Author Archives: Jeremiah Stanghini

Jeremiah's primary aim is to provide readers with a new perspective. In the same vein as the "Blind Men and the Elephant," it can be difficult to know when one is looking at the big picture or if one is simply looking at a 'tusk' or a 'leg.' He writes on a variety of topics: psychology, business, science, entertainment, politics, history, etc.

The Scientific Evidence for Psychokinesis: Psi Phenomena, Part 4

Psychokinesis, telekinesis, move things with your mind, mind over matter, Part 1: The Scientific Evidence for Telepathy
Part 2: The Scientific Evidence for Clairvoyance
Part 3: The Scientific Evidence for Precognition

In today’s post, Part 4 of the series, I will recount the scientific evidence for psychokinesis, which is also referred to as telekinesis. These terms refer to one being able to move a physical object with one’s mind. In short, this particular term accounts for the “mind over matter” that people often refer to.

Much of the early research on psychokinesis involved one’s ability to influence the roll of a die. In these studies, a die face is chosen in advance, then the participant wishes for that face to land up. It’s probably one of the simpler studies one can conduct with regard to parapsychological research. Dean Radin and Diane Ferrari conducted a meta-analysis of all the experiments that had been done on die research from 1935 to 1987 and came to this conclusion:

The estimated effect  size for the full database lies more than 19 standard deviations from chance while the effect size for the subset of balanced, homogeneous studies lies 2.6 standard deviations from chance. We conclude that this database provides weak cumulative evidence for a genuine relationship between mental intention and the fall of dice.

Psychokinesis, telekinesis, move things with your mind, mind over matter, While the evidence from these earlier studies are not overwhelming, they at least lean towards support for the evidence and possibility of psychokinesis. Nowadays, the majority of research in this area is done with random-number generators (RNGs). These RNGs do exactly what it sounds like they do – generate a sequence of random numbers. In these RNG experiments, participants are usually asked to attempt to influence the outcome of the RNG to be higher than expected or lower than expected. With a random set of numbers, you can accurately predict what the dataset should look like, if there were no influences on it. The participants try to alter this by intending that the numbers are higher or intending that the numbers are lower. If you’ve read most of my posts in this series, then you know I have an affinity for meta-analyses.

In a meta-analysis conducted by Dean Radin and Roger Nelson of all of the RNG experiments conducted between 1959 (the first RNG experiment) and the mid-2000s:

Meta-analysis of 515 RNG experiments conducted by 91 researchers over a span of 41 years indicates the presence of a small magnitude, but statistically highly significant and repeatable mind-matter interaction effect.  The overall results cannot be attributed to chance, or selective reporting problems, or variations in design quality.  These studies indicate that there are ways in which mind and matter interact that support the plausibility of distant intentional healing.  Because modern RNG experiments can be conducted under tightly controlled laboratory conditions at relatively low cost, they may serve as a convenient model to help us better understand the relevant conditions and mechanisms of distant healing. [emphasis added]

Most research studies I’ve read about psychokinesis come to the same conclusion – it’s possible and it happens. While you won’t often see many accounts like this one, it seems that psychokinesis is a very real and present phenomenon. As I wrote in other The Intention Experiment: Using Your Thoughts to Change Your Life and the Worldposts about the power of words (Your words and thoughts have power; Words are more important than you may have thought; With love and gratitude), it seems that intention really has an effect on our reality. Since the body is made up of “physical” things, we could say that the evidence for the power of words could be used to support the evidence of psychokinesis. I understand that the studies I cited in those posts weren’t directly measure psychokinesis, but in a way, I think they were. More than that, there’s the work of Lynne McTaggart and her accompanying book The Intention Experiment.

If You’re Sick – Rest – It’s as Simple as That

I’ve spent more than half of the last week, taking up residence on the couch watching movies and old episodes of TV series ( and , if you’re curious). I wasn’t , but I also wasn’t myself. I was — what most of the world would call — sick. I honestly couldn’t remember the last time being sick, so I suppose it was kind of a ‘gift’ to get to experience what it was like to be sick again. There were some definite takeaways from being sick (that I didn’t remember from previous times I’d been sick).

Most of the time, when people are sick, they try to “push through” their illness. “Oh, I”m fine.” “I’ll be ok.” “Don’t worry about me.” Given the and the staying above 8% for the first time since the early ’90s, it’s not altogether surprising that people would try to push through their illness. Nobody wants to lose their job – much less, because they were sick. But have we considered the possibility that one might lose their job because they are working when they’re sick?

In a study published in the ten years ago, researchers came to the that, “In sicker hospitalized patients, performance on seven tasks of judgment was similar to that among children younger than 10 years of age.” Not that I don’t think 10-year olds are smart, but do you really want the 10-year old version of yourself trying to do your job? Probably not.

Another interesting study on this topic comes from research in , which is often associated with chronic fatigue syndrome. Researchers attempted to see if there were cognitive disorders within Fibromylagia. They used standardized neuropsychological tests and were able to conclude:

Compared with the Spanish population for age, sex and educational level, FM [Fibromyalgia] patients showed high frequency of cognitive dysfunction which could be included as mild cognitive disorders according to the [World Health Organization] (1992).

Like I said earlier, I don’t remember the last time I was sick, but this time, I noticed a definitive decrease in my cognitive function. It was kind of like feeling , but without the euphoria that most people associate with drunkenness. My partner would ask me simple questions and I couldn’t think up a response. It was a very sobering experience. In doing the background research for this post, I was surprised to not find more articles about impaired cognitive functioning when sick. Maybe it’s something that researchers aren’t interested in. I suspect, it’s more a function of . Which corporation would want to do research on this?

Some shifting the workweek from 5 days to 4, and some have even provided research that this is to our . While I am an advocate of the reduction of work, not in this way. I don’t think we should be working less days and more hours in those days. I think we should be working fewer hours. I’ll elaborate on this more when I address labor in my series on in America. Suffice to say, the harder we work ourselves, the more likely we are to breakdown. Humans are not machines, but we can use this analogy to understand the point. Eventually, from wear and tear, a machine is bound to breakdown (just as a human is, especially when it is overworked). If you use a machine when it instead needs to be mended, there could be irreparable damage. The same goes for a human. When one is sick, and one works, there could be irreparable damage.

What’s Your Jung Typology: The Answer May Surprise You!

After having majored in psychology during my undergrad and then specialized in transpersonal psychology during grad school, it’s fair to say that I’m curious about the make-up of humans from a psychological perspective. A few weeks back, I wrote a post about how I scored on . In light of this post, I thought I would continue to write posts about how I scored on other tests.

For today’s post, I thought I would do some tests that claim to be able to accurately assess one’s :

These tests are based on the work of Carl Jung, David Kiersey, Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs. They are similar in underlying theory to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Kiersey Temperament Sorter. They measure four bipolar factors, Introversion/Extroversion, Thinking/Feeling, Intuition/Sensing, and Judging/Perceiving.

Having been a psychology student for as long as I have, I’m familiar with the MBTI and have taken the actual test on a couple of different occasions enough to know where I usually score on the four bipolar factors. In fact, part of my interest in taking the few tests with this was to see if the assessment was accurate.

The first test I took was a . Initially, you enter your gender and then you are taken to a page with 36 pairs of words wherein you are asked to select the position between the words (5 spaces) where you exist between the words. I thought that this was rather interesting. I’d never taken a paired word test to assess my before.

At the conclusion of the test, I was a little surprised by the results. The system assessed me as an ENTJ. Extroverted, iNtuitve, Thinking, Judging. I found this surprising because I’m almost always an ENFJ when I take tests like these (Feeling instead of Thinking). The mini-description for ENTJ:

ENTJ – “Field Marshall”. The basic driving force and need is to lead. Tend to seek a position of responsibility and enjoys being an executive. 1.8% of total population.

After reading the “quick” description, I’d say that’s a fair assessment of who I am (or who I want to be). Then, I read the :

decisive, fearless, planner, thrill seeker, engaged, social, self-centered, comfortable around others, image conscious, likes to be center of attention, adventurous,outgoing, manipulative, emotionally stable, leader, ambitious, hard-working, dominant, prepared, hates to be bored, confident, opinionated, analytical, prepares for worst case scenarios, organized, orderly, clean, driven, resourceful, finishes most things they start, achieving, risk taker, desires fame/acclaim, image focused, narcissistic, arrogant, perfectionist, driven, academic, scientific, critical, avoids giving in to others, does not like to compromise, skeptical. [Emphasis added]

I’ve bold-faced the words that I do feel strongly about (in that they do describe me) and I’ve italicized some of the negative adjectives that I’ve heard used to describe some of the things I’ve done in the past. When I inquired with those who thought I was arrogant, I learned that this had more to do with the way I conveyed information. With regard to manipulative — this is a word I remember being tossed around when I was a kid. I was told that I was quite good at getting my way (I don’t remember, really!) And lastly, “avoids giving in to others” – translation: stubborn; yes, I can agree to this one. I know that I can be, at times, stubborn.

I then proceeded to look for some other tests that were meant to assess the same measure. . This test, like the first, had the participant enter in their gender. Then, there was a page of 48 statements that the participant was to rate on a scale from very inaccurate to very accurate (5 choices). At the conclusion of this test, I was greeted by familiar results:

ENFJ – “Persuader”. Outstanding leader of groups. Can be aggressive at helping others to be the best that they can be. 2.5% of total population.

I then went onto read the long-description of the ENFJ:

outgoing, social, attention seeking, emotional, loving, organized, comfortable around others, involved, open, hyperactive, complimentary, punctual, considerate, altruistic, easily hurt, religious, neat, content, positive, affectionate, image conscious, good at getting people to have fun, easily excited, perfectionist, assertive, ambitious, leader, hard-working, seductive, touchy, group oriented, anti-tattoos. [Emphasis added]

With the ENTJ description, I highlighted 10 adjectives that I agreed with (and 3 adjectives that I have heard people refer to me in the past) for a total of 13. With this ENFJ description, I’ve highlighted 17 adjectives that I feel accurately describe me at the present moment.

So, I decided to take one more . This test was very different from any other Jung typology test I had seen. On this test, (you had to select your gender, of course), there were 48 adjectives. Under each adjective were two rating scales (each with 5 spaces) where the participant is asked to rate their ideal selves and their real selves. In effect, the test is trying to gauge where you are and where you wish (or want) to be. I thought that this could be interesting, so I took the test. My results: ideal type – ENTJ; real type – ENFJ.

How interesting. So, maybe the first test I took wasn’t off like I thought it was. Maybe it was just a better measure of my “ideal” self. Either way, I thought it was pretty cool to take this last test and get a result that validated my first two results. In the end, I am glad that I found this site with these tests because it gave me a different window into my Jung Typology. For as long as I can remember, I’ve always scored as an ENFJ on these sorts of tests, but it’s interesting to now have a different perspective in that maybe I really wish I were an ENTJ. If you only have time to take one test, I’d advise taking the . The results may surprise you!

Proof That Grassroots CAN Work: Germany Closing ALL Nuclear Plants by 2022

Germany has a history of being anti-nuclear. Put more accurately: the citizens of Germany have a history of being anti-nuclear. :

The anti-nuclear movement in Germany has a long history dating back to the early 1970s, when large demonstrations prevented the construction of a nuclear plant. . . an example of a local community challenging the nuclear industry through a strategy of direct action and civil disobedience. . . Anti-nuclear success at [here] inspired nuclear opposition throughout Germany, in other parts of Europe, and in North America. . . Germany’s anti-nuclear stance was strengthened [from the Chernobyl incident]. . . In September 2010, German government policy shifted back toward nuclear energy, and this generated some new anti-nuclear sentiment in Berlin and beyond. On September 18, 2010, tens of thousands of Germans surrounded Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office. In October 2010, tens of thousands of people protested in Munich. In November 2010, there were violent protests against a train carrying reprocessed nuclear waste.

The people of Germany do not want nuclear energy — they’ve made this abundantly clear in their recent history. An interesting (and somewhat inspiring) bit of protesting that wasn’t included in the introduction of this Wikipedia entry happened

A Human Chain along the Elbe River: Approximately 120,000 people formed a 120 kilometer-long chain between the nuclear power plants in Krummel and Brunsbuttel to take a stand against the federal government’s nuclear policy. At the same time around 20,000 people demonstrated in front of the Biblis Power plant in southern Hesse. Another 7,000 protesters gathered in front of an interim nuclear waste storage facility in North Rhine-Westphalia.

That is incredible. Seeing pictures of protests/marches at the National Mall can be kind of exhilarating, but a 120km chain of people — that’s quite a political statement. Forget political, that’s quite a statement in general. To be able to gather that many people together (not just in one place), but to span across a distance so great — that’s just inspiring. Moving forward to this year, after the , the Germans resolve for a nuclear-free country was reignited.

On Saturday [March 12th, the day after the Tsunami struck Japan], anti-nuclear protesters formed a 45-km (27 mile) human chain from the Baden-Wuerttemberg capital of Stuttgart to Neckarwestheim I. Between 50,000 and 60,000 demonstrators took part, according to police and organisers. [sic]

Three days after the disaster started in Japan, Chancellor Merkel announced a , during which the initial plans to extend the life of some of the older nuclear plants in the country . The next day, the Chancellor took it one step further by off the grid (temporarily). Some noted that this with the upcoming state elections.

While I’m sure that these decisions made the German citizens happy, it clearly was not enough for them. On March 26th, just two short weeks after the event in Japan, to “demand the irreversible phase out [of] nuclear power.” (Here’s a link to an , in case you don’t use Google Chrome/Translate to read the German article.) The protesting , with pockets of people protesting in different areas of the country totaling over 10,000.

… And now finally, the German citizens are getting what they asked for — . A country whose energy department will never again have to create plans and procedures for dealing with new radioactive waste. By the year 2022, Germany will have . How awesome is that? Forget for a second where you stand on nuclear energy and just take in the effect that the citizens of the country had on the policymakers of the country. The citizens of Germany did not want nuclear energy. Period. The policymakers thought that this position (of the people) may have softened and tried to open up the possibility for more nuclear power. Upon learning of this, the citizens revolted. Heeding the word of the people, the policymakers had to go back on their plans to increase nuclear energy in the country.

This is quite an amazing feat (to me). The people wanted something – desperately – and now they’re getting it. It seems similar in a way to some of the other things that have happened this year. There were the for union rights and more noteworthy, there was (and still is) the overwhelming number of . It has been quite a year for “small groups” of people, hasn’t it? It may seem a bit clichéd, (but it is most definitely not contrived); I wanted to end this post with a quote from a :

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

A Shift Towards Waldorf & Montessori: Education & American Public Policy, Part 3

In , I spoke about American public policy in the context of economics. Specifically, I tied in the concept of altruism and showed how given the opportunity, people are more likely to take money from a complete stranger than give money to a complete stranger. In , I wrote about campaign finance and elections in America. I understand that no system is perfect, but I felt that if there were more integrity in campaign finance & elections, people may have a little more faith in the system. In Part 3, today, I will talk about education in American public policy.

Everywhere you turn, there seems to be another story about the poor statistics of education in the United States. The Chicago-Sun Times is reporting that . And that’s an article that was published today! This past December (2010), the US slipped farther down the rankings on the ‘, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world.’ (The data can be found .) On these rankings, the US is now considered “average” on the overall reading scale and on the science scale. They fell below average on the mathematics scale. Shanghai-China, Korea-South, Finland, Hong Kong-China, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Estonia, Switzerland, and Poland, all out-performed the US on all three scales.

If you’re interested in the history of education in the United States, I’ve found a couple of great resources that highlight significant events through history with regard to education in the United States (; and .)

I had the chance to see earlier this year and I thought it was quite an eye-opening experience. While I don’t know that I agree with everything that is put forth in the movie, I think that the fact that this movie is even possible (meaning that a documentary of this nature could be done about education in the US) shows that there are definite holes in the system. It was interesting to watch attempt to alter the structure of unions for teachers in the Washington, D.C. area. I don’t think that many would have predicted a a year later.

I am not a primary school teacher, elementary school teacher, secondary school teacher, college-level teacher, or university-level teacher. I don’t know what it’s like to be standing at the front of the classroom day after day — students looking up at me expecting me to tell them something. I believe that it takes a special kind of person to not only be willing to do this, but to want to do this. I think teachers are a vastly underappreciated population. Sure, we have “,” but that’s far from enough, given the responsibility they are charged with — education our young. Could there be a more sacred responsibility?

A former cited statistics in an article published in association with (a libertarian public policy think tank) claiming that . While this may be true, I wonder if maybe the funding is going to the “wrong” places in education and if this may be a case of ‘.’ Put more bluntly — maybe the system is faulty. I think more funding for education can be a positive thing, if used in the right way and if given to the right places.

Maybe the US education system needs a . I was fortunate enough to have had an experience in the . I was far too young to really remember much of my experience there, (I was there from before kindergarten to just before the start of the second grade). It may not be feasible at this point, but I’d really like to see what a nation could do if all of their schools were taught in the Montessori-way or the . There are many different forms of across the world, but I am most familiar with Montessori and Waldorf.

