Why is Psi So Elusive? A Review and Proposed Model

Why is Psi So Elusive? A Review and Proposed Model

by J. E. Kennedy

Eleven hypotheses that have been proposed to explain why psychic phenomena are so weak, unreliable, and/or rare are reviewed. The hypotheses are (1) alleged psi results are actually due to methodological artifacts and oversights, (2) few people have psi, (3) psi depends on precarious psychological conditions, (4) psi occurs frequently without notice, (5) psi is an efficient goal-oriented process subject to shifting goals, (6) fear of psi suppresses psi, (7) evolution has inhibited psi, (8) psi serves ecological rather than personal purposes, (9) the purpose of psi is personal or spiritual growth, (10) psi effects are influenced by many people in the future, and (11) psi is controlled by nonphysical beings. To integrate available data, a model is presented that proposes 2 distinct groups: those with many anomalous experiences and those with few or none. Genetic factors probably have a significant role in these differences. Those with actual psi experiences are a subgroup of those with many anomalous experiences. Psi practitioners are a smaller subgroup who have an ability to reliably guide psi by intention or motivation. Psi- conducive experimenters are psi practitioners who influence their experimental outcomes in a goal-oriented manner. Further research is needed on the distribution of psi, the possible genetic aspects of psi experiences, the effects of psi experiences, and several characteristics of psi that can be investigated with meta-analyses.

Why is Psi So Elusive? A Review and Proposed Model

by J. E. Kennedy

Hypothesis 1 (psi does not exist) is untenable. Concerning the rest, I think that it is indeed complicated.

I think that actually, however, an additional Hypothesis 12 predominates, incorporating some of Hypothesis 11:

Hypothesis 11. "Psi Is Controlled by Nonphysical Beings or Powers.
Psi may be the result of nonphysical beings such as spirits or gods, and the elusive nature of psi may reflect the will of those beings. The hypothesis that psi is an entity or power that directs evolution is also in this category."

Hypothesis 12. The larger picture is that psi effects are minimized in the world by these beings, because they interfere with the primary purposes of Earth life. Earth life is all about overcoming of physical/emotional challenges; spiritual growth in a basically unfriendly physical environment where great limitations are fundamental to the "Earth as a school" purposes. Free use of the natural spiritual/psychical powers of the soul would obviate and defeat the overall purposes of the earth environment.

This doesn't mean I particularly like this conclusion - just that it seems to be the most likely.

Of the items listed, I felt most sympathy with Hypothesis 4. Psi Occurs Frequently Without Being Noticed.

However (and I skim-read the whole text, rather than spending extended time on it), it seemed that laboratory-test types of phenomena were of major significance in drawing up the ideas. Personally, I don't resonate so much with laboratory testing. To me, they seem to fall into two main categories: 1, tiny effects over large numbers of tests, using statistical analysis to identify significant results, or 2, large effects occasionally exhibited by particular individuals.

In my view, what is lacking here is the real-world everyday life significance. Everyday life is where I've always found these things, and I have no particular belief that I would generate any useful results whatsoever in a laboratory environment.

To make an analogy, take a mother and her baby into a laboratory and try to test whether she loves the child. The premise to me is absurd. We are talking about real people living real lives here.

Back to psi. I take it pretty much for granted, An example happened yesterday. I was thinking about a social gathering I was going to that evening, and reminisced over a particular person that I hadn't seen for maybe two years, and I was thinking how nice it would be if they were there. That thought passed, I didn't dwell on it, but later that day, the same person did appear. (I'm not interested in sceptical dismissals here, I do weigh the pros and cons before counting such an occurrence as significant). My hypothesis is that when the other person begins planning their activities they send out some sort of message, perhaps analogous to the Rupert Sheldrake experiments on dogs who know when their owners are coming home.

Perhaps animal experiments are more practical than those involving people. There are ethical concerns about the extent to which we can place subjects under the types of emotional stress of separation and reunion with those we love.

I've mentioned love and personal relationships several times here. To me, this is at the heart of psi, at least in terms of where it manifests most prominently.

Of the items listed, I felt most sympathy with Hypothesis 4. Psi Occurs Frequently Without Being Noticed.

However (and I skim-read the whole text, rather than spending extended time on it), it seemed that laboratory-test types of phenomena were of major significance in drawing up the ideas. Personally, I don't resonate so much with laboratory testing. To me, they seem to fall into two main categories: 1, tiny effects over large numbers of tests, using statistical analysis to identify significant results, or 2, large effects occasionally exhibited by particular individuals.

In my view, what is lacking here is the real-world everyday life significance. Everyday life is where I've always found these things, and I have no particular belief that I would generate any useful results whatsoever in a laboratory environment.

To make an analogy, take a mother and her baby into a laboratory and try to test whether she loves the child. The premise to me is absurd. We are talking about real people living real lives here.

Back to psi. I take it pretty much for granted, An example happened yesterday. I was thinking about a social gathering I was going to that evening, and reminisced over a particular person that I hadn't seen for maybe two years, and I was thinking how nice it would be if they were there. That thought passed, I didn't dwell on it, but later that day, the same person did appear. (I'm not interested in sceptical dismissals here, I do weigh the pros and cons before counting such an occurrence as significant). My hypothesis is that when the other person begins planning their activities they send out some sort of message, perhaps analogous to the Rupert Sheldrake experiments on dogs who know when their owners are coming home.

Perhaps animal experiments are more practical than those involving people. There are ethical concerns about the extent to which we can place subjects under the types of emotional stress of separation and reunion with those we love.

I've mentioned love and personal relationships several times here. To me, this is at the heart of psi, at least in terms of where it manifests most prominently.

The interesting thing is that, if I understand correctly - and if I'm up-to-date with his views - the author of the article, J. E. Kennedy, has had convincing personal experiences of psi, but is sceptical about the evidence from lab experiments.

I find that point of view a bit difficult to understand. (If the personal experience is convincing, why be so sceptical about the experiments?)

But I don't think the scientific world as a whole is going to be convinced that psi exists except by strong experimental evidence.

Hypothesis 12. The larger picture is that psi effects are minimized in the world by these beings, because they interfere with the primary purposes of Earth life. Earth life is all about overcoming of physical/emotional challenges; spiritual growth in a basically unfriendly physical environment where great limitations are fundamental to the "Earth as a school" purposes. Free use of the natural spiritual/psychical powers of the soul would obviate and defeat the overall purposes of the earth environment.

This doesn't mean I particularly like this conclusion - just that it seems to be the most likely.

Why does this seem to be the most likely? I could see a prison before I can see a school...

Why does this seem to be the most likely? I could see a prison before I can see a school...

That to me this seems most likely is mainly an intuitive response, also based on the observation that psychic phenomena, psychic effects, seem to be almost deliberately elusive, as if some intelligent force is deliberately preventing manifestation of anything like proof of things like the afterlife. Certainty of spiritual reality is usually under most circumstances prevented one way or another, and practical use of psychic effects is almost always prevented. As if it would be "against the rules", obviating the purposes of Earth life. 

The nature of these purposes is another matter. Certainly the prison metaphor, as horrid as it would be, is another possibility though unlikely at least in terms of the extant psychic/spiritual communications.

The report was published in 2001. It is out of date. For instance, one of his references is

Carpenter, J. C. (1991). Prediction of forced-choice ESP performance: Part III. Three attempts to retrieve coded information using mood reports and a repeated-guessing technique. Journal of Parapsychology, 55, 227–280.

Carpenter has since proposed First Sight Theory which provides a model that accounts for much of the elusiveness of pis. http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/docu...dfield.pdf