I've been so buried in writing, that it only recently came to my attention how widespread is the misconception that women are more psychic than men.  I hate to tell you this, ladies, but it's simply untrue.  Men and women are equal here.  How can I say this?  There are a lot of streams of evidence that tell us so.

 

Let's start by looking at the formal experimental controlled research. Any gender difference here?  No.  None.   The average man or woman have weak but equal potentials. If anything, where it gets interesting is that some studies show that bonded pairs of men and women may outperform individuals.

 

What about poltergeist agents?  That's where we most often see spontaneous psi manifest in the field. Any gender difference there?  Only if the culture is more sexually repressive of one gender than the other. Otherwise, it's 50-50 male-female mix, ranging from infancy to geriatric.

 

What about in mediumship?  We see more women psychic mediums on TV than we do male ones.  Why is that?  Culture, pure and simple. If you look at other cultures around the world where being psychic is considered a male purview, guess what?  More men psychic mediums than women ones. What about if the culture says both men and women have equal talent?  Then that's what you see, a 50-50 split. However, where women are expected to be mediums, you get an imbalance related to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

What about Controlled Remote Viewing?  It's billed as a "martial art" and a way of developing "Jedi powers." Wow. That really appeals to guys. The military knew how to sell it to them.  It's psychic but not woo woo psychic--it's manly psychic. So, what happens? You end up with more male remote viewers than female ones. Of course, women can be just as good with the same training. What you see as a gender gap is only an artifact of how the technique is sold to the public.

 

One may ask why this misconception is so widespread. It's boils down to one thing only: culture. Our culture is more accepting of psychic abilities in women. There's even a phrase for it: women's intuition. You don't hear about "men's intuition." Instead, they talk about "gut instinct" or the "blue sense" or use some other phrase that lets them distance themselves from being psychic, which they can't accept because it's not considered okay for men in our culture. So, when it pops up in men, it generally gets labeled as non-psychic, even though that's exactly what it is.

 

Let's look at one more factor. I've spoken before about what people can do (whether men or women) as being limited by what's important to their unconscious minds. If you look at male CEO's, they score higher on ESP tests. That talent helps them to get to the top and succeed. Would they call themselves psychic? Probably not in public. What about TV Producers?  I've met a few, and guess what? The really top ones, the guys who magically seem to get hit after hit sometimes privately admit to being psychic. They use their talent not to give readings but to succeed in a very tough business. Writers may have the same talent, to sense what's right or wrong in their material (it's certainly something I listen to). The list could go on and on. However, psychologists will tell you that most women in our culture rate relationships and people higher than their careers. That means they're more apt to want to get psychic information to help others with their relationships, etc. -- whether as psychic readings or to move lost souls on to the afterlife. What we see isn't that one gender is better at psi than another, but rather that their interests and language differ for how they use it or refer to it.

 

So, please. No more of this "women are better psychics than men" stuff. It simply isn't true.

I admit it.  I've been a very bad girl.  I haven't updated my blog in over a year.  What can I say?  I've been really busy.  And soon you'll be able to see some of the fruits of my labor.  So what's new?

I did an interview with the bright and funny Jeff Balanger of Ghost Village.  You can read it at www.ghostvillage.com.

I wrote an original article for my friends over at Windbridge, which will be in their March newsletter. You can read about it here...

I finished three rounds of copy-editing for Handbook to the Afterlife, which will be released April 20, 2010. I also created a website for the book at Handbook to the Afterlife

I have the Mind-Matter Book in copy-editing over at McFarland, which will be out as a print and Kindle edition this summer (probably late June 2010) and created a website for that book at Mind-Matter Interaction

And then I created an author page over at Amazon.com (bless them, one of the best resources for new and old parapsychology books today and available to readers around the world). You can see it at Amazon Author Page  It has a short bio and a blog of sorts.

I've also be working on three paranormal screenplays, which I'm hoping may eventually catch the interest of Hollywood, a novel, a nonfiction book about the unconscious mind, and lots and lots of paintings. I tend to go underground when I have so many things things to finish, which is why I disappear for a bit.  However, if you want to catch me in person, I'm often on the USS Hornet Flashlight Tours and I will be speaking at the California Ghost Hunter's 2010 Conference sponsored by Ghost Trackers in Hayward, California on May 22nd.  See you there!

It has become really popular in recent years to investigate haunted places in really large groups, anywhere from 30-250. I can see the appeal. It's fun. If gives more folks an opportunity to investigate. And there's also the social aspect of seeing, and hanging out with, your friends. Group events can pay for access to locations that might be hard to see otherwise. You can hear interesting speakers. So, there's a lot to recommend it. But it has drawbacks, too.

You generally don't see parapsychologists working real cases with groups larger than about four or five if they want to do a serious investigation. My own preference is to work with one or two others. It's not about ego or exclusivity, or even just the difficulty of controlling variables that screw up EVPs and other forms of evidence. It's that your senses are stretching to be aware of something very subtle. The living put out the same energy as the dead. Your job as a psychic is to distinguish a shift in the energy. So, the living can confuse and obscure the subtle energy you're trying to pick up from ghosts. Now, there are very gifted professionals who can do this easily, but most parapsychologists and ghost investigators (especially if trying to improve their natural psychic abilities) will have trouble when dealing with a low signal to noise ratio.

