Extra-Sensory Perception

[Thulsa Doom]

 
 Dr. Estabrooks
%
 Miss Jephson
%
 Chance
%
 
Total color right
 56.5
 55.1
 50
 
Total suit right
 28.5
 30.5
 25
 
Early guesses, color right
 55.7
 57.9
 50
 
Early guesses, suit right
 30.6
 30.9
 25
 

[paragraph continues] It would be very doubtful then if Estabrooks or, perhaps, if any one had actually demonstrated pure telepathy, in view of these results. For, if clairvoyance is possible, it must safely be excluded before telepathy can be inferred as the operative principle. I feel particularly indebted to Miss Jephson's work in that it helped to stimulate my own interest in clairvoyance. A second report in 1931, in conjunction with Messrs. Soal and Besterman, 1 does not confirm the earlier work and its "fatigue-curve" hypothesis. (This last point is discussed later in this report.)

If the more experimental studies of clairvoyance were regarded as the only "pure clairvoyance" material, the evidence would not be at all overwhelming. I think it would be good but in need of much repetition. Even so, it is far ahead of the definitely experimental evidence for "pure telepathy", for of such there is nothing on record, to my knowledge. And, if we accept provisionally the evidence from the "telepathy" tests in which clairvoyance was not excluded, we may as well accept the evidence for


p. 28

clairvoyance from "psychometry", in which telepathy (extended and generalized) is not often excluded. If we do, I am inclined again to give the odds of weight of evidence in favor of clairvoyance, especially if we include the dowsing or divination data under this heading. The long list of first class "psychometric" cases is rather impressive: Señora de Z., Dr. Prince's Mrs. King, Dr. Osty's Mme. Morel and Mlle. de Berly, Rafael Schermann, Wasielewski's Miss Von B., Tischner's Mr. H., Dr. Geley's Ossowiecki, Paschal Forthuny, to mention some of the more famous.

With practically no pure telepathy experiments and few pure clairvoyance tests, we have little or no basis of evidence for a study of relations between these two phenomena. Kotik's Lydia did both clairvoyance and telepathy (without excluding clairvoyance, so far as Tischner's review shows), and Wasielewski and Tischner's Miss Von B. did likewise. Coover's subjects did card-guessing in their barely significant way, under the same two conditions, pure clairvoyance and telepathy-plus-clairvoyance. But we cannot draw any conclusions about results from such conditions. The need for an experimental separation of the two is strikingly clear, all the more so since most students of the subject have had hypothetical views of some kind as to the relationship. In a very general way the Frenchmen, Richet, Osty and Geley, have preferred to think telepathy a special case of a general clairvoyance ("cryptesthesia", Richet's term, "metagnomy" Boirac's term). The English and American students have been slow to recognize clairvoyance, as is shown by the lack of any definite test of it in those countries until Miss Jephson's in 1928 and by their long ignoring the need for excluding it from telepathic experiments. There has been some bias against clairvoyance in Germany too, as is illustrated by Prof. Oesterreich's attempt to explain clairvoyant phenomena by telepathy—telepathy expanded to unlimited dimensions. Barrett and Myers have theories for telepathy, but not for clairvoyance. Both Myers and Mrs. Sidgwick have suggested that there are probably connections between the two. 1 Tischner and Wasielewski are of the same mind. 2

A final phase of this review concerns the various hypotheses proposed to explain E.S.P. These fall into two groups in general—physical hypotheses and non-physical. The physical hypotheses are the more numerous and popular, as well as the more elaborated. But in a general way they are all radiant or wave hypotheses, since this is the only physical principle available as yet for such theorizing. Even Ford's electron theory becomes as good a wave theory as any, since electrons are discovered to conduct themselves in the undulatory way.



p. 29

[Thulsa Doom]

A number of attempts have been made to offer hypothetical explanations for either telepathy or clairvoyance, but very few have tried to explain both at once. It is this attempt at a joint theory that gives the peculiar logical difficulty. Some find it easy to suppose brain-waves for telepathy but they seem to balk at supposing the same sort of waves to be emanating from all things clairvoyantly perceptible; and well they might! Others find it easy to suppose a "magnetic", "telluric" or "rhabdic" emanation or force to be exercised by metals, waters—substances in general; but they likewise find a large gap between these forces and the thought-images of a telepathic agent's mind.

The physicist, Sir William Crookes, perhaps the first general theorist of the field, proposed in 1897 1 the theory that telepathy might be due to high frequency vibrations of the ether generated by molecular action of the brain of the agent and received by the percipient's. He was conscious of the difficulty his theory encountered in the inverse-square law of decline of intensity with distance, but felt that our ignorance might be cloaking some principle which covers this point of difficulty. Another eminent physicist, Professor Ostwald, 2 has proposed a physical theory for telepathy, offering an energetic theory which assumes the transformation of known physiological energies into unknown forms that can be projected through time and space, received by the percipient and reconverted to known forms. But the great physicist of "energetics" had no evidence from his science to show that energies can be projected toward a goal, unless through a material channel. The energies radiate on a spherical front, so far as we know them. Sir William Barrett, another physicist, in argument against a physical theory of telepathy, 3 reminds us that the radiation theories would require, to reach 1000 feet, 1 million times the intensity of the transmitted telepathic stimulus that is required for one foot, and concludes that "it is highly improbable that telepathy is transmitted by waves radiating in every direction, like light from a candle." He quotes Myers, Mrs. Sidgwick and other eminent students as of like opinion concerning telepathy—that it is a psychical, rather than a physical, phenomenon. Myers was especially opposed to a physical, and insistent upon a psychical, theory. But of what sort of a theory a psychical one is we have very little understanding, other than the fact that it is not physical (i.e., mechanical).

