| re .1:
DIana, you're _sure_ they relate to the same incident? You might
have picked up someone thinking of getting in, then, wehen the other
happened, you assumed it was the same incident...
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| This has some possibilities. Here at the "Remote Diagnostic Center"
we have looked toward AI for better diagnoses. Perhaps, we should
hone up mental skills instead. In fact, there might be some opportunity
in the area of Preventative Maintenance. Call the customer and
tell them that they have a problem before they know. I'm jesting,
I think, but.... John
|
| It certainly should be used as a potential selector in many jobs
that could benefit from an 'extended sensitivity' to other people.
It may well become a simply demonstrable skill (in the manner used
by the early Duke University experiments using symbol-cards) that
any personnel department could administer as part of a skill-set
inventory before/after hiring; add it to the WAIS (Wechsler Adult
Inventory Series) administered by Psychometrists (i.e. low-level tech.
classification in psychology & counselling practices, rather than
those psychic locators who use physical objects as resonator-nodes.)
That would remove simple psychic skills from the roster of the Occult
and help legitimize the 'low-end' range of sensitivities. It's
plainly understood that diagnosis is an intuitive as well as an
expert (AI/expert) skill. Good Internists are psychic-diagnosticians,
as my own Internist @ HCHP was to come to admit about himself. QED.
I personally prefer the usage 'It's perfectly obvious...' prefacing
any intuitive observation as a light touch w/out psychic claims.
I use it all the time, with a very off-hand & deferential tone,
having spent many years saying "I don't mean to be right, but...'
apologetically if things were 'perfectly obvious' but indmissable.
How were they 'prefectly obvious'? Perfectly, obviously.
- Boleslaw
|
| ...but it is not now. Except, perhaps, for high end subjects no
test has proven to be consistently reliable for testing psychic
ability. The tests which exist, including Rhine's Zener card tests,
are sufficient to demonstrate that something is going on, but not
really reliable enough to firmly measure the "trait" of psychic
ability. The problem is the erraticness of all the tests. One
subject may do well on one test but not on another. The interactions
between the characteristics of the specific test and the subjects
personality have only just begun to be mapped out. Given the extremely
low funding for parapsychological research, this will probably continue
to be the case for a while. Additionally, psi ability, the ability
to do well on a formal psi test, seems to be very dependent on the
subjects mood, specific beliefs, environment, the personal interaction
skills of the experimenter, and perhaps psychic abilities, positive
or negative, of the experimenter(s). It has even been proposed
that all scoring on tests with general population is due to
unconsciously used psi on the part of the experimenter.
To put it another way, the tests which we have now, both the old
card tests and the potentially more powerful modern tests, can be
used to sometimes conclude that psi is present and estimate its
strength under particular conditions at a particular time. They
cannot be used to conclude that psi is not present, since they may
(probably) only "catch" a small number of weakly psychic individuals.
Topher
|