Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Are You Sceptical About 'sixth Sense'?
69 Answers
I already am sceptical about it. But that doesn't stop me being interested in other people's unusual experiences or finding out why they believe in it.
This article by no means fully debunks the phenomenon but covers an interesting aspect of human perception - we can "sense change" in a scene even though, under controlled experimental conditions, we can't put into words what the nature of the change was.
http://
This article by no means fully debunks the phenomenon but covers an interesting aspect of human perception - we can "sense change" in a scene even though, under controlled experimental conditions, we can't put into words what the nature of the change was.
http://
Answers
I think the article, or perhaps the experiment is a bit daft. If you show someone two pictures in the way described, that's got nothing to do with ESP or so called 6th sense. It's an experiment in visual perception.
13:29 Mon 20th Jan 2014
I think the problem with "someone was staring at me" sixth senses is that you only need to be right once to think that it was real. I've felt that I was being stared at loads of times. To the best of my knowledge, it's never been true, really. Certainly not often enough to be a real sense. More likely to be just my rampant paranoia again.
I was due to meet someone for coffee at about 2pm and thought that they were going to cancel about 90 minutes before. They then asked that it be moved to 15 minutes later, but at about 12.20pm they seemed happy to go. Then, with about 90 minutes left until we were due to meet, they sent a cancellation text. Spooky? Not really, I usually fear the worst.
In another, more tragic case, on the day when I found that all three of my pet hens had been killed (by a fox, most likely), I spent the entire journey from my back door, where I could not see them, to the entrance to their coop, knowing instinctively that they had to be dead or missing. No sixth sense again -- just a sadly correct logical deduction based on the fact that there were no hens coming to greet me at the coop entrance. It made for the worst journey of my life.
I don't know if either of the above cases is truly relevant, but I suppose the main point I want to make is that if you expect something, and it later turns out to be true, that doesn't imply anything because such incidents are often isolated, and only memorable because of the fact that the prediction turned out to match the outcome. How often does it not?
Still, we risk turning this into yet another argument. At the moment it's clear that we don't know even close to everything about how the brain and the current senses work. As long as that is the case, and as long as there is the simpler explanation of confirmation bias, we don't need a new "sixth sense" to explain these phenomena. It's more likely to be just a combination of chance and the fact that humans are notoriously bad at understanding how chance works.
I was due to meet someone for coffee at about 2pm and thought that they were going to cancel about 90 minutes before. They then asked that it be moved to 15 minutes later, but at about 12.20pm they seemed happy to go. Then, with about 90 minutes left until we were due to meet, they sent a cancellation text. Spooky? Not really, I usually fear the worst.
In another, more tragic case, on the day when I found that all three of my pet hens had been killed (by a fox, most likely), I spent the entire journey from my back door, where I could not see them, to the entrance to their coop, knowing instinctively that they had to be dead or missing. No sixth sense again -- just a sadly correct logical deduction based on the fact that there were no hens coming to greet me at the coop entrance. It made for the worst journey of my life.
I don't know if either of the above cases is truly relevant, but I suppose the main point I want to make is that if you expect something, and it later turns out to be true, that doesn't imply anything because such incidents are often isolated, and only memorable because of the fact that the prediction turned out to match the outcome. How often does it not?
Still, we risk turning this into yet another argument. At the moment it's clear that we don't know even close to everything about how the brain and the current senses work. As long as that is the case, and as long as there is the simpler explanation of confirmation bias, we don't need a new "sixth sense" to explain these phenomena. It's more likely to be just a combination of chance and the fact that humans are notoriously bad at understanding how chance works.
@Naomi - Or perhaps because the phenomenon does not exist?
Sure, study design is important when looking at the results - but reading Wisemans studies on this phenomenon, where they approach a subject unobserved, note what they are doing, stare intently at them for 5 minutes, and then only when the subject has got up to leave go and ask them about whether they felt they were being observed or not seems a pretty good way of examining this phenomenon, to me.
And no one has really been able to offer positive trials that "prove" the phenomenon actually happens - at least, not in well designed studies that remove confounding factors.
Sure, study design is important when looking at the results - but reading Wisemans studies on this phenomenon, where they approach a subject unobserved, note what they are doing, stare intently at them for 5 minutes, and then only when the subject has got up to leave go and ask them about whether they felt they were being observed or not seems a pretty good way of examining this phenomenon, to me.
And no one has really been able to offer positive trials that "prove" the phenomenon actually happens - at least, not in well designed studies that remove confounding factors.
Yes indeed, LG. Also, it's worth noting that every phenomenon that has apparently been observed already shouldn't need any specialist equipment to detect anyway, because it already has been detected, apparently, with nothing more than our own senses. All you need to do is confirm that the phenomenon exists, by actually writing down the results of multiple such cases and checking whether or not they occur more often than could have been expected if it was all just luck.
In the absence of any objective evidence that the phenomenon exists, and where we have many studies which show that subjects remain blithely unaware of being intently observed, the default position that such a phenomenon exists is scepticism.