Turning to the more comprehensive theories that embrace both clairvoyance and telepathy, we find three which are very wide apart in viewpoint and which will serve here to represent widely different possible




p. 30

[Thulsa Doom]

approaches. These are hypotheses suggested by Hyslop, Forel and Tischner. Hyslop's 1 hypothesis (which he suggested without advocacy) is the " spirit hypothesis" applied to telepathy and clairvoyance. The incorporeal personality is supposed in this hypothesis to be a " carrier" of the mental state or stimulus that the percipient receives, for both phases of E.S.P. It will be seen at once that this hypothesis would at best only pass the problem on to a stage of still greater complexity, since we wonder quite naturally how the "spirit carrier" obtains his "load", if not by clairvoyance and telepathy! Which is as bad as ever.

Tischner 2 invokes a theory of super-individual or collective mind, which serves as a common reservoir. He quotes E. von Hartmann as explaining telepathy through "telephonic connection with the Absolute" and aligns himself with this view. The connection is, he believes, through the "subconscious mind". This hypothesis is less definite and, perhaps, less extravagant, as some would regard it. But, in essence, it leaves us no more advanced toward explanation than Prof. Hyslop's suggested hypothesis. For we have to explain the business of "fishing" in the "reservoir" of the absolute or the collective mind quite as inevitably as if we just omitted all that, and assumed a direct contact between agent and percipient or object and clairvoyant. If we should need to bring in these other complications, "spirits", "reservoirs", etc., as inferred accessory factors in telepathy and clairvoyance, it would be fully acceptable to do so; but let us not obscure the fact that they do not explain telepathy and clairvoyance at all. They only complicate it. For all "absolutes" and "spirits" would have to perceive extra-sensorially themselves. These two theories, then, leave us as we were.

Ford's theory 3 is a hard-boiled physical one, an electron-theory. The electrons come either from the brain of the agent or from the object, and when they come off in certain complexes they convey to the brain of the percipient the stimulation which leads to perception. A given "electron-complex" can stimulate a corresponding "engram-complex" in the percipient's brain, provided the percipient has previously established such an engram-complex through experience of the perception in question. This previous set-up is essential, because there is required the existing engram-complex in the percipient's brain which through "homophonous and synchronous" vibration may be aroused by an appropriate electron-complex, and perception effected. Thus the thought of a card-figure would give off from the agent's brain the same electron-complex as would the card-figure itself, both exciting the same engram-complex.




p. 31

[Thulsa Doom]

But one need only remember that substances regularly emitting electrons—i.e., radioactive—are rare in nature. Physics is, of course, alert to this phenomenon. And, to secure intensities of the strength necessary for distance E.S.P. (a million times stronger radiation at a thousand feet than at one), there would be need for some remarkable electronic emission (indeed!), which could hardly have escaped physicists.

On the reception end of the E.S.P. phenomenon there has only been the vague inference of some hidden sense (cryptesthesia), a "sixth sense", as Prof. Richet, the leading exponent of this view, has called it. 1 The usage is not clear as to whether any reception whatever would be regarded as sensory, or whether the selective interception of a special energy pattern by a specialized and localized organ would be meant. No clarity has yet been achieved on this important end of the function of E.S.P.

For a summary of the chapter, one may say that the evidence for general E.S.P. is good but the theories are bad; and our knowledge of the phenomena needs refinement through variation and improvement of conditions. We need tests for pure telepathy and more of them for pure clairvoyance, made under conditions that enable easy evaluation of significance, provide safe exclusion of other modes of cognition, and introduce variation enough to suggest the relation of E.S.P. to other processes and lead to its natural explanation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
15:1 By Gurney, Myers, and Podmore; Soc. Psy. Res. (London), 1886.

15:2 Longmans and Co., London, 1903.

15:3 Trans. by Stanley DeBrath; E. P. Dutton, New York, 1923.

15:4 See Human Experiences, B.S.P.R. Bulletin XIV.

16:1 See the interesting contribution in The Divining-Rod, Barrett and Besterman, London. Also Chap. IV, Richet's Thirty Years of Psychical Research, Macmillan, 1923. (Trans. by Stanley DeBrath.)

16:2 A.S.P.R. Proc. Vol. XVI, New York.

16:3 Experimente mit Rafael Schermann, Urban, Berlin, 1924.

16:4 Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1925.

16:5 A.S.P.R. Proc. Vol. XVIII, New York, 1924, pp. 178-244. Another great case that belongs perhaps half-way in this department of the subject but is somewhat more experimental than these is that of Prof. Gilbert Murray, as reported by Mrs. Verrall, Proc. S.P.R. 29: pp. 64-110 and by Mrs. Sidgwick, 34: pp. 212-274. Prof. Murray usually requires a "point of contact" (a hand-clasp), but not one connected with the situation in question, and his work seems to be more telepathic than clairvoyant also, though the writing and speaking by the agents are required, and we cannot, therefore, be sure of telepathy.

18:1 Proc. S.P.R. Vol. II, pp. 189-200, 1884.

