Extra-Sensory Perception, by J. B. Rhine, [1934], at sacred-texts.com

CHAPTER 7

Hubert E. Pearce, Jr.

Of all the eight "major subjects" Mr. Pearce has done the greatest amount of work and has been put through the greatest variety of conditions. He has been relatively very stable in his scoring in spite of these conditions and has been very co-operative throughout. In fact, he has sportingly entered into new ventures and conditions whenever they have been proposed.

Pearce is a young Methodist ministerial student in the Duke School of Religion, very much devoted to his work, though fairly liberal in his theology. He is very sociable and approachable, and is much interested in people. There is also a pretty general artistic trend to his personality, expressing itself mainly in musical interest and production, but extending into other fields of art as well.

p. 73

Pearce has not, himself, had any striking parapsychological experiences other than numerous "hunches" and "intuitions", but he reports that his mother and others of her family have had certain clairvoyant experiences. It was on learning from him of these experiences of his family that I asked him to try our clairvoyance tests with my assistant, Mr. Pratt.

All of Pearce's work has been carefully witnessed; but I wish to state in addition that I have fullest confidence in his honesty, although in this work the question of honesty arises in my mind with every one, preacher or no.

In the beginning of his clairvoyant work, in the first 50 trials, Pearce got only chance average and rose very little above on the first 100 trials. But he kept on rising until very soon he had reached a level of 9 or 10 correct per 25 trials and has held to this average ever since—now over a year, and well over 15,000 trials—except in experimentally produced situations that definitely work against the E.S.P. capacity and a few other occasions (illness, etc.). Even including a lot of special experiments at which he was handicapped and including his one short ill period, his totals up to April 1, 1933, were 11,250 trials with an average of nearly 9 (8.9) hits per 25. Such results as this are positively breath-taking, when one calculates their mathematical significance. These alone sky-rocket the value of X up above 60, with odds against chance now enormous beyond our capacity to appreciate.

During the late Spring of 1932 Pearce ran 2,250 calls under pure clairvoyance conditions and with the remarkable average per 25 of 9.7, almost double the chance average. Some of these (275) were witnessed by me alone, several hundred by both Pratt and myself, and the rest by Pratt alone. The working conditions were these: observer and subject sat opposite each other at a table, on which lay about a dozen packs of the Zener Cards and a record book. One of the packs would be handed to Pearce and he be allowed to shuffle it. (He felt it gave more real "contact".) Then it was laid down and was cut by the observer. Following this Pearce would, as a rule, pick up the pack, lift off the top card, keeping both the pack and the removed card face down, and, after calling it, he would lay the card on the table, still face down. The observer would record the call. Either after 5 calls or after 25 calls,—and we used both conditions generally about equally—the called cards would be turned over and checked off against the calls recorded in the book. The observer saw each card and checked each one personally though the subject was asked to help in the checking by laying off the cards as checked. There is no legerdemain by which an alert observer can be repeatedly deceived at this

p. 74

simple task in his own laboratory. 1 (And, of course, we are not dealing even with amateur magicians.) For the next run another pack of cards would be taken up.

Further reassuring features on the point of deception are: first, when Pearce got to running well, he seldom looked at the backs of the cards; later we asked him, as a rule, not to do so. On the whole results under this condition are as good as before. We later added the request to call the top card before lifting it off the pack. And this, too, was successful after a period of adjustment. Then we brought in new cards many times, without there resulting any change in the level of scoring. We had Pearce follow the procedure of working with the cards held behind a screen and this, too, succeeded after the low period at first, that accompanies nearly every innovation. And, finally, he does very well under the remarkable D.T. condition, in which the pack is left unbroken on the table while the subject makes the 25 calls in succession for the cards before him. Most of the time in working at D.T. Pearce closes his eyes and takes a posture of strong concentration; it seems as if this were a more arduous task for clairvoyance than the ordinary conditions.

