From the
2nd Beischel (et al.) study, usefully brought to our attention by Amathia
https://www.windbridge.org/papers/BeischelEXPLORE2015vol11.pdf
External Quote:
Scoring. For the Experiment 2 readings, sitters provided individual scores for each item in each of two readings: a target and a decoy. Each item received one of the following scores:
5: Obvious fit (used if the item is a direct or concrete hit that does not require interpretation to fit)
4: Fit requiring minimal interpretation (used if the item indirectly applies and needs minimal interpretation or symbolism to fit)
3: Fit requiring more than minimal interpretation (used if the item indirectly applies and needs a greater degree of interpretation or symbolism to fit)
2: Other fit (used if the item does not fit the named discarnate or the rater, but does fit someone else that the rater is/was close to and that is likely to be the subject of the statement)
1: No fit (used if the information is a concrete miss—is clearly wrong—or if it is information for which there is no reasonable interpretation)
0: Donʼt know (used if the rater does not understand the item or does not have enough information to judge its accuracy)
External Quote:
Percentage accuracy was calculated in Experiment 2 by tallying the number of items that received scores of 4 or 5 and dividing that total by the total number of items minus the items scored as 0ʼs ([4ʼs/5ʼs]/[total 0ʼs]) and calculated separately for the Five-Questions and the Free-Form sections. A more conservative tally was also examined in which only the items scored as 5ʼs (hits) or 1ʼs (misses) were totaled.
Not totally happy about all this.
And I'm not happy at all that first names, correct answers, and readings are unavailable.
Agreed- and would add, the
questions that the mediums put are unavailable (AFAIK).
From the paper,
External Quote:
During Phase 2(unblinded but regulated), the medium was introduced to the sitter by first name. In this 20-min phase, the medium was permitted, if she chose, to ask the sitter yes-or-no questions to which the sitter could respond "yes," "no," "maybe," "sort of, "or "I donʼt know."
An interesting secondary experimental question might be,
"is there a relationship between the score rated by the sitter and the number of questions asked by the medium?"
No control group of sitters who are
not asked for feedback is used in Experiment 2.
The researchers write,
External Quote:
The Phase 2 sections in which the mediums were permitted to request limited feedback to yes-or-no questions if they chose received a mean score of 4.20 +/- 0.25 and also ranged from two to six. The scores from the two phases are not significantly different (P = .08); i.e., a significant scoring increase did not occur once the WCRMs were able to request feedback during the reading. This suggests that the accurate information reported during Phase 1 may have been acquired from a non-local source
Alternatively, it suggests the Windbridge-approved mediums (remember, Julie Beischel is one of Windbridge's two managing directors) didn't perform significantly better when they could ask Yes or No questions of their sitters.
One wonders if this finding has been communicated to the Windbridge mediums so that they don't have to waste time/ bother their clients with pointless questions in the future. Somehow I doubt it (but I'd be happy to be proved wrong).
The scoring system is problematic. It is obviously subjective, and conducted by people who wish to communicate with a deceased person, have accessed the Windbridge website, completed an online form (whose content- and questions, if any- we don't know; it's generally considered good practice to publish recruitment materials in an appendix if these might be relevant to a study) and who then have been selected "at random" ...
External Quote:
...
from the general sitter pool using
www.random.org to select participant ID numbers.
(My emphasis).
How it 's determined who should be in the "general sitter pool" is not stated. Presumably "general sitter pool" does not mean all applicants who completed the Windbridge questionnaire, so what criteria were applied to determine who should be in that category?
I get the impression that there has been an element of pre-selection
before www.random.org was used.
I don't know if this is relevant: I've seen a couple of stage hypnotists; they initially (and openly) engaged the whole audience in a series of "tasks" to narrow down the field to the most "suggestible".
I'm not sure about the scoring system.
Without knowing what statements were made by the mediums, or what questions were asked of the sitters, we are free to speculate.
"This person [or more likely, the name supplied to the medium] was special to you..."
"[Name of deceased] has known that you wanted to be in touch...",
"They were sad to leave you, but want you to be happy"
...and similar phrases, to subjects who wish to contact the deceased and who have pro-actively contacted an organisation advocating mediumship, are easy "5's".
For "4's",
External Quote:
...if the item indirectly applies and needs minimal interpretation or symbolism to fit
...who determines what minimal interpretation or symbolism is? Are any guidelines provided to the sitter?
Much the same apples to "3's".
"2's",
External Quote:
...if the item does not fit the named discarnate or the rater, but does fit someone else that the rater is/was close to
...so any remark that might fit
anyone that the rater is close to "and is likely to be the subject of the statement" is valid.
"1's" include
External Quote:
...information for which there is no reasonable interpretation
-which again is highly subjective. The sitters/ raters are not asked to
not give "5" for "hits" which might have a "reasonable [non-paranormal] interpretation" (e.g., statements that might be applicable to most potential sitters).
Edited to add, Saturday 09/09: Not sure I put my concern about "1's" (above) very clearly:
I was trying to say, scoring a "1" requires a medium to say something "for which there is no reasonable interpretation".
But symbolic meanings, "interpretation", and information which might be about
anyone "close" to the sitter are all accepted in the scoring system as
not 1's.
The criteria for a "1" seem to set a high bar for the sitter, a possible believer- they might well rate an objectively incorrect statement as being partially correct following "interpretation", or after considering possible possible symbolic meanings.
External Quote:
0: Donʼt know (used if the rater does not understand the item or does not have enough information to judge its accuracy)
If the rater is prepared to give the medium "the benefit of the doubt"- and the selection process
might favour potential subjects so inclined- then it's easy to see how wrong answers ("1's") might end up in this category.
Despite my, ahem,
considerable scepticism about mediumship, I don't know how we can account for the significant differences in ratings for "target" and "decoy" readings.
Of course (and remembering posting guidelines) we must assume that the above experiments were conducted in good faith.
Anyone got any ideas how those results were obtained?