Paranormality: Why we see what isn't there
Page 23
Science predicts that the stranger will be mightily impressed. That is, of course, unless they have also read this book.
Instant Anaesthetist
Chapter 2 delved deep into the science behind out-of-body experiences and discovered that these strange sensations provided a unique insight into how your brain figures out where ‘you’ are every moment of your waking life. Some of the research in this area has explored how your brain uses visual information to decide where ‘you’ are by conducting studies in which people feel as if a rubber hand, or even a tabletop, is part of them. This ‘anaesthetized finger’ demonstration is conceptually identical to these experiments. Ask a friend to extend their right index finger. Now, extend your left index finger and clasp your hands together so that your and your friend’s index fingers touch along their length (see the photograph below).
Next, ask your friend to use the thumb and first finger of their left hand to stroke along the sides of this ‘double finger’. Have them rub their left thumb along the front of their right index finger and their left index finger along the front of your left index finger. Something very strange will happen. Your friend will feel as if their left index finger has become completely numb.
Your friend’s brain sees what it believes to be their left index finger being stroked, but feels nothing, and decides that the finger must be numb. In addition to illustrating the innermost workings of the brain, this demonstration is great for chatting people up in bars.
The Suggestibility Test
Chapter 4 revealed how investigations into table-turning, the Ouija board and automatic writing led to the discovery of a form of unconscious movement known as ‘ideomotor action’. Suggestible people are especially prone to the ideomotor action and you can use the following exercise to assess your friend’s level of suggestibility.
Ask your friend to hold out their arms in front of them, ensuring that their arms are parallel to the ground and that both of their hands are face down and level. Now ask them to close their eyes while you read out the following paragraph, slowly and clearly:
I am going to take you through a simple visualization exercise. First of all, imagine a heavy stack of books being tied together with some thick string, and that the end of the string is attached to the fingers of your left hand. The books are hanging under your left hand and tugging down on your arm, pulling it towards the ground. Don’t consciously move your hands, but instead just listen to my voice and let the images flow through your mind. Imagine the weight of the books gently pulling your left arm towards the ground, feeling heavier and heavier as time goes on. Now imagine a balloon filled with helium and attached to a thin thread. The end of the thread is tied to the fingers of your right hand and is gently pulling your hand into the air. The books are dragging your left hand down towards the ground and the balloon is pulling your right hand towards the ceiling. Don’t consciously move your hands, but instead just listen to my voice and let the images flow through your mind. Your left hand being pulled down and your right hand being pulled up. Excellent. Now open your eyes and relax your arms.
Look at the position of your friend’s hands at the end of the exercise. The hands started at the same level. Has the left hand moved lower, and the right higher? If they are still level, or just a few inches apart, then the person is not especially suggestible. If the person’s hands have moved more than a couple of inches apart then they are the more suggestible type. In addition to assessing their level of suggestibility, the test will also reveal an insight into their character. Non-suggestible types tend to be more down-to-earth, logical, and enjoy puzzles and games. In contrast, suggestible types tend to have a good imagination, be sensitive, intuitive, and find it easier to become absorbed in books and films.
Me performing the suggestibility test
www.richardwiseman.com/paranormality/SuggestTest.html
Mind Over Matter
Chapter 3 investigated how those claiming to be able to move objects with the power of their mind reveal that you are only seeing a small fraction of what is actually taking place in front of your eyes. This important psychological principle is illustrated in the following two-part demonstration. All you need is a plastic straw, a plastic bottle and a table.
Seconds before you begin, secretly rub the straw on your clothing to ensure that it builds up a static charge. Next, carefully balance the straw horizontally across the top of a plastic bottle (see photograph).
Announce that you seem to have acquired some very odd paranormal powers, place your right hand about an inch away from one end of the straw, and rub your fingers together. The straw will magically rotate on the bottle top, moving towards your fingers.
For the second part of the performance, place the straw on a tabletop a few inches from the edge of the table. The straw needs to be lying on its side and parallel to your body. Once again, rub the tips of your fingers together as if you are trying to summon your latent powers. Now place your right hand on the tabletop a few inches beyond the straw (see the photograph below).
Next, tilt your head down slightly as you focus your attention on the straw. Slowly rub your fingers together and, at the same time, secretly blow towards the surface of the table. The air currents will travel along the table and move the straw.
Voilà, an instant miracle.
