Rose Rimler

Well, so this meta-analysis, this Gansfeld one, it made a big splash among the telepathy crowd. No doubt. It was definitely referenced on the Telepathy Tapes podcast. And so I asked Chris about it. Did it rock your world?

Well, so this meta-analysis, this Gansfeld one, it made a big splash among the telepathy crowd. No doubt. It was definitely referenced on the Telepathy Tapes podcast. And so I asked Chris about it. Did it rock your world?

Yeah. This isn't Chris's first radio, and it's not his first Gansfeld meta-analysis claiming a 30% hit rate. Okay. He said that there was actually something very similar back in the 90s. He was younger and more naive then, right?

Yeah. This isn't Chris's first radio, and it's not his first Gansfeld meta-analysis claiming a 30% hit rate. Okay. He said that there was actually something very similar back in the 90s. He was younger and more naive then, right?

Well, there's a few funny things that are going on here. So we know that in studies about paranormal stuff, if the test is done by a believer, they tend to find an effect. Well, if it's done by a skeptic, they tend not to find an effect. Like, imagine that you're more of a skeptic, like Chris, and you run one of these telepathy experiments, and you find that people guess right 25% of the time.

Well, there's a few funny things that are going on here. So we know that in studies about paranormal stuff, if the test is done by a believer, they tend to find an effect. Well, if it's done by a skeptic, they tend not to find an effect. Like, imagine that you're more of a skeptic, like Chris, and you run one of these telepathy experiments, and you find that people guess right 25% of the time.

As a skeptic, when you get a result like that, you might say, oh, okay. All right. No effect here. Done. Right? If you're a believer, you might look at that and say, I'm going to go look through the data again. I would have expected something else to happen. Hmm. So I'm going to go and I'm going to look through the raw data. Maybe I'll get rid of some outliers.

As a skeptic, when you get a result like that, you might say, oh, okay. All right. No effect here. Done. Right? If you're a believer, you might look at that and say, I'm going to go look through the data again. I would have expected something else to happen. Hmm. So I'm going to go and I'm going to look through the raw data. Maybe I'll get rid of some outliers.

Maybe I'll find a piece of the data and I'll just look at this subgroup.

Maybe I'll find a piece of the data and I'll just look at this subgroup.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And vice versa, you know, if you're a skeptic and you get a result that says telepathy is real, you might start combing through that data very carefully, you know?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And vice versa, you know, if you're a skeptic and you get a result that says telepathy is real, you might start combing through that data very carefully, you know?

So to avoid this, there has been a movement, and this is especially true in psychology research, to pre-register your study. So you basically publish a protocol ahead of time saying, this is how I'm going to do the study. This is how I'm going to analyze my data. And then that can't happen, right? This like tweaking and nudging after the fact.

So to avoid this, there has been a movement, and this is especially true in psychology research, to pre-register your study. So you basically publish a protocol ahead of time saying, this is how I'm going to do the study. This is how I'm going to analyze my data. And then that can't happen, right? This like tweaking and nudging after the fact.

Less so.

Less so.

And when you look at that meta-analysis, they're not looking specifically at studies that were pre-registered. So it's really hard to know if we can trust them. Oh, no. This makes me so sad. I'm like, scientists, do your job properly. I know. Well, funny you should mention that because not long ago, there was a very concerted effort to do a proper study on psychic phenomena. Okay. Yeah.

And when you look at that meta-analysis, they're not looking specifically at studies that were pre-registered. So it's really hard to know if we can trust them. Oh, no. This makes me so sad. I'm like, scientists, do your job properly. I know. Well, funny you should mention that because not long ago, there was a very concerted effort to do a proper study on psychic phenomena. Okay. Yeah.

So specifically, they were trying to replicate a study from 2011 on precognition. So like predicting the future, basically. Yes, yes, yes. The way this study worked, they had a computer program they were showing to people with a picture of two curtains. And they asked people, of these two curtains, which one has an erotic image hiding behind it? Oh.

So specifically, they were trying to replicate a study from 2011 on precognition. So like predicting the future, basically. Yes, yes, yes. The way this study worked, they had a computer program they were showing to people with a picture of two curtains. And they asked people, of these two curtains, which one has an erotic image hiding behind it? Oh.