Marilyn Schlitz and Ian Stevenson: Embarrassed by Parapsychology

Marilyn Schlitz is the consummate insider in parapsychology. She conducted her first formal remote-viewing experiment in 1979 at the University of California at Irvine while she was an undergraduate. Soon thereafter she began working at J. B. Rhine’s Foundation for Research on the Nature of Man (now the Rhine Research Center) in Durham, North Carolina. In 1982 she moved to the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Texas. She later worked for Science Applications International Corporation on classified research in support of the U.S. government’s psychic spying program. Interspersed with all her professional work, she earned a doctorate from the University of Texas and held a postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford University. Currently she is Vice President for Research and Education at the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California.

Schlitz herself has been a very successful subject in psi experiments, and she is known in the field as a psi conducive experimenter. She conducted a major study with skeptic Richard Wiseman. Together they tested people to see if they could psychically sense whether someone was staring at them. Both used the same laboratory and same procedures. She obtained statistically significant results; he did not (Wiseman & Schlitz, 1997).

During her career, Schlitz has collaborated with many major figures in the field, including Robert L. Morris, K. Ramakrishna Rao, Elmar Gruber, J. E. Kennedy, Charles Tart, Debra Weiner, Ralph Locke, William Braud, Helmut Schmidt, Gary Heseltine, Charles Honorton, Edwin May, Elizabeth Targ, Dean Radin, Nancy Zingrone, and Richard Wiseman.

In year 2000, Schlitz served as president of the Parapsychological Association (PA), the professional association of parapsychologists. In her presidential address that year, she stated:

“Today I direct the research program at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. We have about 40 projects on various aspects of consciousness. A number of them fall into the area of parapsychology, although I almost never use that word” (emphasis added, 2001, p. 342).

This statement was made directly to the Parapsychological Association. It was published in the Journal of Parapsychology. It is an astounding declaration. For a president of any professional organization to openly admit, in a presidential address, that she avoids being identified with the name demonstrates the disrepute, even shame, of parapsychology.

But Schlitz was not alone in her views. In fact, she echoed earlier statements made by another former PA president, Ian Stevenson.

Stevenson (1918-2007) was chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia medical school. He gave up his chairmanship and founded what is now the longest-running university-affiliated parapsychology research unit in the United States. His work focused primarily on reincarnation and other topics related to the issue of survival of bodily death.

In 1988 he published a guest editorial in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research asking: “Was the Attempt to Identify Parapsychology as a Separate Field of Science Misguided?” In that piece he stated:

“the words parapsychology and parapsychologist have gradually acquired negative connotations that are now proving gravely disadvantageous” (p. 310)

“the word parapsychology, originally intended to earn respect, now often evokes dismay and derision” (p. 311)

Stevenson described, in detail, the isolation and marginality of professional parapsychology. He discussed the same themes in a 1984 editorial titled: “Are Parapsychology Journals Good for Parapsychology?”

About 20 years ago he changed the name of his research unit from the Division of Parapsychology to the Division of Personality Studies. He hoped to avoid the stigma associated with the name. (The unit is now called the Division of Perceptual Studies.)

Schlitz and Stevenson devoted the bulk of their careers to parapsychology. They are highly respected within the field, but their observations on the field’s marginality were not altogether warmly received. But given their professional statuses, their observations are important.

Because of their social and career positions, Schlitz and Stevenson were required to be attuned to the views of academic and cultural elites. People familiar with Schlitz likely know of her social skills, which have served her well in her career. Stevenson, as a department chairman for 10 years, was undoubtedly adept at effectively dealing with people in positions of power.

The two recognized the marginality of parapsychology, especially within status-conscious, bureaucratic institutions, such as academe. But apparently neither understood that psychic phenomena themselves are inherently liminal, and thus marginal.

Let us remember that there has been a substantial effort to remedy the situation. The Society for Psychical Research has been in existence for 125 years, the Journal of Parapsychology for 70. The Parapsychological Association celebrated its 50th anniversary this year. Yet leaders who have devoted the bulk of their professional lives to psi research, and who held relatively secure positions, still felt some embarrassment about being associated with the term parapsychology.

The fact is, the field is consistently marginalized, and frequently attacked. But the antagonism is not simply normal “opposition to new ideas.” After all, the phenomena are not new—they’ve been known for thousands of years. But the phenomena are liminal, and until researchers understand that fact, and the implications, they will continue to be puzzled by the low status of parapsychology.


References

Schlitz, Marilyn. (2001). Boundless Mind: Coming of Age in Parapsychology [Parapsychological Association presidential address for year 2000]. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 335-350.

Stevenson, Ian. (1984). Guest Editorial: Are Parapsychology Journals Good for Parapsychology? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 97-104.

Stevenson, Ian. (1988). Guest Editorial: Was the Attempt to Identify Parapsychology as a Separate Field of Science Misguided? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 309-317.

Wiseman, Richard & Schlitz, Marilyn. (1997). Experimenter Effects and the Remote Detection of Staring. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 197-207.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Web sources of possible interest:

http://www.marilynschlitz.com/

Obituary of Ian Stevenson by Emily Williams Kelly at:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/publicationslinks/Stevenson-s-Obit-Emily.pdf

Stevenson, Ian. (2006). Half a Career With the Paranormal. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 13-21. Available at: http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/Stevenson.pdf

A Salary in Parapsychology: Patrice Keane (ASPR)

The 2005 federal tax return of the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR) was signed by its president, Nancy Sondow, on November 2, 2006. Page 5 of the return lists the compensation for officers, directors, trustees, and key employees. That for Patrice Keane, ASPR Executive Director, is given below.

Commentary

Years ago, the ASPR was one of the venerable institutions of psychical research. It was founded in 1885 through the efforts of William James, among others. In 1889 it became part of the Society for Psychical Research (British), but in 1906 it was reconstituted (Berger 1985). It regularly published the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research from 1907 until about 1997, when its appearance became intermittent. In July 2007, the ASPR mailed out copies of its most recent issue—dated January-April 2004.

The Society’s website (www.aspr.com) currently includes three sample articles from the Journal. The most recent is from 1976—31 years ago. I could find no mention of any ASPR-sponsored lectures or conferences on the website. It is unclear what services the ASPR actually provides.

Its tax returns for the last several years list income from “membership dues and assessments.” The website indicates that regular membership is $70. Membership for seniors (over 65) is $45. Assuming that half of the members are seniors, the average dues are $57.50. The table below gives the estimated number of members based on these figures.

In 1989 total paid circulation of the Journal was 1747 (McCormick, 1989).

I briefly mentioned Ms. Keane in my book chapter “Anti-Structure and the History of Psychical Research” (Hansen, 2001, p. 197). She has provided a striking demonstration of the anti-structural effect of the paranormal on institutions.

In anthropological terms, anti-structure is a synonym of liminality. It is characteristic of the paranormal, and anti-structure helps explain why institutions in paranormal fields are exceptionally vulnerable to instability and fractionation. It also illuminates the paranormal’s marginality, which has been observed over thousands of years.

Parapsychologists resist the idea that their field is inherently marginal and unstable. But the entire history of parapsychology demonstrates the fact. The current condition of the ASPR is an example—and entirely consistent with trickster theory.


References

Berger, Arthur S. (1985). The Early History of the ASPR: Origins to 1907. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 39-60.

Hansen, George P. (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris Corporation.

McCormick, Donna L. (1989). U.S. Postal Service Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. Vol. 83, No. 3, p. 287.

Nobel Laureates Invited to Parapsychology Conference

Nobel laureates have reportedly been invited to a conference on parapsychology to be held at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. The event, “A Meeting of Minds,” is to take place on July 15-16, 2007. The co-hosts are Jonathan Schooler and Dean Radin.

Invitees

Nobelists Kary Mullis and Brian Josephson have been mentioned as likely attendees. Elizabeth Loftus, member of the National Academy of Sciences, has confirmed her intention to attend. Richard J. Davidson, a neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin who was included in Time magazine’s list of “the world’s most influential people” (see May 8, 2006 issue), was expected, but now likely will be unable to take part.

Some of the other invitees are said to be: Harvard psychologist, Daniel Gilbert; Duke professor of philosophy and neurobiology, Owen Flanagan; Princeton psychologist, Jonathan Cohen; Morris Freedman MD of the University of Toronto; Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania Department of Psychology; and Ken Paller, psychologist from Northwestern University.

Paul Ekman, an expert on deception, reportedly served on the advisory committee, and Paul Werbos of the National Science Foundation was also mentioned in this capacity.

This is an “invitation-only” conference, apparently restricted to high-status scientists and selected “old guard” parapsychologists. A few academic members of CSI (nee CSICOP [Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] ) are also anticipated to be present.

Reportedly, over 80% of the invited participants are aging white males.

Funding

There is some money behind this meeting, and the expenses of the invitees are to be covered. Financial backing comes from several private donors, the Bial Foundation, the Samueli Institute, the Fetzer Institute, and the University of British Columbia.

Purpose

The expressed purpose of the conference is to explore why academia so actively avoids the paranormal despite the wide interest by the general public.

To acquaint the visiting scientists with the field and to facilitate discussion, parapsychologists will present evidence for the existence of ESP and review theoretical problems of the phenomena.

Commentary

Will this effort succeed? Let’s remember, it’s been 125 years since the founding of the SPR (Society for Psychical Research). Parapsychologists have published their work continuously since that founding. Innumerable scientists have learned of the research through books, journal articles, and conferences. Yet the field is now no closer to respectability than it was during the 19th century. Arguably, it is further from it.

Yet still today, many parapsychologists seem to believe that if they present their evidence objectively to other scientists, the broader scientific community will begin to accept them as legitimate members. Traditional scientific funding sources will welcome proposals, major journals will seek papers on psi, and conferences will regularly include symposia on paranormal topics. But such hope is forlorn.

Parapsychologists do not seem to realize that their field is inherently marginal. Psi phenomena are liminal, and they carry a taint, a stigma. This is nothing new. The stigma did not develop with the rise of modern science, nor with advent of the Enlightenment, nor with the Reformation. The stigma has been seen for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. Attempts to directly engage psi has consequences—one being the continuing marginality of psychical research.

Until parapsychologists recognize this state of affairs, they will remain bewildered—and bitterly disappointed.

- - - - - - -
The information for this post came from a source who wishes to remain anonymous and from a short notice in the magazine Shift: At the Frontiers of Consciousness, No. 15, June-August 2007, page 40.