Let me give you a comparison. Say you're at a party, and you're trying to listen for the arrival of one or more particular newcomers. The larger and louder the party, the harder it will be to sense, and speak with, your awaited guests --especially if they're a bit shy and quiet to begin with. Of course, if someone (living or dead) really wants your attention, they can do so regardless of whether you're watching for them or surrounded by a group! But it's always easier to sense spirits when you're alone or with a handful of others. 

So, while group investigations are fun, they also create a lot of "noise" from the living (who put out as much or more energy than the dead) that makes it hard to pick out the more quiet energetic shifts of the dead and the subtle information of place memory (sometimes called "residual energy" in ghost hunting circles). This is especially true for beginners. 

Is there a way to compensate? Sure. It's called meditation and practice. It may surprise you that not all of what you need to practice involves psychic tasks. There's also an element of this, which is simply learning how to really LISTEN to others, which you can perfect with the living. Very few of us do this well unless early in the stages of romance. Spend time really paying attention, completely, 100%, to what people you interact with on a daily basis are saying. Not only will in improve your interpersonal relationships, but it will also help you to connect with the dead.

The second factor has to do with the fact that we all have psychic abilities. Every one of us--even skeptics. There are plenty of places to find exercises that you can use to develop these natural abilities. I list a few on my main website (www.pamelaheath.com) in the FAQ pages. Annette Martin also has a nice workbook out called "Discover Your Psychic World" with the exercises she assigns her students. Mostly it boils down mostly to learning how to still your own thoughts and practicing in ways where you can get tangible feedback. Then build up your experience at putting it into action, starting with simple or small things, and working your way up to more complex situations. You'll have more success, and probably a lot more fun that way, too!

A number of things piqued my curiousity at the Queen Mary. One of them occurred when I was standing in line, waiting to register for the event, surrounded by ghost hunters. Every few minutes a spirit would be there, tapping me on the neck to get my attention so they could talk to me (it was a busy, BUSY time). But the people around me, who were there to see the ghosts, were oblivious. And it made me think that many folks don't understand how they can see spirits. For the most part, it's just a matter of tuning them in.

Think of your consciousness as a kind of radio tuner. You can slide your mind up or down through various states, like turning the dial, letting you tune in various channels or stations. We all do this every day. There's nothing special about it. Normal states include awake and alert, daydreaming, sleeping, deep thought, prayer, meditation, road hypnosis, etc.

Tuning spirits in involves being aware of two things. First, that you CAN do it. It's just a matter of practice, which is where meditation can help you (it limbers up your ability to change your state of consciousness in a controlled, intentional way). Second, that what you can tune into easily will depend on what your level of vibration is. Believe it or not, we vary. Some, especially if they are spiritually developed, normally operate on a higher frequency than others. For them, it takes less effort to tune in spirit guides (who have to drop their vibrations less to connect with you than they might for others), but may take more effort to tune in negative entities. Think of it as being like where you start on the dial. Say you are low down on the frequency rate, at 92 FM. You only have to go a short ways to reach 94 FM (which could be a low level spirit, near the earth plane in frequency). But to reach a spirit guide at 107 FM, you have to go farther, work a bit more to dial up to them. On the other hand, if you were meditating regularly and spiritually, you might normally live at a level of 102 FM, you might find it easier to bump up to, and connect with, the spirit guides than to try to drop your frequency to tune in low level spirits. Because of this, not all psychics will be able to easily get all types of being.

One way to connect with those spirits who don't come easily to you is to watch for signals they may give you to let you know they are there and want you to tune in. For me, I get extremely cold when high level guides are around (their signal to let me know they are there and I should tune in), whereas I will feel earth-bound ghosts tapping me lightly on the back of the neck to get my attention. Really negative entities can be felt by the yuckiness or heaviness of the energy (it's like an oil slick fouling the water).

With effort and practice you should be able to tune in most spirits at will. It's all a matter of practice and paying attention to not just to the outer world, but also your inner one.

I've recently heard a number of folks talk about the fact that they won't interfere with a ghost, even if it is hurting one or more others because of the issue of karma.

I think the real problem may be that they don't understand what karma really IS.

I've read a great deal on the topic, both from living enlightened masters and the dead. From what I can tell, karma boils down to one thing: your choices have consequences. There is a reason for this and it's not about payback or balancing the scales. It's that those choices will draw the best lessons--the ones you most need to learn--to you. 

Understand one thing. The spirits say there are no right or wrong choices. Some choices are simply "more enlightened" and draw more pleasurable lessons to you than others. What spirits say IS important, is that you make thoughtful, well-considered choices. That's really what they care about, along with good intentions. Intentions are nearly everything in the spirit realm--far more important than the consequences that may follow.

Now, say you see a spirit that is harming others, whether living or dead. You don't know the karma of those involved. Of course, if you're psychic, you can SIMPLY ASK. I mean, come on! Why not? Tune in your guides or those of the spirits involved (they're always there if you look) and ask, "What's the situation here? Is it in the best interests of those involved for me to interfere?" If they tell me to leave things be, then I will. But if the guides say "Yes," then I have no qualms at all about intervening.

But what if you aren't psychic? What then? Should you interfere?

Yes.

Let me explain why. What you need to understand is that once your path crosses that of the spirits, it is no longer simply about their karma, it's also now about YOURS. Your choice is one that will draw consequences to you, so you would be wise to consider what you want it to say about your intentions. Are you someone who turns a blind eye to violence (whether emotional, spiritual, or physical) done to others? We're not talking self-defense, which does not continue any further than absolutely necessary.

Maybe it would help if I give you two analogies. Let's consider a situation where harm is unintentional.

Say you see a 2-year old child throwing a tantrum, kicking and screaming on the ground, flailing around. And there are little kittens there, getting crushed and hit. Now, the child may not know it is breaking the kittens' bones. The child may simply be thoughtless and not intend harm. Moreover, you don't know whether one of the kittens may have scratched or bitten the child to start the incident. The question is, would you stop it? I would. I'd pick the child up (doing my best not to hurt them) and move them to a safe location where they can no longer cause harm, or have worse to feel about when the tantrum is over and they realize what they have done.

Let's look at another situation. Deliberate harm.

What if you saw a teenager beating up a homeless man with a baseball bat. It's happened. What would you do? Would you turn a blind eye and walk away? Or would you try to sort things out, ask what's going on, maybe ask the teenage to stop or take away the bat? You don't know the karma between them. But does it really matter? One person is abusing another. It's now YOUR karma, YOUR choice, what you do about it. It's no longer just THEIRS.

My own feeling is that two wrongs don't make a right. There are more enlightened ways for lessons to be learned than through abusing others. And as someone who tends to be very tuned into karmic issues as a psychic, I've seen the desire for karmic payback get WAY out of hand, even if it started as a consensual situation, with all parties in agreement that it would be acceptable. And it's crossed the line, to where the soul "getting even" for what may have happened in the past, ends up creating bad karma for themselves because of going overboard. And if you could have stopped that, then that becomes your bad karma, as well.

There's something used a lot in the medical and business worlds, which is called a decision tree. This is a way of figuring out how to deal with situations you might encounter. It starts with a question and looks at what one would ask or do, depending on whether the answer to that question is yes or no. You can see my own decision tree for dealing with ghosts as a PDF file if you click on the link below. Needless to say, it reflects my belief that, once a ghost has crossed my path and my karma becomes involved, I not only have a right to intervene but it is necessary for me to make a thoughtful, well-intentioned choice for how to deal with things, and to carry that choice out.

My ability to move ghosts on makes it my responsibility to act should it be necessary. To do anything else, is, in my opinion, simply wrong.

PDF Decision Tree for Dealing with Ghosts

(ADDENDUM: There's something I should mention here that I tend to take for granted most people understand. Ghosts don't have eyes. They don't "see" the way we do -- so whether it's light or not per se doesn't matter to them. What they "see" is energy. I think the best analogy I can use for this is in the Matrix movie series. After Neo's eyes are damaged, he can still "see" the energy patterns around him with his mind. That's the way that ghosts perceive.  They pick up on energy signatures. Sometimes their mind may then translate those energy patterns into familiar shapes and forms, much the way that our occipetal lobe makes sense of the shapes, forms, and colors from the firing of the rods and cones in our retinas. But when we talk about ghosts going to the light or seeing the light, understand this is not the limited physical spectrum put out by normal electricity that we're talking about. I've been told they see people as energy or light, too, with some brighter than others depending on their mood and level of spirituality. And although some equipment may put out energy signatures that bother ghosts, a simple incandescent bulb isn't a problem. The real issue is this. If you sense ghosts better at night, it's not because they're more "comfortable" in the dark, but because the living are more psychically sensitive when they are tired or sleepy, which for most of us is at night.)

This is a topic that is somewhat amusing to me. Parapsychologists just don't understand it. It doesn't make sense to them. They do their investigations in full light, whether broad daylight or by good old-fashioned electricity. And I have to tell you even those TV shows where you see people running around it what looks like the black of night, are typically shot with the room lights on. I know, because I've been on the other side of those cameras. It just looks dark because of the type of camera they use, and the fact they don't have a gillion megawatts of extra lighting shining down on you (look at any TV studio and you'll be amazed at the enormous, powerful lights everywhere - it's no wonder you see a lot of actors sweat on live interviews, and it's not the stress).

So, what is the right lighting to use if you want to look for ghosts?

