Extra-Sensory Perception

[Thulsa Doom]

The falling off of the rate of scoring is apparently in the last 1000 trials; the first 1000 keep at a fair level. This second decline is much more abrupt than the first, but the better scoring period is longer (in point of number of trials) and more consistent scoring characterizes it.

Stuart introduced an interesting technique into the tests reported in Table XVI. He began on July 21 to make 2 calls for each card, one for "correct" and another that he thought was "incorrect". The two records were appropriately labelled and kept distinct. Pearce had been calling whole series with the deliberate purpose of getting all incorrect. But he was afraid to complicate the procedure by making both "correct" and "incorrect" calls on one card. Stuart found no difficulty, and, as one would expect, in general, his positive deviation on the High-Scoring and negative deviation on the voluntary Low-Scoring are about equal. They likewise decline together at about the same rate, as would naturally follow. Comparison of the two is made in Table XVII-A with the data grouped in 400's for the purpose of comparing the decline.

TABLE XVII-A

Comparison of Low-Score and High-Score Calls on Same Cards
Stuart, Summer, 1932

Low-Score Calls by 400's
 High-Score Calls by 400's
 
Trials
 Hits
 Deviation
and p.e.
 Dev.
per
25
 Per cent
of Dev.
from
np.
 Ser.
No.
 Per cent
of Dev.
from np.
 Dev.
per
25
 Deviation
and
p.e.
 Hits
 Trials
 
400
 52
 -28±5.4
 -1.8
 -35%
 1
 +45%
 +2.3
 +36±5.4
 116
 400
 
400
 52
 -28±5.4
 -1.8
 -35
 2
 +38
 +1.9
 +30±5.4
 110
 400
 
400
 61
 -19±5.4
 -1.2
 -24
 3
 +20
 +1.0
 +16±5.4
 96
 400
 
(100)
 17
 -3±2.7
 -.8
 -15
 4
 -5
 -0.3
 -1±2.7
 19
 100
 
1,300
 182
 -78±9.7
 -1.50
 -30%
 Totals
 31%
 +1.56
 +81±9.7
 341
 1,300
 
(X = 8.0)
 (X = 8.4)
 

p. 71

[paragraph continues] The columns showing the percentage of deviation from the np value (chance expectation) bring the close similarity to a focus. Note also the closeness of the various values for the totals in the 5th line.

[Thulsa Doom]

Another interesting accomplishment of Stuart was his huge day's work of July 21. He called 700 for high record and 600 for low. This is perhaps not equal to 1300 scores for high record but it is a huge day's work beyond doubt—the longest on our records; Zirkle is second with 950, and Pearce comes third with 900, for straight record. No one seems to have suffered, or have become fatigued especially. In all cases the scoring was up to par, even to the last. This evidence is directly contrary to the "fatigue-theory" as proposed by Miss Jephson. 1

At present the most interesting phase of Stuart's work is his development of P.T. scoring; i.e., pure telepathy. He has only relatively lately got started at it and he does it with just about the same level of ability as he now shows on the P.C. work. (His late work on the clairvoyance has, however, been low.) On the 500 trials of P.T. he averaged 5.8 hits per 25. His regular B.T. trials, the 950 made since the work of Table XVII, gave only 5.7 hits per 25. This is quite naturally a most interesting comparison to follow up.

Stuart has tried D.T. clairvoyance but has not done it very successfully as yet in all his 2100 trials; but, as just stated, in all of his work he has been scoring low for nearly a year. In the 2100 trials the average is only 5.3 per 25; and is not "significant" as yet—i.e., is not 4 times the p.e.—it is only about 2 times the p.e. But it shows the same type of curve which we found in Linzmayer's D.T. data, and have also found in the distribution of D.T. scoring by others; i.e., a curve showing greater frequency of successes as we approach either the top or the bottom of the pack by 5's. His data are as follows, totalled in number of hits in the order of 5's down through the D.T. pack: 40, 39, 36, 38, 49. He gets fewest near the center of the pack, as do several of the others.

Stuart, too, shows a distinct operating curve, in waves of 5's. That is, he tends to succeed better on the first and last of each 5 in his D.T. work, a matter perhaps of habitual rhythm of attention, since he has called over 10,000, 5 calls at a run. His totals of all the hits made in 1000 trials of D.T. work, obtained by superimposing the results by 5's and totalling, then, for each ordinal in the 5, yield the following: 46, 37, 37, 31, 51. These 1000 trials are not selected; they happened to be at hand and convenient. They show in total yield very little deviation from chance, only 2 above, but are interesting for this internal peculiarity, the distribution that produces the difference of 20 points between the 4th and 5th calls. This


p. 72

[Thulsa Doom]

suggests a factor of internal motivation of the percipient—effort and attention, probably.

We have reported now a total of 14,700 trials made by Stuart, which represent great labor on his part and which also make a valuable contribution to the subject. They alone give a value of 21.16 or, if we correct for internal distribution in the large group, we get a value that goes beyond 24. This is in itself much in excess of the requirement for the thorough exclusion of the "chance" theory for these results. Stuart's results alone, then, would be an adequate basis for the dropping of the hypothesis of accidental or random distribution. They are summarized in Table XVII-B.

TABLE XVII-B

Summary of E.S.P. Results by Stuart, Himself as Subject, 1931-32

Date
 Condition
 No. of
Trials
 No. of
Hits
 Deviation
and p.e.
 Dev./p.e.
or X
 Avge.
per 25
 Remarks
 
Spring, ’31
 B.T.
 250
 76
 +26
 ±4.3
 6.2
 7.6
 
 
1931-32
 B.T.
 7,500
 1,815
 +315
 23.4
 13.5
 6.1
 
 
Summer, ’32
 B.T.
 2,100
 575
 +155
 12.4
 12.5
 6.8
 
 
Summer, ’32
 "Wrong"
 1,300
 182
 -78
 9.7
 8.0
 3.5
 Purposely "wrong".
 
1932-33
 D.T.
 2,100
 440
 +20
 12.4
 1.6
 5.3
 
 
1932-33
 P.T.
 500
 115
 +15
 6.0
 2.5
 5.8
 
 
1932-33
 B.T.
 950
 216
 +26
 8.2
 3.2
 5.7
 
 
Totals
 
 14,700
 21.16
 

Total value of X or D/p.e. =√(6.2)2+(13.5)2+(12.5)2+(8.0)2+(1.6)2+(2.5)2+(3.2)2 = 21.16

The cumulative value of the "anti-chance" index (X) for the 46,974 trials reported thus far is now equal to √(31.5)2 +(21.2)2 = 38.1, with the heaviest scorers and half the scores still to come.


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

Footnotes
71:1 Jephson, Miss Ina, Evidence for Clairvoyance in Card-guessing. Proc. S.P.R., 38: pp. 223-271, 1928.



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

[Thulsa Doom]

CHAPTER 7
Hubert E. Pearce, Jr.
Of all the eight "major subjects" Mr. Pearce has done the greatest amount of work and has been put through the greatest variety of conditions. He has been relatively very stable in his scoring in spite of these conditions and has been very co-operative throughout. In fact, he has sportingly entered into new ventures and conditions whenever they have been proposed.

Pearce is a young Methodist ministerial student in the Duke School of Religion, very much devoted to his work, though fairly liberal in his theology. He is very sociable and approachable, and is much interested in people. There is also a pretty general artistic trend to his personality, expressing itself mainly in musical interest and production, but extending into other fields of art as well.

p. 73

Pearce has not, himself, had any striking parapsychological experiences other than numerous "hunches" and "intuitions", but he reports that his mother and others of her family have had certain clairvoyant experiences. It was on learning from him of these experiences of his family that I asked him to try our clairvoyance tests with my assistant, Mr. Pratt.

All of Pearce's work has been carefully witnessed; but I wish to state in addition that I have fullest confidence in his honesty, although in this work the question of honesty arises in my mind with every one, preacher or no.

[Thulsa Doom]

In the beginning of his clairvoyant work, in the first 50 trials, Pearce got only chance average and rose very little above on the first 100 trials. But he kept on rising until very soon he had reached a level of 9 or 10 correct per 25 trials and has held to this average ever since—now over a year, and well over 15,000 trials—except in experimentally produced situations that definitely work against the E.S.P. capacity and a few other occasions (illness, etc.). Even including a lot of special experiments at which he was handicapped and including his one short ill period, his totals up to April 1, 1933, were 11,250 trials with an average of nearly 9 (8.9) hits per 25. Such results as this are positively breath-taking, when one calculates their mathematical significance. These alone sky-rocket the value of X up above 60, with odds against chance now enormous beyond our capacity to appreciate.

During the late Spring of 1932 Pearce ran 2,250 calls under pure clairvoyance conditions and with the remarkable average per 25 of 9.7, almost double the chance average. Some of these (275) were witnessed by me alone, several hundred by both Pratt and myself, and the rest by Pratt alone. The working conditions were these: observer and subject sat opposite each other at a table, on which lay about a dozen packs of the Zener Cards and a record book. One of the packs would be handed to Pearce and he be allowed to shuffle it. (He felt it gave more real "contact".) Then it was laid down and was cut by the observer. Following this Pearce would, as a rule, pick up the pack, lift off the top card, keeping both the pack and the removed card face down, and, after calling it, he would lay the card on the table, still face down. The observer would record the call. Either after 5 calls or after 25 calls,—and we used both conditions generally about equally—the called cards would be turned over and checked off against the calls recorded in the book. The observer saw each card and checked each one personally though the subject was asked to help in the checking by laying off the cards as checked. There is no legerdemain by which an alert observer can be repeatedly deceived at this

p. 74

simple task in his own laboratory. 1 (And, of course, we are not dealing even with amateur magicians.) For the next run another pack of cards would be taken up.

Further reassuring features on the point of deception are: first, when Pearce got to running well, he seldom looked at the backs of the cards; later we asked him, as a rule, not to do so. On the whole results under this condition are as good as before. We later added the request to call the top card before lifting it off the pack. And this, too, was successful after a period of adjustment. Then we brought in new cards many times, without there resulting any change in the level of scoring. We had Pearce follow the procedure of working with the cards held behind a screen and this, too, succeeded after the low period at first, that accompanies nearly every innovation. And, finally, he does very well under the remarkable D.T. condition, in which the pack is left unbroken on the table while the subject makes the 25 calls in succession for the cards before him. Most of the time in working at D.T. Pearce closes his eyes and takes a posture of strong concentration; it seems as if this were a more arduous task for clairvoyance than the ordinary conditions.

[Thulsa Doom]

On all the points mentioned in the last paragraph above the evidence is amply significant, as may be seen in the following table (XVIII) summarizing the data just referred to. It is a table packed, I believe, with tremendous meaning, the most evidential of the entire series.

TABLE XVIII

Clairvoyant Perception, Conditions Guarding Against Sense Perception

Ser.
No.
 Conditions
 No. of
Trials
 No. of
Hits
 Deviation and
p.e.
 Value of
X
 Avge.
per 25
 Remarks
 
1.
 General B.T. as described above
Special Conditions
 5,000
 1,834
 +834
 ±19.1
 43.7
 9.2
 
 
2.
 S. looks away from cards
 650
 279
 149
 6.9
 21.6
 10.7
 Not much change in conditions, but 1st runs low.
 
3.
 Same as 2, plus calling before removing
 475
 236
 141
 5.9
 23.9
 12.4
 Little real change; first low.
 
4.
 Same as 3; no contact with cards
 275
 74
 19
 4.5
 4.2
 6.7
 Great change; first 4 ran below chance. Last 4 average 8.5.
 
5.
 Same as 3, plus New cards; data on first 3 times used
 1,675
 626
 291
 11.0
 26.5
 9.3
 1st use runs as high as 3rd use of cards.
 
6.
 (a) Screen, concealing cards (B.T)
 300
 99
 39
 4.7
 8.3
 8.3
 
 
 
 (b) Same, plus P.T. (i.e., gen. E.S.P.; Agent screened)
 300
 116
 56
 4.7
 11.9
 9.7
 Began very low.
 
7.
 D.T., pack left unbroken till end of run
 1,625
 482
 157
 10.9
 14.4
 7.4
 
 
Total, P.C. (except 6b)
 10.300
 3,746
 +1.686
 ±27.4
 61.5
 9.1
 
 

[Thulsa Doom]

Hubert Pearce (left) calling down through a pack of 25 Zener cards (five sets shuffled), before taking a card off. I am recording his calls.

[Thulsa Doom]

Pure clairvoyance. Mr. Pratt handled (did not look at) cards at B, afterwards at A, Mr. Pearce got his surprising results at C. Both made independent sealed reports to me.


p. 75

[Thulsa Doom]

It does not seem possible that any reasonable and honest doubt can exist in the mind of the reader who accepts this table as reliably presented (and if it is clear to him) that there is amply demonstrated in these tests an extra-sensory mode of perception, of the type popularly known as clairvoyance. It did not, therefore, seem profitable to spend more time and effort in the mere pursuit of evidence for the existence of E.S.P. What more, indeed, can be asked for simple proof's sake? With a value of X, the anti-chance index of 61.5, such that the door is "slammed" on the chance-theory; and with the D.T. data, the screen data, and the New Card data together removing the weakened remains of the "sensory-cues" theory from the realm of rational possibility, what alternative to E.S.P. is there left, except to suppose that we are all (a dozen or more are involved) playing a deeply complex game of deception, or else are thoroughly irresponsible and unreliable? 1

On the point of reliable witnessing and judgment, then, there is a set of data on observations that were witnessed by other mature and responsible persons, some of them professional men. Each one witnessed, along with me, the production of the data set opposite his name in Table XIX and in no case raised any question as to the genuineness of the effectual exclusion of sensory perception of the card-symbols. The data of columns B and C were doubly witnessed in their entirety, the visiting observer seeing as much as he cared to and taking any part or position desired. The magician, Mr. Wallace Lee, tried a few series himself with only chance average results. He said frankly that he was convinced. It appeared that he was, at least as far as we all are, "mystified". Pearce was somewhat ill with tonsilitis on the day the magician was present, hence (as I think) his low scoring, even for the period before the entrance of the visitor. Note the splendidly high value of X for these results, 23.5. With these excellent doubly witnessed results, which help to divide the responsibility on the face of a supposed charge of "poor observations", we will dismiss for this chapter the question of proof and report the special experiments made for the purpose of throwing light on the nature of the process.

The data in Table XIX were originally collected for the purpose of measuring the extent of the inhibitory effect of visitors upon the clairvoyant function. We had noticed earlier that when someone dropped in to watch Pearce work the scores at once dropped down. We began to take down the evidence, sometimes inviting a visitor for the purpose, sometimes availing ourselves of a casual caller. We recorded the time of entrance and exit on 7 visitors, one being present twice. They all produced a drop in Pearce's scoring. The results taken before the entrance


p. 76

will be stated in Column A and then in Column B will be given results taken from the point of entrance, continuing until there is an upward turning of the score curve that remains above mean chance expectation for at least 2 runs, with the remainder of the series averaging above chance. The curves are all sharp enough to make decision easy. Column C, then, contains the scores made after the up-turn of the curve described as the stopping point for B, which means after Pearce had become adjusted to the visitor's presence. The number of runs in B is evidently indicative of the difficulty experienced in adjusting to the visitor's presence. Notice it is larger (11 runs, 275 trials) for the magician, whose vocation Pearce knew, than for Miss E. C. (1 run), a young lady, or for Dr. McDougall (2, 5), who he knew was sympathetically interested in the results. In consulting Table XIX for this point compare especially the 3rd column under the headings A, B, and C, giving the average hits per 25 trials as a basis for comparison.

We have in A and C about the same scoring level, showing eventually complete adjustment to the new situation. This would seem to mean that visitors are not inhibitory except in the strain excited in the subjects. Naturally, subjects would differ in degree of this, as visitors would differ in their effect. We have here a drop of 4.1 in 25, 82% of chance average (np), a figure very significant with the large number of trials given.

[Thulsa Doom]

TABLE XIX

Showing Effect of Visitors on Pearce's Clairvoyant Perception 1

 
 
 Before Entrance
 Visiting Witness Present
 
 
 
 Control Period A
 Lapse Period B
 Recovery Period C
 
Date
1932
 Visitor
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25
 
9-16
 Dr. K. E. Zener
 50
 23
 11.5
 75
 15
 5.0
 225
 89
 9.9
 
10-13
 Dr. J. F. Thomas
 100
 41
 10.3
 125
 26
 5.2
 50
 30
 15.0
 
10-20
 Dr. Wm. McDougall
 75
 34
 11.3
 50
 13
 6.5
 75
 28
 9.3
 
11-9
 Dr. H. Lundholm
 100
 39
 9.8
 50
 10
 5.0
 75
 29
 9.7
 
12-10
 Miss Edna Cousins
 100
 43
 10.8
 25
 7
 7.0
 100
 44
 11.0
 
1933
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2-2
 Dr. Wm. McDougall
 350
 132
 9.4
 125
 33
 6.6
 250
 105
 10.5
 
2-16
 Miss June Bailey
 100
 24
 6.0
 75
 33
 11.0
 
 
 
 
2-23
 Wallace Lee, the Magician
 150
 45
 7.5
 275
 55
 5.0
 125
 37
 7.4
 
Totals
 
 925
 357
 9.6
 825
 183
 5.5
 975
 395
 10.1
 
 
 
 X = 21.0
 X = 2.4
 X = 23.8
 

Following along on the theme of disturbing factors, we may properly take up next the illness effect shown in the results opposite the name of the visitor, Wallace the Magician. Pearce had not done well even before Wallace came in. The difference between the average of 7.5 and 7.4 and those of 10.5 and 11 on days preceding is a significant one for the number of trials made. This was the only illness the records show for the time


p. 77

we have worked with Pearce but the result is in harmony with the results of other subjects. So it seems plausible to agree with Pearce's own judgment and connect the illness as a causal factor in the production of 375 results with a drop from 10.5 per 25 to 7.5, which is 3 per 25. On 375 this would be a drop of 45, which is over 6 times the p.e. diff. (7.4).

Another factor that upsets Pearce's scoring, as a rule, is any change that he does not easily and spontaneously accept as likely to work. A few changes he has taken without a considerable drop, those apparently in which he has taken part in the planning and in which he felt sure of success. Among these were the use of very small figures on the cards (about 2mm. high) which he suggested, the D.T. procedure which he partly originated himself and the calling for Low Scoring, voluntarily proposed half-playfully. These all succeeded at once and were all, at least partially, instituted by Pearce himself. But most changes meet with a drop to chance scores. I have collected the data on the introduction of a few of the new techniques, with the results taken during and after the transition, grouping them, as we did in Table XIX, into Columns A and B. For a fair comparison, I have taken equal numbers of runs made next after the transition to that made during it. Compare especially the 3rd column under A and B.

[Thulsa Doom]

TABLE XX

Showing Effect of Changes of Techniques on P.C., Pearce

 
 A
Transition to New Tech.
 B
Same Tech. after Transition
 
 
Nature of Change
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25
 
 
1. Possible Telepathy added to regular B.T. condition;
  Observer looked at card figure.
 175
 42
 6.0
 175
 95
 13.6
 
 
2. Introduction of P.T.
 175
 38
 5.4
 175
 58
 8.3
 
 
3. Introduction of B.T.; Person not seeing backs of cards,
  and calling before removing.
 50
 12
 6.0
 50
 19
 9.5
 
 
4. Introduction of N.B.T. (Adding to No. 3, no
  handling of cards by the subject).
 100
 19
 4.8
 100
 28
 7.0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (100
 34
 8.5)
 —next
100
 
5. B.T., Screen, 11″ high, concealing cards.
 25
 6
 6.0
 25
 13
 13.0
 
 
6. B.T., Screen, 24″ high, concealing cards.
 50
 9
 4.5
 50
 18
 9.0
 
 
7. Screen, 15″ high. Person ignorant whether or
  not observer sees card. Observer concealed.
 125
 30
 6.0
 125
 51
 10.2
 
 
Totals
 700
 156
 5.6
 700
 282
 10.1
 X = 19.9
 

p. 78

From the high recovery level of 10.1 in 25 Pearce is shown here to have dropped almost to chance, 5.6 per 25. This drop of 4.6 in 25 is 92% of np. and leaves no doubt of the point that the introduction of new procedures, when they do not just spontaneously come in, is a quite disturbing thing to the E.S.P. function in Pearce. There is some evidence that this may not be as much the case with some subjects, but, again, may be still worse with some others.

Still following the matter of disturbing factors, we come to another line of influence on E.S.P., this time a more physiological one. I refer to the work done with sodium amytal on Pearce, simply repeating the amytal experiment carried out earlier with Linzmayer. Pearce was asked to take 6 gr. of the drug (He is light in weight.), and a half hour later was tested on the cards in the usual way and found almost to have lost his ability, as had Linzmayer. He had averaged 14.5 hits per 25 in 50 trials just preceding the taking of the drug. Now that the effects of drowsiness were showing, when he was tested he got only 5, 4, 3 in succession. He had become careless, fumbled the cards, spoke dully and mostly kept his eyes closed It may be interesting to follow the variations of the data in Table XXI.

[Thulsa Doom]

TABLE XXI

Effect of Sodium Amytal on Clairvoyant Perception—Pearce

 
 Trials
 Hits
 Remarks
 
1
 25
 5
 
 
2
 25
 4
 Very drowsy; sat listless, eyes closed.
 
3
 25
 3
 
 
4
 25
 10
 Realized lowness of score; seemed ashamed. Tried to pull
  himself together.
 
5
 25
 5
 
 
6
 25
 6
 Washed his face to help waken up.
 
7
 25
 8
 Tried hard to re-integrate.
 
8
 25
 5
 Fell into lethargy again; no response to jokes.
 
9
 25
 5
 Fully serious.
 
10
 25
 8
 Rather boa****lly offered to "Run the Pack" (D.T.)
  and worked hard at it. Seemed to pull him up.
 
11
 25
 10
 
 
12
 25
 5
 
 
13
 25
 5
 Wanted badly to stop. Very sleepy.
 
 
 325
 79
 (+14±4.9) (Avge. per 25 = 6.1)
 

[paragraph continues] This phenomenal fall from his usual average per 25 of about 10 down to 6.1 is even more striking than Linzmayer's drop from 6.8 to 5 and confirms the earlier result. In both cases we ran enough trials to recover from the possible novelty or new technique effect. One feature that is rather well brought out as an incidental observation is the factor of effort No one could have failed to see the coincidence of intense effort at attention to the task, with better scoring, in this series of runs with the amytal.

p. 79

This interesting experiment invites quite naturally a comparable one with a drug having the opposite effect—that of integration. We used caffeine for this purpose in 1-grain tablets of citrated caffeine. The effect of caffeine was tried on Pearce on five occasions, using 5-grain doses. The general aim was to give it when Pearce had been running low (hence the low pre-caffeine score quoted), since it has been caffeine's "de-fatiguing" effect that is most recognized. Under those conditions it raised his scoring very considerably. We may compare the records of work just preceding the drug-taking with those following for the experimental period. The data are fragmentary, due to the cutting-in of other experiments which were usually brought in as soon as the scoring level rose again. The results are summarized in Table XXII.

[Thulsa Doom]

TABLE XXII

Effect of Caffeine on Clairvoyant Perception, Pearce

 
 Before Drug
 After Drug
 
Date
 Conditions
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25%
 Rise in
% of np
 
9-8
 B.T.
 125
 42
 8.4
 175
 75
 10.7
 46%
 
9-10
 D.T.
 125
 36
 7.2
 75
 26
 8.7
 30%
 
9-13
 D.T.
 50
 8
 4.0
 150
 42
 7.0
 60%
 
9-13
 B.T.
 25
 11
 11.0
 75
 38
 12.7
 34%
 
9-26
 B.T.
 50
 15
 7.5
 175
 76
 10.9
 68%
 
10-30
 B.T.
 75
 18
 6.0
 100
 43
 10.8
 96%
 
Totals
 
 450
 130
 7.2
 750
 300
 10.0
 56%
 

From these data it is evident that, using chance average as a basis of percentage (5 hits in 25), we have got a rise following the drug ingestion from 44% above chance average to 100% above chance average( 56%). Now, this latter figure (100% above np.) is just about Pearce's normal rate. What we have done, then, is to pull him back up to his usual running score, taking him at a time when he is scoring low to begin with. It will take more experimentation to ascertain if he can be raised above his own past level significantly by the use of caffeine. There is, however, not the reason to expect this that we had for the results just stated. For the important condition of the subject being unaware of the nature of the drug and of its effect, see in Chapter 8, the experiment carried out with Mr. Zirkle.

It was of interest to test the process of E.S.P. for fatigue in itself, especially since in certain long series there is always a question concerning the possibility of fatigue coming in as an unknown and uncontrolled element. We had Pearce go through about 8 hours of steady E.S.P. work and in that time he made 900 trials. They show, however, no significant signs of decline and he showed at the end no unusual signs of fatigue in

p. 80

general. Of course, it was confining and tiresome, as any such work must be, but nothing more. We did a mixture of experiments, contributing data to a number of minor lines of inquiry. This variation was superficial, however, since it was all genuine E.S.P. of the P.C. condition. His average for the 900 trials was 10.1. It was only slightly (1.4 in 25) lower in the afternoon than in the forenoon; this difference is not significant for that number of trials. This day's work of 900 trials will be of interest to Miss Jephson 1, who suggests a "fatigue curve" in runs of only 5 trials.

I have mentioned earlier the purposively-low-scoring tests carried out by Pearce. He showed that he could alternate high and low scores on request, actually giving on one occasion 9 in 25 when asked for a high-score run, followed by 1 in 25 for low; then a request for high brought 10, and one for low another 1 in 25. He has, on the one hand, called 0 in 25 by calling "wrong" purposely, and, on the other, once called 25 correct in 25 in my presence when I playfully dared him, bet with him and thereby aroused special effort with him over each card. (I, myself, held the cards.) Of the "Low Scoring" record there are 275 trials, yielding only 20 hits, 35 below chance average. This is in itself a valuable bit of evidence of the purposive principle of E.S.P. at work, since X here equals 7.8 as an "anti-chance" value.

So far we have said little about Pearce and telepathy. He took rather slowly to it, as the data in Table XX have shown. But eventually he emerged from the transition level of scoring and began to do fairly good P.T. work. We undertook first to introduce the telepathic condition into the P.C. experiments for comparison of P.C. with the combined conditions. There are some data on this, showing that, while at first Pearce dropped off considerably if I looked at the card, he came eventually to do even somewhat better than when I did not look at it. Omitting, then, the first 175 transition trials which gave an average per 25 of only 6 and which belong under "New Technique Data", we have 350 trials of the combined conditions, giving an average of 14 hits per 25. This is an extraordinarily high average for Pearce or anyone else, and is significantly elevated above Pearce's usual level of about 10 in 25. It may well be the effect of the combined extra-sensory activation from the two sources (the card and the agent) or, of course, may result from the possibly greater attention stimulated in the percipient by the combined conditions of C and T. Or, again, it might have been the effect of suggestion arising out of the expectation that such results would occur. At any rate, a refinement of conditions was necessary.


p. 81

[Thulsa Doom]

To get at the question, then, of whether the telepathic condition really aided the clairvoyant or not, we tried having the agent work behind a screen so that Pearce, the percipient, would not know when the agent looked at the card and when we had the simple P.C. conditions alone. Here again we had transition troubles but they were, of course, equal for both conditions, P.C. and general E.S.P. From a total of 600 trials made behind a screen which concealed the agent's face and the cards from Pearce, we still got quite better results for the combined telepathic and clairvoyant conditions. See Table XVIII, 6, a and b. The 300 P.C. were so interwoven with the 300 general E.S.P. that Pearce could not have inferred any order in them. Usually I changed conditions after every 5 calls. The difference is considerable, yet it is not quite up to the requirement for significance, with this number of trials. The difference is only 2.6 times the p.e. of the difference; but, supported as it is by the greater difference found without the screen, it appears rather convincing that the telepathic condition may help clairvoyant perception to higher proficiency.

On P.T. itself Pearce showed a steady rise for a time. His first 250 P.T. trials averaged only 6.4 per 25. The next 250 rose to 7.3, and the third, 7.8. His first 950 gave an average per 25 of 7.1 and a value of X of 9.6. We can now say without any question, so far as the mathematical significance of the data is concerned, that he, too, possesses both P.T. and P.C. capacity.

In the 950 P.T. trials referred to above, the agent and percipient were in the same room. The percipient sat with closed eyes, waiting for the uniform tap of a telegraph key as a signal. At the time of the signal the agent would be holding in consciousness the image of one of the symbols of the Zener cards, but actually had no cards present. The choice of order of images was planned by the agent for each 5 trials, avoiding any naturally expected order, and varying, repeating, in "random" fashion from one five to another.

Four agents served with Pearce. With Stuart he averaged 7; with myself as agent, 7.3 (omitting the transition period). But with two charming young ladies, he averaged 8.7!

And now for what is at the moment one of the most fascinating points of the Pearce study. He, too, runs P.T. scoring at approximately the same rate as the P.C. done at the same time and with the same conditions. The time and circumstances are most important, and we need to have the control data from the same situation and time period as the primary data. And from our results it is now clear that when we compare P.C. and P.T. with Pearce under the same conditions, we get, as with most other subjects, about the same rate of scoring in the two phases of E.S.P., P.C. (B.T.) and P.T. There are two sets of data to offer in this connection, the first

p. 82

from the P.T. data already presented, merely omitting the transitional data of the first 175 trials as not properly comparable. These P.T. trials are quite similar in score value to the B.T. data taken during the same experimental periods. In the one case there is an average of 7.7 hits per 25; in the other, 8.1. The second set of data come from an experiment to be described below, made by Stuart and Pearce in the summer of 1933 on the comparative effect of distance upon P.C. and P.T. The results under distance conditions were but little above chance expectation for even the relatively short distances introduced and in these tests they show mainly the fact that they both dropped together (B.T. to 5.3 and P.T. to 5.7). See Table XXIV below. The scores made across the table are also quite comparable, averaging in the one case 6.4 and in the other 6.3. The details are shown in Table XXIII. It should be said in explanation that, in giving the detailed results in the table, the point is to show the fluctuations from day to day, since these run predominantly in the same direction for both the P.C. and the P.T. columns.

[Thulsa Doom]

TABLE XXIII

Comparison of Clairvoyant and Telepathic Perception, Pearce

 
 
 Clairvoyance
 Telepathy
 
 
 
 Dates
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25
 Trials
 Hits
 Avge.
per 25
 Agent
 
1.
 12-3
 100
 49
 12.3
 100
 33
 8.3
 J. B. Rhine
 
2.
 12-10
 125
 51
 10.2
 150
 46
 7.7
 Miss E. C.
 
3.
 12-10
 75
 28
 9.3
 100
 27
 6.8
 J. B. Rhine
 
4.
 1-13
 50
 13
 6.5
 (25
 14
 14.0)
 Miss J. B.
 
5.
 2-2
 100
 24
 6.0
 75
 19
 6.3
 Miss J. B.
 
6.
 2-16
 100
 35
 8.8
 75
 25
 8.3
 J. B. Rhine
 
7.
 3-6
 150
 42
 7.0
 100
 28
 7.0
 C. E. Stuart
 
8.
 3-6
 125
 26
 5.2
 125
 39
 7.8
 C. E. Stuart
 
Total
 825
 268
 8.1
 750
 231
 7.7
 
 
9.
 June, ’33
 950
 239
 6.3
 475
 121
 6.4
 C. E. Stuart
 
Grand Total
 1,775
 507
 7.1
 1,225
 352
 7.2
 (107±9.4; X=11.4)
 

Nothing could be at this state more interesting than to see so large a group of data turn out such similar score averages for the two different conditions of experimentation, "mind-to-mind" and "card-to-mind" transference. The fact that Pearce has on the whole scored much higher in clairvoyant work does not bear on this point here. Perhaps, under different conditions, he might also score higher on P.T. The data for the two phases cover the same general conditions and the same periods. There is, too, the general similarity between P.T. and P.C. in the direction of fluctuation from day to day. If we leave out the 4th and 8th lines, all the rest of the 9 show a rise or fall of both clairvoyance and telepathy together, both taking the same direction. In the 4th line, at least, we have

p. 83

a peculiar atypical instance, with only 1 run to deal with under P.T., and with the 8th line we just have an exception.

The latest experiment with Pearce, conducted by Stuart, did not succeed very definitely. Pearce's scoring was the lowest it has ever been. There is no reason to think there was anything in the combination with Stuart that inhibited him. Pearce, himself, thinks it is because he had been somewhat exhausted by the year's school work and was not in his usual state of vigor. The purpose of the series was to test the relative effect of distances upon the three main modes of testing in use, P.T., B.T. and D.T. It is probable, I think, that the elaborate conditions and plans laid down (three conditions multiplied by the three distances make a somewhat complex design in this work) were inhibiting, as new techniques usually are with Pearce. The distances were to be short at first and they did not get beyond these short distances. The results are presented in the three conditions at the three distances; the three columns represented the distances: A, close range, i.e., across the table; B, 8 to 12 feet away from the agent or the card; and C, 20 to 30 feet away. In all there were 5,400 trials made under the three conditions, with all three distances. During the experiments an electric fan was kept going and all "unconscious whispering" sounds during P.T. work must have been effectively drowned by its noise. The telegraph key was used for giving signals from agent to percipient. The results, I think, do not warrant any greater detail in presentation. Later work has already "outshone" them considerably. Probably only one point further is of sufficient interest to mention and it is not at all adequately substantiated. It will be seen that the D.T. results under A are the highest. Yet this D.T. work scores lowest with distance, as shown in Column B and C. It simply raises the question whether the precision required to read the cards packed closely together can be achieved at a distance even of 10 feet or whether this is an effect of the mental attitude of the subject, an "expectation effect"; i.e., he cannot because he thinks he cannot.

It was pointed out above that in the P.T. and B.T. work of the Pearce-Stuart series, the results obtained with the percipient in the same room with the agent or the cards, were remarkably similar. Now, at the distances used, 8-12 feet and 28-30 feet, both D.T. and B.T. together do not show enough positive deviation to reach mathematical significance (1525: 322: 17±10.5; X =1.6) . Whereas the P.T., which in the same room yielded less than the D.T. and about the same as the B.T., yielded at the shorter distance (8-12 feet) a positive deviation over 5 times the p.e. and the whole distance-P.T. data have a value of X (4.3), above the usual requirement for significance (4). This naturally raised the question as to whether there was a genuine difference between P.T. and P.C. on this point of distance

p. 84

testing, or whether we had here to do again merely with mental attitudes that offered different limitations for the two conditions.

In Tables XXIV and XXV will be shown the results just described. The entire 5,400 results are really very significant, giving a gain over chance expectation (np) that is 11.4 times the p.e. But for Pearce they are very low, giving an average of only 6. per 25 instead of his usual level of 10 or thereabouts. The points of interest lie chiefly in the column of "average per 25". The contrast of these averages in general columns A and D in Table XXIV are worth attention, as are the 5th and 7th columns in Table XXV. These bring out the point of the difference between P.T. and B.T. results with distance, and their similarity at close range, suggesting that while P.T. can clearly be done at such distances, it may be that B.T. may not. It is still more strongly suggested that D.T. may be limited to close range