PMH ATWATER ..Fraud? Either way, still not a “good look” for NDE community or IANDS

Flipped through the Big Book of Near Death [E]xperiences and I'd say there is a lack of footnotes for the IQ claims. However I also think I was right that "IQ" was used as a signifier for much broader examination of intelligence that probably include other testing and general observation.

I'll go on record for saying I don't, at this time at least, think she's a fraud. I do think her recording of data could have been better, as we've little reason to believe her claims without corroboration.

But as she notes she's not a scientist, so I can forgive what at my most critical I might call sloppy research. And Alex isn't wrong when he says people are gonna want to see the data for the claim that NDErs see IQ - or more generally intellectual - increases.

Where I think the interview would've gone better is to note her lack of rigor but also noting that this question of intelligence increase is worth examining in future scientific work.

Conversely, I generally appreciate Alex pushing back on his guests, and I wouldn't describe his personality as toxic, but in this case I thought the push-back was over the top, inappropriate, and almost amounted to bullying. His explanation for it was very odd too: he said that they'd originally scheduled the interview for the day before, but that didn't work out (PMH interjected something to the effect of, "Yes, we had connection problems"), and somehow this had made him suspicious, and as his suspicion festered, he focused it on the IQ reporting. On the face of it, this is paranoia leading to a prejudiced fishing expedition followed by motivated reasoning.

It's also not clear what Alex was (1) claiming or alluding to, and (2) asking (near on "demanding") from PMH, and how he expected her fulfillment of his request to lay his claims/allusions to rest. He wanted her to go back through her records and... what? Recalculate the statistics? If so, why would he expect the results to be any different than the first time? If they were fraudulent, does he expect that she'd produce a different result this time around and be forced to say, "Oh dear, I got a different result this time - looks like you got me, and now have the proof that I was deceiving you"? That would be a naive expectation of behaviour inconsistent with that of a fraudster.

Or was he asking her to reproduce from each set of case notes the extract(s) pertaining to the reported IQ? If so, what did he expect this to achieve? Presumably, to provide evidence that the IQs were actually as reported, but if he suspected her of fraud in the first place, then why would he trust her not to forge the case note extracts?

Or did he want her to produce all of the case notes in their entirety and point out to him painstakingly where in each one the reported IQ was jotted down? That's probably the only option that makes some sort of sense, because it would be difficult to insert fraudulent IQ reports into the logs after the fact, but it's an awful lot of work to expect from somebody when you're the one making the (at least insinuated) claim of fraud such that they might reasonably see you as bearing the burden of proof, and reject any attempt to force it onto them when they (presumably) know they're innocent, especially when, as PMH pointed out, she's not claiming any scientific rigour - this is (she says) just her report of what was in turn reported to her.

In any case, the main point I wanted to make was that the title of this thread includes the question "Fraud?", but the interview itself contains no actual evidence of fraud, and it's unclear what basis there is for even posing the question as though a serious case had been made for it. The best "case" that Alex made for fraud was that the sets of IQs - and one in particular - were statistically highly improbable, but by this reasoning, any time a parapsychology experiment achieves a very high p-value - by definition statistically highly improbable (on the null hypothesis) - we should be suspecting fraud rather than rejecting the null hypothesis. Is this really the sort of reasoning we (and Alex) want to endorse? It would badly undercut our/his arguments for psi based on lab experiments.

That said, I was not previously familiar with PMH nor her work, and, with no disrespect intended, for all I know, this work of hers is unreliable, but, certainly, that wasn't demonstrated in this interview. There is, though, a valid question that could be asked which wasn't (explicitly): is there good reason to believe that the self-reported IQs were both genuine (not made up) and accurately recalled? A prima facie plausible answer is: "Yes, given that NDEs are typically life-changing events which lead to great improvements in the character of the experient; that good character is consistent with honest and accurate reporting."

What I remember from the interview when it aired which may not be totaly correct was the claim of children in a study who had nde's had an IQ of 180 which is extremely rare and would be shocking if it was true of which she could not produce any evidence. Alex thought such a claim should at least have some notation or record or way to it follow up as he thought if it were true and verifyable it could reaaly move the needle. Apparently it appeared to him that she just made it up or embellished it at least. That was my take away at the time. It left me somewhat dis heartened as I had alway held her in high esteme. It's helpful to get some other perspectives. 

 Even so I thought alex was rather harsh and inappropriate in cutting off the interview there by discrediting(canceling her as it were)

I read the transcript back when it was first published and think it’s a classic. It was like revealing the emperor’s new clothes.

I read the transcript back when it was first published and think it’s a classic. It was like revealing the emperor’s new clothes.

I think at worst it reveals that someone who is not a scientist but a public advocate for NDEs has to be trained to understand the need for corroborating data.

Revealing the Emperor has no clothes on is something where a person is exposed as a complete fraud. I'd cite the Patricia Churchland interview as a better example of that.

Mishlove's review of The Big Book of NDEs.

He also touches on the lack of citations and how this makes it difficult to accept the claims.

There are positive aspects of the book he likes as well...

I think at worst it reveals that someone who is not a scientist but a public advocate for NDEs has to be trained to understand the need for corroborating data.

This is a good way to characterize P.M.H. Atwater, as she has likely made significant contributions in the U.S., particularly through her association with IANDS. I also find it odd that Alex didn't steer the interview away from topics where she might be on uncertain ground.

Still for me it restored some respect for Alex (and that’s why I rated that interview highly) that he dared challenge her on this. If she doesn’t have boxes full of evidence she shouldn’t say it.