Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008

Postby Shen1986 » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology a skeptical look

I found this study and decided to give it a skeptical look. Here can be found the whole study: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf

So now lets look on the problems:

1. Problems: Lance Storm is a known believer and member of parapsychology organization which does not like skeptics and has many woo members in its ranks and he wrote it with a colleague from the same organization:

Lance Storm University of Adelaide Patrizio E. Tressoldi and Lorenzo Di Risio Universita` di Padova


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 1

Here is some info about Lance Storm person:

About Me

I have edited and contributed to three books: "Parapsychology in the 21st Century" (2005), and "The Survival of Human Consciousness" (2006), both published by McFarland & Company, Inc., and "Synchronicity: Multiple Perspectives on Meaningful Coincidence" (Pari Publishing, 2008). I published a nonfiction book called "The Enigma of Numbers" (2008) with Pari Publishing. I am current editor of the Australian Journal of Parapsychology, and a member of the Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research, Inc. (AIPR). In 2006, I launched two online courses in parapsychology for the AIPR's website:www.aiprinc.org/index.asp. I am co-editing, with Dr. Adam Rock, the AIPR Monograph Series. The first title in the series is "Shamanism and Psi" (Storm & Rock, 2011).


Taken from: http://www.parapsych.org/users/lstorm/profile.aspx

He is a member of Parapsychological Association, the same organization which has in its members people like Dean Radin and other known woo believers:

Beischel, Julie
Bem, Daryl
Braude, Stephen E.
Greyson, C. Bruce
Haraldsson, Erlendur
Krippner, Stanley
Puthoff, H. E.
Radin, Dean I.
Schwartz, Stephan A.
Sheldrake, Rupert A.
Targ, Russell
Tart, Charles T.
Tressoldi, Patrizio E.
Utts, Jessica M.


Taken from: http://www.parapsych.org/section/14/pa_ ... index.aspx

The site has a nice look on skepticism that it is evil in some way. They acknowledge Wiseman but that is all:

The Role of Skepticism in Parapsychology

Parapsychology is supported by twin pillars: open-minded scientific study and rigorous doubt. Both are necessary. Our membership includes individuals who lean more toward one or the other, but together we hold up the edifice. Contributions in these directions from outside of our membership are also vital for our healthy growth.

Organized skepticism does a valuable service when it is focused on educating the public to detect and reject unscrupulous practitioners who prey on gullible people. Equally valuable is the unflinching and clear-eyed assessment of experiments in difficult frontier areas such as parapsychology. But we must also be skeptical of some who call themselves skeptics. Unfortunately some organizations and individual skeptics fail to do their homework and neglect or misapply the scientific methods they want to protect. The result is arguments that fail when tested against facts that are readily available. We need a clear-minded look at frontier research by observers willing to give it serious attention. A second opinion from someone not involved is valuable. A dispassionate, objective critique can make the difference between a successful experiment from which we learn, and a failed attempt which wastes an opportunity.


Taken from: http://www.parapsych.org/section/49/skepticism.aspx

They even are for Alex Tsakiris wow who is a known woo pusher and knows little about science itself and is a hard believer and I would not call cutting edge scientists people who are mostly debated here, you can see there even alien abductions and other woo:

Alex Tsakiris hosts a podcast called Skeptiko: Science at the Tipping Point, which promotes intelligent debate featuring cutting edge scientists and capable skeptics. The Skeptiko website maintains a discussion forum and a growing collection of excellent interviews.


Taken from: http://www.parapsych.org/section/49/skepticism.aspx

Example of woo:

Alex Tsakiris: That’s a topic we’ve talked about a lot. There’s actually another layer to materialistic science that insists that everything should be measured. The other layer is really it’s been falsified by the best science that we have that suggested that that’s not really the way it is. I think that quickly gets into why are things the way they are? Why do paradigms remain even after they’ve been falsified? That’s a whole other topic.

So a few months ago we had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Janet Colli and she’s a clinical therapist. You might know her in the Seattle area of the U.S. She’s done a lot of work with people who claim an alien encounter that’s caused trauma in their lives. They come and see her as a therapist. She’s come to a lot of the same conclusions you have.

In particular, that essentially the core of these alien contact experiences—we can only dance around that so much. At some point we have to say that’s what we’re talking about here, folks. And we are, as uncomfortable as that is for some people to really grasp. If you really dig into the research there’s a reality to it that is hard to look away from. The data is just so overwhelming that this is really happening.

I digress there for a minute. Dr. Colli comes to the conclusion, as you do, that these are essentially sacred encounters, spiritual encounters, spiritually transformative experiences.

