Evidence or Anecdote? Thoughts about the Telepathy Tapes (Episode 6)

Telepathy Tapes ReviewFC in the Media
Written By Janyce Boynton

Those of you who’ve followed my critiques of the Telepathy Tapes podcast thus far (links to prior blog posts below) know I don’t put a lot of stock in the producers’ claims that nonspeaking individuals with autism have telepathic abilities. The podcast is, in my opinion, long on unproven anecdotes and testimonials by parents, educators, and documentarians and short on scientifically controlled evidence. Further, the nonspeaking autistic individuals featured in the podcast are being subjected to various forms of FC and none of the tests conducted for the podcast include authorship testing. And while I believe that the parents are, largely, sincere about their belief that they have a special, perhaps even supernatural connection with their children, I find the “authority figures” on the podcast (e.g., host Ky Dickens, Diane Hennacy Powell and the other “experts” included in the series) have failed, thus far, to demonstrate that the FC-generated communications (telepathic or otherwise) being attributed to the nonspeaking individuals in the podcast are their own words and not those of their facilitators.

Image by Daniel Jensen

Episode 6 promised to provide listeners with scientific evidence for ESP that “shatters the materialist paradigm.” Throughout the series, Dickens, Powell and others have hammered away at the idea that “traditional” scientists (and other critics) lack the imagination to “think outside of the box” when it comes to investigating telepathic abilities or other “spiritual gifts.” I admit to rolling my eyes a bit when I read the title of the episode, but looked forward to hearing about the scientific evidence even if it threatened to “shatter” my disbelief in FC.

I don’t know why proponents of FC think critics are scared to look at the evidence or think we’d be shattered by it. Between the two of us, Katharine and I have read or watched every article, book, film or YouTube video listed on our website—including proponent articles. (See Critiques of Pro-FC Articles and Misleading Articles). In addition, as a former facilitator, I’ve already changed my mind once about FC based on the incontrovertible scientific evidence that FC messages are facilitator controlled—evidence, btw, I didn’t get from the FC workshop I took or from the other facilitators I knew. In theory, I could change my mind again if provided with equally incontrovertible evidence that facilitator-dependent techniques result in communication independence for those being subjected to it.

Contrary to what Dickens appears to believe, the so-called telepathy tests that she and Diane Hennacy Powell conducted in Episodes 1-5, actually support scientific findings that facilitators are controlling FC-generated messages. Their own tests showed that when the facilitators were given access to the test stimuli (e.g., pictures, numbers, words) and the participants were blinded from seeing that information, the facilitated answers reflected the facilitators’ thoughts and experiences. Critics of FC have known this since the the early 1990s in the U.S.—earlier in countries like Australia and Denmark. (See Controlled Studies and Systematic Reviews)

The telepathy tests Dickens and her supporters conducted for the podcast would have more significance had they ruled out facilitator influence and control over letter selection before moving on to testing telepathic abilities. This is the approach skeptic and magician James Randi suggested in the early 1990s when he was asked by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to test for telepathic abilities in FCed individuals. In that case, it was the researchers of the project (headed by Anne Donnellan) who, apparently, were afraid to do the testing and, as a result of his suggestion, Randi was dismissed from the project. (See A Magician Cannot Dispute FC…or Can He?)

Protocols already exist for testing FC in reliably controlled conditions. The purpose of “blinding” the facilitators from test stimuli (e.g., preventing them from seeing the words, pictures, or numbers being tested and/or from seeing the letter board itself) is to give the participants (nonspeaking individuals with autism or other developmental disabilities) an opportunity to independently produce responses without interference from the facilitators. Tests can be designed that allow participants the benefit of the emotional and physical “support” facilitators claim they need while simultaneously preventing the facilitators from having access to the test stimuli. (See Prisoners of Silence for examples of reliably controlled, message-passing tests).

But, proponents don’t like reliably controlled tests because, to date, facilitator influence has only been ruled in, not ruled out using this test design. FC doesn’t work if the facilitators aren’t within visual or auditory range of their clients or prevented from having access to test stimuli. But, rather than concede that FC as a technique is deeply flawed, proponents blame the test design instead and refuse to participate in such authorship testing. (See Katharine’s blog post When nothing else works: Blaming the method instead of the pseudoscience).

