Daryl Bem and the Study Confirming Human Psychic Powers

The Telegraph reports on a study by Daryl Bem that confirms that at least in some areas humans do indeed seem to have some sort of psi or psychic power. See their piece at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8142192/Humans-do-have-psychic-powers-study-claims.html and then look a little closer before dismissing the actual study.

The Telegraph report, like so many media reports on academic studies, oversimplifies the conclusions and the data. They also go out of their way to stigmatize the material by showing a photograph of a “psychic” that is completely unrelated to Bem’s study.

Bem’s work in no way confirms the “psychic” abilities of any particular person who works as a professional psychic . . . your belief or not in their individual veracity or unscrupulousness has nothing to do with Bem’s work.

Some of the comments to the Telegraph piece really do telegraph the inherent biases many people may have on this subject as for many there is a knee-jerk need to dismiss Bem and his work without realizing that this is a guy with an impeccable record who has been highly respected for his insights and his works for years. Way back when dinosaurs walked the Earth and I was working on my first graduate degree, an MA in Communication-Theatre, I studied quite a bit of Bem’s work, which back then was already becoming considered as standard material rather than the groundbreaking work it really was. He’s had a huge impact and he’s continued to make inroads. Actually, I teach his inoculation theory regarding persuasive communication even today.

Sure, Bem’s been controversial over his career – his work on exotic becomes erotic comes to mind – but he’s never fudged nor could one justifiably say he is sloppy, regardless of whether one might agree or not with the subject of his inquiry. His more recent work in psy does not take on the taste or texture of wishful thinking as some of the softer-circular thinkers who’ve approached this subject and who have fallen prey to so-called skeptics who have purposefully set up experiments that are designed to fail or to demonstrate observer bias (note, if the experimenter is a skeptic – which nine times out of ten means “disbeliever” rather than true scepticism – then their attitude is considered healthy professionalism but if the experimenter is a believer then their attitude is assumed to create problems with the experiment itself).

Wired magazine once ran a short little piece on legitimate scientists who are researching into what has usually been though of as fringe science or pseudoscience and Bem, among others, was included in the list. See it at http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-05/st_madscientists . . . check out the vitriol of some of the commenter to see how some folks have kneejerk anti-reactions against anyone who deigns even to discuss the topic let alone research it with a critical eye. Sure, there are also folks who oh so obviously have such an intense bias in believing what has not been proven on the other side of the table but it is the ones who close off all inquiry who are most distressing . . . as they seem so intent on preserving their world view of belief that the subject itself is nonsense that they can’t fathom any value in alternative discussion.

Because Bem has an interest in psy he is labeled cook or crackpot or worse . . . regardless of the positive that such an inquiry might bring on either side of the table.

Why do I care? Well, I respect Bem and his work . . . and . . . I feel a bit of a kindredness as we can take some of the blanket condemnations being made by his critics who very likely have never even actually looked at the work and just as easily replace the word “psy” with the word “hypnosis” and find very similar blanket unthinking condemnations by others who neither understand the concepts nor the methods and conclusions . . . just kneejerk anti- this and anti- that and the rest.

I personally know a number of academics who shied away from authentic study of hypnosis and know of many more who were strongly advised to stay away from the serious study of hypnosis out of fear of the “negative repercussion” such study might have on their reputation . . . even today such a negative stereotype exists despite the work of folks who swam against the current with real work that has shown time and time again that the negative stereotypes are wrong and that the beast both exists and is useful.

Just as I advise my students when they perform hypnotherapy to go into things with an open mind . . . know the theory but don’t let presuppositions lead you to poorly formulated intervention strategies, rather, run things clean and let it unfold where it does . . . as academics we should explore with an open mind and an open model and let the data lead us to where it’s headed and not try to impose a conclusion where it may not fit.

I believe that it is the areas of most controversy . . . the ones where something is considered so controversial that it may even be dismissed outright by so-called “serious” academics with no solid studies to back those assumptions up . . . those are the areas that perhaps deserve someone like Daryl Bem to do the work and see where it all actually goes, not just assuming what must happen and shelving any data that does not fit.

IMO, obviously.

All the best,
Brian