Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200410001-2
Meta-analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments
“REAL-TIME” ALTERNATIVES TO
PRECOGNITON
Investigators have long been aware of the possibility that precognition
effects could be modelled without assuming either time reversal or
backward causality. For example, outcomes from studies with targets based
on indeterminate random number generators (RNGs) could be due to a
causal influence on the RNG— a psychokinetic (PK) effect— rather than
information acquisition concerning
its future state. In experiments with
targets based on prepared tables of random numbers, the possibility exists
that the experimenter or other randomizer may be the actual psi source,
unconsciously using “real-time” ESP combined with PK to choose an entry
point in the random number sequence that will significantly match the
“subject’s” responses. While this latter possibility may seem farfetched, it
cannot be
logically eliminated
if one accepts the
existing evidence for
contemporaneous ESP and PK, and
it has been argued that
it
is
less
farfetched than the alternative of “true” precognition.
Morris (1982) discusses models of experimental precognition based on
“real-time” psi alternatives and methods for testing “true” precognition. In
general terms these methods constrain the selection of the target sequence
so as to eliminate nonprecognitive psi intervention.
In the most common
procedure, attributed to Mangan (1955), dice are thrown to generate a set
of numbers which are mathematically manipulated to obtain an entry point
in the random number table. This procedure is sufficiently complex “as to
be apparently beyond the capacities of the human brain, thus ruling out PK
because the ’PKer’ would not know what to do even via ESP” (Morris, 1982,
p. 329).
Two features ofprecognition study target determination procedures were
coded to assess “real-time” psi alternatives to precognition:
• Method of determining random number table entry point,
• Use of Mangan’s method.
Methods of eliminating “real-time” psi alternatives have not been
employed in studies with random number generators and have only been
Psychophysical Research Laboratories
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200410001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200410001-2
Meta-analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments
used in a small number of studies involving randomization by hand shuffling.
These analyses are therefore restricted to studies using random number
tables (N = 137).
Method of Determining RNT Entry Point
The reports describe six different methods of obtaining entry points in
random number tables.
If the study outcomes were due to
subjects’
precognitive functioning rather than to alternative psi modes on the part of
the experimenter or the experimenter’s
assistants, there should be no
difference in mean effect size across the various methods used to determine
the entry point. Indeed, our analysis indicates that the study effect sizes do
not vary systematically as a function of method of determining the entry
point (Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA by Ranks: chi-square = 8.29, 5 df,
p = .141).
Use of Mangan’s Method
We find no significant difference in effect size between studies using
complex calculations of the type introduced by Mangan to fix the random
number table entry point and those that do not use such calculations
it = 0.92, df = 11,
p
= .359,2-tailed).
Psychophysical Research Laboratories
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200410001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200410001-2
Meta-analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments
MODERATING VARIABLES
The stability of precognition study outcomes over a 50-year period is also
bad news.
It shows that investigators in this area have yet to develop
sufficient understanding of the conditions underlying the occurrence (or
detection) of these effects to reliably increase their magnitude. We have
identified four variables that appear to covary systematically with magnitude
of precognition performance:
• Selected versus unselected subjects
• Individual versus group testing
• Feedback level
• Time interval between subject response and target genera-
tion
We are interested only in factors associated with hitting; therefore, our
analyses are based on the directional study outcomes only. The analyses use
the raw study significance levels and effect sizes; this results in uniformly
more conservative estimates of relationships with moderating variables than
when the analyses are based on quality-weighted significance levels and
effect sizes.
Selected versus Unselected Subjects
Our meta-analysis identifies eight subject populations:
• Unspecified subject populations
• Mixtures of several different populations
• Animals
• Students
• Children
• “Volunteers”
• Experimenter(s)
• Selected subjects
Psychophysical Research Laboratories
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200410001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200410001-2
Meta-analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments
Effect size magnitude varies significantly across these eight subject
populations (Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA, chi-square =
15.71, 7 df,
p -
.028).
Significance levels and effect sizes by subject population are
displayed in Figures 5 and 6.
FIGURE 5: Significance Level by Subject Population
(95% Confidence Limits.)
SUBJECT POPULATION
FIGURE 6: Effect Size by Subject Population
(95% Confidence Limits.)
SUBJECT POPULATION
Psychophysical Research Laboratories
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200410001-2