WIXLIB

CSICOPCONFERENCE*r#rffigd*Commentary: Hit and RunLYS ANN SHORE and STEVEN N. SHOREIn past years, CSICOP has frequently invited speakers representing alternative views of asubject. This outreach effort hasresulted in the participation at pastconferences of the late UFOresearcher J. Allen Hynek andparapsychologist Robert Morris,among others. This year as well,CSICOP reached out—to "theAmazing Kreskin," a mentalist andwell-known performer. Kreskin, avocal critic of hypnosis, was one ofthe speakers in the opening session,"Controversies in Hypnosis," andhis presentation created a controversy of its own. Several factorsexacerbated the situation. First,session moderator Robert A. Baker,in his introduction of Kreskin,identified him as a "practical andeffective psychologist who uses thestage as his laboratory" and a"scientist of behavior"—epithetsthat drew fire.Second, Kreskin's own presentation contained several proparanormal statements. At Baker'srequest, he spoke off the cuff,although he had come with aprepared paper. Most dramatically,he stated: "I do claim to be a mentalist and that under certain circumstances . . . I absolutely canreveal what a person's thinking andso forth, but it may not be becauseof the reasons that we think of suchphenomena as is called telepathic."He further remarked that "mankind is an incurably mystical race"4Kreskin: Focus of conference controversy.and that "if you believe in paranormal phenomena, you will seethem wherever you walk. But ifyou're completely convinced there'sno such thing as paranormal phenomena, you'll never be able todiscover it if it exists." He impliedthat the charisma of a stage hypnotist exerts a powerful and mysterious effect on hypnotic subjects,and stated that in his opinionhypnosis is not a special state andis not a proper topic for scientificresearch. Along the way, he questioned the motives and ethics ofresearchers, therapists, and experimental subjects alike.While many of those attendingthe CSICOP conference certainlydisagreed with such opinions, few(continued on p. 6)SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 16

iResponse to the ShoresWe welcome constructivecriticism within CSICOP,and the Shores have raisedsome valid concerns, which weappreciate. What they overlookedin their complaint is that Kreskinwas invited to participate in asession devoted specifically tohypnosis, and he is clearly one ofthe country's leading skeptics concerning the misuse and abuse ofhypnosis, particularly in justifyingparanormal claims.Incidentally, the Shores quoteKreskin out of context. He beginshis statement on being a mentalistby stating explicitly: "1 do not claimto be a psychic."I grant that Kreskin is not a 100percent skeptic, but skeptics shouldavoid any appearance of hardlinedogmatism. Surely our audience isintelligent enough to evaluatespeakers without being hoodwinked. When I asked the hundredsof people present at the banquet onthe following night if theyapproved of our inviting Kreskin toour conference, the reaction wasoverwhelmingly positive, with onlyseven or eight objecting.As to my own introduction ofKreskin, I did say that he had justwritten a book, The Secrets of theAmazing Kreskin, critical of paranormal interpretations of hypnosis,but he also presented the interesting theory that some apparentlyparanormal phenomena may beinterpreted as "extremely sensitiveperception"—not extra- and notparanormal. Kreskin may beFall 1991CSICOPCONFERENCEwrong, but it is an interestinghypothesis to explore. It is clearthat Kreskin is using magic tricksthroughout his act, whether his"muscle reading" routine is anillustration of his ability to "read"physical cues or a trick is aninteresting topic to debate. Thepublication of a book by Prometheus does not in any sense implyapproval of anything the authorhas to say.I do not condone Kreskin'sdodging of any questions. I shouldpoint out, however, that he told usbefore he came that he was on atight schedule and would have toleave by 12:45 P.M. to catch a plane.We had invited him to attend atwelve-o'clock press luncheon wewere hosting for members of themedia at the conference. Therefore, his leaving at noon (the endof the session) was primarily dueto our urging him to attend theluncheon.Incidentally, CSICOP does notendorse any speakers at its conferences. The Executive Council hassaid over and over again that noone speaks for CSICOP; and sincewe invite speakers who present awide range of views, this precludesan invitation being either an endorsement or a disclaimer.Paul KurtzCSICOP ChairmanKreskin has been one of the few"mentalist" magicians to emphasizethat "natural laws govern theworking of the mind and that those(continued on p. 6)5

CSICOPCONFERENCE(Commentary, continued from p. 4)if any would be opposed to aspeaker's expressing them. In thiscase, the problem arose in part fromCSICOP chairman Paul Kurtz'sannouncement of Kreskin's newbook on "extra-sensitive perception," soon to be published byPrometheus Books. The tone ofthis announcement inadvertentlycreated the impression thatCSICOP endorsed Kreskin's general position on the paranormal. Itovershadowed the disclaimer madeby Baker in his introduction that"despite some claims, Kreskin is nota psychic, an occultist, a fortuneteller, a mindreader, a medium, ora hypnotist. There is nothingsupernatural about anything hedoes or has ever done. He . . . usesnatural and scientific means tobaffle, to entertain, and to amuse."The third, related factor wasKreskin's refusal to answer questions at the end of the session.Admittedly, the first questionposed to Kreskin was a tough one—a challenge, from a professionalmagician, to define "mentalist."This Kreskin refused point-blank(Response, continued from p. 5)who do not understand these lawscall them supernatural or extrasensory." Kreskin has long insistedthere is nothing magical or mysterious about "hypnosis." Becausehe is correct in his view and becausementalists and stage magicianshave made significant contributions to our understanding of6ito do. For a speaker at any conference to refuse to answer questionsis almost unheard of, and in thiscase Kreskin's refusal was openlyabetted by Lee Nisbet, the conference chairman. All speakers havefaced and responded to hostilequestions from audiences; theimplicit understanding is that allquestions deserve a response, aslong as they are posed in terms thatare at least superficially polite. Thequestion addressed to Kreskinclearly met this criterion.The Kreskin controversy lastedthroughout the conference andafter, though Kreskin himself leftin haste, literally running from theroom to a scheduled CSICOP pressluncheon featuring him and severalothers. As a result, we are left inthe dark about the precise natureof his "extra-sensitive perception,"his definition of mentalism, and themeaning of his remarks on theparanormal.Lys Ann Shore is a contributingeditor, and Steven N. Shore a consulting editor, to the SKEPTICALINQUIRER."hypnosis," I felt this point of viewshould be heard and that Kreskindeserved a place on the CSICOPpanel. Read carefully. Shore's quotations of me and Kreskin (pg. 4)all support our anti-occult stance.Robert A. BakerCSICOP FellowSKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 16

iCSICOPCONFERENCEFop Psychology and, Self-Helplatter. The session also attracted quitea few psychologists, as revealed by ashow of hands called by one of thespeakers, which made for a livelyquestion-and-answer period.The opening speaker, Loren Pankratz, a professor of psychology atOregon Health Sciences University,Portland, believes it's important toevaluate psychological therapies ascritically as we do consumer products.He structured his talk around theNational Council on Health Fraud'sdefinition of quackery: "the promotionof false, unsafe, or unproven healthschemes for financial gain."As far as "promotion" is concerned,he noted that the line is fuzzy betweeninforming the public and pitchingclaims. Under "schemes," he pointedout that at least 450 different psychotherapies have been identified sofar, with more coming along all thetime. As for "financial gain," he saidthat "when consulting for insurancecompanies, I often feel that as manydollars are wasted on the overuse ofvalid psychotherapies as are spent onquack therapies." Therapists sometimes combine the best of intentionswith the worst of ideas, Pankratznoted, reminding his audience thatintentions or beliefs are not at issuesince many quacks believe in theirchosen therapy. "Ethical therapistsdiscuss up-front questions like fees,confidentiality, conflict of interest,and so forth. They view their artwithin the scientific enterprise," heconcluded. "Those who don't are using[the equivalent of] flashlight batteriesand lead weights."Friday afternoon featured two simultaneous sessions, both on topics inpsychology, "Subliminal Pseudoscience" and "Popular Pyschology: AnEvaluation"; I chose to attend theIn a talk called "Self-Help or Hype?"Gerald Rosen, professor of psychology and psychiatry at the Universityof Washington, Seattle, presentedcomments on "psychology's failure torespond in such a way as to succeed."Spanos also questions just how amazing and puzzling the phenomena ofhypnotism really are: How can weknow that a subject can't hear or see,or doesn't feel pain, in response tohypnotic suggestion, when all theevidence we have is the person'sverbal response? If someone says shecan't hear, are we dealing with a perceptual change or a reporting bias?When experimenters attempt to measure actual physiological or perceptualchanges, he said, "in most cases youget no evidence of any change." Heconcluded that "by and large thephenomena of hypnosis don't involvephysiological and perceptual changes;rather, to seek to understand thesephenomena we need to look in the areaof reporting."Hilgard, who has studied the hypnotic phenomenon ("I much prefer theadjective to the noun hypnosis") for thepast 25 years, described the thrust ofhis research as "limiting the domain"of the phenomenon. He has done thisin part through developing objectivescales to measure such factors assuggestibility. Since to study anyphenomenon one must first define it,Hilgard sees the effort to developtechniques of measurement as anecessary prelude to understandingwhat the hypnotic state might actuallybe. "Serious research goes on," he said,"and it is to be hoped that one daywe'll have an accepted set of criteriato work from."Fall 19917

