Selects: How ESP Works (?) | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW

Hey guys, it's Josh and for this week's. select, I've chosen our 2015 episode on. ESP. It's a really good one. We talk. about all sorts of things about ESP, including the science. And I know what. you're thinking. You're thinking, science and ESP. Yes, indeed. And that's one of the things. that makes this episode so cool. So, I. hope you will open your mind, tune in, turn on, drop out, keep on trucking, and. enjoy this episode.

Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a. production of iHeart Radio. >> Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm. Josh Clark. There's Charles W. Chuck. Bryant, and Jerry's over there. I didn't. even have to look. >> Why? >> I just knew. >> Uh, yes. And dudes and dudetss, we are. in our new studio. Yeah. Can you tell? Does it sound different?

>> It's the very first one. And um it's. tiny. >> Wait, what do you mean it's the very. first one? >> Very very first podcast that we've. recorded in here. >> Oh, gotcha. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Uh I was going to say I said tiny, but. it's not tiny. It's cozy, but it is all. uh all ours. >> Yeah. >> All hours. >> Everybody else at House of Works doesn't. really know that yet, but they will. Uh. yeah, because when uh we actually have. butt detection and when someone sits. down in these seats that aren't us, they. get a shock. >> Yeah. And plus an alarm goes off at our.

desks. >> Yeah. What's that called? DMR. >> TMI. >> Oh. Uh how are you, sir? >> I'm pretty good. >> I feel like this is fancy. This is our. first real like studio. That's not true. >> Uh no, I'm trying to remember. The last. one was No, >> but it's not a utility closet. It's not. a lactation room. It's not Yeah. >> It's not a murder room. >> It's not an like an office with like. desk f like office furniture. >> Yeah. >> It's a It's a studio that was built out. for the specific purpose of recording.

podcasts. >> Yep. All we have to do uh is put up our. Aaron Cooper originals, the artwork. >> Got a couple of those waiting to come. >> And uh we got to work on the lighting in. here a little bit. >> Yeah. >> Jerry said she gonna hang some china. balls for us. >> Yeah, she keeps pushing the china balls. >> Um so anyway, enough about that. But we. just wanted to say we're super excited. to be in our new office and our new. studio. >> It does feel good. >> Yeah. >> Kudos. for that intro. >> Yeah.

>> Uh I'm not going to say that. I knew you. were going to say that. >> Yeah, I was going to say that, too. >> I knew that you were thinking of saying. that, Chuck. >> Yes. Uh ESP. >> Do you believe in ESP? >> No. >> No, not at all. >> Do what do you think it is? Because. surely, I mean, just about anyone could. agree that humans have some sort of. ability somehow to make good guesses or. to predict the future, whatever you want.

to call it. Do you agree or do you think. it's strictly just us selectively paying. attention to random instances over. others? I think it's that. >> and Yeah. And as we'll talk about, I. think it's the um. >> just the nature of uh. >> coincidence is going to happen. >> Uhhuh. >> Because so many things happen every day. Uh that something is bound to. seem like something you dreamed about. the night before at some point in your.

life. >> Yeah. >> But the other millions of dreams you. have that don't, >> I think those are the ones that are the. uh the tell. >> I got you. You know, do you. >> I don't know. Like I want to I spent so. many years of my life believing in stuff. like that and wanting to go to to Duke. University to study at their. parasychology department. And. >> did you really. >> believe Yeah. And but you know believing. in ghosts and all this and just that's. how I spent my childhood just reading. about stuff like that voraciously.

>> So Ghostbusters really did a number on. you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. When that came along I was like. sure this this was made for me. Yeah. >> Um, but. as an adult, it's not so much that I. believe in ESP. It's more that I um I. refuse to just utterly disbelieve in the. possibility of it. >> Sure. Okay. >> You know what I mean? >> Yeah, I got you there. Cuz we don't know. everything about everything yet, >> right? >> But uh yeah, I'm in the I'm the other.

camp and I'm not even going to say the. skeptic camp because those people just. bug me. has a bad name. Some for due to. some bad apples. Not all skeptics. >> No. >> But uh there are some that are horses. asses. Can we say that? >> I don't know. >> We'll find out. >> Um all right. Well, let's talk about and. I thought this was interesting because I. never knew that uh ESP is just a big. collective term for all manner of uh. paranormal phenomena, which you could.

also call sigh. >> Yeah. And so a dude named JB Ryan who. we'll talk about later he coined ESP. >> the granddaddy. >> Uhuh. And then in the 40s another guy. coined the term sigh. And sai is the a. Greek letter and it's equated with. psyche or the soul. >> Yeah. PSI. >> And the reason that the guy chose sigh. is because he felt ESP suggested it was. something supernatural. >> Yeah. Sure. >> And sigh he felt suggested that this is. a normal part of humanity. We just don't.

understand it. >> It's It sounds like science, >> right? >> Um, but there are several categories of. ESP. Um, and this is the one I never. knew the actual definitions for these. I. sort of just threw them all in a bag. together. >> Uh, you have telepathy, and that's when. you can, you know, you're over there. reading my thoughts. >> Yes. >> Like Chuck is really not happy to be in. the new studio. >> That's not true. >> He'd rather be at home on the couch. >> I'm reading your thoughts right now, and. I know that you like this place. >> Okay. Well, you're you're a telepath,

>> right? >> Uh clairvoyance, which is the ability to. see events or things, objects happening. somewhere else at the same time. >> So, are you doing are you clairvoyant? >> I am. I'm seeing your couch right now. and I'm seeing it's not that comfy. Yeah. >> So, you're not missing that much at the. moment. >> I know somewhere Jonathan Strickland is. waxing his head, his bald head. >> That's just a logical assumption. >> Okay. Uh then we have our precogs. Precognition. That's when you see into. the future. >> Uh retrocogs, retro cognition, you can.

see into the distant past. >> That's there's another um that's a. widely accepted definition of. retrocognition. Yeah. >> Like seeing, you know, a cave like tuk. tuk running around with the dinosaurs. like you do, >> which I guess never would have happened. >> Yeah. >> Um but there's another term for retro. cognition whereas. >> something in the future affects. something in the past. So a decision you. make in the future. >> Yeah. >> Affects your past. And an example given. is that um.

>> you have a dream about a dinosaur. >> Okay. >> Now let's say a spotted dog. >> Okay. >> And then the first thing the next. morning you go outside to water your. lawn and the same spotted dog or a. similar spotted dog walks by. The idea. isn't that that was very coincidental or. that you had ESP in your dreams. Yeah. But that you seeing that dog in the. morning affected your dream the night. before. >> Oh, okay. >> So, that's another definition that's. emerging for retrocognition that's. getting a lot of traction because of the.

stuff we're finding on the quantum. scale. >> Huh. >> Just weirdness like that. >> All right. Then you have your mediumship. and that's um uh Miss Cleo who can. channel dead spirits. >> Yeah, I forgot about her. >> And then you have. >> I wonder how much money that woman. grossed in the 90s. >> She made a lot of dough. >> I hope so. Yeah. >> I mean, she was working hard. She had a. a a finite window of opportunity and she. worked that whole time. >> She didn't like buy a sailboat and sail. around the world after like her first.

million, you know, like she worked. >> So, you're not in the camp of like she's. taking people's money and taking. advantage of people. >> Uh I see that argument. >> Sure. >> For sure. I also see like if people want. to spend their money on that and they. get something out of it, knock yourself. out. >> All right. Uh and then you have uh. psychometry which is the ability to read. info about a person place uh by touching. the uh person or object. And that's uh. what I like to call the dead zone, >> right? >> Christopher Walkin. He would place his.

hands on you and he would see something. >> Man, I think we talked about it recently. about how that movie holds up still. >> Yeah, >> that is such a good movie. >> Yeah, it really is good. Chris Walkin. >> There's another one, Chuck, um, called. telekinesis, which is like. Yuri Geller stroking a spoon and it. bending, >> right? >> Like a being able to manipulate matter. just using a light touch or your mind, >> but there is no spoon.

>> Yeah. Wasn't that from Matrix? >> Yeah. >> Um, all right. So basically uh like you. said JB Ryan is the the granddaddy of. all this and he actually started. studying I mean he was a legitimate. scientist he wasn't some quack and uh. this was in the 1930s where he started. at Duke University studying. parasychology. basically. >> and he wasn't the first he was one of. the first um laboratory. experimenters in academia to really.

study sigh right before him probably. about 40 or So years before him, William. James and some of his pals at the. Society for Psychical Research. Oh, right. >> Um really laid the groundwork for. applying the scientific method to the. study of paranormal phenomenon. Yeah. And they did two things. They outed. frauds like fraudulent mediums like very. famously Madam Levartski. >> Oh yeah. >> But then they also investigated ones. like they approached them typically with.

like an open mind. >> Yeah. Um, and if they found somebody. that they just couldn't explain, they. would they studied them. So they were. they were studying each one with an open. mind and the ones they figured out were. frauds, they outed as frauds. The ones. they figured out or couldn't quite. explain. Yeah. >> They sought to investigate. scientifically rather than just saying, "Oh, they're fraud somehow.". >> Right. >> So that was the groundwork of the study. of Sai. >> What was uh Madame Blloartski's deal of. the Coney Islandski?

who was um she actually she was almost a. cult leader. You could argue she was she. um. >> she created um oh man it's called like. theodism I think. >> which is um. >> it was it was almost a cult. There was a. huge um movement in the 19th century. where like you go to like a seance and. there was a medium there and they would. channel like the spirits of the dead. relatives of people who were there. holding hands in the circle and stuff.

like that. And she gained a lot of power. and wealth and prestige until she was. outed as as a fraud. And I don't. remember the the um it's theosophy. that's what it is not the theoism. Theoism has to do with Theo Hux ball. >> Uh, did you see the Source Family, by. the way, that documentary? >> No, I haven't. >> About the LA cult in the 70s. >> I saw the the Icon on Netflix and never. clicked. Is it good? >> It's really good and it's it's it's. awesome, actually. Uh, I recommend.

everyone see it. It's one of those where. like they interview a lot of them today. and. >> it they weren't like, you know, they. didn't commit suicide. Like everyone was. like, "It was pretty great.". >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, they're all fine. They're. all just a bunch of hippies still. >> They were out in LA. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right in Hollywood. >> There was one in um there was a. documentary I saw about a a cult in. Miami. >> Uhhuh. >> And they were like super fundamentalist. Christian. >> Yeah. >> But they also were um the basis of their.

religion was was formed on pot, too. >> Well, that's what the Source family was. >> I wonder if they were related. >> Well, it was the ' 70s. Yeah, >> there were a lot of pot cults, I bet. But did they turn into like huge pot. dealers? >> No, I don't think so. >> This cult did. >> They had a band though and the the. >> called the source. >> You know, I can't remember the name of. the band, but it's pretty interesting to. listen. >> Manhattan transfer. >> Yeah, that was it. >> It's a really good documentary though. It's just funny to see all these people. now. They're like, "It was awesome.". >> Yeah. >> Had a lot of sex and smoked a lot of.

weed. >> Yeah, that's kind of what got hurt too. They these guys didn't seem to have a. lot of sex though. They were like real. like um compartmentalized gender-wise. and like male dominance and all that, but they just smoked a ton of pot all. the time, including their little kids. >> Oh, well, that's not good. >> Like like four-year-olds smoking pot. >> Oh, that's terrible. >> Yeah, it was in the documentary. It's. worth seeing. I don't remember what it. >> You had me up. You lost me there. >> I lost everybody there in that. documentary. >> Yeah. Um All right. So, back to this ESP.

thing. Um. >> JB Ry. >> Yeah, JB Ryan. Well, basically there's a. there's a lot of different outlooks on. what ESP might be. Um, some people think. that everyone's got it, but some people. um it just pops up every now and then. Um, like I might have a dream that comes. true or whatever. Uh, other people think. that only certain people have it. They. have this the gift as they say, right? >> Uh, and that they have to be in this. special like, you know, mental state to. access it.