One of the things I was really hoping we could do—and I don’t know if we can do it completely in this interview so I want to set it up as something that if we find a way down the road to engage in this as a project—and that is to juxtapose the sacred alien encounter with the other major alien encounter paradigm that’s out there and that is from Budd Hopkins, deceased, and his research partner who is very active, very much alive, and very highly respected. Dr. David Jacobs is formerly of Temple University, a historian, and someone who’s done a lot of research in this area.

I’ve corresponded with him. We’re setting up an interview with him. His conclusion is very different. His conclusion is that these are not sacred encounters to the extent that we perceive them to be sacred encounters. We have to be very careful that we’re not being deceived and that there is a much more malevolent agenda at foot with these encounters.

So that’s a huge area. Let’s begin to pull that apart. As much as you’re comfortable doing so, tell me your big-level picture of what the difference is there and where you think the evidence stacks up.


Taken from: http://www.skeptiko.com/228-mary-rodwel ... ontactees/

There is much more then this all is in a spiritual manner and that materialism is going to die and everything is real from aliens, life after death to PSI.

The book The Survival of Human Consciousness by Storm is a woo book where mediums are genuine and things like that from reading one review:

This book is a companion piece to an earlier volume on parapsychological research edited by Michael Thalbourne and Lance Storm (2005), the present one covering the "oft-forgotten, or at least marginalized, third domain" of psychical research, namely, "afterlife research" (pp. 5-6). Its purpose was to present multidisciplinary perspectives on the question of survival after death.


Taken from: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... _kelly.pdf
Page: 1

More here:

Do some people survive and others don't based on their beliefs and expectations? Or should we consider the view, "just as interesting, excitingand probably more useful," that survival is not literal but symbolic: "There are many ways of 'dying,' 'surviving,' and even being 'reborn' other than literally and physically" (pp. 81-82). Why this is more interesting, exciting, and useful escapes me, but in any case it is certainly not a new suggestion. They then discuss reincarnation, suggesting (as Buddhists have before) that what survives is not a person with individual memories and characteristics but a "pattern," as in a wave that moves through "the individual droplets and molecules" (p. 86). They discuss the alternative hypotheses of survival, super-psi, and the dramatizing tendencies of the unconscious, but Braud expresses his preference
for studying the human meaning and impact of experiences rather than their ontological "reality" (p. 88). He also provides suggestions for future research, but all of them strike me as of doubtful value, practically speaking. Most require extremely gifted and consistent mediums or psychics of a kind rarely seen.
Another involves the use of hypnotic regression to recover memories of neardeath experiences (NDEs), out-of-body experiences (OBEs), or childhood previous-life memories; but he neglects to mention that using hypnosis to recover any memories, normal or paranormal, is a highly problematic issue.


Taken from: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... _kelly.pdf
Page: 2

Also here:

Chapter 8, a review by William Roll of research on apparitions and mediumship, is certainly the best chapter in the book in terms of providing a good overview of some survival-related evidence. He too then discusses "what survives?" and concludes that if there is survival, it is likely to be in the form of physical memory traces and interpersonal psychophysical fields (whatever that means). Unfortunately, he does not discuss the enormous problems arising from the notion of physical memory traces (see, e.g., Braude, 2006; Gauld, 2007).


Taken from: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... _kelly.pdf
Page: 3

More here also even from Storm himself:

Lance Storm summarizes all the preceding chapters in Chapter 14, "Where Do We Go From Here?", and in Chapter 15 presents his own solution, which he calls "Radical Survivalism." His proposal is "that all events and all beings after their demise . . . are preserved or sustained as forms of knowledge or information," a pool of knowledge that we can occasionally access by super-psi and elaborate with our "mythopoetic" abilities. To me, this seems neither a solution, radical, nor survival, but in any case it also does not seem new since it sounds very much like "akashic record" theories. Storm says that in "presenting so much inconclusive evidence in this book, we have nevertheless advanced a little because no one can exclusively defend or refute one hypothesis in favor of another" (p. 265). He thinks that "the super-psi
explanation works nicely for the 'soft' evidence like trance mediumship, drop-in communications, cross correspondences, and the like" (p. 265), although he concedes that it accommodates the "hard" evidence like the reincarnation cases less "nicely." Leaving aside the fact that virtually all serious students of the
evidence for survival--even those who favor the super-psi hypothesis-would question how "nicely" it works, one must wonder why Storm considers this an advance. He calls for research to differentiate between the alternate hypotheses (p. 265), but what does he think survival researchers have been trying to do for over a century?


