Nde Q&a

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

You DONT!

Once you accept the probable need for a non-conventional explanation, you are like me - floundering about with a great stew of possibilities in my head! I don't mind that - it seems better than trying to ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit.

Sorry, David, but if I don't prefer something, I won't get anywhere. I'll simply spend my entire life declaring what an open-minded fellow I am.

My feeling is that non-material ideas have had so little credence for so long, that we need to go through the equivalent of the alchemy phase that preceded real chemistry.

As I've often said, I'm standing by waiting for an explanation of how science is supposed to consider some of this stuff.

~~ Paul

[BobSaget]

Has anyone on this forum addressed the fact that a good amount of children with NDEs experience a large rise in IQ? I mean, even if NDEs were caused by materialistic means, we should at least figure out how to harness their IQ spiking abilities!

http://www.cinemind.com/atwater/ASPS2007KidNDE.pdf

Just ctrl-F "IQ" to look for the results. I think it starts on the fifth page down.

[hoggworks]

Aside from the fact that the author of the paper you linked to seemed to confuse cause of the near death experience with a "cause of death" (which I'll admit is more typographic than anything else), the interpretations in the paper seem like a reach.

The author expects a person who believes they had a near death experience as a young child to be able to accurately convey what the experience was like? If it's an emotional event, how can any consistency be expected? I can't even accurately describe several episode of The Muppet Show because of the nightmares I had, which completely altered my perception of the show! (When I recently saw the offending gag in an episode, I was surprised and a little embarrassed by how tame it was) That assumes that the children actually had a near death experience. The author references NDEs caused by drowning, but how is the author -- or the child -- meant to distinguish between a proper NDE and an event which was simply traumatic?

Also, the idea that they get smarter is strange, especially considering the fact that the human brain goes through noticeable growth and change in the period the paper refers to. Specifically I wonder how the author is meant to know that the children in question got smarter; how does he know what their intelligence would otherwise have been? Has he got a time machine? Did he clone the children and raise them NDE-free?

Also, the paper itself, if meant to be taken seriously at all, seems in need of proofreading:
"By far the most frequent cause of death in my study of 277 child experiencers was drowning, followed by suffocation and minor surgery (tonsillectomies, accidents). Forty- two percent of my cases, though, could be tied to some form of parental or sibling abuse. "

Seeing as 42% were abuse, that leaves 58% for other causes. The most frequent cause (BY FAR) was drowning, so let's say that 52% is BY FAR greater than 42%. This means:

Causes as listed in the paper sorted by order of frequency:
52% - Drowning
6% - Suffocation and Minor Surgey
42% - Abuse

How can Suffocation be the second most common cause when the third most common is 42%? Perhaps this is a typo, but if it is, it doesn't speak well of the author's attention to detail.


Now, it certainly may be that kids who experience NDEs become smarter, in direct contradiction to apparent logic, but how could you tell?

[Lekatt]

Originally Posted by BobSaget

Has anyone on this forum addressed the fact that a good amount of children with NDEs experience a large rise in IQ? I mean, even if NDEs were caused by materialistic means, we should at least figure out how to harness their IQ spiking abilities!

http://www.cinemind.com/atwater/ASPS2007KidNDE.pdf

Just ctrl-F "IQ" to look for the results. I think it starts on the fifth page down.

I don't doubt the research, I will never forget my first meeting with a six-year-old that could see my spirit guide, know his name, and even play with him. It was a shock since I couldn't see him, but could communicate with him.

Children can see many things we adults have been told don't exist. I wish there were not so much fear of these things.

I think the IQ is raised in adults also. At least they are better at handling the vissitudes of life. One study of the brains of experiencers showed certain changes that were not in those without the experience. I don't pretend to know if this is real, but I do know I have been able to live better and gain more of my goals since my experience than before. I would not like to be without the knowledge I learned from it. I ran into another video that explains what I saw, what most experiencers see. I will leave a link for those interested.

Aftereffects of the NDE | Thoughtful Living

[BobSaget]

Originally Posted by hoggworks

Specifically I wonder how the author is meant to know that the children in question got smarter; how does he know what their intelligence would otherwise have been? Has he got a time machine? Did he clone the children and raise them NDE-free?

Well if it is indeed true that a good amount of these people have an IQ of 150-160, it would be quite a stretch to say that that happened by chance. According to MENSA, the top 2% is 132 or greater, so I would assume the 150-160 range is under 1% (any objections to this assumption?). One thing I am skeptical about is the test she used to determine their IQ. I wonder if she had a control group for her tests to see if the average score was around 100.

[BobSaget]

Oh and I think the author considers these people to be actually dead, thus uses the term "cause of death." I suppose that is a matter of opinion?

[BobSaget]

"By far the most frequent cause of death in my study of 277 child experiencers was drowning, followed by suffocation and minor surgery (tonsillectomies, accidents). Forty- two percent of my cases, though, could be tied to some form of parental or sibling abuse. "

Notice the "could be tied." Not only does this mean that she is not using this as a solid statistic, but also that parental and sibling abuse can overlap or "tie" into other forms of near-death (such as trying to suffocate their child). I suppose I understand how you interpreted it, and I think the author should use her words differently, but I doubt she made such a silly error.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by BobSaget

Well if it is indeed true that a good amount of these people have an IQ of 150-160, it would be quite a stretch to say that that happened by chance. According to MENSA, the top 2% is 132 or greater, so I would assume the 150-160 range is under 1% (any objections to this assumption?). One thing I am skeptical about is the test she used to determine their IQ. I wonder if she had a control group for her tests to see if the average score was around 100.

My point is more that while it might be reasonable to imagine that when an adult with a stable, fully-developed brain goes through an experience and suddenly increases in intelligence, the experience is tied to it, how can you come anywhere near to claiming an event was related to intelligence when the brain is still being formed?

Since the "event" that made them smart happened at the beginning of their lives, how can you distinguish their "normal" intelligence from their "post-NDE" intelligence? How can you say that they wouldn't have been as smart if they hadn't had the NDE? Did each child have an IQ test taken immediately before their NDE?

Based on the paper and its rather large errors, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the author included a "what is your IQ" question in the questionnaire, and took answers given as factual.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by BobSaget

Oh and I think the author considers these people to be actually dead, thus uses the term "cause of death." I suppose that is a matter of opinion?

How would the 277 respondents have responded if they were already dead?

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by BobSaget

"By far the most frequent cause of death in my study of 277 child experiencers was drowning, followed by suffocation and minor surgery (tonsillectomies, accidents). Forty- two percent of my cases, though, could be tied to some form of parental or sibling abuse. "

Notice the "could be tied." Not only does this mean that she is not using this as a solid statistic, but also that parental and sibling abuse can overlap or "tie" into other forms of near-death (such as trying to suffocate their child). I suppose I understand how you interpreted it, and I think the author should use her words differently, but I doubt she made such a silly error.

That's a fair point; the 42% could definitely overlap, depending on your reading of it. Considering the "cause of death" error at the beginning, and other errors throughout, however, my read is a mis-statement.

Also, if the stats are right, that means there are a LOT of children being drowned by their parents and/or siblings; the biggest consequence of this paper should be a lot of arrests for child abuse.