Talk:Psychic staring effect

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources[edit]

Im not sure what wikipedia's policy is regarding sources(if it indeed has one(?)) but anyone investigating the 'Committee for Sceptical Inquiry' would be dubius about their journal 'Sceptical Inquiry'. Anyone investigating this body honestly would come away with more than dubious feelings regarding this, especially as two prominent insiders have quit the body(from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry):

Marcello Truzzi, one of CSICOP's co-founders, left the organization after only a short time, arguing that many of those involved “tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts.”[27] Truzzi coined the term pseudoskeptic to describe critics in whom he detected such an attitude.[28]

Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for the pro-paranormal magazine Fate, he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism."[29]

Again, i realise this topic evokes much emotion, but in the spirit of objectivity we have to ask ourselves if any other such journal in any another field would survive such problems(i hope not!) and whether this should be an acceptable source for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.153.4 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you like to repeat yourself, don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and infant, you add question tags to your nonsensical comments -- that's not repeating yourself 39.43.123.104 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scopeaesthetia??[edit]

Can't find this anywhere. Is it spelled correctly? --EPadmirateur (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its a little corny, but its from sheldrake's book, which got a fair amount of attention. Spencerk (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it is spelled: Scopaesthesia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37‎ ‎24.68.75.92 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pov[edit]

This POV article omits negative results, which probably outnumber the positive results. Edison (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

) i wrote it and don't believe it, so I suppose i was too fair. feel free to add negative results.Spencerk (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last two paragraphs need rewrite[edit]

The second last paragraph is incomplete, because it omits Shermers main point: That the "psychic staring effect" couldn't be reproduced by skeptics, if proper randomization standards were applied, while parapsychologists could:

"Marilyn Schlitz--a believer in psychic phenomena--collaborated with Wiseman (a skeptic of psi) in replicating Sheldrake's research and discovered that when they did the staring Schlitz found statistically significant results, whereas Wiseman found chance results."

This is also Sheldrake's tactic: Simply provoking the impression that Shermer only criticized errors in the experiment's protocol. This is a strawman which he can easily refute by pointing towards (alleged) experiments with proper randomization etc.

The last paragraph has to be rewritten as well - the first sentence can only be understood if one has read Shermer's text, the rest is a single quote from Sheldrake's letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.23.163 (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overemphasis on Sheldrake[edit]

For some reason this article was rewritten to focus almost entirely on Sheldrake a few years ago, losing any detail of other researchers' experiments, including Titchener's 1898 investigation (and compelling explanation for what causes the effect). I've added a "history" section from Titchener's original source, and will look to see what else should be restored. --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Software codes of reality, life and language[edit]

The effect that is discussed is nowhere in the realm of current-day mental sciences. In fact they are on an entirely wrong track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D00A:EBD:34EC:487C:2BC:892 (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

report detecting[edit]

@User:Johnjosephpallas: Do you have any sources saying that the "Psychic staring effect" is a phenomenon in which humans report detecting being stared at by extrasensory means, as opposed to a supposed phenomenon in which humans detect being stared at by extrasensory means? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRIND sources refer to it as a claim: [1], [2] and so should the encyclopedia, per FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]