Psychology paper on Psi

[Twinbird24]

I had to write a paper about psi in which we formulate questions and then answer them, using scholarly references as support. Can you guys read it and tell what you think? (2 pages, Time New Roman, double-space, size 12 font)

 

 

 

psiPaper2.doc

Edited November 10, 2011 by Twinbird24

[DrRocket]

I had to write a paper about psi in which we formulate questions and then answer them, using scholarly references as support. Can you guys read it and tell what you think? (2 pages, Time New Roman, double-space, size 12 font)

 

 

 

psiPaper2.doc

 

Pretty much sucks.

 

You have cherry picked references from the lunatic fringe (e.g. Randin Dean) and ignored objective mainstream debunking of parapsychology.

 

If I were grading the paper yopu would get a 0 for critical thinking.

 

But who knows ? If your professor is a nut job you might get an A.

[Twinbird24]

The topic was assigned to us, it is being marked by a TA not the professor. The purpose was not to debunk parapsychology but to explore it in some aspect in a Q/A format. I looked at scholarly peer reviewed articles only, I saw many that choose to explain ESP or OBE as not an anomalous process and offered alternate explanations for them instead, but then I saw many articles that showed support for ESP and OBE, in my first paragraph I explain how there is no clear consensus on whether ESP or OBE exist. From that point on I choose a side and wrote from that perspective. We had a limited time on the paper and only 2 pages to write, so I wasn't able to fit in arguments for/against psi and add more in depth details :/

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Much of what you wrote is rather vague and broad, like the "model" of ESP, which essentially reduces to "extrasensory information is detected and then perceived," which is not particularly informative. (I mean, it's fairly obvious that any perception must be detected with the senses and then perceived.)

[DrRocket]

The topic was assigned to us, it is being marked by a TA not the professor. The purpose was not to debunk parapsychology but to explore it in some aspect in a Q/A format. I looked at scholarly peer reviewed articles only, I saw many that choose to explain ESP or OBE as not an anomalous process and offered alternate explanations for them instead, but then I saw many articles that showed support for ESP and OBE, in my first paragraph I explain how there is no clear consensus on whether ESP or OBE exist. From that point on I choose a side and wrote from that perspective. We had a limited time on the paper and only 2 pages to write, so I wasn't able to fit in arguments for/against psi and add more in depth details :/

 

So, you are not really interested in what someone else thinks of your paper. What you want is to be told that that piece of uncritical junk is just wonderful. Well, it isn't.

[Twinbird24]

No, I want an honest opinion/ critique on the paper, which everyone has so far given me. The point of my response is that the paper was set up to make any in depth detail hard to integrate (we need to include multiple references, at least 3 questions with answers, and 2 pages max) so it's hard to select one topic ("does ESP exist," for example) and then explain in detail, using quality rather than quantity. I don't know how I could add more information/ detail without going over the page limit or reducing my questions down to only 1...

[mooeypoo]

You know, critiques are great, but there are ways to present them. Starting one with "Pretty much sucks" without giving much of an explanation is not really critiquing.

 

I know we encounter a lot of intentional crackpots around here, but I think it would serve all of us quite well if we get into these things with a bit less cynicism. I don't know about you, Dr Rocket, but I wasn't born with critical thinking. I was born with natural curiosity and very profound skepticism, but critical thinking is something you need to either formulate, learn, or practice.

 

Even for the sake of trying to help a member research more and get more involved, I'd suggest that if you don't have anything constructive to say (and constructive doesn't have to be good, it just needs to be polite) then just don't say it at all.

 

I'd much rather encourage people to BECOME critical thinkers than to beat them down to a pulp and have them run away from "people like us" because we're cruel, closed minded and condescending like the crackpots we fight so hard against claim we are.

 

~mooey

 

No, I want an honest opinion/ critique on the paper, which everyone has so far given me. The point of my response is that the paper was set up to make any in depth detail hard to integrate (we need to include multiple references, at least 3 questions with answers, and 2 pages max) so it's hard to select one topic ("does ESP exist," for example) and then explain in detail, using quality rather than quantity. I don't know how I could add more information/ detail without going over the page limit or reducing my questions down to only 1...

 

Twinbird, our main 'problem' here is that all aspects of "psi" is unproven scientifically, and many of them were shown to be fraudulent. You seem to start your paper with the assumption that Psi exists, and then use references from meta-analyses and other sources to support very specific minor claims you're making.

 

The problem with meta analyses is that they're not real experimental proofs. Meta analyses is research about resaerch; it's the grouping of multiple findings int eh same subjects to see if there's a trend. The problem in this particular case is that the experiments with regards to 'psi' are unreliable in general, and show very small effect (if any). They're not blinded, they lack proper controls and they are not usualyl replicable.

