Nice discussion of the expert-talented+trained-psi-practitioner with signal perspective. The jury is unfortunately still out after all these years and experiments def should continue probing in both directions. I think the framework fits well with my intuition and the overall data. If it's proven wrong, that's very interesting as well as it means an extraordinary new causal mechanism has been revealed to the world. One of the things I think that is important though in the meantime is to disseminate this minority MPI view to the public, skeptics and psi researchers. The reason being is that we want to be able to recognize and acknowledge the beauty, legitimacy, intensity of these real anomalous phenomena (eg. non-speakers) regardless of what happens inside the lab or demonstrations. MPI is unfortunately pretty nuanced and complex though, so may be quite hard to do.
Thanks Eugene! While MPI is correct when analyzing the current data to date, I do think that MPI should leave an opening for the outliers with specific research/displays that optimize the trial. It wouldn't mean that the trials would lack rigor or documentation... just that they would be designed for a short time frame with maximum impact. I've always been underwhelmed when reading through the PSI studies that comprise of subjects that have to undergo hundreds or thousands of exposures to coin flip odds testing. This is succinctly the opposite of how PSI works imo.
While there are various forms of PSI, I do not believe that most of it is optimally displayed with the long trials.
On another note... I wonder if VR could be utilized for a PSI practitioner to simulate maintaining their state in front of a hostile crowd or even a lab setting without having to actually perform in those specific settings.
The non-speakers are in a tough spot because they are children and now they have quite the burden to overcome as many are extremely sensitive energetically. The effect of skeptic energy definitely can pertain to many of them.
I believe that future PSI research should take deep input from the practitioners themselves to better understand what is optimal internally for them while retaining stringent parameters. Longer shot odds in a shorter amount of time with thorough documentation could be the way.
Nice discussion of the expert-talented+trained-psi-practitioner with signal perspective. The jury is unfortunately still out after all these years and experiments def should continue probing in both directions. I think the framework fits well with my intuition and the overall data. If it's proven wrong, that's very interesting as well as it means an extraordinary new causal mechanism has been revealed to the world. One of the things I think that is important though in the meantime is to disseminate this minority MPI view to the public, skeptics and psi researchers. The reason being is that we want to be able to recognize and acknowledge the beauty, legitimacy, intensity of these real anomalous phenomena (eg. non-speakers) regardless of what happens inside the lab or demonstrations. MPI is unfortunately pretty nuanced and complex though, so may be quite hard to do.
Thanks Eugene! While MPI is correct when analyzing the current data to date, I do think that MPI should leave an opening for the outliers with specific research/displays that optimize the trial. It wouldn't mean that the trials would lack rigor or documentation... just that they would be designed for a short time frame with maximum impact. I've always been underwhelmed when reading through the PSI studies that comprise of subjects that have to undergo hundreds or thousands of exposures to coin flip odds testing. This is succinctly the opposite of how PSI works imo.
While there are various forms of PSI, I do not believe that most of it is optimally displayed with the long trials.
On another note... I wonder if VR could be utilized for a PSI practitioner to simulate maintaining their state in front of a hostile crowd or even a lab setting without having to actually perform in those specific settings.
The non-speakers are in a tough spot because they are children and now they have quite the burden to overcome as many are extremely sensitive energetically. The effect of skeptic energy definitely can pertain to many of them.
I believe that future PSI research should take deep input from the practitioners themselves to better understand what is optimal internally for them while retaining stringent parameters. Longer shot odds in a shorter amount of time with thorough documentation could be the way.