The Ganzfeld Experiments

[CFLarsen]

The issue of subjective judging in psi experiments has a long and annoying history. Personally, I don't understand why subjective judging isn't discarded in favor of the receiver simply selecting one of four possible targets.

Because then....it doesn't work?

 

[Lucianarchy]

That is, they are pretty much crap. And meta-analysis of crap results in crap squared.

With respect, that is your subjective opinion. Most honest, informed sceptics these days accept that there is an effect. In the face of the overallbody of evidence, it would be irrational, illogical and against occam to suggest each and every last peice of scientific evidence is a result of either self delusion, cheating or collusion of some sort. In fact it is extraordinary unlikely that that should account for every psi effect on record.

The liklihood is that the effect exists and current scientific thinking does not yet understand the mechanism of action.

 

[Ed]

With respect, that is your subjective opinion. Most honest, informed sceptics these days accept that there is an effect. In the face of the overallbody of evidence, it would be irrational, illogical and against occam to suggest each and every last peice of scientific evidence is a result of either self delusion, cheating or collusion of some sort. In fact it is extraordinary unlikely that that should account for every psi effect on record.

.

References? Thought not.

Each and every piece of evidence is flawed, suspiciously so. Either we have to believe that every researcher in this area lacks competence or that they are constructing equivical experiments with malice aforethought. The experiments are riddled with flaws so which is it? Incompetance or pushing an agenda?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Even if this were so, so what? It's all the same stuff really.

I was responding to Amherst's statement that the ganzfeld and PEAR experiments were different. But, in general, it doesn't bother you that parapsychology studies something that can only be defined negatively (well, we don't think it's anything mundane) and that it can't even distinguish between the various types of negatively-defined phenomena? You don't think all this might make experimental controls difficult?

Well, gee, we controlled for telepathy by putting the subject in a Faraday cage, don't you know?

Did you show him the target after the trial?

Oops.

~~ Paul

 

[Lucianarchy]

I was responding to Amherst's statement that the ganzfeld and PEAR experiments were different. But, in general, it doesn't bother you that parapsychology studies something that can only be defined negatively (well, we don't think it's anything mundane) and that it can't even distinguish between the various types of negatively-defined phenomena? You don't think all this might make experimental controls difficult?

Well, gee, we controlled for telepathy by putting the subject in a Faraday cage, don't you know?

Did you show him the target after the trial?

Oops.

~~ Paul

Paul. Which is more likely? Each and every last piece of scientific evidence is a result of cheating, delusion etc,. Or the effect exists and science doesn't yet understand how it works?

 

[Zep]

Lucianarchy: With respect, that is your subjective opinion. Most honest, informed sceptics these days accept that there is an effect. In the face of the overallbody of evidence, it would be irrational, illogical and against occam to suggest each and every last peice of scientific evidence is a result of either self delusion, cheating or collusion of some sort. In fact it is extraordinary unlikely that that should account for every psi effect on record.

The liklihood is that the effect exists and current scientific thinking does not yet understand the mechanism of action.

Balls. See: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf

Abstract—This article has four purposes: 1) to present for the first time in archival form all results of some 25 years of remote perception research at this laboratory; 2) to describe all of the analytical scoring methods developed over the course of this program to quantify the amount of anomalous information acquired in the experiments; 3) to display a remarkable anti-correlation between the objective specificity of those methods and the anomalous yield of the experiments; and 4) to discuss the phenomenological and pragmatic implications of this complementarity.
(PEAR, p207, Abstract)

Once again, there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, but the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance."
(PEAR, p227, Distributive Scoring)

That's what PEAR themselves think about the results of 25 years worth of their own data in this area! Can you honestly tell me that the ganzfield stuff was conducted any more rigorously than PEAR's experiments???

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, and Amherst,

In both the PEAR and ganzfield studies, the subjects were trying to "see" something remote from where they were located, under various conditions. The (apparent) ability to be able to do this known as "clairvoyance", or RV - remote viewing. In the PEAR experiments, the subjects tried to view a remote scene and select it as a target from a pool of available targets. In the ganzfield experiments, the judges tried to select a target from a pool of targets by rating the subjects' waffle. In other words, in BOTH SERIES OF STUDIES, the judgements of successful matches were entirely subjective. I take it I don't have to explain what the word "subjective" means in this context, and what it means for the results of the experiments.

