What is extrasensory perception ( ESP)

 

IMAGE SOURCE:SCIENCEMAG

 

Extrasensory Vision (ESP), a theory that occurs without known sensory processes. Commonly included in this category of events are psychological studies or the transmission of thought among people; clairvoyance, or higher awareness of things or events that are completely unknown to others; understanding, or knowledge of the future. Scientific research into these and other similar cases dates back to the late 19th century, with much supporting evidence from experiments involving card speculation. Artists try to correctly guess the symbols of hidden cards in their appearance under controlled conditions; a better percentage than the possibility of appropriate calls to several key figures considered as proof of ESP. Although many scientists continue to question the existence of ESP, people who claim this ability are sometimes used by investigative teams looking for missing people or objects.

 

ESP has been defined as ‘unpopular information systems or power transfers, processes such as telephone reading… that are not currently defined in terms of known physical or biological processes’ (Bem & Honorton, 1994, p. 4). Although not defined by current scientific thought, research continues to show that belief in ESP is very common (Moore, 2005) and that many people are based on their own experience of ESP (Greeley, 1987). Also, psychologists and social workers have collected thousands of reports of cases relating to ESP events (Irwin & Watt, 2007).

However, our knowledge of the human mind raises serious doubts about the accuracy of this article. Extensive research has shown us that memory is unreliable, and that prejudice leads to events that are often easily misinterpreted (Henkel & Mather, 2007; Kahneman et al., 1993). Besides, the rules of chance mean that uncommon coincidence that can be seen as 'ESP-like' will not help but happen. For example, thinking about a friend you have not spoken to for some time and receiving a call from that person may seem like a lot, much better to describe a particular type of ESP. Either way, it may be just a pure coincidence; How often is a distant friend considered and not a caller? If we also look at fraud and error, anecdotes are reduced to something else that is just like scientific evidence.

 

However, the assumption that belief in ESP is associated with lower IQ skills and poor thinking skills is incorrect (Roe, 1999). Indeed, the level of education has even been shown to be closely related to belief in ESP (Rice, 2003). Those who believe that ESP is possible and have good company; William James, Carl Jung and Nobel laureate Charles Riche to name just a few good ideas.

While many feel uncomfortable with proposed spiritual and spiritual proposals such as ESP, Freud wrote that ‘This delusion must ultimately be overcome. What we are facing is a ‘real question’ (1940/2003, p. 29). Parapsychology scientifically investigates the possibility of ESP and has collected a lot of evidence that some propose to support such a bizarre claim (Bem & Honorton, 1994; Sherwood & Roe, 2003). The most common test design used to test the ‘ESP hypothesis’ is the ganzfeld process.

 

The ganzfeld experiment

 A typical ganzfeld test involves two participants. Participant 1, known as the ‘recipient’ is sitting in a comfortable chair in a sound-separated room. A portion of a flexible ping-pong ball is engraved over their eyes, and a red floodlight shines on them while the white sound is played through headphones. These steps are taken to reduce external noise and put participants in a relaxed ‘dream’ state. The reason behind these processes is that anecdotal reports of ESP often occur at changing times of awareness. Participant 2, otherwise known as the ‘sender’, is in a separate room. The computer randomly selects a stimulus or ‘target’ (usually a photo or video) in a large pool. It is the sender's job to focus on the target and to try to send it mentally to the recipient. At this point, the recipient provides a continuous oral report of any image or thought. After the session, the recipient is given four incentives (one is the target and the other three act as decoys) and is asked to choose which of the four most similar to their counselling.

Luckily we would expect participants to select target items (otherwise known as ‘hit’) in 25 per cent of the trials.

Preliminary tests ganzfeld has yielded significant results, in addition to the potential for predictable performance. Meta-analyzes by parapsychologist Charles Honorton and suspicious Ray Hyman, examining 28 studies that occurred between 1974 and 1981, reported a 35 per cent collision rate (Honorton, 1985). While the 10 per cent deviation may seem small, in addition to most trials this is a strong finding that is impossible to explain the deviation. Studies have also shown a positive effect size (0.5 is generally considered to be the average size effect in social science) of 0.63 (Bem & Honorton, 1994).

