Sciborg brought up Kennedy's essay in the Extended Consciousness forum. The proposed hypotheses miss out on the most obvious reason that psi is elusive - we don't have any way to tell when we are studying the effect of psi. Because of this we have no way of knowing whether or not we are discovering a characteristic of psi or the characteristic of a different effect. And we already know from parapsychology research that a number of the characteristics which have been attributed to psi, are really characteristics of something else, such as the Forer effect.
For example, the mediumship research of Beischel has sitters rating the readings under non-blinded conditions and under blinded conditions. This shows us the contribution from the Forer effect. When the Forer effect is present, the readings are rated, on average, as a good reading indicating communication with the discarnate, with some incorrect information. When the Forer effect is removed, the readings are rated, on average, as a mixture of correct and incorrect information, sometimes enough and sometimes not enough to indicate communication with the discarnate occurred
Now, there are still differences in the ratings given to target vs. decoy readings, in the absence of the Forer effect. But target readings are no longer identifiable by being eerily accurate. "Eerie accuracy" seems to be a characteristic of the Forer effect. We don't know if it is also a characteristic of psi, from this research. Yet parapsychologists and proponents run with the idea that whenever they encounter an eerily accurate reading, it must be psi. And what's worse, their ideas about when psi occurs and what it tells us about the world, are based on those eerily accurate readings. The bulk of what is described as "psi" are really descriptions of the products of a variety of psychological and methodological effects. This will automatically make "psi" elusive, because what it looks like will depend upon which psychological and methodological effects are present or absent, which varies between spontaneous experiences and varies in experimental setups.
If we want to actually understand the effects of psi, we need comparisons with direct control groups in the absence of those other effects. Or we need to find a valid way to tell when psi is present or absent. I suspect that by doing this, we will discover that psi is very different in its effects (I suspect that its association with intention will disappear, for example), and takes place in circumstances which are very different from where we have been looking.
Linda
For example, the mediumship research of Beischel has sitters rating the readings under non-blinded conditions and under blinded conditions. This shows us the contribution from the Forer effect. When the Forer effect is present, the readings are rated, on average, as a good reading indicating communication with the discarnate, with some incorrect information. When the Forer effect is removed, the readings are rated, on average, as a mixture of correct and incorrect information, sometimes enough and sometimes not enough to indicate communication with the discarnate occurred
Now, there are still differences in the ratings given to target vs. decoy readings, in the absence of the Forer effect. But target readings are no longer identifiable by being eerily accurate. "Eerie accuracy" seems to be a characteristic of the Forer effect. We don't know if it is also a characteristic of psi, from this research. Yet parapsychologists and proponents run with the idea that whenever they encounter an eerily accurate reading, it must be psi. And what's worse, their ideas about when psi occurs and what it tells us about the world, are based on those eerily accurate readings. The bulk of what is described as "psi" are really descriptions of the products of a variety of psychological and methodological effects. This will automatically make "psi" elusive, because what it looks like will depend upon which psychological and methodological effects are present or absent, which varies between spontaneous experiences and varies in experimental setups.
If we want to actually understand the effects of psi, we need comparisons with direct control groups in the absence of those other effects. Or we need to find a valid way to tell when psi is present or absent. I suspect that by doing this, we will discover that psi is very different in its effects (I suspect that its association with intention will disappear, for example), and takes place in circumstances which are very different from where we have been looking.
Linda