The one thing that no study has been able to replicate is to take account of the emotional state of the observer and observed. None of these studies have ever been able to replicate, say, an observer with malign intent, so that is probably always going to remain an unknown.
Perhaps emotions work by quantum entanglement ;)
The one thing that no study has been able to replicate is to take account of the emotional state of the observer and observed. None of these studies have ever been able to replicate, say, an observer with malign intent, so that is probably always going to remain an unknown.
Perhaps emotions work by quantum entanglement ;)
That's exactly right, jomifl. Every example I've ever seen of "sixth sense", including here, is a perfect example of subconscious behaviour. It's highly sophisticated, but not at all mysterious.
My son has sensory processing disorder, and according to the psychiatrist and paediatrician, speech and emotions are also sensory. Some of his senses are underactive (touch) and some overactive (hearing, emotion). His behaviour makes perfect sense when you understand how the senses work together.
My son has sensory processing disorder, and according to the psychiatrist and paediatrician, speech and emotions are also sensory. Some of his senses are underactive (touch) and some overactive (hearing, emotion). His behaviour makes perfect sense when you understand how the senses work together.
How about the siting of church altars on lay lines, I forget how many churches it is that lie on the line from St Michaels Mount to Norwich Cathedral via Stonehenge but how did they do that with no surveying equipment back then......? Personally, I think it exists, we haven't discovered it or lost the 'technique' - I take the view that there exists a lot we have yet to discover but are 'aware' of - how would one explain electricity or static/St Elmo's Fire back in the Middle Ages (apart from the work of the Devil).......Open and inquisitive minds are needed.
Well, the objective truth of ley lines is in dispute, for a start.
Of course we should keep an open mind - but we should also be informed by objective evidence, and where there is little or no objective evidence for a phenomenon over a long period of time, it is pretty safe to conclude that the phenomena in question is not as described.
Of course we should keep an open mind - but we should also be informed by objective evidence, and where there is little or no objective evidence for a phenomenon over a long period of time, it is pretty safe to conclude that the phenomena in question is not as described.
The problem with Ley lines is that, again, a simpler explanation exists: that there was simply so many points around that, even if their positions were entirely random, you would expect some level of alignment to occur. Someone has shown that you might assume that phone boxes hide a secret key, because of all the various lines they form -- and yet it's known that they were planted in a random sense. (see e.g. Clive L. N. Ruggles (2005). "Ley lines". Ancient astronomy: An encyclopaedia)
People just love to find patterns, even where there are none. Ley lines are one likely example -- the sixth sense is probably another.
People just love to find patterns, even where there are none. Ley lines are one likely example -- the sixth sense is probably another.
Here's a story for you.....When I was about 14 and my Grandad passed away. I had a very vivid dream about him not long after. We were all at his house and mourning his death yet I could see him sitting in his chair as clear as day. When I told my Grandma she asked me to ask him if he was ok. He replied with 'Well....the cat. And that tap, tap tapping is getting on my nerves'. Later on in the dream we were playing with a toy farmyard. I specifically remembered a blue sticker and a little yellow duck. When I awoke, feeling quite emotional, I told my mum. She replied with 'my god, we had a toy farmyard like that when we were kids that your Grandad made us. You couldn't possibly have ever seen it though'. She spoke to my Grandma about it as she has always had some beliefs herself. Grandma was surprised and said that she had been feeling bad as she had forgotten to feed my Grandads cat 'Oi' a few times (Grandad wouldn't have been happy about that) and also there was a leak coming from the drain pipe that was tapping on the bedroom window (this would have drove Grandad nuts too as he was big on DIY).
We will never fully understand it, but this dream certainly gave me some belief. I'm sure 'Scientific' people will have an answer but I know what I believe and it makes me happy thinking about it.
We will never fully understand it, but this dream certainly gave me some belief. I'm sure 'Scientific' people will have an answer but I know what I believe and it makes me happy thinking about it.
"It never ceases to amaze me how people construct explanations for things that no one knows about. Bit like those of a religious persuasion really."
Yes, like asserting paranormal phenomenon as an explanation for things like someone staring at you, or asserting that ghosts exist, or that ley lines exist, or that dowsing works by a whole range of unproven methods. I would agree with you entirely - it is rather like religious belief; the proponents cling obstinately to that belief and reject the objective evidence to the contrary.
Yes, like asserting paranormal phenomenon as an explanation for things like someone staring at you, or asserting that ghosts exist, or that ley lines exist, or that dowsing works by a whole range of unproven methods. I would agree with you entirely - it is rather like religious belief; the proponents cling obstinately to that belief and reject the objective evidence to the contrary.
DTC, Ley lines were effectively rubbished a decade or so ago. You can draw a straight line through any 2 points but how close to that line does a third point have to be to qualify as an alignement? 1mm, 1metre, 1Kilometre ? The bigger the margin of tolerance the more alignements. How big are the points and where? the centre of the Knave, the town square, the municipal boundary? The criteria that were used for ley lines can be applied to pig styes. sewage treatment plants or brothels with equally convincing 'significance'.
Thanks to you all for keeping the thread going, by the way.
Nice example, @LinziMissy. You have what should be a hermetically sealed fact - the toy farm which I presume was thrown away before you were born - which you should have no way of knowing about, yet you dream about it.
There are far-fetched explanations we could resort to: Were you having some kind of dream-swap thing with your mum i.e. you are re-experiencing one of her memories, of her speaking to your grandad and seeing this toy farm, for instance?
Or is it that you describe* a toy farm, give details like the sticker and the duck but, because your mum isn't able to see what you saw, all she can do is call on her own memories of what a toy farm looks like. Wind back however many years to her childhood (no disrespect meant) and maybe there were only a few 'brands' of toy farm to choose from. If they all look much alike and, worse still, were still on sale during your childhood, then you might have set eyes on one, got that image in your mind but your mum didn't buy it for you. All the more reason for it to become a strong memory.
The trouble is, all attempts at explanation tend to ruin the story. I am merely speaking my mind and you have every right to ignore this.
*what I'm getting at in this paragraph is that, if I describe any given object to someone, I can visualise it in my head but the other person only hears my description and has to call up their own conception of what an object of that classification looks like. If I pick out just two selected details and say "it had strings and magnetic pickups" and the other person says "that's the exact same guitar I used to own which you've never seen", they can do this whilst visualising two completely different designs of guitar.
Words are therefore a blunt instrument and is why we have photographs. Can't photograph people's dream imagery though.
Nice example, @LinziMissy. You have what should be a hermetically sealed fact - the toy farm which I presume was thrown away before you were born - which you should have no way of knowing about, yet you dream about it.
There are far-fetched explanations we could resort to: Were you having some kind of dream-swap thing with your mum i.e. you are re-experiencing one of her memories, of her speaking to your grandad and seeing this toy farm, for instance?
Or is it that you describe* a toy farm, give details like the sticker and the duck but, because your mum isn't able to see what you saw, all she can do is call on her own memories of what a toy farm looks like. Wind back however many years to her childhood (no disrespect meant) and maybe there were only a few 'brands' of toy farm to choose from. If they all look much alike and, worse still, were still on sale during your childhood, then you might have set eyes on one, got that image in your mind but your mum didn't buy it for you. All the more reason for it to become a strong memory.
The trouble is, all attempts at explanation tend to ruin the story. I am merely speaking my mind and you have every right to ignore this.
*what I'm getting at in this paragraph is that, if I describe any given object to someone, I can visualise it in my head but the other person only hears my description and has to call up their own conception of what an object of that classification looks like. If I pick out just two selected details and say "it had strings and magnetic pickups" and the other person says "that's the exact same guitar I used to own which you've never seen", they can do this whilst visualising two completely different designs of guitar.
Words are therefore a blunt instrument and is why we have photographs. Can't photograph people's dream imagery though.
Do you? Thats ok then :) I guess.
But you believe in a sixth sense, do you not? You said so yourself, in this thread earlier. That's "sixth sense" you said, speaking of your experience in the car park. No equivocation there, no "I don't know" there.
And it would appear, from your comments here, that you reject the notion that what people label as evidence of a "sixth sense" - ie becoming aware of being stared at as most likely being a subconscious awareness of sensory/environmental cues- in favour of an as-yet- unidentified sensory stimulus; Further, an unidentified sensory field or stimulus that the scientific method is not up to the task of measuring - a somewhat similar argument to the one you were using in the dowsing thread.
Now, you might not label favouring attributing this phenomenon of awareness of being stared at to an as-yet-unidentified sense as being "paranormal" but I think the dictionary would disagree with you.
"par·a·nor·mal (pr-nôrml)
adj.
Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation"
And I think that attributing such events to an as yet unidentified sense whilst rejecting the negative evidence to the contrary is far more akin to religion and much less akin to a sceptical stance, personally.
But you believe in a sixth sense, do you not? You said so yourself, in this thread earlier. That's "sixth sense" you said, speaking of your experience in the car park. No equivocation there, no "I don't know" there.
And it would appear, from your comments here, that you reject the notion that what people label as evidence of a "sixth sense" - ie becoming aware of being stared at as most likely being a subconscious awareness of sensory/environmental cues- in favour of an as-yet- unidentified sensory stimulus; Further, an unidentified sensory field or stimulus that the scientific method is not up to the task of measuring - a somewhat similar argument to the one you were using in the dowsing thread.
Now, you might not label favouring attributing this phenomenon of awareness of being stared at to an as-yet-unidentified sense as being "paranormal" but I think the dictionary would disagree with you.
"par·a·nor·mal (pr-nôrml)
adj.
Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation"
And I think that attributing such events to an as yet unidentified sense whilst rejecting the negative evidence to the contrary is far more akin to religion and much less akin to a sceptical stance, personally.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.