Moreover, the effect was repeated by many investigators (Honorton, 1985). However, concern was raised due to several methodological errors surrounding the test, including indicators of sensory leakage and misalignment of target objects (Hyman, 1985). Interestingly, a separate U.S. National Research Council report by acclaimed psychologist Robert Rosenthal also acknowledged these errors but suggested that they could not explain the surprising result (Harris & Rosenthal, 1988).

However, to accept such a contradictory view based on evidence from erroneous examination of methods is bad science. Based on previous problems of the previous testing, a new ganzfeld protocol was developed; An ‘auto-ganzfeld’, in which randomization and selection of materials were made entirely by computers and a solid process was intensified.

 

The auto-ganzfeld procedure

In 1994, the Psychology Bulletin published the story of Cornell’s Daryl Bem and the late Charles Honorton analyzing all auto-ganzfeld studies. To date, 354 auto-ganzfeld cases have occurred among 11 studies. Also, the results appear to support the ESP view. Reminiscent of previous ganzfeld studies, it saw a high rate of 32 per cent beats. Seeking a better understanding of the effect that is happening, the authors re-examined the internal results and suggested that the level of mixing and belief in the effectiveness of ESP (see Bem & Honorton, 1994).

As a result of such criticism, further, meta-analysis was followed in 2001. To find 10 more recent studies, Bem and Palmer (2001) reviewed a total of 40 studies. The average beating rate was 30.1 per cent; the important result is back. Also, the suggestion that studies that disrupted the successful ganzfeld process may be responsible for non-essential findings found some support. Studies that are consistent with the standard procedure have yielded significant results, while those that have changed this approach have often yielded opportunities (B & & Palmer, 2001). However, the magnitude of the effect was much smaller than that reported in a previous study, suggesting that if something happened, it would only faint.

The future of ESP?

Although not necessarily conclusive evidence, tests can show a limited effect. However, the small number of papers that provide evidence in reputable psychological journals does not appear to have altered the views or attracted more scientific attention to ESP.

Shermer (2003) suggests the main reasons that (a) the effect is too difficult to replicate and (b) parapsychology does not have a coherent and valid theory to explain such aberrations. But how important is this? Science is largely based on observation followed by an explanation of the theory. Some parapsychologists suggest that the size of the field may explain why so much progress has yet to be made. Schouten (1993) calculates that 111 years ago, the total amount of human and financial resources provided for parapsychology was equal to the resources available to support all psychological research for two months in The US. A different view would be: if that ability or something like that exists, then 111 years of academic study should have provided sufficient evidence that the idea could be tampered with?

However, parapsychologists have reported many findings that they suggest may explain the practice. Among several findings, the analysis suggests that believers in ESP (perhaps because of motivational effects) tend to eliminate critics (Lawrence, 1993) and feelings of participation may also be related to experimental performance (Carpenter, 2001). However, as the most important findings in this field, the sizes of these results are very small.

When we consider the possibility of ESP, Freud was right by reminding us that ‘the simplest explanation is not always correct: the truth is often not simple’ (1940/2003, p. 34). It is important to remember that our thoughts on physics, biology and psychology have been out of line before and continue to emerge. The ideas (supported by scientific evidence) that make general education feel uncomfortable, whether accepted or rejected, are what strengthen forward understanding - not scientific teaching.

BOX: A weird match in the laboratory?

The following is a paper by Westerlund et al. (2004) reporting the ganzfeld experiment at the University of Edinburgh shows strong similarities between the video ‘sender’ that was watching and the recipient’s thoughts at the time.

‘In this tape, a target video clip is displayed and at the same time the sound of the receiver can be heard One of the most notable quotes shows a man running in the woods; it looks like you're being hunted (at the same time, the recipient says: "Trees. People are running. Running…"). Suddenly, the man falls into a deep muddy pool (at the same time, the recipient says: "You are falling. The mud…"). The camera approaches the man's face (at the same time, the recipient says: "White hair. 70 hairstyles. Curly-ish. Whiteface…". it is over, so it disappears in the mud (at the same time, the recipient says: "Someone who died in the water")