In Episode 6, Dickens claimed that “there is not an inch of [her] that’s a conspiracy theorist,” but then spent a good portion of the episode weaving an anti-scientific tale of woe because the experts she’d chosen to include in her podcast series (e.g., Diane Hennacy Powell, Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Rodin, Mary Ann Harrington and Marjorie Woolacott) had, according to their own, anecdotal accounts, received pushback from the scientific community for merely bringing up the “taboo” subject of telepathy. But there may be other reasons the scientific community rejects the extraordinary claims being made by these individuals beyond the fact that telepathy is considered a “fringe” topic.

A key part of scientific inquiry is receiving feedback from peers. No doubt it’s painful to hear criticisms about one’s “revolutionary discoveries” after investing so much effort, time and money into the process, but this feedback gives researchers an opportunity to correct any flaws in the design of their experiments or, in the case of FC, the technique itself. These corrections, if addressed appropriately, may very well strengthen the validity of their claims. Instead of doubling down on their belief in FC and telepathy, Dickens, Powell, and the others should use critical information (some of which existed long before they produced the Telepathy Tapes) to course-correct their investigations.

Having said that, I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that Dickens didn’t include in her podcast representatives from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, for example, who regularly investigate and write about claims of paranormal activity or Speech/Language Pathologists trained specifically in the use of evidence-based Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) who could explain to her listening audience why they think FC use is harmful to the individuals being subjected to it. (See Kim Neely’s Autistics have a new superpower? SLP response to Telepathy Tapes)

Instead of embracing the scientific process, which is admittedly quite rigorous, Dickens and the others, reject the existing science (which threatens to, in their own words, shatter their pet hypotheses about telepathy and FC) and turn, instead, to the popular media to promote the idea that all non-speaking individuals are telepathic. Circumventing the scientific community and going directly to the popular press to promote pseudoscience is, unfortunately, a strategy that works. The general public is not nearly as invested in proving the validity of FC and telepathic abilities as those in the scientific community who specifically work with the population currently being targeted by the producers of the Telepathy Tapes. In this case, non-speaking or minimally speaking individuals with profound autism. Feel-good miracle stories “sell.”

Image by Hal Gatewood

Despite Dickens’ claim that the scientific community isn’t interested in or excited about topics like consciousness, telepathic or supernatural abilities, human connectedness, and the speech and language abilities of nonspeaking individuals with profound autism, investigating the realm of the unknown is what motivates many scientists to go to work every day. Scientific inquiry is built on trying to find solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems, including and perhaps especially when it comes to phenomena that affect the human condition. But conscientious scientists and researchers aren’t going to take on faith claims of telepathic abilities being made by—anybody—because they (the scientists and researchers) know how easy it is for human beings to be fooled by what we perceive to be happening in the world around us. This is especially true when people are motivated by career ambitions, money, popularity, and/or an intense desire to help those less fortunate than ourselves. That’s where the scientific process comes into play and, though not perfect, provides an objective way to study the topics at hand.

In the case of FC, most facilitators believe they are not providing physical, visual or auditory cues to their clients, but if you watch videotaped FC sessions frame-by-frame (where the facilitator isn’t blocked from view), it’s often possible to detect movements by the facilitator that aid in letter selection even if he or she might not be fully consciously aware of the movements.

In Episode 6, Dickens, Powell, and others discuss what they believe is evidence to prove their claims that telepathy (in humans and in animals) exists. But a closer look at these claims raises questions about the veracity of their evidence. The following examples, mostly, fall into the anecdotal, opinion-based category of data collection and, unfortunately, are not scientifically rigorous evidence.

Anecdote (not evidence) about telepathic abilities

In Episodes 1 and 6, Powell discusses Haley, a young girl who Powell believes can telepathically spell out words and sequences of numbers in complicated math problems. But an analysis of the videotape of the testing session shows that Haley is being subjected to a Rapid Prompting Method (RPM)-style of FC. Strangely the video also shows the facilitator controlling access to the letter board even though Haley can type independently (e.g. without the facilitator’s assistance) into an AAC device. During the trials, Haley, not the facilitator, is blinded from the target test stimuli (e.g., a number sequence or word), leaving the stencil/letter board as the main conduit for the transmission of information between Haley and the facilitator.