>> The shinnen. >> Yeah. The shinning. And then other folks. say that everyone has that potential, but um some people are just like in tune. with it and some people aren't. >> Right. And you fall in the none of those. three camps. >> Yes. >> Um so we'll talk a little more about um. some ideas of what ESP is right after. this. [Music].

So, Chuck, um, you said that there. basically how people see ESP is either. everyone has it, some people have it, or. no one has it basically. >> Uh, whether you're a skeptic or a. believer, >> right? Um if you are a believer in ESP. and somebody comes to you and says okay.

explain ESP like what is it. >> right? >> There's actually a couple of um very. common suggestions or proposals. >> Yeah. >> One made sense for a while before we. knew a little more about the brain. Um. and that was that ESP was some form or. fashion of the electromagnetic spectrum. >> Yeah. that we were receiving information. from outside of our usual senses. >> Yeah. And like you said, it it fell out.

of favor because um basically it didn't. explain anything about how it moves. through time or there it didn't pick up. on spe some special part of your brain. that like receives this message. >> And there was a um did you see that. study I sent you that was I think from. 2010 where they put people in an MRI and. then showed them. um different pictures or whatever. >> Uh and they did they showed like they I. put you in the wonder machine. Okay.

>> And now I'm showing you a picture of the. flower and that's it. >> Okay. It's lovely except it sounds like. a German uh rave. >> Okay. A little bit. Um but that would be. uh the non-ESP stimuli, the control. group. >> Yeah. to test ESP and to see if the. brain reacted differently. And then to. see if there was a part of the brain. that's picking up on ESP, >> I would show you the flower. And then in. the other room, I would also show Emily. that flower. >> and have her think about it. Yeah.

>> And send you the thought of that flower. So you're getting ESP stimuli and then. non-ESP stimuli. And from the MRI, they. showed that the brain didn't react. differently. >> Gotcha. So, it suggests that there isn't. a sensory organ or region of the brain. that's responsible for picking up ESP, which doesn't debunk the possibility of. ESP. It just undermines the idea that. there's a region of our brain that would. be responsible for picking that up. >> Plus, if Emily's over there, I'm I'm my.

first guess is going to be dog. >> every time. >> and it's flower and then. >> Well, it wasn't about guessing. It was. just to see like showing you ES the ESP. version, right? And then the non-ESP. version of the same thing. So, you. weren't guessing. Do you understand? >> Yeah, I get it now. I would have guessed. dog or wine. >> There wasn't guessing. >> I still would have guessed. >> Emily thinks she has the gift a little. bit, so she would have been. disappointed. >> She's got the shin. >> Yeah, a little. She thinks. >> Yeah, >> but I I think she's just super uh.

observant and intuitive. >> Well, that's definitely one explanation. for it. >> Yeah, which we'll get to, of course. Um, so these days there are other theories. Uh one of which is that uh it's called. spillover. That there's basically. another dimension that we that doesn't. you know have our laws here and our. dimension. >> and that sometimes stuff just sort of. spills over from that. >> and we see uh the future or the past. >> Yeah. And if you're a skeptic, you. probably just pulled a decent sized.

clump of your hair out of the side of. your head at that one. >> Yeah. Because this is something you. can't prove obviously. It's like. completely um and of course they'll say. exactly. >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Yeah. And I think I got the impression. from this article that um they were. making that point like science is just. chasing its tail and trying to explain. ESP because it's not currently capable. Yeah. And science goes doesn't work like. that. >> Yeah. you know, um, at least with the.

electromagnetic spectrum explanation. there, there it was pointing to. something that we already know exists, right? It's just that there there's no. way to show that we would be getting how. we would be getting information from it. because that electromagnetic. explanation, >> yeah, >> it it basically says. >> if you compare it to other findings from. ESP, it makes even less sense, >> right? Because with ESP, one of the. hallmarks of it is that no matter.

whether you're out there outside of the. studio thinking about wine or a dog or. something and I'm picking up on it or if. you're in China and I'm here and we're. doing the same thing, the the signal. doesn't weaken at all. >> Yeah. And that just flies in the face of. all we know about electromagnetic waves. >> Exactly. >> No good. >> Right. So, there's a lot of things wrong. with the proposals of what ESP is. Uh. yeah, but you know the reason why still. people still believe in this stuff is.

because of either hearing a story about. their friend who said, you know, listen. to this crazy thing happen, right? Or. experiencing it themselves in some way. or another, having a dream that. something similar happened and all of a. sudden you're like, I might have the. gift. >> Exactly. >> Or it popped up in me, you know, briefly. at least. And there's a I mean there's a. lot of um evidence of. strange and unusual. occurrences. >> Sure. >> That support the idea of ESP. >> Yeah. >> Um this article gives a really good one.

about um an 1898 book called Futility. >> Yeah. >> That was written by a guy named Morgan. Robertson. Right. >> And in it the guy details this book or. this boat called the Titan. >> A ship. >> Yeah. A ship. >> The boat. >> A big old boat. Yeah. >> Um, which is sailing across the Atlantic. and hits an iceberg at night and sinks. and a bunch of people die because they. weren't enough lifeboats. >> Yeah. >> This is 1898. And if that sounds. familiar, the Titanic did the same exact.

thing. The Titanic, not the Titan. >> Yeah. >> Did the same exact thing 14 years later. >> Yeah. Uh, if there there are a bunch of. similarities. Um, the Titan struck an. iceberg in the book on the starboard. side on an April night in the North. Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland. And the real Titanic struck an iceberg. on the starboard side in April in the. North Atlantic off the coast of Newf. Finland. >> on the starless night. >> I don't know about that. >> Okay. >> Uh, they were both said to be. unsinkable. Um, more than half of the.

passengers of the Titanic uh, perished. and more than half of the passengers and. crew on the Titan perished. So, there's. all these things in there, but you do a. little more digging and you find out. that Robertson was uh he was a seaman. and he knew a bunch of this stuff. And. it's not unreasonable to think at the. time they wanted to build the biggest. ships and the word Titan would be a. great name back then for a super big. ship, right? >> And that sailing route uh was a common.

one and there were icebergs and April. might have been a common month for that. kind of. >> uh voyage. So all of it can be explained. away kind of um but it is definitely. something you look at and go. interesting. >> It is interesting and it's an amazing. coincidence and it focuses the uh. attention and captures the imagination. Um but then yeah once you hear about. Robertson's background it becomes. slightly less impressive. So then kind. of to o over the years that little. kernel got erased and added to it was.

that this idea for this book came to him. in a trance which bolsters the ESP. thing. >> Yeah. Is that true or is that just been. added? Uh. >> I'm sure it was added over the years. Okay. Which is a big problem with this. kind of anecdotal evidence is that you. know it gets embellished and urban. legis. Yeah. Exactly. And uh it's just. it's not enough that this is a really. interesting unique. >> right. >> circumstance or coincidence or whatever. There has to be this extra layer of.

proof like it came to him in a trance. >> Come on. >> Yeah. >> Um so back to Ryan, he did some um like. I said in the 1930s he started studying. this stuff uh with one of my favorite. inventions um by his colleague Carl. Zenner. Uh, of course, if you've seen. Ghostbusters, he was using. >> he was using a a version of Zenner. cards. Um, the shapes weren't all exact. I think there was one that was different. um in Ghostbusters. But the original.

Zenner cards. >> were uh it was a deck of 25 plain white. cards with um each of them had one of. five symbols. uh a circle, a plus sign, a square, a star, five-ointed star, and. the three uh wavy lines. >> Mhm. Like water, a river. >> Is that what that is? >> Maybe. >> Okay. And the idea is that just like in. Ghostbusters, you hold it up and um ask. the, you know, not showing them the. card, uh obviously not the symbol, and. say, "What do you see?" And they say.

what they see, and then you record after. the deck how many they got. Right. >> Right. But the person holding the card. is supposed to be thinking about what. they're seeing. >> Sure. >> So that the other person, the target, the receiver can um pick it up. >> tele telepathically. >> Yeah. And I did, they have these online. I took the test yesterday. >> Um and I went through the 25 deck and I. only got six out of 25 and at the end it. just said, "You are not a psychic.". >> Oh, really?

>> Yeah. I thought it was kind of funny. >> Statistically speaking, for just one. trial, Yeah. That is more than chance. You did better than chance. So maybe you. do have a touch. >> Six of What? What would chance be? I. guess. >> chance would be if there's five. different ones. >> It' be 20%. >> Uhhuh. >> And so this was six of 24 would be uh. is that 25%. >> No, that's. >> No, no, no, no, that's less. >> Yeah. No, you did six of 24. You did 24. or 25? >> 25. >> So five of 25 would be chance.

>> Okay. So I got one more. >> Yeah. Well, and I think like three of. the first eight or so or six I got and I. was like, I've got the gift, but I. didn't know like it's randomly generated. and so it's not like someone was on the. other side thinking of that card. So, I. literally I was like, what do I do? I. was like, I'm just guessing. So, that. brings up some interesting stuff. Like. there's there's um evidence that when a. machine is involved, yeah, that there is.

no telepathy. there would only be. clairvoyance, right? >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, if if if telepathy is you. picking up what's in someone else's mind. and a computer is mindless, then you. shouldn't be able what you were saying. Like, you should it shouldn't you should. not be able to know what Zenner card. it's going to pick next, right? But. there have been investigations using. computers and using machines that show. above chance. Yeah. That there is some. sort of weird interaction.

>> like a random number generators. >> Yes. Yeah. >> So Princeton University has a department. called the Princeton Engineering. Anomalies Research Department. PIA. Right. >> Of course. >> And PIA has been doing studies for a. couple of decades. They've done millions. of trials. Yeah. And basically they'll. say this is a random number generator or. this this machine operates randomly or. whatever. We want you to think of a. number and we want to see if you can. influence the numbers that this computer. spits out. >> Oh, so you're thinking of the number.

then the you're Okay, that makes sense. >> Like the human is trying to affect the. the output the behavior of the computer. Of course, if you're sitting across the. room or in another room thinking about a. number that a random generator should. put out, it should have zero effect. whatsoever. >> It's a computer. >> The weird thing is is what Princeton has. found is that yes, over enough trials, you there is a slight, very slight but. measurable effect that human thought has.

on a random number generator. >> Come on. It's it's on Princeton's. website and this is stuff that like is. apparently accepted in the in the. scientific community that the the the um. trials that they are running are so. widespread and so repeatable and have. been done so many times that the data. that they're coming up with is is. it's significant. Well, Ryan with his. Zercard experiments in the 30s did find. that some people um got what they.

thought were pretty impressive results. Like, you know, a few I can't remember. their names, but. >> Hubert Pierce, >> was he one of them? >> He was the one. >> Well, how many What was his percentage? >> He had one where he got um Remember how. you got three in a row and you were. like, "Oh my god." Yeah. >> He got 25 in a row once. >> What? >> 25? >> Come on. >> No, I'm not kidding. Uh he was also. documented as selecting 558 correct out. of 1850. which is the odds of that happening by. chance were 22 billion to one.

>> Now were these the early experiments. because Okay, cuz I I did read that um. and this seems like I can't believe he. didn't check this but uh apparently the. early cards were a little translucent. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah, some of them were. And then he. corrected for that and the and the uh. percentages went down. And then they um. I know other uh scientists said that you. are somehow influencing with your body. tell, >> right? >> Like you basically you don't have a good.

enough poker face. >> Yeah. In the earliest um Ryan. experiments with Zenner cards, he would. hold the card up and he'd be making eye. contact, >> right? The guy Yeah. The guesser would. be like, "Is it the wavy line?" Yeah, he. starts shaking his head just almost. imperceptively. Um, but he uh. >> he that's called sensory leakage where. you the person who is um holding the. card and knows what the card is. Somehow. there's some detail about your face that.

when you do a thousand trials with. somebody, they start to pick up on and. it affects their guess. It influences. their guess. So to to um correct for. that to control for that. >> a sensory leakage. >> Gross. >> Isn't that gross? Yeah. >> Um they they came up with something. called the Gansfield experiment. >> Ah yes German Gansfeld. >> Um that means whole field in uh German. and that is when they started putting. people um they would start depriving.

their other senses basically right. Uh. they would be in a like a a dimly lit uh. room with red lighting and they would. have white noise and they would have. their eyes covered with these uh special. glasses. >> or ping pong balls cut in half like. Kermit the Frog. >> I guess later on they said we should. just make some glasses. >> Exactly. We've got the funding. >> So basically the idea was let's rule out. any uh any of that gross sensory. leakage. >> Right. Which smells.

Um, so yeah, apparently later on in. Ryan's experiments, um, after he started. controlling for stuff, the percentages. started to drop. >> Yeah. >> Of correct guesses. >> Sad. >> Um, he's he was also he's generally a. respected researcher. >> for a couple of reasons. One, whenever. he did whenever evidence of like um some. sort of bias or fraud or something was. brought to him, he corrected for it.

Yeah, he wore glasses and a white coat, >> right? That was another one. Um, but. also he was daring enough to stake his. entire career on. a a field of study. Yeah. >> That will get anybody mocked. >> Yeah. Sure. >> Publicly, privately, um, can really shut. down a lot of opportunities for you. This guy and his wife Louisa Ryan both. dedicated their careers to establishing. the field of parasychology and really.

studying it rather than just walking. away from it. >> Yeah. I don't think he was like I really. want to prove this is uh true. Was he? >> Uh yes he did. >> Oh. >> that was a that was a huge criticism of. him. He wanted to believe that. >> he was a definite believer. Okay. Um he. was quoted by I don't know what the. guy's deal was but one day he was. visited by one person and the. interviewer who went on to write a a a. paper I think in Scientific American to. expose him. >> Yeah.

>> He said he kept a file of people of the. results of tests where um people he. suspected were purposefully getting. things wrong because they didn't like. him. >> to mess with his data. Yeah, >> he just took those and never published. them. He didn't include them in the. >> the results, which would definitely. affect the number of correct hits, right? >> Um that was a huge criticism. That's not. good science at all. No, >> but he was definitely a believer, which. was another criticism of But he was.

daring and he did um there was another. story where it's called the Levy affair. where a guy named Levy who was an. electrical engineer working in the lab. >> Yeah. uh unplugged. uh I guess a sensor that would correct. negative hits for a little while during. a trial. >> Yeah. >> So that all that were recorded for a. little bit were positive hits. >> Um and so and then he plugged it back. in. Well, this one guy saw what the guy. was doing and went to Ryan and Ryan went. to the guy Levy and said, "Did you do.

this?" And Levy said, "Yes." He's like, "You're fired." And just like threw the. results away and all that. So he he. wasn't like he was a true believer, but. he wasn't just some like outright fraud. >> Right. Right. >> But he was and still is under the. microscope as much as probably any. researcher in all of academia ever has. been. >> All right. Well, right after this uh. break, we'll talk a little bit about. what skeptics say about ESB. [Music].

All. right, Josh. One thing you'll hear. skeptics say a lot is uh extraordinary. claims require extraordinary evidence. >> Yeah. >> And I have to agree with them. >> Yeah. >> And uh it is an extraordinary claim. here. And um so far there hasn't been um. extraordinary evidence. And one of the. things I pointed to earlier that I think. is what's going on. And if you look at.

statistics, >> you look at six billion people on planet. Earth, >> uh, and them thinking a gazillion things. each day, and that is scientific, by the. way, >> gazillion. >> Um, at some point somebody is going to. think something that it mirrors uh, something that happens in the near. future. Uh, and it's just chance and. coincidence. >> I have a great example of that, man. >> Okay. >> It happened this very morning. >> What? >> Yeah, it did. Um, I was at the printer, you know, we just moved offices and I.

was at the printer and I had like an. extra piece of paper that I didn't need. and I realized like we have no paper. recycling here. So on my way back. >> not yet. That is to everyone out there. It's like what kind of office would not. have recycled, >> right? We just said we have a we have a. a 55gallon drum that we throw stuff into. that's it catches on fire. >> Yeah. And then we send it out to. >> We have a burning drum. That's what it's. called. >> No, we're getting those soon. >> Um Right. And we are getting them soon. I know this because on my way back to my. desk, I popped into Izzy, the IT guy. who's also the head of all recycling and.

stuff here. Sure. >> I was like, Izzy, we need a a paper. recycling bins by the printer. >> And he goes, I'm writing an email right. now to everybody about that very thing. >> You almost did your Izzy impression. >> Yeah, it was close. Um, and so like I. thought about it, that's pretty amazing. Yeah. you know, but it was about 9 in. the morning and this is a companywide. email, so it' be something that Izzy. would probably knock out about that. time. >> Yeah.

>> The reason I was thinking of is because. I was just at the printer. >> Yeah. >> We just moved into this office and we. didn't have bins yet, so it was still a. potential thing for somebody to be. thinking about or doing or writing an. email about. >> Yeah. >> Um and so there's all these different. really overlooked variables or factors. to this whole thing that that you don't. think of. instead it just seems like an. amazing coincidence or ESP. >> Right. >> To me, the really significant thing was. that I happened to be researching ESP. while this happened,

>> right? >> That's what really kind of stood out to. me. >> Yeah. But if you really kind of look at. it, like there's a finite amount of. things that people could think about in. any given day, in any given context in. an office or something like that. Like. had I been a goat at a petting zoo and I. went over and um talked to the cow and. the cow was writing the email about. recycling bins, >> maybe. >> But we're in an office. I'm talking to. the guy about recycling bins. There's. just a lot of stuff that you kind of.

once you take that into account, it. becomes less amazing. Like like the the. guy writing the Titan Titanic book. >> Yeah. You know what used to happen to me. now that I think of it is um I used to. and this it's weird. It was only with. phone landlines. It hadn't happened with. the cell phone, >> but I used to. >> like know the phone was going to ring. right before it rang. Oh yeah. >> Like almost go to reach for it. >> Um. >> and it I mean it's not like it happened. all the time, but it happened enough. times where I was like, "Huh, that's. weird." Sure, I know what you're talking. about. >> But I and that was all it was to me. I.

was not like I have the gift. >> But think about it in in that respect. too. You know. 15 20 people. So was it you knew who was. calling or just that the phone was about. to ring? >> No, just that it was about to ring. >> No. Yeah, that is weird. You definitely. do have ESP. >> Yeah. Um or maybe I don't know. Maybe the. phone made a little tick noise right. before it rang that I didn't pick up on. Yeah. But only subconsciously, you know, >> well, that's another explanation for it.

That um right that um there is. subliminal stuff in the environment that. is just too weak in nature for us to. pick up on consciously, but our. unconscious does or subconscious does, which frankly opens up a whole other can. of worms, you know, uh as far as, you. know, how real is that kind of thing. there. But probably a little closer to. reality is the idea that um our. attention isn't focused on everything.

that we're picking up at all times. Like. like I see your beard and I see your. shirt and everything, but I'm still also. picking up like sensory information from. like Jerry's computer that I can see in. my peripheral vision or whatever. My. attention isn't focused on it, but my. brain is still receiving information. So. the idea that our brains can put it. together, all this information that. we're not aware consciously that we're. receiving. >> Yeah. Um, but we're still getting. impressions from it. That's that that. could be a great explanation for ESP as. well. >> Yeah. And you know what? Now that I.

think about it, the fact that it's never. happened with my cell phone sort of. makes sense because maybe there it was a. mechanical function, a a landline ring. >> Yeah. Like you said, a click or a tick, but I think you meant like a click. >> And it wasn't even the the newer model. This was back in the day when it was. like Yeah. a ringing like bell. >> Sure. >> So maybe that does explain it. Yeah. I've got another good example that I. came across in researching this. Um. let's say that you and I are hanging. out. >> Yeah. >> And you're humming uh Baby, I'm a.

firework, right? Just over and over again. >> I don't know that song, >> but I'm reading uh Yes, you do. >> No, I don't. >> Yeah, you do. >> Who is it? >> Katy Perry. >> I don't know Katy Perry. >> Anyway, um. >> although I will have to say I did love. that halftime show. >> It was great. >> Well, it was it was hysterical. What's. up with the sharks being a meme now? I. didn't think they were really. significant. >> She looked like she worked at Corn Dog. on a stick. >> I don't know what that is. I thought all. corn dogs were on sticks. >> No, it's that place in the or hot dog on.

a stick called that place in the mall. where they wore those. >> big giant uh pin wheels. >> No, I don't know anything about Katy. Perry, but it was the funniest most like. the crazy just kept coming and coming. and coming and I was like, "This is the. best thing I've ever seen." So anyway, in this universe, you're well aware of. Katy Perry and her song Firework and. you're humming it to yourself, but I'm. sitting there reading uh The New Yorker. Yes. And I'm engrossed in it and not I. don't notice that you get up to go make. some nachos and you come back in and you.

catch my attention because you're you're. coming back in with some nachos and they. smell awesome. >> and now my attention is directed to you. and you're still humming firework. Right. >> Right. >> And I'm like I was just thinking about. that song Firework. I had that in my. head. How crazy. We must be connected. I. didn't realize that you had been humming. it earlier and beneath my awareness. I I. picked it up. >> Although once I became aware that you. were humming it, it seemed to me like I. had ESP.

>> Well, yeah. And that ties into another. explanation is that people who do seem. to have that gift are just really, really hyper observant on minute. details. Like the same people that can. pick up on micro expressions. um they. might feel like they have the gift. because they're just really in tune. >> to what's going on around them and not. just a you know like a big lunkhead. walking around. >> So a lot of people who believe in ESP. say yes we agree with that especially. parasychology researchers and there are.

still plenty of respected ones out. there. There's a guy named um Daryl Bem. >> Yeah, I saw that thing you sent. He he's. been doing this for a while now. Yeah, legitimately. >> we should talk about him. there to to. button up that point. There is um a lot. of parasychologists or even just plain. old psychologists who are researching. ESP. Yeah. >> Um who say yes that definitely most. likely accounts for almost all of it, right? >> And that's good for us to be thinking. about that and that in and of itself.

deserves like academic inquiry and. research, right? But there are still. some experience experiments that are. being produced by guys like Daryl Bem. that um are showing some weird results. that go beyond this kind of explanation. >> Yeah. And and one of the pro well we'll. talk about the problems with even this. research um about it being reproducible. in a second. But he did a couple of. experiment this is from NPR. Um a couple. >> Yeah. Crowitch wrote this. >> Oh really? >> Yeah. From from radio lab.

>> Nice. I didn't know that. Um these are. the two that he pointed out. He did nine. different experiments but um the two. that he highlighted was uh at Cornell. which is where BIM is a uh is does his. work. Right. >> Yeah. And he's again a very respected. psychologist. That's right. And this. study that of these experiments was. published in the journal of personality. and social psychology which is a. respected journal. >> Yeah. >> Um so they the first one was a computer. quiz. They took a 100 students, 50 males.

and 50 women, and um basically they. showed a computer screen with two little. curtains on it side by side and said, "Behind one is nothing, a brick wall, and behind the other is something sexy.". >> Yeah. >> Some kind of, you know, I was about to. call it pornographic, but who knows? Maybe it's art. >> Nakedness. >> Eroticism. >> Eroticism. >> Yeah. >> Gross. Um, >> would that just make you feel like your.

dad's saying it or something? >> Yeah. Well, this room's too small for. you to see those kind of things. Um, so. basically he would say, "You tell me um. what what you think you're going to. see." And they were all hooked up to uh. to machines to read the, you know, their. what's going on in their body, of. course, >> right? And um you would think it would. be a 50/50 result, but they actually got. a 53.1%. result for the what uh Crowitch calls. erotic stimuli, right? Um,

and basically they. they think or at least that's what BIM. thinks is that one possibility is that. if there is if they think they're going. to see something erotically stimulating. then um it got passed back through time. >> Yeah, that's kind of his position is. that retrocognition thing. >> Yeah. that they somehow their future. selves who saw the erotic image was. stimulated enough that that stimulation. traveled backwards 3 seconds and.

influenced their choice. >> because they would they would be. slightly stimulated physiologically. right before they guessed. >> And he said before the computer even. chose which which one to show, >> right? they right they were making their. choices often correct um before the. computer chose to show an erotic or. non-erotic image and 53% it doesn't. sound like much but Crowitch points out. a couple of things one that um when the. there was a control group that was shown. just non-erotic pictures yeah they did.

49.8% 8% correct, which is chance 50/50. >> And they were all not happy, >> right? >> They were like, I don't want to be the. control. >> They're like, can we get a little. steamier in here? Um, but and he he also. pointed out that 53% 53.1 to be. specific. Doesn't sound like much, but. um. apparently that's a 2% chance. where on a scale of between zero and.

one. >> Yeah. where zero is it's not going to. happen and and one is that it's. definitely going to happen. >> Yeah. >> And apparently as far as um correlation. goes or links between two things, something affecting another, a point two. is about the same as the link between. aspirin and heart attack prevention. Um. the link between calcium intake and bone. mass, the link between secondhand smoke. and lung cancer. >> So things that are touted is like uh pay. attention to this Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

Exactly. So, so stuff that we accept is. like Yeah. Yeah. If you're around. secondhand smoke, you you can get cancer. from that. This is probably the same. Exactly. Yeah. >> It is. And um later on a metaanalysis of. Bem's experiments, some other. experiments that were carried out. afterward, and then some other. experiments all grouped together. A. metaanalysis showed that um they they. weren't. it wasn't statistically significant if. you took all of the existing body of.

literature of these experiments, >> right? >> But it was a new scientist article and. um it it was pretty cool in the comment. section. Somebody said, "Yeah, it's not. reproducible, but a lot of science isn't. reproducable." And it reminded me of our. scientific method episode. Yeah. where. like apparently a lot of um trials that. that like pharmaceuticals are based on. aren't reproducible. Wasn't it like 50%. of them or something like that? >> Which didn't surprise me of course. >> Yeah.

>> All right. And then there was this other. experiment that I need you to explain to. me because I didn't understand it. >> Okay. You ready? >> Like I got the first part but I didn't I. didn't it didn't make sense to me. >> because it's a little mind-blowing. >> Yeah. >> So you know how like if you are studying. something. >> Sure. >> and you write it down. >> Yes. Yes. It gets in your brain a little. more. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So that when you're tested on it later, >> uh you will recall it more easily. >> Yeah. That's a common study method. Write something down. >> Okay. So Bem carried out a very simple. experiment that did the opposite of.

that. First he showed some people a. bunch of a bunch of words. 48 random. words. I think nouns like tree or. something like that. >> Yeah. And he he told them to visualize. it though. Right. >> Right. So they saw all 48 words and. thought about them. >> Not visualize the letters but visualize. the thing. Right. >> Like see the tree in your head. >> Just just to kind of try to to memorize. all 48 words. >> Yeah. >> Then the computer randomly selected 24. of those words. Okay. And then after. they' done that, >> Bem gave them a test.

>> of recall to see how many they recalled. Right. >> Yes. >> So the people had to type out the the um. the words they recalled. >> Yeah. Then after that, the computer. randomly selected 24 of the 48 words for. the people to type after they'd already. taken the test of recall. >> Yeah. >> And those 24 words are the ones that. people more consistently got right on. the earlier test. >> Oh, okay. >> So, it's it's another example of that.

retrocognition that these people getting. the words in their heads after the test. somehow went backward. Yeah. >> And influence their recall and memory. >> Gotcha. >> For the test that they took before they. learn them. >> That makes more sense. >> A little. >> Yeah, it is a little. But see, time. travel melts my brain, too. >> Right. So, this guy published this stuff. in like 2010. Yeah. And like it was it. made a huge huge splash, huge criticism. The the academic journal was criticized.

and Ben was, you know, pillaried and all. that. But he still, you know, put out. these these very reproducible, understandable, simple exercises that. still showed statistically speaking. there were some significant results that. went beyond chance. >> So when it comes to debunking um ESP, one thing that you're not going to, you. know, you said fraud, you're not going. to see a lot of people call researchers. outright frauds because that's just sort.

of a dangerous thing to say. >> Sure. >> It's not nice. Um, but there are people. out there who I guess are criticized. for, you know, basically trying to call. out um, and this is something completely. different, but these these onstage. psychic shows. >> like crossing over with John Edwards. >> Yeah. Like it's easy to pick those. people out and say you're a big fraud. and this is not true, of course, and all. you're doing is cold reading. Uh, cold. reading we talked about in the animal. um, pet psychics episode, >> right? Mhm.

>> That's basically when you get up on. stage and you say, "Sir, I'm sensing um. someone there. You're having some. trouble with with a of another man in. your life. Uh with a name of of J or or. is it H or O? >> Maybe P. >> or maybe it's P. Yes, P. My my boss uh. >> Peter. >> Yes. Yes. Exactly. And that's all a cold. reading is is throwing out these really. broad things that anyone can latch on. to, right? >> So, it's really easy to call uh those. people out. And there's a guy um sort of.

a guy famous for doing that. His name is. um James Randy. And he's famous for his. offer of $1 million, >> right, >> to anyone that can prove their psychic. ability, which of course no one stepped. up to do that. But then he gets poo. pooed a little bit like you're just. making a mockery of trying to. legitimately disprove something. >> And mockery is absolutely the right. word. >> Yeah. And to me, the presence of mockery. indicates the absence of objectivity. >> Yeah.

>> Right. So like what you're dealing with. then with a guy like that is uh a set of. beliefs, a belief system running up. against another belief system, >> right? >> Just like a couple of religions or. something like that. It's not. objectivity against fraud or anything. like that. It's belief against belief or. something. Yeah. Um and and yeah, the. idea of lumping together John Edwards. with Daryl Bem. >> Yeah. >> is just that's you know fraudulent in. and of itself. >> Yeah. That's just they call that.

theatrics just like the onstage. theatrics of a a stage psychic. >> Yeah. So um. >> and I believe I totally agree. >> Yeah. You know. >> I I do too. I think there's a definite. room for a healthy scientific inquiry. into just about anything, whether. skeptics believe in it or not. >> Sure. If you can get some funding for. it, who cares? >> That's my motto. >> Uh, you got anything else on ESP? >> Uh, let me think. No,

>> I've got uh one more thing I found. I. came across a 199 I think five Night. Line with Ted Cppel. >> Yeah. where um the news broke that the. CIA had been studying ESP and trying to. do remote viewing. What Ronson was. talking about in the men who stare at. goats. >> Oh yeah, John Ronson. >> When it finally became declassified in. 1995, Ted Cppel did like a 20-minute. nightline segment on it. Totally worth. watching. >> It's some pretty softball questions, but. Robert Gates, who would later become the.

the um head of defense, Yeah. He's on. there just basically trying as politely. as possible to show that he does not. believe in any of this even though he. was the former CIA director. And um it's. just neat. >> Plus, you get to watch Cppel again, >> right? >> He was great news man. >> Yeah, I miss those dudes. I miss uh I. was just thinking yesterday about uh. Brokaw. >> Yeah, rather. >> I was I was always a brokaw man. >> Did you? I liked Peter Jennings. He was. great. >> Yeah. I don't even know. >> All of them were great. I don't even.

have any idea who does Nightly News now. I don't watch it. >> It was Brian Williams until about a day. ago. >> Did he get fired? >> He like got. >> I I know the whole kurfuffle, but he. didn't get fired for that, did he? >> I I I'm using my ESP to predict that by. the time this came this comes out, he. will not be there anymore. Wow. >> I think this is getting big quick. >> Interesting. >> Yeah, Twitter's involved. >> Oh, man. The Twitter take down. >> Yeah. Uh if you want to know more about. ESP, uh the internet was virtually set.

up for you to go find out more about it. Um you can start by typing ESP in the. search bar at howstuffworks.com. And. since I said that, it's time for. listener mail. Yeah. Before we do listener mail, I just. want to give a quick shout out to my. buddy Isaac McNary. Uh if you remember, I did a Judge John Hodgejman episode. with Emily in which I did a bad home. renovation. And um this dude, Stuff You. Should Know listener from Kansas, carpenter, master carpenter, said, "Hey. man, I'll come and stay with you and.

help you do your your uh project there, right?" And I said, "This sounds crazy.". And he actually came and did it and it. looks awesome. >> Yeah. >> And he's a super cool guy. And if you're. in Kansas, the near El Dredo, Kansas, there's no better guy to hire. >> The famous city of El Dorado, Kansas. >> It's El Dredo, actually. Okay. He has to. point out. But um not only is he a great. carpenter and a cool guy, but he works. with a nonprofit called Outreach. Program. Uh and you can find it at. outreachprogram.org where they're.

basically feeding the world. >> Oh. >> They package food and they they get. people together in a room and package. these mass quantities of food to send to. uh other countries and uh feed the. hungry. >> Gotcha. >> And he's just a really good dude. So. thanks to Isaac for that and my kitchen. was looking good. So again, uh, for his. nonprofit that is outreachprogram.org. and if you need a great carpenter and. you're in Kansas, check out retrofit. remodeling. >> Nice. >> All right, listener mail. Uh, I'm going.

to call this pronunciation help. Uh, hey. guys, I'm a botnist and just wanted to. throw uh throw you a rope to help you. out with pronouncing plant family names. All plant family names end in a c e a e. >> Oh yeah, I thought I got that wrong. >> Uh, it is a mess of vowels, guys. So. when you read it, you should just. imagine you were spelling acce as in a. ce. So when you read a plant uh family. name, just break off a. >> thee and read the first part and then.

spell ace. So the plant family for. poison oak is uh anacardia. anacardia. So it's just anacardi acce. Uh, I. remember it by imagining the aneurysm. and cardiac arrest I would have if I. fell into it. A N A C A R D I. >> what? >> Well, she spelled out an Cardi. >> Oh, gotcha. >> The first two uh first letters from each. of those words. Anyway, guys, I love.

your podcast. Find it endearing when you. two puzzle out on pronunciations. Um, >> acce. >> That's good to know. >> Yeah. So, uh, love you bunches. And that. is from Jane and she said, "PS, in. Europe they pronounce plant families. completely differently. Um, other parts. of the. >> other parts of the US might have other. conventions, but the above pronunciation. is standard in California.". >> Oh, well, [Laughter]. okay. >> What?

>> AC. Uh, if you want to let us know something. that we should have known before we even. recorded, but you're generous enough. with your time and effort to correct us, I guess, is a way to put it. >> Sure, we that was very helpful. Thanks a. lot, Jane. If you want to be like Jane, in other words, you can send us an email. to stuff podcasts at iheartradio.com. [Music]. Stuff You Should Know is a production of. iHeart Radio. For more podcasts, iHeart. Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple.

Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your. favorite shows. [Music].