Assessing the Evidence for Mind-Matter Interaction Effects
📄 Original study ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Can your mind nudge a random number generator (basically a digital coin-flipper)? Critics said the evidence from decades of these experiments was inflated by publication bias -- researchers only publishing exciting results. This rebuttal punches back hard. The authors point out that critics assumed the mind would influence each individual random bit equally, regardless of whether the machine was spitting out ten bits per second or millions. That assumption spans six orders of magnitude and is, they argue, simply unjustified. The suspicious funnel-plot pattern (a graph used to sniff out bias) actually matches what you'd expect from genuinely varied experiments, not hidden negative results. A survey of researchers turned up roughly one unpublished study per person -- far fewer than the thousands needed to sink the findings. Even the critics' own stricter statistical model still yielded a significant result for pre-planned studies.
Research Notes
Most comprehensive single defense against simultaneous critiques of RNG/PK meta-analytic evidence. Companion to radin_2006_reexamining in JSE Vol. 20 No. 3. Introduces Collins's Experimenters' Regress into the MMI debate and proposes alternative effect-size models (constant-z, goal-oriented, time-normalized yield).
Responding to critiques by Schub, Scargle, Ehm, and Bösch et al. of the Radin & Nelson (1989, 2003) RNG meta-analyses, this commentary challenges the 'influence-per-bit' assumption — that mind-matter interaction (MMI) operates uniformly on each random bit regardless of bit rate, sample size, or psychological conditions. With bit rates spanning six orders of magnitude across experiments, the authors argue this assumption is unjustified. Funnel-plot asymmetry is shown to reflect genuine heterogeneity rather than publication bias via simulated constant-z data. A researcher survey found ~1 unreported study per investigator, far fewer than the thousands needed to explain the cumulative results. Bösch et al.'s own random effects model yielded z = 4.08 for pre-planned studies.
Related Papers
Cites
- Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems — Radin, Dean I (1989)
- Engineering Anomalies Research — Jahn, Robert G (1987)
- The Strange Properties of Psychokinesis — Schmidt, H (1987)
- Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis — Bösch, Holger (2006)
- Effects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice: A Meta-Analysis — Radin, Dean I (1991)
- Decision Augmentation Theory: Toward a Model of Anomalous Mental Phenomena — May, Edwin C (1995)
Cited By
Also by these authors
Experimental Investigation of Precognition in Yoga Practitioners
Who's Calling? Evaluating the Accuracy of Guessing Who Is on the Phone
What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models
More in Psychokinesis
Observer Influence on Quantum Interference: Testing the von Neumann-Wigner Consciousness-Collapse Theory
New Year's Eve as a Case Study in Experimental Metaphysics: Exploring Global Consciousness in Random Physical Systems
Anomalous Entropic Effects in Physical Systems Associated with Collective Consciousness
Psychophysical Interactions with Electrical Plasma: Three Exploratory Experiments
Psychophysical Effects on an Interference Pattern in a Double-Slit Optical System: An Exploratory Analysis of Variance
📋 Cite this paper
Radin, Dean, Nelson, Roger, Dobyns, York, Houtkooper, Joop (2006). Assessing the Evidence for Mind-Matter Interaction Effects. Journal of Scientific Exploration.
@article{radin_2006_assessing,
title = {Assessing the Evidence for Mind-Matter Interaction Effects},
author = {Radin, Dean and Nelson, Roger and Dobyns, York and Houtkooper, Joop},
year = {2006},
journal = {Journal of Scientific Exploration},
}