18:2 Hansen, F.C.C. and Lehmann, A., Uber Unwillkürliches Flüstern, Phil. stud. 17: pp. 471-530, 1895.

19:1 Proc. S.P.R. 12: pp. 298-315, 1896-1897.

19:2 Psych. Rev. 3, pp. 198-200, 1896; 4: pp. 654-655, 1897; Science, 8: p. 956, 1898.

19:3 James: Messrs. Lehmann and Hansen on Telepathy, Science, 9: pp. 654-655, 1899. Prof. Lehmann's words are: "not yet established (bewiesen)".

19:4 Lehmann, A., Aberglaube und Zauberei, 2d Ed., Stuttgart, Enke, 1908. This statement is based on Prof. Coover's Abstract, Experiments in P.R., Stanford, 1917, pp. 33-35.

19:5 See Abstract, Gurney. E., Proc. S.P.R., 2: pp. 239-64, 1884.

19:6 Phantasms of the Living, Vol. II, pp. 642-53, 1885.

19:7 Phantasms of the Living, Vol. I, p. 25.

20:1 For a review of this work consult Myers, Human Personality, 2 vols., Vol. 1: p. 568

20:2 P. 125, Vol. 1, A History of Psychology as Autobiography, Ed. by Murchison, 1930, Clark University Press.

20:3 Proc. S.P.R. 4: pp. 324-337; 5: pp. 169-215.

20:4 Proc. S.P.R., 7: pp. 3-22. See also Dr. W. F. Prince's review and criticism, B.S.P.R., Bulletin XVI, pp. 126-128.

20:5 Proc. S.P.R., XI: pp. 2-17.

20:6 Phantasms of the Living, I, p. 34, and II, p. 653.

20:7 Scientific American, May, 1924.

20:8 La Télépathie, Paris, 1921.

20:9 Experiments in P.R., Stanford, 1917, p. 640.

20:10 B.S.P.R., Bulletin V, p. 28.

20:11 Mental Radio (Sinclair), Los Angeles, 1930, p. 239.

21:1 Compt. Rend. Off. du Premier Cong. Internat’l des Recherches Psychiques, 1932, pp. 396-408.

22:1 In the interest of completeness perhaps I should mention Dr. Troland's short study of telepathy made at Harvard in 1916-1917, including only 605 trials with a probability of ½. It has no significance whatever and was too small a series to be important. There was also the negative report of an examination by Prof. Stratton of a man who claimed telepathic powers and who invited the inquiry. (The control of another person by obscure signs, Psych. Rev. 28: pp. 301-334, 1921.) One can readily see that Prof Stratton might have been right in his conclusion of sensory following of signals, but might equally well have been wrong—in having provided conditions unfavorable for abstraction, as I can see now was the case. The "internal" field is even more important than the outer in psychological experimentation.

23:1 Bechterew, W. Zeitschrift f. Psycho-Therapie, 8: pp. 280-304, 1924.

23:2 Rhine, J. B. and Louisa E., Jour. Abn. and Soc. Psy., 23: pp. 449-466, 1929; and 24: pp. 289-292, 1929.

23:3 The Eberfeld horses were doubtless best known among these. Krall was convinced that his horses were capable of telepathy but the demonstration of it has remained too debatable for definite conviction. Krall's own report in 1927 (Ztschft f. Parapsychol. 21: pp. 150-153) entitled "Denkbüertragung Zwischen Mensch and Tier", lacks too much in completeness and detail to permit a safe judgment.

23:4 Annal. Sci. Psych., XX: pp. 14-21, and pp. 40-53, 1910.

23:5 Proc. S.P.R., XX I: pp. 60-93, 1907; XXVII: pp. 279-317, 1914.

24:1 Proc. S.P.R., XXXI: pp. 124-217, 1920.

24:2 S. G. Soal, Proc. S.P.R., XL, 1932, p. 168. Dr. W. F. Prince was very noncommittal in his review, p. 21, B.S.P.R., Bulletin VI, which I take as also an indication of the inconclusiveness of the experiment.

24:3 Proc. S.P.R., 38: pp. 1-9, 1928.

24:4 Proc. S.P.R., XL, pp. 165-362, 1932.

24:5 Die Emanation der psycho-physischen Energie. (Munich) 1908.

24:6 Expmtl. Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete des räumlichen Hellsehens (Munich) 1909.

24:7 Telepathie and Hellsehen. (Halle) 1921.

26:1 Proc. S.P.R., VI: pp. 66-83, 1889.

26:2 Proc. S.P.R., VII: pp. 199-220; pp. 370-373.

26:3 Proc. S.P.R., XXXVIII: pp. 223-271, 1928.

27:1 Proc. S.P.R., XXXIX: pp. 375-414, 1931.

28:1 Proc. S.P.R., XXXI: p. 377, 1921.

28:2 Tischner, loc. cit., p. 206.

29:1 Proc. S.P.R., XII: p. 352, 1897.

29:2 This mention is based on Tischner's review, op. cit., p. 206.

29:3 Proc. S.P.R., XXX: pp. 251-260, 1920.

30:1 Life after Death, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1918; pp. 137-142

30:2 Op. cit., p. 211.

30:3 Jour. fur Psychol. and Neurol., 1918.

