Is ESP (Extra Sensor y
Pe rception) For Real?
( I K n e w Yo u We r e G o i n g
to Ask That!)
Source: B e m , D . J . , & H o n o r t o n , C . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . D o e s P S I e x i s t ? R e p l i c a b l e e v i d e n c e f o r a n
C I
RC
a n o m a l o u s p r o c e s s o f i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 1 5 , 4 - 1 8 .
Goals:
Gain Attention/Interest:
Te a c h m e t h o d o f
proof by disproof
(i.e., eliminating all
other possible answers
in order to support one
specific answer).
Many people fantasize at one time or another about
having super-human powers, such as being able to
f l y, m a k e t h i n g s l e v i t a t e , o r r e a d s o m e o n e ’s m i n d .
But can anyone actually do any of these things?
Most people laugh at this idea, while some others are
true believers. Is there a way we can actually test
whether or not these things occur?
Te a c h t h e i m p o r t a n c e
Wo u l d y o u b e l i e v e t h a t e v e n t h e a v e r a g e p e r s o n
of considering the
source when evaluating could have seemingly super-human powers, such as
the ability to send a message or a thought to a person
information.
i n a n o t h e r r o o m ? T h i s a b i l i t y i s c a l l e d E S P, w h i c h i s
s h o r t f o r E x t r a S e n s o r y Pe r c e p t i o n . I t m e a n s e x a c t l y
Basic Idea:
what it sounds like, being able to perceive something
extra.
Many people are
skeptical about
seemingly
unexplainable human
powers and types of
communication. This
lesson discusses a
scientific approach to
measuring ESP and
describes some
surprising findings
related to this
phenomenon.
We a l l k n o w t h a t w e g e t i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m , a n d
interact with, the world through the five senses: see,
hear, taste, smell, and touch. However, is this the
only way in which we can acquire information?
What about picking up a message by some other
method? Some scientists tested this possibility and
you might be surprised at what they found! But
first—what do you think about ESP? Is it for real?
www.circ.cornell.edu
C o p y r i g h t © 2 0 0 5 M a t t h e w C . M a k e l & We n d y M . W i l l i a m s. P r i n c i p a l I n v e s t i g a t o r : We n d y M . W i l l i a m s .
C o n t e n t : M a t t h e w C . M a k e l & We n d y M . W i l l i a m s. L a y o u t & D e s i g n : P a u l B. P a p i e r n o.
T h i n k & Wr i t e # 1
Do you believe in ESP? W hy or why not?
(Some students may need to be given a more specific question,
such as: Does anyone have ESP? Do many people have ESP?
Can ESP be developed through practice?)
Ask: What is Science?
1
Ask:
What
is
Science?
When many people think about an extraordinary
activity such as ESP or telepathy (sometimes referred
to as mind-reading), they think it is false or a trick. In science, though, an idea is tested
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y — i t ’s n o t j u s t a s s u m e d t o b e e i t h e r r i g h t o r w r o n g , i t ’s t e s t e d a n d g i ve n a
fair chance without jumping to conclusions.
To t e s t w h e t h e r o r n o t a n u n e x p l a i n e d a c t iv i t y d o e s i n f a c t o c c u r, w e mu s t s y s t e m a t i c a l l y
eliminate all other possibilities and explanations.
T h e r e a r e m a n y w ay s i n w h i c h E S P a n d r e l a t e d p h e n o m e n a c o u l d b e f a ke d . Wer e t h e
p e o p l e c o m mu n i c a t i n g w i t h h a n d m ove m e n t s i n s t e a d o f r e a d i n g e a ch o t h e r ’s m i n d s ?
Wa s i t a r r a n g e d a h e a d o f t i m e — we r e t h e a n s wer s p l a n n e d a n d m e m o r i z e d ? I n o r d e r t o
convince scientists (and most likely you, too!), all other possibilities must be eliminated.
