[LawrenceKerr]

This oversimplifies decades of research. While early remote viewing studies at SRI had methodological flaws, later experiments at SAIC addressed these issues and produced statistically significant results that haven't been adequately explained. Randi's million-dollar challenge isn't considered scientifically valid - it's more publicity stunt than proper experimental protocol. The circumstances and rules for awarding his prize were opaque, controlled by Randi, and has nothing to do with how science tests hypotheses.

The government programs (like STARGATE) actually produced some compelling results according to their declassified documents. The issue wasn't that they were "debunked" - the programs ended largely due to inconsistent results and questions about operational usefulness, not because of exposed fraud.

I'd encourage looking at the peer-reviewed research rather than relying on stage magicians' critiques. While healthy skepticism is good, dismissing the entire field based on cherry-picked cases misses the nuance in the data.

The book "Phenomena" by the investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen is a fantastic and fascinating starting point.

[YesThatTom2]

SRI was scammed.

Randi literally walked in, showed how vaudeville magicians do spoon bending (spoiler alert: the spoon is swapped for one that’s already bent using sleight of hand) and the researchers blushed in embarrassment.

They’d been HAD!

Cite this so called research you claim to have.

ps: your uncle didn’t actually steal your nose. That’s his thumb.

[keepamovin]

Can you cite this? Blushed in embarrassment?

How was SRI scammed? They initiated the project and won the contract. Werner von Braun helped allocate the funds after meeting Targ.

[gus_massa]

> I'd encourage looking at the peer-reviewed research

I'm very skeptical. Do you have a good one?

[keepamovin]

Papers won't help much due to your priors, you'll just question method, design and stats and pretend they confirm your biases. See my answer for why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680

If you want to move beyond skepticism you need 1st hand experience. My linked answer gets you on the path :)

[LawrenceKerr]

Phew... where to start? I think before randomly citing research, it's best to approach this subject theoretically first.

Assume "psi" exists. Purely as a thought experiment. What does this mean?

One key implication would be that consciousness can somehow access information beyond normal sensory channels. If this ability exists, it would likely be influenced by psychological factors - just like any other cognitive function. This leads us to a fascinating paradox: Our beliefs and expectations about psi would logically affect our ability to demonstrate it.

This is exactly what researchers have found with the supposed "sheep-goat effect" - where belief in psi correlates with performance in psi experiments. While skeptics often dismiss this as special pleading, the ultimate cop-out for negative results, it's actually a logical consequence of the initial premise. Strong skepticism could act as a psychological barrier, while openness might facilitate the phenomena.

This creates an interesting epistemological challenge. Unlike testing a new drug where belief shouldn't affect the chemical reaction, testing psi inherently involves consciousness - and therefore belief systems. The field has faced intense scrutiny because of these challenges and its implications. When Bem published his precognition studies in 2011, it sparked unprecedented criticism and launched psychology's replication crisis.

However, this scrutiny has led to increasingly rigorous methods in the field - despite this controversial topic being a potential career-ender and underfunded (although there are some private initiatives...).

So, having said all that as an important preface, in my opinion... One answer to your question: a recent example is the 2023 study in Brain and Behavior examining CIA remote viewing experiments (Escolà-Gascón et al.). Using extensive controls and blind conditions, they found significant above-chance results in high emotional intelligence participants. The authors - who describe themselves as skeptically oriented - conclude their data shows "robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi." They argue for continued rigorous research while acknowledging the philosophical challenges these findings present.

This isn't hard proof of psi, yet, but it's evidence that there may be more going on than skeptics may think. We shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, just because it's so controversial, and because it seems incompatible with a materialist worldview that says "mind" must be spatially and temporally localised, and cannot access or manipulate information elsewhere.

[wat10000]

That sounds like a gigantic pile of rationalization for why proof is unobtainable. It sounds a lot like my religious school teachers telling us about “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” This powerful being is totally real and definitely takes visible actions in the world but don’t try to check this fact because it stops working if you try to check it.

Tons of human abilities are affected by our belief in them. Medicine is more effective when the patient believes it’s effective, to the extent that pills with no medicine in them can still have an effect if the patient believes it will. Do we just throw up our hands and say, crap, it’s super hard to figure out of any of this medicine actually works? No, we sit down and design experiments that account for it and end up with a massive library of proven drugs.

