e : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200550001-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 » 300 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research A Final Issue Finally, it could be argued that the SINGLE SEED condition itself may have provided sufficient opportunity for effective intuitive data sorting to occur, particularly if one ascribes a “‘goal-oriented’’ (see Schmidt, 1974, pp. 190-191) or ‘‘diametric’’ (see Foster, 1940; Nash, 1986, pp. 202-203) property to the psi process. There is a danger, however, in positing increasingly higher levels at which intuitive data sorting and goal-directedness may operate, and that danger is that both of those no- tions ultimately become untestable. Testability of the intuitive data sorting and goal-orientation concepts requires an operational specification of de- grees of those possibilities; otherwise, the concepts become empirically intractable. The present study, in fact, represented an initial attempt to operationalize and test those concepts. It might be argued that the provision to our influencers in both SEED conditions of freedom to initiate sampling events by button presses may have effectively washed out the difference in IDS potential between the two conditions and rendered them, from an IDS perspective, indistin- guishable. To such a criticism, we respond that (a) despite this freedom factor that is common to both conditions, the two conditions continued to differ in quantity or degree of freedom and, hence, intuitive data sorting possibility, and (b) had such freedom not been provided, a serious psycho- logical difference between the two SEED conditions would have been es- tablished that would have rendered any experimental outcome uninterpret- able. In our tests of the IDS model, we wished the experimenters, the influencers, and the subjects to be unaware of how much control the in- fluencers could exert over the sorting process. Thus it was important to create in the influencers (and experimenter) the illusion of control. This required the use of events that the influencers could initiate by button presses. Influencers pressed a button to initiate events in both the SINGLE SEED and MULTIPLE SEED conditions. If this had not been done, and if events had started automatically for the influencers in the ““less-opportu- nity-to-data-sort’’ condition, the influencers would have known that they had less control of events in that condition, and this would have intro- duced a major psychological confounding factor into the experiment. In the experiment as actually conducted, the influencers felt they had equiva- lent control over events in the two conditions, and the psychological con- found was eliminated. This, of course, added an extra element of data sorting for the influencers throughout the study. However, we were still able to provide different degrees of data-sorting opportunity to the in- fluencers in the various conditions, and we assumed that such degrees should correlate with psi scoring if IDS played a major role in our bio-PK effect. Several levels of IDS were possible for the influencers and experi- menters throughout the experiment, but the influencers had one extra level of IDS potential in the MULTIPLE SEEDS condition, and this extra level did not appear to help scoring. We can think of no alternative method of Intuitive Data Sorting and Bio-PK 301 testing the IDS notion in this manner that would solve this particular problem without violating the necessary blind condition for the influencers and experimenters. A related issue involves our use of a computer keypress to seed a pseu- dorandom algorithm to determine the order of the two SEEDS conditions for an experimental session. Could such a maneuver have provided the experimenter with an important additional opportunity for intuitive data sorting? In response to a possible criticism along these lines, we argue that no alternative was possible. Any choice of order for the two conditions would have been susceptible to IDS, regardless of how or when it was done. In the present experiment, it was necessary for everyone to be blind with respect to the order of conditions. Therefore, it was necessary thie the order assignment be done by computer, in an unpredictable manner his necessitated a randomizing method of the type employed. S The possible role of intuitive data sorting in biological psychok{§esis and in other manifestations of psi clearly deserves further study. Alfgma- tive strategies for testing the IDS model are already being explored the Mind Science Foundation, and we hope to develop still other meth¢@s in the future. 6-00789R' REFERENCES o Braupb, W. G. (1978). Psi conducive conditions: Explorations and Gpter- pretations. In B. Shapin & L. Coly (Eds.), Psi and States of Awar@tess: Proceedings of an International Conference Held in Paris, F: rancegAu- gust 24-26, 1977 (pp. 1-41). New York: Parapsychology Founda@pion. Braup W. [G.], & Scuuirz, M. (1983). Psychokinetic influence onsglec- | trodermal activity. Journal of Parapsychology, 47, 95-119. =) Foster, A. A. (1940). Is ESP diametric? Journal of Parapsychology, 4, 325-328. S May, E. C., RapIN, D. I., HUBBARD, G. S., HUMPHREY, B. 8, & Utts, J. M. (1985). Psi experiments with random number gener@tors: An informational model. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The 8th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, VG. 1,- 235-266. ® NasH, C. B. (1986). Parapsychology: The Science of Psiology. Sfring- field, IL: Charles C Thomas. 9 ROSENTHAL, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies ePsy- chological Bulletin, 85, 185-193. a ROSENTHAL, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance fo null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. a ROSENTHAL, R. (1984). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social ResGrch. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Scuuitz, M., & BRAuD, W. (1985). Reiki-Plus natural healing: An eth- nographic/experimental study. Psi Research, 4, 100-123.
CIA-RDP96-00789R002200550001-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 302 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research SCHMIDT, H. (1974). Psychokinesis. In E. D. Mitchell et al. (J. White, Ed.), Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science (pp. 179-193). New York: Putnam’s. STANFORD, R. G. (1981). Are we shamans or scientists? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 75, 61—70. Mind Science Foundation 8301 Broadway, Suite 100 San Antonio, Texas 78209 Age and Stimulus in Past Life Memory Cases: A Study of Published Cases JAMES G. MATLOCK! ABSTRACT: Ninety-five published past life memory cases in which the previous person was identified were analyzed for the relationship between the subject’s age at the time of first speaking of the previous life and the presence of a stimulus to the memories on that occasion. These factors also were analyzed in subseries of 30 Indian and 65 non-Indian cases, and the results of the analyses were compared. The proportion of stimulated to unstimulated cases was found to vary significantly between younger and older age groups in the main series (p = .00005), the Indian subseries (p = .0014), and the non-Indian subseries (p = .0079), using chi-square tests. In a two-factor ANOVA with age as the dependent variable, theynain effect of type of case (stimulated vs. unstimulated) was significant (p = .0006), at the interaction between type of case and culture (Indian vs. non-Indian) was not significayy. —19 So Research on reincarnation during the almost 30 years since lahSte- venson (1960a, 1960b) published his seminal paper, ‘The Evideng for Survival from Claimed Memories of Former Incarnations,’’ ig¢this Journal, has been mainly proof-oriented: that is, it has been largelQ-on- cerned with the investigation of past life memory cases and with the Pstab- lishment of reincarnation as the best available interpretation of then) Analyses of process-related variables have been reported from tie to time (e.g., see Stevenson, 1970), but process-oriented studies have Begun to appear only recently. Chadha and Stevenson (1988) identified twgycor- relates of violent death in past life memory cases, and I (Matlock, 1g88a, 1988b) have related the age of the subject at the time of first speakéjg of the previous life to the strength of the claimed memories. mG That the subject’s age may play a crucial role in past life memoryegases is suggested by the sharp contrast between the reports of adults an@echil- dren. Children’s cases may include not only numerous verifiable State- ments, but also recognitions of persons associated with the previogg life and behavioral and even physical correspondences between the sdbject and the previous person (Stevenson, 1987). g Children often begin to speak about previous lives spontanefisly , without apparent stimulus,” and continue to do so for several years t@fore a —_—__— i ' | would like to thank the several persons—too many to mention by name—wf@ gave advice and assistance on this paper in the various stages of its development. 2 In their phenomenology, past life memories seem to resemble what psychologiggs call ‘involuntary’? autobiographical memories (see Neisser, 1982; Rubin, 1986). Invohintary memories need not be entirely spontaneous, but may be stimulated by a variety of ejfyiron- mental cues, often quite subtle ones (Salaman, 1970). Examples of stimuli (cues) to Bet life memories are given below. <{ The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Vol. 83, October 1989