Will the Real Scientists Please Stand Up? Taboo Topics,Creative Risk,and Paradigm Shift

Abstract

The “real scientist” brings not only investigative ingenuity but also courage and integrity that permit a challenging of the status quo. Here, three issues and their relationship are considered: (a) Taboo Topics as per Norman Farberow’s 1963 book, where conscious/unconscious fears and prohibitions can hinder scientific progress, (b) creative qualities catalyzing open-mindedness and pursuit of truth, and (c) factors heightening or lowering resistance to paradigm shift as per Thomas Kuhn—including sudden change when the data become overwhelming. A key illustration involves parapsychology and the work of Stanley Krippner and colleagues—showing long-standing and rigorous research, plus efforts to disseminate findings and to open minds.

Keywords

taboo topics creativity open mind paradigm shift status quo unconscious bias parapsychology psi

Nothing in life is to be feared.

It is to be understood.

—Marie Curie (as cited in Benarde, 1989)

An unusual event took place at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, D.C., Stanley Krippner had succeeded in scheduling a 2-hour symposium to explore publicly the issues in his new book, coedited with Harris Friedman, Debating Psychic Experience: Human Potential or Human Illusion? (Krippner & Friedman, 2010). Here, at the APA meeting, a controversial subject area was receiving unusually broad attention, and in a very large venue, a conference room for 400 people. Debating Psychic Experience was the coauthors’ newest book on parapsychology and is a rigorous volume presenting arguments and counterarguments by respected figures in the debate. Stanley Krippner and Harris Friedman had the stature to marshal such experts.

I had written the foreword (Richards, 2010b), for Debating Psychic Experience, and was honored also to be discussant for this APA symposium. My discussion asked the question, “Will the real scientists please stand up?” As one will see, the “real scientist” is a figure whose virtues include not only investigative ingenuity but also courage and integrity, and a vision not distorted by public opinion or bias. At the APA symposium, my PowerPoint presentation began with stereotypical images of scientists, male and female, white jackets, shiny equipment, silver microscopes, and pads of paper for recording data. They looked convincing. Yet were these the real scientists?

Significantly, the APA was taking this large parapsychology symposium—and all that it might presage—very seriously. But what might it presage? The distinguished symposium participants, which included authors from Drs. Krippner and Friedman’s (2010) edited volume (both pro and con) along with other experts, included Stephan Schwartz, Jessica Utts, Christopher French, Roger Nelson, and both the symposium Chair and participant, Stanley Krippner.

Unfortunately, Daryl Bem, professor from Cornell University, who had been advertised early as a speaker, was unable to attend, despite recent controversy over his article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, titled “Feeling the Future.” His article, based on years of research and replication, dealt with “anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect” (Bem, 2011). Dr. Bem’s controversial work was nonetheless noted by other APA symposium speakers. Furthermore, although she was not physically present, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a friendly critic of parapsychology, who is highly renowned for her studies of false memory, was formally represented by Stanley Krippner who read from her Afterword in the Krippner and Friedman (2010) volume. Thus, speaking pro and con, were major figures, taking seriously a controversial area, as was the respected mainstream APA. This was thanks to Drs. Stanley Krippner and Harris Friedman.

This APA symposium was a landmark event. How often, instead, is parapsychology marginalized by mainstream psychology? Parapsychology, one should note, is a scientific discipline that studies psi, with psi defined as involving, “interactions between organisms and their environment . . . that appear to transcend the physical and biological demarcations of Western science” (Krippner & Friedman, 2010, p. 4). Does this deserve, some psychologists ask, our serious attention? Yet, if valid, the consequences of existing studies could transform our views of the laws of nature. Why the resistance to this area—and who is, and who is not, listening?

Three topics are explored below, and one should note that various brave psychologists—very much including humanistic psychologists—have contributed here. Stanley Krippner, with his long career in parapsychology is taken as an exemplar, with his foundational studies and long practice of breaking ground for psychologists to think more freely. He was, in fact, early on the scene in each area below. The discussion returns at the end to the issue of the “real scientists.”

Taboo topics. These are topics one should not even mention! We are cautioned not to do so. Taboo Topics is also the title of an important book, now more than 50 years old (Farberow, 1963, foreword by Gordon Allport). It notes our automatic human reactions, often unconscious, to certain topics that seriously threaten the status quo. Of course, among them is parapsychology. But what actually underlies such taboos?

Creativity. How may this, our “originality of everyday life,” provide an antidote to closed-mindedness, and the frightening prohibitions that may arise against certain topics in science. Creativity offers mind-opening awareness and flexibility that helps us entertain novelty. Yet might we find creativity itself merging into taboo topics?

Shifting worldviews. Is there an underlying fear that parapsychology could shift how consensual reality is conventionally viewed? One will see that parapsychology has long been a taboo topic. Might one ever envision a paradigm shift as per Kuhn’s (1962/2012) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Of what exactly are people afraid? The reader should recall that this discussion is not about choosing View A or B; it is not about conclusions. It is about our process, and what can limit open inquiry—at times even causing a proposal to be rejected unconsciously, fully out of awareness, without a fair hearing. This can occur even when potential consequences are beneficial.

Looking back, here first is some context, focused particularly on researcher Stanley Krippner, a prototypical risk-taker, who has long studied parapsychology. He has long promoted open inquiry in general and, along with Harris Friedman, and the help of publishers they recruited, have recently helped bring the debate itself more into public view, and to carry us to the moment of this large APA parapsychology symposium.

Looking Back

Helping Psychologists Take It Seriously

That we are reading about parapsychology at all is thanks to our risk-taking colleagues who remain open to the possibility that we have more to learn about the nature and extent of human potential. Over many decades, Dr. Stanley Krippner, as exemplar, has published material on psi, both as author and editor, while helping others share their own work. Unlike many others scientists, Dr. Krippner has also done so in mainstream venues. Teaching for years at Saybrook University, he has not told students how to think about these topics, but just asked that they do think—that they remain aware, and exercise both critical and creative thinking. Dr. Krippner’s graduate students at Saybrook University, where I also teach, do not reject ideas and research out of hand—nor get very far if they do.

Since his own youth, Stanley Krippner had been curious about psi events (Sela-Smith, 2006), years before his extensive and landmark studies of dream telepathy with Montague Ullman (Ullman, Krippner, & Vaughan, 1973/2002; see Krippner, 1963) at Maimonides Medical Center, in New York. He has not only withstood the sometimes severe social pressure to suppress unpopular research findings (Farberow, 1963; Richards, 2010a) but has also worked to share findings of others as well. Does psi exist? He did not fear to ask the question.

It is interesting to me, as a long-standing scholar of creativity, as a factor for personal and social health and change (e.g., Richards, 2007a), that Dr. Krippner has also studied creativity over many years. For the present purpose, the creative product may be defined after researcher Frank Barron, using criteria of originality and meaningfulness (Barron, 1967; Richards, 2007). Creative process, or the means by which we bring the new product into existence, may be seen as one potential antidote to narrow-minded thinking. Along with integrity and other virtues, personal creativity may well have helped Dr. Krippner persist in doing and sharing unpopular explorations. Plus, and this may be a surprise to some people, Stanley Krippner also opened a door to creativity research, itself, raising the taboo topic of parapsychology.

Easier to Look, These Days?

Does one find a more open atmosphere today toward parapsychology? The answer might at first seem to be “no.” Yet there has been long-standing government interest (Radin, 1997, also see later section), although this is not usually advertised. One now finds respected domains, such as quantum mechanics, being more regularly invoked as consistent with psi results, while supporting models of reality beyond the immediately observable and physical (Dossey, 2011; Krippner & Friedman, 2010; Millay, 2010; Radin, 1997; Rao, 2002).

Furthermore, today, we have large numbers of once overlooked research findings, now integrated via large meta-analyses. For instance, Dean Radin (2006), Laboratory Director at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, in his popular book, The Entangled Mind, gives cumulative odds favoring significance of combined work on “dream psi,” one key area of Dr. Krippner’s. Odds are based on extensive meta-analyses. Note these are the odds against results being due to chance alone. In psychology, we are glad to see p < .05 or 1 out of 20, being the chance of a false positive. Compare the meta-analysis odds for “dream psi”—extraordinarily high, almost hard to believe: one in 2.2 × 10¹⁰. It is worth looking at this last one written out, namely, 22,000,000,000 to one. Twenty-two billion to one odds that results are meaningful.

Twenty-Two Billion?

Yet, to the unbeliever, even these statistics can prove inadequate. Some would have us believe a vast conspiracy has suppressed numerous negative experiments, meanwhile elevating (or falsifying) others. This despite: twenty-two billion to one. Included are numerous studies by respected individuals. Shouldn’t an open-minded psychologist at least take a look? It may seem extraordinary to find people who reject the evidence without ever looking at it. Presumably not the good reader of this journal, who accepts/rejects results only after close consideration. The concern is with the knee-jerk detractors who say, “This stuff is wacko.”

Taboo Topics: When We Don’t Dare Even Look

Enter Taboo Topics (Farberow, 1963). We humans are too often not rational about addressing them—if we address them at all. Concerns and biases are not necessarily conscious either. We humans can unconsciously suppress, and together consensually suppress, and—even rather viciously at times—force others as well, to suppress, repress, deny, or at least be quiet about, certain unwelcome information (Bloom, 2000; Richards, 2007). Perhaps we all do this at times, depending on the issue and context. Here is what I learned, over a few years.

Taboo Topics?

Events below caused me to explore this question more than 20 years ago, at which time I found the remarkable 1963 book, Taboo Topics (Farberow, 1963, with foreword by Gordon Allport) in the McLean Hospital Library (psychiatric affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital). I was practicing clinically at McLean Hospital and doing mental health research, after finishing my residency in psychiatry. (I still retain these two affiliations.) Back in 1993, I had my own reasons to honor unpopular questions and findings and saw the extent to which some will go to avoid challenging the status quo. I note this briefly now, since later it rejoins the story.

Compensatory Advantage and the Author’s Own Taboo Topic

With Harvard Medical School colleagues I had been doing ongoing research on—not so popular back then—everyday creativity and major psychiatric disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia. I had in fact explored these areas since the mid-1970s. Andreasen and Canter’s (1974; also see Richards, 1981; Runco & Richards, 1998) work was known to me and my Harvard colleagues but not yet Kay Jamison’s (Jamison, 1993; Jamison, Gerner, Hammen, & Padesky, 1980) remarkable work. I had written a monograph (Richards, 1981), which helped spur our later research. Yet, truly, people made fun of us, of me, my colleague Dennis Kinney, and our associates. They’d say “creativity and madness?!” and then they might laugh and laugh.

At first, colleagues didn’t take us seriously. But later, they changed their minds, especially after we gained some attention. The “Creativity and Madness” epithet had it wrong, too—it was really about health, and a message of hope. Eventually, our findings were featured in The New York Times (Goleman, 1988) and published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Thus, I have also seen how a marginalized topic can win acceptance.

Findings are important, because rather than supporting illness linked directly with creativity in persons at risk (patients and relatives), our findings supported nonlinear effects, involving relative health and an “inverted-U.” Creativity peaked during “better functioning” times for persons carrying familial risk for bipolar disorders—linking with better functioning states for patients (especially mild mood elevation) or showing trait effects for better functioning relatives (Richards, Kinney, Benet, & Merzel, 1988; Richards, Kinney, Lunde, Benet, & Merzel, 1998; Runco & Richards, 1998). This fits with the model of compensatory advantage. Here, then, is another side (in individuals and families) to a prevalent major psychiatric illness—a positive force, even a silver lining, one that can bring hope and help fight stigma. This risk may also help keep the genetic risk alive in the population.

Yet the stereotype of creativity and mental illness does threaten some people, and thus had helped generate a bit of a taboo topic. Some actually fear they may “go crazy” if they are creative. Or, at least, will become or will seem bizarre and idiosyncratic (Richards, 2010a; Runco & Richards, 1998). By contrast, Abraham Maslow (1976), for one, found in creative functioning an epitomy of health. “The sicker the better” still remains a belief for some would-be creators and is especially worrisome in some artists who may even stop their meds and put their lives at risk. Again, the data supports the opposite, especially for everyday creativity: a healthy compensatory advantage. Here are the balancing executive functions to make adaptive use of creative inspiration (Kinney & Richards, 2011; Richards, 1981, 2010a ; Runco & Richards 1998,).

Yet, in the beginning, our Harvard Medical School research group had problems getting some colleagues to listen to the evidence for this! We return briefly to the mental health field later. Meanwhile, in the midst of our own controversy, I was more attuned to notice the following.

Parapsychology: Taboo Topic on Page One of the Boston Globe (Chandler, 1993)

Headline. Study Finds Evidence of ESP Phenomenon. How extraordinary! And in Boston, Massachusetts, too. This front page story had appeared about a startling presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, then meeting in Boston. The journal article that followed was titled, Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer (Bem & Honorton, 1994).

This page-one Boston Globe feature had a large inset quote from Robert Rosenthal, Chair of the Department of Psychology at Harvard University (as cited in Chandler, 1993, February 15, p. 8), saying,

The statistical evidence [in the study] is quite clear . . . that there is a phenomenon there that does require explaining.

Remarkable. Especially as a front page Boston Globe story. The presenter was Daryl Bem, professor at Cornell. The paper cited above had already been accepted for publication by the prestigious Psychological Bulletin. People were buzzing. What was this study?

Bem and Honorton (1994) had done meta-analyses, bringing together numerous studies, on two major ESP (extrasensory perception) “Ganzfeld” databases. Results supported “anomalous information transfer” under their highly controlled conditions. A designated “receiver” was in an electrically and acoustically isolated room. Four mutually distinct, emotionally involving stimuli were chosen randomly by computer, sequenced, and administered by VCR to “senders” who mentally transmitted these to the “receivers.” Examples are as follows: a tidal wave, sex scene, crawling snakes, and a Bugs Bunny clip. Reception was indeed greater than chance! Compared with a 25% chance hit rate for four items, the hit rate was 32% (one-tailed binomial probability p = .002).

The implication: that information had been transmitted from one place to another, information first selected via random computer generation, then transmitted mentally by a “sender” to an isolated human “receiver” with no physical connection; the finding was replicated across multiple studies, in this meta-analysis. Most impressive was how the methodological “i’s” had been dotted and “t’s” had been crossed. Reviewers of the published paper could not find major methodological flaws. Could this be “ESP”?

Relevant to later discussion of creativity, one smaller artistic subgroup of 20 students, from Juilliard School in New York, did particularly well with this Ganzfeld approach, getting a full half of the stimuli correct. Could creativity, and musical creativity in particular, somehow be relevant to the result? (Schlitz & Honorton, 1992).

Again, the current objective is not to argue the pros or cons of any one paper, design, or parapsychological finding, but rather to celebrate that this research was being presented at all. With Dr. Bem, findings were being aired on a broader stage. The American Association for the Advancement of Science had taken this risk. I was impressed enough that I went to the McLean Hospital Library, where I found the Taboo Topics book (Farberow, 1963). I ended up publishing my own commentary, “Psi Fi?” on issues of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” scientific research (Richards, 1994).

What Are These Taboos, and Are They Changing?

Faberow’s (1963) book, Taboo Topics, helped confirm for me (a) how serious and (b) how deep and buried our prohibitions can be, yet at the same time that (c) that some biases can change. Back in the 1960s, the taboo topics that were difficult to raise weren’t always on today’s list. Death, the list began. Then sex, suicide, homosexuality, parapsychology, graphology, religion, hypnosis, and politics—the last involving, remarkably enough, international relations and questions of “peace.” Today, we see an opening up of some—but not all—of these areas. Notable among the laggards is parapsychology (the study of anomalous phenomena).