CSICOPCONFERENCEadvance self-care." These days, selfhelp is big business, with as many as2,000 new books published each yearand hundreds of millions of tapes sold.(One estimate holds that 250 millionsubliminal tapes were sold in 1987alone.) Self-help videotapes and computer programs are also widely available. At the same time, the self-helpindustry has expanded its horizons,for example, by introducing productsthat focus on problems of children. Inthe face of this growth, Rosen believesthat psychologists have so far "failedin their support role to evaluatewhether and how people can best carefor themselves."Techniques that are highly successful in a clinic may not work nearlyas well when self-administered, Rosenpointed out, and unsuccessful treatments may actually make problemsworse. Even if a program seems to besuccessful, introducing changes into itcan have unforeseen results, so thatdifferent editions or versions of aprogram may not be equally effective.In many cases, psychologists themselves are the authors of self-helpproducts, and Rosen criticized thepractice of "rushing to market withuntested programs in the face ofresearch results that warn pyschologists to be cautious." The challenge,he said, is "not to sell psychology butto use our skills to enhance the effectiveness of self-help interventions."The third speaker in the session,Eileen Gambrill, replaced scheduledspeaker Carol Tavris, who was unableto attend. Gambrill, a professor ofsocial welfare at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, and author of therecent book Critical Thinking inClinical Practice, took a consumerawareness approach to self-help products. She discussed the dangers asso8kciated with such products and presented a consumer checklist for evaluating them.Existing self-help books have several weaknesses, Gambrill said. Theytypically provide few if any guidelinesfor self-selection of interventionssuited to individual readers. Similarly,they seldom offer guidelines toencourage generalization and maintenance of the desired skill or behavior. An insidious aspect of self-helpproducts, she noted, is the implicationthat the individual is solely responsiblefor self-change, when in reality "thereare external sources of problems thatare environmental, economic, social,and political."Session moderator Barry Beyerstein presented the final talk. Beyerstein is a professor of psychology atSimon Fraser University, Vancouver,British Columbia, whose researchconcerns experimental neuroscience,or "how the brain mediates psychological processes." His talk concernedthose proponents of pseudosciencewho are "restating the old gospel ofpositive thinking in the .garb ofneurological science."Beyerstein used the example ofalpha waves, the pattern of electricalwaves emitted by the brain associatedwith relaxation and meditation. Theassociation has led to the promotionof alpha waves in relaxation andstress-management techniques. "Nowthere's an alpha-wave industry,"Beyerstein said, which results fromthe logical flaw of mistaking correlation for causation. "The entire alphawave conditioning industry is built onthe false premise that because peoplein a relaxed state produce a lot of alphawaves, therefore if you can teach themto produce more alpha, you'll enhancetheir relaxation, happiness, and soSKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 16

