The limits of influence

Influence is a tough thing to judge with any objectivity, but in today's Web-wired world, one pretty good measurement is Internet presence. Probably the best tool for gauging this elusive quality is the Google search engine.

There are some caveats, of course. For one thing, the name of the person should be enclosed in quotation marks, setting it off as a distinct phrase. Otherwise you get too many false hits. A search for the term Michael Prescott, without quote marks, turns up people named Michael who live in Prescott, Arizona, or people named Prescott who send their kids to St. Michael's Elementary School.

For another thing, some names are so common that a search for the name alone will turn up too many namesakes. The name Michael Prescott can be problematic for this reason. In the case of a fairly common name, the search can be narrowed by adding another term as a qualifier.

So how much Web presence do some key players in the ongoing psi wars really have? I did a little Googling and came up with some figures. But nota bene: Google search results fluctuate; these numbers won't remain constant over time. In fact, sometimes there are major variations from day to day, for reasons I don't understand. Both Michael Shermer and Rupert Sheldrake got many more hits the first time I ran the searches than they did a day later, when I ran them again. So take all results with a grain of salt.

First, some of the leading skeptics, in ascending order of popularity:

"Susan Blackmore" - 83,200

"Ray Hyman" - 91,000

"Richard Wiseman" - 160,000

"Michael Shermer" - 288,000

"James Randi" - 417,000

Now, some leading figures on the pro-psi side:

"Dean Radin" - 71,600

"Brian Josephson" - 93,000

"Rupert Sheldrake" - 163,000

"Pim Van Lommel"+ "NDE" - 168,000

"Kenneth Ring" - 176,000

""Charles Tart" - 219,000

"Stephen E. Braude" - 256,000

These results seem to show less of an edge in Web presence for the skeptics than I'd expected. Who would've guessed that "Stephen E. Braude" and "Michael Shermer" would get roughly the same number of hits? But as I said above, Shermer's results were initially much higher, so maybe there's a glitch in the system.

(Incidentally, I had to narrow the search for "Pim Van Lommel" because the name alone got an improbable 1.75 million hits. I can only assume it's a very common name in the Netherlands.)

Okay, so how does your humble blogger stack up? Predictably, I'm nowhere close. The name "Michael Prescott" alone gets 57,100 hits, but many of these are for namesakes, and others pertain to books I wrote that have nothing to do with psi. "Michael Prescott" + "paranormal" results in a more realistic 24,500 hits. This isn't so bad, though, considering that this blog is only a hobby, and I've made little effort to promote it.

Finally, it should be noted that even the biggest Google tallies listed above pale in comparison with the numbers racked up by people who really have an impact (for better or worse) on our culture.

"Dalai Lama" - 8,380,000

"Dan Brown" - 12,900,000

"Kim Kardashian" - 13,900,000

"Tiger Woods" - 20,900,000

"Angelina Jolie" - 29,500,000

"Britney Spears" - 61,000,000

"Barack Obama" - 72,900,000

And of course ...

"Michael Jackson" - 131,000,000

Even deceased, the King of Pop still crushes the competition. Who says there's no life after death?

====

By the way, the title of this post refers to a book by Stephen E. Braude (256,000 hits), which can be previewed on Google Books. ("Limits of Influence" + "Braude" garners an impressive 101,000 hits!)

Comments

[william]

After reading the preface of Limits of Influence I found of interest that the author confuses intellectualism with intelligence.

It appears the world needs to differentiate between intelligence and intellectual aptitude or intellectualism. To confuse the two has been and will continue to be very troublesome.

Intelligence is never a handicap but intellectualism is almost always a handicap and often troublesome. Braude also finds that intellectualism can be very troublesome. His preface alone is a worthwhile read as he realizes how naïve he has been with academia and the amount of dishonesty in academia when it comes to paranormal research. As a former professor I saw this up front and personal with all areas of research not just paranormal research.

Intellectualism is personal mind power and I suspect may be a prerequisite to intelligence.

Intelligence is never a handicap and always a virtue as it comes from the divine Mind or Absolute. We must not confuse wisdom with intelligence. One can be called very wise and still be more about intellectual capability than divine intelligence.

Intelligence comes through a realization in some form of a grace or an awakening process.

A person with a PhD can be very intellectual but not very intelligent. This is why an atheist or even a respected religious scholar can be very “smart” but not very intelligent.

Jesus had the most problems with those who were considered the intellectuals of his day.

I believe that atheism often based in intellectualism is a prerequisite to divine intelligence. Sometimes if not often we have to give up something (cherished beliefs of a deity made in the image of man) before we can see with better clarity. In former lives atheists could have been very religious oriented. Also religious dogma in early childhood can be very effective at creating atheists.

[william]

“Stephen Braude argues that the familiar card guessing experiments and statistical proofs of psi will never elicit important or revealing facts about the phenomena. Instead he turns our attention to the substantial (if sometimes bizarre) qualitative evidence.”

Joseph Margolis Temple University. (Back cover of Braude’s book ?)