Haley types independently on the (pink) AAC device but is also being subjected to RPM/S2C-type facilitation. The facilitator is seated to Haley’s right and controls access to the letter board by holding it in the air and “resetting” (taking the board away and then offering to Haley again) after each number or letter is selected. (Image from the 2014 Powell and Romney Telepathy Video Clips on Vimeo)

By watching the video frame-by-frame, it is possible to detect behaviors exhibited by the facilitator that appear to help Haley choose which target letter or number to select. The facilitated cues in the session I watched are very subtle but when I slowed down the video, I could see that the facilitator:

  • Reset the board (took it away or placed it in front of Haley) to cue when to start selecting letters or stop. It’s likely that Haley didn’t know how long the number sequences were going to be. She just stopped picking numbers when the facilitator stopped putting the board in front of her.

  • Positioned the board in a way that increased the chances that Haley would select the desired number or letter. Haley rested her arm on the table pretty much in the same place throughout the testing and just moved her wrist slightly to select the letters or numbers (e.g., a range of motion that was comfortable for Haley). The facilitator, it appears, cued Haley into selecting the desired number or letter simply by placing the board in a way that positioned the desired number or letter comfortably within that pointing range.

  • Tilted the board (front to back, up or down) to signal which number to select—one in the top row or one from the bottom row.

  • Slid the board from right to left or left to right to position the desired number or letter closest to Haley’s hand.

Image by Goh Rhy Yan

Of course, the most reliably way to demonstrate authorship in FC is through controlled testing designed to rule in or rule out facilitator influence, but, by watching the facilitator’s behaviors, I found enough “red flags” in the Haley video to question just who was controlling letter/number selection. Powell’s “telepathy” test with Haley, for example, may have received a more positive reception from the scientific community had she:

  1. Blinded the facilitator from test stimuli (e.g., the number sequences and the target words) to rule out facilitator interference when using the letter board

  2. Allowed Haley to select letters and numbers independently and without interference from the facilitator. Haley demonstrated in the video that she could press letters and numbers on an AAC device with one hand (unsupported) while also being subjected to a form of FC called Spelling to Communicate (S2C) or Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) with the other. I’m confused why FC was being used at all. Why not just let Haley “receive” the telepathically relayed information remotely and then type it (by herself) into the AAC device? The researchers knew or should have known critics would question FC authorship, so why not remove that obstacle altogether?

  3. Waited until after authorship had been established (e.g. with facilitator influence ruled out) to conduct the telepathy tests. Ideally, none of the telepathy testing would depend on facilitated output. 

Image by Richard Jacobs

Anecdote (not evidence) about telepathic elephants

In the episode, Ky Dicken’s father (a self-described “materialist”) tells a lovely story about a man named Lawrence Anthony who cared for wild elephants. As the story goes, the elephonts loved Anthony so much that, when he died, they walked miles to pay tribute to the man at his home. Snopes.com, a website dedicated to researching urban legends such a this, marked the story as “undetermined.” In other words, the story can’t be proved or disproved at this point. And, while it would be cool to think the elephants, unaided by human intervention, did, indeed, pay their respects to “the elephant whisperer” when the man died, without proof, it’s just a feel-good anecdote and not evidence of anything in particular. (But, how cool would it be if this were true?). FMI: check out an article written by David Mikkelson titled “The Elephant Whisperer.”

Anecdote (not evidence) about a parrot with spoken language abilities

In the episode, Rupert Sheldrake and Ky Dickens talk about claims made by Aimee Morgana who believes her parrot has meaningful spoken language abilities. They name drop Jane Goodall, presumably, to add credibility to the story. However, Robert Carroll, writer for the Skeptic’s Dictionary, raises questions about the parrot’s language abilities in an article titled “N’kisi and the N’kiki Project.” In the article, Carroll points out , that through the power of suggestion and audio perception, the parrot’s owners projected what they wanted to hear onto the parrot’s nonsense sounds and shrieks. He suggested listening to the audiotapes of the bird “speaking” without reading the transcript of what the bird’s owner claims the bird was saying. According to Carroll, the Journal of Scientific Evidence found Sheldrake’s write up of the telepathic abilities of the parrot “suggestive” with a “level of statistical significance that was less than compelling.” About the story, Carrol wrote that the story “…stretches the boundaries of reasonable credibility.”

