Talk:Ganzfeld experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

I've edited this to weaken the assertion to a claim. Can anyone give a cite for this claim? The Anome 08:01 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Um, what are the claims? --Brion 04:14 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
The claims are that, over a very large number of individual tests (several thousand) the average "hit" rate is 33.2%, when 25% is expected (since the judge has to choose between one valid, and three dummy images). On the face of it, this claim actually seems to be correct, and certainly is statistically significant to a very high degree. However critics have noted quite a few problems which should be given more emphasis in the article, including:
  • Most reported experiments seem to be uncontrolled. (Obviously if we repeat the experiment without the "sender" and get the same results, it is a clear sign something is wrong with the set-up);
  • The design is overly complicated, making it harder to analyse and detect biases. In fact most of the changes introduced to eliminate "boredom" are changes that make errors easier. A better solution would be to simplify the experiment, but change subjects more often.
  • The reliance on matching vague verbal descriptions to the "closest" image is particularly concerning.
  • The so-called "auto-ganzfeld" experiments attempt to eliminate the possibility of conscious or unconscious biases on the behalf of the experimenters by computer automation of as much as possible of the process. However this in turn introduces the possibility of software errors - especially bearing in mind that less than a dozen labs have reported these experiments, and we don't know to what extent they shared software. Thus, the software should be audited.
Securiger 04:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What a disaster!!

Previously the article was brief but contained no glaring errors. Now with Martinphi's mass dumping of work from The Conscious Universe, we now have an article full of out-of-date, misleading or incorrect data! (edited to say: I'm working on an update) Ersby 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much less relaince on a single text from ten years ago

In editing the article I made the following changes:

  • Generally made it shorter
  • Gave credit to Metzger for originating the process.
  • Cut out things about Rhine - didn't impact on the adoption of ganzfeld for ESP tests
  • Removed "highly significant" since ganzfeld experiments tend to be measured at p=0.05
  • Most of what Radin say about pre-1985 meta-analyses is just plain wrong
  • Removed Radin's misrepresentation of the debate over randomisation
  • Removed Radin's claim that no one agreed with Hyman
  • Edited Radin's wordy description of the protocol
  • Introduced more recent work from Wiseman, Bem, etc
  • Removed Radin's response to criticism since it's more of a non-sequitor
  • Introduced section about Sargent

Please, no more work from The Conscious Universe, and that goes for The Entangled Mind, too. Ersby 09:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumping

I think you did a good re-write, and from a brief reading, you have more and better sources. I would question some things, however:

  • Removed Radin's misrepresentation of the debate over randomization

Do you have a source for saying that this is a misrepresentation?

  • Removed Radin's claim that no one agreed with Hyman

Do you have a source for saying this?

  • Edited Radin's wordy description of the protocol

It wasn't Radin's description per se, but a paraphrase. This article needs a through and readable description of the process, such that the reader can judge for him/herself whether the process is likely to permit fraud or sensory leakage.

  • Most of what Radin say about pre-1985 meta-analyses is just plain wrong

Do you have a source for this assertion?

  • Removed Radin's response to criticism since it's more of a non-sequitor

Why do you think this?

Remember Radin's credentials: past president of the PA, researcher etc. Also remember that Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Unless you can come up with a peer-reviewed, well-documented source within the field, there is no reason to say that Radin is not a good source: his books summarize peer-reviewed sources. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no source to say that Radin has misrepresented the early history of ganzfeld experiments except the original source material which simply doesn't match up to what he said. You're right, his books summarize peer-reviewed sources, but they do it so badly that they're not worth a great deal, and whether or not he has qualifications has little to do with the argument. An example: In The Conscious Universe he makes a claim concerning the non-meta-analysed pre-1985 experiments, saying that they could not be included since they did not report results. This is wrong and there's no way he could have made that mistake if he'd read the original papers.
I don't know if Radin's views on the ganzfeld are necessarily the scientific concesus in parapsychology. He is not often quoted or referenced in parapsychological papers on the ganzfeld (unless in refernce to his contributions to the design of the autoganzfeld set up at Edinburgh). But Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of debate. If people want to find out enough so that they can decide for themselves security flaws or look at statistical data, they can follow the links at the bottom of the page. However, if we simply pass on Radin's erroneous data when better first-hand data are available is doing a disservice to the reader. Ersby 11:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


You say that "saying that they could not be included since they did not report results"
I don't have the book right in front of me, but I though he said that they couldn't be included because they only reported results. I might want to expand the description so that the reader gets a good idea of exactly what the experiments are like. And, as you say, use the latest material. I thought the page, before I expanded it, didn't do a thorough enough job of presenting things.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I no longer have easy access to a copy of the book, but I'm quite certain Radin thought the experiments did not report results. Although if you are right, then Radin is still wrong. Ersby 08:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Newest version

I've restored some of the material. The reasons given previously for deleting it were that:

1) It is too long. I disagree. This is a normal-sized page, and it is all about the ganzfeld ESP experiments. Therefore, it needs a fairly thorough description of the experiments, and that description should be readable.

2) Radin is wrong. This assertion needs to be supported before things are deleted for this reason.

3) Radin is not a good source. Remember that this article is about a subject in the field of parapsychology, and Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Thus, unless Radin does not present fairly this consensus, he is a good source.

4) Radin asserts that no one agreed with Hyman. Actually, Radin only says what I paraphrased, that is, that the particular group in question, with certain credentials, analyzed the data, and disagreed or did not agree with Hyman. I think that this is a fair check of Hyman's analysis.

I have seen Radin's papers cited in peer-reviewed articles in the field of parapsychology, for instance this one: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_2_68/ai_n16107398 Therefore, I believe that Radin is respected in the field, and especially in the absence of authoritative sources within the field of parapsychology refuting Radin's books, that Radin is a good source for this encyclopedia.

As for the other edits, sources, and additions, I thought they were very good, and I believe I kept them intact in the new version. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When I say the description of the experimental procedure is too long, I mean it is too long to be easily and simply read by a newcomer to the issue. Radin's/your description of the ganzfeld procedure is so cumbersome as to be unreadable. Keep it simple. If you want to talk about how the ganzfeld can be psi conducive, you should put it in another section.
And I cannot, in all honesty, countenance an article that relies so heavily on just one source. You presented one paper which cites Radin as an example of how he is referenced in parapsychology, and of course he has a certain standing in parapsychology. But the citation you linked to was nothing to do with the ganzfeld. I don't doubt that, in other fields, he is something of an expert, but in this field I know that he is not. If he does represent the scientific consesus on this matter, it should not be too difficult for you to find other first-hand sources.
If you need more examples of Radin being wrong, this is in reference to the randomization issue. Radin's summary runs:

The reasoning goes like this: A person who has participated in the study tells a friend about her ganzfeld experience where the target was, say, a Santa Claus picture. Later, if the friend participated in the study, and he got the same target pool, and during the judging period he also selected the Santa Claus because of what his friend said, and the randomization procedure was poor, and Santa Claus was selected as the target again, then what looked like psi wasn't really psi after all, but a consequence of poor randomization. A similar concern arises for the method of randomizing the sequence in which the experimenter presents the target and the three decoys to the receiver during the judging process. If, for example, the target is always presented second in the sequence of four, then again, a subject may tell a friend, and the friend, armed with the knowledge about which of the four targets is the real one, could successfully select the real target without the use of psi. (Radin 1997: 82)

Out of interest, do you know which experiments he's referring to here?
Here's a quote from Parker and Wiklund, published in 1987, about a randomisation flaw in an early ganzfeld experiment:

Two further Maimonides studies by Terry and Honorton in 1976 were judged to be flawed because of their procedure of eliminating each used target in the series from future selection. This could increase the chance expectation from 1/4 to 1/3 (or higher) if subjects gained knowledge of the target pool. Parker, however, calculated in a worse case analysis of the number of subjects relative to the number of target packs re-appearing, that such an effect would be negligible. Wiklund regarded it, nevertheless, as a serious methodological flaw. In addition to this, the series had other flaws concerning the randomisation of the target series and its reconstruction after viewing.

and from the same paper, referring to a different set of ganzfeld experiments:

Some of the early Maimonides experiments used, for instance, an incomplete series of binary target slides, where presence versus absence of specific characteristics (e.g. colour, movement, human figures) were matched with the subject's imagery. Since the series was incomplete, certain combinations of target characteristics being harder to depict than others, this naturally introduces a dependency between categories which can maximise the effect of a chance hitting on one category.

See anything about recievers comparing notes? Radin's description of the arguments surrounding randomisation is not one I recognise.
His summary of the 1985/1986 ganzfeld debate in the Journal of Parapsychology is also heavily skewed in a pro-psi direction (more on which at a later date). Rather than revert everything, I've added a NPOV:dispute template at the top of the page while we work through things at a slower pace. Ersby 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You obviously have better sources than I do. I cannot get to library (I live too far out in the country), and I can't get to a lot of sources online. It would be of great help if you'd help source- you already have, actually. When I started, the article basically had no sources! And now I give it at least one source, which at least is not a bad source, and you delete it because you don't like Radin??? I agree that it needs more sources, but adding (what I think is) a well-organized and informative, and actually sourced description and history of analysis is not dumping or a disaster. The article seemed a disaster when I started, because it wasn't sourced, and it wasn't complete.
I can't go over things now, but just a note on the length being "cumbersome." The description of the process is (lese than) 1,073 words long, that is, about 3.5 book pages. That's not long, that's short, especially for a description of a scientific procedure. I want it to actually give a feeling for what the procedure is like, and how it's organized. I find Radin's description very readable, and quite short. People who can't read 3 pages shouldn't bother consulting encyclopedias. And I don't discuss how it can be psi conducive, do I? No one knows how that can be, anyway. The analysis part is going to be long, because the argument is long. We could keep it short, but we could also keep it medium length and give some information people might find useful. How can you read all these scientific papers, and then think a 3-4 page description is long?
You're probably right that the details of potential flaws in the experiments are too cumbersome to go over here. So leave out the quotation. But I do think that unless there's a reason that it is untrue, that the claim that Hyman was alone in thinking that randomization flaws might be the reason for the results ought to be brought out. And I really like the structure which is given the article by the progress of the debates over the years. That makes it more readable, like a story or discussion.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 10:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


P.S. You ask "Out of interest, do you know which experiments he's referring to here?"
I believe he's not referring to any studies, but describing a process whereby sensory leakage might enter the ganzfeld. He's describing Hyman's reason for objection in layman's terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
I don't have time to work on it myself, but it does seem like a lot of the paragraphs end in (Radin 1997: 77-89). If I didn't know any better, just a cursory look at it might lead me to think either Radin came up with the experiment or is at least the foremost authority on it. I wish I had time to roll up my sleeves and take a hack at it. But if someone else wants to include more sources beyond Radin, there are 141 articles at FindArticles.com with the keyword "ganzfeld". Most of them are free articles from the Journal of Parapsychology, so I'm sure we can get a couple of different viewpoints in here. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?qt=ganzfeld


I can work on it some more, but I need some time- and patience. It's hard to integrate, and do justice to the contributions of everyone, when there are major changes being made, in a description which should maintain flow. Perhaps we need to work out basically what information is going to go in. I hate to do more work on the description of the procedure, or even the debate, if it would get deleted summarily. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow I shall attempt at putting right the section about the 1985/86 debate about the ganzfeld. To be honest, however, there are so many mistakes it'd be kinder to just take the whole thing out entirely. It'd also make the article more manageable. We should bear in mind this is an introduction to the subject and to go into endless detail about who said what to whom twenty years ago would be wasteful when clicking on a link at the bottom of the page can take readers to more indepth sources. Ersby 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, before I take time to write it up, I've decided to post here the major errors in the article as it stands, based on Radin's book. I personally think that something much shorter would be more suited to Wikipedia, perhaps only talking about Hyman, Honorton and Saunders since they make up the meat of the argument.

28 of these experiments were suitable for meta-analysis,

They were all suitable for meta-analysis, with the possible exception of three experiments which didn't report a result in a numerical form.

When Hyman and Honorton analyzed these studies the results of the 28 studies using meta-analysis, they returned odds against chance of ten billion to one.

Hyman did not analyse those 28 studies as a group.

The positive ganzfeld were determined to have been replicated independently by 8 other laboratories.

Honorton, JoP 1985: "Significant outcomes are reported by 6 of the 10 investigators"

Hyman and Honorton agreed that there was no systematic relationship between any such flaws in the studies and the outcomes of the studies.

Hyman & Honorton, JoP 1986: "The strongest disagreements between us might appear to be over the relationship in the data base between "flaws" and study outcome. Honorton finds no significant correlation between indices of study quality and study outcome. Hyman agrees that there is no significant correlation between study outcome and some procedural indicators, such as multiple analysis, sensory leakage, statistics, and security. But he finds a positive correlation between study outcome and other procedural indicators, such as suboptimal randomization, feedback, and inadequate documentation."
Isn't this what is already in the article? They agreed on pretty much everything except the correlation between outcome and randomization. But the "feedback, and inadequate documentation" could be added.

Hyman said that the ganzfeld papers did not describe optimal protocols, nor were they always accompanied by the appropriate statistical analysis.

Honorton agreed with this, but Hyman gets no credit in Radin's book.
Well, fine, you already inserted this. This was your writing.

None agreed with Hyman that randomization flaws could account for the results of the ganzfeld experiments,

None of them mention it, except Alcock: "A careful reading of Hyman makes clear that he does not view the various flaws and shortcomings that he reports as being necessarily causal with regard to the observed significant deviations from chance. Rather, he clearly specifies that they are to be considered symptomatic of poorly planned or poorly executed research, and although those flaws may be the only hints of possible sloppiness or ineptitude, there may be several or even many uncontrolled factors or errors of procedure or analysis that produced the apparent departures from chance but are not obvious from the reports. It is not too surprising that Honorton ignores this central point, for there is really no defense against it. All the reanalysis in the world cannot tell us whether there were uncontrolled (but nonpsychic) influences that produced the effects."
Are you sure you're looking at all the sources? I doubt Radin just made it up.


Ersby 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've put in some comments above, highly indented.
Why don't you set the article right, I'll go over it, look at the sources etc. If it seems to be too cumbersome for the article, let's edit it out. But the changes above aren't major. I'm really mainly concerned here with putting in a thorough description of the procedure (I don't want people to have to go to technical papers for that). In terms of the debate, I want to make clear some of the process, but mainly I want to get the conclusion, which I think is (partly) nicely summed up by my last quotation of Hyman. In other words, even a determined skeptic had to say they were formidable studies, but there is still a lot of work to do.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, to make things easier (on myself, and any reader) I've reverted back to the earlier version. I don't think it's helpful to include the debate from JoP issue 50, since the problem is: why stop there? The debate still rumbles on today. You could go on for ages and never come to a sensible pace to stop. The ten commentaries didn't really add any data, and so for someone coming to this subject for the first time aren't really necessary. As for Martin's question Are you sure you're looking at all the sources, the article refers explicitly to the 1985/86 debate, so the sources are the Journal of Parapsychology issues 49 and 50, so yes, I am looking at all the sources.

I also deleted the section covering Radin's meta-analysis. Milton & Wiseman's and Bem, Palmer & Broughton's meta-analyses cover the same period with more thoroughness and it is these analyses that are cited in parapsychological papers, not Radin's. Ersby 08:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That was me removing the template, by the way. I could've sworn I was signed in. Ersby 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV template

I removed the POV template because I thought the article now gave a pretty good overview of the current state of affairs regarding the debate over the ganzfeld experiments.Ersby 10:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article is in need of large revision to be anything close to Wikipedia style. In particular, the section describing the technique is far longer than necessary. At the moment, I lack the time to fix it. Michaelbusch 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Unsourced paragraph

I'm removing this here because it has multiple unsourced claims. It seems to be OR, but in any case needs mulitple sources, or one source with multiple page numbers. It also uses WTAs.

There are reasons to doubt telepathy as the explanation, however. The results of the experiments are also unimpressive in the sense that one might expect genuine telepathy to function always or almost always, and that in any case statistically significant results should occur even if the sender's thoughts are not said aloud - and, so far, no Ganzfeld experiments achieve either of these. This suggests that, if the results are not a matter of chance, the cause is non-telepathic. [citation needed]

Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I agree. Ersby 07:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I found the switches between American English and British English spelling to be distracting. The MoS says that one style should be used consistently throughout an article. Where the article subject has no clear tie to a particular English-speaking country, the style should be that of the first substantial contributor. In this case, the article seems to have perked along for a few years without anyone using an AE or BE spelling. The first edit I found that took a side was this one in 2006, which referred to "Randomization", so I've standardized this article on AE spelling. Of course, that doesn't apply to the quotation from Blackmore, which must be presented exactly; I assume that "favour" is so in her original. (I'm surprised to see the AE spelling "randomization" in that quotation, but I don't have ready access to the source, so I'll leave it alone.) JamesMLane t c 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Studies have had significant results

This claim was recently taken out of the lead. It is/can be well sourced to skeptical and other sources. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture?

There ought to be an In Popular Culture area in this article. Like that movie Altered States back in the 1980s about sensory deprivation tank experiments that led to ripping a hole into another dimension? Or something like that. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Use a Neuroleptic Drug to Quiet Mental Noise

I have always proposed that fractional or very small amounts of neuroleptic drugs taken on a daily basis can work much better than sensory deprivation used on a relaxed person in a Ganzfeld Laboratory. The important thing to remember is to test an ESP subject several hours after the person has taken the drug. This is the point when the mind and body are quiet and the neuroleptic drug is just begining to weaken in strength creating a psychic-trance state of mind. Alcohol can be used to enhance the mental free flow response of the brain. It is important that the ESP test subject is checked for a telepathic response when he/she feels they are about to regain full cognitive and mental capacity. The creative visualization of picture imagery can be used to determine ESP force or precognitive ability in a test subject.

The size of dosage needed for ESP experiments using a neuroleptic drug is unknown, but maybe only a daily dose of 10 to 50% of the smallest tablet manufactured for any particular drug.

It's 2008, there are ways of using phamaceutical drugs, like neuroleptics to cancel or control mental noise in the brain of a test subject, instead of the methods required in the Ganzfeld Experiment. Psychiatrists use very large amounts of neuroleptics to control the noise in the brains of the mentally ill. It should be possible to check for the psychic threshold level in the brain of a test subject by applying fractional amounts of these drugs.KNeuroleptic1 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)