 Now we're ready finally to get to the framework, which is okay, you now know that the human mind can be ghostly and that intelligence is not the same as rationality and it's very difficult to think hard. How do you overcome these biases, the vividness, the various biases we've talked about? How do you overcome being a cognitive miser or how do you overcome the mind gaps or contaminated information? And so this is a system I developed over the years and it's based on hypothetical thinking which we just have explored a little bit, I've introduced you to you. And I found these old printouts I made, I've given the talks on this as well as using it in my classes all the time. And this is, I did it under the context, so I put it there, under the context of information pollution, the paranormal and teaching critical thinking. I guess I gave that talk somewhere to some group and I don't remember, but I did have my printout there so I thought I'd brought that with you just to show you the context of this particular version of it. By the way, I first used the term information pollution many years ago. I was asked to give at the graduation ceremonies at the University of Oregon, they, after the major ceremony with everyone, everyone, all the undergraduates who were graduate getting the degree all together, they split up by different departments and the honest group is an honest college at the university. They have their little tent and they have their little ceremony and each of the specialties have their own little ceremony. And I was asked to give a little talk, a talk to the honest group and they said, but it can't go more than 10 minutes or something like that. I'm used to going on forever, okay? And it's very hard to do something like that. So it dawned on me, I was, the internet was coming along and it was proliferating and it's pretty clear that there's a lot of information piling up. And then I did some research and I discovered that there had been a lot of theories and work on the accumulation of information in different fields. And I used the term information pollution because, and as the internet grows, it's going to get worse. The idea is that as more information accumulates in any field, a lot of it's good information that keeps growing, but that grows, I'll show you an example of that, that grows at a linear fashion, whereas the total amount of information grows as a queue. This means that as more information grows, it's hard and hard to define the good information because it's buried in the crap, right? And so that's, according to that term, and I was surprised that was, that time it was viral for that time. It got on the internet and people were attacking me. I had no idea why they were so upset by it. I was saying it was information pollution, but I was worried about it at that time and now it's even worse. The problem is, there's a lot of good information out there, no question about it, but how to find it? That's the most important thing. How do you get to the good information? That's related to this course as well. What we're talking about now is how do you find the good information among all the bad information? And we're being inundated with bad information, which means that contaminated mind wear is part of us all because we're being exposed to it all the time and that's a very serious problem because even if you don't believe the study, even if you're a good skeptic, you're always questioning things. We know that just being exposed to it. I don't know if you've ever heard the illusion of truth. These things go in fads in a way, but it's strong. It's been done over and over in the show that it works. Illusion of truth is simply a matter of that just being exposed to certain statements like global warming is a hoax. It just gets you exposed to that. Even though you consciously don't think it's so or something like that, that increases your belief that maybe it's so because it becomes a thing that gets into your memory the way memory works. It's not like a list or anything like that. It's a network of things and things, if you stimulate something in that network, they explode, it stimulates, it radiates out other things and so it turns out that simple repetition is like on TV and stuff like that, you watch the same things. My sister watches Fox Network all the time, all day long and I learn not to talk with her about politics or anything like that because it triggers certain things. She is sure that Obama was not one in the United States. She's sure he's a radical Islamist. She's sure that. How did she get that way? Well, if you have Fox Network on about half the day, it turns out that these people spend more time rather than attacking or promoting their conservative policies, demonizing the enemy. So by demonizing him and then demonizing him, if you're just hearing her all the time in the background because she's working at a computer and other things, you're getting that sinking in there, that's what the illusion of truth is all about. It doesn't increase the believability of all that stuff. So just simple exposure. One thing. One example. So now with this particular talk to these undergraduates, I would see some of the key issues in critical thinking. This is the way I saw it then. I've been giving you some of these issues, garbage in, garbage out. We need a systematic analysis of claims and that's what this framework's going to be. There's a principle of charity. I didn't mention it to you before, but principle of charity is not something that you're supposed to be nice to every one, but principle of charity comes in philosophy. The idea is that when you are attacking a claim by an opponent or something like that, you should try to reformulate your opponent's claim in the most strongest way possible before you try to destroy it, or attack it, in other words. So the idea is that, and that's what my framework's all about too, is you're actually giving the benefit of the doubt. You're going to frame that person's claim, a duty's claim as strong a case as it can be. Because I was, my first critique of power psychology was 1957. I was a skeptic ever since I was a kid, because as a kid I did my first