What exactly then is a taboo? According to Farberow (1963), “taboo” can mean either “sacred” or, alternatively, “dangerous” or “forbidden.” It can also mean both at the same time. Yet, he said, taboos “all serve the same goal,” which is “preservation of the status quo” (p. 2). He illustrated how taboos can be so powerful, so frightening, that they bring about major defensive maneuvers. People do not die, they “pass away.” Or, as some people say, and right on point here, “Extrasensory perception is just too far beyond credibility, so why bother investigating?” (p. 6).

A taboo can too often operate on an unconscious level, before we can even consciously consider the issues, or what is at stake if we avoid them.

Landmark Figures and Publications

If Dr. Bem’s findings on “anomalous information transfer” shocked some people at the time, the shock later died down. His multiple replications, meta-analysis, and prestigious publication did little to change things. This was back in 1993. If one looked at later issues of the Psychological Bulletin, one was not apt to find articles on psi or on parapsychology. For this, one needed to go to specialty journals such as The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, or its British counterpart. However, not many naysayers and skeptics were studying those out-of-the-way pages.

Significantly, over the years, some highly eminent figures in the social and natural sciences, physics and medicine had, however, taken these topics very seriously (Richards, 1994; see Freud, 1963; Jung, 1955; Pauli, 1955). Arthur Koestler (1972) in The Roots of Coincidence, while acknowledging that academic psychology was always “hostile,” noted how the “giants had always taken telepathy and allied phenomena for granted—from Charcot and Richet through William James to Freud and Jung. Freud thought that telepathy entered into the relations between analyst and patient . . .” (p. 13). Koestler mentioned the stellar individuals who had been president of the British Society for Psychical Research, including 3 Nobel Laureates, 10 Fellows of the Royal Society, and 1 British Prime Minister.

Moving further into the 1990s, distinguished researchers including humanistic psychologist Stanley Krippner continued to place publications in mainstream as well as alternative publications. Then at the Millennium, Dr. Krippner with two coeditors, took a major step forward, convincing APA Books to publish Varieties of Anomalous Experience (Cardena, Lynn, & Krippner, 2000). In my view, this book is a model of critical thinking, as well as an excellent resource in parapsychology. It is published by one of the most respected and mainstream publishers in psychology. With this release, a wide range of psychologists were now exposed to, and could explore, controversial topics in parapsychology along with some of the major pros and cons. Other books from Dr. Krippner and colleagues followed, put out by other mainstream publishers as well.

When Do Critics and Skeptics Finally Listen?

Dr. Daryl Bem returned to the news, right before the 2011 APA conference, now 10 years after his first big publication. Again he did well in getting media and front page attention, in this case in the New York Times. Yet acceptance was harder coming. The Cornell psychologist (Bem, 2011) presented results on, “Feeling the Future; Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect.” There was evident validation in 8 out of 9 large experiments, showing “retroactive influence of some future event on an individual’s current responses” (from the abstract).

Findings were posed as a more general reflection of processes involved in premonition or precognition. The paper was published in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Bem, 2011). It is worth the reader doing a thought experiment: If you were tested on a list of memorized words today, and practiced tomorrow on a subset of these, might the later practice influence today’s results? Hard to imagine? The new physics is suggesting, however, that time is not as fully linear and causal as one might intuitively think. But might this counterintuitive psychology research make us, the readers, a little concerned, worried, skeptical, perhaps even anxious? Might we refuse even to consider it? Is time itself now being challenged? Perhaps we will just reject out of hand something that seems so unlikely.

Yet one should note that Dr. Bem’s methodology and findings were reviewed for the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by four highly qualified reviewers, who found the methodology sound. Should careful peer review now cause the open-minded psychologist to look more carefully? (To attend, but not necessarily to believe it?). Meanwhile, various detractors—and there were many—often hadn’t even read the research (Dossey, 2011).

Here are three examples of actual outrage, lashing out, and automatic and unquestioned disbelief, from some famous figures in academia, in fact, people who have done their own careful work. What were they thinking? Did they actually read any of Dr. Bem’s research on more than 1,000 college student participants (Bem, 2011)? Here is what some of these figures said, as reported by the public press (Dossey, 2011). It is important to witness this knee-jerk response and automatic dismissal, from three of our hoped-for academic role models.

Douglas Hofstadter, cognitive scientist, said, “There has to be a common-sense cutoff for craziness. . . Otherwise the floodgates will be open to crackpots of all stripes (and would) . . . spell the end of science as we know it” (p. 128).

Columbia astronomer David Helfand called the research, “an assault on science and rationality” (p. 128), later adding that psi may deserve “the same exalted status as belief in the Pastafarian Flying Spaghetti Monster” (p. 128).

Philosopher Anthony Gottlieb said that “even if it breaks none of the standard procedural rules, one can still be confident that its findings are incorrect” (p. 128).

Score one for Taboo Topics, and zero for the Open Mind. In the last quote in particular, one sees support for the status quo, no matter what evidence to the contrary. Below, in the section “Changing Worldviews: Of What Are People So Afraid,” resistance to shifting of worldviews is considered. One should also recall that a gullible acceptance, here, is no better than a knee-jerk dismissal. How can one ensure, instead, careful consideration of controversial research? Surely, it starts with reading the disputed work.

Creativity: Can Open Up Minds, But Does It Carry Its Own Risks?

Can creative thinking help us open our minds to the new? Perhaps, but may it sometimes create problems of its own?

Benefits of Creativity

If we are practicing a more open, flexible, creative way of functioning (Richards, 2007, 2010a), then exploring the “new” may come more easily and so may accepting it. One is valuing evolution, change, and progress. An individual with a more creative process will be more aware (present in the moment, with fewer unconscious overrides), more open (curious, aware of alternatives, and eager to meet the new), more nondefensive (including more able to confront ego-issues, self-deceptions, and blocks), more dynamically oriented (moving with the flow of life, seeing self as process, and change as part of one’s nature), and much more (Richards, 2007). Such creative functioning, as part of daily life, shows similarities to features of Maslow’s (1968, 1971) self-actualizing creativity. One is more present, open, spontaneous, and alive. One can also meet the new with more enthusiasm and bravery. Creativity is notably required to be an appreciator, as well as an initiator of change (Pritzker, 2007; Richards, 2007; Zausner, 2007). Appreciation can call on creative vision, openness to alternatives, flexible adaptations to, and changes in our own lives and values.

One sees cultural and creative shifts among progressive subgroups, for example, in Ray and Anderson’s (2000) study of “cultural creatives,” who value newer, healthier, and more sustainable, lifestyles, and embrace varied innovations. They are said to comprise as much as ¼ of this country (although geographically dispersed). In general, when enough people, or enough influential people, accept a change, it may become a new norm. One may recall in chaos theory, how quickly things may change at a point of bifurcation (Briggs & Peat, 1989; Krippner, 1994; Richards, 2007); this is popularly called “The Butterfly Effect” and can apply to many phenomena, from an avalanche, to a stock market crash to, potentially, a creative insight (Abraham, 1996; Richards, 1996, 2001b; Zausner, 1996). The tension may build invisibly, from the outside, and things seem static; yet a major change can be right around the corner.

The potential for sudden unannounced change does not necessarily make the earth-shaking and status quo threatening creative person everyone’s best friend.

Obstacles to Creativity

Creativity, be this on a large scale or small, or the eminent or everyday sort, can encounter obstacles, inner and outer, conscious and unconscious (Richards, 2007). Consider a case of “outer” resistance: people who may be more threatened than us (or perhaps us at other times), by a creator and creation, overinvested in the status quo; they enlist both conscious and unconscious forces to resist. In groups, in fact, we humans can even self-organize unknowingly, unconsciously, to suppress unpopular scientific or political views.

This chilling example involves a theory of cell-membrane exchange that fell from favor (although still not definitively disproven). Meanwhile a graduate student’s research ended up supporting this theory. He was told by a superior that, in spite of his findings, “membrane pump theories were correct and (other perspectives) had been disproved” (Bloom, 2000, p. 188). What was he to do? Abandon a dissertation? Throw out the data? Abandon scientific method? Dreadful situation. Yet related and worse examples are not hard to find (Bloom, 2000; Richards, 2007), where social pressures work quietly and powerfully to shut us down.

Process More Than Product

Creative attitudes may not only help us honor the new, in our creative products, but also to transform ourselves in the process—and this change tends to be in the direction of health (Richards, 2007, 2010a). We also find our own strength, see we are in a world of change and flow, and can make our contribution, whether popular or not, with relatively less fear. If we are to approach a changing and challenging future (again, it doesn’t mean we need to agree with everything—just to take a look) we need such qualities.

Some of us in Creativity Studies see creative potential, viewed as process and way of life, as a powerful—and future—force in our personal, cultural, and global (Richards, 1998, 2007, 2010), health, well-being, and interconnected functioning in a changing world. For some persons this also becomes a spiritual path. Interesting that resistance to creativity can be similar to (though less severe than) that for parapsychology. Is there anything else going on here?

Creativity and Psi: Is There a Connection?

Stanley Krippner was again here early, as was Gardner Murphy (Krippner & Murphy, 1976; see also Krippner, 1963; Murphy, 1966); in fact, they addressed this area more than 50 years ago! Most creativity scholars are still unaware of it. Krippner and Murphy saw the mind as an open system in the context of Bertalanffy’s general systems theory—holding a prodigious and continual potential for change—a creative openness which might in fact verge a bit into new realms of reality. At times into the paranormal.

Krippner and Murphy (1976), in fact, noted four positive experiments on ESP and creativity, along with several anecdotal reports, including reports of how certain gifted and artistic people seemed to have an advantage in ESP. They then discussed three principles which may characterize and facilitate both psi and creativity, namely, motivation, relaxation, and dissociation. They included some interesting speculations about these and about shifts in consciousness.

Dissociation and Other Altered States

Here, let us consider dissociation, in particular, which is too often pathologized, but (again depending on use and overriding adaptive control) might be a marker of health (e.g., Grosso, in Krippner & Powers, 1997). Seen this way, Krippner and Murphy (1976) propose that if “part of one’s consciousness can be strongly focused while the remainder remains quiet, creativity and psi will be favored” (p. 265). (Compare hypnosis, as well.) Or as Krippner (Krippner & Powers, 1997) said later, in the book he coedited on dissociation, here referring to creativity explicitly, “creative dissociation can be said to include the mind’s evolved ability to escape, transform, and possibly transcend the limitations of ordinary reality” (p. 127).

Creativity may indeed involve different realms and states of consciousness (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Krippner, 2011; Maslow, 1971; Richards, 2007, 2010a; Tart, 1969). Many have now begun work on this, but a fuller understanding of all we may find there still awaits. Here are a few further clues.

Lowered Latent Inhibition: In Creativity? In Schizophrenia? In Psi?

A concern of many creators is how to open inner floodgates to access alternative realms, or views, or states of consciousness, or contents of our unconscious or preconscious minds (Richards, 1981, 2010). Latent inhibition is about this—a gatekeeper to select the most immediate and practical information. It thus makes sense to review who may show lowered latent inhibition. Who can lower it, may want to lower it, and has control over lowering it—lowering the mental-emotional floodgates, to allow for more diverse content.

Who then has choice of access to (rather than automatically screening out) material beyond what is immediately and conventionally needed. Who can look outside the box, in the case of creativity, using creative controls to modulate this—as in Kris’s “regression in the service of the ego” (see Richards, 1981).

Persons diagnosed with schizophrenia have shown lowered latent inhibition (see Richards, 2010a). This may be not at all voluntary and represent instead a problem with inadequate controls. Yet what does it mean, by contrast, when lowered latent inhibition is found in high-achieving people with high creativity (e.g., Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003). What about a demonstrated link with Openness to Experience, from the Five Factor Theory of Personality, which also shows association with creativity (Peterson & Carson, 2000; Peterson, Smith, & Carson, 2002).

Low latent inhibition is one factor that, at the right time and place, at the right level, and under adaptive control, may open doors to creativity. This is a relevant factor, not one magic solution for creativity, plus the schizophrenia spectrum offers just one example. There are many paths to creativity. There is, in fact, even stronger evidence (e.g., Jamison, 1989; Kinney & Richards, 2011; Richards, 1998; 2010a) for relations between bipolar spectrum disorders and creativity—and somewhat different patterns of thought and behavior (Richards, 2001a; Runco & Richards, 1998). There is much we can learn, relevant to all of us, as well—whether we carry a diagnosis or not. One should note here too that it is the “better functioning” relatives, or the patients during healthier times, who tend to show this creative compensatory advantage.

“Belief” in Alterations of Consciousness: Accessing Intuition or Other Potentials?

How much better if one can turn on creativity-friendly functions at will. It is relevant that “faith in intuition” in high-achieving college students has been found associated with lowered latent inhibition (Kaufman, 2009). Worth noting, too, both older (Martindale, 1999) and newer studies with fMRI or EEG (e.g., Kounios et al., 2008; see Richards, 2010a) indicating not only a right-hemisphere slow-wave pattern during times of creative inspiration, but creators who can turn this on in advance of a creative need. Are they turning on an altered state? It might well seem so.

Moving now to taboo topics, one also finds evidence that belief in the paranormal relates to associative creativity (Gianotti, Mohr, Pizzagalli, Lehmann, & Berugger, 2001). If valid, does this mean creative people may access more of the paranormal while creating, or perhaps find more creativity emanating from a particular altered state? (Or is this, as some have said, just further evidence that creative people can be open-minded?) Many interesting questions arise here, for those willing to entertain them. Plus we do have artists (e.g., Zausner, 2011) who deliberately and intentionally see themselves as going toward transpersonal as well as anomalous realms for inspiration and exposure to material they report may not be coming entirely (or mainly) from themselves.

In view of all this, here is a study I know rather well. There is surely something significant here, but as to what exactly, the jury is still out.

Creative Compensatory Advantage?: Is Psi Activity Present in the “Schizophrenia Spectrum”

The data here is drawn from one of our studies of everyday creativity, from McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School, with Dennis Kinney and others, looking at people ranging from “better functioning” to more severely at risk for schizophrenia, along with controls. How interesting it was, for one thing, to see “magical thinking” emerge.

We (Kinney et al., 2001), as part of a larger study, ended up studying participants who showed “wide-spectrum schizophrenic signs” (schizotypal or schizoid personality disorders, or two or more schizotypal signs), to compare with nonschizophrenic others. We had wondered if these better-functioning persons on the “schizophrenia spectrum” might show “potentially unconventional modes of thinking and perceiving” (p. 17), consistent with creativity, while not being held back by the disabling features of frank schizophrenia. Would this reflect the creative compensatory advantage?

Yes!—so it appeared. Higher “peak” creativity was indeed linked with participants’ milder schizophrenia spectrum conditions compared with non–“schizophrenia spectrum” controls. But why might this be? Here, it gets interesting. We did find the creative “compensatory advantage,” with our characteristic inverted-U showing level of pathology as predictor of creativity. The highest overall creativity peaked at the very mild level of two-plus schizotypal signs, just a touch of symptomatology (with schizotypal and schizoid personality disorders falling nearby), level of creativity fell on either side of these. The two extreme groups (the group with no schizotypy on one side and frank schizophrenia on the other) showed lower creativity than the intermediate groups. A small amount of that schizotypal risk appeared best for creativity. If so, then why?

A Little of the “Right Stuff”?

Too often people think “the more the better,” be it medicine or food. Yet nonlinear dynamics tell us otherwise (Richards, 2001b).With digitalis, the right amount leads to cardiac health, too much can kill us. With creative process, we are in a delicate balance, a harmonious dance, in a sense, between parts of consciousness. In fact, Fred Abraham (1996; also see Abraham, Krippner, & Richards, 2011; Krippner, Richards, Abraham, 2011) argues how the right balance of divergent thinking (generative, open-ended, and multiple possibilities) along with convergent thinking (one right answer; pulling it all together), may provide the right—nonlinear and dynamical, as in chaos theory—conditions for creative chaos, yielding a rich medium-of-mind for creative thinking.

In this schizophrenia-spectrum study, the clinical signs of greatest interest were so-called positive schizotypal signs, of features that were present not absent, namely, magical thinking, recurrent illusions, and odd speech. One may look for example at “magical thinking,” drawing from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), handbook used by clinicians. There, magical thinking is framed as being “inconsistent with subcultural norms (superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or “sixth sense”; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)” (p. 278). Interesting to see a fully explicit example, here, of subculture affecting diagnosis. Illusions involved varied perceptual experiences, and odd thinking and speech, include vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped expressions. (One might wonder how “metaphorical” got in there, with the problem manifestations.)

In fact, across the entire group of participants (N = 71), taking out the one frankly schizophrenic individual, the number of these three signs for a participant (1, 2, or all 3 signs) correlated significantly with overall peak creativity! (r = .27, n = 71, p < .01). In other words, at this not-so-disabled level of functioning, showing more of these positive schizotypal signs was predictive for creativity.

Magical Thinking in “Normal” College Students

What then of the rest of us? Are we marginalizing creativity to a clinical subpopulation, or are we finding truths to inform us all? We suggest the latter is true (see Richards, 2010a)—we can all manifest a broader range of (adaptive) thinking, fitting with a broader view of “normal” than our culture may usually admit.

I asked my colleague, David Schuldberg, who had previously found “magical thinking” correlated with measures of creativity in N = 190 “normal” college students (Schuldberg, 1990) to run an item analysis to see which parts of magical thinking in his measure were the best predictors of creativity (Richards, 2001a). In this work, he had found a creativity “factor” (defined by respected tests such as Alternate Uses, the Barron-Welsh Art Scale, and How Do You Think?), and he used Eckblad and Chapman’s Perceptual Abnormality and Magical Thinking Scale.

How interesting that eight magical thinking items emerged as significant predictors of creativity (significant at least for this large sample of 190 college students) from r = .28 to r = .17 (p < .0005 to p < .02), accounting for 3-8% of the variance (see Richards, 2001b). Remember, these findings with college students could be applied to any of us (if creative). From the strongest correlation on down:

Experiences suggestive of reincarnation

Use of rituals to ward off negative influences

Wondering if the dead can influence the living

People making others aware of them through thinking

Momentary feeling of not being human

Passing thought that others are in love with him or her

Sensing one had known strangers before

The ability to learn to read others’ minds

Two Key Points

Some of these items are becoming increasingly more accepted in Western mainstream culture (especially the first item). What is their significance as predictors of creativity? Is this merely another indication of creative persons showing greater openness of mind? Or is there more to this? Recall, this is data on a diverse group of college students, not a psychopathological population. Results be can generalized broadly. Although more research is needed, two points can be made here.

Let us beware pathologizing adaptive creative qualities. Whatever the interpretation, features said to be related to psi here emerge correlated with higher creativity! We should not automatically pathologize such features or what they may mean; it may also depend on context, including adaptive usage (vs. uncontrolled experience). For creativity, the ability to access deep personal and unconscious resources in the presence (vs. absence) of adaptive creative control can be essential. With our better-functioning “schizophrenia spectrum” group above, such control was, it seems, possible along with enhanced creativity. A famous quote by creativity researcher Frank Barron (1963, p. 234) colorfully points out that what we call pathology versus health may be relative indeed. Furthermore, that creative people who are deeply in touch with their inner resources, may even be (rather than ill) greatly more healthy!

. . . the creative person is both more primitive and more cultivated, more destructive and more constructive, occasionally crazier and yet adamantly saner, than the average person.

Let us dare to seek out the depths of mind. Some might dismissively call such findings no more than reflections of the “open mindedness” of creative people, yet let us not close the books prematurely. What more can we learn, if we risk it? Even putting parapsychology aside, many still fear looking at the deeper recesses of our human minds—of the irrational, unconscious, personal (and indeed, the transpersonal) unknown found there. To what extent may inhibition—perhaps unconscious—be impeding our scientific inquiries, and, for that matter, our creativity?

Fear of Altered States and “Irrationality”?

To be sure, we are talking about altered states. We have discovered more recently about “altered states” and creativity, although this is rarely mentioned in standard creativity references (Krippner, 2011; Richards, 2007, 2010a), or at least not beyond Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) flow. Are “altered states” sometimes also pathologized? As Krippner and Murphy (1976) said, it is largely the humanistic psychologists who see these as “valid models of awareness” rather than “abnormal” (p. 265). Not to mention the transpersonal! Krippner and Murphy remind us that even “Kepler, Pascal, and Faraday . . . ascribed many of their discoveries to sources ‘beyond the self” (p. 266).

Meanwhile, back in the mainstream, we have heard much of the importance of unconscious elements in creativity (see Richards, 1981). These were pathologized, initially, as disguised yet coming from sexual and aggressive instinctual sources, according to Freud—albeit this was less the belief of some followers—and not at all the position of humanistic psychologists (see Richards, 1981). Is this supposed pathological origin, again, why some people fear, deny, or even pathologize their own creativity (Richards, 1998, 2007, 2010a)? Even if not at all “pathological”? What does our deepest creativity ask of us? Or offer us, from our unconscious, which we perhaps do not want to know? Self-knowledge? New levels of health? (Richards, 2010a; Runco & Richards, 1998). The same question might be asked about so-called para-normal experience. If it’s there, and if we dare access it—and the odds for its meaning something are getting higher—what might it reveal of us, and to us? A change of worldview, to be sure.

And with it, potentially, a fundamental and profound change in self.

An Open, Changing, Connected, and Conscious Being-in-Motion?

What could our view of self become? Do we, being honest, personally, want to be this 21st century redefined person (albeit that we already are!)? Do we want to adapt and transform so as to live more fully in these open, unconventional, nondefensive—and vulnerable, healthy, ever-changing, consciousness altering, and more interconnected—ways? Do we want creative lifestyles, consistent indeed with Bertalannffy’s open systems, and with our impermanence, and profound interdependence—be these drawn from Buddhist philosophy or the new physics (Dalai Lama, 2005; Rao, 2002; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1997). How compelling it is that this picture also fits with Abraham Maslow’s (1968, 1971) self-actualizing personality, where he came to see self-actualization and self-actualizing creativity as similar. Do we dare to become more present, real, and alive?

Or do we bury our fears, along with our irrationality, unconscious material, and particularly our Jungian Shadow—that depth of self-knowledge that we dare not know—and other peculiarities of mind and nature that might be startling to our conscious mind, and hard to control? Meanwhile are we projecting our idiosyncrasies, and particularly our fears, onto the so-called bizarre, mentally ill, or even “mad” creators we have defined as “different” from us, as has been suggested (e.g., Richards, 2007, 2010a)? Meanwhile the externalized creators may be seen in caricature, bumping into walls, hair askew, unable to manage their activities of daily living, while staying open to inspiration. (Try Google Images for “mad creator” to see these dysfunctional stereotypes). Are we thereby consigning both our own creativity, and alternative ways of knowing—perhaps also including potential psi phenomena—to oblivion?

Expanded Definition of “Normality”

Through narrowing our vision (of what we will consider—remember, we need not automatically accept it), we may do an enormous disservice. This is not only to vulnerable and stigmatized groups, to people who carry these—actually, very healthy—capacities, but also to our fuller selves, and a shining creative potential that may never be fully realized. We need a broader view of normality (Richards, 1998, 2010a), all the more so in an era of diversity and globalization, to honor our many ways of being, knowing, and collaborating. Not a new “mean” or average, but a new “standard deviation.” A greater variability around the mean. We need to “broaden our acceptable views of normality” to encompass, and to honor and celebrate, our rich and varied human possibilities (Richards, 1998).

Changing Worldviews: Of What Are People So Afraid?

New Laws of Nature?

Kuhn (1962/2012) illustrates the historical resistance to scientific paradigm change, yet shows also how, after extended delay and debate, a shift can suddenly occur. Some hesitations and fears about parapsychology seem clear (Dossey, 2011). New findings are challenging time and space, and the basic framework of our lives. Some believe, at a basic level, they are even challenging cause and effect, itself. Whatever one’s leanings, new evidence insists serious scientists take a look, since a materialistic and reductionist worldview does not seem to explain everything anymore. What, after all, if there are new realms to explore beyond what is strictly measureable (or measureable at this time)? What if subtle connections emerge—even as the new physics asserts—which may even unite us all across interstellar space. We may learn we are more profoundly interconnected than we ever imagined. Perhaps the universe is not what we believed it to be—and neither are we.

Interesting that these possibilities are not all new. Some of this even comes, remarkably enough, from the Pentagon. Radin (1997) tells how from 1981 to 1995, five different government-sponsored scientific committees reviewed evidence for psi effects. This was “prompted by concerns that if psi was genuine, it might be important for national security reasons” (p. 3). The outcome? With some difference in detail between the five committees, all five reviews concluded psi “merited serious scientific study” (p. 3). Here’s an example from the Congressional Research Service (1981) report:

Recent experiments in remote viewing and other studies in parapsychology suggest that there exists an “interconnectiveness” of the human mind with other minds and with matter . . . amplified by intent and emotion. (p. 4)

The report went on to suggest various applications from health care to executive training to investigative work.

This happened a while ago. Yet are we now at a new turning point? These big shifts can come without warning. Kuhn’s (1962/2012) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is illuminating. The revolutions can begin suddenly and roll over what was there before, be it the Copernican Revolution, or quantum mechanics. Kuhn asserts that, while historical, social, political, and other elements may be relevant to the specifics of timing, “the technical breakdown would still remain the core of the crisis” (p. 69).

That is, the time comes when something must give in our worldview. And perhaps suddenly. Why?—our current scientific views can no longer account for the accumulating data, for what research suggests is happening!

On a Personal Level: Imagine It Is True

For a second, let us imagine such a change on our own personal level. What might happen? Is any part of it beneficial? Some “believers” say just a few “sensitives” would ever be able to produce psi effects. Are these believers so sure? What if this “talent” is less unique than some assert (Krippner & Friedman, 2010)? Could one posit a normal curve, as with so much else—were it not for how we’ve conventionally and culturally been suppressed, untrained, discouraged, even frightened, about stepping outside of accepted norms? Some fear even to say the word, “psychic.” Or to say it publicly—a hallmark of Taboo Topics. What if, instead, youngsters were schooled from childhood on, in alternative ways of knowing? What might happen? Worth speculating—even if it is science fiction.

What kind of world might we find, here in the Western world? Here where the most popular show on network television is NCIS? Murders, sabotage, terrorism, but still, on the screen, justice does prevail—especially from brave and good-looking field agents. With psi, might there be a greater atmosphere of fear? Of fading privacy, better spies, sneaky alternative weapons? Many saw the film, The Men Who Stare at Goats (with George Clooney), based on a true story about a secret military defense operation. Is “our” remote viewing better than “theirs?”

Or alternatively (or also) do we have the chance to develop a world of greater trust, deeper communication, honesty, authenticity, empathy, harmony, new modes of anomalous healing, implicit and transpersonal understandings, group synergies, and co-created and emergent possibilities? Not to mention a huge potential for spiritual development. Whatever the case, old lifestyles would likely change.

Where Psi Phenomena Have Long Been Taken Seriously?

While Westerners speculate, in some other cultures, psi effects are not even questioned. Again, this is not to suggest anyone should believe what follows—but it is still wise, at least, to be aware of it and to review it, while keeping in mind that whole cultures other than ours have bought in. This does not constitute proof, but as a lawyer once said to me (in a totally different context) “it is evidence.” Evidence to consider.

Consider for instance, the clairvoyant dreams of the Mapuche Indians of Chile, during which distant places are observed that the dreamer could not have known otherwise (Krippner, Bogzaran, & deCarvalho, 2002). Indeed, clairvoyance is a given phenomenon for His Holiness the Dalai Lama (1988), who notes discussions about it in the sutras and tantras of Buddhism. The siddhis, or supernatural powers, are also well known in Hinduism, among other world wisdom traditions (Rao, 2002). Consider studies of Brazilian mediums (Hageman et al., cited in Krippner & Friedman, 2009), showing distinctive neurobiological patterns. It is also worth noting that, whereas many Westerners pathologize mediumship, numerous societies have found this function natural down through history. Numerous examples can also be found of anomalous healing (Krippner & Achterberg, 2000)—and might we be more credulous, by the way, or at least more open to possibility, if our own lives were on the line?

Will the Real Scientists Please Stand Up?

How Much Proof Do We Need?

Some say the proof must be very much stronger here than in other areas of study, because of a potential change to our worldview (Combs, 2010; Friedman & Krippner, 2010; Krippner & Friedman, 2010; Loftus, 2010; Richards, 2010a) And there are particular problems in psi research, including that many phenomena cannot be replicated at will. But that is the nature of the phenomena studied. Should this stop progress, or lead to new methods of inquiry?

Open-mindedness from a friendly critic and eminent researcher like Elizabeth Loftus (2010) is enormously important. She even went in 2007 to a conference at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called “The Meeting of the Minds on Anomalous Cognition.” Here a disbeliever was taking the trouble to test the waters. And to test them scientifically.

Out of 60-some attendees, Dr. Loftus met two Nobel Laureates, as well as some chapter authors of this same Krippner and Friedman (2010) volume. One finds here, once again, esteemed and serious people who are following this work and evaluating it seriously.

Dr. Loftus (2010) shared a number of caveats and wishes for the field. Yet, she said—well, yes—the meta-analyses are impressive (Loftus, 2010), and she tends to argue for this data analytic technique herself. Yet she found that there were not yet enough “meetings of the mind” (p. 214) around standard behavioral, neurological, and social science practice, and concluded that “parapsychology is not yet ready for prime time” (the afterword’s title, p. 211). However, she did phrase the title, “. . . Not Yet.”

Not yet, let it be heard. Its day, Dr. Loftus implies, may be coming.

Mindful of this, let us up the ante a bit more by looking at Radin’s (2006) meta-analysis of seven classes of psi studies, this time taken all together. Here, the 22 billion to one odds about dream psi are just one portion of it. This time the odds cannot even be written within one line of text: Specifically:

Ten to the Power of 104?

Radin gives composite odds for seven different categories of studies, taken together. These include, not only dream psi but Ganzfeld studies, conscious detection of being stared at, and four other categories, for a meta-analysis of experimental evidence across these classes.

And the overall odds against chance?—1.3 times 10 to the 104th power. It is instructive to write it out. It looks like this:

1300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. to 1.

This is far from a finding in psychology at the conventional p < .05 level of significance (with the chance of a false positive being 1 in 20)! Yet Radin modestly says, “These experimental results are unlikely to be due to coincidence or dumb luck” (p. 276). What an understatement! Before some detractor can say these astronomical odds are due to deception, wrought on us by a great many colleagues, working secretly, in league with each other, and (in this case) with Penguin Books, let us consider the alternative. Which is?: That there may really be something here.

Remember, we are not asked to believe it. Just to consider it. Be do we dare?