31:1 Notre Sixieme Sens, Editions Montaigne. Paris, 1928.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Thulsa Doom]

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 2
Mathematics of Probability Used in Evaluation
From the beginning of the scientific period of parapsychology, the subject has had the aid of mathematical methods in its technique of evaluation. Professor Richet first introduced the mathematics of probability into this field in his treatment of the results of his earlier work on "suggestion mentale" or "telepathy", in 1884. 2 And since then the names of Edgeworth and R. A. Fisher of England and of Hawkesworth in America have appeared frequently in connection with probability estimation in the parapsychic branch of the field.

I am no mathematician and must rely upon methods already developed, when they can be found. But in this work it is fortunately possible to make experimental method conform to easy computation of significance of results and this I have done. I have been able, by adhering to the use of five simple card-figures, to keep the probability of success by pure chance at 1/5 for each trial. Where a straight run of consecutive


p. 32

successes is to be evaluated for anti-chance probability, simply raising 1/5 to the power equal to the number of consecutive successes gives the value desired. This is established probability mathematics.

When, however, scattered successes are to be evaluated for anti-chance significance, the first step is to find the normal chance expectation. This is simply the number of trials (n) multiplied by the probability for success per trial (p), or np. With 1000 trials on 5-suit cards this would be 200. If more or fewer successes are obtained, the difference or deviation is found by subtraction. If 300 successes are given, there is then a positive deviation from np (or chance expectation) of 100. This can be evaluated in terms of percentages, if one merely desires to compare scoring-rates. It may be expressed as percentage of the number of trials (n), or of chance expectation (np) or, of course, as fractions of these. Here we would have a positive deviation that is 10% of n or 50% of np.

But in order to get a more general evaluation—i.e., one that gives a value that measures the rate of scoring in conjunction with the number of trials at which such a rate holds—it is necessary to measure the deviation in relation to a standardized unit of probable deviation. The arbitrary unit I shall use here is the Probable Error (p.e.) which, in this situation, is that deviation from the mean (chance) expectation at which the odds are even (1:1) as to whether pure chance alone is operating or not. The deviation is then divided by the p.e., and the value D/p.e. or critical ratio is found. This is something of a more nearly absolute estimate of the anti-chance value of a given deviation than are percentage figures. Taking the data from Table LII of Gavett's "Statistical Method", 1 I shall cite the odds against chance for the smaller values of D/p.e. (Deviation divided by the probable error.)

D/p.e.
 Odds against a chance-theory.
 
1
 1 to 1
 
2
 4.6 to 1
 
3
 22 to 1
 
4
 142 to 1
 
5
 1,300 to 1
 
6
 20,000 to 1
 

[Thulsa Doom]

And adding higher figures adapted from R. A. Fisher's Table II, "Statistical Methods for Research Workers", 2 I get approximately,

7
 100,000 to 1
 
8
 nearly 1,000,000 to 1
 
9
 over 100,000,000 to 1
 

[paragraph continues] Note the rapid rise of these figures for each unit of D/p.e. It is customary to accept a value of 4 as a significant D/p.e. This implies odds of 142 to 1 against a mere chance explanation.



p. 33

In this report I shall use X to indicate D/p.e., which will be given for nearly every set of data reported (and all are reported). X, then, for any particular lot of data, is its "anti-chance index".

Now these values of X for particular groups of results have a progressive effect upon the mind. That is, if there are three groups, each with an X-value of 6, we can agree that these are more impressive than only one group with an X-value of 6. How much more? And how determine this? I have searched in vain for authority on this point, and have finally attempted a solution which I submit here and use in this report. It is tentatively offered and may be later rejected for a better method, if such is pointed out to me. I have made certain that this method errs, if it errs at all, on the safe side. And it is not at all necessary to any major issue of this report to use it. The reasons for using it are: first, there is needed an easy way of summating the "anti-chance" significance of many groups of results, instead of pooling them all together and getting the value of X after each addition through the report. But, second and more important, in such pooling together the results made by the high scorers are merged with perhaps a greater number of the poor scorers, so losing the greater contribution they made in the general assumption of equal distribution over the whole lot. A short series of 1000 trials by a good subject may well reach a higher figure for X than a poor scorer (only a little above mean expectation) over a series of 10,000 trials. For some purposes it is proper to pool these but for others it is proper to summate their joint effect against the chance-hypothesis by another method which gives proper weight to the scoring rates for each group. And, third, there is the reason that I have in some cases to deal with negative deviations, under conditions in which I tried to secure low results and succeeded. These, too, have their statistical significance and add, quite as well as the positive deviations, to the general weight of the conclusions. But if these were to be pooled with the totals, they would of course only detract from the total value. (Even this, however, would not at all destroy any of our conclusions, because of the large margin of safety.)

One may see the propriety of combining these values of X by remembering that each such value has a corresponding value (See Normal Probability Tables) representing the probability that the deviation it represents was due to chance alone; for example, for X = 3, this is 1/22; for X = 4, 1/142; for X = 6, 1/20,000. Now, three such values of X (for results given under conditions that permit generalization) can be combined by multiplying the three probability fractions and thus the total odds against chance be computed. (This is simple for low values but the needs of this report take in large values of X as well as small; and I have not found tables for the probabilities for large values of X.) Now, with the smaller

p. 34

[Thulsa Doom]

probability fraction thus arrived at one may obtain an equivalent value of X from the normal probability tables, if they extend that far. Working thus within the range of the tables available, it was found that the product of the probability fractions for a series of X-values came out roughly equal to the probability fraction for the square root of the sum of the squares of the X-values concerned. In each case, however, there was a lower X-value obtained by the formula Xn = √X2A + X2B + X2C than by the multiplication of the probability fractions. This is safe at least, if not exact.

I then reasoned in the following way for the deduction of a verifying procedure (for justifying the formula): each X is an independent value; it may represent a large number of trials with small deviation-rate or a shorter series with a higher rate, and vice versa. If we can find a way of checking the formula for combined values of X, it must hold for X's derived from large and small deviation rates, or large and small numbers of trials. That is, like the probability fraction which it represents, it is independently manipulable.

Now it appeared possible to check this formula's reliability in the following way: assuming equally distributed deviation-rates over a large number of trials, determine the X for the group as a whole (Xn); then divide the group into various subdivisions, large and small, and for each calculate the X-values; apply the formula to these to find Xn by this method in order to test it. I did so and found that it worked closely, yielding an Xn equal within a unit to that computed the other way, from the group as a whole. 1 If larger X-values can thus be calculated from smaller in this case (as was demonstrated) and if X-values are independently usable values (as they logically have to be), the method must stand as checked, to the extent of accuracy claimed, which is all that is needed for this work.

The formula has, therefore, been used in this report and is in any case safe from exaggerative effect on the general results. And it will, I hope, serve at the same time to raise the problem for those readers who may be on better terms with the "Queen of the Sciences".




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
31:2 Richet, Charles, La Suggestion Mentale et le calcul des Probabilités. Rev. Phil., 1884. For a full review in English see Gurney, Proc. S.P.R., II: pp. 239-256, 1884.

32:1 McGraw-Hill, New York, 1925, p. 180.

32:2 3rd Ed., Oliver and Boyd, London, 1930.

34:1 There is a similar practical check of the formula in Table XLIII, in the final chapter, in which the X-value is given for the results reported in the various chapters. That value for the results reported in Chapter 8 is almost the same for both ways of computing the X-value (81.9 for the formula. and 82.1 for the computation based on the pooling together of all the results). Now, here the evenness of distribution of scoring-rates for the five major subjects makes the pooling together do no violence to the resulting values. They would not have checked had the individual differences been great. Then the formula would have given the more correct value, as it does for the other chapters represented in Table XLIII.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Thulsa Doom]

p. 35

PART II. THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
CHAPTER 3
A General Survey
The investigation of extra-sensory perception at Duke University has now been going on for more than three years, and has come to include well over 90,000 trials. To give a comprehensive report of these trials, with a proper account of procedure, conditions and results, would make a large volume. Much summarizing must, therefore, be done in order to present the results in a reasonably readable form. It seems best to present first merely a narrative sketch of the main lines of the research and to state the general results; and, following this chapter, to give more detailed accounts of the principal subjects who produced the results and of the special experiments conducted. Those who wish to skip these fuller chapters may do so by going on from the end of this one to Chapter 9.

Following upon our experimental interest in the telepathic horse, Lady, 1 during 1928 and 1929, considerable effort was made to find other infra-human telepathic subjects but this was in vain. In the summer of 1930, then, I turned to the task of trying to find human subjects. I began by giving "guessing contests" to some groups of children in summer recreation camps. The tests consisted simply in having each child guess the numeral (0 to 9) which was stamped on a card that I held concealed from him in my hand and looked at. Each child had a pencil and card, and noted down his guesses silently. From the thousand (approximately) trials thus made, no one individual stood out well enough to seem to warrant further investigation.

During the fall semester following my colleague, Dr. K. E. Zener, proposed that we try sealed envelope guessing tests on our own college classes. We accordingly prepared envelopes with numerals (or, in some classes, with letters of the alphabet) effectively concealed and sealed within. These were passed out to the students with instructions to guess. the number (or letter) stamped inside, under certain conditions of quiet and relaxation. Of these trials 1,600 were carried out, also with quite insignificant results. The results of the five series as a whole were very close to the chance expectation, three of the groups coming out above chance and two below that figure. This, too, was then given up, partly because it was quite laborious, and partly because of indications of failure. Further detail will be furnished in Chapter 4.

The objective had been partly to measure the ability of the group and partly to discover individuals with special ability to perceive without


p. 36

[Thulsa Doom]

the senses. The latter goal was achieved, since we did discover one able subject through these tests, Mr. A. J. Linzmayer. In the two group tests in which he took part he was the highest scorer. In the better of these, on envelopes containing figures chosen from 0 to 9, giving a probability of being right of 1/10 per trial, he got three correct in five trials. In the other, with a probability of 1/5 for correctness on each one, he scored four correct in five trials. From these results it was thought worth while to try further tests with Mr. Linzmayer. These I will describe later.

At about the same time, the fall of 1930, another colleague in our Department of Psychology, Dr. Helge Lundholm, kindly offered to cooperate in an attempt to measure "telepathic" perception (clairvoyance was not excluded) in the state of hypnotic trance. He assumed responsibility for providing the trance and we worked with, in all, 30 subjects, who made a total of 1,115 trials. These fall into three groups; they have a different probability basis in each and cannot therefore be thrown together. All are somewhat above the chance expectation but only slightly. The best groups, in which numbers from 0 to 9 were used as symbols, totalled 530 trials and yielded 65 right as against 53 expected on chance. This positive deviation of 12 is only 2.6 times the probable error (±4.66) 1. It might be said that, had we continued these tests for as many more trials with equal results, the data would have approximated the point of significance. But the procedure was slow and we discovered that such slight deviations as we got could be had as well in the waking condition. So we discontinued the series. The details of the various procedures, and the data will be given some space in the next chapter.

A few tests in simple "card-guessing" made now and then upon individuals by Dr. Zener and myself during the year 1930-31 seemed to give promising results. They were never high but seemed to favor the positive side to an interesting degree. These were mostly carried out on the basis of symbols suggested chiefly by Dr. Zener, five in number; namely: circle, rectangle, plus, star and wavy lines ( ). We early began to use them in packs of five each, 25 in all. The subject usually called the top card, as the pack lay face down on the table before him. A series of 25 trials without any extra-sensory perception would yield, on the average, about 5 correct hits. But these odd tests we were making yielded around 6, on an average. And, keeping track of those of my own observation alone, I found after a while that they were becoming fairly meaningful statistically. From a total of 800 trials carried out during the academic year, 207 hits were recorded, which is a positive deviation of 47 and is more than 6 times the probable error. But this yield (around an average of 6.5 correct in 25 trials) was low in comparison


p. 37

[Thulsa Doom]

with what was in store for us just ahead in the work of Linzmayer. Two more cases, however, came in chronologically before the real discovery of Linzmayer.

First is Mr. Harvey L. Frick's interesting card-guessing experiment. Mr. Frick, a graduate scholar, had demonstrated his ability in extrasensory perception in work reported in his Master's thesis in 1931. Following this thesis work, he undertook to study the "fatigue" effect on the results obtained by guessing a long run (100 playing cards) daily, supposing this would fatigue him. When, after 9 days, he reported his results, they showed a striking decline series. Totalling the results by order of 20's of trials per day we get for the total of the first 20's for the 9 days, 58 correct suits; for the second 20, 50; for the third, 48; the fourth, 38; the fifth, 36. If we subtract the chance expectation (i.e., 1/4 the number of trials) of 45 for each total of 180, (20 per day for 9 days) we get the following decline series in the deviations: +13, +5, +3, -7, -9. The results as a whole are not significant. They seem to cancel out at one end of the curve what they gain at the other. But the curve is significant; i.e., the difference in deviation of the high end from that of the low end is 4 times the probable error of the difference. The rest of the experiment and its conditions I leave for the reader to follow at greater length in the next chapter.

During the Spring of 1931 another of my students, Mr. Charles E. Stuart, now an assistant in our Department, carried out some observations on extra-sensory perception, mainly card-guessing, sometimes with subject in trance and sometimes with one in the waking condition. In some of the experiments there was, as with those of Dr. Lundholm and myself, a combination of the telepathic and clairvoyant conditions. He, too, used cards with 5 geometric designs as the basis for the guessing for about half of these tests. Out of a total of 1,045 trials made on 15 students, 495 were made on the geometric figures, with a probability of 1/5 per trial, giving a chance expectation of 99 in all. His subjects actually got 147 correct, a positive deviation of 48, which is 8 times the probable error and means an average of 7.4 per 25 guesses. There were two other types of tests given by Stuart, also yielding above chance. But, again, with this brief item for the completion of the chain of development, we will leave the details of Stuart's work for the next chapter and for a later chapter entirely devoted to his more important later results with himself as subject.

Now we return to Linzmayer. Late in May, 1931, he was given 45 card-guessing trials in very light hypnosis (which was as deep as he could go) and called 21 correct as against chance expectation of 9. In the few days we could work with him after this and before his leaving the campus with the close of the year, he brought his total trials up to 600,

p. 38

[Thulsa Doom]

run for the regular test, with another 900 for a special test. The 600 regular trials yielded 238 hits, a positive gain over chance of 118; this is about 18 times the probable error. This figure can leave no intelligent question of the operation of a significant principle. In the average number of successes per 25 trials this rises to the unprecedented figure of approximately 10. In one series of 25 Linzmayer got 21 hits, 15 of them being successive. In this series he did not see the cards as they were dealt and called. But (and alas!), after three most exciting days of experimentation with Linzmayer, he had to leave. During the final hours I pressed him into a hasty experiment involving 900 trials, for a special purpose, the results and purpose of which will be presented in Chapter 5.

Under the stimulation of Linzmayer's brilliant example, I set to work giving preliminary tests to many other students and acquaintances. My young sister-in-law, Miss Miriam Weckesser, then aged 15, could do fairly well if alone. In all, she ran 1,050 trials over a period of a year, yielding 266 correct calls, with a deviation 6.6 times the p.e. Then it appeared that she had lost the ability, at least temporarily. Her inability to work well when witnessed and her loss of the ability after 1,050 trials were points of value as suggestions, and they were evidenced later among well-authenticated results.

During the summer one of my students, Mr. A. E. Lecrone, a high-school teacher, became interested in this work and ran a series of tests with a friend (Miss A. A. P.) as subject, and in another series served as subject himself, with the friend observing. The regular, 5-symbol cards were used, and the conditions allowed both telepathic and clairvoyant perception. Together they totalled 1,710 trials, he doing about half as well in deviation above chance as his friend. There were 392 correct, a deviation of 50, which is 4.5 times the probable error.

During the summer and fall of 1931 my own odd tests, made on 14 "stray" subjects, totalled 835 and yielded 208 hits, which is 41 above chance. This is at the rate of 6.3 per 25. This little group is itself significant, being over 5 times the p.e.

In the month of October, 1931, we were able to get Mr. Linzmayer for a short period again and made 945 tests on clairvoyant card-guessing as before. But this time he ran at a much lower rate. His yield was 246, which is 57 above chance expectation; this is about 7 times the p.e. The rate per 25 was 6.5. This is, however, still quite significant even though it was low in contrast with his first 600 trials.

The greatest event of the academic year 1931-32 was the work of Mr. C. E. Stuart, who was mentioned above as conducting a number of tests on his student friends. Meanwhile he had added to the work already mentioned about 900 more, yielding 257 or 77 above chance, 9.7 times the

p. 39

[Thulsa Doom]

p.e., with an average of 7.1 per 25. But Stuart had begun to test himself at card-guessing. He worked alone but kept good conditions, not looking even at the backs of the cards. He ran, through the year, the very large total of 7,500 trials, which represents a great amount of patience and labor. What wonder if he perhaps got tired toward the end? For some reason, at any rate, he dropped in his rate of scoring until he ran only slightly above chance expectation toward the last and I advised him to stop for a while. His results over the 7,500 show an interesting, though somewhat irregular, gradation of decline. They yielded 1,815 successes, averaging 6.05 hits per 25. There is a gain over chance of 315, which is 13.5 times the probable error—enormously significant. While Mr. Stuart is himself a responsible investigator, it will do no harm to add, in view of the fact that most of the 7,500 trials were unwitnessed, that the 140 of them that were done in my presence yielded at the rate of 6.15 per 25 calls, slightly higher than the average for the whole series of 7,500.

In March of 1932 we again had a short visit from Mr. Linzmayer and obtained 960 regular trials with him, as well as some more special tests. The 960 trials yielded 259 (a still lower rate than the last time) which has a positive deviation of 67, and this is 8.0 times the p.e.; the average per 25 is 6.75. (In the preceding fall, it had been 6.9) One of the special experiments was made at this time by giving the subject 15 grams of the narcotic drug, sodium amytal. By an hour after the ingestion Linzmayer was quite sleepy and dull-witted. He was "thick-tongued", jolly and talkative. I kept him awake for 275 trials but he could not score appreciably above chance. The average per 25 was 5.1, having gotten a total of 56 (as against 55). Before and after this experiment Linzmayer ran at an average of 6.75 in 25, as reported above.

Mr. J. G. Pratt, an assistant in our Department was engaged, during the year to help in the necessary prospecting for more good subjects. He carried out on 15 students 10,035 tests with a yield of only 144 above the chance expectation; this is, however, still more than 5 times the probable error. His tests on himself numbered 2,885 and yielded a deviation above that is 3.9 times the p.e. But his main contribution lay in the discovery of Mr. Hubert Pearce, Jr., a young ministerial student whom I had asked to submit to the tests, on learning that his mother was reported to have possessed parapsychological ability. Mr. Pearce ran low for a few series of 25 each, but soon picked up and then held fairly steadily at about double the chance figure (of 5 per 25). Pearce, too, was discovered at about the close of the school year, but he was able to stay over for a time and 2,250 witnessed trials were made in clairvoyant card-guessing. The yield was 869 or 419 above chance. This means an average of 9.7 per 25. The huge deviation from chance expectation is 32.75 times the

p. 40

[Thulsa Doom]

p.e., a figure of reassurance against the chance hypothesis that simply leaves no question of significance. The experiments were then interrupted by Pearce's appointment to ministerial service for the summer.

One of the characteristics of Pearce's work was the relative smoothness of the results from day to day. He would average around 10 per 25. He did not at this time seem to be helped by having the observer look at the cards. Curiously enough, he would drop in his scoring under this condition. However, almost any change whatever, unless he himself proposed it, seemed to throw him off his rate of scoring. Visitors disturbed him for a while but he would always get back to his level if they remained for a time. Also he would become adjusted to the changes in procedure in the course of time, so far as we tried to make him. But we did not want to induce too much strain and often yielded on a desired innovation. Certain changes were introduced by talking about their possibility indifferently and allowing Pearce to say if he wanted to attempt them. In this way we started the calling for low score; i.e., trying to make wrong calls. In 225 low-score trials made under this condition he scored only 17, which is 28 below the chance expectation, and this is 6.9 times the p.e. Highly significantly low! This averaged below 2 hits per 25 calls. He produced, for example, when asked to score "high", a 10 in 25, then for "low", a 1 in 25, then a 9 in 25 for "high", and another 1 in 25 for a "low". It seemed purely a matter of choice!

Another new feature introduced into Pearce's work in a half-playful way, and which was also successful immediately, was calling cards down through the pack without removing the cards until the finish of the run. This started off with scores of 8, 8, 12, 6, etc., per 25 for the beginning runs. The first 275 trials yielded 87 hits, a gain of 32 or over 7 times the p.e., and an average of 7.9 per 25. The value of these data is enormous, as we will emphasize later, first in connection with alternate theories of hyperacute sense perception and second in connection with theories of the physical basis of the process of extra-sensory perception; i.e., the subject reads the cards under conditions to which no radiation theory seems applicable and no sensory perception seems adequate.

We repeated on Pearce the sodium amytal experiment made on Linzmayer, using only 6 gr. this time. This would be equal to about half what Linzmayer had taken, allowing for weight differences. Pearce was not incoherent and irrational, but was quite sleepy. He could, however, keep himself awake and could converse intelligently. He made effort several times to re-integrate himself, once even washing his face with cold water. At the beginning his scoring fell off at once, yielding 5, 4, 3 for the first three runs of 25 each. Then he "pulled himself together" and got 10 on the next. The average for 325 trials is 6.1 in 25, as against

p. 41

[Thulsa Doom]

9.7 for his regular scoring. This is a very significant drop. This ended the series for the summer, leaving the young minister barely time to "sober up" for his first sermon.

During the summer months Mr. Stuart was encouraged to try again and, to the surprise of every one, he "came back" about as well as ever. During his first 400 he averaged 7.3 per 25, whereas his old average had been 9 in 25 for the first 500 but for the first 1,500 had been only 7.15. In 2,100 trials made by Stuart during the summer, he obtained 575 hits, 155 above chance expectation, which is 12.5 times the p.e. and represents an average per 25 of 6.8. But the same decline set in again with Stuart and after 2,100 trials his results showed that he might as well cease. Stuart carried out, however, one very interesting variation to the regular procedure. He did this independently in Rochester, N. Y., soon after we had done a similar experiment (of which he was ignorant) with Pearce here at Durham. He began giving a "right" and "wrong" call for each card, keeping the records labelled and separate. His results show for the "wrong" calls about the same negative deviation from chance expectation that the "right" calls show for the positive side. That is, when he tries, he can go high or low, in about the same degree. His decline curve based on the "high" column became an incline curve for the "low". (For the full data see Chapter 6.)

In the early fall Mr. Pearce returned to Duke and we went hard at it again. We were particularly desirous of increasing the "D.T." totals. (These are obtained by calling down through the shuffled pack without touching the cards, leaving the pack unbroken until the end.) These soon reached the 1000 mark and the significance rose still farther beyond the range of question. At the "1000" milestone, the deviation was about 12 times the probable error and the average run per 25 was 7.5. One feature of interest here was the apparent difficulty shown in scoring high in the center of the pack, which kept the scoring lower than Pearce's other ("B.T.") work.

Another experiment of interest was the effect of the stimulant drug, caffein. Under the influence of the drug treatments the deviation or gain above chance expectation was doubled over what it had been for the preceding part of the period. The rise of deviation was actually from 44% of chance expectation to 98%. (See Chapter 12.)

The effect of the presence of strangers upon Pearce's scoring was more carefully measured and found to be highly reliable; i.e., at first he would drop to "chance". But in every case he rose again, while the visitor waited, to his original level. He stayed down longest with a magician present, but he rose again before the magician left—and "mystified the mystifier", who, himself, failed to score above the chance average in 75 trials given him.

p. 42

[Thulsa Doom]

A fatigue test was run with Mr. Pearce over an 8-hour period, during which he called 900 cards. There were no signs of decline in scoring rate and no special fatigue evidence. The average for the day per 25 was 10.1, which is a little above Pearce's average. About a month earlier Mr. Stuart had made 1,300 calls in one day, 700 for "right" and 600 for "wrong". They were among his highest in rate of success.

There were some interesting experiments with screens with Pearce which will be given in detail later in the report. At the moment I will lump them off, 600 in all, with a yield of 215 or a gain above chance of 95, which is 14 times the probable error. The average per 25 is 9. These are especially interesting on the score of eliminating sensory cues.

But I was at this time pressing Pearce on the point of telepathic perception or thought-transference. I mentioned above that he would drop in score when any one tried to help him by looking at the cards. I then began to work behind the screen so he would not know when I did or did not look. The data came out about the same for a while, whether I looked or not. But all at once he seemed to be utilizing telepathic perception in the unscreened tests made in the same general period, since, when without the screen, I looked at the card, he got very high scores, and fell lower when I ceased. He thereafter showed, even behind the screen, a marked advance in scoring with the added "telepathic" condition. Then I gave him a "pure telepathy" (P.T.) test, in which the agent merely chose at random an image of one of the five symbols on the cards. No cards or objective figures were used. This ruled out clairvoyance as commonly regarded. Pearce began, after some failures, to achieve real success with the "P.T." (pure telepathy) condition, with different agents. His first 950 trials yielded 269 or 79 above. This is 9.6 times the p.e. It is an average of 7.1 in 25, low for Pearce but not unusual for the beginning of a new experiment. This discovery in my best clairvoyant subject of a "pure telepathy" ability also impressed me as of great theoretical importance.

Meanwhile, the results were piling up at a rapid rate. With Pearce alone there were over 10,000, with Stuart another 10,000 and there were six others. Scepticism among colleagues was abating. They had only to come and see. And several students were becoming interested. During the fall of 1932 a number of girl students very kindly tested themselves for extra-sensory perception and, out of perhaps 10 or 12, there were 3 that stood out strikingly. These were Miss Sara Ownbey, a graduate student in our Department, Miss May Frances Turner and Miss June Bailey. All three have since done dependably high scoring over long series.

Miss Bailey was first encouraged to try the tests because she had had parapsychical experiences in her childhood. She has now made 3,900

p. 43