magic show for money at age seven, and I think this is a great life, you know. And I went and read again, reading books in the library on magic and magicians, and I found there was a guy called Houdini. And Houdini was a great magician, but he also went around exposing spiritual smithies and stuff like that. And I assumed right from when I can consciously remember, I always assumed that being a magician I had to be a skeptic. I had to go around exposing mediums and stuff like that and fake psychics and so on. So right from my whole life I've never had the experiences that many of the people come to my toolbox, they have people who used to grew up as believers in something or other and gradually became disenchanted and come to my toolbox to find some other kinds of people that they can talk with now. But so as to principle charity it's very important. It's not that you've got to be nice to the other people, but the reason I bring up my first critique of parapsychology was 1957, was that up until then I was a skeptic, but I was then a young professor at Harvard University and the editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association, the most prestigious journal in that in the statistics area, asked me to come in the middle of a dispute to help settle it. There was a dispute where a soul in Bateman wrote a book called Law and Experience on Telepathy, which at that time was considered the greatest, strongest evidence you could have for telepathy. They had discovered two psychics, you might call them, soul and Mrs. Barr, I think it was, but who over a period of three or four years consistently scored very high, higher than any J.B. Ryan subjects on ESP tests and this is considered the best evidence you could possibly have parapsychologic work, but a man named Price, he was a chemist, wrote a 13 page review of that book, now in science. At that time science like it is today, it was a prestigious journal for the American Association for the Advancement of Science and it is one of the major prestigious journals like Nature and stuff like that in the world of science. And they never had that, at that time they usually had most of the book review went two pages, this one was given 13 pages and the point of the review was that Price decided that he went and looked over all J.B. Ryan's work as well as the work by Sol and Bateman and he said by any scientific standards these people have made their case over and over again successfully. The statistics are impeccable, the experimental design looks impossible, I mean there's no way of debating it, if, I mean they put that if in here, so if as described, if as I did write in their papers it really was done that way. So then he brought in David Hume, some of you've heard of him, how many know David Hume, he was a friend of yours, because, well David Hume wrote this very classic article on miracles and the idea of David Hume's article on miracles was that if a thousand people, maybe ten thousand people, maybe even a million people came up to you and told you that they were just witness to miracle, you'd have to say they're lying or deluding in some way because even a million people witnessing that miracle are testifying against the observations of more than a million people that have created modern science and the whole base of science, so that miracle would violate those other observations, so if you pit those observations against the observations, the cumulative observation of all science, it can't be true. That was Hume's idea that you have to decide that it may be when you think about what principle does this bring up that we talked about very early on in the lectures. Do you remember? Vividness, you remember vividness? Again, how even one case, one striking case can turn around people's decisions even against a whole batch of non-vivid, non-colorful statistical data, which is overwhelmingly would argue from one point of view, whereas this one concrete vivid story or case overrides that. Well, this would be another example of vividness where someone reporting on a miracle, but if you think about it statistically, the miracle is being put up against many, many observers, many, many times a number of observers who have witnessed something different that creates a whole race of science. So, anyways, when I, this guy, Price said, okay, these guys are all cheating. And he, in fact, in some of the experiments he was talking about, they had members of parliament were witnesses to it. So, yeah, so he had to involve them as well. And he was accusing an awful lot of people of being liars and cheats, and that created a few words you can imagine. And so the January 1956 issue of science was devoted, unusual, to rebuttals and back and forth. Ryan had something to say and so on. And it was that point that the editor, William Wallace, I think it was, or the editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association came to me and said, Ray, please, write something for our journal which will settle this whole issue once and for all. And you're just the right guy to do it because you're a statistician, you're a psychologist, you're a magician. You got all the attributes. You're the guy we need. I've never done anything like that before. So, okay, he talked me into it and I was young and, and, and walked into it. And unfortunately in my whole life and I was turned around by that and stuck with this. I read, what I did was I read the original data, Ryan's research, as well as this work by Solar Batement. And the first thing that struck me was horrible to me was that my friends, I had depended on second hand knowledge of, of my skepticism about parapsychology. My friends, Martin Gardner and other people like that, people I trust. But I discovered that they had missed that me in the world, what they were tagging, they were tagging parapsychology at its worst. There were some terrible experiments and they were, those ones were attacking. They weren't attacking it at its best. And again, the principal charity to me says, Hey, you gotta look at it at its best. If you're gonna tackle something, look at their best work, not their, not their worst work. That's not fair. Now