The answer to that question depends on what your purpose is. Is it to have fun with your friends? To my way of thinking, this is perfectly legitimate. Then, it's a bit like a wild pajama party. Keep the place as dark as possible. Use flashlights for everything. It's really spooky in the dark. You can have a lot of fun. For that matter, the less you know about things the better. The real gets easily mistaken for what it isn't, and you can get tons of neat photos (granted, they're probably mostly, if not all, artifacts) and with your vision blinded your other senses notice things it ordinarily wouldn't. Now, most folks would think this is a good thing, right? Other senses are more acute? Sure. If you're used to it. If you know what's normal in that situation. But otherwise, it's easy to mistake completely normal sounds for ones that aren't, simply because you don't have a good baseline awareness of what IS normal. How often do any of us close our eyes, wait, and practice simply listening? It's a good skill to have, but a rare one in our society, which is always rushing around. Parapsychologists have written about the truly amazing variety of sounds that have completely normal causes...but can sound really spooky, especially in the dark. Add a group of people who may be around you in unseen locations --even if they're trying to be quiet there are going to be some inadvertent sounds that can be picked up by microphones if not your ears -- and you really have the right recipe for getting "findings" on your hunt. This can be tremendous fun. There's nothing wrong with it. But it should not be confused with how a serious investigation gets conducted.

Well, what if you want to investigate for purposes of research? Now we go to the opposite extreme. This is always done by the best possible lighting available. There can be teams of researchers with a separate individual ("blind" to who got what where) to code and analyze the results. Equipment is set up, often hooked to laptops for ongoing monitoring and recording. Surveys are filled out. The research generally repeated a number of times with different teams. Frankly, it's pretty boring stuff.

Let's ask a different question. Say you have a ghost and call in a real parapsychologist to sort things out. How do they investigate? They'll typically start with a small team, often just two people (a male-female partnership is common to protect yourselves from false sexual harassment lawsuits). You never go alone. The dead can be the least of your problems! There are some pretty weird people out there who may call you in -- it's critical to have backup just in case... You start by talking to the witnesses, often recording statements and taking notes. Then you may walk around, paying attention to your own senses, clues in the environment (do they have a stack of "National Enquirer's prominently folded to demon stories by the toilet), and the readings you get on various pieces of equipment. Investigations can be done in the daytime or at night, though if you do get a report of activity only at a particular time, you want to make sure that at least one of your investigative visits occurs at that hour. The ONLY instances when you might turn down the lights is to figure out what might be getting misperceived or mistaken as something it isn't in the dark. In complex hauntings, you may go home, investigate the history of the place or area, and come back again (sometimes with more folks) to repeat the process. Typically, there's also a fair bit of discussion about what each team member got and what it might mean. If you're well-educated about the field, you're usually enough on the same page about what you think is occurring to come to a tentative conclusion. You then take that back to the folks who called you, sit down, and discuss it. There are often choices for how the people who are haunted can handle the situation, which you will offer them. Sometimes this involves helping the spirit to move on. Other times, it can be educating either the spirit or the living about things. Sometimes it involves talking about professional counseling (if only to deal with the stress of the situation). And sometimes it simply involves explanation (that "burn mark" you thought was on the rug from the ghost is actually spilled coffee grounds...See? It comes up when you rub it.).

Now, let me add that I know a number of good paranormal investigators who do things the exact same way as parapsychologists. The only reason I differentiate, is because a true parapsychologist knows the research in the field and can quote it back to you. Many have published. Why mention this? It's not snobbery. Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is part of why you know the research. You have to review the past literature it in your paper and show your knowledge of it in your research design. Otherwise, as Dean Radin has noted, your colleagues will kill you! The more you know about the research and the wide range of possibilities you can encounter on an investigation, the more truly "in the light" you are. Parapsychologist certainly don't know it all and are happy to admit as such - frankly, that's what makes being in this field fun. However, there's no reason for anyone to work with an educational blindfold on, either.

Being a true parapsychologist is something that everyone can do. You don't need a degree in the field (there's only a small fraction of us who have a Masters or Doctorate degree in Parapsychology). You don't need a specific background or training. But you DO have to learn the research by reading and study....which thanks to various resources on the internet, the books that can be bought on Amazon, and the online parapsychology library at http://www.lexscien.org/lexscien/index.jsp is within the grasp of EVERYONE to do. For that matter, you the Parapsychological Association lets just about anyone who is a student join them as an affiliate. We'd LOVE to see more folks dive into our field!

So, what kind of light IS best for ghost hunting? It really depends on what you want. If you want to have a fun time, then turn off all the lights and work at night. It's great. You'll have a blast! But also be clear on what you are doing. You're decreasing your odds of getting good data or learning the underlying truth of what may, or may not, be occurring. Most haunting cases are a mixture of possibilities. To tease out which reported experience or event belongs to what category of explanation requires using every tool at your disposal--including light to see by. So, if you're ever working with a real parapsychologist on a serious investigation, don't be surprised if we ask you to, "Leave the lights on, please."

Everyone seems to be bringing up the question of "demons" now days. I'm not the only parapsychologist to notice this. So, I'd like to address the topic here. I would like to make three points.

