Skepticism, scientific research and the Nostradamus effect
Originally posted 2nd August 2007
In this odd corner of the world called California, many “spiritual” people are interested in the changing nature of mind, the related emotions, or what we in the West call personality. In some quarters it is believed that our unique contribution to the endeavor of self-investigation will be the application of the scientific method. This purports to be a new chapter of the old science vs. religion debate, perhaps even a new path to understanding. I have a slightly different take on a related question concerning the bias of those who sponsor the research, or more precisely: who's buying, what is the motivation behind the research and how this affects the methodology of the science. “Science vs. Spooks” reveals a personal judgement which I hope to substantiate.
The Institute of Noetic Sciences was born in an odd mixture of New Age personal growth techniques and a deeply powerful personal, transforming experience. The astronaut Edgar Mitchell—I have heard several versions, all second hand—on his voyage to Moon, had a deep, profound enlightenment experience, a kensho,in the most unique of circumstances. He was doing a spacewalk to check things out before the capsule fired off on its return to earth. He was, and perhaps still is, a very technical kind of guy, a total professional, running down the checklist transmitted to him from NASA command. There was a momentary lapse in the transmission just as the capsule completed its orbit behind the dark side of the moon. With nothing to do for 30 seconds or so, but his concentration still entirely focused, Edgar looked up as the earth rose over the horizon of the moon, and the whole universe opened up for him. POW. Yeah I wish I'd been there.
Mitchell returns to earth a changed man, and starts off on a personal quest. I have never talked to him nor can I read his mind, but perhaps he wanted to try to figure what that experience was all about, and also, perhaps, ways for others to have that experience which might drastically alter the way we live on earth.
Enter Michael Murphy and Esalen. Located in one of the most beautiful settings California has to offer, Esalen was a kind of supermarket of altered-state spiritual experiences and meditation. Some of the best minds, highly trained professionals who were also seekers, used it as their laboratory. It was an exciting time and place. I was among the second generation of seekers to sample the feast—mostly through Claudio Naranjo’s SAT that was born during the first Arica training with Oscar Ischazo that 40 or so Esalen 'members' attended (that is a loose term, they were mostly just regular participants in Esalen workshops and seminars plus a few luminaries).
Sometime around the mid to late 70's, at least this is how I see it, three things began to happen: first there was a straightforward attempt to use standard tests, psychological and medical, to measure the effects of meditation. The work of the Institute of Noetic Sciences was a leader in this area. And the second objective is quite close to the first—standard psychological instruments began to be used to determine any measurable changes in persons who did the various workshops and training: if people reported beneficial results, were they real change that lasted, or just a kind of workshop high.
And the third thing, and here I have to be very careful because, though based on real experience, what I have to say is just my judgment, the producers of the various trainings and workshops wanted to show positive scientific results as part of their marketing. A simple look at the associates of the Institute of Noetic Sciences shows an odd assortment of scientists, practitioners, luminaries and aspiring luminaries. Most were connected to the world of psychology, some professionals and some who had transformative experiences and wanted to present them to a larger audience. Of course, money was required to support these projects.
I worked on staff at two Easlen type human potential companies, and observed scientific studies undertaken in both companies. In a small way, I participated in the creation and execution of one.
Here's the scenario: The company finds the money to finance the study, just as drug companies do when they are testing their products. Then someone, in the case I know best it was a PhD psychologist on staff, shops around university graduate psychology departments for some professors willing to design and execute a study. Of course there are requirements to insure that the results are completely impartial and not stacked, both what is to be measured and what instruments will be designed for measurement and assessment of results are negotiated and agreed on. The size of the sample and a timetable are set. A fee is paid. There is also a promise to have the results, published in a professional peer reviewed journal.
However, there are three areas where there was participation (and revision) the 'objective science behind the 'result.' I was one of several people who pre-tested the instrument that was designed. The researchers were looking for the positive psychological results and determine if they were lasting. As a 'graduate' of the course, I was given a questionnaire that the researchers had designed to measure certain psychological results. But then, through the in-house psychologist, there were 'adjustments' of the effects measured with an eye to using the results for marketing.
Then testing began. At some point, perhaps three months into the process, company staff people called participants to make sure that they completed their questionnaires. (I actually overheard some phone calls though I was not asked to make any). However, the same staff also made 'support' calls to graduates at specific intervals. Though this may not completely unethical within the agreed upon conditions of impartiality, and I did not hear any coercion in the phone calls, it seems to me that if I got a support call, reinforcing my experience just before I filled out a questionnaire for the study, it would effect my response. And if I did not feel strongly enough to send my report back to the psychologists, but received a phone call from the same support staff support person asking if I’d returned my questionnaire, I would of course be more likely to mail it which that would affect the statistical results and the impartiality of the science behind them.
And the final area of manipulation of the results was their publication. Although the researchers themselves wrote up their study and submitted it to professional journals, perhaps even a presentation at some conference (I left the company before it was complete), the interim report written by the in-house psychologist and given to the president had phrases such as, "After six months, a majority of participants report more confident and loving conversations with their spouses and children." The president claimed that this was just too much scientific jargon. I actually stood by his desk as he reworked every sentence, every word or phrase that seemed too guarded, and changed them, asking us as witnesses, "I think ‘Six months after the Process, participants were stronger and more confident in interactions with their spouses and family,’ says the same thing, doesn't it?" When I asked the psychologist himself about the revisions, he was non-committal, "I suppose that could be said," and turned the conversation to his new home in the foothills.
There is nothing criminal or terribly important in this manipulation of scientific inquiry—the drug companies do it all the time and we pay for it—but it shows, I think, the limitations of science in the real world. What has this to do with our old friend Nostradamus? Did that phrase about the two giants collapsing (“In the City of God there will be a great thunder,/Two brothers torn apart by Chaos”)'foretell' the attack on the World Trade Center towers? Yes, I am sure that we could find some paranormal enthusiasts who would design and fund a study that ‘proves’ that a certain percentage of the American public, after hearing those sentences read to them in a scripted phone survey, will agree that Nostradamus did really predict 9/11.
This is one way to defend against the terror of the unpredictable, but I choose to remain skeptical.
