The Psychology of Those Interested in Parapsychology: “Norms” Become “Normal” Over Time

Parapsychology is the field of research into paranormal events and phenomena such as telekinesis and telepathy [1]. In parapsychology, belief in extraordinary things and situations, and the sharing of these beliefs by others—even their development into an established belief system—are common occurrences. As in many fields, beliefs involving fallacies about this science are widespread, particularly in an area where, as in psychology, much remains unknown.

Most people who make claims about parapsychology share accounts of their own subjective perceptions. At a perceptual level, they have encountered something supernatural, a mystical quality, or a reality that others have not noticed. This could be a reality unknown to us, or it could simply be a perceptual distortion. Dave Snowden divides systems into four categories [2].

• Simple systems: Systems in which we know what we do not know
• Complicated systems: Systems in which we know what we know
• Complex systems: Systems in which we do not know what we do not know
• Chaotic systems: The unknown

We would be making a serious mistake if we treated individual subjective perceptual experiences as “simple systems.” If we present them as chaotic systems and the unknown, then even if they are, our subjective interpretation will probably remain no more than an interpretation. In researching and generating knowledge about these perceptual experiences, treating them as complex systems, distinguishing what we know from what we do not, and discussing them on that basis will bring us scientifically closest to the truth as we “know” it. In this article, therefore, we will try to discuss, from a social psychological perspective and to the best of our knowledge, how distortions in our perceptions can be subjective, and how even our perceptions can change through previous experiences and the accounts of “others” in the group.

From an evolutionary perspective, one of the most important abilities and characteristics humans possess compared with other species is living and organizing in groups [3]. We owe today's cultural sophistication and modern capabilities entirely to our capacity for teamwork. Yet we can neither fly as high as birds, stay in water as long as fish, nor run as fast as a cheetah. But our capacity for “language,” our theory-of-mind abilities (including the ability to gossip), and our social skills have enabled us to build ships, conduct space research, construct aircraft, and, unfortunately, create weapons capable of causing mass deaths at the push of a button—a capacity no other organism possesses… All of this is possible thanks to our social abilities and group skills.

It is well established that cultural (linguistic) evolution is far, far ahead of our biological evolution. Yet even without today's advanced capabilities, these social and group characteristics are themselves a product of our biological evolution. Thus, group psychology, roles within groups, and the codes that determine group norms are deeply embedded in us, and we continue to live by these codes even in today's modern world. In other words, we are creatures bound to live in groups and obliged to get along with them. Our biology has evolved to align with the group. With all this in mind, now is the time to share a piece of information. I do not know whether you are aware of it, but what do you think of the following statement?

People tend to follow practices and adopt ideas that are prevalent within their group [4]. Let me make this statement a little more speculative. It will still be true:

People tend to follow practices and adopt ideas that are prevalent within their group, even when they are wrong and irrational.

Here comes a slightly more speculative statement that is still true:

People tend to follow practices and adopt ideas that are prevalent within their group, even when they already know they are wrong and irrational.

This is because we are social mammals, and conforming to group norms is crucial to our survival. Our biological programming includes the drive to fit in with the group in order to survive. People feel safe when they are in contact with others, looking into their eyes, and playing or socializing with them. Mammals isolated from other people may experience impairments in various cognitive abilities [5].

Returning to the group's influence on norms, culture also consists of the group's unwritten codes. Today, we know that, alongside historical background, the discourse of the group's leader is an important component of its norms.

Thus, our thoughts and emotions are directly influenced by the culture, group, and leader we live with and are exposed to.

As psychotherapists working with mental disorders, we can draw on the teachings of many different schools as techniques within psychotherapy sessions. There are many important, scientifically studied psychotherapy approaches with structured techniques, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Psychodynamic Psychotherapy, Psychoanalysis, EMDR Therapy, Schema Therapy, and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Different psychotherapy schools have specific techniques developed from perspectives that are sometimes similar and sometimes entirely different, grounded in their respective theories. One area these different techniques often share is an emphasis on the relationship with society and culture. In such situations, at some point during a session, therapists may use therapeutic questions such as: “Could there be another explanation for this experience?”, “If someone else experienced the same event, would they think this way too?”, “How would someone close to you feel if they experienced the same situation?”, “What would someone else do?”, “Then, if someone else behaved in the same way—even someone you value—what would you advise them?”, “What would you say to that person you love if they experienced the same emotion?”, or “What would you want to say to a close friend if they had the same thought?” Among the thousands of scientifically recommended therapeutic techniques in psychotherapy, these questions, which we use at the appropriate time and in accordance with the theoretical approach, serve a therapeutic purpose. Recognizing a conflict or similarity with the group's NORM, and, where appropriate, highlighting the double standard a person applies to themselves and others based on their own norms, can serve as a crucial therapeutic intervention. Exchanges about our thoughts and emotions that relate to “norms,” groups, or culture can have very powerful effects.

Going beyond thoughts and emotions, even our “perceptions” are influenced by “norms.” By perceptions, we mean the five senses: hearing, smell, sight, touch, and taste. Even our perceptions are influenced by what came before!

We can find examples of this in mirror neuron research. Studies with primates have shown that, in experimental settings where monkeys watch one another, when one makes a movement, the brain regions involved in performing that movement also become active in the monkey watching it [6]. Taken together with other research, we now know that when you watch someone exercising, there is a “stirring” in the parts of your brain that issue commands related to exercise. Similarly, as discussed in our previous articles, we know that even exposure to a traumatic scene on television can traumatize a person as though they had experienced it themselves [7]. What we watch and experience—in other words, what we come into contact with—shapes us even when we do not realize it. In everyday life, we learn unfamiliar behaviors and their meanings by observing other members of society [8]. Bringing all these findings together and putting it another way, this is what emerges: Every contact leaves a trace! Turning to another area, research on anxiety and trauma in children has yielded interesting findings. For example, studies of children exposed to stressful events or trauma have found that one important factor in their ability to cope with stress is their caregiver's (mother, father, or another person's) response to the stressor. The more easily the parents cope, the more easily the child can cope [9].

Let us return to how perception is influenced by current and even previous circumstances. When we examine the complexity of the human mind, we encounter a genuinely somewhat surprising reality. The surprising “reality” here is that even what we call perception—sound, smell, touch, and similar experiences that we consider the purest form of external reality, or information about the outside world—undergoes change from the very moment it reaches us. We can consciously access only a version of that information about reality that our minds have processed and modified using various other pieces of information. Whenever a person reacts to an event, they have already been exposed to many variables, starting at the perceptual stage [10]. Thanks to scientific research and advances in physics and data science, we now know that, contrary to earlier assumptions, our brains are not blank sheets receiving input; rather, they function like complex computers performing active operations [11]. After an event occurs, information follows a long path: vibrations generated by the event travel in waves to the human ear, the membranes in the ear vibrate, and these vibrations reach the perception-related region at the back of the brain through the relevant neural pathways [12]. Perception takes place there, and this perceptual information is then transmitted through various pathways to the front of the brain. Many centers play a role along these perceptual pathways in the brain, perhaps with the thalamus—the junction where these pathways intersect—and related structures at the center of all these stages [13]. Just before our conscious mind becomes aware of it, the sound is given meaning, partly through prediction, in light of the person's previous experiences and expectations. Only after the mind grasps this meaning as an integrated whole within its context do we become fully aware of the experience [10]. It is precisely in this process of comprehension that even the initial “perception,” which we consider the first stage, changes under the influence of many factors. Among these factors, we can examine the “frame of reference.”

Muzafer Sherif's work on group norms and the group's direct influence on perception provides a useful source of information here [14]. Let us try to describe the autokinetic experiment from his classic book, which explains a finding now demonstrated by many other studies [15]. First, let us introduce the autokinetic effect in M. Sherif's own words:

“The light was presented to the participant by opening a suitable shutter controlled by the experimenter. The participant was five meters from the light and was seated at a table on which a telegraph key was placed. The following instructions were given in writing: When it is completely dark, I will give you the READY signal, and you will indicate the point of light. After a short while, the light will begin to move. Press the button as soon as you see the light. A few seconds later, the light will disappear. Tell me the distance the light traveled. Try to make your estimates as accurate as possible. These instructions outline the procedure the participant would generally follow. Shortly after the light was presented, when the participant pressed the button, the timing device made a faint but audible ticking sound, indicating that the participant had seen the autokinetic movement. In all trials, the time elapsed after the participant pressed the button to indicate that they had begun to see movement was two seconds. The light was physically stationary throughout the entire period and was never moved during the experiments. After the light disappeared, the participant reported how far it had moved according to their experience. The conditions producing autokinetic effects provide a complete experimental setting for testing our hypothesis. We can readily produce the autokinetic effect. In total darkness, as in an unlit enclosed room or outdoors on a cloudy night with no other visible lights, a single small light can create the illusion of moving in every direction. If you repeatedly point out the spot of light to someone, particularly if they do not know the distance between themselves and the light, they may see it in different places in the room each time. Producing the autokinetic effect experimentally is invariably very natural and very easy, provided the person does not use means to disrupt it.”

The experiment based on the autokinetic effect:

First stage: Participants were taken individually into a pitch-dark room, and a light was shown from the same point at set intervals. They were asked in which direction and how far the light moved. Each participant reported a direction and varying distances (such as 3–5–15 cm), but eventually established a standard distance of their own (between 6 and 8 cm). The point to note here is that the light did not move at all.

Second stage: Participants were taken into the room in groups and asked to state their judgments aloud. Once the first participant expressed an opinion, judgments began to change, and a shared group standard developed. It is worth noting here that, in groups without an established leader, the first person to speak may emerge as a potential leader.

Third stage: Participants were again taken into the rooms individually and asked for their opinions. This time, they reported the direction and distance of the light's movement according to the standard they had developed as a group in the second stage.

• In stage 1, a personal standard develops.
• In stage 2, a group standard develops.
• In stage 3, the individual uses the group standard.

Although the light is stationary, participants who experience it as moving because of the autokinetic illusion are asked how far it moved and give their answers verbally. As the experiment is repeated, their answers are found to converge. The group tends to establish a norm even for an illusory perception! The results of Asch's conformity experiments, a different version of this experiment, are even more troubling. Let us continue discussing these in our next article.

In his book, now a classic in social psychology [14], Muzaffer Sherif also provides an excellent example of the frame of reference:

“There is no direct, point-for-point relationship between a physical stimulus, experience, and the subsequent behavior it produces. Across a broad range, experience and behavior can reveal the functioning of the organism's current state. Take a piece of cardboard two feet long and one foot wide, covered in orange. Cover half of it with black paper, look steadily at the uncovered orange section for a few minutes, and then remove the black covering. For a while, the previously covered section will appear to be a different shade of orange from the other side. The same color may appear darker or lighter depending on the white or black surrounding it or the image beside it. In a melody, the same tone may be perceived differently on its own and produce different effects when combined with other tones. Similarly, within their respective ranges, a sound or a weight is judged not solely by its physical properties but in relation to the sounds and weights forming its background. In these examples, we respond differently to the same stimulus without consciously preparing to produce those responses. Conversely, we must make a considerable effort, if we can succeed at all, to eliminate these different responses.”

At this point, Sherif argues that experiences are always relational. Extending this a little further, we could say that “context” is enormously important. The enjoyment you get from a play, or what you feel during a film or a meeting, changes with the context. The broader insight here, which we will discuss in subsequent articles, is this: our perception itself—perceiving red as red, cold as cold, and sour as sour—is related to “context” in the outside world. This substantial claim may be somewhat unsettling. At the same time, it is an insight we can reflect on and use constructively…

This field concerned with perception is called psychophysics.

“We encounter findings of this kind concerning sensory experience in any general psychology textbook. Fill three containers with water: one hot, one lukewarm, and one cold. Immerse one hand in the hot water and the other in the cold water for a few minutes. Then immerse both hands in the lukewarm water. This water, at the same temperature, feels cool to the hand coming out of the hot water and warm to the hand coming out of the cold water. Relative to cold, the intermediate temperature is experienced as warm; relative to heat, the same temperature is experienced as cool. Cold or hot stimulation causes shifts within the limits of the physiological zero, or neutral point.” [14].

In other words, our perception is influenced by many circumstances, including the contrast created by preceding perceptions and even the previous perceptions of others in the group.

In short: If you are seeking the truth, pay a little more attention to your relationships and the existing context of your perception. With a little more attention, care, and healthy distance, it may be possible to get a little closer to the truth. Respect your perceptions and take your hat off to them, but do not overrate them either:)

References

1. Snowden D. Liberating knowledge. Lib Knowl CBI Bus Guid. 1999:9-19.
2. Yaşar AB. En sosyal hayvan. https://www.bilimveutopya.com.tr/en-sosyal-hayvan. Published 2018.
3. Huddy L, Sears DO, Levy JS. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford University Press; 2013.
4. Stobbe E. Social Isolation and Mental Illness. 2006. http://www.brainblogger.com/2006/05/15/anti-stigmatization-social-isolation-and-mental-illness/.
5. Lotto AJ, Hickok GS, Holt LL. Reflections on mirror neurons and speech perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13(3):110-114.
6. Yaşar AB. Ruhsal travma ve evrimsel doğası. 2019. http://www.bilimveutopya.com.tr/makale/ruhsal-travma-ve-evrimsel-dogasi.
7. Enver ANSGB, Demir A, Gergerlioğlu HS. Ayna Nöron Sistemine Genel Bakış. Eur J Basic Med Sci. 2012;2(4):122-126.
8. Siqueland L, Kendall PC, Steinberg L. Anxiety in children: Perceived family environments and observed family interaction. J Clin Child Psychol. 1996;25(2):225-237.
9. Solso R, Maclin OH, Kimberly M. Cognitive Psychology: International Editon. 2007.
10. Tura SM. Beynin Gölgeleri. Metis Kitap; 2016.
11. Aibara R, Welsh JT, Puria S, Goode RL. Human middle-ear sound transfer function and cochlear input impedance. Hear Res. 2001;152(1-2):100-109.
12. Sherman SM, Guillery RW. Exploring the Thalamus and Its Role in Cortical Function. MIT press; 2006.
13. Sherif M. The psychology of social norms. 1936.
14. Şerif M. Sosyal Kuralların Psikolojisi. Alan Yayıncılık; 1985.

---

This article was first published in the issue of Bilim ve Ütopya magazine featuring parapsychology as its cover topic (2020).