An Email to the Windbridge Institute (what are your opinions of my criticism?)

[429cage]

I recently emailed the Windbridge Institute asking a few questions and since I have not received a reply yet, I decided it would be beneficial to post what I sent here. I offered a bit of constructive criticism based on my impressions when I reviewed the proof based mediumship protocol they use. I would like to know if anyone feels that my criticism is valid here, or if you guys feel that it is not. Only people fairly familiar with the institute's research material, protocols, etc, should comment here.

The following is what I said:


I did look at a few of your publications and was impressed. In a previous email, I asked whether your results would ever be published and it seems many have been. Still, I would presume that you have a great amount of unpublished material and I think it would be beneficial for people to be able to include more charts, the readings themselves and the point by point information that was verified, etc. I suspect that trying to go public with your results will be met with a degree of hostility, but I think perseverance is the key. I wish you all at Windbridge nothing but luck.

With that being said, while I was reading on your proof-based experiments, I couldn't help but notice that after the readings are concluded and are sent in for scoring, they are paired with a different reading to be judged "blindly" by the sitter. That is all well and good, but I also read that you pair each reading meant for one sitter to another which is as "different as possible". You give a name to the medium to help them connect -the sitter must know that the individual discarnate's name was given to the medium.

By having something as simple as a name, a medium could potentially infer a few things about the discarnate (gender, age potentially, race, culture, etc). If he/she can guess the gender alone and you were to pair a reading for a woman with a reading intended for, say, a man, then the "blindness" of the protocol would have to be questioned.

I would suggest that pairing very similar readings would be more beneficial than pairing very different ones, as it would encourage people to pick the reading that more closely matches what they know about their discarnate. This wouldn't be an issue if the medium wasn't given a name, as the readings would be completely and totally blinded. Might I suggest a different "link" be given to the mediums than a name? Perhaps numbers could be attributed to each sitter and the mediums could read for the numbers? Maybe some sort of item belonging to the deceased (that wouldn't reveal anything to the medium) could be used to help them "connect"?

Do you, at Windbridge, have a response? Or is my criticism valid here? I would add that I am impressed with your work (I think it is highly important work), but I would like to be sure that your significant results don't have a more normal explanation (and the general scientific population would agree, I suspect). If you pair two very different readings together when a medium has access to even small generalities about the discarnate, then aren't you botching the blindness of the protocol? I would think so, unless you pair the readings in such a way that the generalities given through the use of the name-links are in both of them.

Thank you very much,

With regards in our mutual quest for the truth,

-Alex

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by 429cage

By having something as simple as a name, a medium could potentially infer a few things about the discarnate (gender, age potentially, race, culture, etc).

This has been discussed on various forums. Here are pairs of names used in some trials

Cindy and Joan
Daniel and Larry
Vicki and Eleanor,
Cliff and Harry
Nick and David
Jennifer and Anna
James and Michael
Matthew and Frank
Barbara and Linda
Ron & Brandon

Clearly no ethnic/different country of origin clues .... no obvious age difference related clues with the exception of the last one, however if Brandon was older than Ron there isn't problem either. And perhaps Beischel choose just that (I don't know) ... these names indicate Beischel is aware of the issues involved and she may not have released information on how age clues from names are controlled... for if she did the 'skeptics' would then claim the exact opposite technique was used or the mediums could find out because she had made the exact method of control known. .

If he/she can guess the gender alone and you were to pair a reading for a woman with a reading intended for, say, a man, then the "blindness" of the protocol would have to be questioned.

That is not a problem because you can see from the above names that the genders are the same in the pairs.

I would suggest that pairing very similar readings would be more beneficial than pairing very different ones as it would encourage people to pick the reading that more closely matches what they know about their discarnate.

Beischel's idea is that by contrasting the information the experiment becomes more sensitive to real psi effects ...which still rule out sensory clues by blinding both medium, sitters and experimenters (in their own task) from knowing what is what ..... the only clue given is the first name ...... so as long as cultural difference clues and age clue differences from name cannot be reasonable guessed ... the protocol is tight but more sensitive than of normal design.

It is clear from forum topics on the internet that the skeptics are going to imagine there is something suspicious going on with giving just a first name, even if Beischel controls for it ... the problem with giving the medium nothing, is that the medium may have nothing to tune into and researchers testing a suvival hypothesis (not just an ESP hypothesis) don't know what information a discarnate can obtain (without physical sense organs) if everyone is blinded from what is what. It will be interesting to see where Beischel goes in future research.

Cheers.

[429cage]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

This has been discussed on various forums. Here are pairs of names used in some trials

Cindy and Joan
Daniel and Larry
Vicki and Eleanor,
Cliff and Harry
Nick and David
Jennifer and Anna
James and Michael
Matthew and Frank
Barbara and Linda
Ron & Brandon

Clearly no ethnic/different country of origin clues .... no obvious age difference related clues with the exception of the last one, however if Brandon was older than Ron there isn't problem either. And perhaps Beischel choose just that (I don't know) ... these names indicate Beischel is aware of the issues involved and she may not have released information on how age clues from names are controlled... for if she did the 'skeptics' would then claim the exact opposite technique was used or the mediums could find out because she had made the exact method of control known. .


That is not a problem because you can see from the above names that the genders are the same in the pairs.


Beischel's idea is that by contrasting the information the experiment becomes more sensitive to real psi effects ...which still rule out sensory clues by blinding both medium, sitters and experimenters (in their own task) from knowing what is what ..... the only clue given is the first name ...... so as long as cultural difference clues and age clue differences from name cannot be reasonable guessed ... the protocol is tight but more sensitive than of normal design.

It is clear from forum topics on the internet that the skeptics are going to imagine there is something suspicious going on with giving just a first name, even if Beischel controls for it ... the problem with giving the medium nothing, is that the medium may have nothing to tune into and researchers testing a suvival hypothesis (not just an ESP hypothesis) don't know what information a discarnate can obtain (without physical sense organs) if everyone is blinded from what is what. It will be interesting to see where Beischel goes in future research.

Cheers.

Yes, I think she's brilliant. With what you said there, it seems that she controlled for what I was inferring might account of their "results". If the generalities that can be inferred from what is given to the medium are shielded in both readings, then the sitter is still adequately blinded.

Thanks for responding to my criticism! I do still wish their findings would be published in more detail than they are!

[fls]

Originally Posted by 429cage

I recently emailed the Windbridge Institute asking a few questions and since I have not received a reply yet, I decided it would be beneficial to post what I sent here. I offered a bit of constructive criticism based on my impressions when I reviewed the proof based mediumship protocol they use. I would like to know if anyone feels that my criticism is valid here, or if you guys feel that it is not. Only people fairly familiar with the institute's research material, protocols, etc, should comment here.

To be honest, I don't think I would respond if I received your e-mail - especially with your veiled suggestion of incompetence (which doesn't go away just because you also said that you are impressed with their work). Your criticisms seem to depend upon the extent to which you are unfamiliar with their research protocols, and I don't know why they would care to make you familiar with them. As an academic, I would tend to respond if it looked like there was also something I might get out of the exchange, rather than merely an opportunity for me to lecture someone.

Your criticism is valid in that any opportunity for a medium to produce readings which are distinguishable from each other is an opportunity to make the results unremarkable. Since in the case I think you are referring to the discarnates differed in terms of age/generation, it would be useful to ask the researchers how they established that the mediums couldn't successfully sort any of the name pairs in terms of age/generation (as I haven't seen that information in the published reports - although, I would double-check that before bugging the researchers ).

Linda

[Ian]

Originally Posted by fls

Your criticism is valid in that any opportunity for a medium to produce readings which are distinguishable from each other is an opportunity to make the results unremarkable. Since in the case I think you are referring to the discarnates differed in terms of age/generation, it would be useful to ask the researchers how they established that the mediums couldn't successfully sort any of the name pairs in terms of age/generation (as I haven't seen that information in the published reports - although, I would double-check that before bugging the researchers ).

Linda

Dr. Beischel goes into some detail about the experiment in parts 2 & 3 of this lecture. From memory, I think it answers all of the questions posed by the OP. That lecture is more detailed than the interviews with Alex, but I'd recommend the OP go back to those interviews too.

Also, I note that Dr. Beischel has posted on her blog that she doesn't like receiving criticism from people on "teh interwebs", so I'm not surprised she didn't reply to the email. She seems like a very open & friendly person, but is nevertheless quite prickly when it comes to a subject (experimental design) in which she has strong academic expertise.

Nevertheless I think the point about being able to guess the age of a person from their name might have some merit from a couple of the above examples, although Dr. Beischel does say that they were chosen so as to prevent leakage of age, ethnicity or other details as much as possible -- you'll note, for instance, there are no Arabic or Indian names in there, they're all WASPish names.

The problem is you've got to play by the normal "rules of engagment" for psychic readings to a certain extent (as Dr. Beischel illustrates with her sports metaphor) which requires the experimenter to give something for the psychic to work with. If anyone can suggest a carefully-considered alternative means of getting the psychic "in tune" than first names, that might be worth consideration... but it's a tough ask.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Ian

Also, I note that Dr. Beischel has posted on her blog that she doesn't like receiving criticism from people on "teh interwebs", so I'm not surprised she didn't reply to the email. She seems like a very open & friendly person, but is nevertheless quite prickly when it comes to a subject (experimental design) in which she has strong academic expertise.

Exactly. Engaging with people who are just there to pick a fight or whose criticisms depend upon their lack of knowledge gets old really fast.

The problem is you've got to play by the normal "rules of engagment" for psychic readings to a certain extent (as Dr. Beischel illustrates with her sports metaphor) which requires the experimenter to give something for the psychic to work with. If anyone can suggest a carefully-considered alternative means of getting the psychic "in tune" than first names, that might be worth consideration... but it's a tough ask.

Yeah, I've thought about how to take this into account. Sometimes stuff just comes to you cold, but it makes more sense to have some sort of way to make the right connection. One possibility is that it shouldn't matter if both discarnates have the same name.

Linda

[Ian]

Originally Posted by fls

Yeah, I've thought about how to take this into account. Sometimes stuff just comes to you cold, but it makes more sense to have some sort of way to make the right connection. One possibility is that it shouldn't matter if both discarnates have the same name.

My only thought on this is that maybe the experimenter could derive some mandala or symbol (perhaps alphabetical) based on the name -- derived using a pre-arranged algorithm -- which could provide the link but avoid the connotations that personal names tend to have. "Chaos magicians" like Pete Carroll have devised means for this, though I would eschew their techniques in other circumstances.

[429cage]

Originally Posted by fls

To be honest, I don't think I would respond if I received your e-mail - especially with your veiled suggestion of incompetence (which doesn't go away just because you also said that you are impressed with their work). Your criticisms seem to depend upon the extent to which you are unfamiliar with their research protocols, and I don't know why they would care to make you familiar with them. As an academic, I would tend to respond if it looked like there was also something I might get out of the exchange, rather than merely an opportunity for me to lecture someone.

My veiled suggestion of incompetence? I felt as if it was a very direct question which by no means was suggestive of any person's incompetence. If you notice, at the end of the email I said:

"If you pair two very different readings together when a medium has access to even small generalities about the discarnate, then aren't you botching the blindness of the protocol? I would think so, unless you pair the readings in such a way that the generalities given through the use of the name-links are in both of them."

I am very open minded (and naturally very skeptical) about this subject matter, but, as you said, I was not well acquainted with every aspect of their protocol (potentially due to the lack of clarity in some of Windbridge's published papers). Because of that, I asked for clarification.

As an academic, I'd say that by not bringing clarity to the masses, you are not helping to establish the credibility of the work you're doing. I assumed the Windbridge Institute covered for the potential errors I was suggesting might account for their results, but I didn't know for sure -hence my email.

Don't try to lump me into the category of closed minded people, because I am most certainly not. My interest in the study of the phenomena is what led me to even care to send the email.

Originally Posted by fls

Your criticism is valid in that any opportunity for a medium to produce readings which are distinguishable from each other is an opportunity to make the results unremarkable. Since in the case I think you are referring to the discarnates differed in terms of age/generation, it would be useful to ask the researchers how they established that the mediums couldn't successfully sort any of the name pairs in terms of age/generation (as I haven't seen that information in the published reports - although, I would double-check that before bugging the researchers ).

Linda

I, also being a young academic, spend all the free time I can researching parapsychologically related research material. I looked through the proof based protocol in some depth before sending this, as it didn't seem to elaborate on the areas I alluded might "potentially account for their significant results". I think Beischel is a wonderful researcher -the protocol they've developed is a marked improvement over nearly all the others I've researched (and due to the seemingly significant results they get, I would say they are the most impressive to me). I was just trying to bring up potential errors.

I still cling to the opinion that, while not a major flaw in any way, the use of some other "link" could potentially improve the protocol slightly. Many mediums claim to be able to connect with objects which belonged to the deceased. That could be a better, but more difficult to obtain, link that the mediums could use.

[429cage]

Originally Posted by Ian

Dr. Beischel goes into some detail about the experiment in parts 2 & 3 of this lecture. From memory, I think it answers all of the questions posed by the OP. That lecture is more detailed than the interviews with Alex, but I'd recommend the OP go back to those interviews too.

Also, I note that Dr. Beischel has posted on her blog that she doesn't like receiving criticism from people on "teh interwebs", so I'm not surprised she didn't reply to the email. She seems like a very open & friendly person, but is nevertheless quite prickly when it comes to a subject (experimental design) in which she has strong academic expertise.

Nevertheless I think the point about being able to guess the age of a person from their name might have some merit from a couple of the above examples, although Dr. Beischel does say that they were chosen so as to prevent leakage of age, ethnicity or other details as much as possible -- you'll note, for instance, there are no Arabic or Indian names in there, they're all WASPish names.

The problem is you've got to play by the normal "rules of engagment" for psychic readings to a certain extent (as Dr. Beischel illustrates with her sports metaphor) which requires the experimenter to give something for the psychic to work with. If anyone can suggest a carefully-considered alternative means of getting the psychic "in tune" than first names, that might be worth consideration... but it's a tough ask.

Thank you very much for that link, Ian. And yes, though it would be a "tough task", it might prove beneficial to seek out alternatives -if you're trying to study "how something works", (as Windbridge seems to be attempting to do with mediumship) then exploring it in as much depth as possible is a necessity. What sorts of links are required to help mediums obtain their information? That would be a question worth exploring in depth. It could shed even more light on what it is we're studying and how it works.

[429cage]

Originally Posted by fls

Exactly. Engaging with people who are just there to pick a fight or whose criticisms depend upon their lack of knowledge gets old really fast.



Yeah, I've thought about how to take this into account. Sometimes stuff just comes to you cold, but it makes more sense to have some sort of way to make the right connection. One possibility is that it shouldn't matter if both discarnates have the same name.

Linda

Interesting, but, to clarify, I wasn't trying to "pick a fight" and I have a great deal of knowledge when it comes to these topics. I was simply asking for clarification, as I said. Read my email in it's proper context, please.

I liked that last idea you suggested, by the way.