FIRST: It is human nature to want to name things. Naming them gives us a sense of control and understanding. And that feeling of mastery isn't always misplaced. It works well with physical items (such as "This is a cat," "That is a dog," etc.) and with a fair bit of psychological baggage. However, it can also get us into trouble when it comes to paranormal phenomena, which can involve a complex mixture of things, including:

1. Ghosts - spirits with consciousness that can interact with you.
2. Place memory -  old, recorded images and sounds held by a building or location, which can repeat.
3. Poltergeist activity - typically human mind-matter interaction, i.e. the living are causing what is occurring through paranormal means (i.e. not just fraud). Rarely (like a fraction of a percentage of the cases we see), this can be due to ghosts.
3. Misperception - putting the wrong interpretation on what you're seeing or experiencing.
4. Malobservation - poor observation, not perceiving things accurately or completely.
5. Time slips - the apparent ability to two different time periods to see each other or coexist simultaneously.
6. Fraud - most often game playing by friends and family just having a bit of fun.  This can be conscious or unconscious in nature (poltergeist cases often involve a combination of the real paranormal and fraud throwing things that the agent may not even be aware they are doing).

Why do I go through all this? Because most of the time when people call you up with a problem, they don't sort out whether it is 10% a ghost, 30% place memory, and 60% perfectly normal things that are getting misinterpreted. No. What they'll do is to give it a name. Just one. They'll say, "I have a ghost" or "I have a demon." And half the job isn't just dealing with that situation, it's figuring out the real truth of it so you CAN deal with it. And the name it's already been given gets in the way. Their minds (and sometimes the investigator's) may be made up and unable to see other evidence or other issues that need to be dealt with.

So, naming things before an investigation is finished can be problematic. It's like putting on blinders that keep you from seeing other aspects to the situation. I would caution folks to be very careful about this. That's why parapsychologists would rather hear what's actually occurring than what someone thinks is going on. You have to weigh every experience and piece of evidence separately from the others, to see where it fits in.

SECOND: I find the word "demon" to be something I refer to as a "fuzzy" term. It means different things to different people. In general, fuzzy terms are best avoided because they can create confusion and misunderstanding. Instead, I'll talk about "negative entities" (as opposed to "positive" ones that mean you well or those that are neither positive nor negative, but typically lost or confused). Everyone seems to have an immediate grasp of what a "negative entity" is. It doesn't create unnecessary confusion. I would add that some negative entities had human lives while a few may never have incarnated. My own feeling is that incarnation is the ultimate teaching tool, which can benefit all --including negative entities. So, I see no reason not to move them all to the light to be put into the hands of higher guides so they can be placed in line for education, spiritual growth, and eventual incarnation.

THIRD: Let's say you have a conscious entity present. Does calling it a "demon" do anything to help you deal with it? I would say not. Using a term like "demon" indicates a specific religious worldview with its own cultural set of beliefs and expectations, which may or may not be accurate. Many spirits are happy to be whatever you want them to be. They just want attention. So, if you want a demon, they'll play that role for you...even if they really are just some ordinary spirit out of a bit of mean fun. Worse still, focusing on the negative will tend to draw it to you. You want demons? You look for demons? Some pretty negative entities may well respond to your call and seek you out. This may be "exciting" and "dramatic," but it is not a smart thing to ask the universe to bring into your life. Furthermore, if you have something that is really negative around you, the last thing you want to do is be afraid--an emotion that the word "demon" evokes in many. Fear is like putting out fresh hamburger for a crocodile. And those crocs can move fast! On the other hand, if you're simply thinking of it as a negative entity, which is an accurate but less emotionally-laden term, then you can approach it in the right way from either a place of unconditional love (lol - they really hate this) or complete neutrality (which is equally effective and doesn't give them an emotional handle on you). Better still, on some level, calling it a negative entity means you are leaving the door open for them to experience spiritual growth. They aren't a thing but simply another soul with the potential to change for the better with time.

So, if you talk to me in the future, please don't ask about "demons." I don't like the term. I think it's a bad one that only confuses the situations and does nothing to help you with the beings so called. I won't use it.

I may surprise you a bit with what I'm going to say here. Psychics often contact me and other parapsychologists asking (or in some cases demanding) to be tested so they can prove their abilities to the world. If possible, they want a certificate that they can hang on the wall to show the world and silence their critics.

I am not unsympathetic to how they feel. It's tough being attacked and dismissed all the time. And any psychic who hasn't had someone call them a fraud (usually for telling a client something that was true but they didn't want to hear) just hasn't been in the business long enough.

I know of some places that offer "certificates" or list names of "certified psychics" that they have in some way tested. Some of these are simply making money off of psychics while others are sincere, trying to protect the public from frauds. However, I'm here to tell you that even if it were possible to get a piece of paper on your wall it's not really going to change things. And it doesn't matter from how prestigious a University or Center you got it from. Why? Because even those of us with regular degrees (whether MD or PsyD or PhD) in normal fields have people who dismiss our "piece of paper" (diploma) as meaningless. No, you need more than that if you want respect (although my own feeling is that ultimately, respect has to come from within and cannot be determined by what others think).