either they didn't know it, I couldn't understand it or what. But I was surprised. That was the first thing I was surprised. Not that it didn't convince me, but I found it getting more sophisticated in your tagging there. There was a lot of things wrong with their data. And I spent my career working very hard to show the weaknesses in parapsychology. And that just doesn't hold up. And but I was really, really terrible shock to me to realize that my fellow skeptics, people I love and trust, I was misled by them. Because they were their examples that they were attacking were the simple the examples by people who really weren't the center of parapsychology. They were really serious parapsychologists and still are who have a good scientific degree. And most of them know their statistics better than their critics. So they are not. But you can criticize them. But you can't you got to criticize me got to be fair. Okay, that's the long side step from from what we're talking about. But that was the principle charity got me going on that. And then there was requirements for good tests for claim alternative explanation. I'm going to come back to that later, because that's very, very important. Another thing, that's why I brought up. Remember when I talked to I quoted Sherlock Holmes, remember? Okay, the idea that we don't, we focus on what actually did occur, and not about what could, what didn't occur is a standard thing we are focused on and this is important and perceptual as well as cognition, we focus on what did happen, what is there, not what didn't happen. And if you're going to really be able to evaluate claims or anything else, you got to really understand what could have happened, what didn't happen. And we'll come to that later. And the psychological reasons for believing you now have more than enough. I read it. Okay, we've gone that far. So inflation pollution, I'm going to get by that. Now, I want to talk about this pyramid model of growth just a little bit. I've already talked about the illusion truth. You all understand what that is. Okay. So this is I found a man named DeSola Price wrote a book many, many years ago, he was a historian of science, I think at Yale. But he specialized in the field and he pioneered it, which was what might call empirical history. It's actually doing history on the basis of data. History of science, he did, and as there's actually groups now that specialize, you analyze the change in number of publications in different fields over the years, and actually follow laws about it. And that's a proxy for how much information is growing, how it grows in any field. And so they actually use mathematical laws and stuff. And I've done a lot of work on that. And one of the things they found, and this is the pyramid, is that in any fields I mentioned before, if you think of a pyramid, the height of the pyramid represents the amount of good knowledge in any field at any time. But you see as the height increase, but the total knowledge is the volume of the cube. And what happens is that the total knowledge increases as the cube of the good knowledge. So by the time I say we get to a volume of 64, the amount of good information to bad information is getting smaller and smaller and smaller, which means going to be tougher and tougher to find. That's that's the issue there. I've already mentioned that. Now we come to my framework around time coming over here. And we're ready to go. Okay, so first of all, I put it around a series of six questions. I could make some more, too. But you want to ask questions like what is the issue or question? And that could come out several ways. But you really want to ask yourself what is the issue, what is being claimed here? What is the claim? And this is now we're going to get more specific and we're going to phrase it in a conditional format. That's where that comes in. What reasons are offered to support the claim? How strong is the support? That's the important thing. Okay, how strong is it? What would be adequate support? And what reasons might create false beliefs in the claim? Now, you've got a lot of you already got a lot of reasons for figuring that out. But each claim is different. We're going to look at, okay, so now we'll come to the conditional format. As I said, I simply put it's if H is going to be a hypothesis that something is true with the world, that's the hypothesis. Then if that's if that's true, the world, then something there should be some predictable consequence, which is P, we call it the predictable consequence. So I said, that's, that's what it originally and usually put that way. But then it came out that it's not as simple as that. There's things called initial conditions. And there are auxiliary conditions. So and not my stated here is that this is usually in terms of a background of a theory. T is going to be a theory, a description of a hypothetical system. By the way, this is all in a guide in your guide as well. H is the hypothesis that the claim, the claim that the theory is true. So the three, we don't think of the theory as true or false, not thinking that way. But the theory can generate claims and our hypotheses. And hypothesis is going to be a claim that something is true. That a consequence of the hypothesis is true. That's going to be testable. We're going to have initial conditions out of initial conditions for evaluating the claim. Okay. And we'll talk about the these two can be interchangeable to some extent, auxiliary conditions are conditions that must hold for the claim outcome to occur. And then P is predicted outcome given that the hypothesis is true. And initial auxiliary conditions are met. Now what this does though is gives a lot of loopholes. You gotta be careful. For example, I haven't yet yet to encounter a field parapsychological experiment, which has been has has has really made an impression on the parapsychologist because they believe an important auxiliary condition is that the conditions have to be right. I mean, initial condition. They have to be there is something they call Psi conducive conditions. Unfortunately, they don't know what Psi conducive conditions are until after they done the experiment and they don't get anything. Then they can say, okay, suit of Psi conducive conditions. This is an example of a non false survival theory. And this is where Papa maybe is relevant. But for their point of view, you know, Psi is very subtle thing. It's real. But it also, it only shows us off under certain conditions. And they never may specify the conditions in advance. Since they can't specify them in advance, they know that they must have been existing at the most of the initial conditions weren't fulfilled. How they know it? Because they didn't get the predictive results. Okay, so you know, so you can see how people get themselves, even the brightest people can get themselves into tremendous mess. And they don't like it when I point it out, but I understand that. I'm still good friends with some of them, at least where I'm talking. And by the way, we all can get caught up in this as well. It's not just parapsychologists. Okay, so let's go take an example of the key bending. I'll just give you an example of how you might go through this. So you might ask, what is the issue of question? Now we can say, can a key be bent without physical force by an unknown psychic power? Is that a good, that may be one possible, but the issue can be a lot of other things. Anyone else want to propose another issue that might be involved in there? There's no one correct issue, but you're trying to at least say some issue that's involved here, that question that's me. Psychic powers act on things? Psychic powers act on things? Okay, so that's a more general statement. So instead of key, can it be, and it's good that you can put it in a more general, it could be specifically asking a question about keys and sounds, or maybe asking a more general question about metal bending in general, psychic metal bending, the spoons, keys, other things, or maybe even baking an even more general statement, a belief that this is part of a, that there is something called psychokinesis where the mind can move objects of any kind, okay? So you can spell this out in a lot of different ways, but at least it's worthwhile trying to formulate a claim or reasonable claim that's being made here. Okay, so now let's put it into the hypothetical format of our thing. The theory here could be a description of a hypothetical system which metal can be bent by mental powers. Or it could be a more general thing, it could be a hypothetical system in which there is something called psychokinesis where the human mind can bend a move or somehow influence physical objects of any kind. So you can put it in a more general or you can make it more specific to be metal, or you can make it more specific to be just keys. Okay, hypothesis could be, see this theory is neither true nor false at the moment, I'm not saying that. It's just a basis for generally for driving some hypotheses that we could test. One hypothesis could be the theory is true with some individuals so that that raises the question that we can be saying that, okay, so let's leave it at that at the moment. So one initial condition is that we begin with an unbent key, that's a very simple thing, because you began with a bent key and then you found that the key is bent afterwards, you got nothing, right? So we may want to be sure that the key is unbent to begin with, so we got an unbent key. An auxiliary case could be the lead psychic strokes the key and truly wants it to bend. Or it could be that there are psych, that there's no skeptics around that can influence it. By the way, the idea that skeptics can badly influence it already presupposes, it's like begging a question, that the skeptics have psychic powers too, because they can interfere with the powers of the psychics, right? But they're never looking at it that way. But anyways, the lead psychic strokes the key and truly wants it to bend, so that could be an auxiliary condition that, unless it's stroke, you don't expect the prediction to work, right? So it has to be stroke. And then you hold it in your gallery as I try to make the call, okay? You could have it though, that the key can bend without anyone touching it, without even stroking it, that the key could bend by just a silkie. But let's put it that way. Okay, and to predict the outcome is that the key will be bent. So always look at this, the initial condition is that you have an unbent key and final condition will be, which is to predict the outcome, a bent key, okay? So that's what we're looking for. Okay, so a bent key was displayed when we did the thing, so our example was that we did what reasons are offered to support the claim, and I showed a key that was bent, okay? That after it was initialed and it wasn't bent before, but it wasn't bent a lot, but it was bent, right? Clearly. So that was the bent key. So that was the reasons that are offered to support the claim that we have a bent key. And by the way, is that enough reasons to put forth? Let me stop here and say, is it enough reasons? Okay, what were the auxiliary conditions? She says that we have to observe the auxiliary conditions for a met. That's true, we have to have a met condition. What else might you put in the auxiliary conditions or initial conditions? What's that? The key. Actually, I touched it, and they touched it. They had two volunteers and they touched it, I touched it, and we stroked it. The question is, you want to make sure that we didn't touch it in a way that could bend it? Right, and one way we checked that out a little bit, so we did make it. After it was bent, we handed it out to people and said they could not unbend it with their hands, okay? So that's a little bit, but that's a good point. Excellent point she brought up, that the key, that someone shouldn't touch the key, if they touch it, we want to make sure that wasn't sufficient to have been the cause of it. Okay, how strong is the support? The bent key had been marked beforehand to preclude switching, because that was a people like in the past most often guessed that well, I just switched the key for a bent one. So we had the key this time marked to preclude that. However, the key had been out of sight and then demonstrated its possession for