Thursday, November 11, 2010

Is this evidence that we can see the future? - life - 11 November 2010 - New Scientist

Extraordinary claims don't come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven't yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What's more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can't find any significant flaws. "My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can't be true," says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. "Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn't see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order."

Critical mass

The paper, due to appear in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology before the end of the year, is the culmination of eight years' work by Daryl Bem of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. "I purposely waited until I thought there was a critical mass that wasn't a statistical fluke," he says.

It describes a series of experiments involving more than 1000 student volunteers. In most of the tests, Bem took well-studied psychological phenomena and simply reversed the sequence, so that the event generally interpreted as the cause happened after the tested behaviour rather than before it.

In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list. Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type.

In another study, Bem adapted research on "priming" – the effect of a subliminally presented word on a person's response to an image. For instance, if someone is momentarily flashed the word "ugly", it will take them longer to decide that a picture of a kitten is pleasant than if "beautiful" had been flashed. Running the experiment back-to-front, Bem found that the priming effect seemed to work backwards in time as well as forwards.

'Stroke of genius'

Exploring time-reversed versions of established psychological phenomena was "a stroke of genius", says the sceptical Krueger. Previous research in parapsychology has used idiosyncratic set-ups such as Ganzfeld experiments, in which volunteers listen to white noise and are presented with a uniform visual field to create a state allegedly conducive to effects including clairvoyance and telepathy. By contrast, Bem set out to provide tests that mainstream psychologists could readily evaluate.

The effects he recorded were small but statistically significant. In another test, for instance, volunteers were told that an erotic image was going to appear on a computer screen in one of two positions, and asked to guess in advance which position that would be. The image's eventual position was selected at random, but volunteers guessed correctly 53.1 per cent of the time.

That may sound unimpressive – truly random guesses would have been right 50 per cent of the time, after all. But well-established phenomena such as the ability of low-dose aspirin to prevent heart attacks are based on similarly small effects, notes Melissa Burkley of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, who has also blogged about Bem's work at Psychology Today.

Respect for a maverick

So far, the paper has held up to scrutiny. "This paper went through a series of reviews from some of our most trusted reviewers," says Charles Judd of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who heads the section of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology editorial board that handled the paper.

Indeed, although Bem is a self-described "maverick" with a long-standing interest in paranormal phenomena, he is also a respected psychologist with a reputation for running careful experiments. He is best known for the theory of self-perception, which argues that people infer their attitudes from their own behaviour in much the same way as they assess the attitudes of others.

Bem says his paper was reviewed by four experts who proposed amendments, but still recommended publication. Still, the journal will publish a sceptical editorial commentary alongside the paper, says Judd. "We hope it spurs people to try to replicate these effects."

One failed attempt at replication has already been posted online. In this study, Jeff Galak of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Leif Nelson of the University of California, Berkeley, employed an online panel called Consumer Behavior Lab in an effort to repeat Bem's findings on the recall of words.

Bem argues that online surveys are inconclusive, because it's impossible to know whether volunteers have paid sufficient attention to the task. Galak concedes that this is a limitation of the initial study, but says he is now planning a follow-up involving student volunteers that will more closely repeat the design of Bem's word-recall experiment.

This seems certain to be just the first exchange in a lively debate: Bem says that dozens of researchers have already contacted him requesting details of the work.

1diggdigg

print

send

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.

Back To The Future?

Thu Nov 11 18:49:02 GMT 2010 by Dennett

Take two baby aspirin and call me yesterday morning.

Back To The Future?

Thu Nov 11 18:53:36 GMT 2010 by Ivan
http://www.humancafe.com

In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list. Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type.

This is a clear example of a "pre-loaded" test. I'm surprised they would let this pass as valid, when the students are really "re-calling" later what they already know before they typed it. Silly mistake. ... Yeah, take two. :-)

Back To The Future?

Thu Nov 11 19:31:46 GMT 2010 by Samuel Walter

I think you've misunderstood the test. The first task was to look at the list of words. The second task was recall words from the list. Finally, they were given randomly selected words from the initial list and had to type them. The students had no idea what words they would be asked to type, yet the words they recalled in the second task tended to be the words later randomly selected for the last task (i.e. the test revealed apparent precognition at least to a statistically significant degree).

Obviously the jury is still out on this controversial, yet fascinating study, but kudos to Bern for devising such an ingenious way of exploring the topic using true scientific methodology in a field that has been notoriously in the fringe. Even if this study isn't the smoking gun on precognition, it's acceptance for publication and peer review in such a reputable journal is nothing short of a ground-breaking achievement

Back To The Future?

Thu Nov 11 20:43:18 GMT 2010 by Graham

It's an oddly worded paragraph, but that's actually not what it means. It's trying to say that the students first wrote down whatever words they were able to recall from the list, and then were given a list of random words that had been on the list and told to type them. The students showed they had a higher instance of recalling the words on the list which they afterwards would end up receiving on the randomly generated list. To a statistically abnormal degree, it's as though their minds knew what words they were going to type in the future before they were given the random list, and so it remembered them more often than the words they wouldn't end up typing.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Yeah, go fuck yourself entropy and temporal linearity.

No comments: