In his excellent article, ‘‘Can We Just Help by Good Intentions? A Meta-Analysis of Experiments on Distant Intention Effects,’’ Stefan Schmidt, PhD, demonstrates persuasively that there are an abundance of studies indicating the positive effect of benevolent intention. His meta-analysis of 11 studies, with 576 single sessions, on studies involving the question of whether the attentional performance of a participant can be varied by the support of a remote person, shows a reasonably consistent, although small, effect size. Interestingly, there were cultural Western (United States and United Kingdom) and Eastern (Indonesia) differences in operator performance. Schmidt notes that these attention-focusing facilitation experiments (AFFEs) are part of a larger series of distant intentionality experiments, sometimes known as direct mental interaction in living systems (DMILS). Two other types of DMILS occur in the experimental setup whereby a participant attempts to change the electrodermal activity (EDA) of a subject from a distance (EDA-DMILS). The second type of DMILS is remote staring, whereby the dependent variable is the EDA physiologic arousal of the person being stared at. Importantly, subsequent to his meta-analysis of the AFFE experiments, Schmidt presents two previously performed meta-analyses on DMILS and remote staring that produced almost the same small, but significant effect size. Based on this, he noted that, whether the dependent variable in an experiment was physiologic or behavioral seems to be of little importance. Nor was the effect size related to the specific task. Schmidt suggests the possibility that, because it is not the specificity of task (i.e., helping, activating, or staring) that is important, we might be left with only the intentional component toward the remote person. This, he speculates, might be related to a number of areas in which distant intention seems to be at work, including healing and meditation. This is wonderful stuff, indeed. At the same time that we can acknowledge and appreciate the quality of Schmidt’s meticulous analysis, and the creative comparison of his meta-analysis to previous metaanalyses, we might also stop to consider and compare applications of intention beyond those directed at remote persons. He is exactly ‘‘on the money’’ in trying to go beyond his present meta-analysis to seek other comparisons. Perhaps the exercise needs to be extended beyond the
Read full abstract