An article of Erin Pavlina, one of the mediums whose blog I like to read, relates to the difference that she feels between reading to skeptics and reading to people who are more open to them. The short version is that reading for skeptics is much harder to her and she can’t see as clearly as for people who are open to readings. Here are some excerpts from her article:
When I read for someone who is skeptical of psychic abilities it’s like asking me to read a book in the dark. Sure my eyes still work. Sure I can technically still see. Yes I still know how to read. But the light is bad and it’s hard to make out the words…
Sometimes it’s like being handed a book but every other word is blacked out. I can kind of piece the information together but the information definitely doesn’t come through that easily. The reading goes slowly and I end up having to get a lot of clarification. It’s like trying to watch tv with a faulty antenna; sometimes all you get is static.
Erin argues that this happens because of free will. That people block themselves from the readings, for one of two reasons: either they try to test the psychic or because the proof of psychic abilities would shatter their own belief system, and they’re afraid of this.
She concludes the article with the following:
Skeptics, be skeptical if you want. Totally your choice. But if you’re looking for proof of psychic abilities, turn on the light before you hand the psychic your book.
And I wonder, if her experience is true, then could we also project this idea on to other experiments that try to detect psi? I mean, will psi experiments conducted by skeptics be more prone to negative result while the same experiments performed by proponents more likely to succeed?