Taken from: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... _kelly.pdf
Page: 5

As for Patrizio E. Tressoldi his looks were shot down also:

In 2010, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio analyzed 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008. Of the 1,498 trials, 483 produced hits, corresponding to a hit rate of 32.2%. This hit rate is statistically significant with p < .001. Participants selected for personality traits and personal characteristics thought to be psi-conducive were found to perform significantly better than unselected participants in the ganzfeld condition.[28] Hyman (2010) published a rebuttal to Storm et al. According to Hyman "reliance on meta-analysis as the sole basis for justifying the claim that an anomaly exists and that the evidence for it is consistent and replicable is fallacious. It distorts what scientists mean by confirmatory evidence." Hyman wrote the ganzfeld studies have not been independently replicated and have failed to produce evidence for psi.[29] Storm et al. published a response to Hyman claiming the ganzfeld experimental design has proved to be consistent and reliable but parapsychology is a struggling discipline that has not received much attention so further research on the subject is necessary.[30] Rouder et al. 2013 wrote that critical evaluation of Storm et al.'s meta-analysis reveals no evidence for psi, no plausible mechanism and omitted replication failures.[31]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

Now lets look on the study itself:

2. Problem: Even the first page leaves me skeptical because that believers in paranormal are more powerful then non-believers show a strong bias and is not compatible with reality because reality works no matter if you are a Christian, Agnostic, Atheist etc., you faith has no bearing on it because it is like rain it will rain no matter if you are a believer or not:

We also found that selected participants (believers in the paranormal, meditators, etc.) had a performance advantage over unselected participants, but only if they were in the ganzfeld condition.


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 1


3. Problem: This is quite interesting. PSI was studied in the same century when many breakthroughs about the working of the world came to be in a materialistic sense. I think that PSI began because believers needed something face against materialism and atheism because all those theories in that time slowly destroyed any god or soul to begin with. This shows that PSI is a belief a answer to materialism and it was this from its beginning, historically according to this text:

The 20th century was an era in which a number of scientific revolutions took place, indicated not only by technological breakthroughs but also by changes in, and challenges to, our understanding of the nature of the universe. Major conventional perspectives in physics (classical and mechanical) were challenged by models such as relativity theory and quantum mechanics that gave more accurate pictures of the physical world. Likewise, in the sciences
of the mind (i.e., psychology, neuropsychology, and philosophy), there were revolutions that upturned conventional viewpoints in our understanding of mental– cognitive processes and brain events. A paradigmatic shift in consciousness usually requires a huge leap of faith, and it is noted that such changes in mindset are never made immediately or easily in any given scientific community or epoch (Collins & Pinch, 1982). In that same century, relegated to the sidelines of these major events, was the equally controversial subject of an anomaly known as “psi”—a shorthand term for psychic functioning, specifically categorized as either extrasensory perception (i.e., ESP, which covers telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition) or psychokinesis (i.e., PK, which refers to paranormal mental influence on matter). Telepathy refers to the “paranormal acquisition of information concerning the thoughts, feelings or activity of another conscious
being” (Thalbourne, 2003, p. 125). Clairvoyance is defined as “paranormal acquisition of information concerning an object or contemporary physical event; in contrast to telepathy, the information is assumed to derive directly from an external physical source” (Thalbourne, 2003, p. 18). Precognition is defined as “a form of extrasensory perception in which the target is some future event that cannot be deduced from normally known data in the present” (Thalbourne, 2003, p. 90). Related to telepathy is “remote viewing,” which Thalbourne (2003) defines as “a neutral term for general extrasensory perception . . . especially in the context of an experimental design wherein a percipient [perceiver/receiver] attempts to describe the surroundings of a geographically distant agent [sender]” (p. 107).


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 1

4. Problem: Those who he quotes are believers like Radin. Also it is odd that meta-analyses were done so many years after that:

Major laboratory efforts to determine the likelihood and extent of both hypothesized effects (ESP and PK) were first undertaken by J. B. Rhine in the 1930s, with his card-guessing (Rhine et al., 1940/1966) and dice-throwing studies (Rhine, 1948/1954). Card guessing is described as a form of “forced-choice” experiment because there are a limited number of choices, and the participant is forced to guess the target from a limited set of symbols (usually one of five in the card-guessing design: square, cross, circle, star, and wavy lines). Years later, meta-analytic studies on cardguessing and dice-throwing databases yielded statistically significant effects (Honorton & Ferrari, 1989; Radin & Ferrari, 1991).


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 1

5. Problem: It is again interesting that another person, Milton who published it in the Journal of Parapsychology and found a weak but significant effect, how can a weak effect be significant?:

For example, Milton (1997a) conducted a meta-analysis of studies on participants who were in a normal waking state of consciousness during a freeresponse task. Her period of analysis was 1964–1992. For a database of 75 studies, Milton found a weak but significant effect.


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 2

The source cited:

Milton, J. (1997a). Meta-analysis of free-response ESP studies without altered states of consciousness. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 279–319.


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 11

The journal leaves me skeptical:

The Journal of Parapsychology is a biannual peer-reviewed academic journal covering research on paranormal phenomena, including extrasensory perception, specifically telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis, as well as human consciousness.

