Facebook. A place where people can connect and stay in touch. Or, a place where you can feel more important and active than you really are. Take Facebook's latest 'campaign':
Change your FB profile picture to a cartoon from your childhood. The goal? To not see a human face on FB until Monday, December 6th. Join the fight against child abuse.
This is followed by a plea to repost to your status. My question is: how does changing a picture fight against anything? Does this type of campaign ever actually DO anything? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...No.
In fact, campaigns that aim to raise awareness have long since been under the microscope for ineffectiveness and even fraud. Take for example Breast Cancer Awareness walks. For a rather interesting opinion, and some great facts, go onto Netflix and view Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t episode on Breasts. Turns out those Walks for the Cure end up making nearly no money to actually fund research, but just turn out to be a feel-good event. Not saying that this is a bad thing, because that support for survivors is very important, but if you want to actually do something, give a check directly to an organization that funds research or patient support.
Those who are changing their profile pictures are simply becoming Slacktivists. In an article on Neteffect.com posted last year, writer Evgeny Morozov defines slacktivism as 'an apt term to describe feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact. It give those who participate in 'slackivist' campaigns an illusion of having a meaningful impact on the world without demanding anything more than joining a Facebook group.'
Indeed, this type of 'type and go' social awareness does very little other than give the false idea that the poster is somehow doing good and plugged into the movement. Of course Facebook is an excellent marketing tool, and it used to inform masses of people on everything from the latest razor available from Gillette, to changing the face of political campaigns. But when it comes to slacktivism, it's effects are still largely unproven. Meaning there is absolutely no research or evidence that changing a FB profile picture is going to do anything. Other than annoy me and make me hide your posts until Monday.
In terms of the latest campaign, if you actually want to be effective and do something to help, how about a post like this?
HEY GUYS! You know that 'change your profile picture to raise child abuse awareness' thing going on? How about taking that few minutes and instead sending a couple dollars, literally just 5 bucks, to www.preventchildabuse.org or any prevention or support organization of your choice. Or even sign up to volunteer. Cuz at the end of the day, that five dollars is going to help a child a hell of a lot more than a stupid cartoon on your profile.
Actually giving people a way to participate rather than an 'out' is how to keep people connected and involved. Sure, go ahead and change your profile picture too. But think of how insulting it would be to a kid to say 'look at my cool cartoon! I support you!' and walk away while he's still stuck needing support. Yeah, doesn't look so supportive now does it?
At the end of the day, digital 'activism' doesn't get things done. Ethical Consumerism is going to destroy actual ethics, and a cartoon isn't going to help. As a friend on Twitter reposted this morning:
'I hate to point out the obvious, but how does changin your fb profile picture to a cartoon character stop (women) from hitting kids?'
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Paranormal Investigation & Human Subjects Experiments: Overlap (1)
If any of you know me, you know that for a long time I considered myself a paranormal investigator. I would wander around dark buildings with a flashlight and various bits of equipment to contact those souls on the other side. I actually had cases where I went into a person's home, gathered personal information about them, and experimented with techniques to contact the spirits of their passed on family members still haunting them.
If only I knew then what I know about the law and ethics now.
Which is why I'm writing this. I've recently been through a rigorous amount of informed consent and human subjects experiments training for my degree (and upcoming practicum with human subjects) and that has me thinking about paranormal investigation and asking the question: Is paranormal investigation considered experimentation? Are there humans involved? Is paranormal investigation ethical, or even legal?
When questions about waivers and consent come about, you will inevitably hear the words 'documents' and 'we have a lawyer' dropped by seemingly concerned team leaders. While that may mitigate some concern, I don't think it begins to address the question whether or not paranormal investigation is considered experimentation, and if it is, then it is subject to so much more than just a legal document that gets signed by a scared homeowner.
Because this is a very dense topic ,and there is a lot of support and citation involved in presenting my argument, I'm going to consider this a continuing series. In this article, I'm going to first address the definitions of human subjects experiments and the common field practices of paranormal investigations in order to support my idea:
Paranormal investigation is experimentation with LIVING human subjects and is therefore subject to all the legal stipulations and ethical guidelines that human subjects experimentations are.
To support this, I will first look at some common practices of paranormal investigators. This isn't a scientific, nor a complete, look at the 'field', but rather based on first-hand accounts as well as second-hand stories, observations from paranormal television shows, and other stories. I have been in the process of developing a survey for quite some time in order to empirically gather this type of data, so I would like to stress until such data is gathered and examined that this article series is merely an idea. It is not a hypothesis that has 100 percent empirical support. Yet, I would also argue that it would be rather hard to logically argue against it (I'm a little full of myself :) ). Second, I will briefly present some of the definitions of human subjects, experimentation and research as outlined by federal documents such as The Belmont Report (as well as provide links and information how to see such documents for yourself).
Many paranormal investigations begin with a homeowner contacting a paranormal team in need of help. Information presented by a team's website, for example, may claim that they are able to search for information to help explain the 'haunting' in the home. Many teams may offer cleansing services or referrals to those that perform them. The team usually delegates one or two members to do a pre-interview with the client either on the spot on the phone or at the client's home. At this time, name, contact information and more is gathered. In some cases, teams may ask the client for any pertinent medical information, such as medications, to rule in or out a physiological 'cause' of the paranormal disturbance.
Once the team 'approves' the case, an investigation is conducted. The team arrives, and as with the case of many teams, presents the homeowner with a legal form that they are to sign. This usually states something to the effect of 'if we break something, you can't sue us'. It protects the team members performing the investigation. Some forms may include a statement where the homeowner gives the team legal cause to be on the property.
Next the investigation begins. Members go throughout the property and collect data. Many EVP sessions may be conducted based on information given by the homeowner as to the history of the property or the 'ghost' said to be present. Video is taken. The inside of the home and many items belonging to the homeowner are documents on photograph or video. All of this data is collected and taken out of the home to be reviewed by team members.
Many teams divide up the work. Some members take audio/video home to analyze over the course of a few days. Once the 'evidence' is compiled, it is sometimes presented to the homeowner. Follow up interviews and investigations may be conducted. Referrals may be done. Comprehensive reports may be written and stored on someone's computer, a disk drive, or in a file. The case 'ends.'
Now, if my idea (above in bold) is accepted as true, then nearly every step of the above investigation is in human rights violation. If my premise is not true, even then some of the ethics of said technique are questionable. To help determine this, I will briefly outline some of these legal documents and considerations I mentioned earlier.
The Belmont Report, adopted by the US Government in 1979, outlines ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects for research. In the document (which may be viewed by clicking the name above), the following defintions are provided:
Practice: "refers to interventions that are designed solely to enhance the well-being of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success" (this is further outlined in the document as scientifically 'proven' success).
Research: "an activity designed to test a hypothesis, permit conclusions to be draw, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge....usually described in a formal protocol..."
In the above scenario, paranormal investigators may act out their cases as if the work they are doing is practice, when in fact there has been no scientficically 'proven' success for their protocols. That would leave the work they are doing defined as research (and does it pain me to even say this). Therefore, if they are performing research, they are bound to the principles outlined in The Belmont Report (and other documents).
But then the question arises, would this be considered research on the living client or the ghost? Of course some of the data being collected in an investigation is going to be determine the existence of a 'ghost', however, the majority of verifiable data collected by the team involves personal information about the living client who contacted the team with a problem. Ultimately, the team is intervening in order to help the living client. This would be a living human subject, from which you are collecting personal and identifiable data from. Title 45, Code 46 defines human subjects as:
"a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains 1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual or 2) identifiable private information."
What does this mean? It means that Paranormal investigation is then definable as research involving human subjects and therefore subject to the same laws and guidelines as other human subjects research.
In my next article on this series, I will go further into detail about the basic principles outlined in The Belmont Report and 45 CRF 46. These documents explain the duties of the investigator, the protections that are the right of the client/subject, and the need for external review boards to review every single investigation that is conducted.
If only I knew then what I know about the law and ethics now.
Which is why I'm writing this. I've recently been through a rigorous amount of informed consent and human subjects experiments training for my degree (and upcoming practicum with human subjects) and that has me thinking about paranormal investigation and asking the question: Is paranormal investigation considered experimentation? Are there humans involved? Is paranormal investigation ethical, or even legal?
When questions about waivers and consent come about, you will inevitably hear the words 'documents' and 'we have a lawyer' dropped by seemingly concerned team leaders. While that may mitigate some concern, I don't think it begins to address the question whether or not paranormal investigation is considered experimentation, and if it is, then it is subject to so much more than just a legal document that gets signed by a scared homeowner.
Because this is a very dense topic ,and there is a lot of support and citation involved in presenting my argument, I'm going to consider this a continuing series. In this article, I'm going to first address the definitions of human subjects experiments and the common field practices of paranormal investigations in order to support my idea:
Paranormal investigation is experimentation with LIVING human subjects and is therefore subject to all the legal stipulations and ethical guidelines that human subjects experimentations are.
To support this, I will first look at some common practices of paranormal investigators. This isn't a scientific, nor a complete, look at the 'field', but rather based on first-hand accounts as well as second-hand stories, observations from paranormal television shows, and other stories. I have been in the process of developing a survey for quite some time in order to empirically gather this type of data, so I would like to stress until such data is gathered and examined that this article series is merely an idea. It is not a hypothesis that has 100 percent empirical support. Yet, I would also argue that it would be rather hard to logically argue against it (I'm a little full of myself :) ). Second, I will briefly present some of the definitions of human subjects, experimentation and research as outlined by federal documents such as The Belmont Report (as well as provide links and information how to see such documents for yourself).
Many paranormal investigations begin with a homeowner contacting a paranormal team in need of help. Information presented by a team's website, for example, may claim that they are able to search for information to help explain the 'haunting' in the home. Many teams may offer cleansing services or referrals to those that perform them. The team usually delegates one or two members to do a pre-interview with the client either on the spot on the phone or at the client's home. At this time, name, contact information and more is gathered. In some cases, teams may ask the client for any pertinent medical information, such as medications, to rule in or out a physiological 'cause' of the paranormal disturbance.
Once the team 'approves' the case, an investigation is conducted. The team arrives, and as with the case of many teams, presents the homeowner with a legal form that they are to sign. This usually states something to the effect of 'if we break something, you can't sue us'. It protects the team members performing the investigation. Some forms may include a statement where the homeowner gives the team legal cause to be on the property.
Next the investigation begins. Members go throughout the property and collect data. Many EVP sessions may be conducted based on information given by the homeowner as to the history of the property or the 'ghost' said to be present. Video is taken. The inside of the home and many items belonging to the homeowner are documents on photograph or video. All of this data is collected and taken out of the home to be reviewed by team members.
Many teams divide up the work. Some members take audio/video home to analyze over the course of a few days. Once the 'evidence' is compiled, it is sometimes presented to the homeowner. Follow up interviews and investigations may be conducted. Referrals may be done. Comprehensive reports may be written and stored on someone's computer, a disk drive, or in a file. The case 'ends.'
Now, if my idea (above in bold) is accepted as true, then nearly every step of the above investigation is in human rights violation. If my premise is not true, even then some of the ethics of said technique are questionable. To help determine this, I will briefly outline some of these legal documents and considerations I mentioned earlier.
The Belmont Report, adopted by the US Government in 1979, outlines ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects for research. In the document (which may be viewed by clicking the name above), the following defintions are provided:
Practice: "refers to interventions that are designed solely to enhance the well-being of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success" (this is further outlined in the document as scientifically 'proven' success).
Research: "an activity designed to test a hypothesis, permit conclusions to be draw, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge....usually described in a formal protocol..."
In the above scenario, paranormal investigators may act out their cases as if the work they are doing is practice, when in fact there has been no scientficically 'proven' success for their protocols. That would leave the work they are doing defined as research (and does it pain me to even say this). Therefore, if they are performing research, they are bound to the principles outlined in The Belmont Report (and other documents).
But then the question arises, would this be considered research on the living client or the ghost? Of course some of the data being collected in an investigation is going to be determine the existence of a 'ghost', however, the majority of verifiable data collected by the team involves personal information about the living client who contacted the team with a problem. Ultimately, the team is intervening in order to help the living client. This would be a living human subject, from which you are collecting personal and identifiable data from. Title 45, Code 46 defines human subjects as:
"a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains 1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual or 2) identifiable private information."
What does this mean? It means that Paranormal investigation is then definable as research involving human subjects and therefore subject to the same laws and guidelines as other human subjects research.
In my next article on this series, I will go further into detail about the basic principles outlined in The Belmont Report and 45 CRF 46. These documents explain the duties of the investigator, the protections that are the right of the client/subject, and the need for external review boards to review every single investigation that is conducted.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Book Review 'Sway"
I'm a fan of pop-psychology books. Why? They are easy to understand and yet keep me thinking. I love to read these types of books while at work (I'm a telefundraiser at an outbound call center) or on the bus or on trips. They don't require a lot of critical thinking or focus to get the gist of the material.
Sway is really no different.
These types of books are made for anyone who thinks the title is interesting to be able to pick it up and get a basic understanding of some very complex ideas. In Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior, the authors, who are brothers, take a look at basically why people do things that don't make sense. While the book is billed as looking at things from a psychological point of view, as always the blatanly obvious use of behavior analytic concepts is ignored, that is until at least half-way through the book.
Perhaps it's because I'm a graduate student and I read much more academic and challenging texts on these subject matters quite frequently, but I was not expecting to be impressed by this book. The last pop-psych book I read left a bad taste in my mouth. That being said, I felt like Sway was a fairly decent book. It wasn't easy and full of unsupported examples (like the amazingly popular Freakanomics by Levitt and Dubner), but rather it eases a novice reader in with some clear examples that are very well supported by psychological concepts and critical thinking. About halfway through the book even I was required to put my thinking cap on to better digest the premise laid forth by the authors (one of whom is a PhD in psychology and the other an MBA). And while I felt they did a decent job, as far as pop-psych books go, I still feel that the focus on illuminating the 'hidden psychological factors' behind motivation and illogical behavior was something to be desired.
Then again, I'm a behaviorist, and we are a fickle type of 'psychologist'. If we can't see it or record it, it doesn't matter. We're all about what signals someone to behave, how they behave, and why they either continue or discontinue to behave, and the data to back it up.
So, if you are in either field, Sway is an interesting read. If you aren't, but are interested in why people do stuff that doesn't make sense, Sway will definetly make you think. I'd recommend picking up a copy either way.
Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior by Ori and Rom Brafman, was published by Broadway Books, New York, in 2008. It is available at bookstores in paperback, including Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com.
Sway is really no different.
These types of books are made for anyone who thinks the title is interesting to be able to pick it up and get a basic understanding of some very complex ideas. In Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior, the authors, who are brothers, take a look at basically why people do things that don't make sense. While the book is billed as looking at things from a psychological point of view, as always the blatanly obvious use of behavior analytic concepts is ignored, that is until at least half-way through the book.
Perhaps it's because I'm a graduate student and I read much more academic and challenging texts on these subject matters quite frequently, but I was not expecting to be impressed by this book. The last pop-psych book I read left a bad taste in my mouth. That being said, I felt like Sway was a fairly decent book. It wasn't easy and full of unsupported examples (like the amazingly popular Freakanomics by Levitt and Dubner), but rather it eases a novice reader in with some clear examples that are very well supported by psychological concepts and critical thinking. About halfway through the book even I was required to put my thinking cap on to better digest the premise laid forth by the authors (one of whom is a PhD in psychology and the other an MBA). And while I felt they did a decent job, as far as pop-psych books go, I still feel that the focus on illuminating the 'hidden psychological factors' behind motivation and illogical behavior was something to be desired.
Then again, I'm a behaviorist, and we are a fickle type of 'psychologist'. If we can't see it or record it, it doesn't matter. We're all about what signals someone to behave, how they behave, and why they either continue or discontinue to behave, and the data to back it up.
So, if you are in either field, Sway is an interesting read. If you aren't, but are interested in why people do stuff that doesn't make sense, Sway will definetly make you think. I'd recommend picking up a copy either way.
Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior by Ori and Rom Brafman, was published by Broadway Books, New York, in 2008. It is available at bookstores in paperback, including Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Seeing God May Cost You More Than Money
Reading over my current issue of Psychology Today while curled up in bed with my dog, I found the back section where the ads are. Despite the on-line 'transpersonal' psychology degree offerings, I found a rather interesting ad under the title of SELF IMPROVEMENT:
"GOD HELMET" TECHNOLOGY (as seen on PBS)
Available to the public at long last
www.spiritualbrain.com
With an eyeroll and a sigh, I got up, went to my desk, and typed in the URL. I had heard about the 'God Helmet' only in references to poorly-executed paranormal investigations (cough cough Paranormal State cough cough), and my knowledge of it was very limited.
Todd Murphy is a behavioral neuroscientists who works closely with Dr. Michael Persinger, who created the 'God Helmet' in the 1980's. Now, when I first heard what Murphy specialized in, I became giddy--he and I are of a similar cloth. However, that is where the similarities end. See, for someone who has had countless hours of education and training, Todd Murphy believes in psychic phenomena.
On the website, the SHAKTI helment is being sold as "spiritual technology for altered states, meditation enhancement and mood enhancement." The helmet 'work's by delievering magnetic fields to the brain to open up the user to altered states of consciousness. And here I thought it would be easier, and perhaps cheaper, just to score some LSD.
Now there are several different forms of the SHAKTI that are recommended by the manufacterer to enhance specific needs (spiritual, psychic, etc). The only one 'available to the public' is the Shiva for 'God Helmet' sessions.
Now, I suggest reading this link for the details on the helment, but I'll sum it up here. Basically, this helmet is worn on the head of the user and magnetic pulses are delivered in specific orders to certain parts of the brain to elict certain stages of consciousness. There are 4 'phases', each of which lasts 20-30 minutes. Also, complete sensory deprivation is required during the session.
For only 649$ in US currency, you too can order a SHAKTI helmet. Of course, there are a list of warnings, but if you purchase the item you can simply use it in your own home, there is no medical doctor to assist you or monitor you for any ill effects during it's use. There are safety rules as well, such as only using once a week, and after 6 weeks you need a 3-week break. My question is...why? Is it because these fields can have damaging effect to your brain?
But more interestingly, does this even work? Does SHAKTI help one to self-improve?
The literature from the website does not make it clear, but Dr. Persinger himself was quoted as saying only about 20 subjects have reported seeing God (less than 1 percent). Many of the articles written on the SHAKTI (click here) seem to be related to paranormal activity, one about creating a 'synthetic ghost' is rather interesting. However, after much persuing of the website, I fail to see what self-improving function the SHAKTI is said to have. If there is a probability to see God, or more likely a ghost, is that considered self-improving?
After some searching around, I found the mystic connection to SHAKTI. Apparently, it manipulates the brain into a stage where mystical experiences happen. Let me explain. The website claims that "mystic experiences seem to begin with very negative experiences, ones that inspire the most unpleasant emotions: especially fear and despair." The amygdala is the part of the brain that deals with fear and anxiety and it is manipulated during the session. One side is good feelings, the other bad. During the session, the sides are stimulated alternately. This design was based on the work of Buddah, Jesus and St. Teresa. Oh if only I were joking. Other phases during a SHAKTI session include stimulation of the hippocampus, which is responsible for cognition.
Basically, what it sounds like to me, is that the SHAKTI stimulates and manipulates your brain, putting you in a highly emotional state, and then messes with the way you think. This results in self improvement? Actually, with the long list of warnings and potential side effects (including aggression, seizures, and worsening of psychological disorders), it sounds more like a detriment.
Not all consumers are a discerning as they should be. One who sees this ad and thinks that self-improvement and actualization is as easy as putting some electrodes on your head, because after all it's designed by a doctor, is going to be sorely disappointed, if not hurt.
So I'll post this commentary and perhaps turn the page of the magazine. There is an interesting article about Introverts...
"GOD HELMET" TECHNOLOGY (as seen on PBS)
Available to the public at long last
www.spiritualbrain.com
With an eyeroll and a sigh, I got up, went to my desk, and typed in the URL. I had heard about the 'God Helmet' only in references to poorly-executed paranormal investigations (cough cough Paranormal State cough cough), and my knowledge of it was very limited.
Todd Murphy is a behavioral neuroscientists who works closely with Dr. Michael Persinger, who created the 'God Helmet' in the 1980's. Now, when I first heard what Murphy specialized in, I became giddy--he and I are of a similar cloth. However, that is where the similarities end. See, for someone who has had countless hours of education and training, Todd Murphy believes in psychic phenomena.
On the website, the SHAKTI helment is being sold as "spiritual technology for altered states, meditation enhancement and mood enhancement." The helmet 'work's by delievering magnetic fields to the brain to open up the user to altered states of consciousness. And here I thought it would be easier, and perhaps cheaper, just to score some LSD.
Now there are several different forms of the SHAKTI that are recommended by the manufacterer to enhance specific needs (spiritual, psychic, etc). The only one 'available to the public' is the Shiva for 'God Helmet' sessions.
Now, I suggest reading this link for the details on the helment, but I'll sum it up here. Basically, this helmet is worn on the head of the user and magnetic pulses are delivered in specific orders to certain parts of the brain to elict certain stages of consciousness. There are 4 'phases', each of which lasts 20-30 minutes. Also, complete sensory deprivation is required during the session.
For only 649$ in US currency, you too can order a SHAKTI helmet. Of course, there are a list of warnings, but if you purchase the item you can simply use it in your own home, there is no medical doctor to assist you or monitor you for any ill effects during it's use. There are safety rules as well, such as only using once a week, and after 6 weeks you need a 3-week break. My question is...why? Is it because these fields can have damaging effect to your brain?
But more interestingly, does this even work? Does SHAKTI help one to self-improve?
The literature from the website does not make it clear, but Dr. Persinger himself was quoted as saying only about 20 subjects have reported seeing God (less than 1 percent). Many of the articles written on the SHAKTI (click here) seem to be related to paranormal activity, one about creating a 'synthetic ghost' is rather interesting. However, after much persuing of the website, I fail to see what self-improving function the SHAKTI is said to have. If there is a probability to see God, or more likely a ghost, is that considered self-improving?
After some searching around, I found the mystic connection to SHAKTI. Apparently, it manipulates the brain into a stage where mystical experiences happen. Let me explain. The website claims that "mystic experiences seem to begin with very negative experiences, ones that inspire the most unpleasant emotions: especially fear and despair." The amygdala is the part of the brain that deals with fear and anxiety and it is manipulated during the session. One side is good feelings, the other bad. During the session, the sides are stimulated alternately. This design was based on the work of Buddah, Jesus and St. Teresa. Oh if only I were joking. Other phases during a SHAKTI session include stimulation of the hippocampus, which is responsible for cognition.
Basically, what it sounds like to me, is that the SHAKTI stimulates and manipulates your brain, putting you in a highly emotional state, and then messes with the way you think. This results in self improvement? Actually, with the long list of warnings and potential side effects (including aggression, seizures, and worsening of psychological disorders), it sounds more like a detriment.
Not all consumers are a discerning as they should be. One who sees this ad and thinks that self-improvement and actualization is as easy as putting some electrodes on your head, because after all it's designed by a doctor, is going to be sorely disappointed, if not hurt.
So I'll post this commentary and perhaps turn the page of the magazine. There is an interesting article about Introverts...
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Science and Psi...do they mix?
Late last night (or perhaps early this morning) I tweeted a link to a recent blog post on Psychology Today. The article title, by Dr. Melissa Burkley, was what caught my eye.
"Have Scientists Finally Discovered Evidence for Psychic Phenomena?!"
Dr. Burkley presents a commentary on a series of studies conducted by Dr. Bem of Cornell University (the article has yet to be published, my guess is that Burkley got a hold of a review copy, a common practice). Burkley summarizes that across nine experiments, Bem examines what is commonly known as 'psi' phenomena. According to the blog, the study is much more elaborate than me playing with my Zener Card smartphone app. The novelty of Bem's approach is what made me raise my eyebrows. "..Bem's studies are unique in that they represent standard scientific methods and rely on well-established principles in psychology. Essentially, he took effects that are considered valid and reliable in psychology...and simply reverse their chronological order," the blog states.
To catch some of you up to speed, let's go over some of the basic terms. The Parapsychological Association defines psi phenomena as an adjective to identify paranormal processes and paranormal causation. To break this definition down even further, the term 'paranormal' just refers to experience that lie just outside the range of scientific explanation. Famed parapsychologists the world over claim to examine psi phenomena in laboratory settings, and there is even a journal in which studies are published for peer review (The Journal of Parapsychology). In fact, a trip through the archives of the Journal reveal several articles by Dr. Bem.
One thing that did strike me as interesting is that Bem takes well-researched principles and examines them in relation to parapsychology. One example was how Bem tested a reversal of the priming effect. The priming effect is a perceptual memory effect where exposure to one item (or stimulus) will 'prime' one's influence to the following stimulus. Below is an example of the priming effect:
Today I went to th grocery store and buogt a atermelon.
As a child, we are exposed to words. We sound them out, learn the grammar rules of the language we are taught, and eventually get to the point where we can recognize words, or even parts of words, simply by seeing them. So when spelling mistakes or letter omissions are present, we 'fill in the gaps.' So if you read 'Today I went to the store and bought a watermelon,' it is because previous exposure to these words have primed you to identify similar words in the same way. This relates heavily in the 'paranormal' and parapsychology fields, for much of the research into paranormal experiences has been labeled as instances of paradeoila, which is a sensory extention of the priming effect (an older, but still interesting article by Michael Shermer can be found here).
What Bem did in his study is examine the priming effect in reverse. Priming studies will expose a subject to a stimulus and ask the subject to label the stimulus (label options are often limited in both options and time for selection). Over the course of the study, the interresponse time between exposure to the stimulus and labeling of the stimulus (which is usually an adjective) decreases, theoretically because the subject has been 'primed'. This priming is futher tested by flashing images almost too fast to 'comprehend', yet the subjects can still respond with the same labels. Bem took the latter part of this process and reversed it, by flashing the label first, then the stimulus (a picture). Reportedly, subjects would categorize the photo and 'know' what word was coming next.
However, many of these psychological principles work the way they do because the order in which things happen. A stimulus occasions behavior, while the consequence reinforces or punishes it. This basic relationship, while not the one looked at in this study, shows that one follows the other for a reason. Perhaps, by reversing the order of the current psychological principles, Bem negated them. And with each experiment averaging 100-150 subjects, a statistical significance of 51percent, this has been averaged out, which obscures individual data. When testing something as sensitive and 'rare' as psi phenomena, wouldn't individual data be of paramount interest?
While this paper certainly poses more questions than answers, Bem seems to believe that it does suggest an efficacy in his methodology and the ability to scientifically test psi phenomena in a laboratory setting. Of this I'm not entirely sure, but I do know one thing...further study is warranted.
Psychology Today Blog Article
"Have Scientists Finally Discovered Evidence for Psychic Phenomena?!"
Dr. Burkley presents a commentary on a series of studies conducted by Dr. Bem of Cornell University (the article has yet to be published, my guess is that Burkley got a hold of a review copy, a common practice). Burkley summarizes that across nine experiments, Bem examines what is commonly known as 'psi' phenomena. According to the blog, the study is much more elaborate than me playing with my Zener Card smartphone app. The novelty of Bem's approach is what made me raise my eyebrows. "..Bem's studies are unique in that they represent standard scientific methods and rely on well-established principles in psychology. Essentially, he took effects that are considered valid and reliable in psychology...and simply reverse their chronological order," the blog states.
To catch some of you up to speed, let's go over some of the basic terms. The Parapsychological Association defines psi phenomena as an adjective to identify paranormal processes and paranormal causation. To break this definition down even further, the term 'paranormal' just refers to experience that lie just outside the range of scientific explanation. Famed parapsychologists the world over claim to examine psi phenomena in laboratory settings, and there is even a journal in which studies are published for peer review (The Journal of Parapsychology). In fact, a trip through the archives of the Journal reveal several articles by Dr. Bem.
So in taking a break from both reading the latest Brad Steiger book and reading articles for an upcoming literature review on the efficacy of metacontingency in the field of behavior analysis, I decided to find an advanced copy of Dr. Bem's 61-page study and take a gander at it for myself. Could more famous last-words be blogged?
CLICK HERE to read it for yourself.
Bem took four standard psychological effects: approach/avoidance, affectiving priming, habitutation, and facilitation of recall, and broke them into a total of nine reversal experiments. Some of the sweeping results that caught my eye were that 8 of the 9 experiments reported occurences of what was later deemed 'psi' phenmonena 'statistically above chance'. With chance being 50percent, most of these 'above chance' measurements were between 51-52percent.
Also, in the precognition detection trials, previous research indicating that self-reported extroverts scored higher in psi phenomena experiments was 'supported' by the data in the current study. I also found myself a bit lost with the overly statistical presentation of the data (then again, I'm not yet versed in statistics as applied to psychology).
One thing that did strike me as interesting is that Bem takes well-researched principles and examines them in relation to parapsychology. One example was how Bem tested a reversal of the priming effect. The priming effect is a perceptual memory effect where exposure to one item (or stimulus) will 'prime' one's influence to the following stimulus. Below is an example of the priming effect:
Today I went to th grocery store and buogt a atermelon.
As a child, we are exposed to words. We sound them out, learn the grammar rules of the language we are taught, and eventually get to the point where we can recognize words, or even parts of words, simply by seeing them. So when spelling mistakes or letter omissions are present, we 'fill in the gaps.' So if you read 'Today I went to the store and bought a watermelon,' it is because previous exposure to these words have primed you to identify similar words in the same way. This relates heavily in the 'paranormal' and parapsychology fields, for much of the research into paranormal experiences has been labeled as instances of paradeoila, which is a sensory extention of the priming effect (an older, but still interesting article by Michael Shermer can be found here).
What Bem did in his study is examine the priming effect in reverse. Priming studies will expose a subject to a stimulus and ask the subject to label the stimulus (label options are often limited in both options and time for selection). Over the course of the study, the interresponse time between exposure to the stimulus and labeling of the stimulus (which is usually an adjective) decreases, theoretically because the subject has been 'primed'. This priming is futher tested by flashing images almost too fast to 'comprehend', yet the subjects can still respond with the same labels. Bem took the latter part of this process and reversed it, by flashing the label first, then the stimulus (a picture). Reportedly, subjects would categorize the photo and 'know' what word was coming next.
However, many of these psychological principles work the way they do because the order in which things happen. A stimulus occasions behavior, while the consequence reinforces or punishes it. This basic relationship, while not the one looked at in this study, shows that one follows the other for a reason. Perhaps, by reversing the order of the current psychological principles, Bem negated them. And with each experiment averaging 100-150 subjects, a statistical significance of 51percent, this has been averaged out, which obscures individual data. When testing something as sensitive and 'rare' as psi phenomena, wouldn't individual data be of paramount interest?
While this paper certainly poses more questions than answers, Bem seems to believe that it does suggest an efficacy in his methodology and the ability to scientifically test psi phenomena in a laboratory setting. Of this I'm not entirely sure, but I do know one thing...further study is warranted.
Psychology Today Blog Article
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Magicial Thinking...Works?
Magical 'thinking' is a form of supersitious behavior, which is a behavior that is learned and sporadically reinforced...and even that contingency relation is questionable. Yet magical thinking is a strong force in our culture. When a football player wears the same pair of socks during every game, because last season he wore them when the team one an important game, he is engaging in magical thinking. A child blowing out birthday cake candles and making a wish, and his father carrying a rabbit's foot in his pocket for luck are also behaving in a similar manner: they made the connectiong between a reinforcer and the behavior. Hence, the supersition is born.
In a recent study published by the University of Cologne researchers wanted to examine the consequences and potential benefits of superstitious behavior. The study looked to demonstrate performance benefits of superstitions, in addition to attempting to identify the psychological mechanisms underlying the superstitions of the subjects.
The study showed that good-luck superstitions, activated with a common saying or action (such as 'break a leg') improved performance in a variety of tasks, including motor dexterity and memory. They also reported that these benefits were produced by changes in self-efficacy, or how the subjects percieved themselves, their goals and their abilities. It also found "increased task persistence consitutes one means by which self-efficacy, enhanced by superstition, improves performance."
So what does this even mean? The latest online issue of Scientific American MIND says not much:
"The influence of the charm depends crucially on your belief in its inherent powers. Once you acknowledge that performance is a functions of what goes on in your brain rather than a product of any mystical properties of the object itself, it becomes useless. That feeling of "I can do this" will wither away as soon as you realize that nothing external, nothing mystical, will influence how you perform--it's just you and your abilities."
Is this going to stop even the logical from participating in these behaviors? I doubt it. I myself carry out specific rituals based on superstition. When I drive through a yellow light, I kiss my fingertips and touch them to the roof of my car. Why? It's a habit, I know I'm not thanking a non-existent angel for guiding me safetly through the yellow light. But I continue to do so. So perhaps the 'underlying motivation' of superstitious behavior is more complex than simply believing in the object or the action.
Sources:
Scientific American MIND article
Abstract for Study
In a recent study published by the University of Cologne researchers wanted to examine the consequences and potential benefits of superstitious behavior. The study looked to demonstrate performance benefits of superstitions, in addition to attempting to identify the psychological mechanisms underlying the superstitions of the subjects.
The study showed that good-luck superstitions, activated with a common saying or action (such as 'break a leg') improved performance in a variety of tasks, including motor dexterity and memory. They also reported that these benefits were produced by changes in self-efficacy, or how the subjects percieved themselves, their goals and their abilities. It also found "increased task persistence consitutes one means by which self-efficacy, enhanced by superstition, improves performance."
So what does this even mean? The latest online issue of Scientific American MIND says not much:
"The influence of the charm depends crucially on your belief in its inherent powers. Once you acknowledge that performance is a functions of what goes on in your brain rather than a product of any mystical properties of the object itself, it becomes useless. That feeling of "I can do this" will wither away as soon as you realize that nothing external, nothing mystical, will influence how you perform--it's just you and your abilities."
Is this going to stop even the logical from participating in these behaviors? I doubt it. I myself carry out specific rituals based on superstition. When I drive through a yellow light, I kiss my fingertips and touch them to the roof of my car. Why? It's a habit, I know I'm not thanking a non-existent angel for guiding me safetly through the yellow light. But I continue to do so. So perhaps the 'underlying motivation' of superstitious behavior is more complex than simply believing in the object or the action.
Sources:
Scientific American MIND article
Abstract for Study
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)