Why is PSI so elusive? A review and proposed model

A study that asked participants how they would react to having permanent, irreversible mind-reading or psychokinetic abilities within a 100-yard range found a predominance of negative reactions (Tart & Labore, 1986). The reactions included fears of loss of control, sensory overload, personal rejection by others, and inability to function ethically and responsibly.

Opposing Arguments

The perpetual popularity of books (e.g., Robinson & Carlson-Finnerty, 1999) and courses on psychic development clearly indicates many people want more psi in their lives and is inconsistent with the idea that fear is the primary factor limiting psi. Although people might fear certain strong or uncontrollable psi effects, they would welcome more frequent occurrence of weaker psi, such as winning at slot machines and predicting the stock market. Stanford (1976) discussed some of the issues and implications of this widespread interest in psychic development.

Fear of psi does not explain the elusiveness of statistically significant experimental results. Statistical results at the .05 level of significance appear to be within the comfort zone of most researchers, yet remain elusive

The assumptions that psi is purposeful and controllable neutralize most of the proposed reasons for fearing psi, particularly when psi is viewed in context of personal growth. People specifically seek psychic readings and advice with little concern about invasion of privacy. The concept that psi is goal oriented eliminates the problems with information overload and most of the concerns about psi being uncontrollable. Also, information overload normally does not occur with the physical senses, and those same principles could be assumed to apply with psi information.

Conclusion

Although individual fear of psi may inhibit psi in some cases, the available evidence suggests there are other more dominant factors limiting psi occurrence. Psi could be substantially less elusive without reaching the point of threat for many people. The hypothesis of individual fear of psi is basically a special case of the psychological conditions hypothesis described earlier (Hypothesis 3).

HYPOTHESIS 7. EVOLUTION HAS INHIBITED PSI

This hypothesis extends the rationale for resistance to psi (Hypothesis 6) to an evolutionary framework. Evolution has prevented or inhibited psi because psi is more detrimental than beneficial. The hypothesis of resistance to psi (Hypothesis 6) focuses on psychological issues and allows widespread but repressed psi abilities. The current hypothesis focuses on evolutionary issues that would limit the presence of psi in the population and would be more difficult to overcome.

Supporting Arguments

The primary support for this hypothesis is that it explains the fact that psi phenomena are so intractably weak and/or rare. The rationale for why psi would be detrimental is the same as for the previous hypothesis about fear of psi.

Opposing Arguments

This hypothesis has a weak rationale. Purposeful, controlled psi would be immensely advantageous within evolutionary competition. As with the hypothesis of individual resistance to psi (Hypothesis 6), speculations about adverse effects from strong or uncontrolled psi do not explain the elusive nature of weaker, controlled psi.