The capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of psi: a summary and hypotheses

Journal of Parapsychology, The, Spring, 2003 by J.E. Kennedy

Historically, inconsistent psi effects were attributed to unconscious processes (J. B. Rhine, 1946c). However, labeling the unknown factors as unconscious has provided little explanatory or predictive value after 50 years of discussion and research. More specific hypotheses are needed.

The most frequently discussed motivation that could inhibit psi is fear of psi (Batcheldor, 1984; Braud, 1985; Eisenbud, 1963/1992b; Tart, 1984). The arguments supporting and opposing this hypothesis have been discussed previously (Kennedy, 2001). There is little evidence suggesting that people fear the weak statistical effects in experimental research, yet these effects become actively evasive. Further, the fact that some people devote great effort to attempting to elicit psi does not seem consistent with fear of psi. If fear or resistance to psi causes the inhibition of psi effects, the source would seem to be external to those directly attempting to elicit psi.

An alternative approach recognizes that psi experiments may be carried out against a background of powerful supporting and opposing motivation and psi influence. This possibility follows directly from the traditional assumption in parapsychology that psi is basically independent of space and time and is related to human motivation. Taken at face value, experimental outcomes could be influenced by many people who hear about or care about the results.

This possibility appears consistent with the chronic state of psychical research: There is sufficient evidence for psi to maintain the interest and enthusiasm of those strongly interested in psi, but not the consistent evidence that would threaten the ardent skeptics. A dynamic and nearly balanced equilibrium between opposing forces appears to characterize the situation. As noted earlier, many people have strong motivations on both sides of the psi issue.

The key question is to what extent does skepticism cause unsustainable psi versus unsustainable psi cause skepticism? If the primary direction of causation is that unsustainable psi causes skepticism, then it may be more productive to look for another explanation for unsustainable psi.

However, there is a rationale that the strongest opposition to psi may derive from genetically based Personality characteristics. The extreme skeptics are predominantly males who place great value on rational thinking and who focus their efforts on trying to influence others (1) (Blackmore, 1994; Hansen, 1992). Studies of belief in ESP indicate that disbelief is associated with male gender and a greater internal locus of control (belief that they control the events in their lives; Irwin, 1993). However, discussion of these findings has usually focused on belief in psi being associated with females and external locus of control.

From an evolutionary perspective, a rational, practical style of thinking, combined with a drive to influence and control the world around them, would provide an impetus to develop tools and technology and an ability to successfully compete for resources and produce descendants. Geary (1998) brought together a wide diversity of converging evidence across species, human cultures, and human stages of life that shows that "men are biologically destined to compete with each other for social status and for the attainment of cultural success" (p. 324). He also summarized extensive evidence that from infancy onward, males tend to have more interest in inanimate objects and females more interest in people (pp. 217-239). The traits commonly associated with males across 25 countries include aggressive, rational, enterprising, inventive, and resourceful (Williams & Best, 1986).