It doesn't mean anything. The judges pick the target based upon what the receiver says. This should on average be 25%. But it isn't. It tends to be between 32% and 35%. Why is this??

Granted, not all studies were EXACTLY like this, but when it comes down to it, the judgement process is effectively the same in both cases - subjective analysis by people who are involved in the experiment. And it is EXACTLY this subjective process that is so much a problem.

I cannot envisage why it would conceivably be considered a problem.

If you had bothered to read the criticisms of the PEAR studies regarding the subjectivity of the target-matching process, you would have seen that they apply equally to ANY similar studies that are conducted where subjective analysis is required to "match" targets with subject selections.

What criticisms? I cannot conceive of any problems with such a process. How does it enable results to be above 25%. What is the source of the sensory leakage?

The results look great if you allow close-enough-is-good-enough type matches, but if you get more finickity about accuracy then the results approach chance.

How more accurate can selecting the correct target be?? This is meaningless waffle.

If you have any problems with the Ganzfeld then please spell out what they might be. And don't ignore this post.

And in many cases amongst the paranormal community, the "match criteria" have been set so broad as to allow just about ANYTHING to be a "reasonable match" to the actual target. In other words, the judgements were stretched to permit the results to be a success.

Either the correct target is selected or it isn't. One of the stimuli is selected. If it is the target then that is a hit. It might well be the case that it might not resemble the receivers impressions to a particularly close degree. But that doesn't matter. They're going to get the target correct sometimes by chance. Other times the impressions of the receiver will only slightly favour one stimuli over another. So they might choose the inappropriate stimuli from the impressions given. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. But none of this matters. You cannot escape the fact that the average success rate should only be 25%. The fact that it is above this suggests anomalous cognition.

The thing is that PEAR knew this situation was not acceptable,

I fail to understand why it isn't acceptable.

and went to the bother of trying to reduce the target and selection data to numerical points in an attempt to obtain a fair objective match analysis of their data.

Not sure what this means.

They even aggregated the data from a number of similar studies in order to add "depth" to the results (i.e. more tests for a bigger set of results).

And the result they got when the subjectivity was reduced and finally removed was that there was NO correlation to be found at all. None. The subjects could have got just as good results by simply guessing (i.e. by chance). They even published this outcome on their own website - I suggest you do go read it, it's quite fascinating.

This phrase "subjectivity was reduced" sounds very worrisome to me. I don't know what they did, but clearly the experimental protocol might discourage anomalous cognitive abilities. It's simply no good you pointing out that when an experiment is done in a certain way there are just chance results. This only is significant if people were claiming that anomalous mentation occurs regardless of the testing situation. No intelligent person is claiming such a thing. What you need to do is not simply point to experiments which have chance results, but explain away the experiments where there were positive results.

It seems likely to me from what you say about PEAR is that they've messed with the experimental protocol so as to disinhibit anomalous cognition. That is the more reasonable explanation. But you seem to be saying that PEAR are now getting chance results because they have removed some artifact which was previously skewing the results to be positive. If you are maintaining this, then you need to specify what this artifact might be.

So my original commentary above stands: Any studies at all into any species of remote viewing needs to be designed such that the results can be reproduced objectively.

Why, and what does "objectively" mean in this context?? Answer these questions please.

And neither the PEAR experiments nor the ganzfield experiments have met that criteria at all. That is, they are pretty much crap. And meta-analysis of crap results in crap squared. [/B]

A lot of unsubstantiated meaningless assertions from you as is typical from skeptics. You should realise by now they ain't gonna impress me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The question that arises is: "Why introduce subjectivity in the first place?" The fact that this is done is highly suspicious and characteristic of all of this stuff. If there really were something, why not use Zener cards and forced choice? Simple answer really.

As I have pointed out many times before, these guys do not want clear and unequivical experiments. This is why this area reeks to high heaven.

It seems to me that the ganzfeld experiments use precisely the right sort of experimental protocol to elicit positive results. Zener cards are no good. They need to use moving detailed targets. The receiver absolutely should not see the targets before giving his impressions. It would be unbelievably sloppy and a worthless experiment if it were otherwise.

I don't understand. What better way is there to test for anomalous mentation?? I cannot think of a better protocol. Care to enlighten me?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Luci said:
Paul. Which is more likely? Each and every last piece of scientific evidence is a result of cheating, delusion etc,. Or the effect exists and science doesn't yet understand how it works?

There isn't all that much evidence, so I vote for the former.

However, I'll grant you that there almost certainly is one or two interesting, but mundane, sensory leakages going on. For example, maybe people are better at interpreting odors than we realize.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
The issue of subjective judging in psi experiments has a long and annoying history. Personally, I don't understand why subjective judging isn't discarded in favor of the receiver simply selecting one of four possible targets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because then....it doesn't work? [/B]

Well of course it wouldn't work. You can't be presented with 4 targets and then select the correct target. Inevitably one will psychologically gravitate towards certain stimuli and this will overwhelm any psi effect

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
It seems to me that the ganzfeld experiments use precisely the right sort of experimental protocol to elicit positive results. Zener cards are no good. They need to use moving detailed targets. The receiver absolutely should not see the targets before giving his impressions. It would be unbelievably sloppy and a worthless experiment if it were otherwise.

Okay, let the receiver relax in the ganzfeld and blather on about what he sees to his heart's content. Then show him four photos or videos and make him choose one.

This question of whether/how subjective judging increases the changes of a match is an interesting one. Does anyone have a reference to an explanation of how it might do so?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

References? Thought not.

Each and every piece of evidence is flawed, suspiciously so. Either we have to believe that every researcher in this area lacks competence or that they are constructing equivical experiments with malice aforethought. The experiments are riddled with flaws so which is it? Incompetance or pushing an agenda?

Then be so good as to point out the flaws in the ganzfeld research. What is the artifact skewing the results? Why does its effect vary? Indeed why is the effect of this artifact sometimes zero? Details please.

Seems to me it's the Skeptics pushing an agenda.

 

[TLN]

Then be so good as to point out the flaws in the ganzfeld research. What is the artifact skewing the results? Why does its effect vary? Indeed why is the effect of this artifact sometimes zero? Details please.

Seems to me it's the Skeptics pushing an agenda.

You mean like how you provide details?

F#cking hypocrite.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Okay, let the receiver relax in the ganzfeld and blather on about what he sees to his heart's content. Then show him four photos or videos and make him choose one.

That does happen sometimes doesn't it?? Sometimes it's the receiver who chooses, sometimes judges.

Are you saying it always should be the receiver who chooses and never judges who choose? Is there any statistically significant differences when the receiver chooses as compared to judges?

 

[DaveW]

This applies to all 4 stimuli. If we consider any one of the three control stimuli, then likewise there is more chance of seeing similarities in the receivers impressions compared to what the control stimuli depicts the more the receiver rambles on. Since the increase in the amount of similarities seen will, on average, be the same for each of the 4 stimuli, the chance of choosing the correct target must still only be 25%.

Ah, I overlooked that, point taken.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Balls. See: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf

That's what PEAR themselves think about the results of 25 years worth of their own data in this area! Can you honestly tell me that the ganzfield stuff was conducted any more rigorously than PEAR's experiments???

Zep, you seem to miss the point. There are many labs, in many countries, doing many 'psi' effect type experiments. They have been doing this over many years. Even putting aside the phenomenaly huge wealth of personal testimony of , dreams, meditation sessions, altered states etc where the effect commonly appears, It is totally and completely irrational to suggest that each and every positive result in the lab is due to cheating or self delusion.

 

[DaveW]

Could you quote the relevant parts of the article which state this?

As far as I can tell, I was the first person to do a meta-analysis on parapsychological data. I did a meta-analysis of the original ganzfeld experiments as part of my critique of those experiments. My analysis demonstrated that certain flaws, especially quality of randomization, did correlate with outcome. Successful outcomes correlated with inadequate methodology. In his reply to my critique, Charles Honorton did his own meta-analysis of the same data. He too scored for flaws, but he devised scoring schemes different from mine. In his analysis, his quality ratings did not correlate with outcome. This came about because, in part, Honorton found more flaws in unsuccessful experiments than I did. On the other I found more flaws in successful experiments than Honorton did. Presumably, both Honorton and I believed we were rating quality in an objective and unbiased way. Yet, both of us ended up with results that matched our preconceptions.

 

[amherst]

These recent arguments are so patently absurd and demonstrate such a staggering lack of familiarity with the ganzfeld that I must admit, I'm quite disappointed. Why haven't any of you read any of the papers yet? What are you afraid of? It will take you a maximum of fifteen minutes to read the nontechnical article Bem wrote. This small sacrafice of your time would go a long way into making our discussion worthwhile.

Paul writes:
"Personally, I don't understand why subjective judging isn't discarded in favor of the receiver simply selecting one of four possible targets"

From the original Psychological Bulletin article:
"The sender is sequestered in a separate acoustically isolated room, and a visual stimulus (art print, photograph, or brief videotaped sequence) is randomly selected from a large pool of such stimuli to serve as the target for the session. While the sender concentrates on the target, the receiver provides a continuous verbal report of his or her ongoing imagery and mentation, usually for about 30 minutes. At the completion of the ganzfeld period, the receiver is presented with several stimuli (usually four) and, without knowing which stimulus was the target, is asked to rate the degree to which each matches the imagery and mentation experienced during the ganzfeld period. If the receiver assigns the highest rating to the target stimulus, it is scored as a "hit." Thus, if the experiment uses judging sets containing four stimuli (the target and three decoys or control stimuli), the hit rate expected by chance is .25. The ratings can also be analyzed in other ways; for example, they can be converted to ranks or standardized scores within each set and analyzed parametrically across sessions. And, as with the dream studies, the similarity ratings can also be made by outside judges using transcripts of the receiver's mentation report"


Everyone, you do realize that whoever ranks the targets according to the degree to which they matched the receivers images during the sending phase, whether it be the receiver himself(as usually is) or an outside judge, is completely blind to what the correct target is. You do understand that don't you?


Read the articles.

amherst

 

[Interesting Ian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucianarchy: With respect, that is your subjective opinion. Most honest, informed sceptics these days accept that there is an effect. In the face of the overallbody of evidence, it would be irrational, illogical and against occam to suggest each and every last peice of scientific evidence is a result of either self delusion, cheating or collusion of some sort. In fact it is extraordinary unlikely that that should account for every psi effect on record.

The liklihood is that the effect exists and current scientific thinking does not yet understand the mechanism of action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Balls. See: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract—This article has four purposes: 1) to present for the first time in archival form all results of some 25 years of remote perception research at this laboratory; 2) to describe all of the analytical scoring methods developed over the course of this program to quantify the amount of anomalous information acquired in the experiments; 3) to display a remarkable anti-correlation between the objective specificity of those methods and the anomalous yield of the experiments; and 4) to discuss the phenomenological and pragmatic implications of this complementarity.
(PEAR, p207, Abstract)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, but the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance."
(PEAR, p227, Distributive Scoring)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what PEAR themselves think about the results of 25 years worth of their own data in this area! Can you honestly tell me that the ganzfield stuff was conducted any more rigorously than PEAR's experiments??? [/B]

OK, I haven't read the paper, only the abstract. But it also says:

The
possibility that increased emphasis on objective quantification of the
phenomenon somehow may have inhibited its inherently subjective expression
is explored in several contexts, ranging from contemporary signal processing
technologies to ancient divination traditions.

Sounds interesting to me.

One things for certain, you cannot conclude that simply because the results diminsih by altering the experimental protocol, that the effect was never there in the first place

I shall read the paper.

 

[Lucianarchy]

There isn't all that much evidence, so I vote for the former.

~~ Paul

Well you can't argue against opinion alone. However, we are talking about thousands of experiments over many years in many countries. You have to discount each and every last one of them against the liklihood that scientific knowledge simply doesn't understand the effect yet. Using history as a preditctive model for scientific discovery, the latter is not only likely, it is quite probable.