Home > Author > Dean Radin >

" From one test session to the next, the interference patterns tended to differ because of slight variations in ambient temperature and vibration. So for the sake of simplicity I based the formal statistical analysis not on a change in the precise shape of the interference pattern, but rather on a decrease in the average illumination level over the entire camera image during the concentration or “mental blocking” condition as compared to the relaxed or “mental passing” condition. To test the design and analytical procedures for possible problems, I also included control runs to allow the system to record interference patterns automatically without anyone being present in the laboratory or paying attention to the interferometer. Data from those control sessions were analyzed in the same way as in the experimental sessions. Results I was fortunate to recruit five meditators, four of whom had many decades of daily meditative practice. Those five contributed nine test sessions. Five other individuals with no meditation experience, or less than two years of practice, contributed nine additional sessions. I referred to the latter group as nonmeditators. I predicted an overall negative score for each experimental session (illustrated by the idealized negative curve shown in Figure 15). The combined results were in fact significantly negative, with odds against chance of 500 to 1. The identical analysis across all the control sessions resulted in odds against chance of close to 1 to 1, indicating that the experimental results were not due to procedural or analytical biases. Figure 16 shows the cumulative score (in terms of standard normal deviates, or z-scores) for the nine sessions contributed by experienced meditators and nine other sessions involving nonmeditators. The experienced meditators resulted in a combined odds against chance of 107,000 to 1, and the nonmeditators obtained results close to chance expectation. This supported my conjecture that meditators would be better at this task than nonmeditators. Figure 16. Experienced meditators (more than two years of daily practice) obtained combined odds against chance of 107,000 to 1. Nonmeditators obtained results close to chance. "

― Dean Radin , Supernormal: Science, Yoga and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities

← Prev Next →

Image for Quotes

Dean Radin quote : From one test session to the next, the interference patterns tended to differ because of slight variations in ambient temperature and vibration. So for the sake of simplicity I based the formal statistical analysis not on a change in the precise shape of the interference pattern, but rather on a decrease in the average illumination level over the entire camera image during the concentration or “mental blocking” condition as compared to the relaxed or “mental passing” condition. To test the design and analytical procedures for possible problems, I also included control runs to allow the system to record interference patterns automatically without anyone being present in the laboratory or paying attention to the interferometer. Data from those control sessions were analyzed in the same way as in the experimental sessions. Results I was fortunate to recruit five meditators, four of whom had many decades of daily meditative practice. Those five contributed nine test sessions. Five other individuals with no meditation experience, or less than two years of practice, contributed nine additional sessions. I referred to the latter group as nonmeditators. I predicted an overall negative score for each experimental session (illustrated by the idealized negative curve shown in Figure 15). The combined results were in fact significantly negative, with odds against chance of 500 to 1. The identical analysis across all the control sessions resulted in odds against chance of close to 1 to 1, indicating that the experimental results were not due to procedural or analytical biases. Figure 16 shows the cumulative score (in terms of standard normal deviates, or z-scores) for the nine sessions contributed by experienced meditators and nine other sessions involving nonmeditators. The experienced meditators resulted in a combined odds against chance of 107,000 to 1, and the nonmeditators obtained results close to chance expectation. This supported my conjecture that meditators would be better at this task than nonmeditators. Figure 16. Experienced meditators (more than two years of daily practice) obtained combined odds against chance of 107,000 to 1. Nonmeditators obtained results close to chance.
DOWNLOAD THE QUOTE IMAGE