On all the points mentioned in the last paragraph above the evidence is amply significant, as may be seen in the following table (XVIII) summarizing the data just referred to. It is a table packed, I believe, with tremendous meaning, the most evidential of the entire series.

TABLE XVIII

Clairvoyant Perception, Conditions Guarding Against Sense Perception

Click to enlarge
Hubert Pearce (left) calling down through a pack of 25 Zener cards (five sets shuffled), before taking a card off. I am recording his calls.

Click to enlarge
Pure clairvoyance. Mr. Pratt handled (did not look at) cards at B, afterwards at A, Mr. Pearce got his surprising results at C. Both made independent sealed reports to me.

p. 75

It does not seem possible that any reasonable and honest doubt can exist in the mind of the reader who accepts this table as reliably presented (and if it is clear to him) that there is amply demonstrated in these tests an extra-sensory mode of perception, of the type popularly known as clairvoyance. It did not, therefore, seem profitable to spend more time and effort in the mere pursuit of evidence for the existence of E.S.P. What more, indeed, can be asked for simple proof's sake? With a value of X, the anti-chance index of 61.5, such that the door is "slammed" on the chance-theory; and with the D.T. data, the screen data, and the New Card data together removing the weakened remains of the "sensory-cues" theory from the realm of rational possibility, what alternative to E.S.P. is there left, except to suppose that we are all (a dozen or more are involved) playing a deeply complex game of deception, or else are thoroughly irresponsible and unreliable? 1

On the point of reliable witnessing and judgment, then, there is a set of data on observations that were witnessed by other mature and responsible persons, some of them professional men. Each one witnessed, along with me, the production of the data set opposite his name in Table XIX and in no case raised any question as to the genuineness of the effectual exclusion of sensory perception of the card-symbols. The data of columns B and C were doubly witnessed in their entirety, the visiting observer seeing as much as he cared to and taking any part or position desired. The magician, Mr. Wallace Lee, tried a few series himself with only chance average results. He said frankly that he was convinced. It appeared that he was, at least as far as we all are, "mystified". Pearce was somewhat ill with tonsilitis on the day the magician was present, hence (as I think) his low scoring, even for the period before the entrance of the visitor. Note the splendidly high value of X for these results, 23.5. With these excellent doubly witnessed results, which help to divide the responsibility on the face of a supposed charge of "poor observations", we will dismiss for this chapter the question of proof and report the special experiments made for the purpose of throwing light on the nature of the process.

The data in Table XIX were originally collected for the purpose of measuring the extent of the inhibitory effect of visitors upon the clairvoyant function. We had noticed earlier that when someone dropped in to watch Pearce work the scores at once dropped down. We began to take down the evidence, sometimes inviting a visitor for the purpose, sometimes availing ourselves of a casual caller. We recorded the time of entrance and exit on 7 visitors, one being present twice. They all produced a drop in Pearce's scoring. The results taken before the entrance

p. 76

will be stated in Column A and then in Column B will be given results taken from the point of entrance, continuing until there is an upward turning of the score curve that remains above mean chance expectation for at least 2 runs, with the remainder of the series averaging above chance. The curves are all sharp enough to make decision easy. Column C, then, contains the scores made after the up-turn of the curve described as the stopping point for B, which means after Pearce had become adjusted to the visitor's presence. The number of runs in B is evidently indicative of the difficulty experienced in adjusting to the visitor's presence. Notice it is larger (11 runs, 275 trials) for the magician, whose vocation Pearce knew, than for Miss E. C. (1 run), a young lady, or for Dr. McDougall (2, 5), who he knew was sympathetically interested in the results. In consulting Table XIX for this point compare especially the 3rd column under the headings A, B, and C, giving the average hits per 25 trials as a basis for comparison.

We have in A and C about the same scoring level, showing eventually complete adjustment to the new situation. This would seem to mean that visitors are not inhibitory except in the strain excited in the subjects. Naturally, subjects would differ in degree of this, as visitors would differ in their effect. We have here a drop of 4.1 in 25, 82% of chance average (np), a figure very significant with the large number of trials given.