This review of Braude’s book is very interesting for two reasons. One what is bizarre to one person can become commonplace to another. The other reason is the idea of qualitative evidence, which Braude accurately describes throughout this preview of his book as reasonable evidence. The atheists continually confuse qualitative evidence with anecdotal evidence. To confuse the two shows one’s lack of knowledge of the scientific method or the deceitfulness of the skeptic.

Congrads to Joseph Margolis of Temple University for pointing out that qualitative evidence can be considered substantial within the realm of science. Few scientists if any with a paradigm of materialism can admit to this abundance of qualitative evidence of paranormal phenomena.

I have never been that impressed with card guessing experiments used as statistical proofs of psi. Most people I believe are more interested in life after death, meaning of life, purpose of life, the details of life after death, and how this life affects our next life, etc, than if card guessing proves that psi exists.

There is massive statistical proof that psi exists using card guessing experiments. Now what?

This blog appears to get the most responses when life after death or consciousness leaving the physical body or what is the nature of consciousness is discussed.

[Michael Prescott]

To me, the big problem with card guessing experiments is that they are so boring. I don't mean merely that they are boring to read about (though they are), but that they are boring to do. This would be especially true of the way they were done in Rhine's lab, when the card guesser got no feedback till after the experiment was over. Charles Tart devised a variation on these tests in which the guesser got immediate feedback, which makes it more interesting. (I have done online card guessing tests like that.)

Even with immediate feedback, however, it still gets boring after about fifteen minutes. And when you are bored, and not emotionally engaged, you are not going to get results, or at least not very robust results.

I think this is why the results tend to fall off over time. As interest wanes, the guesser's abilities ebb.

[sonic]

Card guessing games seem really boring to me too.
The problem with what most peole experience as psi (the realization of trouble with a loved one, the 'knowing' who is calling, precogntion...) is that these things are not repeatable under lab conditions.
The scientific method works when the phenomena are repeatable under a certain set of conditions. (testable, repeatable experiment)
The idea that all phenomena are repeatable under the proper conditions is scientism, no?
(I love science, but one must know one's limitations).

[Barbara]

The point made by Michael and Sandy about boredom is useful.

If psi works best when our feelings are high or when we are sensitive to our environment, screening out such subjective factors will probably invalidate most test results.

If you were doing a survey on sexual practices, you wouldn't expect to see the full range of variation in front of lab coats.

So yes, I agree with Sandy that science has its limitations.

[Ronnie Lee]

Barbara, that was sonic, not Sandy. :P

[Ben]

The idea that all phenomena are repeatable under the proper conditions is scientism, no?
(I love science, but one must know one's limitations). -sonic

Presumably, noetic science is intended to bridge the gap between the old and new paradigms and will adjust the methodologies.

I'm not sure if Dan Brown's characters helped the cause or hindered it (just steeling myself to consider reading The Lost Symbol when I'm on holiday next week)

[dmduncan]

Off topic, but I can use a bit of help. When I plug the following term into Google or Yahoo search I get an unusual result. Is anyone also getting an unusual result——any hits? If you are getting a bizarre result, any idea why both search engines are doing the same thing with this term? Even with random letter combinations I get a formal reply, but not with this term.

[dmduncan]

Sorry about that. For some reason the term did not post with the rest of my post. Let me try again. May be a glitch.

Qefitzat Haderekh

[dmduncan]

And I have no idea why there are now question marks between all the letters. Not my doing.

[Sandy]

I got a page about the book Dune.

[dmduncan]

Thanks Sandy. I figured it out. Problem is I copied and pasted the term, and for some reason that caused all kinds of havoc. Hand typing the term solved the problem.

[Bruce Siegel]

Michael, I think you may have underestimated your own influence. Instead of "Michael Prescott paranormal", I just googled "michael prescott blog" (which seems to me a more meaningful way to do it) and got 159,000 results!

It strikes me that lots of people—maybe most—might refer to you without using the word "paranormal." It's a word I myself rarely, if ever, use.

[Michael Prescott]

Cool! However, to focus the results, you really have to enclose "Michael Prescott" in quotes.

Googling "Michael Prescott" + "blog," I get 30,400 hits.

This appears to be the limit of my influence ...

[william]

“This appears to be the limit of my influence ...”

I suspect the limit of our influence is unknowable. The ripple effect may be infinite if we consider everyone has an eternal soul. I also suspect that we come from an infinite oneness and every thought and every action and reaction of a soul affects the whole of this evolving consciousness.

Maybe consciousness is connected in a far more profound way than we could possibly imagine. The idea of a separate personal mind may be the most inspiring and divine creative process that is beyond our imagination and intellectual capacity.

It appears those that have mystical experiences and some who have had an NDE continually tell us this is what they have experienced as a reality. We pay them little attention, as we have not experienced such a reality.

I believe the day will come on planet earth that tribal and national mentally will be viewed in the same light as those that believed in a flat earth or the earth as the center of the universe. Nationalism and patriotism will be in the same league as atheism and materialism. I.e. remnants of the past.