The criticism that there is no reliably reproducible demonstration of psi

An interesting phrasing. "the very act of subjecting people" as if the participants were forced against their will. I've heard this expressed differently, but meaning the same. Always used after the fact when test subjects fail. Certainly people have off days, however,  we know people can do those normal things. That's not a good excuse.

What utter crap, Steve. You do scrape the barrel when you come up with your objections don't you? The term "subject" in such an experiment is just plain and correct English.

Want to check? Not that you ever bother to check anything you say. Try Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_participant

A research participant, also called a human subject or an experiment, trial, or study participant or subject, is a person who participates in human subject research by being the target of observation by researchers.

What utter crap, Steve. You do scrape the barrel when you come up with your objections don't you? The term "subject" in such an experiment is just plain and correct English.

Want to check? Not that you ever bother to check anything you say. Try Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_participant

I know participants are called "subjects". I stated specifically it was your phrasing in quotation marks and the fact that you made an allowance for poor performance because they were subjected, not subjects. Here are some synonyms for the word subjected > dominating, domination, overpowering, subduing, subjugation. As you can clearly see subjected has a different meaning.

At least you didn't take exception (fingers crossed) with my definition of the universe.

Good times! We're back

I couldn't be happier... It's like the last 6 months were just a bad dream

[Ninshub]

With pk the object moves or it does not.

Steve, just curious. Have you taken a look at Sean McNamara's videos?

I know participants are called "subjects". I stated specifically it was your phrasing in quotation marks and the fact that you made an allowance for poor performance because they were subjected, not subjects. Here are some synonyms for the word subjected > dominating, domination, overpowering, subduing, subjugation. As you can clearly see subjected has a different meaning.

At least you didn't take exception (fingers crossed) with my definition of the universe.

As I said previously, there comes a point when it is pointless to continue with you. Mercifully, that point usually comes quickly.

Steve, just curious. Have you taken a look at Sean McNamara's videos?

No, but I've seen vids like it. I suspect that what's actually happening is the same as what happens with a Crookes radiometer. He's constructed a crude Crooke's radiometer.
Poking around I find a vid with an explanation, one that has also occurred to me.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja5TtsRF-UQ

As I said previously, there comes a point when it is pointless to continue with you. Mercifully, that point usually comes quickly.

Let me point out something to you. This is what you wrote: "We don't know what is at work here. We don't know whether, for example, the very act of subjecting people to tests in order to "prove" their abilities might actually have a negative effect on that ability. We don't know what conditions are conducive to positive results. Sports people and other talented people talk about "being in the zone" which appears to be some mental state where they are at peak performance and, strangely, where external circumstances seem to align to produce exceptional results.

How it sounded in your mind as you typed is different than how it reads. Here's another buzz phrase: " Or runs of good luck where the universe seemed to conspire to set everything to my advantage (indeed, the reverse can be true too)." This type of expressing I've seen many times before; it reads like a setup to handwave away failure. Which bring us back to why psi isn't taken more seriously. There seems to be more failure than outright success and those times when there seems to be success luck was a lady.

No, but I've seen vids like it. I suspect that what's actually happening is the same as what happens with a Crookes radiometer. He's constructed a crude Crooke's radiometer.
Poking around I find a vid with an explanation, one that has also occurred to me.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja5TtsRF-UQ

Of course it's fair enough to suggest alternative explanations in particular cases, but I think the general point people are making is that even with macroPK things aren't going to be simple and uncontroversial.

Of course it's fair enough to suggest alternative explanations in particular cases, but I think the general point people are making is that even with macroPK things aren't going to be simple and uncontroversial.

This is the question I'm not seeing asked. Why after 120 years of research is there not one established psi thing?

I'm going to go put on a limb and suggest it's because the majority of posters, find that statement unrealistic.