence the results of the test of such a thing."

And here's how the test works.

Three groups of test subjects are gathered based on their results to a basic question: "Do you believe in precognition?" Yes, No, Uncertain / no opinion. Say, for example, A) 50 "yes" make up a group. B) 50 "no" make up a group. C) 50 "uncertain". A, B, C. And then these are mixed up evenly so that there are an equal amount of each into three testing groups.

9 different test runners are chosen. 1) three believers, 2) three non-believers, 3) three uncommitted. 1, 2, 3.

This is a double blind test. Each member of the test subjects are tested by all the test runners, while not being aware of where they stand on the subject of precognition. And none of the test runners have any idea of what any of their test subjects believe. They have minimal interaction with a carefully prepared script and testing procedure which is video captured for verification.

The test should be a pretty basic standardized one. Something like the Princeton random generator tests. And remember, it's not the test being tested: it's the hypothesis as to whether belief can influence the results of such a test.

Positive results for the test will presumably mean the following:

1 + A -- Believing testers and believing subjects should score highest above the odds predicted by chance.

1 + C and 3 + A -- Should be the groupings with the next best results.

3 + C and 1 + B and 2 + A May be the hardest to predict as far as results go. But I'll put them in the third tier.

3 + B and 2 + C Should have results that differ little if any from chance.

2 + B Should have results reflecting no more than those of chance within a reasonable margin of error.


Has anybody conducted such a test or one that's similar? What do you think of this proposal? Why?

write a computer program to run it over the internet.
then there is no one observing until the data is checked anyway!

reply to post by Saucerking


The subjects should be Yes, No, Uncertain, and those who have no knowledge of precognition.

A candidate without knowledge of precognition should actually show more positive results for the existence of precognition than those who are merely "uncertain", because uncertain expresses doubt.

The idea is not that you believe, per se, but that you do not disbelief, or doubt.

Confidence and belief would have a lot to do with being able to accomplish something. From piano to playing basketball, lack of confidence or belief in one's self can go a long way towards accomplishing or not accomplishing one's goal. Ask Michael Jordan. Find out why 'booing' someone at a sports event can make them screw up.

reply to post by Saucerking


I remember reading about a test on psychic ability (not precognition) where they did a similar test where they went with 2 groups and the group that believe had result that where higher than chance and the ones who did not believe had a lower level of hits that they should have had if it was chance.

Sorry. Can't find it on the net now so treat this as hearsay and I cannot validate that the testing was done in a controlled manner.

Pretty good idea.

But if you're going to do it on the internet, go big.

So the internet version of the study:

A site/page to which anybody can go, much publicized, and do the test. Before they do the test they declare whether they believe in precognition or don't believe in it or are undecided / not committed.

Then the results are only viewed at a certain date by three groups of "testers". One group believes, another does not, a third is undecided / not committed.

So the concept of the observer influencing the experiment with regards to precognition experiments is tested. In quantum physics there is the implication that the observer can influence the past event of the particle once they observe the results.

Yeah, it's a good internet variation on the proposed "real life lab" experiment. The more I think about it, the more I like it, okamitengu.

I think both should be carried out. The results would very interesting.

In a fantasy scenario, ATS would be behind the internet version and use their reach to make it have a significant number of subjects. The physical lab version would be conducted by an established respected educational institution. Both would use professional academics with appropriate credentials as the "testers".

CryHavoc
Confidence and belief would have a lot to do with being able to accomplish something. From piano to playing basketball, lack of confidence or belief in one's self can go a long way towards accomplishing or not accomplishing one's goal. Ask Michael Jordan. Find out why 'booing' someone at a sports event can make them screw up.

edit on 15-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

That's an implication of this test. Does confidence in psychic ability enable that psychic ability? Both from the subject tested and the tester? Does non-belief, lack of confidence, hamper it?

CryHavoc
Confidence and belief would have a lot to do with being able to accomplish something. From piano to playing basketball, lack of confidence or belief in one's self can go a long way towards accomplishing or not accomplishing one's goal. Ask Michael Jordan. Find out why 'booing' someone at a sports event can make them screw up.

edit on 15-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

But in this case there is a two way communication where both would have to be confident for it to work and even people who believe they are psychic can sometimes be unsure if others are as psychic as they think they are, so even 2 believers can fail if they do not trust the other ones ability.

I'll make a parallel with Reiki. A person who are very god at Reiki, can be very unsuccessful if the person coming for treatment is very skeptic, since the skepticism makes the person unable to relax. Relaxation is the key to the placebo effect from my point of view and also in meditation/Reiki.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Saucerking

 

The subjects should be Yes, No, Uncertain, and those who have no knowledge of precognition.

That's a good idea, but show us a person on Earth who has no knowledge of precognition! In an ideal world, you would certainly be right.

reply to post by Saucerking


Do children count as people? I'm sure most of them do not know of any extrasensory perception concepts.

Saucerking
That's an implication of this test. Does confidence in psychic ability enable that psychic ability? Both from the subject tested and the tester? Does non-belief, lack of confidence, hamper it?