Anecdote (not evidence) about a blind boy who could read an eye chart

I searched my local university library’s databases for information about a story Rupert Sheldrake mentions in the episode. He claims that Sir Rudolph Peters knew and studied a severely disabled blind child who, purportedly, could read an eye chart from across the room, but my search came up empty. Sheldrake didn’t give enough information in the podcast for me to know if the child was being subjected to some form of physical support, but, in her retelling of it, Powell mentioned that the boy was only able to read letters if his mother was in the room (emphasis mine) and she was looking directly at the eye chart. This sounds suspiciously like some form of FC to me.

I can’t confirm or deny that Peters conducted such a study and, without documentation, this anecdote, as told by Sheldrake and Powell, falls within the friend-of-a-friend type claim often seen in the spread of urban legends. Still, If anyone has further information about this claim, please let me know.

Anecdote (not evidence) that dogs have telepathic abilities

As to Sheldrake’s research into telepathy, it’s true that his study titled “Dogs that know when their owners are coming home” was published in a peer reviewed journal titled Journal of Scientific Exploration. The journal itself, however, is considered a low-validity publication and, at least from what I could determine, is not a mainstream publication. According to its own website, the journal “covers a wide spectrum of topics, ranging from apparent anomalies in well-established disciplines to rogue phenomena that seem to belong in no established discipline.”

In my database searches, I couldn’t find any reviews (critical or otherwise) of Sheldrake’s study, beyond general descriptions of the book he wrote with the same title. Sheldrake claimed in Episode 6 that his study had been replicated by “a skeptic,” but didn’t mention who the skeptic was or where the replicated study was published. Again, if anyone has further information about Sheldrake’s or “the skeptic’s” replication study, please let me know.

The (poorly controlled) Ganzfield experiments of ESP conducted by Charles Honorton that, so far, have not been replicated by others in the scientific community

In the episode, Dean Rodin, who Dickens describes as “one of the most influential and leading scientists” in the field of animal telepathy, mentions the Ganzfeld studies. The Ganzfeld experiments, as Dickens explains in the episode, require a sender and a receiver. The receiver is separated from the sender in a darkened room intended to block out all sensory stimulation.. The sender, then thinks about a target word, number or other test stimuli, and the receiver is asked to describe what he or she “receives” from the sender. Rodin claims that the Ganzfeld studies conducted by Charles Honorton have proven that receivers can correctly choose the right target at a level of 30-31%. However, as Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman pointed out in a 1999 meta-analysis Honorton’s experiments contained methodological flaws that called his findings into question. Subsequent studies by researchers to try to replicate Honorton’s results have failed to do so.

In closing, rather than feeling “shattered” after listening to and taking notes on Episode 6, I’m left, once again, feeling disappointed that Ky Dickens and the producers of the Telepathy Tapes podcast relied so heavily on anecdotes (sincere stories, perhaps, but not evidence) and/or poorly controlled studies in their increasingly credulous promotion of the idea that nonspeaking and minimally speaking individuals being subjected to FC have telepathic abilities. If Dickens and her colleagues are serious about proving the existence of telepathic abilities of nonspeaking individuals with autism, then they’ll need to address critics’ concerns not with anecdotes and testimonials, but with scientifically reliably controlled studies.

References and Recommended Reading

Jarry, Jonathan. (2024, December 13). The Telepathy Tapes Prove We All Want to Believe. McGill Office for Science and Society.

Mikkelson, David. (2012, July 16). The Elephant Whisperer: Groups of wild elephants traveled miles to visit Lawrence Anthony’s home? Snopes.com

Milton, Julie, and Wiseman, Richard. (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer. Psychological Bulletin published by the American Psychological Association. Vol. 125 (4), 387-361.

Prior, Margot and Cummins, Robert. (1992). Questions about Facilitated Communication and Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol. 22 (2); 331-337.

Von Tetzchner, S. (1997, January 1). Historical issues in intervention research: Hidden knowledge and facilitating techniques in Denmark. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 32 (1), 1-18. DOI: 10.3109/13682829709021453

Janyce Boynton
Next

When "telepathy" awakens skepticism: a French case of FC