several minutes before it apparently bent. So that was not a good thing for proving that this was a miracle or something. Was it possible to physically bend it during that time? Okay, that's the question this depends upon knowing about the principle of leverage and realizing that the demonstrated had another key to see in at the same time he also had possession of the key that was bent. There are a lot of ways you can quit this, but again just trying to follow a framework right there gets you to thinking and gets you to think that otherwise things that you might not might overlook, might overlook. This is why you have checklists when every time a plane is going to go up in the air these guys go through the systemically, it's checklists. The more systematically you have the less likely you are to miss something that you and it's very easy to do that. So what would be adequate support? Here we want clear evidence that the key was not bent before the demonstration could not have been bent by physical force during the demonstration and this is not always easy to set to determine in these kinds of things. The search should contain observational conditions that are optimal for making sure these precautions were adequate. Now let's give the devil his do. I did have some negative things to say about Targ's recent book on Physicist Proof for ESP and I vehemently said this was an insult to science in a way. It was certainly a dereliction of forgetting about the last 400 years of scientific revolution and going back to the age of miracles because he doesn't take into account at all any of the criticisms and so on. But in this case Targ Gela was first investigated seriously by experiments at Sanford Research Institute over a period of several weeks and most people don't realize this. It's always presented that the results were successful and they validated Gela as a psychic. What people don't realize and forget about was that Yuri Gela was the scientist, the Targ and put off the two physicists at Sanford Research Institute in the 70s when Gela was being tested there. They set out deliberately to test their interest in this metal bending power. It's not any other psychic powers he might have but in his ability to bend metal without using physical force. And they set up their cameras and everything to do this. So they really set up ideal, good observation condition. So they would have cameras and every angle you could have it and if he was putting any force he even had calibration to measure how much force he was actually putting into it. So they wanted to really get this pin it down in really good scientific fashion. And unfortunately most of the time he was there they never could get him to do it. What would happen was they would work for hours and hours trying to get him to have the bend the key or bend the spoon or do some other psychokinetic thing under the observations where there would be no doubt that they got it. They pinned it down scientifically. It never would work so they would have to break after a few hours of this because it was straining on Gela supposedly he was working his way and his power was getting weak. So they would take a break and they would go off to have a cafeteria and have some coffee or something and while they were at the cafeteria suddenly the spoons were bending all over the place. They said now he's hot now. They'd run back to the laboratory turn the cameras on and again nothing would happen. And this went on for weeks and weeks. And so because he tested it himself because this was straining on Gela as well as them they decided to have some breaks and do some other things and Gela suggested why don't we try to do this test with a die in a box and so they put a die in a file box and shaken and Gela would try to guess what the top face of the die was. When he opened it up he was right eight out of eight times. They did it ten times over the period of time and two times he was not right. He didn't guess. He said I don't have feel for it. So that was one of the things that they published in the nature paper of evidence they had for him being able to see that and then he also did some experiments where they had him draw a figure while he was in an F-hour day cage believe it or not. They drew something outside the cage and he drew a figure and then he tried to duplicate while he was in the cage and he was pretty accurate to have some pictures of it like one of the things they drew was a set of grapes a bunch of grapes with 18 or grapes in a bunch that was the drawing they tried to predict. Gela came out with a drawing of a bunch of grapes 18. That was one of the best things ever and I still see this thing on the greatest psychic piece of all time Gela got it exact. Most things you get you only get it close that's good enough but he got it exactly in that one. So their evidence what they pointed as a success for Gela was in the psychic stuff but they had to admit that on metal bending they could get no evidence whatsoever so at least they did that right and if they got any evidence on the condition they did that that would be very impressive but that didn't happen. So at least in that case they were right. Now it's interesting that in his book which I said he was giving all kinds of things which why you should believe in ESP and why he believes in ESP that's finally mentioned Gela. It's amazing that he wasn't talking much about Gela but he talks about all kinds of other stuff and he like was one scientist spent most of his time with Gela and became good friends but all this time all those years he was dubious because they couldn't get it about Gela's ability to bend metal psychically but I don't think they have spoon bending parties. There was a man named Halk and I was in the government committee we actually looked at that as well because there were people in the military intelligence who were going to these spoon bending parties and it was Lieutenant Colonel Alexander John Alexander still around and does other things psychically he was running spoon bending parties but I was still a colonel in the army all over Washington DC spoon bending parties were people never meant to spoon with their mind