 

A meta analysis of bad experiments yields a grouping of bad results.

 

 

The main issue with this paper is that you start iwth a CONCLUSION (that psi exists) instead of asking whether or not it does, and searching to see what all the available information shows you. If you start with a conclusion, you will always be able to make the information fit (which is what you seem to be doing, knowingly or not). Btu if you start with a general question and look at *all* the evidence available, you get get a more realistic answer.

 

Ask yourself: Did you search for research papers that *disprove* psi as well as those that prove it? Did you check if the experiments done were repetitive and peer reviewed? Were they all statistical analyses? How big was the sample group?

 

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The problem with meta analyses is that they're not real experimental proofs. Meta analyses is research about resaerch; it's the grouping of multiple findings int eh same subjects to see if there's a trend. The problem in this particular case is that the experiments with regards to 'psi' are unreliable in general, and show very small effect (if any). They're not blinded, they lack proper controls and they are not usualyl replicable.

 

A meta analysis of bad experiments yields a grouping of bad results.

A good meta-analysis does the statistics and shows that the results are bad. For example, a meta-analysis of many studies with small effect sizes would aggregate the data and find an small effect size with large error bars on it. So I'm not really sure how this is "a problem" with meta-analyses, rather than exactly what they're supposed to do.

[mooeypoo]

A good meta-analysis does the statistics and shows that the results are bad. For example, a meta-analysis of many studies with small effect sizes would aggregate the data and find an small effect size with large error bars on it. So I'm not really sure how this is "a problem" with meta-analyses, rather than exactly what they're supposed to do.

 

You're right, but in order to figure this out, you need to look at WHICH studies the meta analysis looked at, and make sure the studies the meta-analyses looked at were, individually, well formed and scientific. Otherwise,the meta analysis is worthless.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A good meta-analysis would say something like "Of the studies we surveyed, only two were randomized controlled trials, so the available data cannot conclusively support the hypothesis."

[imatfaal]

Twinbird

 

600-700 words is not a lot to work with especially bearing in mind that you have to cover at least 3 questions. you need to be economic and direct in at least 1 possibly 2 questions to give yourself a tiniest bit of room to expand on the most interesting question.

 

what is PSI? can be answered very shortly and with almost dictionary like definitions. (no need to be linked to evidential para)

Is there any evidence? should definitely NOT BE ANSWERED with an opinion poll of the great and good. there is good scope for use of a critique of preconceptions (both those of advocates and deniers) in this sort of question and also a morphing of the question into perhaps the more interesting "has evidence been sort in a scientific manner..."

How does ESP work and why do humans possess this ability - a more analytical route might be to ask "Has a physiological process through which ESP could work been proposed and tested?

Why do humans possess... using evolution etc is a little intellectually disingenuous, ie if PSI exists it will be useful and thus we have it because it is useful.

How does ESP influence our dreams - perhaps be less explanatory about the experiment and be more analytic of the procedure (and you need to introduce REM as an abbrv.)

I could not resist the temptation to have a paragraph on what the proponents are not doing which might otherwise further the cause

 

Just my ideas

[matty]

You know, critiques are great, but there are ways to present them. Starting one with "Pretty much sucks" without giving much of an explanation is not really critiquing...

 

...Ask yourself: Did you search for research papers that *disprove* psi as well as those that prove it? Did you check if the experiments done were repetitive and peer reviewed? Were they all statistical analyses? How big was the sample group?

 

 

~mooey

 

Yeah, that was two thirds an indictment for a newbie asking for help in a homework setting and the 'crit' was no more credible then than the write up. Seems mr. Rocket's lost sight of the basic precept in his own signature. But a genuine effort between what both you and Imatfaal have left here, nice...

 

Twinbird

 

600-700 words is not a lot to work with especially bearing in mind that you have to cover at least 3 questions. you need to be economic and diret in at least 1 possibly 2 questions to give yourself a tiniest bit of room to expand on the most interesting question.

 

what is PSI? can be answered very shortly and with almost dictionary like definitions. (no need to be linked to evidential para)

Is there any evidence? should definitely NOT BE ANSWERED with an opinion poll of the great and good. there is good scope for use of a critique of preconceptions (both those of advocates and deniers) in this sort of question and also a morphing of the question into perhaps the more interesting "has evidence been sort in a scientific manner..."

How does ESP work and why do humans possess this ability - a more analytical route might be to ask "Has a physiological process through which ESP could work been proposed and tested?..

Edited November 14, 2011 by matty