CSICOPCONFERENCEforth." In fact, it's not evenknown, for example, w h e ther alpha waves signify relaxation as opposed to, say,inattention to visual phenomena.Turning to the use ofbiofeedback techniques toincrease alpha-wave p r o duction, Beyerstein askedw h y t h e r e are so m a n ysatisfied customers for sucht e c h n i q u e s . In his o w nexperiment on this question, Beyerstein found thatwhen controls were addedfor expectation effect, "theresults turned out to showa classic placebo effect."The Search forHuman OriginsThe outstanding event ofthe 1991 conference wasJohanson: Wresting answers about origins.Friday evening's k e y n o t eaddress by Donald C. Johanson, theby bringing his audience into thepaleoanthropologist best known fora c t u a l p r o c e s s of " d o i n g p a l e o his discovery a decade ago of theanthropology."three-million-year-old h u m a n skelJohanson illustrated his talk witheton dubbed "Lucy," as well as herslides of his team at work in Africa,contemporaries, the "First Family."where he has conducted field researchJ o h a n s o n heads the I n s t i t u t e forfor 20 years "trying to wrest as muchHuman Origins at Berkeley. Lucy, youas possible out of the fossils to helpmay remember, is the petite femaleanswer the question of w h e r e did weaustralopithecine w h o proved concome f r o m . " In this t o u r of theclusively that h u m a n beings walkedexcavation sites and procedures in theupright three million years before theGreat Rift Valley, at the sites ofpresent. Her name was also the titleOlduvai and Hadar, he reminded theof Johanson's best-selling book on theaudience of a motto from the ancientdiscovery. " N a m i n g t h e specimena u t h o r Pliny: "Ex Africa s e m p e rthus familiarly was very important,"aliquid novi," or "There is alwayshe said, "as giving people a way tosomething new out of Africa." "Weidentify with a human ancestor." Inhave barely scratched the surface athis C S I C O P talk, Johanson similarlyHadar," Johanson said.gave people a way to identify withJohanson recognizes that the dist h e s e a r c h for h u m a n a n c e s t o r scovery of Lucy brought with it aFall 1991a

CSICOPCONFERENCEtremendous responsibility, which heexercises by speaking out firmly andfrankly on questions of human evolution. "Evolution is a fact, just likegravity, but some people are not easilyable to accept it," he said. He pointedout the importance of bipedalism as"the single thing that defines hominids. A large brain, culture—these don'tgo back too far. Bipedalism is all thereis." Johanson places his work onhuman origins in a larger context; itserves "to remind us of our place innature, for we are still part of thenatural world, in spite of our supposedsuperiority of culture."Catastrophism and EvolutionThe session on catastrophism andevolution, which took place the morning following Johanson's address, gavea different kind of insight into theprocess of "doing science." The threespeakers—a paleontologist, a geologist, and a physicist—are all colleaguesat the University of California, Berkeley. Much of their work focuses ona key issue in catastrophism, the eventthat appears to have caused the massextinctions that took place at the endof the Cretaceous and the beginningof the Tertiary era (the so-called KT boundary) 65 million years ago. Eachof the three addressed his two colleagues as much as the audience,responding to what the others hadsaid, and engaging in a kind of banterthat revealed the human side ofscience. Their presentations imparteda vivid sense of the excitement of thescientific enterprise.Moderator Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and executivedirector of the National Center forScience Education, began with ahistorical introduction to the concepts10Aof catastrophism and evolution, "twovery misunderstood concepts . . .which are related ideas that overlap."She defined catastrophism as the ideathat "the earth's life- and land-formshave been shaped by sudden, violentforces, or catastrophes," and traced itshistory from the early nineteenthcentury French scientist GeorgesCuvier onward. "The essence ofscience seems to be change," shecommented, noting that Cuvier'sversion of catastrophism has beenaccepted, rejected, and most recentlyregenerated as "neocatastrophism," aconcept used to support evolution—while creationists continue to applyt

{} SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol. 16, No. 1, Fall 1991 r ISSN 0194-6730 Journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation