First, some quick background. For over 20 years, the CIA and Pentagon have spent approximately $20 million to study and employ numerous "psychics." They were supposed to help track down terrorists, find hostages, help anti-drug activities, etc. Experiments were conducted on precognition, clairvoyance, and remote viewing.
The CIA asked two reviewers to evaluate the studies. One is Ray Hyman, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon, and a well-known skeptic (see Ray Hyman -- 'The Very Model of the Modern Major Skeptic' Vol. 2, Number 2, The REALL News, by Robert McGrath, and Proper Criticism Vol. 1, Number 2, The REALL News written by Professor Hyman). The other is Jessica Utts, a statistics professor at the University of California, Davis, who is a known advocate of parapsychology. Indeed, Nature (the only one of the four) notes that Utts had participated in some of the studies -- which, in my mind, raises the question of why she was selected to review those same studies.
As we would expect, Hyman and Utts disagreed on how the studies rated. While both agreed that the first "era of research was problematic," Utts says there is "a statistically robust effect" while Hyman notes that "there's no evidence these people have done anything helpful for the government."
So where does this leave us? Let's look more closely at the studies. Utts said the "psychics" were accurate about 15% of the time when they were helping the CIA. 15%? Is this supposed to convince us to pay them to help the United States government? Well, Utts says she thinks "they would be effective if used in conjunction with other intelligence." Well, my intelligence tells me that a 15% accuracy rating isn't much help no matter what it's used in conjunction with. Indeed, a former CIA technical director who monitored these programs said on Nightline that he wasn't aware of any significant results from the "psychics."
In one particular study on remote viewing, the "psychics" scored above the result expected from chance by getting the right answer approximately 33% of the time when there were four choices, which Science News characterizes as "a moderate increase over chance." But the judgment of success was determined by the project's director, who rated the similarity of each response to the target display and to other randomly chosen pictures (he did not know which videos or photos were used in specific trials). Hyman argues that these studies don't offer any insight as to why they might be scoring above chance -- it is just assumed that it must be psychic ability. He also notes that the accuracy ratings should have been done by independent judges -- not the project director -- and that none of these studies have yet undergone peer review.
An interesting note in this regard is that "psychics" interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those "who accepted the phenomenon." Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn't depend on who's running a study!
Both the State Journal-Register and Newsweek reported anecdotal stories that have been used in support of this program (it is interesting to note that neither scientific publication did -- only the ones from the popular press). One of these stories is that a "psychic" predicted that an American official would be kidnapped on a certain day in 1981, and Gen. James Dozier was taken that night. As Hyman notes, though, "these are nice tall stories that can't be evaluated." As with all "psychic" reports of this type, there is too much missing information. What, specifically, was the prediction? When was it made? When was it recorded? Had this psychic made other such predictions that did not come to pass? There are simply too many unanswered questions. The stories told in the State Journal-Register mostly came from one of the "psychic spies" himself, but I would never suggest that a "psychic" would tell tall tales in order to promote himself...
Newsweek also reported that, as if the early years of the program weren't bad enough, it became even worse in the mid-1980's. A senior general would call subordinates together for spoon-bending sessions. One "psychic" wrote a long paper predicting a huge air attack on Washington during a Reagan State of the Union speech. The program offered several suggestions about capturing Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm, and all of them proved utterly useless. And one of the "remote viewers" left the army because he was convinced there was a Martian colony beneath the New Mexico desert.
The Newsweek article, in addition to relating these anecdotes, went on to compare "psychic spies" to "psychic detectives," saying, "Advocates point out that flummoxed police sometimes call on psychics to help find missing children or identify serial killers." Apparently, this is from the "two wrongs make a right" school of thought. They did end the article by noting, "Defenders admit that psychics are wrong about 80 percent of the time, but say the other 20 percent can be really helpful." Sorry, but I don't consider a 20% success rate to be all that great. Think about it -- this means that 80% of the time, police (or spies) are wasting their time and resources on incorrect information. We're supposed to be happy with that?
Why does it seem so difficult to have an objective, scientific experiment to look at claims of psychic power? Why do we always hear anecdotal tales about the great successes of "psychics," which, all too often, turn out to be exaggerated, misleading, or even completely untrue? I wish I could answer these questions, but for now we can only address each claim as it comes up, and hope that eventually some good science can triumph over bad stories.