TABLE XIX

Showing Effect of Visitors on Pearce's Clairvoyant Perception 1

Following along on the theme of disturbing factors, we may properly take up next the illness effect shown in the results opposite the name of the visitor, Wallace the Magician. Pearce had not done well even before Wallace came in. The difference between the average of 7.5 and 7.4 and those of 10.5 and 11 on days preceding is a significant one for the number of trials made. This was the only illness the records show for the time

p. 77

we have worked with Pearce but the result is in harmony with the results of other subjects. So it seems plausible to agree with Pearce's own judgment and connect the illness as a causal factor in the production of 375 results with a drop from 10.5 per 25 to 7.5, which is 3 per 25. On 375 this would be a drop of 45, which is over 6 times the p.e. diff. (7.4).

Another factor that upsets Pearce's scoring, as a rule, is any change that he does not easily and spontaneously accept as likely to work. A few changes he has taken without a considerable drop, those apparently in which he has taken part in the planning and in which he felt sure of success. Among these were the use of very small figures on the cards (about 2mm. high) which he suggested, the D.T. procedure which he partly originated himself and the calling for Low Scoring, voluntarily proposed half-playfully. These all succeeded at once and were all, at least partially, instituted by Pearce himself. But most changes meet with a drop to chance scores. I have collected the data on the introduction of a few of the new techniques, with the results taken during and after the transition, grouping them, as we did in Table XIX, into Columns A and B. For a fair comparison, I have taken equal numbers of runs made next after the transition to that made during it. Compare especially the 3rd column under A and B.

TABLE XX

Showing Effect of Changes of Techniques on P.C., Pearce

p. 78

From the high recovery level of 10.1 in 25 Pearce is shown here to have dropped almost to chance, 5.6 per 25. This drop of 4.6 in 25 is 92% of np. and leaves no doubt of the point that the introduction of new procedures, when they do not just spontaneously come in, is a quite disturbing thing to the E.S.P. function in Pearce. There is some evidence that this may not be as much the case with some subjects, but, again, may be still worse with some others.

Still following the matter of disturbing factors, we come to another line of influence on E.S.P., this time a more physiological one. I refer to the work done with sodium amytal on Pearce, simply repeating the amytal experiment carried out earlier with Linzmayer. Pearce was asked to take 6 gr. of the drug (He is light in weight.), and a half hour later was tested on the cards in the usual way and found almost to have lost his ability, as had Linzmayer. He had averaged 14.5 hits per 25 in 50 trials just preceding the taking of the drug. Now that the effects of drowsiness were showing, when he was tested he got only 5, 4, 3 in succession. He had become careless, fumbled the cards, spoke dully and mostly kept his eyes closed It may be interesting to follow the variations of the data in Table XXI.

TABLE XXI

Effect of Sodium Amytal on Clairvoyant Perception—Pearce

[paragraph continues] This phenomenal fall from his usual average per 25 of about 10 down to 6.1 is even more striking than Linzmayer's drop from 6.8 to 5 and confirms the earlier result. In both cases we ran enough trials to recover from the possible novelty or new technique effect. One feature that is rather well brought out as an incidental observation is the factor of effort No one could have failed to see the coincidence of intense effort at attention to the task, with better scoring, in this series of runs with the amytal.

p. 79

This interesting experiment invites quite naturally a comparable one with a drug having the opposite effect—that of integration. We used caffeine for this purpose in 1-grain tablets of citrated caffeine. The effect of caffeine was tried on Pearce on five occasions, using 5-grain doses. The general aim was to give it when Pearce had been running low (hence the low pre-caffeine score quoted), since it has been caffeine's "de-fatiguing" effect that is most recognized. Under those conditions it raised his scoring very considerably. We may compare the records of work just preceding the drug-taking with those following for the experimental period. The data are fragmentary, due to the cutting-in of other experiments which were usually brought in as soon as the scoring level rose again. The results are summarized in Table XXII.