And there's another, even bigger issue. Psychic abilities change. It is not a fixed talent. Instead, your psychic hit rate can vary from one day to the next depending on your skill, training, experience, what's going on in your head (both consciously and unconsciously), mood, state of physical health (it's hard to be psychic when you have a bad headache), and a host of other factors. It might be better to follow a psychic's hit rate like that of a baseball player, that in year "X" they hit a given number...but where everyone recognizes that this can change, and you can have an off day (or an off year).

So, if a piece of paper doesn't matter to skeptics who are going to attack you anyway, what about the issue of testing?

Let's look at the case of one psychic who got formally tested through a well-controlled scientific study by Gary Schwartz. John Edward. I think it took guts and a real desire for him to know the truth of what he could do for him to have stepped up to the plate. He did it. And, at times he batted 100%--an amazing number. Psychics do really well when they simply get 70-80% right. And these findings were even published. Did it make a difference? Did John get more respect? Not nearly to the degree he should have. Instead, folks assumed that Schwartz hadn't controlled adequately for cheating. I still see John Edward being sneered at and dismissed as a fraud not only by the skeptics and the general public, but also by fellow psychics (although not at John's level of ability or recognition). And although I suspect a piece of this is simple jealousy, it still boggles my mind.

So, if testing by researchers doesn't "prove" anything to those who would attack you, what about the issue of doing it to learn your own current strengths and weaknesses as a psychic?

Now we're getting to something that could actually be of value. Aptitude testing has been a mainstay of schools, governments, military programs, and business for many years. We know that it can be helpful. Not only can it allow you to know where your strengths are (since to really shine, you should be doing what you're good at), but in which areas you can improve. And it is clear to me that psychics do have visible strengths and weaknesses in terms of the kinds of information they can accurately pick up. Some are really good at romance. Others miss romance and are terrific at businesses. Some may be good at tuning into past lives or are good healers. Although some psychics are generalists--reasonably good at everything--each tends to have their own particular strengths, which may depend on their personality, interests, what's going on in their lives at the moment, and other factors I mentioned above.

In other words, just like a professional athlete, what psychics can do, and how well they do it, can vary from one day to the next.  And, just like baseball batters, they may be better able to hit what's thrown at them better from some pitchers (the client or target they are trying to get information about) than from others. To really be meaningful, this aptitude testing would have to look at a lot of different kinds of targets over a fairly long period of time (whether months or years). It would also need to be on-going. In other words, if your talent changed, new strengths developed or others faded, it should be able to reflect that without entirely dismissing your past record of achievements.

So, if aptitude testing would be useful, is there anyone who does it? And the answer is "kind of." There's kind of a way I know to do it. There may be others, but I just don't know of them.

Lyn Buchanan has long been aware of the importance of following case by case accuracy rates, divided up by specific information type. He has an amazing computerized database that allows him, his students, and those he works with to follow exactly how well they are doing. It calculates individual and summarized data results for every case you that you take the time to put into it, for as many years as you do it.

It's awesome.

I give Lyn, and his wife Linda (who is very savvy with computers), full credit. If the online parapsychology library is the best thing to ever happen to parapsychology (allowing us to actually build on past knowledge and not keep chasing our own tails repeating the same research again simply because we didn't know it had already been done), then THIS is the best step forward I've personally seen that can help psychics. It is both an aptitude test and (for those who are good at it) validation. It tells you your strengths and weaknesses. And Lyn has said he doesn't even care whether you get the information that you put into it by classic remote viewing techniques or regular psychic work. What matters to him is that you are honest about your results. Write down your impressions before you code them. Decide in advance what you believe enough that it will count. Figure out which of his 30 categories (which include one for sketches and a vague "other" group) each piece of data belongs to. Then, when you can get feedback on your impressions, write down for each of them if they were right (a "yes"), wrong (a "no"), or you simply have no way to know it's accuracy (a question mark). Go on the internet to his password protected database and input the number of "yes," "no," or "question mark"s that you get for each category. His software will do the rest. It will even give you a color graph to show you how you stand.

I've done this. It's very useful stuff for a psychic. But, it's not open to everyone. If you want to be able to use his database, there's really only one way to do so--take a class from him. That way, he can be sure you understand the categories and how to code your impressions, because if you aren't doing it right, then your results will be meaningless garbage. 

There's another plus to taking his courses, too. Lyn understands a lot about how to work with the subconscious (a term he prefers to "unconscious") mind. In a way, by giving his students ways to understand how to build a good working relationship with their subconscious mind and the meaning behind the symbols it uses, he is giving them the keys to the kingdom (self-understanding).

So, for all of you out there who wish you had a way of knowing what you're good at as a psychic, I'm telling you that you have at least one (and probably more I'm not aware of) option. Take a class from Lyn. You're not just paying for an education, but for a well-maintained and run database, that will let you see exactly how you're doing in a meaningful way. If you want to check it out, his website is at http://www.crviewer.com.

Last night, on the Peace, Luv, and Lip Gloss Hour, I spoke about a something that I think it is critical for every person who is interested in the paranormal to understand. It involves how mind over matter abilities can affect paranormal evidence in such a way that makes it difficult to determine the ultimate source of any findings...and the issue of what is "proof."

This is a complex issue, but it's really important. So, I hope you'll bear with me as I try to explain it here.

First, everyone has psychic abilities, whether living or dead. We know from years of double and triple blind controlled studies that you can pretty much drag in any person off the street, test them, and, if you do enough trials, a statistical analysis will tell you they have at least a little psychic ability. This is true whether you are looking at ESP, or mind-matter interaction (MMI - the paranormal ability of the mind to influence things in the physical world around it, most often seen now days as people making their computers go wonky when they get angry or stressed). You may not have a lot of gift, but you have some. We all do. It's universal.

Second, how you use those abilities depends on what is important to your unconscious mind. People can use psychic abilities in all kinds of ways. For example, skeptics can use their abilities to deliberately miss ESP targets or to block psychics around them from being able to use their talent. Other people can use their gift to know when the telephone is about to ring, or if a loved one is feeling sad, or what row to go down to find a space in the parking lot. Psychic abilities are often used for the little things in daily life that make it better. When I talked to psychics one of the important things I tried to make sure they understand, is that what they can or cannot do does not indicate what they are capable of -- only what's important to their unconscious mind. You might wonder why I keep keeping emphasizing the unconscious. It's because the unconscious mind appears to be the gatekeeper for all psychic information, and can operate independently of the conscious mind to effect your environment. In a way, this is what poltergeist activity is all about. The unconscious mind uses your psychic abilities to express its feelings or get its needs met without letting the conscious mind know what it is up to.

Third, none of the equipment that we currently use on ghost investigations is directly able to sense ghosts. Instead, they are a variety of things that were developed for sensing changes in the physical environment. What we found, through trial and error, was that some of this equipment seemed to be effected (or have readings that changed) in the presence of ghosts. We therefore started using these things in haunting investigations.

Initially, we thought that we might have been simply picking up specific qualities about the ghosts themselves--such as a kind of electromagnetic footprint--with these environmental sensors. However, now we are not so sure. Many investigators, including Loyd Auerbach and myself are starting to realize that many of the effects we see on these pieces equipment are actually due to MMI. Thus, if you see a trifield meter needle leaping up and down frantically, it probably doesn't mean the ghost is jumping back and forth in front of it. It is more likely that MMI is being used to effect your equipment. So far so good. But now we come to the next piece of this.

Fourth, the experimenter effect. This refers to the finding (known since the 1950s) that experimenters working under the same objective conditions and with subjects from the same population may get different or conflicting results, which conform to their own expectations. In other words, they can be responsible for whether or not they get results. In essence, what data you get can depend on who asked the question. This goes beyond bias or your ability to motivate the participants of your study, it can include ESP and MMI.

I need to correct something I said in that talk. The definitive study on this was by skeptic Richard Wiseman and believer Marilyn Schlitz. Both of them had performed a number of staring studies, involving changes in skin resistance (an indicator of stress used by lie detector tests) to being stared at remotely on a monitor. Marilyn had always gotten significant results and Richard never had. So, they teamed up. They did a joint study, using a randomized controlled double blind cross-over research design that used both of their laboratories, the same subjects, the same protocol, the same analysis, the same everything except for one thing--Richard was "responsible" for half of the tests and Marilyn for the other. And guess what? Marilyn still got significant results and Richard had null results. The only difference was the experimenter.

This put the cat among the pigeons where parapsychology was concerned. All of a sudden, people started wondering whether they, and not their participants, were responsible for their own success or failure. How could they know for sure what, if anything, had been proved? But what parapsychologists finally had to accept, once and for all, is that the experimenter is always a part of the experiment, and may be using their own psychic abilities to cause their results.

Now, you may ask why I bring this up with ghost investigations....

The hard evidence that ghost investigators typically cite from their investigations involve four things:

1. EVP - which by definition are MMI, and we hope are the ghost's mind influencing the recording medium (whether digital, tape or otherwise) to imprint the EVP. Of course, many believe a person acts as a medium to aid this. Some folks are really good at getting EVPs while others never get them, even with the same ghost. So is it the ghost doing it or the person? Or a particular person-ghost combination? A ghost doesn't need to be involved. You can use your own ESP to get the information, then use your PK to imprint it. And I know investigators, like Garrett Husveth, who get EVPs that sound suspiciously like their own voice -- and they know they weren't talking or whispering out loud.

2. Direct voice phenomena - like EVP but heard at the time it occurs, such as direct radio, phone calls from the dead, and the Frank's Box. This has the same issues as EVPs.

3. Photo Anomalies - although most of these are camera artifacts (see my main website for examples) there are times when you get some really interesting images. What are these? It is capturing something in the environment that is interacting with or reflecting a ghost? Is it the ghost using MMI to show itself to you? Or is it a human MMI-created image, as Ted Serios and others have been able to do on fresh, sealed film without it ever having been exposed to light? MMI is likely, whether you consider the source human or a ghost.

4. Changes in a variety of environmental sensors - which we're now realizing may be MMI--either from the ghost or the investigator(s) -- whether our unconscious mind using MMI to let us know that a ghost really is around or simply having fun playing with the equipment. (By the way, the unconscious mind loves to play...the more toys you give it, the most apt it will be to find one that it likes to influence.)

Okay. So what am I saying? All of the "hard, scientific evidence" we collect on investigation relies on, or can be duplicated by, MMI.

Oh-oh. And we're all capable of MMI...every one of us. And what we can or cannot do depends on what is important to our unconscious minds--which in the case of experimenters, can be getting data they can show to the world.... You want to find a ghost. Your unconscious can, if it wishes, give you those findings  (whether there is legitimately a ghost there or not) through MMI. Are you seeing where this is leading?

Nothing you get can be considered absolute proof of a ghost. It's interesting. It may support your subjective experience. It may even be highly suggestive. But there is no way to know 100% for sure whether the source of your findings is due to a ghost or your own MMI. (Note: This is true even if your psychic abilities don't show up in other aspects of your life. It is possible that your unconscious just doesn't believe it's important to use those abilities in other ways).

If you talk to a parapsychologist, we're typically not all that interested in photos (too many ways to get artifacts and too easy for the unscrupulous to fake). EVPs are fun, but we don't know whose responsible--you, the ghost, or artifact. One of the first questions out of our mouths is likely to be, "What was your experience?" The answer to that question gives us the best odds at sorting out what really happened, if anything.

Now, I'm not saying you have to throw out the other stuff. But what you want to do is to use as many different things as possible to support each other. And not the least of this is what you see/feel/taste/smell/hear/sense. Recognize that you have the ability to develop your psychic awareness. Practice feeling subtle changes in a room. Were the people last in it happy? Sad? Angry? What happens when another person enters or leaves? Does the ambience change? You can practice all these skills with the living--after all, we give off those vibes, too--and it will aid you in being aware of the dead. Then, if you are sensing someone present, look for corroborating evidence. It's not proof, but it can add up to a strong case.

So, if I can give you one lesson to take home with you from this blog, it's to pay attention to your experiences. Don't throw them out. And by all means don't ignore them. They may be the best information that you can collect during an investigation.

I've heard it said that there has been no good research in the paranormal, so it's up to ghost hunters to provide it.

Huh?

To say there has no good research, is to suggest either a lack of awareness of what's already been done, or indicate that history is unimportant. Many of the questions that I hear come up in audiences have actually been studied through formal, controlled, experimental research. We have answers to them--or at least partial ones. But neither the audience nor those speaking to them often seem to know that. And that's really frustrating from my viewpoint, because I think the audience is sincere. These are real questions. They want to know the answers...and they could, if they knew the research.

Are there "experts" in the paranormal? I would say they are. They're called parapsychologists. Parapsychologists don't claim to know everything about the paranormal. No matter how much you know about any field, there's always more to learn. But a true parapsychologist is well-versed in the knowledge and scientific research of the field. They can say if a question has already been addressed, or not, and what was discovered in that process. These are people who, like me, have given up more than you'll ever know to pursue this passion -- our time, lucrative incomes, professional careers, and the respect of nonparanormal colleagues. We're doing our best on a shoestring budget (typically coming from our own pockets) while being constantly attacked on all sides--by skeptics (for being too credulous), believers (who feel we're too skeptical), and now by ghost investigators for being "irrelevant."

Do I find that insulting? You bet. But let's set that aside. My feelings aren't important here. There's a much bigger issue at stake.

I believe ghost hunters can contribute a lot. They have enthusiasm and valuable experiences. They experiment with things. They bring a delightful variety of fresh, new perspectives. But there's a catch to this. We've all heard that old saw about those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And there's no place where that's more true than with research. If you don't know what's been done, what's been successful and how (or failed), you're going to keep duplicating the same experiments and going over the same ground. You won't make progress. It's critical to learn what's been done - worthwhile by definition since it gives you a place you can build from. It's a stepping stone - not the final word. But it's a valuable one.

If I had to say the biggest single advance I've seen in parapsychology, it's the creation of an online library database, accessible to anyone anywhere in the world. It can be found at http://www.lexscien.org/lexscien/index.jsp. At the moment, it's subscription based. You have to pay for full access (limited access is free). But it's open to all comers. And it's worth it. It gives you the opportunity to find out what others have done. It can save you time and make your efforts more meaningful--not the least of which will be because it can give you more credibility whether with skeptics or the paranormal/parapsychological community.

We can all learn from each other. But this will never happen if folks turn their backs on what is literally thousands of years experience at investigating the paranormal and well over 125 years of formal experimental research. History matters.