We don’t dismiss this stuff because it’s controversial and seems incompatible with a materialist worldview. We dismiss it because there’s no good evidence for it and no proposed method of action despite decades of trying. Arguably millennia of trying; “remote viewing” and similar things are just new framings of ancient religious ideas. There’s no actual difference between attempting “remote viewing” and praying for a vision.

And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.

[LawrenceKerr]

I did say my preface does sound like a rationalization... The difference with religious arguments is: here we can gather statistical evidence, build better experimental protocols and generate hypotheses about potential mechanisms. And the believer vs non-believer thing is, as the evidence shows, an important piece of the puzzle.

It's true the placebo effect affects other research too (and honestly I think the explanation for why it does so, isn't different than in parapsychological research, but I digress). It's also true studies (including the study I cited) try to account for this, so I don't understand why you bring this up as if it's a counter argument for what I wrote?

If psi doesn't exist, then it shouldn't matter if you believe in it or not - empirically we would observe the same outcomes for both groups, no? That's one starting point.

And while you are claiming you aren't dismissing it because it's controversial, I feel like you are literally doing so.

No, the results published so far aren't conclusive (I stated this as well in the post you are replying to), but again, if you are truly impartial, how can it not be evidence that it may be worth exploring further? It's okay to say it doesn't interest you and not have an opinion on the matter, but I think, if you are dismissing it as invalid, you should at least provide arguments for why the evidence is invalid, so enthusiasts like myself can learn from it & help improve future studies.

[some_furry]

> And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.

Yeah, I've got a simple way to test this:

Go win the powerball lottery using whatever techniques you believe in. Then, even if nobody believes you, you have the proof in your wallet.

[keepamovin]

Not many people can read. In context, getting a good hit on an image or future event is very achievable, but zeroing on set of specific numbers is hard.

Probably possible with error correction and extremely clever design, by you need to hack the 'sensor' to make it work. This is a sensor like anything else, and it's more impressionistic than fine-grained resolution. Try it and you'll see, my answer gives you all you need to get to your first session: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680

Without first hand experience you'll never be able to think about this clearly, due to stigma and materialist priors. So try! :)

Analogy to winning powerball is hitting 18 holes of hole in 1s.

[some_furry]

> Analogy to winning powerball is hitting 18 holes of hole in 1s.

I work in cryptography, so I have a pretty good handle on discrete probability. This is precisely why I posit the powerball lottery as the most convincing proof of any paranormal abilities.

That it's hard, or improbable, isn't a deterrent in my eyes. It's exactly what makes successfully being able to win such powerful and convincing evidence.

People are free to believe what they want. But if you want me to believe you're correct, I need extraordinary evidence.

(And if being able to accurately predict lottery numbers isn't convincing to others? That's their problem.)

[twojacobtwo]

Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps it has already been done (multiple people have won more than one ’1 in XX million chance' lotteries). And perhaps none of those who have the capability of something that specific/difficult (I.e. masters of the craft) want or care to have people know how real their abilities are.

I think it's all bullshit, but it doesn't hurt to play the other side sometimes.

[wat10000]

I don’t think the lottery is where to look. Look at hedge funds instead. If this stuff were real, hedge funds would be hiring them at insane salaries. There would be a pipeline for identifying, recruiting, and training people with the ability.

[keepamovin]

Wow, an open minded skeptic! Caught on in the wild - haha :)

Normally it's obvious why people think it's all bullshit, but you seem a little deeper, so I'm curious. What makes you say that?

[keepamovin]

Actually the dismissive answers on this thread are what sounds like 'gigantic pile of rationalization' and cope. LK lays out why well.

[gus_massa]

Is this study? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275521/#brb33026-...

They give 347 nonbelievers and 287 believers a set of 32 locations. They must clasify them as (a) military bases, (b) hospitals, (c) schools (or education centers), or (d) cemeteries. The expected average is 8 but they get 8.31 and 10.09 respectively.

[I'm skiping a lot of confusing parts, like figure 4 and 5 that I can't understand what they mean and how are they related.]

Anyway, 8.31 for believers vs 10.09 for believers is interesting.

But ... from the article:

> A total of 347 participants who were nonbelievers in psychic experiences completed an RV experiment using targets based on location coordinates. A total of 287 participants reported beliefs in psychic experiences and completed another RV experiment using targets based on images of places.

These are two different tasks! It's impossible to know if the difference of the result is cused by nonbeliever/believer or cuased by coordinates/images.

As a technical opinion: This inmediately invalidates the whole study. I don't understand how this was even published.

As a personal opinion: It's obvious that the guys/gals with the photos would get better results than the guys/gals with only the coordinates. The CIA should build more spy planes and satelites.

[LawrenceKerr]

Can you please explain why coordinate-based vs. image-based RV is relevant here?

I mean, if you assume psi is possible, sure, then it's a valid criticism that this is a confounding variable that causes the believers to score better.

However, if you're a skeptic, it shouldn't matter. I mean, if you assume psi is BS, then why would it be obvious image target X23AY would be easier to "guess" as an image of a hospital instead of getting the coordinates (39.2965, -76.5915)?

[krapp]

OK cool. Now please cite some of that peer-reviewed research you mentioned.

[LawrenceKerr]

Please read before replying first.

[keepamovin]

Exactly! The guy just totally misrepresented your answer where you clearly linked to one. Shameless

[stonogo]

You could have just said 'no'.

[keepamovin]

And confirm your biases, even tho they're wrong? Sorry, that ain't our job here hahaha! :)

There's zero doubt psi/RV is real. You require 1st hand experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680

[LawrenceKerr]

I'm sorry, but comments like this have no place on HN.

If you read what I wrote, you would've seen the reference to one example published in Brain & Behavior, so yes, there is peer-reviewed research.

There are more examples, more datapoints, but I don't think it's very useful to share those in a discussion where you know the other person already made up their mind and isn't willing to engage very productively.

[stonogo]

Part of the point of making claims -- and defending them -- in a public forum is that many more people than "the other person" get to read them. You claimed "decades" of research, and when asked where it is, mentioned one review of second hand information from a discontinued program, couched in a torrent of handwaving. I stand by my assessment of your post, and am not interested in armchair moderation. I remain of the opinion that if you could have made a compelling argument backed by research you would have. I, like a lot of people, am uncertain about this topic and would have liked to have some good research to consider, but I still don't, and you're blaming someone else for that outcome. It's not a good argument.

[keepamovin]

I'm glad to hear you are uncertain and sound as if you are willing to learn more. This is a good position! This topic needs smart people who are strong enough to overcome the significant barriers to entry. So I'll try to help you do that. By you here I address it not just to you, specifically, but to all the others who will see this. While most other answers of mine on this thread will be tiny and short, this one I made particular effort to construct, as it's necessary you hear every word. So if you can read all of it, and not skim, it is written for you! :)

But you will need the stomach for it. Reading this comment will likely require a process of pairing away, and like any cutting back it may be painful, but if you can bear with it, treasures await! :)

So let's begin: unfortunately the pre-requisite section here will be somewhat lengthy, and you will most likely and understandably complain, or find yourself wanting to reactively discredit simply due to the number of paragraphs, or you find the introductory apparatus excessive and obnoxiously handwavey. You will most likely experience an urge to yell "Shut up!" or to fight with every point and wording. If you can endure beyond these perceptions, and if you can retain sufficient patience, and keep in mind that as your goal sincerely is learning, then these words are the necessary sanding down, because if you jump straight to the facts without this minimal introduction, you will be in no position to comprehend them.

So, there's a sort of selection process already in operation. Only those who can resist attacks on multiple fronts (both from within and without their own minds) can get through and retain their rational faculty. This perhaps unique-to-this-topic challenge is oft under appreciated but once perceived will be readily apprehended, and its importance and necessity, including the necessity of overcoming such limiting beliefs to learning, realized.

You have hinted at what's there for you in your comment, so let's directly address that: the objection raised in the above comment is a fairly standard academic dismissal, not specific to psi/RV and to be expected anywhere, tho the tone of multiple commenters here was a tad too spicy to encourage the standard academic responses.

