James Carpenter, Ph.D., is a psychologist and a parapsychologist; the second characterization should give you pause, since about 90% of parapsychologists believe in ESP, precognition, and other forms of woo. Sure enough, Carpenter pushes these ideas in a new post at HuffPo: “Not second sight, but first sight.”
Here is his theory, which is his:
Parts of this theory are familiar. Research has told us that brain events stand behind every thought we think and lead to them. And we have learned that many implicit psychological processes precede our experiences too, processes like subliminal sensations, stored memories and long-term values. These things aren’t conscious in themselves, but the unconscious mind uses them to help lead to whatever we do become conscious of.
That’s not a part of Carpenter’s theory; it’s simply the working assumption, supported by a lot of data, of all reputable neuroscientists.
Here’s the woo-ey part, which Carpenter is flogging in a new book (I won’t mention it here):
A difference about this theory, called “First Sight,” is that it assumes that a much bigger domain of unconscious information stands behind experience. This includes things that are beyond the reach of our senses — it includes the extrasensory. And it assumes that this reference to extrasensory information is not rare, but that it is continual.
First Sight brings in what is popularly called the “paranormal.” It is different from previous ways of thinking about the paranormal in that it shows that our use of extrasensory information is actually normal and helpful, although unconscious. No “para” is needed anymore. This theory leads us to an expanded idea of our normal psychology.
. . . It also shows that our unconscious use of non-local information is essentially continuous with how we use other kinds of implicit information. ESP, memory, subliminal perception, implicit physiological responses to emotional events and many other things all follow the same tacit rules. No need for “para.”
The “new” part of his theory is a distinction without a difference. Simply saying that ESP is “normal” doesn’t make it something with either a known mechanistic basis or solid evidence behind it (there isn’t any). One might as well say that because God’s intervention in the world is an everyday occurrence (many Sophisticated Theologians™ believe this), there’s no need for the “super” in “supernatural.”
Here’s more of Carpenter’s “theory”:
My major thesis is that psychic abilities such as ESP — long considered to occur only in “gifted” individuals or on rare traumatic occasions — are, in fact, ongoing subconscious processes that continuously influence all of us in making everyday decisions. As the model’s name implies, these common abilities should not be regarded as an incidental “second sight” but as a critical “first sight,” an immediate initial contact with information not otherwise presented to our known senses. And just as we are not typically aware of other subliminal or incidental stimuli that impinge upon us and influence us in myriad ways, so too we typically remain unaware of this extrasensory information and its influence. Subliminal primes lead us to experience related things more quickly and more emotionally than we otherwise would. Psi information does the same.
This is not new, either: parapsychology researchers have long differed in how they view ESP and precognition: some think that only special individuals have it; others that it’s present in all individuals (though sometimes to varying degrees). Carpenter’s theory is simply the same old discredited woo recycled by changing a few words.
As support for Carpenter’s “theory” of ESP, he cites the “precognition” study of Daryl Bem (reference below) apparently unaware that Bem’s study has repeatedly failed to be replicated (see also here), and is now in disrepute.
And of course HuffPo is also in disrepute; were I the editor of the “science” section of that site, I’d be furious, for in one place HuffPo purports to push good science and debunk antiscientific nonsense (see, for instance, Cara Santa Maria’s nice anti-woo video series “Talk Nerdy to Me“), while on the other it claims that debunked parapsychology is “solid science”. (I’ll drop a line to Santa Maria and let her know of this journalistic dissonance).
I’m currently reading Nick Humphrey’s 1996 book on why people believe supernatural phenomena (reference below). In it, Humphrey makes no real distinction between religious belief on the one hand and belief in paranormal phenomena on the other. Indeed, they show many similarities. In both cases belief stems from a combination of personal experience, second-hand information and a priori reasoning, and in both cases people continue to believe in the supernatural (or paranormal) after hearing solid evidence to the contrary. Further, in both cases the advocacy of supernatural woo is combined with a denigration of science itself, and the claim that scientists are both blind to real supernatural phenomena and committed to ignoring non-materialistic claims. (I have very often encountered attacks on the “limitations of science” in my last year of reading theology.)
Two other parallels: most Americans believe in paranomal phenomena like ESP, though they haven’t had a paranomal experience themselves (same with religion and personal revelation), and both paranormal and religious claims are accorded an unwarranted “deference,” as if the acceptance of supernatural claims deserves some kind of respect. (I’m not sure why that is; it could have to do either with the fact that it’s a majority view or with the notion that we shouldn’t criticize the possibility of “higher powers”).
At any rate, I hope that Santa Maria or someone like her will go after ESP on the HuffPo’s pages. How delicious to see claims in one part of that blog refuted in another! Their whole mission of promoting good science (or so the editor told me) is completely undermined by the religious nonsense and woo pushed in other parts of the site.
____________
Bem, D. 2011. Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 407-425.
Humphrey, Nicholas. 1996. Leaps of faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation. Basic Books, New York.
But everyone knows that ESP stems from an awareness of the uncreated consciousness, the white screen on which the movie of our conscious thoughts is projected!
/@
Exactly! You can’t have sensory perception without extra-sensory perception, since they are opposite ends of a spectrum, like hot and cold!
At last, you guys are starting to get it!!
My guess is that it has to do with the fact that both depend strongly on subjective experience and personal testimony. To doubt the reality of such experience is then perceived as a personal attack: the claimant must be either crazy or lying.
The third and most likely possibility — that the claimant is truthfully relating their genuine experience of what turns out to be a kind of cognitive illusion — seems to be hard for many people to grasp. It’s difficult to get that point across without offending people.
I think you pretty much nailed the problem here. Since most people are not aware of the strange stuff that can happen with human perception, memory, etc, the first assumption when someone criticizes a claim of some, perceived, paranormal experience, is that the criticism is a indeed a personal attack. Add to that the human tendency to put a lot of trust into personal anecdotes and you’re pretty much there.
Leading the criticism with an explanation of a specific cognitive effect that may apply to the experience might help, but I guess in most cases even that won’t mitigate the perceived personal attack.
PS: I think it’s not only the HuffPo that is suffering from a severe case of journalistic dissonance, there might even be some sort of epidemic going on…someone should look into that.
Yes. And the concept of a person’s “word”, their “honor”, is a major component of most cultures. A person’s standing in their community is dependent on how “honorable” other people think they are, how good their “word” is. If you don’t believe a person, if you suggest that their claim needs to be investigated and verified before accepting it, you are, a priori, insulting them, telling everyone that the claimants “word” is no good and that their “honor” is questionable.
In general the concepts of a person’s word, and or honor, provides some benefits for society, but there are obviously problems. Some of which have directly contributed to the worst behaviors throughout history.
There’s an even more likely possibility: simple confirmation bias.
When was the last time you were thinking of somebody, the phone rang, and it was that person? OMFG! You’re telepathetic!
…never mind, of course, all the times you thought of that person and the phone didn’t ring, or the times you thought of that person and it was a day until the phone rang, or the phone rang and it was somebody else, etc., etc., etc.
So, anyway, you’ve had your own fleeting experience with ESP, and so it’s totally believable to you that somebody else with a bit more talent / skill / whatever can do it better than you can. After all, you can’t sing, but you don’t sound too miserable in the shower, and you know (of) lots of people who’re great singers — so why shouldn’t ESP be just like that?
Cheers,
b&
Sure, that covers spooky coincidences and things of that nature. But not all “paranormal” experiences fall into that category. OBEs and NDEs, for instance, can be powerfully moving, even transformative experiences, and for that very reason people are reluctant to accept that they didn’t “really” happen, or mean what they seemed to mean.
Not for a critical thinker, they don’t. But they’re sold and accepted as a package deal. Knowing that Aunt Sally is about to make the phone ring is the same sort of thing as astrally projecting yourself to her is the same sort of thing as seeing her as they’re cracking your chest open on the table in the ER is the same thing as her gracing you with her presence at her funeral.
That’s not to discount the emotional impact of these sorts of things, of course; the two play into each other. You really did feel something at Aunt Sally’s funeral, and that meant something to you, and your Uncle Bob’s experience of feeling water when he picks up the dowsing rods is no different, so dowsing must be just as real as guardian angels — and so you have every bit as much of an emotional attachment to both.
…and then the cognitive dissonance kicks in….
b&
The third and most likely possibility — that the claimant is truthfully relating their genuine experience of what turns out to be a kind of cognitive illusion — seems to be hard for many people to grasp.
Well, when the claimant, like Carpenter, has degrees and a career in psychology, one would hope that they have some notion of the pitfalls of cognitive illusions, as well as an understanding of proper experimental controls and data analysis. One is often disappointed.
The Monty Python clip nailed the first quotation from Carpenter *applauds*
Did you also know that the Loch Ness Monster actually exists, so we can now study it in zoology & not cryptozoology?
If there is such a thing as ESP, then where is the organ that receives it? We need eyes to see, ears to hear, a nose to smell, etc. All are connected to the brain by special nerves. There is no similar anatomical structure for ESP. How could that be? But wait, that’s why it’s called Extra Sensory: because we have no sense organ for it. Makes sense, doesn’t it? ESP is receiving undetectable signals with undetectable organs.
Christianity pretends it is using ‘reason’ along with faith, and woo pretends it is using ‘science’ along with guessing. The respectability of reason and science is used as vehicles to transport the garbage. Once on the ride, it becomes a challenge to get off.
Carpenter himself refers to first sight as an assumption. Actually it is the other way around, there is no need for ‘para’–its superfluous sludge. He first needs to give evidence for this realm before he can extrapolate our mental abilities like pattern recognition and implicit learning onto it. Evolution have given us these to interface with the natural environment.
‘as a vehicle’
How embarrassing that a psychologist is spouting such nonsense. Bem used to be big in gender research, and I’m appalled to find him in the shallows.
A study of psychology and philosophy shows us that individual perception, is just that! It is influenced by culture, family and personality. We learn not to take ourselves seriously and find external ways of checking. And then with the study of hypnosis, we know that hypnotisability is also along a continuum. I know I’m a high hynotisable, so triple check all sorts of things. And then we have coincidence, sampling error and the rest. Huff Po has a dubious reputation in the science area, and this makes it laughable.
This article is in the Weird News section of HuffPo & the [so far] 12 comments are all rather approving. Worth a look for some examples of the woo mindset
e.g. It goes beyond “knowing”, at least for me…it includes feeling
I wonder if any of the comments are “seeded” via Mechanical Turk & the like to push the book a little? I suspect a lot of publishers/authors do this nowadays…
RADIO INTERVIEW on Barry Taff’s show at Paranormal Radio, January 2012
I have to differ with most of you on this. There is nothing unscientific about investigating something that seems impossible. It is unscientific to dismiss something just because we can’t think of a mechanism. We should dismiss the paranormal not because we can’t think of an explanation, but rather because of the lack of good evidence.
I should add that of course Carpenter’s non-theory is wordplay dressed up as science (and not very well dressed either).
While you’re technically correct, you’re missing huge swaths of the bigger picture, and they’re much more relevant than the ones you’re focussing on.
Namely, we have investigated these claims. Repeatedly, thoroughly, exhaustively, and for centuries.
And, every single time, without fail, the claims have been proven to be perfectly without merit.
Either there’s been absolutely no effect observed whatsoever, or the effect was later determined to be cheap stage magic performed by a charlatan (Uri Geller springs to mind).
And, yes, oh-by-the-way, we’ve looked for theories that could account for the claims, even though the claims have never been substantiated. And all those theories have fallen just as flat as the claims.
Put it all together, and it becomes painfully obvious that claims of ESP are every bit as much of a scam as those of a perpetual motion machine — which should hardly be surprising, since ESP would itself constitute a violation of conservation.
So, when we dismiss ESP as something impossible, that’s really just shorthand for, “Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, got the shirt autographed by Mr. Randi, auctioned it for $100, gave the proceeds to Doctors Without Borders.”
Cheers,
b&
I can only imagine that Mr. Carpenter hopes to rake in a large amount of shekels for his cow manure. Talk about alchemy! Woo pays.
This is like the infamous Rupert Sheldrake –
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/staring/pdf/JCSpaper1.pdf
It is forbidden to investigate why people feel they are being stared at?
Like Sheldrake says: “There are two main reasons for the conventional dismissal of the sense of being stared at. First, it is classified as ‘paranormal’. It is normal in the sense that most people have experienced it for themselves. But it falls foul of the general taboo against psychic phenomena.”
I actually went to one of his book promotion events at the local bookstore a couple of months ago. It started with him telling us how parapsychology is really a science and how all their experiments are done with the out most rigorous controls and everything followed by a couple of examples all of them vague or anecdotal at best. When I tried to ask about how their experiments were controlled I basically got and equivalent of Paul Ryan’s, I don’t have time to go over the math, a bit of hand waving and was ignored from that point on in favor of people who seem more likely to ask the kind of questions he wanted to get.
From the article:
There’s your problem right there. I’m pretty sure that a scientific theory shouldn’t “assume” stuff. Propose it as a hypothesis and test it, yes; assume it, no.
I have a theory too. I assume that ESP is just a sense that we all have and thus there is nothing “extrasensory” about it. Thus, it is really just perception.
Can I write a book now too and promote it on HuffPoop?
> “… it assumes that a much bigger domain of unconscious information stands behind experience. This includes things that are beyond the reach of our senses — it includes the extrasensory.”
It amazes me that somewhat educated people don’t see the inherent contradiction in statements like this. If we get inputs into our brains that affect our perception then the mechanism by which that information gets in is a de facto sensor by definition. Either there is no sensor — and no information gets in, or there is a sensor that senses.
(Perhaps one could then ironically call it an “extra” sensor meaning “in addition to the known ones”, but the “extra” in “extrasensory” means “outside of” as in “extraterrestrial” meaning outside of Earth, not an additional Earth.)
If the proposal is an actual additional sensor, then that sensor needs to be demonstrated and there needs to be a corresponding communication medium that transports the information (photons, air pressure, airborne molecules, molecular forces) and an means for the source to transmit the information to the medium.
I agree there is nothing new here. This theory provides no new testable hypotheses nor new mechanisms of information communication.
Dr. Carpenter, if you’re reading this, I’m sure you’d appreciate some help in promoting your new book.
And, to that effect, I’d like to strongly encourage you to contact James “The Amazing” Randi.
I shit you not, he’s got ONE MILLION DOLLARS that he’d be absolutely thrilled to give to you, and I’m pretty confident he’d also contribute an awful lot more to promoting you and your book.
Cheers,
b&
I’m currently reading Nick Humphrey’s 1996 book on why people believe supernatural phenomena (reference below)…
Humphrey, Nicholas. 1996. Leaps of faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation. Basic Books, New York.
I’ve read that. Can’t say as I recommend it. The chapter on Jesus was a total WTF. The believers are not gonna like it, since it portrays JC in a less than flattering light. The well-informed skeptics are also not going to be happy, since Humphrey grants way too much credence to the historicity of New Testament passages. For example, he allows that Jesus actually had lineage from the House of David, whereas I consider that to be a clear case of fiction meant to support the “fulfillment of OT prophecy” claims of the NT.
I read the book also, and liked it.
IIRC, one of Humphrey’s best points was an evolutionary argument against psychic powers (ESP and PK.) Most paranormalist insist that animals have these abilities; many claim their abilities are advanced over humans. Humphrey therefore argues that, if these innate animal abilities exist, then they would have to be carried on the gene.
If they are carried on the gene, then natural selection would definitely favor those animals with MORE ESP over those with less. Think of the opportunity to find prey — or escape predators! Not only would it be selected for, it would have to have started what’s called an arms race.
Which means that, after millions and millions of years, the fact that animals have ESP would be obvious. It would be as obvious as whether tigers have teeth or antelopes can run fast. It’s hard to think of anything which would give an individual’s offspring more advantage in the struggle for survival than being able to know things and do things which bypass physical limitations. Even a little would be good, though a little more would be better. Thus, the existence of paranormal powers would not be controversial. It would be bleedin’ obvious.
And yet … we get the “shy effect.” Can’t meet ordinary expectations of science. Can’t be regularly demonstrated under controlled conditions. Positive studies unreplicated. Negative studies abound. Most people, most scientists, seriously doubt there even is such a thing.
This goes counter to how we know evolution works.
Hey, if Dawkins can apply evolutionary theory to God with good effect, surely Humphrey can apply evolutionary theory to the paranormal. Science kicks the supernatural right out of the park.
Oh, I like that! Excellent.
/@
A sort of corollary of this that’s always bugged me is the prevalence of ESP in science fiction. Science has been trying to pin it down for over a century now, with no positive results — but in a generation or two it will be mainstream! We’ll have mastered the technology of psi and there’ll be a telepath on every diplomatic team and spaceship crew! It’s as much a part of the imagined future as video phones (hey, we have those now!) and flying cars.
John W. Campbell has a lot to answer for.
I have mixed feelings about the book. Yes, he gives WAY too much credibility to the Bible and existence of Jesus, and he takes a lot of words to say very little. On the whole, I wouldn’t recommend it, but he does make a few good points. Unfortunately, I’ve had a liter of beer and a third of a liter of wine and can’t remember what those good points are.
Careful!
Even first-time PWI is a felony in several top-level domains, with convictions bringing up to a three-year suspension of your creative license, six months confinement to a minimum-security PuffHo blog, and fines of as much as 10,000 squid.
No, we still don’t know what the authorities do with that much calamari — but you’ll be so sick of suckers that you won’t care, either.
Cheers,
b&
QFT. One of the most common tactics of people who promote the supernatural is to re-label everything as “natural” and now include God, ghosts, and psychic phenomenon as purely natural things. The good thing about this tactic is that it eliminates all the nonsense about how “science can’t say anything about the supernatural.”
The bad thing about this tactic is that it sometimes damps down people’s normal skepticism. “Wait, this isn’t the supernatural, is it? I don’t believe in that! Oh, okay, it’s not. Fine, I’ve no objections then.”
Indeed, they share a more important and significant similarities than the ones you cite: they make the same basic metaphysical claims about the power and primacy of Mind. The paranormal is the supernatural. As Richard Carrier puts it, in naturalism everything mental can be reduced to something non-mental: in supernaturalism, at least one thing can’t.
ESP posits that thought, mentality, or mind is a particular kind of immaterial essence or force. It works ON the brain, coming from a skyhook of it is what it is what it is. What is God? Irreducible mentality. It communicates by ESP and causes events through PK. Take what’s called the “paranormal” away from God and it’s now inert, even in concept.
The paranormal and the supernatural are the same category. The only way we sometimes like to distinguish the “paranormal” is when it’s not-too-obviously coupled with a specific religion. We call it “woo.” Bruce Hood called it “secular supernaturalism” and, while that term does get the point across, it rather confuses things for those of us who like to separate supernaturalism from naturalism and align “secular” with a connection to the natural world.
I used to believe in ESP, reading a lot of books and articles on the subject and finding them all quite convincing. I changed my mind.
What really started the process, I think, was wondering why, if ESP was so well established scientifically, it wasn’t mainstream. It wasn’t in regular science textbooks, journals, encyclopedias. There wasn’t a Nobel Prize in the works, there weren’t ramifications across the board in all scientific disciplines. I mean, this was huge. Where was the excitement? Why was it all confined to breathless books and articles written by breathless people who, if they really were working scientists (as they claimed), still also claimed the status of brave mavericks, fighting against the establishment.
I mean, it had been years and years of study. Why was this still controversial? Why was it easier to find advocates among fellow teenage girls than among the brilliant leaders of science? Had they less scope, less enthusiasm, less imagination and less knowledge — than I had? Was I especially curious and open minded, compared to the professionals who devote their whole lives to this stuff? I was fifteen. How likely was that, really, special snowflake that I am?
Who disagrees with ESP — and why? Gee, maybe I should read a few books written by the skeptics themselves and see what they actually say. What reasons can they give? The case for ESP looks so solid.
Beginning of the end for ESP. PK. Astrology. And all the other “psychic sciences” which reassured me that my needs, concerns, and happiness were all directly structured into a moral, responsive universe that cares.
I’m always a bit surprised that my friends who believe in ESP (and much more than that) show so little interest in reading the skeptical side. If they were really interested in the issue they would devour everything pro AND con — particularly from experts in physics. But no. ESP isn’t important to them because of what it tells us about reality. That’s a cover. It’s important to them because of what it tells them about them. Special freakin’ snowflakes.
It’s not as cute when you’re not fifteen.
The core false promise of magical thinking is “mind over matter.” Action at a distance is a variation on this.
The version of “mind” that dominates is feelings having power over matter. So someone feels things intensely and this magically affects the physical world.
This is a lie and just a garden variety sales scam. But all sales scams work because our minds want to believe in magic. Apparently more so as we age.
The other sales scam is a publication and media telling people what they want to hear. Our minds want to hear reinforcements for silly ideas like heaven and ESP/mind over matter so the media spews what our minds pay time/attention and money for.
Evidence-based ideas and science has a tiny market. Magical ideas have an immense market. Marketing and sales 101.
What Carpenter calls “First Sight” is what I call “The Same Old Crap Again”.
Why do I sometimes feel like we’re moving backwards?
Sometimes I get little muscle twitches in my arm. Or sometimes I get that little ring in my ear for a couple of seconds. I simply attribute this to my body’s own imperfections and not to some sort of super-sense, or angels, or whatever.
Most people do that too. However, when it comes to things that go on inside the brain that affect awareness, the “error in the machine” that they would attribute to the muscle twitch gets thrown out the window and the move right on over to the super-sense or angels explanation. It makes no sense.
People are just disappointed in the merely real, I suppose.
No, J. Quinton, it is a realistic WISH.
And it is not only disappointing but often dangerous that ESP does not work as in many science fiction universes.
I began doing such self tests during the time womens´ groups developed selfdefence.
While I am usually being stared at in the streets (I am and and always have been a fat limping cripple), I could never distinguish which people would look and pass by and which would slander and which would attack.
In nearly 30 years of rape crisis center work I met many victims who would describe themselves as
-being good at predicting a stranger´s personality
-feel such stares
-felt protected by a protection angel
etc., and they ALL had to cope with the fact that it did not work when they were raped.
In these times our gay friends had still the risk of laws forbidding their private lives – if ESP worked, none would have ever been caught or betrayed by an agent provocateur.
We are entitled to our emotions and wishes, and to cope with helplessness is not easier if ridiculed!
The abovementioned Sheldrake paper cites situations where there is very little sensory input, and I am astonished that the outcome is not better; our senses work much better than we think growing up in an overpopulated and noisy world. Socalled subsensory clues do work for many people and nearly each member of other species.
But it is not ESP and I find it still hard to accept.
He’s the son of a carpenter. His initials are J. C. How can you all doubt him?!
The extrasensory and the supernatural are indeed very alike, and they fail similarly, by definition.
If something is truly *super*natural, it has (can have!) no effect on the natural world, and it is therefore, by definition, undetectable. When it becomes noticable, it ceases to be *super*natural.
Same thing for *extra*sensory: if we sense it, it is by definition not *extra*sensory; but if it truly was *extra*sensory, we would (could!) not be aware of any of it.
Of course, neither of these do exist at all.