I wonder what a nation of kids raised and educated through Waldorf Education would look like. Would we have ? Would we be ? Would there be less ? I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, but I’d like to think that a system of education like Waldorf’s (given to us by Rudolph Steiner), would dramatically shift a fair bit of the way we interact with each other, especially with regard to education. As I said earlier, the responsibility of teaching our youth is sacred. We should treat this task and those who do it, with the highest regard, just as those who do it, should treat our youth with the highest regard.

Jeremy Taylor’s Six Basic Hints for Dream Work

When I spent some time working for the , someone recommended that I read ‘s book called . Before reading Taylor’s book, I had already read about or heard of many dream theories. There’s , , ‘, , and the . After reading Taylor’s book, though, I was convinced — I had found the dream interpretation guide for me. On Taylor’s website, he offers that I’ve included below:

One
All dreams speak a universal language and come in the service of health and wholeness. There is no such thing as a “bad dream” — only dreams that sometimes take a dramatically negative form in order to grab our attention.

Two
Only the dreamer can say with any certainty what meanings his or her dream may have. This certainty usually comes in the form of a wordless “aha!” of recognition. This “aha” is a function of memory, and is the only reliable touchstone of dream work.

Three
There is no such thing as a dream with only one meaning. All dreams and dream images are “overdetermined,” and have multiple meanings and layers of significance.

Four
No dreams come just to tell you what you already know. All dreams break new ground and invite you to new understandings and insights.

Five
When talking to others about their dreams, it is both wise and polite to preface your remarks with words to the effect of “if it were my dream…,” and to keep this commentary in the first person as much as possible. This means that even relatively challenging comments can be made in such a way that the dreamer may actually be able to hear and internalize them. It also can become a profound psycho-spiritual discipline — “walking a mile in your neighbor’s moccasins.”

Six
All dream group participants should agree at the outset to maintain anonymity in all discussions of dream work. In the absence of any specific request for confidentiality, group members should be free to discuss their experiences openly outside the group, provided no other dreamer is identifiable in their stories. However, whenever any group member requests confidentiality, all members should agree to be bound automatically by such a request.

A year after reading Dreamwork, little did I know that I’d have the opportunity to take a with at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology. During my time at ITP, I have to say, hands down, it was one of my favorite classes. For 10 weeks, 3 hours at a time, I got the opportunity to put into practice the ‘hints’ that Jeremy Taylor offers in doing dream work. I got to see these tenets in action and let me tell you — it was marvelous.

Sometimes, the class would split up into smaller groups and sometimes we would stay together as the full class. When we stayed together as a full class and worked with one person’s dream, it was quite remarkable some of the a-has that happened (not only for the dreamer, but for fellow classmates!) In fact, it wasn’t odd for classmates to gain deeper insights (than the dreamer) as a result of interpreting a fellow classmate’s dream.

The best part about Taylor’s methods for interpreting dreams is that the interpreter can never be wrong (and simultaneously, never right). The person interpreting the dream (from hint #5) should always preface their comments with, “If it were my dream…” By doing this, the interpreter is taking ownership of their onto the dream. And according to Taylor, projecting onto the dream is all we can do (as the non-dreamer). When the dreamer tells the dream, as we (the group) listen to the dream, all that we can do is project onto the dream. Referring back to (hint #2), only the dreamer can be sure of what their dreams mean or don’t mean (for them). So, when someone says, ‘if it were my dream…’ anything they say (so long as it stays in their first-person), is true, for them. However, the dreamer may not accept their projections (or resonate with their projections). Speaking in this way may seem weird at first, but trust me, it really helps — especially if the dream is sensitive.

While I’ve introduced this post and Taylor’s work specifically as it relates to dreams, these 6 hints are useful in other ways. For instance, if one were trying to broker peace within some sort of group conflict, the whole “if it were my dream…” could come in handy (if we switch out dream for a more accurate description of what’s happening). The next time someone asks you to interpret their dream, I really encourage you to use the Taylor’s method, especially the whole idea of, “if it were my dream…” I think that in using this qualifier to begin our interpretation, not only are we being more polite to the dreamer, we’re actually giving a more accurate description of our interpretation (as, of course, our interpretation can only be a projection).

After I finished writing this post, I found a recent (as of May 2011) video of Jeremy Taylor talking about his dream work. He is talking about his dream work in the context of a course offering at (Note: this university is by ‘any regional accrediting agencies recognized by the US Department of Education nor by any other national governments’), so it’s semi-promotional, but for the most part, he elaborates on the six hints for dream work that I’ve included above. If any of what I’ve said about Taylor’s dream work in this post has interested you, I really encourage you to watch Taylor talk about it. He is very articulate!

Oprah Exudes Gratitude: “We Did It!”

Oprah's Final Farewell; Photo Courtesy: (Screengrab from The Huffington Post video link; No Copyright Infringement Intended)I didn’t have the chance to see any of the celebrity-studded final shows of nor did I have the chance to see her actual finale. I did, however, see (the only one I’ve found of its kind), that had Oprah’s “final monologue.” There’s a 4-minute video in the article that I wanted to embed here for your viewing pleasure, but it’s un-embeddable (at least un-embeddable as far as my Internet know-how goes).

I have written out her final monologue, should you prefer reading to watching/listening:

Every single day I came down from my makeup room on our Harpo elevator I would offer a prayer of gratitude for the delight and the privilege of doing this show. Gratitude is the single greatest treasure I will take with me from this experience. The opportunity to have done this work. To be embraced by all of you who watched is one of the greatest honors any human being could have. I’ve been asked many times during this farewell season, ‘is ending the show bittersweet?’ Well I say all sweet — no bitter. And here’s why. Many of us have been together for 25 years. We have hooted and hollered together. Had our aha moments. We ugly cried together. And we did our gratitude journals. So, I thank you all for your support and your trust in me. I thank you for sharing this yellow brick road of blessings. I thank you for tuning in everyday along with your mothers and your sisters and your daughters, your partners — gay and otherwise — your friends and all the husbands who got coaxed into watchin’ Oprah. And I thank you for being as much of a sweet inspiration for me as I’ve tried to be for you. I won’t say goodbye, I’ll just say until we meet again. To God be the glory.

In watching the clip or reading this monologue, it’s hard not to see the gratitude bursting through. is grateful — through and through. She is to have had the chance to do the work that she does. It beams through in this monologue, it beams through in the clip from the article I’ve linked to, and most of what I’ve read about her general mood about and around the final season is that . And don’t we all have some room to ?

The one thing that strikes me the most from the clip, (which is not included in the monologue), but when Oprah emerges backstage and is hugging her team, is the words she uses. She isn’t crying because it’s over, no. Oprah is saying, “we did it!” We did it. She isn’t mourning the loss of her TV show, she is celebrating the opportunity to have done it. She is offering gratitude for being able to have shared in something so great. She is thankful towards her team for helping her put together 25 years of television that won’t soon be forgotten. And why shouldn’t she be grateful. She’s had an awesome run as far as TV goes and she’s been at the top of for quite some time!

A young boy asks Byron Katie what she would do , “Celebrate!” And why not, right? Sure there can be time for mourning, but there’s so much to celebrate. Katie lists a number of reasons as to why one could be happy for someone’s death (including: they can never be hurt again, they might get to be fertilizer to help something grow to help something else grow, etc.) Here’s another example in a blog post from Katie: “.”

Bring it back to Oprah and gratitude and the last 2 minutes of the clip — you can feel the emotion when she says, “Awww we did it!” There’s so much heart in that exclamation. She’s truly grateful. I am grateful to have had the chance to see the last monologue of The Oprah Winfrey Show and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to share it with all of you. What are you grateful for?

What Would You Do, If You Just Bought a House and Found Money In It?

Money, cash, bag of money, money bag, garbage bag of money, full of moneySo, what would you do? You have just bought your family’s first house — excitement abound. It’s mid-week and you pick up the keys to head on over and relish your investment. After walking through the house and feeling like a King (or Queen), you walk past the garage and notice a piece of cloth hanging from the attic door. Curious, you head on up to the attic to find… bags of money! Do you keep it? Do you tell anyone? What would you do?

Well, for a couple from Utah, the answer to this question is give it back. As with the human experience, this story is not as cut and dry as I’m making it out to be. The previous owner of the house had died recently, after having lived there since 1966! That’s a long time to live in one house, especially in this day and age. One of the children of the the previous owner talked about how she knew her father had been hiding money away because she once found a bundle of cash taped beneath a drawer. Saving money was typical for people of this time. In fact, it’s logical if you think about it. People who grew up in the Great Depression, would have been socialized into believing that there “wasn’t enough,” and that survival was predicated on one saving.

