Approved For Release 2003/09/1 6 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000500240025-6 ile, ew in ete ii ess meant eal eich De at hd deb ole tah he Ala ss ae Ree ah Malad beh et he ARS ASN ad Sad Ne Dates Yee ve A Scientist LN eae” Se i a t aylas, nA } she s Look at Psyauie Ability A oe Ra a Introduction by MARGALET MEAB Foreword by RISHARD GACH — DELACORTE PRESS / ELEANOR FRIEDE Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000500240025-6 4 = ST Re REN RCE ORRIN SRE ny tame mi SE ENC i . Los Sar SCS OTN EO oe Pe Ee FOE eS ne a ee ee nN abla em Sl AR, ce Nis ete a AE AR tM ie a ean er emes, semai km linen oon et nt eee ee wn 2b nee iba Nar we ee aes
INTRODUCTION 2) MARGARET MEAD This book is a clear, straightforward account of a set of successful experiments that demonstrate the existence of “remote viewing,” a hitherto unvalidated human capacity. ‘The conventional and time- honored canons of the laboratory have been observed, aided by our current repertoire of instrumentation, Faraday shielding, specifically generated sets of random numbers, and cathode rays. People—both inexperienced learners as well as those who have previously demon- strated psychic proficiency—have been used as subjects successfully. It is a perfectly regular and normal piece of scientific work, as is the study of communication among bees, the luminescence of fireflies, the way in which frogs discriminate between the sexes, or the sci- entific study of any new biological phenomena. Contemporary quantum physics, specific qualities of electromag- netic fields, and advances in brain research not only have deter- mined the experimental methods, but have contributed to the tentative explanations advanced in this book as to how this newly observed ability might operate. As all work following the canons of science must be, the experiments are presented in a form that can be inspected and replicated under the same conditions, and further tested by altering various experimental parameters. The claimed results are narrow but clear. The particular set of XV
Introduction human beings studied have been able to produce formal drawings on paper approximating some distant spatial target mediated only by the independent designation of the target and the concentration and attention of the subject. _In terms of the ordinary type of painstaking procedures of the scientific method, we should now be well launched into a new era of exploring aspects of the human mind, with which scientists previ- ously have had difficulty in dealing. There have been other thor- oughly creditable, conventionally structured experiments before. But these have not received the kind of acceptance normally given within what scientists feel is a wholly rational, totally trustworthy scientific community. In fact, I think it may be fair to say that as the experimental methods to investigate so-called psychic powers have improved, so have the violence of controversy, the proclama- tions of disbelief; and the accusations of either conscious or un- conscious fraud. These particular experiments do start with several advantages: they come out of physics, popularly believed to be the hardest of the hard sciences; they come out of a respected laboratory; and they do not appear to be the work of true believers who set out to use science to validate passionately held beliefs. Tremendous efforts have been used which far outstrip the normal procedures to guaran- tee scientific credibility. Perhaps this in itself may make them less easily accepted. For scientists on the whole take each other’s word for most of their experiments, and only present their data in com- pletely accessible form when others have failed to replicate their experiments, seldom distrusting the carefulness and honesty of their colleagues. We may well ask why it is necessary, in studies of this kind, to have at least twice as many safeguards and artificial substitutes for integrity as those usually demanded. Why does the psychic research worker, following ordinary rules, have to anticipate more hurdles than research workers in other controversial fields—such as the study of the inheritance of acquired characters, the existence of ei- detic imagery, mind/body relationships postulated for somatotypic studies, or the findings of psychoanalysis. In all of these fields, those who claimed new results have been subjected to enormous academic xXxVI1 Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : ClAgsOR Introduction - punishment. They have been tempted to distort or suppress their =. data. Many have become unscientifically dogmatic and stubbom ad- “». yocates of their positions. And, occasionally, some have been driven _ into exile, or even into desperate situations involving suicide, misery, and death. + _ The scientific world and the literate public have been fully ex- posed to the intricacies of disputes involving scientific theories so dogmatic as to resemble religious beliefs. Among other topics, they have been treated to diatribes on the impossibility of transmitting acquired characters and to the inextricable associations made be- tween some scientific claim and the sociological platforms of com- munism, capitalism, fascism, or racism. We have read Double Helix, . the accounts of Lysenko, Tempter by Norbert Wiener, and most recently the story of Bill Summerlin in June Goodhfeld’s The Siege of Cancer. We have even read of the early use of the microscope to .:° find miniature horses in horse sperm. Psychic researchers do, I think, sometimes forget that they are not the only research workers, who are subjected to harassment, . misquotation, and unfair attack when they challenge old theories and propose new ones. Yet when we examine the history of the last hundred years, in which careful experimentation has been continuously misrepresented and denied, we find many recog: nized scientists insisting that psychic research should be endlessly repeated because it is not a “recognized area of scientific research.” As one person quoted in this manuscript said, “This is the kind of thing that I would not believe in even if it existed.” We can easily conclude that this is indeed an area of scientific research more fraught with irrational opposition than most, although hardly more spe subject to attack than, for example, psychoanalysis. :. There are, I think, a series of historical reasons for this. It would be valuable for the open-minded reader to explore some of the ® historical and cross-cultural backgrounds of psi capacity. It seems to be a very unevenly distributed ability, overtly manifested by only a '« few individuals. In most societies, no connection is made between these very special unique “sensitives” and the rest of the popula- tion. Sometimes, in other societies, the capabilities exhibited by the few individuals are generalized, but if there are a large number of 96-00787R000500240025-6 xvii
Approved For Release 2 Introduction individuals believed to be capable of some exercise of psi—like predicting the future, diagnosing illness, or healing the sick—then the individuals who would normally stand out are simply absorbed into a group of practitioners and their special abilities go unre- marked. Other societies outlaw all such behavior as coming from the devil or involving fraud, and here again, both the uniquely gifted and the somewhat gifted will be discouraged. , _ Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that the practitioner of an uninstitutionalized art—such as a prophet or healer or diag- nostician—may have limited understanding or control of his or her special capacities. There is therefore a tremendous temptation to include various kinds of tricks in the practitioner’s repertoire, in "case the little understood and unreliable power fails. This may be why the tricks of the healer who palms a “pain” by extracting a small crystal from the body of a patient go hand in hand with the demon- stration of special healing abilities. The charismatic leader may also substitute oratorial tricks for the spontaneity which won him his original place. The medium who once could easily attain an altered state of consciousness may take along a glove filled with wet sand, in case the spirits fail to arrive. There seems to be a fluctuating, un- predictable quality about these special powers, which may be due to nothing more than the lack of a stable cultural understanding. _ In any event, such abilities should probably be classified with all other statistically unusual abilities, such as the amazing aptitudes of some individuals to arouse awe or wonder. As scientific exploration tells us more about how these capabilities can be disciplined and developed—as mathematical and musical ability have been fostered in the past—many conditions of uncer- tainty surrounding psi capacity can be removed. For example, the sophistication possessed by one of the subjects mentioned in this book in his describing the necessary conditions for “remote view- ing” is particularly stnking. Psychic powers have historically been closely associated with powers of healing, an area where faith and hope and response to placebos means that many diagnoses and many cures remain prob- lematical. Faith in the healer is essential to the ability of the healer to heal, so that both healer and patient are held in a tight circular xpproved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA- Introduction system which is beneficial to both, and dangerous to break. The -- vested claims of other kinds of healers inevitably come in confli¢t ~.- with the claims for and by the psychic healer, further obscuring ra- =. tional discussion. The reception accorded psychoanalysis and all attempts to trace symptoms or their relief to communicative activi- ties is analogous to the reception given to reports of psychic healing —sometimes with amusing overtones such as when the psycho- analyst who holds to a carefully structured theory of what is hap- pening is obliquely credited with “just having generalized thera- peutic powers” as a way of explaining the theory away! Through the ages, deliberate magical procedures have also taken on independent life, and guilds of conjurers and magicians naturally hold vested interests in their bags of tricks. It has become customary to include expert magicians among the groups testing the powers of sensitives, and to give critical comment on the conditions under which experimental proof for some psychic ability is sought. From this has arisen the curious type of criticism which will undoubtedly plague psychic research for a long time to come, that if a particular act could have been performed by a magician, then it could not have been genuinely psychic. But is this any more meaningful than the kinds of doubt which plague the study of the psychosomatic dis- orders of a single patient who displays a mixed set of symptoms which could be “caused” by several different sets of antecedent cir- cumstances? I think one of the worst complications arises when both sensitives |’ themselves and their followers advocate psychic energies as being mo “extrasensory,” as proof of life after death, or of the existence of « Supernatural or transcendent powers of some sort. When they at- _-. tach such a belief system to something as little-known and un- > dependable as psychic energy, fanaticism is often substituted for . Open-mindedness. The very tenuousness of the connection, the in- - sistence upon a physical manifestation of a power claimed to be ; Outside the physical universe, means that they must cling to their ~ belicfs more strongly in the face of all evidence to the contrary. ‘ When scientific methods were applicd to the study of psychic - powers, the confrontations became increasingly dogmatic, the argu- Ments became more farfetched, and paranoia on both sides arose. = 96-00787R000500240025-6 ,;..