or any other way and would never think of wanting to bend spoons but now there was put forth and still is on the web you can get them to go to them as well but back in the hey Gela people were running these spoon bending parties you pay a little bit of money and they were going to transform your whole life and you sit in it with your spoon in a group like this like we have here sitting here maybe and you're encouraged to keep shouting and bend bend bend and you hold the spoon and you're supposed to not focus on what your hands are doing and you're supposed to try to encourage everyone else and shout it's like a revival meeting and deliberately you get going and by the end of the meeting sometime during the meeting some will say well my spoon has bent a little bit and they even goes hallelujah and they shout and they're all excited the spoon has been too and pretty soon a lot of people say their spoon has been it turns out during the meeting it's Ralph Hough who grunts at me Hough says first of all you must never have skeptics there because that destroys you but the other thing is that they give them a bunch of rules and one of the rules is that you do at some point when you're getting very high and you feel the psyche power is running through you there's some power but not enough to make it fully bent but enough to get it going and then it'll go itself so this is what happens so all these years it turns out that Todd as believing in everything else Madin Blavansky talking to the dead he was still skeptical about spoon bending even though he saw in his colleagues they were giving him reports of it everyone was going to spoon bending parties and their spoons were bending he's still skeptical about it and the book he says but he finally lost his skepticism he went to a spoon bending party and he knows that the spoon was big heavy spoon he had and at the end of the spoon bending thing he looked and his spoon was bent he convinced notice what's going on here it's a kind of a vividness thing we'll talk again about one example that happened to him where his spoon bent by he was in his hands he trust because it was in his hands and he felt it so it's real now thousands and thousands of other people his friends many of them too they had it happen to him had the same experience that wasn't good enough for him right but when it finally happened to him he's where he doesn't say he measured the spoon beforehand to see whether it was bent he doesn't give no details about that he doesn't give us any details about anything else he doesn't talk about the possibility that under these high powered conditions where it's psychology everyone knows that you can suddenly bend the spoon to anything like that without realizing that you're doing it you could feel that you're putting it in and you're encouraged to do that the thing now is bent believe that you did it several times I've encountered people I'm not allowed into them but after the parties I've been around and I've talked to people who come out of it with their bent spoon and I say well did you bend it yourself do you put any pressure on it he says oh yeah but not that much anyway so then we come to general so that's the framework I'm going to now do we have my time is 20 minutes okay so we do have time let's go through another example and this example I think I may have put a case in your I'm not sure I put that one in a guide but I'm going to put it up here for you anyways this first case we're going to do two cases if we have time this one is I love this I just love this case it's small here it is I think we can do it here it's a book by a major again I love this British people have always degrees and stuff oh you do have it okay so it's the same one so you have it in the guide as well but I'll put it up here oops I am sorry okay it's this polarity therapy at the top which you can see and it's distracted from Cooper Hunt major this is the way he has it his title C L M A canned tab I guess that's Cambridge right he's got some sort of degree from Cambridge PSD Doctor of what is that? Psychology? not psychology is it MSD DD PhD MSF that's a good number of degrees 1969 radioesthetic analysis that's using the dowsy rod the pendulum to diagnose things okay so here it's the full thing and we're going to apply we're going to apply the framework to it okay whether one employs a rod or pendulum or one of the latest instruments designed to detect and measure the radiations of the human body in its many cell groups there is almost an infinite number of findings which can mean of the utmost value for it one very useful reading and by the way and I love this one very useful reading to begin at the beginning of our specialized form of analysis which my wife and I have evolved over the years in our radioesthetic healing practice is the polarity of the patient hitted to it hitted to it had always been thought that we should sleep at night with our heads to the north and our feet to the south I've never heard that before I guess I'm out of touch with things so how many of you have heard that now you're supposed to sleep but you head to the north okay so we don't not everyone is aware of these things now you learn we have found through radiosesia that this varies with the individual some should sleep with their head to the southeast or southwest northeast or northwest according to the finding of the instrument supreme let's make sure we can see that okay acid what's that acid is the supreme importance of this we cannot say as yet and since we are not anxious to produce fat are disrupted domestic harmony by dislocating arrangement of the furniture we do not lay down an inflexible law for any patient at the same time we have found the item to be of practical value clinically we had two cases of actual fact by the way when I was reading over this paragraph I was saying when he saw that problem of disrupting domestic harmony I was thinking of the wife having to sleep with her head at the foot of the bed and the husband sleep with the head of the... the first was a patient who complained of acute insomnia which nothing would relieve we discovered that the lady was sleeping with her head in