Does heckling screw with the confidence of someone trying to accomplish something? I think that knowledge of someone else's disbelief may be a form of heckling. The non-verbal equivalent of yelling "you suck!" or "hey, batter batter, swing batter" at your psychic could have a profound effect on their abilities, just as in any other activity. People pick up on body language subconsciously as well as consciously.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Saucerking

 

Do children count as people? I'm sure most of them do not know of any extrasensory perception concepts.

I think like any such experiment I've seen -- psychology experiments or even parapsychology experiments -- children must be in a separate test from adults. Their brains aren't fully developed and there's all sorts of factors which open up too many possibilities which could by used to discredit and question the results of such a test. If they were to be tested, their testing must be in a separate study from adults. A group tested must be as subjective as possible with a certain level of uniformity of test subjects without the added complications of a child's psychology, beliefs, brain development, et al being thrown in. Too much potential to confuse the issue and make murky the conclusions.

CryHavoc
Does heckling screw with the confidence of someone trying to accomplish something? I think that knowledge of someone else's disbelief may be a form of heckling. The non-verbal equivalent of yelling "you suck!" or "hey, batter batter, swing batter" at your psychic could have a profound effect on their abilities, just as in any other activity. People pick up on body language subconsciously as well as consciously.

edit on 15-1-2014 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

Yes. Even body language can influence. That's why the experiment must be set up so that it's not a factor.

Wow, I got confused reading the way it works. I lost all of my ability to form precognition during the test now. You might want to leave the details of the test kept secret, the details could influence the results.

Saucerking
Yes. Even body language can influence. That's why the experiment must be set up so that it's not a factor.

The real trick would be teaching the psychic to ignore the doubters just like an athlete has to learn to ignore the hecklers. But that's a different project.

I see I made a typo in my original post when making the hypothesis statement, but too much time has passed and now I can't fix it. It should read: "I hypothesize that the belief in psychic ability of participants in an experiment to test for psychic ability can influence the results of the test of such a thing."

I applaud your efforts. Telephone telepathy experiments seem to show a rather large effect size, and they are cheap and easy to do. So I would recommend using that approach. Have sheep call sheep, have goats call goats.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Saucerking

 

Do children count as people? I'm sure most of them do not know of any extrasensory perception concepts.

Maybe not but my mother was very good at thinking me home for food time when I was little even if I made up my own reasons for it being the time to go home. Even my father that do not believe in it complained that he could not find me, and told my mother at times to think about me so that I came home.

I think like any such experiment I've seen -- psychology experiments or even parapsychology experiments -- children must be in a separate test from adults. Their brains aren't fully developed and there's all sorts of factors which open up too many possibilities which could by used to discredit and question the results of such a test. If they were to be tested, their testing must be in a separate study from adults. A group tested must be as subjective as possible with a certain level of uniformity of test subjects without the added complications of a child's psychology, beliefs, brain development, et al being thrown in. Too much potential to confuse the issue and make murky the conclusions.

From what I been told children and animals are more sensetive to Reiki than people who have been conditioned to not believe in it. The physical not being developed is in this case probably less of a hinder than the consciousness being conditioned to disbelief.

reply to post by BlueMule


The Telephone Telepathy project is interesting. However the ease with which such things can be skewed by "funny business" opens it up to a lot of potential problems when doing a serious study.

I'll have to watch that video again later today and see if I misunderstood the protocols. As I watched it I did what I always do with these things and started imagining myself as a hostile practical joker / debunker and imagining how I would circumvent the experiment. What's to stop large groups of people from goofing on the project and trying to skew the results towards a favourable result? All they've got to do is set each other up (or even be in the same room together) and the results are compromised. And all critics of the project have to do is set up their own "busting" group -- and record it -- where they manipulate the results to throw the whole project's results into question. Because if they did it, anybody might be doing it. Again, I'll have to review the video again to see if I understand it fully. And take a quick look at the statistics of the results vs. the assertions of critics.

So it's interesting, and seems like there might be something to it, but a truly effective experiment must be watertight and inescapable in the integrity of its methodology. The critics of the findings can argue all they want when you've got that, but in the end the experiment points to something being there if it's a success -- and it can be duplicated by anybody and there's no cheating possible if the protocols are followed each time. A successful experiment is run once, then twice, three times. Other people run it. If the results keep being duplicated, then most anybody is forced to change their viewpoint. They have no choice.

reply to post by LittleByLittle


Introducing an alternative medical approach like Reiki really complicates everything and takes away from the singular thing to be tested. It requires all kinds of medical tests and a wide variety of patients and different ailments. And then there's the whole grey zone of people reporting their feelings. Do you feel better? Or not? How do we quantify that? Not only that, you're never going to find somebody who doesn't believe in Reiki practicing Reiki nor even somebody who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other as an experienced Rieki "healer"! Not going happen. Just like you wouldn't find people who don't believe in Acupuncture or don't know if it works administering Acupuncture.

Alternative medicine introduced into the test just adds too much complication, massive expense, difficult to determine results, and muddies it up the results for the one thing being tested.

I am for the idea of children being tested in a separate test. Animals seem to be impossible to test for premonition, but if a test can be created, okay.