Research in the Dark: Are you keeping your findings to yourself?

     The last forty years has seen gargantuan steps in most matters scientific and technological. We have seen space travel, computer proliferation and an unprecedented advancement of science in general. Paranormal psychology is almost as old as psychology itself, so why  does almost every other area of psychology churn out a hundred times more research?

     There's no doubt that one rather palpable reason is that mainstream science does not treat the paranormal with the seriousness afforded to other subjects. Professional academics and research grants are few and far between in a modern scientific world where professional research is central.

     But there is one huge advantage that paranormal research has over other areas of research: the enormous number of amateur paranormal researchers, many striving towards professional standards.

     A somewhat clumsy analogy might be that of Astronomy. There are thousands of amateur astronomers that make a huge contribution to the field of astronomy: tracking and sharing with the field at large.

     So why the thousands of haven't lay paranormal researchers made that same contributions to psychical research? Why haven't important discoveries been made that, with the help of professional researchers, made massive strides in the psychology of anomalous experience?

     We can seek to blame society and mainstream science as much as we like, but the core of the problem rests with us. A number of branches of science started with part-time researchers working away and convincing the world of their progress, so why should the same principle not apply today?

     The problem with much of paranormal research is the separatism and rejection of the fields' accumulated wisdom, such as it is. Mainstream science, amateur or professional, has always benefited from shared results and shared wisdom. So many paranormal groups exist in a state of isolation, often marked by extreme paranoia of anyone in the same field. The ethics of confidentiality must be paramount, but there are always ways of fully sharing your results with the world.

     There is also no need to constantly reinvent the wheel: thousands of hours are wasted every year covering the same subjects others have covered, we could achieve so much more by learning from what others have discovered and learned first.
    
     The most tragic aspect of our field is that if we isolate ourselves and just pop up if we've discovered something great it is likely to be treated with suspicion or, worse, ignored. If even half of us worked in a fully transparent and scientific way, sharing with and learning from one another, the advancement of the paranormal could be significantly sped up. The alternative is one of hard work by thousands of people leading to no significant advances in our lifetimes.

The Four Types of 'Ghost Investigator'

Thrill seeker, Ghost Hunter, Paranormal Investigator, or Paranormal Researcher? 11th Hour Paranormal's  Chad Stambaugh asks how you eat yours?

 

 

 

I know I've been discussing the meaning of science for the last few weeks, but I had to revisit it. Science separates one type of paranormal enthusiasts from the other. Are you really using the right label for yourself?

 

The "Thrill-Seeker" is the fairly clear-cut group. Thrill seekers attend 'investigations' for fun. Perhaps you go on ghost walks or entertainment-geared commercial investigations, but you're sure to be in it for the kicks.

 

The "Ghost Hunter" will often talk about 'science', but they do not know it. The ghost hunter can often be seen as an independent team going to locations and waving around every piece of equipment they can lay their hands on; EVP, Trigger objects, Séance's are the staple diet of the ghost hunter. You talk about theories and science, but none of it adds up.

 

The "Paranormal Investigator" thinks a little more about what it does. It establishes the phenomena in a location and goes to seek it out. Your theories might not be sound, but you've done the reading and you only use the equipment and methods you know are likely to seek out natural sources of ghost experiences.

 

The elusive "Paranormal Researcher"-often spoke of, but rarely sighted; conducts paranormal research on the basis of good scientific thinking. Whether or not you attend investigations you can be sure you have a clear hypothesis to test and have a penchant for variable control.

 

So it's science that separates the thrill seekers and ghost hunters on one hand from the paranormal investigators and researchers on the other. But these are crude and flawed labels, for all sorts of reasons. But if you're really interested in scientific enquiry, how do you tell one investigator from the other?

 

The answer is easier than you might think. The seekers and hunters will find a location with reports of haunting's and use whatever unscientific methods are at their disposal to find evidence of the haunting. The underlying assumption is a) Yes! Ghost do exist, and we're hear to find them, and b) all these unscientific methods can somehow find proof of the ghosts. One day. Never.

 

The investigators and researchers, on the other hand, start with the opposite assumption. The underlying assumption is that so many haunting cases have natural causes, which one has to 'go in' with the aim of finding the natural causes of previously experienced paranormal events. What's left after you've done this is; what should be examined more carefully.

 

Seeking and hunting may often provide personal proof, and there is nothing wrong with this; however, if you find objective answers, you need to genuinely investigate and research.

 

 



 

 

Belief in the Paranormal: Can you believe what you see?

     A frequent question asked by paranormal researchers is "do believers experience more paranormal phenomena and if so, why?" There certainly seems to be a lot of evidence suggesting that they do, and are there any numerous explanations offered as to why. The issue of eyewitness testimony during paranormal investigations was discussed at length in a recent Rhine Research meeting.

     Much research into the effects of paranormal belief seems to revolve around the ideas of 'false attributions' and 'poor probabilistic reasoning'. This basically means that 'sheep (or those with high paranormal belief) are more likely to mistake normal activity for paranormal activity, and are more likely to see meaning in coincidence.

     Taking a couple of examples common to paranormal investigating someone might perceive a temperature drop or report an 'unusual feeling'. The believer may be likely to think that these feelings are the result of a ghostly presence, whilst a skeptic may put them down to illusions or natural bodily functions. A common scene in a séance is an investigator asking for a 'sign' of the presence of a spirit. Any resulting 'knocks' might be thought to be 'spirit contact' by believers, but are they trying to make 'signs' fit the circumstances? Would a natural 'knock' have happened anyway? Would they have noticed it if they were not looking for it?

     In the 1990's Richard Wiseman performed experiments into the 'science of the séance' and conclusions were drawn that believers perceived a light and a table 'moving' where no movement took place. This could suggest simple misperception of the environment where paranormal activity is expected.

