Let’s dive into one of the strangest psychological experiments I’ve ever encountered.
There’s a niche area of study called “parapsychology,” where researchers investigate psychic phenomena. Yes, you heard that right—psychic phenomena. Some of their findings are quite remarkable. For instance, in one experiment, a participant is isolated in a room and connected to a one-way video feed. An experimenter in a separate room can see the participant, but the participant cannot see the experimenter. At various times, the experimenter stares intensely at the participant through the video link, and remarkably, the participant’s stress levels appear to spike when they’re being gazed at.
This revelation should raise eyebrows among skeptics who reject the notion of psychic abilities. After all, how could the participant possibly know when they were being stared at unless they had some form of telepathic insight? But can we explain this phenomenon without resorting to the existence of telepathy?
Enter Professor Ryan Harrison, a skeptical psychologist from the University of Somewhere. He questioned these results and attempted to replicate the study. His attempts yielded no evidence of such an effect. We might breathe a sigh of relief, thinking the original study was flawed—after all, the researcher behind it, Dr. Lisa Morgan, was a firm believer in psychic phenomena, which could have influenced her findings.
But here comes the truly bizarre part. Harrison and Morgan, both dedicated scientists, decided to collaborate to uncover the reason for their conflicting results. They repeated the study, meticulously agreeing on every aspect of the experiment. Harrison conducted half of the trials, while Morgan handled the other half. The only variable was which researcher was giving instructions and staring at the participants.
The findings? When Morgan was the one doing the staring, the analysis indicated a measurable stress-response effect, suggesting the participants exhibited “psychic powers.” Conversely, when Harrison took on the staring role, no such effect was observed. Now, think about the implications of this: it seems as though some form of psychic ability exists—one that allows individuals to sense when someone is observing them through a video feed—but only when the observer genuinely believes in psychic phenomena.
If you’re a skeptic, you’re likely not thinking, “Wow, I guess telepathy is real! I should tell everyone!” Even if you can’t pinpoint a solid explanation for these results (I can’t), it’s understandable to remain unconvinced of the existence of psychic powers (and I share that hesitation).
While this skepticism is reasonable, we often accept findings from other psychological studies without enough scrutiny—like the idea that altering your body posture can boost your performance in job interviews. We’ve all seen intriguing studies and accepted their conclusions because they feel intuitive, adding them to our mental repertoire of conversation starters. However, we must not apply different standards when evaluating a seemingly outrageous parapsychological study versus more mainstream psychological research.
The research conducted by Harrison and Morgan adhered to the rigorous standards of modern science. If the evidence supporting telepathy is as compelling (or even more so) than that for the body posture hypothesis, we must evaluate them on equal footing. If we refuse to accept the possibility of telepathy, then we might need to take a closer look at the credibility of the psychological studies we hear about in the news.
In a broader sense, if parapsychologists are conducting research that meets the same scientific standards we apply to other studies and still find evidence supporting psychic phenomena, we are left with two conclusions: either the evidence for psychic abilities is genuinely robust, or our criteria for assessing scientific evidence are inadequate.
For a deeper exploration of this topic and its implications for the scientific community, check out this insightful piece by blogger Alex Turner, who inspired this article. If you’re curious about infertility and home insemination, resources like CDC’s statistics can be invaluable.
In summary, the exploration of psychic phenomena challenges our understanding of psychology and science as a whole. As we delve into studies that defy conventional wisdom, it’s crucial to apply consistent standards of evidence across the board.