TABLE XXII

Effect of Caffeine on Clairvoyant Perception, Pearce

From these data it is evident that, using chance average as a basis of percentage (5 hits in 25), we have got a rise following the drug ingestion from 44% above chance average to 100% above chance average( 56%). Now, this latter figure (100% above np.) is just about Pearce's normal rate. What we have done, then, is to pull him back up to his usual running score, taking him at a time when he is scoring low to begin with. It will take more experimentation to ascertain if he can be raised above his own past level significantly by the use of caffeine. There is, however, not the reason to expect this that we had for the results just stated. For the important condition of the subject being unaware of the nature of the drug and of its effect, see in Chapter 8, the experiment carried out with Mr. Zirkle.

It was of interest to test the process of E.S.P. for fatigue in itself, especially since in certain long series there is always a question concerning the possibility of fatigue coming in as an unknown and uncontrolled element. We had Pearce go through about 8 hours of steady E.S.P. work and in that time he made 900 trials. They show, however, no significant signs of decline and he showed at the end no unusual signs of fatigue in

p. 80

general. Of course, it was confining and tiresome, as any such work must be, but nothing more. We did a mixture of experiments, contributing data to a number of minor lines of inquiry. This variation was superficial, however, since it was all genuine E.S.P. of the P.C. condition. His average for the 900 trials was 10.1. It was only slightly (1.4 in 25) lower in the afternoon than in the forenoon; this difference is not significant for that number of trials. This day's work of 900 trials will be of interest to Miss Jephson 1, who suggests a "fatigue curve" in runs of only 5 trials.

I have mentioned earlier the purposively-low-scoring tests carried out by Pearce. He showed that he could alternate high and low scores on request, actually giving on one occasion 9 in 25 when asked for a high-score run, followed by 1 in 25 for low; then a request for high brought 10, and one for low another 1 in 25. He has, on the one hand, called 0 in 25 by calling "wrong" purposely, and, on the other, once called 25 correct in 25 in my presence when I playfully dared him, bet with him and thereby aroused special effort with him over each card. (I, myself, held the cards.) Of the "Low Scoring" record there are 275 trials, yielding only 20 hits, 35 below chance average. This is in itself a valuable bit of evidence of the purposive principle of E.S.P. at work, since X here equals 7.8 as an "anti-chance" value.

So far we have said little about Pearce and telepathy. He took rather slowly to it, as the data in Table XX have shown. But eventually he emerged from the transition level of scoring and began to do fairly good P.T. work. We undertook first to introduce the telepathic condition into the P.C. experiments for comparison of P.C. with the combined conditions. There are some data on this, showing that, while at first Pearce dropped off considerably if I looked at the card, he came eventually to do even somewhat better than when I did not look at it. Omitting, then, the first 175 transition trials which gave an average per 25 of only 6 and which belong under "New Technique Data", we have 350 trials of the combined conditions, giving an average of 14 hits per 25. This is an extraordinarily high average for Pearce or anyone else, and is significantly elevated above Pearce's usual level of about 10 in 25. It may well be the effect of the combined extra-sensory activation from the two sources (the card and the agent) or, of course, may result from the possibly greater attention stimulated in the percipient by the combined conditions of C and T. Or, again, it might have been the effect of suggestion arising out of the expectation that such results would occur. At any rate, a refinement of conditions was necessary.

p. 81

To get at the question, then, of whether the telepathic condition really aided the clairvoyant or not, we tried having the agent work behind a screen so that Pearce, the percipient, would not know when the agent looked at the card and when we had the simple P.C. conditions alone. Here again we had transition troubles but they were, of course, equal for both conditions, P.C. and general E.S.P. From a total of 600 trials made behind a screen which concealed the agent's face and the cards from Pearce, we still got quite better results for the combined telepathic and clairvoyant conditions. See Table XVIII, 6, a and b. The 300 P.C. were so interwoven with the 300 general E.S.P. that Pearce could not have inferred any order in them. Usually I changed conditions after every 5 calls. The difference is considerable, yet it is not quite up to the requirement for significance, with this number of trials. The difference is only 2.6 times the p.e. of the difference; but, supported as it is by the greater difference found without the screen, it appears rather convincing that the telepathic condition may help clairvoyant perception to higher proficiency.