Whereas some people might be convinced by a few examples of people performing
amazing feats, scientists are satisfied that a phenomenon is real only if no other possible
m e a n s o f e x p l a n a t i o n a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s. T h i s i s c a l l e d t h e m e t h o d o f p r o o f b y
disproof. Scientists support one explanation by showing that the alternatives are
wrong—by disproving them. In the case of ESP, if scientists ar e a ble to dispr ove all
o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n s a n d way s t h a t p e o p l e c o u l d “ c h e a t ” , t h e n t h e o n l y c o n c l u s i o n
scientists can make is that ESP exists—meaning that some people can sometimes read
a n o t h e r p e r s o n’s m i n d .
The lab for this lesson is similar to the procedures scientists have used to test whether or
not ESP exists.
Define the Problem: See Many Sides
T h e r e a r e a l o t o f a b i l i t i e s t h a t m ay s e e m s u p e r- h u m a n o r u n b e l i e va b l e. Te s t i n g w h e t h e r
or not each of these exists would require many different kinds of experiments and tests.
It may seem a simple and obvious task, but the first step scientists
must execute is to clearly define the problem. In this particular
case, the problem being studied could be defined as simply as:
Does ESP exist? Once a specific question is chosen, scientists must
f i g u r e o u t w ha t t h e d i f f er e n t p o s s i b l e a n s w e r s a r e. T h e n , t h e y
d e ve l o p a hy p o t h e s i s , r e pr e s e n t i n g o n e p o s s i b l e p r e d i c t i o n . Two
of the most basic hypotheses are: “ESP exists", or “ESP does not
exist”. A more complicated hypothesis could be that only certain
individuals are capable of ESP under special circumstances.
As we already discussed, scientists and non-scientists approach
t h e s e q u e s t i o n s d i ff er e n t l y. A k i d o r a n a d u l t n o n - s c i e n t i s t m i g h t
only need an example or two of something that appeared to be ESP
to be convinced. A scientist needs much stronger evidence to
sway her/his view.
2
Define
the
Problem:
See
Many
Sides.
I f yo u h a d t o m a ke a hy p o t h e s i s r i g h t n ow, w ha t wo u l d you
predict? Are people capable of sending/receiving information to
each other using some unexplained method of communication? Have students form a
value line based on their current opinion. One side of the class can represent 100%
confidence that ESP exists, while the other side can represent 100% confidence that ESP
does not exist, with places in between representing varying levels of middle ground. Once
students have chosen their respective places, ask for volunteers to express why they made
their choice the way they did. What are the different sides that can be argued?
Potential arguments:
ESP exists : Anecdote about people they know (Note: students may give examples that
a r e n o t a c t u a l l y E S P. A n e x a m p l e o f t h i s : A c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t i n g t h e fo o d yo u r b e s t
friend selects at lunch ever yday. T his is not ESP because it is using infor ma tion
g a t h e r e d p r e v i o u s l y v i a t h e 5 s e n s e s ) ; b e l i e f i n r e l i g i o u s / d iv i n e e x p e r i e n c e s.
ESP doesn’t exist: It’s impossible; those people are fakers tr ying to become rich or
famous.
I n b e t we e n : S o m e p e o p l e c a n d o i t b u t m o s t c a n’t; p e o p l e n e e d t r a i n i n g / p r a c t i c e ; i t c a n
happen in certain situations (e.g., when a loved one has been in an accident), or
between identical twins.
Distinguish Fact From Opinion:
Learn What Constitutes Scientific Evidence
Obviously there are a lot of ways to cheat w hen testing for ESP. Howe ver, the question
w e a r e a d d r e s s i n g t o d ay i s N O T w h e t h e r o r n o t p e o p l e C A N ch e a t ( s t ay i n g f o c u s e d o n
the problem at hand is an important part of science). Our question today is whether or
n o t E S P e x i s t s. We wa n t t o k n ow w h e t h e r e x p e r i m e n t s t h a t c a r e f u l l y s c r e e n o u t che a t e rs
and that take place under carefully controlled circumstances are, in fact, able to
demonstrate that ESP happens. To answer questions such as these, scientists g a ther the
f a c t s. T h e d i f f er e n c e b e t we e n a f a c t a n d a n o p i n i o n i s
important.