Summary With a Positive Spin

The real issue with psi seems to be much less a lack of evidence than a lack of willingness to look at it. Do we consign the multitudes of data to our subterranean and dissimulating unconscious? Do we banish outright unwelcome scientific hypotheses, rather than entertain a transformed future? Do taboo topics win? Or do we bring some creative courage along with critical thinking, to the enterprise. For balance, let us end with some positive consequences for our three sections. Meanwhile, let’s note once again that, early on in each area, Stanley Krippner—along with other courageous colleagues in these areas—were already there.

Taboo topics. If, on the one hand, we humans can stand figuratively on our heads, twist our minds like pretzels, and demean or mock others, to maintain our status quo, we are also, collectively, at a point of greater conscious awareness and self-reflexivity. We can see increasingly, our fear and defensiveness, and what damage our fixations can cause. We can as a species choose a different route, and advance our cultural progress and conscious evolution (e.g., Loye, 2004; Montuori, Combs, & Richards, 2004; Ornstein, 1991). What if validated psi connections do emerge, highlighting our profound interdependence, and harmonious steps toward peace and prosperity, in a universe more connected (and entangled) than we suspected.

Our creativity. Creativity can help us deal with new challenges and carry us eagerly into the future. Yet, we note, as Rollo May (1975) said in Courage to Create, it takes bravery. Still, what benefits can then accrue: Our creativity can bring us richly into the moment, bypass distortions, reveal options, and strengthen us physically and psychologically. It can build resilience and the capacity to bring creative change into the world (Richards, 2007; Runco & Richards, 1998). Interesting when such benefits (and related features including altered states of consciousness) raise questions themselves of—remarkably—psi! Whatever the truth, how great our evident fears of our human potential, and of perhaps—seeing ourselves differently. Yet, at best, how vital, even transformative, this may be.

Paradigm change. Whether viewed as a scientific revolution per Thomas Kuhn (1962/2012), or a major bifurcation as per chaos theory (Briggs & Peat, 1989; Krippner et al., 2011), some changes do happen suddenly and dramatically. Are we trembling like the earth before an earthquake? Notably, the word sudden needn’t mean bad. Our endangered and violent world surely needs a new paradigm of interconnection and cooperation before it is too late. Chaos/catastrophe theory shows the many small steps before a big shift, and then it is the “last snowflake before the avalanche!” May it be around the corner, and may it bring a better world. Yet whatever emerges as valid here, let us celebrate that Stanley Krippner, Harris Friedman, and others of our colleagues—including, perhaps, you yourself—have been out there, doing and publishing the research, when others feared even speaking up. These researchers were bravely laying the groundwork for change.

Remember that none of this discussion is to suggest that any of us believe View A or View B. Or that we should be either gullible on the one side or knee-jerk dismissive on the other. Only that we take a look. No point is more important than this actually—aside from the point of avoiding outright dismissal or irrational, inappropriate, or cruel behavior toward those creative persons who actually do dare to open their minds, and challenge the status quo.

Let us, as with our model and colleague, Dr. Stanley Krippner, keep our minds open, and evaluate the evidence, even when the consequences may be major or unwelcome. Let us be good scientists, committed to truth, whether or not the evidence fits our biases, preconceptions, or preferences. Let us be brave.

Let us, at the very least, take a look.

Changing Face of Science

Interestingly, when things change, so may the memories. We may almost forget what we said, way back then. One colleague later swore he never made fun of our mental health research group at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital in the late 1970s for beginning to study “creativity and madness” (again, the results supported, instead, and within families at risk, a positive and healthy “compensatory advantage”). I for one will assert—the good Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and false memories notwithstanding —that I can draw an exact picture of where we were all standing, in a hallway of the Laboratories for Psychiatric Research, Mailman Research Center, McLean Hospital, when this well-meaning psychiatrist said exactly “Creativity and Madness?!” (and erupted in laughter). Later, as I said, he denied it. Yet this is a strong visual, verbal, and kinesthetic memory.

Although this taboo topic example may seem mild compared with the furor over psi, I see them as linked. Both appear to connect to a fear of knowing our deeper selves, the nature of consciousness, and our fullest human potential.

In his book, Entangled Minds, Dean Radin (2006) imagines a future where psi research becomes a normal part of the curriculum. “In that future,” he explains, “no one will remember that psi was once considered the far fringe of science. . . History shows that as the scientific frontiers continue to expand, the supernatural evolves into paranormal, and then into normal” (p. 298).

We shall indeed find out for ourselves in time—and how interesting this may be. Let us meanwhile thank our brave colleagues including Dr. Stanley Krippner and Harris Friedman (2010) for contributions, including Debating Psychic Experience, and for refusing to let us turn a blind eye to research some people don’t want to acknowledge. We thank these and other colleagues for being a beacon of truth, for asking the needed questions, and not being afraid of the answers. Let us have no more personal attacks or ridicule for those with such courage and integrity. We are here, after all, to do science.

And now—will the real scientists please stand up?

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge Dexter Richards, Tobi Zausner, and Fred Zeise for their open-mindedness, encouragement, and valuable suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Ruth Richards, PhD, MD, is a licensed psychologist (Massachusetts) and Board-Certified Psychiatrist, currently serving as educational psychologist and research psychiatrist. She is a professor, School of Psychology and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, at Saybrook University, in the specialization areas of Creativity Studies, and Consciousness, Spirituality, and Integrative Health. She also continues as Research Affiliate at McLean Hospital, and Lecturer, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School. She is winner of the Rudolf Arnheim Award from Division 10 of the American Psychological Association, for Outstanding Lifetime Achievement in Psychology and the Arts. She has written numerous papers and chapters and edited two books, including Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature: Psychological, Social, and Spiritual Perspectives (APA Books, 2007; with Mandarin translation). She also serves on the Advisory Board of , which explores links between spirituality, science, and social change, toward enhanced mutual understanding and peace.

References

Abraham

F. D.

(1996). The dynamics of creativity and the courage to be. In In Sulis

Combs

(Eds.), Nonlinear dynamics in human behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 364-400). Singapore: World Scientific.

Abraham

F. D.

Krippner

Richards

(2011). Dynamical concepts used in creativity and chaos. NeuroQuantology, 10, 177-182.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Quick reference to the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV. Washington, DC: Author.

Andreasen

N. C.

Canter

(1974). The creative writer: Psychiatric symptoms and family history. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 15, 123-131.

Barron

(1963). Creativity and psychological health. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Barron

(1967). Creative person and creative process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Bem

D. J.

(2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425.

Bem

D. J.

Honorton

(1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18.

Benarde

M. A.

(1989). Our precarious habitat. New York, NY: Wiley.

10.

Briggs

Peat

F. D.

(1989). Turbulent mirror: An illustrated guide to chaos theory and the science of wholeness. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

11.

Bloom

(2000). Global brain: The evolution of mass mind from the Big Bang to the 21st century. New York: Wiley.

12.

Cardena

Lynn

S. J.

Krippner

(2000). Varieties of anomalous experience: Evaluating the scientific evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

13.

Carson

S. H.

Peterson

J. B.

Higgins

D. M.

(2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 499-506.

14.

Chandler

P. S.

(1993, February 15). Study finds evidence of ESP phenomenon. Boston Globe, pp. 1, 8.

15.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

16.

Dalai

Lama

His

Holiness

. (1988). The Dalai Lama at Harvard. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.

17.

Dalai

Lama

His

Holiness

. (2005). The universe in a single atom: The convergence of science and spirituality. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

18.

Dossey

(2011). Why are scientists afraid of Daryl Bem? Explore, 7, 127-137.

19.

Farberow

N. L.

(Ed.). (1963). Taboo topics. New York, NY: Atherton Press.

20.

Freud

(1963). Studies in parapsychology. New York, NY: Collier.

21.

Friedman

H. L.

Krippner

(2010). Editors’ epilogue: Is it time for a détente? In Krippner

Friedman

H. L.

(Eds.), Debating psychic experience: Human potential or human illusion? (pp. 195-204). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

22.