On P.T. itself Pearce showed a steady rise for a time. His first 250 P.T. trials averaged only 6.4 per 25. The next 250 rose to 7.3, and the third, 7.8. His first 950 gave an average per 25 of 7.1 and a value of X of 9.6. We can now say without any question, so far as the mathematical significance of the data is concerned, that he, too, possesses both P.T. and P.C. capacity.

In the 950 P.T. trials referred to above, the agent and percipient were in the same room. The percipient sat with closed eyes, waiting for the uniform tap of a telegraph key as a signal. At the time of the signal the agent would be holding in consciousness the image of one of the symbols of the Zener cards, but actually had no cards present. The choice of order of images was planned by the agent for each 5 trials, avoiding any naturally expected order, and varying, repeating, in "random" fashion from one five to another.

Four agents served with Pearce. With Stuart he averaged 7; with myself as agent, 7.3 (omitting the transition period). But with two charming young ladies, he averaged 8.7!

And now for what is at the moment one of the most fascinating points of the Pearce study. He, too, runs P.T. scoring at approximately the same rate as the P.C. done at the same time and with the same conditions. The time and circumstances are most important, and we need to have the control data from the same situation and time period as the primary data. And from our results it is now clear that when we compare P.C. and P.T. with Pearce under the same conditions, we get, as with most other subjects, about the same rate of scoring in the two phases of E.S.P., P.C. (B.T.) and P.T. There are two sets of data to offer in this connection, the first

p. 82

from the P.T. data already presented, merely omitting the transitional data of the first 175 trials as not properly comparable. These P.T. trials are quite similar in score value to the B.T. data taken during the same experimental periods. In the one case there is an average of 7.7 hits per 25; in the other, 8.1. The second set of data come from an experiment to be described below, made by Stuart and Pearce in the summer of 1933 on the comparative effect of distance upon P.C. and P.T. The results under distance conditions were but little above chance expectation for even the relatively short distances introduced and in these tests they show mainly the fact that they both dropped together (B.T. to 5.3 and P.T. to 5.7). See Table XXIV below. The scores made across the table are also quite comparable, averaging in the one case 6.4 and in the other 6.3. The details are shown in Table XXIII. It should be said in explanation that, in giving the detailed results in the table, the point is to show the fluctuations from day to day, since these run predominantly in the same direction for both the P.C. and the P.T. columns.

TABLE XXIII

Comparison of Clairvoyant and Telepathic Perception, Pearce

Nothing could be at this state more interesting than to see so large a group of data turn out such similar score averages for the two different conditions of experimentation, "mind-to-mind" and "card-to-mind" transference. The fact that Pearce has on the whole scored much higher in clairvoyant work does not bear on this point here. Perhaps, under different conditions, he might also score higher on P.T. The data for the two phases cover the same general conditions and the same periods. There is, too, the general similarity between P.T. and P.C. in the direction of fluctuation from day to day. If we leave out the 4th and 8th lines, all the rest of the 9 show a rise or fall of both clairvoyance and telepathy together, both taking the same direction. In the 4th line, at least, we have

p. 83

a peculiar atypical instance, with only 1 run to deal with under P.T., and with the 8th line we just have an exception.