3
Which are facts and which are opinions?
· Yoj u sutrlci koeu hs ienr twe lalss dyoe suctrhi baet dh et omheitmh bi sywai pf es yacf ht ei rc .a wo m a n
Fact
·
Versus
Opinion:
What
Constitutes
Evidence?
A scientist talks with one of her co-workers and they
both think that psychics are greedy people who want to
steal money from trusting individuals. A psychic is a
person who has (or claims to have) super abilities, such
as ESP.
N e i t h e r i s s c i e n c e. I t m ay b e f a c t t h a t yo u r c o u s i n m e t h i s
w i f e a f t e r a p s y ch i c d e s c r i b e d a wo m a n l i k e h e r, b u t t h i s i s
not scientific evidence about the existence of ESP. T hough
they are scientists, the people who think psychics are
g r e e d y a r e m e r e l y e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r o p i n i o n s. Ju s t b e c a u s e
they are scientists does not change their personal opinions
i n t o f a c t . T h o u g h i t m a y ver y we l l b e f a c t N O T A L L S O U R C E S
A R E E QUA L
that your cousin met his wife after someNot all sources are
one resembling her was described by a
equal. Some sources
psychic, scientists would not consider this evidence that psychic
have reasons why they
powers exist. Remember our discussion of proof by disproof. T his
would want one
e x a m p l e d o e s n’t s h o w t h a t p s y ch i c p ower s a r e t h e o n l y way t h e p s y ch i c o u t c o m e r a t h e r t h a n
could have made a seemingly accurate prediction (e.g., the psychic
o t h e r s.
could have made a very general prediction that would have described
nu m e r o u s p e o p l e s u c h a s “ m e d i u m - h e i g h t b r u n e t t e ” ) . I t wo u l d b e i n c o r r e c t t o a s s u m e
t h a t t h e p s y c h i c ’s p r e d i c t i o n w a s c o r r e c t b e c a u s e t h e p s y c h i c c o u l d p r e d i c t t h e f u t u r e
b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e o t h e r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s. S i m i l a r l y, i t wo u l d b e
CORRELATION VS.
incorrect to say that wearing a yellow sweater caused you to do better
CAUSATION
o n a t e s t . T h i s i s a n e x a m p l e o f c o n f u s i n g cor r ela tion (two e vents
Just because event B
that are associated with each other) with causation (one event caused
happens after event
the other to happen). Confusing correlation and causation is quite
A, does not mean that
e v e n t A c a u s e d e v e n t B. c o m m o n i n e v e r y d a y l i f e . H o w e v e r , t h r o u g h t h e m e t h o d o f p r o o f b y
d i s p r o o f, s c i e n t i s t s d o t h e i r b e s t t o avo i d s u c h m i s t a ke s.
What would represent good, solid evidence about ESP?What would represent good,
solid evidence about ESP?
Carefully controlled experiments.
W ha t i s a c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d e x p e r i m e n t ? To l e a r n a n e x a m p l e o f
a carefully controlled experiment and to understand how scientists
t e s t w h e t h e r o r n o t E S P e x i s t s, l e t u s g o t h r o u g h t h e p r o c e d u r e t h e y
use to test it.
CONSIDER THE
SOURCE
An independent
scientist does not
usually have an
investment in how an
experiment turns out.
Scientists are usually
t r u s t w o r t h y s o u r c e s.
1
First, a person known as the “sender” is brought to a room
and shown a randomly selected visual picture (a horse, a
b e a ch , a p e r s o n r u n n i n g , e t c. ) . T h e s e n d e r i s i n s t r u c t e d t o
c o n c e n t r a t e o n t h e p i c t u r e f o r 3 0 m i nu t e s.
