Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Psychologist Susan Blackmore devoted years of her life studying the paranormal

Options
  • 16-12-2009 1:39am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭


    Here is what she learned, and what her conclusions are:

    (hint: the paranormal is about as real as santa clause)
    Imagine me, if you will, in the Oxford of 1970; a new undergraduate, thrilled by the intellectual atmosphere, the hippy clothes, joss-stick filled rooms, late nights, early morning lectures, and mind-opening cannabis.

    I joined the Society for Psychical Research and became fascinated with occultism, mediumship and the paranormal — ideas that clashed tantalisingly with the physiology and psychology I was studying. Then late one night something very strange happened. I was sitting around with friends, smoking, listening to music, and enjoying the vivid imagery of rushing down a dark tunnel towards a bright light, when my friend spoke. I couldn't reply.

    "Where are you Sue?" he asked, and suddenly I seemed to be on the ceiling looking down.

    "Astral projection!" I thought and then I (or some imagined flying "I") set off across Oxford, over the country, and way beyond. For more than two hours I fell through strange scenes and mystical states, losing space and time, and ultimately my self. It was an extraordinary and life-changing experience. Everything seemed brighter, more real, and more meaningful than anything in ordinary life, and I longed to understand it.

    But I jumped to all the wrong conclusions. Perhaps understandably, I assumed that my spirit had left my body and that this proved all manner of things — life after death, telepathy, clairvoyance, and much, much more. I decided, with splendid, youthful over-confidence, to become a parapsychologist and prove all my closed-minded science lecturers wrong. I found a PhD place, funded myself by teaching, and began to test my memory theory of ESP. And this is where my change of mind — and heart, and everything else — came about.

    I did the experiments. I tested telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance; I got only chance results. I trained fellow students in imagery techniques and tested them again; chance results. I tested twins in pairs; chance results. I worked in play groups and nursery schools with very young children (their naturally telepathic minds are not yet warped by education, you see); chance results. I trained as a Tarot reader and tested the readings; chance results.

    Occasionally I got a significant result. Oh the excitement! I responded as I think any scientist should, by checking for errors, recalculating the statistics, and repeating the experiments. But every time I either found the error responsible, or failed to repeat the results. When my enthusiasm waned, or I began to doubt my original beliefs, there was always another corner to turn — always someone saying "But you must try xxx". It was probably three or four years before I ran out of xxxs.

    I remember the very moment when something snapped (or should I say "I seem to …" in case it's a false flash-bulb memory). I was lying in the bath trying to fit my latest null results into paranormal theory, when it occurred to me for the very first time that I might have been completely wrong, and my tutors right. Perhaps there were no paranormal phenomena at all.

    As far as I can remember, this scary thought took some time to sink in. I did more experiments, and got more chance results. Parapsychologists called me a "psi-inhibitory experimenter", meaning that I didn't get paranormal results because I didn't believe strongly enough. I studied other people's results and found more errors and even outright fraud. By the time my PhD was completed, I had become a sceptic.

    Until then, my whole identity had been bound up with the paranormal. I had shunned a sensible PhD place, and ruined my chances of a career in academia (as my tutor at Oxford liked to say). I had hunted ghosts and poltergeists, trained as a witch, attended spiritualist churches, and stared into crystal balls. But all of that had to go.

    Once the decision was made it was actually quite easy. Like many big changes in life this one was terrifying in prospect but easy in retrospect. I soon became "rentasceptic", appearing on TV shows to explain how the illusions work, why there is no telepathy, and how to explain near-death experiences by events in the brain.

    What remains now is a kind of openness to evidence. However firmly I believe in some theory (on consciousness, memes or whatever); however closely I might be identified with some position or claim, I know that the world won't fall apart if I have to change my mind.


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    It depends on what she came across. Many people have came across apparations etc and some haven't. It all changes belief systems in people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    The bitter ramblings of a druguser.Her position is weak.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Well if it's her view then fair enough. Not everything some one sees is an apparation or anything paranormal but i have read and watched some really freaky stories. From time slips to apparations.

    People claiming to of been thrown out of their own house because they believed and say they were being haunted by a spirit. Not everyone is mad. I don't think we should claim anyone who has these experiances as mad. That would be unfair. We should just be looking into them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    We should just be looking into them.

    You mean like the woman in the OP did?


  • Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭MonkeyBalls


    bigeasyeah wrote: »
    The bitter ramblings of a druguser.Her position is weak.

    Do you know what ad hominem means?

    And by the way, she's a professor.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    Do you know what ad hominem means?

    And by the way, she's a professor.

    Yes.I said her position is weak.
    Ad hominem used here is irrelevent.
    Wow ,a professor,Im impressed.I feel honoured just to read about her.


  • Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭MonkeyBalls


    bigeasyeah wrote: »
    Yes.I said her position is weak.
    Ad hominem used here is irrelevent.
    Wow ,a professor,Im impressed.I feel honoured just to read about her.

    The cognitive dissonance must be tough on you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    The cognitive dissonance must be tough on you.

    It wouldnt be tough on me even if there was a contradiction. Amusing that you placed the word 'The' before cognitive dissonance.Perhaps you didnt notice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭MonkeyBalls


    bigeasyeah wrote: »
    Amusing that you placed the word 'The' before cognitive dissonance.Perhaps you didnt notice.

    I suggest you read it again. "The" is perfectly correct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    I suggest you read it again. "The" is perfectly correct.

    The fact that your previous post(now gone) tried to insult me proves your ignorance.Your post,arguement and manner points are testament to this.How threatened you become at the slightest challenge.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭MonkeyBalls


    bigeasyeah wrote: »
    The fact that your previous post(now gone) tried to insult me proves your ignorance.Your post,arguement and manner points are testament to this.How threatened you become at the slightest challenge.

    I got an infraction for calling you an idiot, so I deleted it.

    I suggest you read it again. "The" is perfectly correct.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Guys, this is not the venue to have your private row over grammar. Stick to the topic or take a break.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    The OP got an infraction for insulting me yet repeats the same sentiments in their next post.
    As regards the arguement its not about grammar but using the correct terms in the correct manner as is relevent to the topic in an effort to keep the thread topical.


  • Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭MonkeyBalls


    bigeasyeah wrote: »
    The OP got an infraction for insulting me yet repeats the same sentiments in their next post.
    As regards the arguement its not about grammar but using the correct terms in the correct manner as is relevent to the topic in an effort to keep the thread topical.

    I suggest you read it again. "The" is perfectly correct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    I suggest you read it again. "The" is perfectly correct.

    The Mod asked us to stop discussing your incorrect use of language.Repeating a statement doesnt vindicate it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭MonkeyBalls


    bigeasyeah wrote: »
    The Mod asked us to stop discussing your incorrect use of language.Repeating a statement doesnt vindicate it.

    Oh dear.
    It must upset you being wrong all the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Nick_oliveri


    STFU already guys.Ye are proving nothing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    Oh dear.
    It must upset you being wrong all the time.


    For sh it sake like. Keyboard kindergarten here.

    RE: The irrepressible Susan Blackmore. Well, a weed-fuelled return journey away with the bloody fairies over her own body hardly counts as a 'paranormal' experience. Fair dues to her getting stuck into all the branches of the paranormal for a few years or what have you, but she seemed naive and easily deluded to begin with anyway. There was obviously something badly askew in her psychological make-up in the first place for her to become so obsessively (and evidently) fixated on the paranormal to the eventual detriment of her academic progression, or whatever else.

    Saddo.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    I think the Susan Blackmore case shows how absolutely convincing personal experiences can be. Whether the experiences she had were solely down to drugs or not, they were strong enough for her to be convinced and to research the paranormal for many years, when she could have followed an interest in all manner of other things. I dont think such research was wasted, at least you can point to anything she got a null result on and say, there, thats evidence against such things.

    I think 'negative' research at least removes a layer of bs that scammers hide behind, and as such is not a waste of time. In the same way that the work of Ben Goldacre and Bruce M Hood is not wasted. It demonstrates how the human brain works and how we can be fooled by it.

    It does paranormal research no favours if people are unaware of how they can be mistaken in their interpretation of experiences.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    For sh it sake like. Keyboard kindergarten here.

    RE: The irrepressible Susan Blackmore. Well, a weed-fuelled return journey away with the bloody fairies over her own body hardly counts as a 'paranormal' experience. Fair dues to her getting stuck into all the branches of the paranormal for a few years or what have you, but she seemed naive and easily deluded to begin with anyway.
    Except that she isn't claiming it was paranormal. She freely admits it was just the mind playing tricks. The point of the piece is that through investigating it she was able to get over her initial delusion. As such it doesn't really matter that drugs brought about the state of mind where she thought she was astrally traveling.
    There was obviously something badly askew in her psychological make-up in the first place for her to become so obsessively (and evidently) fixated on the paranormal to the eventual detriment of her academic progression, or whatever else.

    Saddo.
    That makes her sound as if she has failed in life, whereas in reality she is quite successful. She made a living investigating the paranormal but realised it was a sham. Now she makes a living researching other aspects of the mind e.g.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    Except that she isn't claiming it was paranormal. She freely admits it was just the mind playing tricks. The point of the piece is that through investigating it she was able to get over her initial delusion. As such it doesn't really matter that drugs brought about the state of mind where she thought she was astrally traveling.

    That's all very lovely and touching. Most intelligent people (who weren't arsing around with drugs to the point where they believed they were astral-travelling :rolleyes:) also go to the trouble of questioning and investigating an unusual incident that has happened to them. You'd know that by speaking to people in depth and face-to-face, of course.
    SkepticOne wrote: »
    That makes her sound as if she has failed in life, whereas in reality she is quite successful. She made a living investigating the paranormal but realised it was a sham. Now she makes a living researching other aspects of the mind.

    It can sound whatever it sounds like. The woman stated herself in that article that she neglected to avail of further academic avenues of opportunity as a result of her paranormal fixation at the time. Or, wait, will will I just smile broadly and clap my hands in celebration of that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    That's all very lovely and touching. Most intelligent people (who weren't arsing around with drugs to the point where they believed they were astral-travelling :rolleyes:) also go to the trouble of questioning and investigating an unusual incident that has happened to them. You'd know that by speaking to people in depth and face-to-face, of course.
    Most people who believe they astral travel (without the use of drugs) have scientifically investigated their belief?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    Most people who believe they astral travel (without the use of drugs) have scientifically investigated their belief?

    You inserted that word - not me. In any case, I'd say you'll have to find those alleged astral travellers and ask them that yourself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    You inserted that word - not me. In any case, I'd say you'll have to find those alleged astral travellers and ask them that yourself.
    Well, from the context of the thread I would have though it was fairly clear we're talking about scientific investigation of paranormal claims. What type of investigation were you thinking of?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    Well, from the context of the thread I would have though it was fairly clear we're talking about scientific investigation of paranormal claims. What type of investigation were you thinking of?

    That's your grievance - not mine.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    That's your grievance - not mine.
    My grievance? I am merely enquiring as to what you meant by "most people [...] also go to the trouble of questioning and investigating an unusual incident that has happened to them."

    If it is not scientific investigation then what sort are you talking about?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    My grievance? I am merely enquiring as to what you meant by "most people [...] also go to the trouble of questioning and investigating an unusual incident that has happened to them."

    If it is not scientific investigation then what sort are you talking about?

    God. This cream is crap - that haemorrhoid won't go away.

    I'm probably pointing out the stupidly obvious here now, but I think it would be worthwhile to take into account that not every single human being who has what they would term a 'paranormal' experience has the background, or even the means, to investigate their experience scientifically.

    A bit of common sense and a rational evaluation of different factors, with a propensity for secondary research, are perfectly sufficient to make up a person's own mind about anything unusual that may have occurred in their lives. Thousands of people who have experienced something they believed to be paranormal are not fixated on 'proving' it to individuals whose minds closed for business many moons ago, or in having any of it revealed publicly in a scientific journal.

    A person does not need to waste time and money on years of subsequent research following an 'out-of-body experience' where they had smoked too much weed. Some of the brightest academics are sorely deficient in good, old-fashioned common sense - a failing aptly illustrated by Susan Blackmore's story, amongst many others of her ilk.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    God. This cream is crap - that haemorrhoid won't go away.
    An unusually hostile and abusive response to fairly polite questioning of your assertions. All I'm trying to do is find out whether or not the sort of investigations you claim people are carrying out is worth taking seriously.
    I'm probably pointing out the stupidly obvious here now, but I think it would be worthwhile to take into account that not every single human being who has what they would term a 'paranormal' experience has the background, or even the means, to investigate their experience scientifically.
    No one is claiming that. What I want to know is whether a significant number who believe in the paranormal investigate their experiences in a reasonably rigorous way.
    A bit of common sense and a rational evaluation of different factors, with a propensity for secondary research, are perfectly sufficient to make up a person's own mind about anything unusual that may have occurred in their lives. Thousands of people who have experienced something they believed to be paranormal are not fixated on 'proving' it to individuals whose minds closed for business many moons ago, or in having any of it revealed publicly in a scientific journal.
    But there needs to be some sort of evaluation by others who may not hold the convictions of the person with the beliefs and where the methodology can be criticised. I'm sure most of these thousands of people you claim to have knowledge of do a bit of reading about their experiences but would that count as rigorous critical evaluation?
    A person does not need to waste time and money on years of subsequent research following an 'out-of-body experience' where they had smoked too much weed. Some of the brightest academics are sorely deficient in good, old-fashioned common sense - a failing aptly illustrated by Susan Blackmore's story, amongst many others of her ilk.
    This is a strange point you are making here. You are putting all your focus on the initial experience that kicked off her interest in the paranormal. It just happens to have been caused by too much weed, but it could easily have happened through some other means, perhaps simply reading about the subject. How does here initial motivation invalidate years of negative findings when paranormal phenomena are subjected to scientific scrutiny?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭MrMojoRisin


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    An unusually hostile and abusive response to fairly polite questioning of your assertions. All I'm trying to do is find out whether or not the sort of investigations you claim people are carrying out is worth taking seriously.

    Everything in moderation, including moderation itself.

    Okay, now go and find that out then. Talk to people in real life.

    SkepticOne wrote: »
    No one is claiming that. What I want to know is whether a significant number who believe in the paranormal investigate their experiences in a reasonably rigorous way.

    The only way you'd know that for certain is by meeting all of those people and asking them.
    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I'm sure most of these thousands of people you claim to have knowledge of do a bit of reading about their experiences but would that count as rigorous critical evaluation?

    These thousands of people I claim to have knowledge of, huh? If you were to tot up the number of people globally who have had what they understood to be a paranormal experience, I bet my life on it that it would indeed amount to thousands. F uck Ireland. Ireland is a dot.

    Whether or not people's personal investigative methods would count as rigorous critical evaluation would depend on the individual, and they would also vary from person to person. But, as I said, a bit of common sense and realism help an awful lot.
    SkepticOne wrote: »
    But there needs to be some sort of evaluation by others who may not hold the convictions of the person with the beliefs and where the methodology can be criticised.

    Yes, that is true, but you're forgetting that not everybody who has had an alleged paranormal experience was a 'believer' to start with. I've met several people who didn't hold beliefs in the afterlife, 'ghosts', God, etc, prior to having what they understood to be paranormal experiences. My own sister has had verifiable premonitions (verifiable by friends and family whom she informed before those events took place, that is), and she didn't believe in anything paranormal beforehand. She still doesn't believe in the paranormal, in spite of what she has experienced. All she accepts is that she is unable to explain how she 'foresaw' events in detail that happened later. "A lucky fluke", she said. That's seven "lucky flukes" of hers to date then.

    SkepticOne wrote: »
    This is a strange point you are making here. You are putting all your focus on the initial experience that kicked off her interest in the paranormal.

    I can put all of my focus anywhere I damn like.
    SkepticOne wrote: »
    It just happens to have been caused by too much weed, but it could easily have happened through some other means, perhaps simply reading about the subject.

    Lmao! :pac:
    SkepticOne wrote: »
    How does here initial motivation invalidate years of negative findings when paranormal phenomena are subjected to scientific scrutiny?

    I never said the initial motivation managed to invalidate years of her negative findings. I just think she's a f uckin eejit in general. I can't take someone seriously if they experienced what she experienced and came to some infantile and seriously unfounded conclusion about its nature. Come on, I take it she was an adult when that weird weed trip occurred? A young teenager would have more sense than she did.

    I also can't take someone seriously when they adopt this tunnel vision for a project to the exclusion of all other aspects of normal life for decades. That's tapped.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    If it is not scientific investigation then what sort are you talking about?

    The type that gives you the answer you want it to give you, obviously ;)

    Pss, science is for losers. The real excitement is in personal assessment.


Advertisement