The latest experiment with Pearce, conducted by Stuart, did not succeed very definitely. Pearce's scoring was the lowest it has ever been. There is no reason to think there was anything in the combination with Stuart that inhibited him. Pearce, himself, thinks it is because he had been somewhat exhausted by the year's school work and was not in his usual state of vigor. The purpose of the series was to test the relative effect of distances upon the three main modes of testing in use, P.T., B.T. and D.T. It is probable, I think, that the elaborate conditions and plans laid down (three conditions multiplied by the three distances make a somewhat complex design in this work) were inhibiting, as new techniques usually are with Pearce. The distances were to be short at first and they did not get beyond these short distances. The results are presented in the three conditions at the three distances; the three columns represented the distances: A, close range, i.e., across the table; B, 8 to 12 feet away from the agent or the card; and C, 20 to 30 feet away. In all there were 5,400 trials made under the three conditions, with all three distances. During the experiments an electric fan was kept going and all "unconscious whispering" sounds during P.T. work must have been effectively drowned by its noise. The telegraph key was used for giving signals from agent to percipient. The results, I think, do not warrant any greater detail in presentation. Later work has already "outshone" them considerably. Probably only one point further is of sufficient interest to mention and it is not at all adequately substantiated. It will be seen that the D.T. results under A are the highest. Yet this D.T. work scores lowest with distance, as shown in Column B and C. It simply raises the question whether the precision required to read the cards packed closely together can be achieved at a distance even of 10 feet or whether this is an effect of the mental attitude of the subject, an "expectation effect"; i.e., he cannot because he thinks he cannot.

It was pointed out above that in the P.T. and B.T. work of the Pearce-Stuart series, the results obtained with the percipient in the same room with the agent or the cards, were remarkably similar. Now, at the distances used, 8-12 feet and 28-30 feet, both D.T. and B.T. together do not show enough positive deviation to reach mathematical significance (1525: 322: 17±10.5; X =1.6) . Whereas the P.T., which in the same room yielded less than the D.T. and about the same as the B.T., yielded at the shorter distance (8-12 feet) a positive deviation over 5 times the p.e. and the whole distance-P.T. data have a value of X (4.3), above the usual requirement for significance (4). This naturally raised the question as to whether there was a genuine difference between P.T. and P.C. on this point of distance

p. 84

testing, or whether we had here to do again merely with mental attitudes that offered different limitations for the two conditions.

In Tables XXIV and XXV will be shown the results just described. The entire 5,400 results are really very significant, giving a gain over chance expectation (np) that is 11.4 times the p.e. But for Pearce they are very low, giving an average of only 6. per 25 instead of his usual level of 10 or thereabouts. The points of interest lie chiefly in the column of "average per 25". The contrast of these averages in general columns A and D in Table XXIV are worth attention, as are the 5th and 7th columns in Table XXV. These bring out the point of the difference between P.T. and B.T. results with distance, and their similarity at close range, suggesting that while P.T. can clearly be done at such distances, it may be that B.T. may not. It is still more strongly suggested that D.T. may be limited to close range.

TABLE XXIV

Comparison of P.T., B.T., and D.T., at short distances, Pearce Stuart as Agent

[paragraph continues] The values for X (i.e., Dev./p.e.) for the totals for each condition are in column 3 below. The values for the data taken across the table (A above) are in column 5 and those for the total distance data are in column 7. (Note that in this case the distance data are combined for contrast with those taken across the table.)

TABLE XXV

Values of X in P.T., B.T., and D.T. Comparison, Pearce

The fact that in D.T. work at close range Pearce did almost as well as usual, but fell off in his B.T. and P.T. suggests, of course, that the inhibiting factor was more operative under B.T. and P.T. conditions. This leads one to look for some distracting set of circumstances in the procedure, in the change to Stuart's conditions, since B.T. and P.T. naturally allow more opportunity for disturbance than does the D.T.; i.e., in the D.T. work the subject is most independent of his surroundings.

p. 85

And, finally, the curves! Pearce's work is full of interesting relations that can be drawn up in graphic form. But these will be presented in later chapters, and are omitted here because they do not involve any other data than have already been given and were not the result of planned experimentation. Pearce's D.T. curve shows the same dip for the central part of the pack that the others showed (Linzmayer and Stuart). He has a very marked curve of calling on his B.T.-5 trials (i.e., made 5 calls at a run, followed by a check-up). There are regions of relative emphasis in his other work as well, all pointing to the lawfulness of the processes of E.S.P. and their natural inter-relationship with other functions.