It was established in April 1937 by Joseph Banks Rhine (Duke University).[1] It is published by the Rhine Research Center and the current editor-in-chief is John A. Palmer (Rhine Research Center). The journal is abstracted and indexed in PsychINFO.[2] It publishes research reports, theoretical discussions, book reviews, and correspondence, as well as the abstracts of papers presented at the Parapsychological Association's annual meeting.[3]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Parapsychology

6. Problem: Its nice how the authors of the paper attack Blackmore and showing their bias. If they were just so skeptical of their own results:

Blackmore (1985), once a parapsychologist herself, was disturbed that she found so little evidence in her PhD thesis for the paranormal, but as Berger (1989) pointed out, “‘Flaws’ were invoked [by Blackmore] to dismiss significant results while other flaws were ignored when studies produced nonsignificant results” (p. 123). Berger also claimed that Blackmore “misreport[ed]” and “incorrectly reported” experimental details and statistical results that supported the psi hypothesis in Blackmore’s studies.


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 2

7. Problem: I do not see why authors propose this as a anti-skeptic attack. If something exist it must be done on demand. Like every experiment. PSI is not a living creature of a mind of its own and even in living creatures we can find it by studying them because if they have such a ability they will demonstrate it from time to time and under controlled conditions:

Hansel (1966, 1980) argued that because psi cannot be convincingly and consistently demonstrated (or better, induced on demand) in the laboratory, it does not exist. He even argued that if fraud is possible in a psi experiment, it is reasonable to assume that fraud did take place.


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 2

8. Problem: They are citing a paper from 1984 which claims there are no longer leakages when the project Stargate or PEAR showed that there are and quite the opposite:

Akers (1984) drew attention to “explanations” that skeptics use to justify their doubt regarding the existence of psi, such as randomization failure, sensory leakage, cheating, and procedural errors. His point is that even the seemingly best parapsychological studies have flaws that preclude their findings as evidence of paranormal effects. However, that was over two decades ago, before standards were markedly improved. What might have been true then has little bearing today.


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 2

Project Stargate happened in 1995:

The Stargate Project was terminated in 1995 with the conclusion that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. The information was vague and included a lot of irrelevant and erroneous data. There was also reason to suspect that the research managers had adjusted their project reports to fit the known background cues.[51]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_(parapsychology)#Modern_Era

Or PEAR which was closed in 2007:

PEAR's primary purpose was to engage in parapsychological exercises purporting to examine telekinesis and remote viewing.[2] The program had a strained relationship with Princeton, and was considered "an embarrassment to science."[3][4] The laboratory concluded its University-based operations in February 2007.[4]
Parapsychological Activities[edit]

PEAR employed random event generators (REGs), to explore the ability of test subjects to use telekinesis to influence the random output distribution of these devices to conform to their pre-recorded intentions to produce higher numbers, lower numbers, or nominal baselines.[5] Most of these experiments utilized a microelectronic REG, but experiments were also conducted with a mechanical device which dropped balls down a peg-covered board.[6] PEAR also conducted exercises involving groups of volunteers which, they claimed, produced more pronounced results.[7][8] In all cases, the observed effects were very small (about one tenth of one percent), but over extensive databases they compounded to statistically significant deviations from chance behavior.[9] The baseline for chance behavior used did not vary as statistically appropriate (baseline bind). Two PEAR researchers attributed this baseline bind to the motivation of the operators to achieve a good baseline.[10] It has been noted that a single test subject (presumed to be a member of PEAR’s staff) participated in 15% of PEAR’s trials, and was responsible for half of the total observed effect.[9] PEAR’s results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility. In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR’s results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results.[10] An attempt by York University’s Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR’s results.[9] PEAR’s activities have also been criticized for their lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics.[9][11][12]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_ ... Laboratory

9. Problem: The problem is that there were many flaws. Also the hit rate is not so big 38 percent out of 25 is quite small and twenty eight studies only yield this result. From what I read many of studies did not yield these results also this is not the full story. It is a long story and it goes over and over millions of times with meta-analyses which even more shows how meta-analyses are bunk and leads nowhere to the truth:

Honorton (1985) undertook one of the first meta-analyses of the many ganzfeld studies that had accrued by the mid-1980s. Twentyeight studies yielded a collective hit rate of 38%, where 25% would be expected by chance. Honorton noted that of the 28 studies, 23 (82%) had positive z scores. Various flaws in his approach were pointed out by Hyman (1985), but ultimately they came to an agreement (Hyman & Honorton, 1986). Their words from the so-called Joint Communique´ were as follows: “We agree that there is an overall significant effect in this database that cannot reasonably be explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis” (p. 351). They differed only on the “degree to which the effect constitutes evidence for psi” (p. 351).


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 2

The whole story:

Early experiments[edit]

Between 1974 and 1982, 42 ganzfeld experiments were performed.[9][10] In 1982, Charles Honorton presented a paper at the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association that summarized the results of the ganzfeld experiments up to that date, and concluded that they represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of psi. Ray Hyman, a psychologist, disagreed. The two men later independently analyzed the same studies, and both presented meta-analyses of them in 1985.[9][11]

Hyman's criticized the ganzfeld papers for not describing optimal protocols, nor including the appropriate statistical analysis. He presented a factor analysis that he said demonstrated a link between success and three flaws, namely: Flaws in randomization for choice of target; flaws in randomization in judging procedure; and insufficient documentation. Honorton asked a statistician, David Saunders, to look at Hyman's factor analysis and he concluded that the number of experiments was too small to complete a factor analysis.[12]

The ganzfeld studies examined by Hyman and Honorton had methodological problems that were well documented. Honorton reported only 36% of the studies used duplicate target sets of pictures to avoid handling cues.[13] Hyman discovered flaws in all of the 42 ganzfeld experiments and to access each experiment, he devised a set of 12 categories of flaws. Six of these concerned statistical defects, the other six covered procedural flaws such as inadequate documentation, randomization and security as well as possibilities of sensory leakage.[14] Over half of the studies failed to safeguard against sensory leakage and all of the studies contained at least one of the 12 flaws. Because of the flaws, Honorton agreed with Hyman the 42 ganzfeld studies could not support the claim for the existence of psi.[14]

In 1986, Hyman and Honorton published A Joint Communiqué which agreed on the methodological problems and on ways to fix them. They suggested a computer-automated control, where randomization and the other methodological problems identified were eliminated. Hyman and Honorton agreed that replication of the studies was necessary before final conclusions could be drawn. They also agreed that more stringent standards were necessary for ganzfeld experiments, and they jointly specified what those standards should be.[15][16]


In 1982 Honorton had started a series of autoganzfeld experiments at his Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL). These studies were specifically designed to avoid the same potential problems as those identified in the 1986 joint communiqué issued by Hyman and Honorton. The PRL trials continued until September 1989. In 1990 Honorton et al. published the results of 11 autoganzfeld experiments they claimed met the standards specified by Hyman and Honorton (1986).[17]

Hyman analyzed these experiments and wrote they met the standards of the 1986 joint communiqué "with the possible exception of proper randomization of targets during the sending and the judging procedures as well as the possibility of inadequate safeguards against sensory leakage."[14] Daryl Bem and Honorton (1994) published a review of ganzfeld studies conducted at Honorton's PRL lab which concluded psi was operating in the ganzfeld but it was discovered their review contained errors.[18][19] Milton and Wiseman (1999) carried out a meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments in other laboratories. They found no psi effect, the results showed no effect greater than chance from a database of 30 experiments and a non-significant Stouffer Z of 0.70.[20]

Bem and Honorton pronounced the experiments at the PRL lab to provide excellent security against deception by subjects and sensory cues.[18] Hyman disagreed with Bem and Honorton as he had discovered some interesting patterns in the data that implied visual cues may have taken place in the experiments:

The most suspicious pattern was the fact that the hit rate for a given target increased with the frequency of occurrence of that target in the experiment. The hit rate for the targets that occurred only once was right at the chance expectation of 25%. For targets that appeared twice the hit rate crept up to 28%. For those that occurred three times it was 38%, and for those targets that occurred six or more times, the hit rate was 52%. Each time a videotape is played its quality can degrade. It is plausible then, that when a frequently used clip is the target for a given session, it may be physically distinguishable from the other three decoy clips that are presented to the subject for judging. Surprisingly, the parapsychological community has not taken this finding seriously. They still include the autoganzfeld series in their meta-analyses and treat it as convincing evidence for the reality of psi.[14]

Hyman wrote the autoganzfeld experiments were flawed because they did not preclude the possibility of sensory leakage.[14] Richard Wiseman published a paper discussing a non-psi hypothesis based on possible sender to experimenter acoustic leakage in the autoganzfeld to account for the results.[21][22]

Lance Storm and Suitbert Ertel (2001) published a meta-analysis of 79 studies published between 1974 and 1996 and concluded the positive statistically significant overall outcome indicates a psi effect.[23] In response, Milton and Wiseman (2001) wrote the meta-analysis of Storm and Ertel was not an accurate quantitative summary of ganzfeld research as they had included early studies which had been widely recognized as having methodological problems which make it impossible to interpret the results as evidence of a psi effect.[24]