Gianotti

L. R.

Mohr

Pizzagalli

Lehmann

Berugger

(2001). Associative processing and paranormal belief. Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 55, 595-603.

23.

Goleman

(1988, September 13). A new index illuminates the creative life. The New York Times, pp. C1, C9.

24.

Jamison

K. R.

(1989). Mood disorders and patterns of creativity in British artists and writers. Psychiatry, 52, 125-134.

25.

Jamison

K. R.

(1993). Touched with fire: Manic-depressive illness and the artistic temperament. New York, NY: Free Press.

26.

Jamison

K. R.

Gerner

Hammen

Padesky

(1980). Clouds and silver linings: Positive experiences associated with primary affective disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 198-202.

27.

Jung

C. G.

(1955). Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle. New York, NY: Bollinger Foundation.

28.

Kaufman

S. B.

(2009). Faith in intuition is associated with decreased latent inhibition in a sample of high-achieving adolescents. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 28-34.

29.

Kinney

D. K.

Richards

(2011). Bipolar mood disorders. In Runco

Pritzker

S. R.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

30.

Kinney

D. K.

Richards

Lowing

LeBlanc

Zimbalist

Harlan

(2001). Creativity in offspring of schizophrenics and controls. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 17-26.

31.

Koestler

(1972). The roots of coincidence: An excursion into parapsychology. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

32.

Kounios

Fleck

Green

D. L.

Payne

Stevenson

Bowden

Jung-Beeman

(2008). The origins of insight in resting brain activity. Neuropsychologia, 46, 281-291.

33.

Krippner

(1963). Creativity and psychic phenomena. Gifted Child Quarterly, 7, 51-63.

34.

Krippner

(1994). Humanistic psychology and chaos theory: The third revolution and the third force. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34, 48-61.

35.

Krippner

(2011). Altered and transitional states. In Runco

Pritzker

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 33-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

36.

Krippner

Achterberg

(2000). Anomalous healing experiences. In Cardena

Lynn

S. J.

Krippner

(Eds.), Varieties of anomalous experience (pp. 353-395). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

37.

Krippner

Bogzaran

deCarvalho

A. P.

(2002). Extraordinary dreams and how to work with them. Albany: State University of New York Press.

38.

Krippner

Friedman

H. L.

(Eds.). (2009). Mysterious minds: The neurobiology of mediums, psychics, and other extraordinary people. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

39.

Krippner

Friedman

H. L.

(Eds.). (2010). Debating psychic experience: Human potential or human illusion? Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

40.

Krippner

Murphy

(1976). Extrasensory perception and creativity. In Rothenberg

Hausman

C. R.

(Eds.), The creativity question (pp. 262-267). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

41.

Krippner

Powers

(1997). Broken images, broken selves: Dissociative narratives in clinical practice. Washington, DC: Brunner/Mazel.

42.

Krippner

Richards

Abraham

(2011). Creativity and chaos in waking and dreaming states. NeuroQuantology, 10, 164-176.

43.

Kuhn

T. S.

(2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)

44.

Loftus

(2010). Why parapsychology is not yet ready for prime time. In Krippner

Friedman

H. L.

(Eds.), Debating psychic experience: Human potential or human illusion? (pp. 211-214). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

45.

Loye

(Ed.). (2004). The great adventure: Toward a fully human theory of evolution. Albany: State University of New York Press.

46.

Martindale

(1999). Biological bases of creativity. In Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 137-152). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Maslow

(1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.

48.

Maslow

(1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY: Penguin.

49.

Maslow

(1976). Religion, values, and peak-experiences. New York, NY: Penguin Compass. (Original work published 1964)

50.

May

(1975). The courage to create. New York, NY: Bantam.

51.

Millay

(2010). Radiant minds: Scientists explore the dimensions of consciousness. Doyle, CA: Lightning Source.

52.

Montuori

Combs

Richards

(2004). Creativity, consciousness, and the direction for human development. In Loye

(Ed.), The great adventure: Toward a fully human theory of evolution (pp. 197-236). Albany: State University of New York Press.

53.

Murphy

(1966). Research in creativeness: What can it tell us about extrasensory perception? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 60, 8-22.

54.

Ornstein

(1991). The evolution of consciousness. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

55.

Pauli

(1955). The influence of archetypal ideas on the scientific theories of Kepler. New York, NY: Bollinger Foundation.

56.

Peterson

J. B.

Carson

(2000). Latent inhibition and openness to experience in a high-achieving student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 323-332.

57.

Peterson

J. B.

Smith

K. W.

Carson

(2002). Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: Replication and commentary. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1137-1147.

58.

Pritzker

S. R.

(2007). Audience flow: Creativity in television watching with applications to teletherapy. In Richards

(Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature (pp. 109-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

59.

Radin

(1997). The conscious universe. New York, NY: HarperEdge.

60.

Radin

(2006). Entangled minds. New York, NY: Penguin.

61.

Rao

K. R.

(2002). Consciousness studies: Cross-cultural perspectives. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

62.

Ray

Anderson

S. R.

(2000). The cultural creatives: How 50 million people are changing the world. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

63.

Richards

(1981). Relationships between creativity and psychopathology: An evaluation and interpretation of the evidence. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 103, 251-324.

64.

Richards

(1994). Psi Fi? “Acceptable” and “unacceptable” research. Creativity Research Journal, 7(1), 87-95.

65.

Richards

(1996). Does the Lone Genius ride again? Chaos, creativity, and community. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 36, 44-60.

66.

Richards

(2001a). Creativity and the schizophrenic spectrum: More and more interesting. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 111-132.

67.

Richards

(2001b). Millennium as opportunity: Chaos, creativity, and Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 249-266.

68.

Richards

(2007a). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

69.

Richards

(2007b). Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In Richards

(Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature (pp. 25-54). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

70.

Richards

(2010a). Everyday creativity: Process and way of life—Four key issues. In Kaufman

Sternberg

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 189-215). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Richards

(2010b). Foreword: Pondering exceptional human possibilities. In Krippner

Friedman

H. L.

(Eds.), Debating psychic experience: Human potential or human illusion (pp. ix-xiv). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

72.

Richards

Kinney

Benet

Merzel

A. P. C.

(1988). Assessing everyday creativity: Characteristics of The Lifetime Creativity Scales and validation with three large samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 476-485.

73.

Richards

Kinney

Lunde

Benet

Merzel

A. P. C.

(1988). Creativity in manic-depressives, cyclothymes, their normal relatives, and control subjects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 281-288.

74.

Runco

Richards

(1998). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health. Stamford, CT: Ablex.

75.

Schlitz

M. J.

Honorton

(1992). Ganzfeld psi performance within an artistically gifted population. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86, 83-97.

76.

Schuldberg

(1990). Schizotypal and hypomanic traits, creativity, and psychological health. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 218-230.

77.

Sela-Smith

(2006). A man beyond the seasons (Part of special section, in tribute to Stanley Krippner). Dream Network, 26(3), 19-21.

78.

Tart

(Ed.). (1969). Altered states of consciousness. New York, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.

79.

Ullman

Krippner

Vaughan

(2002). Dream telepathy: Experiments in nocturnal extrasensory perception. Charlottesville, NC: Hampton Roads. (Original work published 1973)

80.

Varela

F. J.

Thompson

Rosch

(1997). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.

81.

Zausner

(1996). The creative chaos; Speculations of the connection between nonlinear dynamics and the creative process. In Sulis

Combs

P A.

(Eds.), Nonlinear dynamics in human behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 343-363). Singapore: World Scientific.

82.

Zausner

(2007). Artist and audience: Everyday creativity and visual art. In Richards

(Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature (pp. 75-90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

83.

Zausner

(2011). Transcending the self through art: Altered states of consciousness and anomalous events during the creative process. Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research, 2, 993-1005.