Careers in psi research

I'm often asked about how one pursues a career in psi research, meaning how does one earn a living doing this sort of research. Here's how one person asked this question (I've changed a few minor details to maintain the writer's anonymity):

- - - - - - - -

"I'm writing for your advice and opinion regarding a career in this type of research. I've been casually interested in the study of consciousness and extrasensory research for many years, but would like to pursue this path full-time. I have a BS in engineering and have worked in technical research for 5 years. I was able to learn and contribute to my field, publish a few manuscripts in peer reviewed journals, etc. but have decided that I need to focus my energy on something that I have a sincere interest and passion for."

"I'd also like to work with researchers such as yourself who are taking a scientific approach to consciousness, ESP, etc. I think the results of this research are important, but it also provides legitimacy to the field, rather than the entertainment/sideshow viewpoint that many in the general public have... I'd like to apply my research background, but as you probably know, there aren't many jobs in extrasensory research. Do you have any suggestion or advice in terms of getting into this type of research? Specifically, do you feel that an advanced degree is required?"

- - - - - - - -

My response:

Given the nonexistent career track in this realm, this is a risky decision that would only appeal to a very small percentage of fledgling scientists and scholars. My advice for students is to (1) earn a PhD in a traditional scientific or scholarly discipline from an accredited, recognized university, and then become successful in that discipline. This step might take 6 to 8 years after an undergraduate degree. (2) Attend the annual conventions of the Parapsychological Association (www.parapsych.org) to meet professionals who have worked in the field for many years. You can start this immediately, at any age. (3) Read the relevant journals and start doing your own experiments or scholarly work. (4) Start publishing and presenting papers in journals interested in these topics. (5) Make it known to the people you've met that you're interested in any jobs that may arise. And (6) be prepared to move, perhaps multiple times, to where the jobs are. Demonstrated interest, competence and persistence are prime attractors in all realms of life, including this one.

Comments

Malcolm said…
I've been reading this blog's history for 6 or 7 hours now. And there's something about the concluding words to this 8-year old entry ("Demonstrated interest, competence, and persistence are prime attractors in all realms of life, including this one.") that I find especially characteristic. And the fact that no one commented on it . . . strangely touching.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology  and is available here .  The key
Read more

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area
Read more

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a
Read more