wrong polarity where you see you laugh but this is serious business sleep loss is a very unhappy situation where you see radioesthetic examination indicated a different alignment and the patient advised to try it out she braved a domestic strife and her subsequent report was complete harmony and sound sleep in other words during the hours of nightly refreshment the cosmic forces of renewal were unhindered by incorrect polarity in the sleeper and were allowed to flow freely through the end of being of the patient so there are things that she's learning in this course at a value I'm sure the other case I can cite was one of a little girl who was greatly troubling her household by extreme restlessness she was brought to us for a test of polarity and our advice was adhered with an immediate satisfactory result of complete harmony and deep sleep I can only add therefore in conclusion that the test of polarity and applying of it in this way provided that friction is not caused in the household seems worthwhile it is easily ascertainable by any work with the pendulum or rod by holding a specimen of the patient's blood or hair or handwriting in the receiving hand left hand or right handed operator maintaining the desired thought and consciousness while functioning with the power hand which holds the pendulum and as that complete reported that to take the thing now we want to apply a framework to it right because this would be if this were so this would be a moonshot earth running I guess right and I'm a magician so that would be fine may I use my hand I guess okay so what fact is oh that's not what I want that's that I want that I thought I had an analysis here somewhere on that oh no okay I do have an analysis there let's go through the thing now let's just say what are the reasons what is the claim being made here what would you say the claim is that people have trouble sleeping because there's something wrong with polarity that there is polarity that can go wrong and cause insomnia okay and there's one more aspect of the claim it's possible to measure the right what's the added feature that you can change it right you can cure their problems by making them sleep in the right polarity right so the claim is that if that people having trouble sleeping any problems with sleeping if you could if you find that there's a polarity problem there if you get them to sleep according to the right polarity in the right direction it will be cured right so a couple claims I guess a risk polarity I guess but the and the stronger one is that this if you can people reorient and sleep according to the correct polarity for them they will be fine okay okay so that so now let's get that into the framework the hypothesis would be what we're going to test it now okay you got it see we're going to use the principle of charity we're going to do one other thing as well we're going to assume this guy did this as an experiment correctly so okay so what is the what is the hypothesis what's that when sleeping in the right direction of matching polarity subject receives proper deep sleep okay now you have to have initial condition it's very important here that's that they have to have problems sleep problems yeah they have to have sleep problems and they get the wrong polarity but okay so that could be the initial condition is that they have to have sleep problems sleeping right and because if they didn't have sleep problems and they don't have sleep problems afterwards that's not a test of anything right so so it's important that it's an initial condition that you got to demonstrate and how would you demonstrate that though how do you demonstrate that they have sleep problems to begin with I suppose you could right so you're using test among you're using their word for it okay how do you test that they've improved their sleeping habits at least one of these cases it was the risk of the family complaining right you know her spouse might have been aware of the fact that she okay so you have the other part so there's a problem if you're going to set this up as a test it's a problem of how are you going to what we call the criteria what criteria are you going to use you got to set this up any good experiment you got to have something that you can measure or show it's going to be a change from the initial condition that it is and be measurable and it's got to be a final condition that's the predicted outcome which is a measurable change from the initial condition without that you don't have anything right I'm sorry a witness somebody maybe you have a witness so we've got a problem though we've got to set this up somehow this is not going to be an easy thing to do all the time we have to set up criteria without measures for it otherwise we're left with people's testimony which we know are what I'm reliable right so you have to find some ways of measurements and working on it there should really have a controlled situation that's another problem okay now you're getting into another issue which is see this way hopefully the framework gets you to think this way into another issue that a controlled condition here what would be a good control to have here I mean they have sleep labs they have sleep labs okay I thought what you were getting at was that one control would be to actually miss half the people are given the wrong polarity issue and half the people are now sleeping the wrong way according to the polarity judgment and they don't know that it's going to be double blind and then see again a double blind analysis going to be done to see which ones what proportion of people there's a difference in the number of people who are sleeping correctly as opposed to incorrectly and that would be a reasonable thing to try 10 minutes okay good thank you any other things we want to say about that okay we got 10 minutes I'm going to just introduce you and we got a complete analysis I think in the thing on the this paper by Krider I think I'd give you that a case of a character analysis I mean I'm so happy after you get all this done they can go back and look at their thing okay I'm I'm going to say that you can go on and yeah try it we're just going to start just giving you some possible suggestions okay so the last thing we're going to do work on was this it's anything here I hope I have a here's I got both of them here I sort of actually the full paper actually is not much longer than this but I give you the gist of the paper this is a study that was published in 1944 by a man named Krider a psychologist named Krider and this is 1944 and he was teaching at an all girls school in those days girls who do go to school they were from the upper class and well healed because many girls didn't go to college and when they did go they usually went to an all female college to protect them or something like that I don't know but this is a different world okay you got to remember that 1944 is different from the world that you are people are aware of okay anyway he's a psychologist and he does his study he publishes a study of a character reader Margarita Essie calls her she's 30 years old and had been a character analyst for 15 years her clients gave her excellent testimonials to test her abilities Krider conducted the following experiment Margarita saw each of the 16 female college students from Krider's class in the author's office each student was seen individually the analyst made a series of statements about each student the statements were made one at a time and written down the subjects had been instructed not to react to the statements Margarita made from 19 to 25 separate statements about each student after the 19 and more statements were written down they were abandoned handed to the student who checked those which he agreed okay so you can see what's going on here the student comes into the office and sits opposite the character reader the character reader doesn't talk to them and the student is not supposed to give them any clues or anything and the character reader can look at them and writes down statements each one statement to a card and then has a stack of cards for that student each student is given a statistic and he gives a couple of the readings this is one reading from one of the students they're all similar in many ways this had 25 statements and he says overall reported that in 7 of the analyses there was no disagreement at all so in 7 of the analyses no disagreement in only one of the analyses were there as many as 3 disagreements all told for the 16 analyses Margarita made a total of 364 statements of those statements the students disagreed with only 22 in other words the students agreed with 96% of the statements made by Margarita now Karate provided two of these things I'll give you one of those and you may want to look at some of them some of the statements she made does not like to take chances very very sensitive very self conscious gets along well with boys by the average student worries about her studies introvert over emotional tries to conceal it general health good I love that one in the settled stage these are young undergraduates college undergraduates has had a broken love affair should not be in the business world and at that time of course that would be a fair statement you won't dare say that today but that would be a fair statement I don't want to see you accepted okay appreciates good music must always have a feeling of security how many here would be uneasy if they didn't have a feeling of security is of generous and cooperative nature digestive organs normal that's one of my favorite ones heart normal kidneys normal finds it hard to ask favors should not be given technical work does not like routine either very stubborn bad temper when aroused yet she doesn't display it often this is what we call my colleague Norm Sumberg calls a double barreled statement this girl would be happiest when being supported has many big dreams okay and the others would like that they only gave two examples in the state but they would like that and the criteria then stated that psychology may say that the statements are mostly complimentary that they are too general that they reply to everyone however from what I knew of the students I was in substantial agreement with the analyses that is presented more interesting is the fact that the students were satisfied and in the discussion with each other following the analysis they were held the opinion that the analyses were surprisingly accurate credit supplies a statement from Marguerite but I won't go over that he concludes that since she is one of the several who are doing similar work I believe it is of considerable interest to psychologists to know how our competitors work much better in fact to try to understand and to scoff at them okay so that was from that time 1944 legitimate psychologists presumably who wrote that paper published in the journal journal social psychology okay and that was a stimulus for a later paper which we're going to cover in fact I'm going to give you Randy I'll show you a clip of Randy actually duplicating that experiment of a later one there a man named Fora who in 1949 this was done in 1944 wrote this paper by Crider and he was I guess sort of skeptical and he looked at this and he said well one thing wasn't done you know that you should always think about experiments and think about like the case of the dog that didn't bark in the night what would happen if this we mixed these up gave this one to some other girl and the other girl got the other ones reading what would happen there that's an important control right so Fora essentially did something like that that became very famous and we'll get to that in the next lecture and we're going to again to begin working on what's called the psychic reading so I think it's a good time to stop here but go through your own analysis try to find a framework to this and then look at the I think I give a sample analysis in the of how I did it but before you can buy analysis try your own analysis on it just try to see the framework see what you come up with here and I can see by the way you're smiling so on that you're already ahead of the game but that's okay so I guess the next lecture is lecture six and we will use that to transition to what I call the psychic reading and we will then go from there to teach you all how to be psychics