Using two different methods (static electricity and blowing) to obtain the same effect is an important principle in faking mind over matter. Similarly, during the second part of the demonstration, people’s attention is directed towards your fingers and away from your mouth, which also helps misdirect them away from the real source of the movement.
Me performing the straw demonstrations
www.richardwiseman.com/paranormality/PKdemo.html
The Ritual
Chapter 5 ventured deep into the spooky world of ghosts and hauntings, and discovered how things that go bump in the night are actually due to the psychology of suggestion, a heightened sense of fear causing hyper-vigilance, and the brain’s ‘Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device’. Many people would love to experience a ghost, and this demonstration will convince your friends that you have the power to summon the spirits.
Ask your friend to stand about half a metre in front of a large mirror. Next, place a candle or other dim light directly behind them, and then turn off the lights. After about a minute of them gazing at their reflection, they will start to experience a strange illusion. According to work conducted by Italian psychologist Giovanni Caputo,2 about 70 per cent of people will see their face become horribly distorted, with many eventually seeing it contort into the face of another person. According to folklore, the effect is enhanced if your friend chants the words ‘Bloody Mary’ 13 times. Although researchers are not sure what produces the weird effect, it seems to be due to the procedure preventing your brain ‘binding’ together the different features of your face into a single image.
Finish the demonstration by explaining that it is quite likely that the spirits will now follow them home and give them terrible nightmares for a week (especially effective if their hands were far apart during the suggestibility test).
Control Freak
Chapter 6 explored the world of mind control, revealing how remarkable displays of telepathy led to the discovery of muscle reading, and how the study of cult leaders revealed the power of persuasion. Starting a cult is probably not a very good idea. There are, however, a few fun ways in which you can appear to control your friend’s behaviour.
First, ask your friend to clasp their hands together but to keep the index fingers of each hand extended, with a gap of about an inch between the two fingertips (see photograph below).
Next, announce that you are going to use the power of your mind to make their fingers drift together. Ask your friend to try as hard as they can to keep their index fingers apart, but to imagine a fine thread being wrapped around the ends, and the loop slowly tightening. You might find it helpful to mime the wrapping and tightening of the thread
. After a few seconds your friend’s muscles will become fatigued and their fingers will slowly drift together.
Second, ask your friend to place their right hand flat on a tabletop. Their thumb and fingers should be spread out and flat on the table. Ask them to bend the second finger of their right hand inwards at the second joint and lay it against the table (see photograph).
Announce that you will use your mental abilities to prevent them lifting the third finger of their right hand off the table. Try as they might, your friend will not be able to move their third finger.
I hope that you enjoy demonstrating your newfound superpowers and will use them as a force for good.
Notes
Introduction
1
My experiment with Jaytee is described in: R. Wiseman, M. Smith, J. Milton (1998). ‘Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the “psychic pet” phenomenon.’ British Journal of Psychology, 89, 453–62.
Rupert Sheldrake has also conducted research with Jaytee and believes that the results provide evidence for psychic ability. This work is described in his book Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home. My response to these studies is available at www.richardwiseman.com/jaytee.
2
L. J. Chapman and J. P. Chapman (1967). ‘Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations’. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, pages 193–204.
3
D. A. Redelmeier and A. Tversky (1996). ‘On the belief that arthritis pain is related to the weather’. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 93, pages 2895–6.
1. FORTUNE-TELLING
1
Much of the information in this section is taken from:
M. J. Mooney (2009). ‘The Demystifying Adventures of the Amazing Randi’. SF Weekly News, August 26. (http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-08-26/news/the-demystifying-adventures-of-the-amazing-randi/1/)
2
For more information about this test, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/12/psychic-claims-james-randi-paranormal
3
Patricia Putt later complained about the conditions associated with the test. Her remarks, and my commentary on them, can be seen here:
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/patricia-putt-replies/
4
H. G. Boerenkamp (1988). A Study of Paranormal Impressions of Psychics. CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke, The Hague. This work was also published in a series of articles in the European Journal of Parapsychology from 1983 to 1987.
5
S. A. Schouten, (1994). ‘An overview of quantitatively evaluated studies with mediums and psychics’. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 88, pages 221–54.
6
C. A. Roe (1998). ‘Belief in the paranormal and attendance at psychic readings’. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 90, pages 25–51.
7
For more information about cold reading, see: I. Rowland (1998). The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading. Ian Rowland Limited, London.
8
For a review of this literature, see: D. G. Myers (2008). Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York.
9
A. H. Hastorf and H. Cantril (1954). ‘They Saw a Game: A Case Study’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, pages 129–34.