Another meta-analysis was conducted by Daryl Bem, John Palmer, and Richard Broughton in which the experiments were sorted according to how closely they adhered to a pre-existing description of the ganzfeld procedure. Additionally, ten experiments that had been published in the time since Milton and Wiseman's deadline were introduced. Now the results were significant again with a Stouffer Z of 2.59.[25][26]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

10. Problem: This was shot down which they claim is proof of PSI:

A second major meta-analysis on 11 “autoganzfeld” studies followed (Honorton et al., 1990). These studies adhered to the guidelines laid down in the Joint Communique´. The autoganzfeld procedure avoids methodological flaws by using a computer controlled target randomization, selection, and judging technique. Subsequently, Bem and Honorton (1994) reduced the Honorton et al. (1990) database to 10 studies by removing one very successful study that was not methodologically comparable to the others. They reported a hit rate of 32.2% for these 10 studies. Milton and Wiseman (1999) followed up with the intention of replicating the result of Bem and Honorton’s (1994) 10-study meta-analysis. For the period 1987–1997, 30 studies (including seven autoganzfeld studies) produced an overall nonsignificant effect size (ES) of 0.013 (Stouffer Z _ 0.70, p _ .242). Milton and Wiseman concluded that a significant communication anomaly for the ganzfeld had not been replicated by a “broader range of researchers” (p. 391).1 However, Storm and Ertel (2001) compared Milton and Wiseman’s database with Bem and Honorton’s database of 10 studies and found the two did not differ significantly. A homogeneous post-Communique´ database of 40 studies was formed (ES _ 0.05, Stouffer Z _ 1.88, p _ .03). Going one step further, Storm and Ertel (2001) found 11 pre-Communique´ studies not previously meta-analyzed and combined them with Honorton’s (1985) database of 28 studies as well as the 40-study database just described. After a minor adjustment (Storm & Ertel, 2002), a 79-study database was compiled, which had a significant mean ES of 0.138 (Stouffer Z _ 5.59, p _ 1.14 _ 10_8).


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Pages: 2-3

Here we can see it:

Lance Storm and Suitbert Ertel (2001) published a meta-analysis of 79 studies published between 1974 and 1996 and concluded the positive statistically significant overall outcome indicates a psi effect.[23] In response, Milton and Wiseman (2001) wrote the meta-analysis of Storm and Ertel was not an accurate quantitative summary of ganzfeld research as they had included early studies which had been widely recognized as having methodological problems which make it impossible to interpret the results as evidence of a psi effect.[24]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

The original Pdf:

The authors recently published a nonsignificant meta-analysis of 30 extrasensory perception ganzfeld
studies, all conducted after the 1986 publication of important methodological guidelines aimed at
reducing sources of artifact noted in earlier studies. In response, L. Storm and S. Ertel (2001) presented
a meta-analysis of 79 studies published between 1974 and 1996. They argued that the positive and highly
statistically significant overall outcome indicates a replicable paranormal effect. In doing so, they ignored
the well-documented and widely recognized methodological problems in the early studies, which make
it impossible to interpret the results as evidence of extrasensory perception. In addition, Storm and Ertel's
meta-analysis is not an accurate quantitative summary of ganzfeld research because of methodological
problems such as their use of an inconsistent method for calculating study outcomes and inconsistent
inclusion criteria.


Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Milton2001Reply.pdf
Page: 1

11. Problem: The hits are not so big. Mostly they can be made by guessing. I tried few Zener card examples and I got 8 out of 25 trials just by guessing as we can see the results are quite similar but some are little higher of the number 3-4 more hits:

Appendix A
Ganzfeld (Gz), Non-Gz (Noise Reduction), and Free-Response Studies by Category, Trials,
z Scores, and Effect Size Values
Study _ Category Trials Hits Z ES (z/√n)
Category 1 (ganzfeld)
1. Alexander and Broughton (1999) 50 18 1.60 0.23
2. Dalton (1997) 128 60 5.20 0.46
3. da Silva et al. (2003) 54 18 1.26 0.17
4. Goulding et al. (2004) 128 30 _0.31 _0.03
5. Lau (2004) 120 36 1.16 0.11
6. Morris et al. (2003) 40 15 1.64 0.26
7. Parker (2006) 20 8 1.29 0.34
8. Parker and Sjo¨de´n (2008) 29 8 0.11 0.02
9. Parker and Westerlund (1998), serial study 30 7 _0.49 _0.09
10. Parker and Westerlund (1998), Study 4 30 14 2.40 0.44
11. Parker and Westerlund (1998), Study 5 30 11 1.25 0.23
12. Parra and Villanueva (2004), picture 54 25 3.46 0.47
13. Parra and Villanueva (2004), musical clips 54 19 1.57 0.21
14. Parra and Villanueva (2006) 138 57 4.32 0.37
15. Pu¨tz et al. (2007) 120 39 1.79 0.16
16. Roe and Flint (2007) 14 4 1.81 0.48
17. Roe et al. (2003) 40 14 1.28 0.20
18. Roe et al. (2001) 24 5 _0.24 _0.05
19. Roe et al. (2004), no sender 17 4 _0.19 _0.05
20. Roe et al. (2004), with sender 23 6 0.12 0.03
21. Sherwood et al. (2005) 38 8 _0.37 _0.06
22. Simmonds-Moore and Holt (2007) 26 6 _0.04 _0.01
23. Smith and Savva (2008) 114 39 2.16 0.20
24. Stevens (2004) 50 12 _0.03 _0.01
25. Symmons and Morris (1997) 51 23 2.97 0.42
26. Wezelman and Bierman (1997), Series IVB 32 5 _1.45 _0.26
27. Wezelman and Bierman (1997), Series V 40 8 _0.91 _0.14
28. Wezelman and Bierman (1997), Series VI 40 10 _0.15 _0.02
29. Wezelman et al. (1997) 32 14 2.15 0.38
30. Wright and Parker (2003) 74 24 1.34 0.16
(Appendices continue)
META-ANALYSIS OF ESP STUDIES 483
Appendix A (continued)
Study _ Category Trials Hits Z ES (z/√n)
Category 2 (nonganzfeld noise reduction)
1. Dalton et al. (1999) 32 15 2.65 0.47
2. Dalton et al. (2000) 16 7 1.41 0.35
3. Del Prete and Tressoldi (2005) 120 45 3.06 0.28
4. Roe, Jones, and Maddern (2007) 15 2 _0.72 _0.19
5. Roe, Sherwood, et al. (2002) 31 9 0.31 0.06
6. Roe, Sherwood, et al. (2007), clairvoyance 40 14 1.28 0.20
7. Roe, Sherwood, et al. (2007), telepathy 40 12 0.55 0.09
8. Roney-Dougal et al. (2008), clairvoyance 48 11 _0.17 _0.02
9. Roney-Dougal et al. (2008), precognition 48 7 _1.55 _0.22
10. Roney-Dougal & Solfvin (2008) 80 25 1.16 0.13
11. Sherwood et al. (2000) 28 11 1.53 0.29
12. Sherwood et al. (2002) 12 2 _0.28 _0.08
13. Steinkamp (2001), Series 2, clairvoyance 80 23 0.65 0.07
14. Steinkamp (2001), Series 2, precognition 80 26 1.42 0.16
15. Steinkamp (2005) 80 20 0.00 0.00
16. Tressoldi and Del Prete (2007) 120 40 2.00 0.18
Category 3 (free response)
1. da Silva et al. (2003) 54 10 _0.94 _0.13
2. Holt (2007), artists 15 6 1.04 0.27
3. Holt (2007) 15 7 1.58 0.41
4. Holt and Roe (2006) 40 10 0.00 0.00
5. Lau (2004) 937 232 _0.12 _0.01
6. May (2007) 50 32 4.57 0.65
7. Parra and Villanueva (2006) 138 38 0.59 0.05
8. Roe and Holt (2006) 120 28 _0.32 _0.03
9. Roney-Dougal et al. (2008) clairvoyance 24 5 _0.24 _0.05
10. Roney-Dougal et al. (2008) precognition 24 4 _0.71 _0.15
11. Simmonds and Fox (2004), walking controls 20 2 _1.29 _0.29
12. Simmonds-Moore and Holt (2007) 26 8 0.45 0.09
13. Steinkamp (2000) clairvoyance 74 17 _0.27 _0.03
14. Steinkamp (2000) precognition 75 16 _0.60 _0.03
15. Steinkamp (2001) Series 3, precognition 100 21 _0.81 _0.08
16. Steinkamp (2001) Series 3, clairvoyance 100 28 0.58 0.06
17. Storm (2003) 10 5 1.84 0.58
18. Storm and Barrett-Woodbridge (2007) 76 16 _0.66 _0.08
19. Storm and Thalbourne (2001) 84 22 0.13 0.01
20. Targ and Katra (2000) 24 14 3.54 0.72
21. Watt and Wiseman (2002) 58 17 1.61 0.21
Note. Studies that gave different z scores in their original sources differ due to the fact that authors of those studies
calculated z scores from sums-of-rank scores—not from direct hits, as we have done.

