Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site abnjh.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!lute
From: lute@abnjh.UUCP (J. Collymore)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Theory on ESP failure in the Lab
Message-ID: <525@abnjh.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 09:53:10 EST
Article-I.D.: abnjh.525
Posted: Mon Apr  9 09:53:10 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 06:40:24 EST
Organization: ATTIS, NJ
Lines: 23

A few years ago I read an article by a Dr. Jan Ehrenwald that postulated an
interesting theory regarding why paranormal events may not be reliably
duplicated in the laboratory.

He suggests the concept of "need-determined" vs. "flaw-determined" psi events.
The need-determined (ND) type are those we most commonly hear in anecdotes,
such as people having psi experiences when they, or a loved one, were in a
life threatening situation.  The flaw-determined (FD) type are typically those
various experiments that are performed in the lab, where there is no         
threatening stimuli or event.  He seemed to suggest that it was when there
was a great deal of danger presented to the organism (or, I guess, some
significant other) there was a greater likely hood of psi occuring.  It was the
use of a function that acted as a hot-line, only to be used in certain types
of emergencies.  Since laws and ethics do not allow us to simulate such
stressful situations in the labs, it is less likely that we will see psi
functioning.  This leads us then to a FD situation when looking for psi in
a laboratory setting.

This seems to be one of the more reasonable theories I have heard regarding
why psi experiments may fail.


					Jim Collymore