10
D. H. Naftulin, J. E. Ware and F. A. Donnelly (1973). ‘The Doctor Fox Lecture: A Paradigm of Educational Seduction’. Journal of Medical Education, 48, pages 630–5.
11
The Editors of Lingua Franca (2000). The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy. Bison Books, Lincoln, NE.
12
G. A. Dean, I. W. Kelly, D. H. Saklofske and A. Furnham (1992).
‘Graphology and human judgement’. In The Write Stuff (ed. B. Beyerstein and D. Beyerstein), pages 349–95. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
13
A. C. Little and D. I. Perrett (2007). ‘Using composite face images to assess accuracy in personality attribution’. British Journal of Psychology, 98, pages 111–26.
14
Figures reproduced with permission from The British Journal of Psychology © The British Psychological Society.
15
For more information about population stereotypes, see: D. Marks (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic (2nd Edition). Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
16
S. J. Blackmore (1997). ‘Probability misjudgment and belief in the paranormal: A newspaper survey’. British Journal of Psychology, 88, pages 683–9.
17
B. Jones (1989). King of the Cold Readers: Advanced professional pseudo-psychic techniques. Jeff Busby Magic Inc., Bakersfield, CA.
18
B. Couttie (1988). Forbidden Knowledge: The Paranormal Paradox. Lutterworth Press, Cambridge.
19
W. F. Chaplin, J. B. Phillips, J. D. Brown, N. R. Clanton and J. L. Stein (2000). ‘Handshaking, gender, personality and first impressions’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, pages 110–17.
2. OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCES
1
C. A. Alvarado (2000). ‘Out-of-body experiences’. In Varieties of anomalous experiences (ed. E. Cardeña, S. J. Lynn and S. Krippner), pages 183–218. American Psychological Association, Washington D.C.
2
G. Gabbard and S. Twemlow (1984). With the eyes of the mind. Praeger Scientific, New York.
3
For further information about Mumler, see: L. Kaplan (2008). The Strange Case of William Mumler, Spirit Photographer. University of Minnesota Press, MN.
4
For further information about photographing the soul see: H. Carrington and J. R. Meader (1912). Death, its Causes and Phenomena. Rider, London.
5
M. Willin (2007). Ghosts Caught on Film: Photographs of the Paranormal? David & Charles, Cincinnati.
6
D. MacDougall (1907). ‘Hypothesis concerning soul substance, together with experimental evidence of the existence of such substance’. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1, pages 237–44.
7
M. Roach (2003). Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. W. W. Norton, New York.
8
An account of the experiments carried out by Watters and Hopper can be found in:
S. J. Blackmore (1982). Beyond the Body: An Investigation into Out-of-the-Body Experiences. Paladin Grafton Books, London.
9
K. Clark (1984). ‘Clinical Interventions with Near-Death Experiencers.’ In The Near-Death Experience: Problems, Prospects, Perspectives (ed. B. Greyson and C. P. Flynn), pages 242–55. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
10
E. Hayden, S. Mulligan and B. L. Beyerstein (1996). ‘Maria’s NDE: Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop’. Skeptical Inquirer, 20(4), pages 27–33.
11
This questionnaire is based upon work described in: A. Tellegen and G. Atkinson (1974). ‘Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility’. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, pages 268–77.
12
K. Osis (1974). ‘Perspectives for out-of-body research’. In Research in Parapsychology (ed. W. G. Roll, R. L. Morris and J. D. Morris, 1973), pages 110–13.
13
J. Palmer and R. Lieberman (1975). ‘The influence of psychological set on ESP and out-of-body experiences’. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 69, pages 235–43.
J. Palmer and C. Vassar (1974). ‘ESP and out-of-body experiences: An exploratory study’. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 68, pages 257–80.
14
M. Botvinick and J. Cohen (1998). ‘Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see’. Nature, 391, page 756.
15
G. L. Moseley, et al. (2008). ‘Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial count
erpart’. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 105, pages 13169–73.
16
S. Blakeslee and V. S. Ramachandran (1998). Phantoms in the Brain: Human Nature and the Architecture of the Mind. William Morrow, New York.
K. C. Armel and V. S. Ramachandran (2003). ‘Projecting sensations to external objects: Evidence from skin conductance response’. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biological, 270, pages 1499–506.
17
V. S. Ramachandran and D. Rogers-Ramachandran (1996). ‘Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors’. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 263, pages 286–377.