Appendix B
Number of Trials, Adjusted z Scores, and Effect Sizes From Storm and Ertel’s (2001) Study
Study Trials Hits z score Effect size
Bierman (1987) 16 6 0.88a 0.22a
Bierman et al. (1984) 32 11 1.02 0.18
L. W. Braud et al. (1984) 10 6 2.06a 0.65a
Haraldsson and Gissurarson (1985) 70 19 0.28 0.03
Houtkooper et al. (1988–1989) 40 10 0.00 0.00
Milton (1987) 37 13 1.23 0.20
Milton (1988–1989) 35 13 1.46a 0.25a
Murre et al. (1988) 41 13 0.81 0.13
Sargent (1982) 20 7 0.79 0.18
Sargent and Harley (1982) 44 18 2.26 0.34
Sondow (1987) 60 12 _0.75 _0.10
a The z scores and effect sizes are adjusted from those given in Storm and Ertel (2001, p. 428, Table 1).


Taken from: Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Pages: 13-14

12. Problem: Hyman wrote a look on the study and was not convinced also:

Meta-Analysis That Conceals More Than It Reveals: Comment on Storm et al. (2010)


Taken from: Taken from: http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Storm2 ... eeResp.pdf
Page: 16

13. Problem: This was already dealt with:

In 2010, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio analyzed 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008. Of the 1,498 trials, 483 produced hits, corresponding to a hit rate of 32.2%. This hit rate is statistically significant with p < .001. Participants selected for personality traits and personal characteristics thought to be psi-conducive were found to perform significantly better than unselected participants in the ganzfeld condition.[28] Hyman (2010) published a rebuttal to Storm et al. According to Hyman "reliance on meta-analysis as the sole basis for justifying the claim that an anomaly exists and that the evidence for it is consistent and replicable is fallacious. It distorts what scientists mean by confirmatory evidence." Hyman wrote the ganzfeld studies have not been independently replicated and have failed to produce evidence for psi.[29] Storm et al. published a response to Hyman claiming the ganzfeld experimental design has proved to be consistent and reliable but parapsychology is a struggling discipline that has not received much attention so further research on the subject is necessary.[30] Rouder et al. 2013 wrote that critical evaluation of Storm et al.'s meta-analysis reveals no evidence for psi, no plausible mechanism and omitted replication failures.[31]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

Conclusion: What to tell in the end. The study is a meta-analyses. It is quite biased and the results they put into the pool some of them are not very hard from guessing. Only few of the hits were higher then guessing so I am quite skeptical of their statistical work in it. For me this does NOT prove or even hint any PSI at all.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31640
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008

Postby Gord » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:04 pm

I got 8 out of 25 on the test. But I'm sure you already knew that. :P
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
busterggi
Regular Poster
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 pm
Custom Title: General Weirdness
Location: New Britain, CT

Re: Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008

Postby busterggi » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:09 pm

I got a zero on the tests and thus neutralize all psychics within 300 yards although if they use the metric system its only 50 meters.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008

Postby Flash » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:17 pm

Can you make these posts longer Shen. More quotes, more analysis...That way, I won't have to read all of these brief, clattering posts over here and over there... I'll just have time to read one per month.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008

Postby Shen1986 » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:34 pm

Flash wrote:Can you make these posts longer Shen. More quotes, more analysis...That way, I won't have to read all of these brief, clattering posts over here and over there... I'll just have time to read one per month.


Will try..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

kurt forrer
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008

Postby kurt forrer » Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:00 am

Shen, I agree with Flash, too many briefs. I only raced through some off the posts, so I really should not be replying to your posts. Thus forgive me if I am barking up the wrong tree. SYNCHRONICITY: No doubt you know all about it. Here is my take: It is no mystery; no Trickster God is involved, as some profess. The answer is simple: What Jung experienced in his clinic while the scarab patient was relating her dream is nothing more mysterious than a Déjà Vu Experience based on the patient's scarab dream. If you are interested in the details of my claim, please read my essay, "Synchronicity, did Jung have it right"? It is published by the University of Heidelberg, Germany. There are nine of my essays posted. "Brahman's Dream" may also interest you, since it verifies the existence of the etheric or soul and its persistence beyond death, supporting Moody's claims. This is verified by means of a medically induced NDE. My essay on the Paranormal has not yet been posted. In it I demonstrate that there is no such thing as paranormality. The crux of it shows that the phenomenon is again, as with Synchronicity, dream based. So if we psychically perceive a disaster, for instance, ahead of its time, it is due to the fact that we have recalled the dream of the disaster in a cryptomnesic way. Dreams are the software for our brain computer. Cheers, Kurt

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28541
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:48 pm

kurt forrer wrote:Shen, I agree with Flash, too many briefs. I only raced through some off the posts, so I really should not be replying to your posts. Thus forgive me if I am barking up the wrong tree.


You are responding to a post that closed in 2014. Try to observe the date of the last post made before responding.

kurt forrer wrote:please read my essay, "Synchronicity, did Jung have it right"?

Synchronicity: did Jung have it right?
by Kurt Forrer (International Journal of Dream Research Vol 8, 2015)

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/i ... view/20359


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest