Fwd: No Eyes in the Back of the Head

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2000 - 17:05:51 GMT

  • Next message: laurie@green.net.au: "Re: Complete thoughts"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA19007 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:07:59 GMT
    Subject: Fwd: No Eyes in the Back of the Head
    Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:05:51 -0500
    x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas est veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: "memetics list" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <20000316170554.AAA18809@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    I seem to recall someone here using this quasi-scientific study to prove
    some point or other, and, incensed as I was by the implication that
    wishful thinking was providing the evidence for scientific verification,
    it appears someone has finally provided me with a proper argument for the
    'being stared at' bugaboo.

    - Wade

    ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------

    To: skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu

    One of Rupert Sheldrake's experiments to show unknown or paranormal
    abilities
    (described at his site at http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/ may not
    be as
    impressive as he claims, as the following story from this week's Times
    Higher
    Ed. Supp. indicates:

    ========================================
    TESTS DISPROVE WE HAVE EYES IN THE BACK OF OUR HEADS

    Perhaps we have not got eyes in the back of our heads after all. A series
    of
    experiments that appeared to show that people innately knew when they
    were being
    stared at from behind may in fact have only picked up the ability
    implicitly to
    learn subtle patterns.

    Thousands of volunteers took part in tests devised by biologist Rupert
    Sheldrake
    to detect extra-sensory perception. The results appeared to demonstrate a
    significant effect.

    However, research by John Colwell, principal lecturer in psychology at
    Middlesex
    University, which has been published in the *British Journal of
    Psychology*,
    suggests there may be a mundane explanation.

    Dr Sheldrake's experiments involved giving out a set of strict
    instructions to
    volunteers over the internet, who then carried out the tests in their own
    homes
    and sent the scientist back their results.

    They were asked to put on blindfolds and sit with their backs to other
    volunteers who then either stared at them or looked away, according to a
    set of
    random numbers that Dr Sheldrake provided. Alternatively, a coin could be
    tossed
    to determine whether the 'looker' stared or not.

    Dr Colwell repeated the experiments in controlled laboratory conditions
    using Dr
    Sheldrake's number sequences and a one-way mirror to separate the two
    volunteers.

    When the subject was not told whether they were right or wrong after each
    test,
    he could find no effect. However, with feedback, an apparent ability to
    detect
    staring emerged during the course of the experiment.

    Although this appeared to confirm Dr Sheldrake's hypothesis, Dr Colwell
    suggests
    this could be more to do with the mind's ability to detect subtle
    patterns as an
    analysis of the number sequences found they were not entirely random.

    "There was a pattern that was alternating too much and this biased the
    trial in
    favour of detecting an effect," he said.

    "Because the subjects were given feedback, they were using this
    information to
    pick up structure in the sequences."

    The apparent effect disappeared when Dr Colwell used a truly random
    sequence.

    While Dr Sheldrake's experiment does not involve giving feedback and
    includes
    the coin-tossing option, Dr Colwell suggests that in the absence of strict
    controls, subtle cues may be picked up by some of those test subjects
    using the
    provided sequences as an indication of whether a guess was right or
    wrong. This,
    he suggests, could skew the overall results in favour of indicating
    psychic
    phenomena.

    ==================================================THES=====================
    =====

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 17:08:13 GMT