     In 2001, Gianotti found that believers were more adept at making sense of random patterns, but also saw meaning in gibberish. Conversely, skeptics knew when a pattern was meaningless, but were less likely to identity meaningful patterns where present. Are believers, therefore, more able to 'pick up' unusual activity where skeptics close themselves off to it?

     During a recent investigation, unknowing investigators were split into two groups: one of relative 'believers' and one of relative 'skeptics' based on responses on a paranormal belief scale questionnaire. The locations and experiences of both groups were, as far as possible, standardized across the night to reduce possible errors, The 'skeptic' group reported 17 potentially paranormal experiences throughout the night, whereas, the 'believer' group reported 72 experiences over the same time frame.

     Whilst we could not control the objective level of activity each group may have experienced, the difference seemed pronounced--the believers reported four times more activity than the skeptics. Did the believers really perceive more activity, or did they just think they did?

     Did the skeptics close themselves off to activity?  Did the believers perceive more because the rest of their group was? Did the skeptics expect less because the rest of their group was experiencing little? The search for answers continues.

My Science is Bigger than your Sceince!

     Most paranormal research groups today seem to be armed with a menagerie of 'high tech ghost hunting equipment'. There's nothing wrong with this of course, groups should be out there testing theories. However, problems arise when people begin to confuse equipment with science, and when groups don't really know how their equipment works.

     I'm sure many of us have stumbled across websites which claim to be the 'most scientific' based on the sheer volume of equipment used. The argument goes something along the lines of; 'ghost hunting equipment detects ghost activity', 'using equipment is the scientific way to detect ghost', we have the most equipment, and therefore, we are the most scientific'. I hope I'm not the only one slightly nervous of this line of argument.

     The first myth is that there is any such thing as 'paranormal investigating equipment'; there is not. EMF meters are used to detect (typically) electrical fields; there's a reason the popular brand is called a 'Cell sensor'. Environmental monitoring equipment is used to measure the environment by a range of industries. Camera and audio equipment is used by enthusiasts the world over. What make one define this equipment as paranormal? Well, sometimes these pieces are made for another purpose are sold on by 'paranormal shops'. Sometimes paranormal enthusiasts are skilled in other areas and produce more economical copies of other pieces of equipment to sell to the paranormal market.

     None of this should be taken to suggest that any of these pieces of equipment should be used for paranormal investigation. Sometimes they may even be sold specifically as the answer for 'detecting ghosts' but I think most of us know there is no scientific link between ghost and EMF, the environment and anything else. There are (often unscientific) theories to link the two, but there is typically no concrete evidence for it yet.

     So do many of us not really know what we're doing with our equipment? Anecdotally, the answer seems to be 'yes'. Ask many people why they are using EMF meters and the answer is 'because they are linked to manifestations'. Ask why someone is using a spot thermometer to measure a non-surface cold spot and they cannot see anything amiss.

     No one can really blame anyone else for not knowing exactly how and why each piece of equipment works. No one person can be expected to carry that amount of information in his or her head (although I try daily). But without knowing the science it's difficult to justify calling the use of each piece of equipment 'scientific'. The reality in some cases is that the more equipment that is used, the more it is not 'scientific' anymore.

The Cause of Hauntings?

     When a patient visits his local doctor, he or she may present a multitude of symptoms or just one. They may have no idea what the cause of the problem is, they may not even have recognized it as a problem until multiple symptoms are presented. Or they may have made an assumption about the underlying illness. The may have experienced this illness before, a friend or familiar member may have. They may have read about it in a magazine or seen it on the television. The role of the medical professional is to work out how the symptoms do, or do not, relate to one another and which are relevant and which erroneous.

   Hauntings are similar to such medical conditions. It is fairly rare--in this century, at least--for people to think they are 'Haunted' on the basis of one event. Until relatively recent, it would be not unusual at all for a client to say they had simply seen an apparition. In the twenty-first century a client is far more likely to present a plethora of less dramatic symptoms. People feeling they are suffering today are far more likely to talk about cold spots, feelings of being watched, objects behaving expectantly and strange sounds--and probably no apparition at all. 

     One striking aspect of the multiple-symptom haunting is why clients feel they are haunted at all. The sighting of an apparition--if so interpreted--would probably leave little doubt in the mind of the client. However, on an individual basis why would a strange feeling, or a cold spot, or losing one's keys be attributed to a haunting at all--apart from the fact that the media teaches us that these are symptoms of hauntings?

     People feel all of these--or even a combination of these things--on a regular basis. So why do only a small number of people link these events together and call them a haunting?

     The key to the puzzle box seems to be the idea of a 'trigger event'. A trigger event is a single meaningful event that first places the idea of a haunting in a person's mind. This might be someone telling you your house or place of work is haunted. It might be a particularly strange feeling, or any number of things. Put simply, the event sets the context for a haunting.

     Once this trigger event has embedded the idea of the haunting in the mind of the client, it becomes a powerful influence. Subsequently, or even previously remembered. Experiences are internally assessed with the haunting in mind. So each time he or she loses his or her keys, or feels a cold spot, or feels a bit strange, the 'ghost' is suddenly blamed.

     By the time a paranormal investigator interviews the witness, a potentially impressive range of symptoms may have developed. The ethical paranormal investigator should not immediately think, 'wow, this place is really haunted!', but you should really take a step back. Effective interviewing techniques can tease out the original trigger event. It is this trigger event that should be assessed and investigated most thoroughly, as there is a risk everything else could be primed misperception.

     The paranormal investigator often cannot see the woods through the trees. The right focus is scientifically and metaphysically, ethically important.