
Parapsychology in the PRC: 1979 [pdf] - dosy
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002600290003-0.pdf
======
usgroup
Can anyone offer some context on “parapsychology” in general? Is there any
credible results on this stuff that happened within the last decade? Etc.

~~~
dosy
I just went looking for some "credible results", as in "published research of
well designed experiments", rather than "I predicted that X would happen and
it did" or "I knew what Y was thinking and I was right", which although
interesting and useful are probably less convincing for people.

There's this write up from 2011 by Huffpost[1] about this Cornell
experiment[0]:

[0]: [http://dbem.org/FeelingFuture.pdf](http://dbem.org/FeelingFuture.pdf)

[1]: [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/esp-
evidence_n_795366](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/esp-evidence_n_795366)

If you want a TLDR you do one for everyone else. You've stats skills, and
maybe you're a skeptic, so I guess you can find some reason to dismiss the
methodology, but it would be more interesting to get your insight into the
stats in the paper.

Another paper testing more hypotheses related to retrocausal effects[2]

[2]:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273946180_Anomalous...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273946180_Anomalous_'Retrocausal'_Effects_on_Performance_in_a_GoNoGo_Task)

I've also heard about experiments to measure the effect of humans trying to
influence a random number generator (genuine entropy source), and being able
to do it, but I couldn't find any papers this time.

Also would be interesting to track [3] to see if there's any high performers.

[3]: [https://www.predibly.com/](https://www.predibly.com/)

The beyoncefan666[4] twitter is pretty spooky. Big ticket events, correct
predictions. But I wouldn't really call it credible until I see a timeline of
specific events with good accuracy.

[4]:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/02/beyoncefa...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/02/beyoncefan666-twitter-
account-predicting-future-beyonce-pregnancy)

psi is about more than predictions about the future, or looking into the past,
or finding missing items or people. I haven't see any good evidence for human
telekinetic ability (despite the legions of people on YouTube claiming they
can spin 'psi wheels').

My notion is like all abilities, this is on a bell curve. There must be some
people very good at some things. Genuine strong TKs tho would probably be
considered a threat and suppressed / imprisoned (like Magneto, basically, in
X-Men).

If I wanted to find strong psychics I would go to casinos.

~~~
scottlocklin
Erm I'm skimming this and not finding anything you can test using statistics.
Just a bunch of weird assertions that don't mean anything. For example:

"An article published in the Dec. 13, 2010 issue of The New Yorker highlights
a phenomenon that is well known to scientists, not only in the field of psi
but across many disciplines: Initial experiments can show very strong results,
but when the experiments are repeated again and again, the effects can
decline."

First off, the New Yorker isn't exactly ... well science. Second off; there is
a well known reason why "initial experiments show strong results" -it's called
p-value hacking.

~~~
dosy
Please have a look at [1] and [2] now

~~~
scottlocklin
I quoted something linked in [1] (Huffpo not science either; trash mostly) and
I don't think [2] says what you think it says.

If there were statistical evidence for "psychic powers," you'd presumably be
able to present some. It's not like there aren't enough fruity people out
there who REALLY WANT to believe in this sort of thing. By now, after ...
literally centuries of people trying this sort of thing, you should have at
least one example of unexplained phenomena.

~~~
dosy
that's weird, I meant [0] and [2] the two papers.

And you could be right about 2, I didn't read it yet, just included it to add
a paper I found looking for credible results.

now, you called people crazy, and if this topic is so overwhelming for you
that you're falling back to ignoring facts and calling people crazy names,
take a mental health day and come back to it when you're feeling more
resilient, instead of projecting onto others. that's not a nice or useful way
to discuss.

since you said that I think I can point out that you've ignored 0 so far. you
seem to want to not believe this, so is 0 the inconvenient truth you're
pretending doesn't exist? closing your eyes and hoping reality will go away
seems pretty crazy to me. haha.

you know that doesn't actually make it disappear, right? Right?

I just checked out your WordPress site and you are real scientist. I'm shocked
that 1 you don't think there's some sort of quantum underpinnings of this
phenomena and 2 you don't want to investigate it. You're an anti establishment
guy you seem bitter that your niche research is unappreciated. well, this
field quantum physics X psi could be a real fit for you. seriously consider
it, I mean it.

------
pts_
Stranger Things Chinese edition?

