http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5017910.stm
Is this just another case of the 'PSI assumption'?
If anything a bit unusual happens to someone they automatically assume it must have been psychic.
Of course the questions may have been loaded too.
.
Well, here's the giveaway sentence:
"Despite the high numbers who said they had experienced such phenomena, only 9% described themselves as psychic. "
People aren't reporting 'psychic powers', they're reporting unexplained experiences.
If was asked "when the phone rings, have you ever known who was calling before you answer?", I would have to say yes.
The attribution of special ability is being done by the survey-makers, not the respondents.
It is also interesting to note that the sample is Reader's Digest readers - a very specific and narrow demographic indeed. Half of their readers are over 55, and 60% are in the higher socio-economic groups - not representative of the GB population at all.
Indeed.Half of their readers are over 55, and 60% are in the higher socio-economic groups - not representative of the GB population at all.
Do you think the "9% think they're psychic" proportion would be higher or lower if the same survey had been carried out over a truly representative demographic?
No way of telling without other research to compare it to. I'm tempted to say that lower soci-economic groups are more likely to cry 'psychic' but that's posibly my own bias talking, as I have precisely zero evidence to back that up. I'm sure there are other studies that will tell us, though.Originally Posted by Jocky
Looking at the article again, it's not completely clear whether the survey was among Reader's Digest readers, or among the public but simply carried out by the RD. The former makes the most sense, as they would simpy insert a readership survey into the last issue, whereas the latter involves expensive face-to-face surveys in the street. I will look into that and see if I can confirm it either way.
The sample is just over 1000, which, if from the general public, is large enough to be representative of the country, but only just. There's a lot of media bias in there, I'd like to see the original survey and the results report. I might see if I can get a copy, if I call in my professional capacity they may well send it to me.
True but...
There's a lot of statements like that. Of course, that could be because of the question and how it was phrased.Of those questioned, 43% claimed to have tapped into other people's thoughts or to have had their own minds read by someone else.
.
Yes, I suspect some bias in the questions, it also depends if it was face-to-face or an in-mag paper survey.
I suspect many people would put these 'weird' experiences down to God, especially if the sample was Reader's Digest readers (I'm making an educated guess that there is a large Christian element in the readership) - which would also explain the low response for self-titled psychic ability. The results smell so rotten to me, it looks for all the world like a really biased and sucky survey. I would hazard that Reader's Digest revenues are falling and they did a survey on a 'hot' topic in order to get some free media coverage, which they have.
Maybe we should do an alternative version with questions like:
How many times have you thought of someone and the phone rang and it was that person?
How many times has the phone rung and it wasn't that person?
Pah, people will answer "never" to the second question. I'm wracking my brains to think of a concrete memory of that happening, and I can't find one, even though I know it has happened, and people are stupider than me. I fink.
This is the everyday type of telepathy that is so common people don't equate it with terms like "special" or "powers". It's written off as coincidence.
Telepathy is far more likely between people who have close relationships. Family, spouce, friends, develop a subtle bond that could be thought of as a group consciousness. Even pets become a part of it.
No, what are you describing is called coincidence and confirmation bias. And the more you know someone, the more factors in common you have. I encounter many coincidences with, for example, my sister, because we live very similar lives, have very similar tastes and opinions, and respond in a similar manner to the same stimuli. So, if she hears a song on the radio that was popular when we were kids, that might plant a desire in her to call me. If I'm listening to the radio as well, I will hear the same song and probably think of her just as the phone rings. Ooh, how spooky!
It's really not telepathy, it's a perfectly mundane thing. Of course, telepathy is the more glamorous and exciting explanation so it's not surprising that some people want to liven up their otherwise dull lives by pretending they have magic powers.
^Apparently there are ways to compensate for coincidence and bias. If I remember correctly, during this telepathy debate between Prof Lewis Wolpert and Dr Rupert Sheldrake, controlled telephone tests were described.
I was just looking through the JREF archives and found one of Randi's commentaries http://www.randi.org/jr/04-21-2000.html
It seems that, in the 1800s at least, there were more believers of paranormal claims in the upper classes, and this seemed to be due to more than just the rich being a better target for scammers.
Those tests were heavily criticised and not accepted as valid.
Tests need to be watertight. If there's any fault in the protocol it will be picked apart.
Have his tests been replicated independently by other scientists?
It seems like a fairly simple test to do.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks