Thursday, May 18th – Our community had the privilege of hosting an exceptional AMA session with a remarkable individual known as ‘Trishula member.’ Initially wishing to remain anonymous, this enigmatic figure has now revealed their true identity as none other than Nathan Bar-Fields. With extensive firsthand experience as a precognition test subject, Nathan has worked closely with the renowned Milan Ryzl. The AMA proved to be an extraordinary opportunity to delve into the realm of precognition, guided by Nathan’s profound knowledge and personal journey.
I was a precognition test subject for 20+ years; ask me anything!
“Like a lot of poor college students, I signed up for medical and psych studies for extra money. One of those studies was for ESP at Cal Berkeley’s Psychophysiology Lab, later at MIT’s (now defunct) Corkin Lab, and presently at the University of Virginia’s Department of Perceptual Studies. I’ve also been tested by two skeptic outfits (those were definitely memorable experiences), worked as a “(pre)sentiment analyst” for a stock trading company, and I was the last ESP test subject for the late parapsychologist Milan Ryzl, who was a good friend of mine in his later years.
I can’t begin to convey how badly I wanted to study parapsychology in college, but that wasn’t an option back then. But I stayed interested in “psi stuff” and intuition in general. When I co-founded a social enterprise called Elysian Trust–which is all about neurodivergent talent and gifts–it was a no brainer for me to also make sure that one of the “brain clubs” within Elysian was devoted to people with unusually high-functioning intuition, be it mundane or something else. Happy to answer any questions you may have for me.”
The AMA session was filled with thought-provoking questions and detailed answers, providing invaluable insights into the world of precognition. Let’s take a closer look at some of the brilliant questions posed by our community members, accompanied by the illuminating responses from Nathan Bar-Fields:
Question 1:
“What was the method to train then use ESP? I am guessing they had steps/procedures they had ESP analysts do that was somewhat standard for all participants.
Are there any experiences during your time exploring ESP that you were surprised by, felt in awe because of, or that changed your perspective in some way?”
mejomonster on reddit
Answer:
“What was the method to train then use ESP?”
I honestly didn’t have a method when I first was a test subject. They hooked me up to some various devices that measured my vitals, then asked me to predict if a randomly selected picture they would show me in a few moments would be disturbing or pleasant. I think the term for the test was “binary presentiment.” I really just went with what I felt. Obviously, chance would expect a 50% success rate, but I averaged 70%.
After somewhere of the ballpark of 130 trials (most of them involving 100 runs or guesses), it eventually became clear what were the requiring factors to consistently perform so robustly.
1 ) Generous amount of time to guess. I average about 2.5 hours for a run of 100 guesses.
2 ) Immediate feedback. That is to say, after I guess, I need a result in under a second.
3 ) Direct feedback. I need to see the result for myself, not have a result reported to me by way of a second party. This is simple if the number (I’m usually guessing “will it be 1 or 0”) shows up on the computer screen I’m sitting in front of after I hit the button.
4) Feedback after each bit, not for a sequence. So guessing for 1, then getting feedback, then 0 and getting feedback, then 1 and getting feedback works, but guessing for 101 will not.
Without these four, my results consistently returned to predictable scores for the longest period of time. Parameters aren’t quite as rigid for me these days, but those four rules are still the best for “big stats.”
“Are there any experiences during your time exploring ESP that you were surprised by, felt in awe because of, or that changed your perspective in some way?”
For sure, there were numerous experiences during my exploration of ESP that left me surprised, in awe, and even changed my perspective in various ways. There were so many remarkable instances that it’s hard to capture them all in writing at this moment. However, the most peculiar occurrences took place when I was tested for the flip-side of precognition, known as micro-PK or tychokinesis, depending on your preferred term. Essentially, instead of predicting the outcome of a probable event, the focus was on attempting to influence it. From a statistical standpoint, there is no noticeable distinction between micro-PK and precognition. Nevertheless, from my personal experiences, there is undoubtedly a divergence. To put it succinctly, ‘Shit gets weird with micro-PK,’ at least in my case.
Subquestion 1:
How did stuff get weird with mirco-PK? Also, was there a way of doing micro-PK that was normally done when you did it?
mejomonster on reddit
Answer:
To be completely honest, I wasn’t even supposed to be engaged in micro-PK the first time it happened. It was during a month-long trial where I had to guess 1s and 0s for about an hour each day. As you can imagine, the monotony became overwhelming. So, I decided to visualize and imagine the RNG (random number generator) producing the pattern 1-0-1-0-1-0, and surprisingly, it did. It was an amusing experience for both myself and the researcher, although technically I was no longer adhering to the original experiment’s requirements.
The fascinating aspect of the micro-PK or tychokinetic experiment was that the improbable events didn’t just occur in the lab. For an entire month, all sorts of strange, once-in-a-lifetime occurrences happened around me or my friends. My house’s electric socket caught fire, the garage door stopped functioning, and so on. Speaking of the garage door, I have an amusing story about it. At that time, my best friend and I wanted to test whether I could break the “immediate feedback” requirement that seemed necessary for improbable results. So, we decided to apply my methods to a local lottery called All or Nothing. To our pleasant surprise, I won $500. However, moments later, the garage door broke. The repair cost ended up being around $430, and I had to rely on Uber for transportation until it was fixed, which added up to about $70. In the end, I pretty much broke even. :-}
A few years later, I participated in a precognition study at UVA-DOPS, where I was placed in a Faraday cage with a REG (random event generator). My task was to predict an either-or outcome. I don’t recall all the specific details now, but what made it hilarious was that one of the testers, Russ Heath, suspected an issue with the REG because it was only producing 0s while I was inside the testing session. This shouldn’t happen since the REG was designed to be randomized based on atmospheric pressure fluctuations, regardless of any participant’s actions. However, the REG returned to normal as soon as I exited the cage.
Subquestion 2:
So all you did was visualize and imagine the pattern you wanted to see, then got immediate feedback of it?
mejomonster on reddit
More or less. It had more to do with I wanted the boredom to end. My thought process was, “This is so freaking boring. I want something interesting to happen. I wonder if I can make it spit out 1-0-1-0-1-0. Let’s find out! That will engage my brain again. “
Subquestion 3:
What is micro PK?
Dani_California247 on reddit
It’s an abbreviation for “micro psychokinesis.” It’s typically contrasted against the concept of “macro-PK.” With macro-PK, you are studying effects that are obvious with the naked eye, like, maybe someone who makes electronics go haywire through intent. Micro-PK, on the other hand, studies effects that are only noticeable through statistical analysis. An example is rolling more snake eyes on dice than chance would expect.
Question 2:
is it possible to master the ability of precognition or it only happens once in a blue moon. Over the last 2 years, sometimes when I chant or set the intention to gain clarity on a future event, I get it 2-3 months ahead of when the event happens. It doesn’t happen often, it’s frustrating how rare it is for me. What are your thoughts?
jasonapplebaum2502 on reddit
That’s a great question, and I wish I had a straightforward answer for you. Unfortunately, I don’t. I believe that precognition and similar abilities are naturally distributed among individuals, much like any other talent such as musical ability, mathematical aptitude, or athletic gifts. Most people will possess at least some degree of ability, a few will exhibit exceptional talent, and a few will have no aptitude for it at all.
Similar to the talents I mentioned earlier, it’s likely that you can improve your precognition and intuition through training, practice, and similar methods. A select few may even become true “masters” of it, although I wouldn’t consider myself one. However, reaching a level of competence is truly remarkable and rare in and of itself.
I’d like to mention that there appear to be at least two types of precognition or “hyper intuition” that exist. One type is somewhat under your control, while the other occurs spontaneously. Regarding the former, there is sufficient evidence to support the trainability of an intuition or precognition similar to the concept of a “Spidey Sense.” In fact, organizations like DARPA are investing millions of dollars to develop such abilities in soldiers. As for the latter type, which is often associated with precognition, such as dreams of the future or mental flashes of events that occur later on, it’s more like developing a sensitivity (and perhaps even a lifestyle) to recognize and acknowledge these intuitions if and when they arise.
Question 3:
Do you “see” things you’re predicting in your head? How does the information come to you?
willowwing on reddit
I used to exclusively have precognitions via dreaming or daydreaming. However, it’s extremely rare for something like that to happen to me these days, and I really miss it.
From 2009 to 2019, I was a volunteer intuitive consultant for a missing person’s group called Find Me Group (and their grant writer, and their data analyst, and their director of operations…whatever they needed me to be). When I first started, I’d have extremely detailed dreams about missing people. Full names included, license plate numbers, and so on. The chief problem was that the alphanumeric information I would get would almost always be wrong. The secondary problem was that even when my dreams were right about where a person would be located, it was only provable after they were found. It didn’t actually help search-and-rescue or law enforcement find someone. So I overhauled my methodology to be what was needed.
That involved–poetically enough–the type of binary presentiment I’d been doing for universities. With about a string of 20 yes/no questions, you can pinpoint a location of a missing person anywhere on the planet within a 1-mile radius, which is as close as you need to be for search dogs to pick up a scent. So, I learned to just ask a string of yes/no questions, like “Will the person be found east of where they were last seen?” and so on. Then I would give Search-and-rescue or LEO the GPS coordinates. My success rate went up significantly. University of Arizona even did a paper about it, as they used some of us intuitives to make an AI program called MIST that can predict where a missing person will probably be found.
After a while, I just used binary presentiment for everything, as most tasks in the lab and in life can be broken down into decision trees and or a string of either/or questions. I got better (much better) at this but seemed to have lost my dreaming ability in exchange.
These days, the closest thing I can do to dreaming or visualizing the future like you are thinking of is inducing what is called “daytime parahypnagogia” (DPH) in myself. For instance, I may try to visualize a landmark that stands out to me that is north of a missing person, then do the same for south, east, and west. I’ll get a pretty interesting mental picture, then I’ll find the landmarks on Google Earth, create an “X” mark with each of those four being the endpoints on the X, and the missing person being at the center.
Subquestion 1:
I have the spontaneous prediction thing going, and when it happens, I see an image like a photo, very detailed. Almost always something will be oddly highlighted. My most recent one, for example, involved a baby who was to be born with a serious health condition, potentially fatal. I saw him in his crib as a young toddler, but his hair was brighter than everything else, calling my attention to its reddish-blonde color. His father is half Arabic and his mother Japanese, so the idea of his hair being that color seemed unlikely. Yet, at one year he is doing very well and he has fluffy reddish-blonde hair!
All that to say, I really appreciate your response, because I’ve had no real idea how to practice. I think yes/no would help me get out of my own way. Do you prepare the questions and ask them of yourself, or have someone ask you?
willowwing on reddit
Answer:
I have the spontaneous prediction thing going, and when it happens, I see an image like a photo, very detailed.
Funny story about that. Remote viewing training generally discourages practitioners from paying attention to that kind of imagery, as it must almost always be corrected in RV. However, Milan Ryzl encouraged me to actually wait for that kind of imagery (or its auditory equivalent) that is sharp, clear, and photo-like (or audibly clear), like you mentioned. His methodology differed significantly from RV, but both worked for me when I stuck to their protocols. I’m just not really a protocol person by nature, so I don’t do a lot of RV or Ryzl’s self-hypnosis method. But one or both may work for you.
Also, I independently discovered that, while I didn’t have regular access to precognitive content via dreams as I did before, I’d often get into a mental state where I’d get emotionally rich but visually murky imagery (basically, into the theta brain wave state), and that was almost always spot on in terms of predictive accuracy.
Followup:
That makes sense to me. My spontaneous knowings of things often seem to occur with an absence of emotions, out of nowhere. However when I concentrate on trying to read energy (as I think of it) it’s more experiential and emotional.
Answer:
All that to say, I really appreciate your response, because I’ve had no real idea how to practice. I think yes/no would help me get out of my own way. Do you prepare the questions and ask them of yourself, or have someone ask you?
Well, you’re very welcome! I do prepare my own questions and ask them to me for certain things, but often the job or the situation comes up with the questions themselves naturally. This is especially so in heat-of-the-moment situations.
Question 4:
How does your group, Elysian Trust, support and empower intuitive neurodivergents? Can you tell us more about its mission and initiatives?
zaqstavano on reddit
Answer:
That’s a great question too. Honestly, I wish we could do more than we currently are doing or what we have done in the past. Before I say more, I will point out that not all of the intuitives in Elysian Trust identify as psychic. In fact, one of the most impressive intuitives I have ever encountered wasn’t even on my radar as such. I viewed him more as a predictive analyst, and he probably viewed himself similarly. And, of course, not everyone in Elysian Trust is neurodivergent in a way that makes them hyper-intuitive or psychic. Some may have an unusually high-IQ, highly empathetic, and so on.
With that caveat out of the way, the biggest contribution Elysian Trust has done to support and empower intuitive neurodivergents is to give them a community, making them realize that they aren’t alone or necessarily “crazy.” Elysian Trust members who join us by way of scoring high on our intuition tests join Elysian’s brain club, Trishula. Members are called “Trishulans.” Back in the day, we ran all kinds of real-life experiments and tests to help members get a better sense of what they can or cannot do. The process and results were definitely a mixed-bag of some people appreciating the opportunities and others not enjoying that at all. Just a few findings:
- We discovered that women in general score higher on our intuition tests than men do in general, with the one exception of telling men that women score higher than men on tests. For whatever reason, men will suddenly begin doing better than women on the tests series when they feel they are not the best.
- We discovered that there seems to be a genetic or biological component to ESP, as almost all Trishulan members assert “it runs in the family,” though usually only on one side, rather than both.
- We discovered that twins and mental illnesses (especially schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) also tend to run in families that report a high frequency of people who claim psychic experiences.
- We learned that childhood trauma and abuse also seem to impact the possession of a specific type of precognition I call “hypervigilance” in a lot of members. It’s basically a “danger sense” or “spidey sense” that some folks have, especially those who had less than pleasant or even dangerous childhoods.
- We learned that, while you seemingly can improve psi ability, not necessarily everyone should. A small but significant percentage of people who tried to enhance their ability rather than just learn to work with what they have wound up developing some psychological issues for a while. I need to emphasize that the high majority of Trishulans were fine from training. But it would be irresponsible of me to say that no one cracked. For this reason, we put absolutely no pressure on members testing their psi ability at its extremes anymore.
This kind of information has been highly valuable for our members. I will share more, but let me get permission from some members first before I do. BRB
(1 hour later)
I’ll continue with the discoveries that members value, and then I will move on to other ways Elysian Trust helps.
- One thing that I personally enjoy every time it happens is when someone or the group discovers that they have a unique quirk. In that regard, it’s more like being among a group of real-life X-Men, where each person has their own special skill, rather than all of us having the same ability. An example is a Trishulan member who is not an intuitive but a researcher. She maintains a healthy skepticism towards psi, genuinely questioning it instead of being a cynic posing as a skeptic. However, she is also happy to use her research background to assist us with test design and has participated as a psi test subject or target in studies. We soon discovered that when she is involved in such a study, the results align with chance. In other words, “psi” seems to disappear. Later, we realized that she possesses a kind of psychic ability herself, but in reverse. Her ability could be described as “anti-psi.” While one might think this would be problematic, it has proven to be quite helpful in more than one way. Not everyone in Trishula can “turn off” their ability when they want, but when they are around her, their abilities fade temporarily, providing them with a much-needed break. She also serves as the perfect control test subject in certain situations.
- I was surprised to discover that almost all Trishulans are not romantically involved with another hyper-intuitive or psychic person. They generally gravitate towards partners who are more “pragmatic” or “down to earth” than they are. I’ve heard various reasons for this, ranging from wanting to remain the special one in the relationship, to the idea that opposites attract, to a possible instinct to reduce the likelihood of having children with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, as these conditions often (though not always) appear along side psychic ability in family trees. Whatever the case may be, two hyper-intuitives being romantically interested in each other is an unsettling experience for both parties, although there are a few exceptions.
In addition, Elysian Trust supports and empowers neurodivergent intuitives. We have occasionally undertaken experimental projects outside of the lab, providing members with opportunities to apply their cognitive gifts to real-life situations. Not everyone enjoyed these projects, as the results sometimes fell short of their claims, but others found it exciting. At least two members even secured new jobs that rely on their hyper-intuition. Elysian Trust itself leans towards academia more than many other organizations, so for the majority of Trishula members, it was the first time they came across actual scientific studies related to their experiences. This has been more beneficial for some than for others.
Looking ahead, I would like to see Elysian Trust collaborate with academia to support hyper-intuition in students rather than penalize it. For instance, consider the student in math class who just intuitively knows the answer to a problem. It may “pop into their head,” or some such. That student may get an F because they couldn’t demonstrate their steps, even though they got the right answer. Elysian Trust has enough academic advisors in our group to assist schools in developing a curriculum that cultivates this ability in students rather than discouraging it.
Another area is workforce training. In Japan, they teach a skill called “chick sexing,” which involves determining the sex of baby chickens just by looking at them. It’s evidently, a nigh impossible thing to do, but these farmers have developed a “sixth sense” for this task through apprenticeship, achieving nearly 100% accuracy. The apprentice learns simply by spending enough time with the mentor, who developed the sixth sense for chick sexing through apprenticeship too. There are likely other jobs that could be intuitively taught, and Elysian Trust could contribute to developing training programs for such roles.
Lastly, in the realm of entrepreneurship, I believe that at some point, it won’t be considered unusual to have a “Chief Intuitive Officer” on a startup’s board of directors or an “intuitive consultant” working for companies rather than solely serving as fortune tellers for individual clients. Given Elysian Trust’s significant work in business incubation, I can envision us offering intuitive consulting services to startups seeking such assistance.
Question 5:
I became interested in psi during the pandemic and practice lucid dreaming and remote viewing myself.
One of my psi mentors is astral projector and teacher Graham Nicholls. Do you know of his work? I highly recommend his 2011 memoir Avenues of the Human Spirit. He and I are both neurodivergent – I am autistic and ADHD, and he has mentioned his dyslexia in an email to me.
Going back to remote viewing, I am in the minority of remote viewers in that I am skeptical that intelligent ETs know humans exist, though I believe they exist outside our solar system. What are your thoughts on this?
LilyoftheRally on reddit
Answer:
One of my psi mentors is astral projector and teacher Graham Nicholls. Do you know of his work? I highly recommend his 2011 memoir Avenues of the Human Spirit. He and I are both neurodivergent – I am autistic and ADHD, and he has mentioned his dyslexia in an email to me.
Ah, well it’s a pleasure to meet some fellow neurodivergent folx! No, I’ve never heard Graham Nicholls before. I will be sure to check him out when I have free time. Thank you for mentioning him to me.
Going back to remote viewing, I am in the minority of remote viewers in that I am skeptical that intelligent ETs know humans exist, though I believe they exist outside our solar system. What are your thoughts on this?
Alas, I don’t have many or perhaps any thoughts on if ETs know humans exist. I’m more used to people asking about if ETs exist at all; you are going past that and asking if they know about us. If I were a betting person, I’d guess I would go with “probably.”
Question 6:
Could you tell us about a memorable experience you had while working with Milan Ryzl? How did that collaboration shape your understanding of precognition?
jeffwingersgut on reddit
Answer:
The most memorable thing–psi related– is a toss up of two things:
- When it comes to remote viewing, I’m naturally what is called a “Doorknobber.” That is to say I would tend to see the proverbial tree when the target was the forest, or–where the term comes from–I’d see the doorknob, but the target was the building. While that is something to fix in RV, it was more or less something to revel and build upon with Ryzl’s training.
- Also, I am not at all a great hypnotic test subject, which was a problem, because Milan’s method centered on hypnosis. However, the one or two times he managed to successfully put me under, I got 100% accurate data. None of it came visually to me, though. Instead, it was auditory. I’d hear this very loud, very authoritative voice that would just spit out the information to me, and I’d relay it. I don’t think I ever relayed all of it, as the info was usually midstream, but the snippet I got was 100% accurate, which blew me away. I don’t recall having any other psi ability that is foolproof like that. My most reliable ability is the aforementioned binary presentiment, but even with that, it’s at best 70% accurate where you’d expect a guess would be 50% accurate. I then use some statistical techniques to improve it, but even then, it wouldn’t be 100% accurate (or convincing) like those two experiences. They really were powerful.
But the most memorable experience with Milan had nothing to do with me being a test subject for him. We were at a cafe–maybe a Starbucks–and he casually mentioned that he was an ESP test subject too, when he was younger. His experiment involved LSD. Back then, I was super religious and pious, so I felt compelled to mention how drugs are bad for you, to which he replied, “No, drugs are great!” Keep in mind, he was a white guy in his 80s, and I was a black guy in my 20s, so you can imagine the kind of stares we got in that cafe.
Question 7:
What was it like working with the skeptic groups and did you move anyone’s dial to any degree in that regard?
theatahhh on reddit
Answer:
Less than pleasant, more difficult than it had to be, and a waste of my time. I’ll explain more in a bit. As for changing dials, yes, I did manage to change a few. Most of them were law enforcement officers I worked with on missing persons cases. Two of them joined Elysian Trust later on. Also one former JREF member gave up on them in part of my experiments with and experience with the skeptic community. Again, I will go into detail in a bit.
I hadn’t given the skeptic community a lot of thought until I joined a group that had many JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) members. They presented me with various challenges, including the famous Randi One Million Dollar Challenge. I read up on the Challenge and found it doable, so I devised a test design to prove the existence of psi. However, they rejected my design because they only tested individuals, not groups. This approach contradicts the principles of scientific proof, as anyone familiar with clinical trials would know. I pointed out this flaw, but they insisted on their way or nothing.
I then created a test that relied solely on myself as the subject. It was a modified version of the binary presentiment testing I had been doing for years. To account for possible performance anxiety and other factors, I lowered the guess probability to 60% while extending the guess series to 300 attempts to maintain the statistical power they sought. The new challenge required me to either have two PhD researchers validate my tests, or to participate in a lower-tiered skeptic challenge. Unfortunately, none of the researchers wanted to be associated with Randi or JREF. Some of them, despite not necessarily believing in psi, viewed JREF as a self-delusional cult of cynics posing as skeptics and lacking professional research standards.
As a result, I decided to pursue a lower-tiered skeptic challenge to qualify for being tested by JREF, and reached out to an organization (whose name I can’t recall) in the Gulf Coast of Texas. One person was willing to test me. He came to my workplace, and during my lunch break, I did a mini-test using a REG (Random Event Generator) he provided (resembling the game Sorry). I passed the test, and he mentioned he would get back to me with a better test as he suspected something might be wrong with the one he used. Unfortunately, I never heard from him again.
I then contacted an organization called North Texas Skeptic in Dallas, Texas, which appeared to be just one person. Our email exchange is available online. I remained rational and reasonable throughout, but he couldn’t reciprocate. There were two major issues:
- He kept suggesting additional pre-tests before proceeding with the actual test. I passed the first and second pre-tests, but I refused to do any more. I insisted on beginning the Challenge or moving on.
- One of the rules was that I couldn’t control the REG (likely dice) used, which made perfect sense to me as I could potentially manipulate the dice through my rolling technique. I suggested that he shouldn’t control the REG either, for the same reason. Surprisingly, he refused, despite the evident flaw in the test design. His rationale was simply, “It’s his money. His way or the highway.”
We could not come to terms, so I looked for another lower-tiered skeptic group. The next organization was a larger skeptic group called IG West but still smaller than JREF. They are or were located in the Los Angeles area of California. We exchanged numerous emails discussing methodology for months, which seemed unnecessarily long for such a simple experiment. I shared all the emails with a friend who was a member of the skeptic community at the time, hoping he could see that I was being reasonable while they were being irrational and occasionally rude. He explained, “It’s because you’re smart. They’re not used to someone being well-prepared and knowledgeable about concepts like Benford’s Law. Just be patient with them.” Despite their insistence on controlling the REG, my friend assured me that they were motivated by the pursuit of truth, so I agreed to proceed.
On the day of testing, they informed me of an additional change to the protocol. I pointed out that we had never discussed this change in our previous exchanges. The whole purpose of agreeing on a methodology was to prevent arbitrary changes on the fly.
I expressed my concern about the unmentioned change, stating that it undermined the integrity of the agreed-upon methodology. Their response was shockingly inadequate: “Well, we didn’t explicitly exclude it from the methodology.” Anyone with experience in research knows how weak such an argument is. The test itself consisted of three parts, each requiring 100 guesses, with the goal of maintaining an average success rate of 60% across all 300 guesses.
We began with the first 100 guesses according to the agreed-upon methodology, and I achieved a success rate of 59%, right within the expected range. The testers appeared visibly nervous. They then decided to introduce the previously undisclosed change to the methodology, which immediately caused my results to drop to chance levels. I made adjustments midway, and suddenly the new tester seemed unsure of how to roll the dice, despite it being clearly outlined in the methodology (yes, the methodology was that detailed). I made further adjustments, and my success rate improved again. At one point, the bowl they were using to throw the dice actually shattered, and they found a replacement bowl. They found the situation amusing, but it became evident that they were determined to declare themselves the winners regardless of the empirical research involved. It had nothing to do with scientific investigation; it felt more like some bizarre cult/comedy hour.
In the end, my success rate on the test was approximately 53.6%. I was infuriated that they had wasted my time—three hours, to be precise—for a study that was recorded in its entirety but they would not give me a copy of! I requested the release of the unedited recording to be made public, but they adamantly refused. This refusal further demonstrated their lack of skepticism or objectivity; they were clearly driven by zealotry. On their website, they proudly displayed videos of previous participants who had attempted their challenge and failed. Strangely enough, they removed my video, but I discovered a version of it on YouTube. The video had been edited down to about three minutes and was manipulated to make me appear foolish, which was far from the truth (the email exchange alone demonstrated that I was patient with their limited understanding of the scientific method and mathematical concepts). The unedited video, which they refused to release, would provide the real evidence.
Without a doubt, my experiences working with for-profit companies, the military, and certain humanitarian agencies have been more informative and productive in helping me assess what I can reliably accomplish and what I cannot. It pains me to say this, as I still have friends who are members of JREF or other skeptic groups, but I have come to view them as cult-like as the very cults they criticize. They are mostly cynics rather than genuine skeptics.
Question 8:
[deleted by user]
I do. From a statistical standpoint, it’s highly improbable that ESP isn’t happening. Whether that is precognition or something else is a bit of mess to tease out, but “psi” is pretty much empirically confirmed, as far as I can tell. It’s just not officially recognized in western academia.
As for personal experiences, I think it’s a bit different for me because psi is pretty common on my mother’s side of the family (as are some mental health quirks, like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia). I grew up with psi just being a given. No one in my family gave it any more attention than one might find high-level culinary skills as something to be in awe of.
One example: When I was about 13 or so, my Mom was driving and got lost. My little brother, who wasn’t even in kindergarten at the time, woke up in his car seat and was like, “Oh, I just dreamed about this. You go left. Then you’ll see an excavator. Then you go right,” and so on. No one in the car was surprised by that happening. We were just happy we weren’t lost anymore.
Finally:
We want to give a big shoutout and express our sincere gratitude to Nathan Bar-Fields for generously sharing their vast knowledge and incredible experiences with us. This AMA was truly something special, providing us with unique insights into the fascinating world of precognition. Stay tuned for more exciting discussions and explorations within our community!