We have in Pearce's work no adequate estimate of its importance in the mere index of the value X, but this is in itself a figure so large in significance that we can no longer appreciate it. It is, for the 17,250 trials performed by Pearce since the Spring of 1932, 64.9. When this is merged with the value left at the close of the last chapter, the figure vaults now to 75.3 for the entire 64,224 trials reported to this point. We must all agree that after reaching this point it would be almost a deliberate waste of time to try to add to the mere significance or weight of the evidence for E.S.P. The principal blocks of Pearce's data are indicated in the following summarizing table, XXVI:

TABLE XXVI

Summary of Pearce's work in E.S.P. to August 1, 1933

.     .     .     .     .     .     .     .

In order to give a correct picture of the state of progress and constant flux of these E.S.P. experiments, I will simply add to this chapter as it is being copied the latest fruits of Pearce's work. It is in many respects the best yet and answers several important questions at once. The experiment is supervised by Mr. Pratt and is a long distance-P.C. (B.T.) test. Pratt picks up, in a room in the Physics Building of Duke University, every minute during the running period a card taken from a cut and shuffled pack that lies on the table before him, and puts it face down on top of a book. He does not look at its face. At the beginning of the same

p. 86

minute, Pearce, in the Duke Library, over 100 yards away, tries to perceive the card then " exposed" by Pratt. He has succeeded, magnificently, in doing so. At first he failed, as he nearly always does with a new condition procedure. But the runs mount as he goes, as follows: 3, 8, 5, 9, 10, 12, 11, 12, 11, 13, 13, 12. The total 300 at that distance average 9.9 per 25; X = 12.2 and excludes the chance-hypothesis. If we exclude the first three runs, as "adjustment phase" trials, regularly required for Pearce, we have an average per 25 of 11.4, which is higher than Pearce's level for B.T. at close range. In fact, in his B.T. with the same technique, carried out in the same room with the cards but with the latter invisible—conditions the same as reported just above, except that Pearce was a few feet from the card instead of 100 yards—in 300 trials he obtained only an average of 7. This is lower than his usual average of 9.5 to 10, due in part perhaps to difficulty in adjusting himself to new conditions; this may be all the harder with the observer right in the same room than with him off with the cards 100 yards away. But, at any rate, distance does not matter in this mode of perception, so far as these results go to indicate. Then the cards were taken to the Duke Medical Building, with over 250 yards between cards and percipient. Again there was the low-scoring adjustment period at first. This lasted over more runs this time but was followed by good scoring, which is now going on daily at this distance. After a time the distance will be still further extended.

These long distance results with P.C. were most crucially appropriate, as will be seen later in the report. The point was that with P.T. we already had the distance test successfully met. We are keenly searching for possible differences and similarities. This was then the point on which eager interest strongly focused.

But what will distance do to D.T.? Can the remarkable acuity and precision of this type be achieved at a distance too? Distance D.T. did not succeed in the Pearce-Stuart series but, then, neither did the B.T., for that matter! I need not say that this point will be followed up with vigorous interest.

Footnotes

74:1 "Wallace the Magician" (Wallace Lee) was asked to work under these conditions, after watching Pearce work. He did not score above mean chance expectation, and frankly admitted that he did not see how Pearce did.

75:1 The striking data obtained lately with Pearce at some distance from the cards (100 yards, for example) may be taken as perhaps a further step.

76:1 Another major subject offers an exception to the rule evidenced in this table. Miss Turner, whose work will be given in Chapter 8, once went to Dr. E., one of her sceptical teachers on the campus, and offered to demonstrate E.S.P. to him. She ran 100 trials with Dr. E. holding the cards behind a notebook and got scores of 8, 11, 7, 7, which gives a deviation of 13 or 5 times the p.e. Dr. E. gave me an independent confirmation of the demonstration. This is exceptional, and is due, I think, to the fact that she proposed the venture herself and that she did not stand in awe of Dr. E.

80:1 Proc. S.P.R., XXXVIII: pp. 223-271, 1928.