2
A n o t h e r p e r s o n , k n o w n a s t h e “ r e c e i ver,” i s b r o u g h t i n t o a q u i e t r o o m ( u s u a l l y
d o w n t h e h a l l f r o m t h e s e n d e r ’s r o o m ) a n d t o l d t o s i t i n a r ec l i n i n g ch a i r. T ha t
p e r s o n i s t h e n b l i n d f o l d e d a n d h a s h e a d p h o n e s p u t o n ove r h i s / h e r e a r s. A l i g h t i s
shone directly toward the face to ensure constant visual display and a constant
n o i s e ( e. g. , a f a n b l ow i n g ) i s p l a y e d i n t o t h e h e a d p h o n e s. T h e r e c e ive r i s t o l d t o
p r ov i d e c o n t i nu o u s ve r b a l fe e d b a ck o n w ha t h e / s h e i s t h i n k i n g. T ha t i s, t h e
receiver should explain any thought or image that comes into his/her head.
3
Once the 30 minutes has ended the receiver is presented with four pictures and
asked to rate the degree to which each matches what he/she just experienced. If
the receiver gives the highest rating to the correct picture, it is considered a “hit”
or a correct selection.
How often should we expect the receiver to select correctly? (Answer: 1 out of 4 or
25%.) How often would the receiver have to select correctly to convince you that ESP
exists?
T h e o d d s o f t h e r e c e ive r s e l e c t i n g t h e c o r r e c t p i c t u r e a t r a n d o m i s o n e o u t o f f o u r. Wi t h
j u s t a f e w a t t e m p t s, t h e r e s u l t s c o u l d va r y, b u t w i t h m a n y a t t e m p t s, t h e e x p e c t e d va l u e i s
t h a t o n e o u t o f f o u r p a r t i c i p a n t s, 2 5 % , wo u l d “ s e l e c t ” t h e c o r r e c t p i c t u r e. B e c a u s e
t h e r e i s n o o t h e r m e t h o d t h e “ s e n d e r ” a n d “ r e c e i ve r ” c o u l d h a ve u s e d t o c o m mu n i c a te, a
“ h i t ” r a t e h i g h e r t h a n 2 5 % c o u l d o n l y b e e x p l a i n e d by E S P.
For the lab activity, we will re plica te, or copy, the methods scientists use to test ESP.
T h i n k & Wr i t e # 2
H y p o t h e s i s f o r ma t i o n
Have students form a hypothesis
that can be tested with this lab.
Lab Activity
This activity is an approximate replication of the ESP experiment discussed
above. Have students partner up and have each sit on opposite sides of the
r o o m f a c i n g away f r o m e a ch o t h e r. H ave h a l f t h e s t u d e n t s d r aw a s l i p o f
p a p e r w i t h a n u m b e r ( 1 , 2 , 3 , o r 4 ) o r c o l o r ( b l u e , r e d , y e l l o w, o r g r e e n ) o n i t .
H ave t h e s t u d e n t s t r y t o s e n d t h e m e s s a g e t o t h e i r p a r t n e r. T h e n , h ave e a ch
“r e c e ive r ” tr y t o s e l e c t t h e nu m b e r o r c o l o r t h a t wa s t e l e p at h i c a l l y s e n t t o
them.
C o m p a r e t h e e x p e c t e d p ro b a b i l i t y o f s t u d e n t s ’ c o r r e c t g u e s s e s w i t h t h e a c t u a l
probability they found. Is there a difference? If time permits, try it again
w i t h p a r t n e r s p e r f o r m i n g o p p o s i t e r o l e s. S t u d e n t s o f t e n w a n t t o p e r f o r m t h i s
a c t iv i t y r e p e a t e d l y. M u l t i p l e t r i a l s b e n e f i t t h e a n a l y s i s a s i t i n c r e a s e s t h e s i z e
o f t h e s a m p l e. T h o u g h t h e p r o c e d u r e i s n o t a s p r e c i s e a s i t c o u l d b e, i t i s
c o m p a r a b l e a s l o n g a s n o i n c i d e n t a l c o m mu n i c a t i o n ( w h i s p e r s, cha t t e r, h a n d
signals, etc.) occurs.
Weigh Evidence and Make Decisions
Scientists went through a group of 28 separate studies and
f o u n d t h a t t h e “ h i t ” r a t e wa s 3 5 % . T h i s m ay n o t s e e m t o b e a
lot higher than 25%, but imagine a penny that is flipped 1,000
t i m e s a n d l a n d s o n h e a d s 6 0 0 t i m e s a n d t a i l s 4 0 0 t i m e s. Wo u l d
y o u t h i n k t h a t ’s a n o r m a l c o i n , o r t h a t s o m e t h i n g
unexplainable was happening?
Compare class results to those of the scientists. Class results
may vary; this may be due to the relatively small number of
trials. Discuss with the class potential reasons why class results
may dif fer fr om those of scientists. Potential r easons: smaller
sample, cheating, ESP communication pathways clogged from
so many people trying to transmit at the same time, not enough
practice, etc.
4
Weigh
Evidence
and
Make
Decisions.
Even if the results go against what they initially expected,
scientists do not let their previous opinions override the facts; they make their
decisions based on the evidence. In this case, scientists would see that the 35% “hit”
rate is well above the expected 25% “hit” rate and decide that something must be going
on.
T h i n k & Wr i t e # 3
How about now?
Have students write about their thoughts now that they have
learned what scientists do and have tried the scientific approach
t h e m s e l v e s. We r e t h e i r h y p o t h e s e s c o r r e c t ? D o t h e y f e e l t h e
s a m e a s t h e y d i d d u r i n g T h i n k & Wr i t e 1 ?
5
Move
From
Science
To
Society.
Move From Science to Society
What does all this mean? Do you no longer have to call people on
the tele phone; can you just “think” a messag e to them? Not
l i k e l y, b u t i t d o e s p r e s e n t u s w i t h a n i n t e r e s t i n g p r o b l e m . H ow
can all this be explained? Can it be explained at all? Though the
evidence is strong that something is occurring, many people
remain skeptical simply because it is so unexpected!
Consider the way psychics are used by some police departments
to help solve difficult crimes and to help locate bodies of murder
victims. Some psychics are paid to help recreate what happened
i n a c r i m e s e e n o r t o h e l p t r a ck d ow n s e r i o u s c r i m i n a l s. To m a n y
of us this practice may sound crazy!
But in fact there have been some people who call themselves
psychics who have helped the police solve crimes when no other
method of evidence gathering would have led them to the
a n s wer. T h i s, c o u p l e d w i t h t h e 3 5 % “ h i t ” r a te, m e a n s t h a t m a y b e b e i n g p s y ch i c i s n o t s o
far-fetched after all. Maybe there are some people who really are able to use extras e n s o r y p ower s. T h i s d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t m o s t o f t h e p e o p l e c l a i m i n g t o b e p s y ch i c s
tr u t h f u l ly h a ve t h e s e t a l e n t s — i t j u s t m e a n s t h a t a t l e a s t s o m e o f t h e s e p e o p l e m a y
p o s s e s s r e a l a b i l i t i e s.
Other careers in which people need to know the science behind ESP:
P s yc h o l og i s t : P s y c h o l o g i s t s s t u d y t h e b r a i n a n d b e h av i o r s. T h e y
attend four-year colleges and earn a post graduate degree.
Magician: Knowing science can help magicians perform their tricks.
Though there is no formal education requirement for magicians, it can
take years of practice to master a routine.
Research Assistant: Research assistants work in laboratories, colleges,
a n d u n i ve r s i t i e s. T h e y c o l l e c t i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m b o o k s a n d f r o m
questionnaires they give to people. Research assistants attend four-year
colleges and often spend some time in graduate school afterwards.
Statistician: Statisticians use numbers to calculate the likelihood of
e ve n t s o c c u r r i n g. T h e y a t t e n d f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s a n d f r e q u e n t l y
attend graduate school.
P s yc h i c : S o m e p s y c h i c s a r e s e r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s e m p l oy e d t o h e l p l a w
e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s s o l v e c r i m e s. T h i s i s a v e r y r a r e s i t u a t i o n — m o s t
psychics are simply trying to separate people from their money!
W ha t “ d o i n g s c i e n c e ” m e a n s i s t h a t we b e g i n w i t h a n o p e n m i n d a b o u t s o m e t h i n g — i n
this case, ESP. T hen, when we move from science to society, we maintain our open mind
to see the many and varied ways science can help improve our lives. If ESP is real, and if
we accept this as fact, we can begin to explore the ways ESP can be used to improve
people’s lives.
Revisit, Review, Reflect, and Re-evaluate
As we have discussed, following scientific methods of testing to
s e e i f E S P e x i s t s, r e s e a r ch e r s f o u n d t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s s e l e c t e d t h e
picture that was “sent” 35% of the time, when chance predicts that
the correct picture should only be selected 25% of the time. Given
a l l t h e s t e p s t a k e n t o p r e ve n t c h e a t i n g , i t ’s d i f f i c u l t t o g ive a
plausible explanation for the relationship other than that ESP is
o c c u r r i n g.
6
Revisit,
H owe ver, t h e d e ba t e ove r E S P i s f a r f r o m ove r. S c i e n t i s t s c o n t i n u e
Review,
t o r e v i s i t t h e t e s t i n g p r o c e d u r e s, r e f l e c t o n t h e r e s u l t s, a n d r e v i e w
o t h e r p o t e n t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n s. S c i e n t i s t s r e - e va l u at e p a s t f i n d i n g s
Reflect,
b e c a u s e i t n o t o n l y i s t h e i r j o b t o a n s we r n e w q u e s t i o n s, b u t i t i s
also their job to go back and check to make sure that previouslyand
answered questions have been answered as best as they possibly
could have been. Maybe knowledge that scientists have recently
Re-evaluate.
acquired in another area can be applied to ESP research. The job
of a scientist is never finished. There are always new questions
b e i n g a s ke d a n d n e w way s o f l o o k i n g a t o l d q u e s t i o n s.
T h i n k & Wr i t e # 4
What's next?
B a s e d o n w h a t t h e y k n o w n o w, h a v e s t u d e n t s hy p o t h e s i z e a b o u t
which further scientific studies might be done so that scientists
can better understand ESP and how/if it works.
Po t e n t i a l i d e a s : D o p e o p l e b e c o m e b e t t e r w i t h p r a c t i c e ? A r e
some people better than others? What if the people know each
other or are related?
Discussion Questions
1. What could scientists do differently to test whether or not ESP exists?
2. Imagine scientists find a group of people who can actually perform ESP on a
regular basis; what would this mean for society? For the g over nment? For
businesses? For you?
3. We discussed the method of pr oof by disproof, used by scientists to test things. Can
yo u t h i n k o f a n y s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i ch t h i s m e t h o d s h o u l d b e u s e d , b u t i s n’t ?
4. What if the scientists found that the people in the experiments had a secret way to
communicate? Now what would you think about ESP?
H o m e wo r k Q u e s t i o n s
1. P r e t e n d y o u a re a s c i e n t i s t a n d d e ve l o p yo u r ow n e x p e r i m e n t t o t e s t w h e t h e r o r n o t
a person has ESP. Describe.
2. Ask someone else w ha t she/he thinks a bout ESP, tell her/him w ha t you’ ve lear ned
and see if it changes her/his mind. Report on the results.
3. Bring in 3 examples of claims in which the source has a bias. Explain why the
sources are biased and describe how you could find unbiased information.
Cor nell Institute for
Research on Children
January 3, 2005
Quiz Questions
Ve r s i o n A
1. In the ESP experiment, there were 4 possible pictures for the “sender” to choose.
If there was no ESP involved and the “receiver” was selecting pictures by chance, we
would expect that the “receiver” would select the correct picture
of the time.
a.
b.
c.
d.
15%
25%
35%
50%
2. In the ESP experiment, there were 4 possible pictures for the “sender” to choose.
The “receiver” selected the correct picture
of the time.
a.
b.
c.
d.
15%
25%
35%
50%
3. What are the two basic hypotheses of the research discussed in the ESP lesson?
a.
b.
4 . Yo u a r e wa tch i n g T V a n d a c o m m e r c i a l c o m e s o n a d ver t i s i n g p s y ch i c r e a d i n g s f o r
$ 4 . 9 5 a m i nu t e. T h e c o m m e r c i a l s h o w s a p r e v i o u s c u s t o m e r c o m p l i m e n t i n g t h e
service and encouraging you to use it because it accurately predicted the kind of
woman he was g oing to mar r y. T his is an example of:
a. A great opportunity to learn about your future
b. Confusing correlation with causation
c. Applying science in society
d. Scientific evidence
Quiz Questions
Ve r s i o n B
1 . I n t h e E S P e x p e r i m e n t , t h e r e wer e 4 p o s s i b l e p i c t u r e s f o r t h e “ s e n d e r ” t o cho o s e
f r o m . G ive n t h i s, we wo u l d e x p e c t t h a t t h e “ r e c e ive r ” wo u l d s e l e c t t h e c o r r e c t p i c t u r e
2 5 % o f t h e t i m e. T h e s t u d y c i t e d f o u n d a 3 5 % “ h i t ” r a t e. I s t h i s a h i g h e n o u g h r a t e t o
convince you that something other than chance (for example, ESP) is going on?
Why / why not?
2 . Yo u a r e wa tc h i n g T V a n d a c o m m e r c i a l c o m e s o n a d ver t i s i n g p s y ch i c r e a d i n g s f o r
$ 4 . 9 5 a m i nu t e. T h e c o m m e r c i a l s h ow s a p r e v i o u s c u s t o m e r c o m p l i m e n t i n g t h e s e r v i c e
and encouraging you to use it because it accurately predicted the kind of woman he was
g o i n g t o m a r r y. T h i s i s a n e x a m p l e o f ( c i r c l e a l l t h a t a p p l y ) :
a. Applying science in society
b. A biased source
c. Confusing correlation with causation
d. A scientific hypothesis
e. Scientific evidence
3. Imagine that a new poll of scientists comes out that says 75% of scientists believe
t h a t d o e s n o t E S P e x i s t . Wo u l d t h i s i n f l u e n c e yo u r t h o u g h t s o n E S P ? W hy ?
Quiz Questions
Ve r s i o n C
1. Do you think that having f our choices for the “sender” and “r eceiver” to choose
a f f e c t s t h e f i n d i n g s ? T ha t i s, g i ve n t h e 3 5 % “ h i t ” r a t e i n t h i s s t u d y, w ha t wo u l d
convince you that something other than chance is occurring in a study with 3 choices?
6 choices?
2 . Yo u a r e wa t c h i n g T V a n d a c o m m e r c i a l c o m e s o n a d ver t i s i n g p s y ch i c r e a d i n g s f or
$ 4 . 9 5 a m i n u t e. T h e c o m m e r c i a l s h ow s a p r e v i o u s c u s t o m e r c o m p l i m e n t i n g t h e s e r v i c e
and encouraging you to use it because it accurately predicted the kind of woman he was
g o i n g t o m a r r y. T h i s i s a n e x a m p l e o f
.
3. Imagine that a new poll of scientists comes out that says 75% of scientists believe
t h a t E S P e x i s t s. Wo u l d t h i s i n f l u e n c e yo u r t h o u g h t s o n E S P ? W hy ?