Anyway, this story about the couple giving back the money, I think, is a true testament to the ‘good‘ in people. I think that most of us would expect the couple who found the money to keep the money, and that’s probably a logical inference. Most importantly, I think that what we’ve seen with this couple is context-dependent. Maybe if they didn’t know that it was an old man who had lived in the house previously, maybe then they would have kept the money. Of course, I doubt this is the case for this particular couple (from what I’ve read about them), but I think for some people, knowing that there is a person on the other end of where the money used to belong to would change things for them.

In Part 1 of my series on American Public Policy, I refer to the book Superfreakonomics and in particular, a study they cite in talking about altruism. Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life InsuranceIn short, they found that when people are given the opportunity to, (on a continuum) give a complete stranger $10 right down to take $10, on average, people take about $1.30 from a complete stranger. (To better understand this, I recommend checking out Part 1.) In essence, the researchers have demonstrated that, when given the opportunity, people are likely to take from complete strangers. Maybe had the Utah couple not known who they bought the house from, they would have been more likely to keep the money.

As I stated above, I have a feeling that this is not the case. Utah is known for being a rather religious state. In fact, a 2009 Gallup poll places Utah as one of the top 15 states in the US (based on the question: Is religion an important part of your daily life?) Interesting to note: religiosity has been linked to morality since the time of Ancient Greece. Of course, there are others who think that morality without religion is possible, but could it be that Utah’s higher incidence of religiosity made it more likely that this Utah couple who found the money (is more likely to be religious), and by extension, moral?

Statue of Mother TeresaI’m not saying that you have to be religious to be moral, but there are some interesting factors at play. The first of which is the whole knowing the previous owner (as I elaborated on with the altruism study). The second would be religion/morality and the third, closely tied to this happening in Utah. This particular state is known for its residents being part of the Latter Day Saint Movement (Mormonism). One of the beliefs of this particular movement is that the people who subscribe to it, are referred to as “Saints.” This particular couple may not be of this religion/movement, but the question is still an interesting one to pose. If you thought of yourself as a “saint,” do you think that you’d keep a pile of money that you’ve found?

The Scientific Evidence for Precognition: Psi Phenomena, Part 3

In the of this series of posts on the scientific evidence for psi phenomena, I discussed the myriad proof for telepathy. In , I talked about the evidence of clairvoyance (and remote viewing) and also mentioned that there are probably still lots of studies that were done by the government that have yet to see the light of day (and may never see the light of day). In this, part 3 of the series, I will talk about the evidence for .

Precognition is knowledge of an event that has yet to occur that can’t be deduced from ‘normally known data’ to be present. In short, precognition is an ability to know the future. Writing, in short-hand, about the scientific evidence of psi phenomena has become easier because in the last 20-30 years, there have been researchers who have done a lot of hard work. More accurately, they’ve summarized much of the data up to the point of their study and some have even written brilliant meta-analyses either critiquing or in support of the data. For precognition, there was a meta-analysis published in 1989 in the Journal of Parapsychology called: “‘.”

A forced-choice precognition experiment is where the experimenter gives the participant a number of options (for a future event) where the participant has to select from those options. This can be contrasted with those studies that were done called free-response studies. A free-response study is one in which the range of options/targets for the participant are seemingly unlimited. A good meta-analysis of free-response studies (). There is one other kind of methodology that is used in testing for precognition: unconscious perception. In this method, the participant’s precognitive ability is being tested, in a sense, without their knowledge. The precognitive abilities are tested through skin conductance and EEG activity. I’ll talk about that a little later on in the post. Let’s talk about the results from the forced-choice experiments.

In the forced-choice meta-analysis, Honorton and Ferrari were able to gather 2,000,000 individual trials by more than 50,000 participants. Most of these studies involved participants guessing Zener cards after the deck was thoroughly shuffled (and some obscure randomized factor done through computers or by cutting the deck to the temperature of a distant city). . Yes, a septillion. That’s 10 with 24 zeros after it. To purport that the results do not support the evidence for precognition would be preposterous.

One of the critiques of precognition studies (and parapsychology in general) is that the . However, in the study I was just referencing, the one about forced-choice, the researchers took a closer look at the methodologies used by the studies they reviewed. Stunningly, what they found, when the quality of the methodology improved, so too, did the precognition results. Meaning, as the methodology got better, so did the results for precognition.

Earlier, I mentioned that I was going to talk about skin conductance and EEG tests of precognition. Some of the research that is coming out of tests of these nature can be simply — mind-boggling. Rollin McCraty and researchers at the Institute of HeartMath were attempting to find evidence for intuition through electrophysiological means. Meaning, they wanted to see if the body had foreknowledge of an event before the mind did. To do this, they used skin conductance, EEG, and ECG, to measure the response in various areas of the body before an image was shown to the participant. These images would either be emotionally arousing or not. The participant had no conscious foreknowledge of what image was to be shown to them.

The researchers found that participants’ body knew when the participant was to see an image that was emotionally arousing. The reactions of the participants’ body prior to seeing an emotionally arousing image versus the reactions prior to seeing a calm image were significantly different. In fact, they found that this information was received by the heart before it was received by the brain. You can read the papers written by the researchers:


As was stated in the conclusions of these articles: “Overall, we have independently replicated and extended previous research documenting prestimulus responses.” Meaning, these studies are not the only studies of its kind — offering evidence for precognition. There are other studies () that claim the same.

I have a hard time differentiating my favorite from my non-favorites with regard to psi phenomena and the Big 5, but there’s a special place in my heart for precognition. Particularly because of what it means for us as humans and our interpretation of time. There’s a fantastic two-part episode of Star Trek called that does a wonderful job of depicting a possibility when it comes to the directionality of time.

Of course, we think that time moves from the past to the present to the future — but what if this were not true? Albert Einstein is , “. . . for us physicist believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.” Another good on this matter: “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” And one more from : “The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.” Whether or not you believe in the possibility of or the inherent direction of the , it is clear that from our (movies and books), there is some part of humanity that is fascinated by the idea.

A Rose By Any Other Name: Labels for Political Ideologies and Parties

I was watching some old episodes of on the weekend and I came across two scenes that I think epitomize part of the problem with politics today. Both scenes are from and the first one is of a Republican lawyer, Ainsley Hayes, speaking with two other Republicans about how the White House offered Ainsley a job. The two Republicans talking to Ainsley aren’t speaking too kindly of their Democratic counterparts.

In the second clip, Ainsley Hayes has accompanied Sam Seaborn to a meeting on Capitol Hill that Sam is to have with Congressional aides. Seaborn is trying to convince these aides (to convince their bosses who are Senators), to vote for a bill.

In the first clip, we see Ainsley have an epiphany of sorts about the people she had met on her interview/tour of the White House. After listening to her fellow Republicans speak negatively about the people she’d met, she stands in their defense. In the second clip, Ainsley, speaking to Republican aides, identifies their true intent — “beat the White House.” Instead of coming together for what was right or for what was good, these aides (and by extension, the Senators), were more interested in finding a way to best the White House (and by extension, the party in power — the Democrats).

One of my favorite clips on the issue of “dueling political ideologies” comes from a comedian, of all places. Chris Rock, while a little vulgar in his description, makes an extremely important point. (.) Because of the vulgarity, I have chosen to link to the clip. I can assure that the only vulgarity in the clip is Rock’s swearing.

In the clip, Rock purports that people can get too tied down to a political position based on their affiliation to a party (or an ideology). People who call themselves , before even hearing the issue, sometimes, decide that they are going to fall on the more liberal side of the argument. Likewise, people who call themselves , before even hearing the issue, sometimes, decide they are going to fall on the more conservative side of the argument. I have no issue with people choosing to be view an issue from one slant or the other, but what irks me (and Chris Rock) is when people make up their mind about something before they hear the issue!

For example, I can’t possibly think that I’ve received the full scope of an issue if I just watch MSNBC (). Likewise, I can’t expect to have received the full scope of an issue if I just watch FOX News (). As well, it is important that people who watch these networks understand that in the news they receive from them, they are consuming a particular slant.

I understand that there is a compulsion by some to label everything in the visible (and non-visible) parts of the universe and that in doing so, of course, there needs to be names for political ideologies. Moreover, having names for political parties makes it easier to group together people who are behind a certain cause, but is it really necessary? Do we really have to have a “” of people who call themselves the Democrats or the Republicans? Can’t we just have a full of ? Can’t we just elect people , not their particular stance on when a ?

Again, I understand how difficult this is to imagine — electing a politician not based on issues, but on judgment. And I understand that the way that the current structure of the political landscape (of most countries) is such that politicians are forced into joining party X or party Y, if they want to work to have their issues (that aren’t necessarily mainstream) championed. However, I would like to point out the likes of of the Green Party of Canada and Independent Senator of Vermont as two outliers that show that it is possible to get elected without being affiliated with one of the mainstream parties of a country.