Which again is not that surprising given the understandable yet irrational resistance to something like this, especially for those minds embedded in a Western materialist framework, a contrast about which more can be said in another place.

Given all that, it's understandable (is it not?), and hopefully forgivable, that a bit of couching (counter couching?) is required, when those with different ideas, either from having opposite views, or from lacking the priors required to view this correctly, come heavily encumbered in their own couching, and display it so overtly -- hahah! :)

So hopefully that can dispense with some of the spiciness, so now down to practical matters.

Papers? Sure, we've got a few, but first a question on methodology of approach to the topic, and pre-requisites. The following two paragraphs could easily be taken personally, but shouldn't be. If you find yourself doing that, look around to the prevailing biased or dismissive commentary on this (here or wherever you like), and reassure yourself it applies to them, not to you! Yet these paragraphs are a necessary introduction to help you unlearn obstacles, and be aware of impediments to your curiosity and learning about this. So, the key insight is that: papers are not the best way for most of you to approach this given the significant obstacles you will face from pre-existing biases. But equally important, unless you are an actual psi researcher, who do you want to read stuffy academic papers? Especially when you can just experience it for yourself, right now!

In that context it's likely that papers will be simply a mill for you to dismiss each study with methodological, design, or analysis quibbles, as that confirming of your existing biases is what you want to do anyway. And even if you don't want to, it will be easy for you to pseudo-confidently do as such questions can be levied at any papers in any discipline, and even if you levy them, either unfairly on this topic; or to a stricter standard than you apply to other topics; you will sincerely believe you are in fact objective, because you want to achieve your aim. And even if you don't take the lead, you will easily be lead by others who do. The talk of being 'taken in by shysters' is funny, because it can be so often applied to those who inconsistently dismiss studies by enslavement to legacy bias! Ha :) There is no cure to this beside first hand experience, which is, sensibly where we will go first, and now!

So, again papers are not the best way for many of you to initially approach this. The best way is by having a conversion experience (without drugs!) -- and free, and only taking a few minutes of your time. So, take the responsibility, don't outsource it, and try :)

What other topic can offer you such a compelling and transformative re-vivisection/reorientation of your worldview at such low cost, and entirely within your capacity to effect? I challenge you to name one, haha! :)

So, I will give you papers, but only on the condition that you do not read them until you have given an honest try to it yourself. And I will not listen to your whinnying about papers until you have attained the proper training and experience, albeit brief but sufficient, via such first hand experience, a fairly standard academic bar to raise.

So, finally we come to what you probably hope we had just said at first, but hopefully by now you have some understanding of why that was unwise to do before the introduction above. SO: first and most importantly, head to https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/ and head to the pinned "[START HERE] INTRODUCTION | FAQ | RESOURCES" post, just as you would when learning any new technology (and believe me, this is a technology, although the public versions are not as advanced as the current state of the art). Read all of that, and then go to the "beginners guide" (linked in the same), and do all of that. That will take you through your first psi/RV session. All of this is a small investment of time, and the largest obstacle you will find to doing it is your own fear, because the implications of this are so huge. Briefly: there are other paths, and intros (just like to any tech there are a glut of resources), but this one is clear, simple, checked through experience, and comes with a community -- all very important for a supportive first time.

I trust you have sufficient discipline to do the above prior to possibly getting mistracked reading any papers, so I will provide you a decades long bibliography, which you can find here: https://www.irva.org/library/bibliography

Much more can be said, but the necessary initiation for you to understand is to perform the self exercise first. The papers are not important (for reasons given, you can always simply abuse them to confirm biases), but if approached with the right mind, only obtainable through first hand experience in our materialist Western purview, they may help you.

So to conclude, hopefully this painful, and difficult comment, likely also made harder to read by its difficult long-sentence style, could nevertheless assist those true learners to step forward beyond the difficulties and into the light of this topic. The point of that? Their own enrichment. And expanding the community of understanding, acknowledgement and acceptance around this. Greater treasures await if we can do that. Finally, in the gestalt this process of approaching this topic is analogous to (and likely essential to) the very process of psi/RV itself where conventional senses must be moved beyond to access information from what lies beyond them. Hopefully this effort by me today helped you in some way on your path to that :)