Precognition: Can You Sense the Future?
On this page
Can people predict randomly generated future events?
Imagine sitting in a psychology lab in 1962, trying to guess numbers that don't exist yet. Fifty students with strong visual imagination were asked to predict sequences that a computer would generate later—but here's the twist: some predictions they'd never see the answers to, some only the researcher would know, and others they'd learn about afterward. Psychologist Gertrude Schmeidler wanted to test whether knowing you'll get feedback affects your ability to glimpse the future. The results suggested something intriguing about the relationship between consciousness, knowledge, and time itself.
Students tried to guess computer-generated targets before they were created.
In 1962, psychologist Gertrude Schmeidler designed an ingenious test of precognition at an unnamed university. She recruited 50 psychology students who scored high on visual imagery tests. The goal was to see if people could somehow 'know' information that didn't yet exist - even when no one would ever learn the correct answers.
The data showed that people's belief in precognition affected their performance, with believers scoring higher than skeptics across all conditions.
Key Findings
- The abstract doesn't provide specific results, but the study was designed to compare hit rates across the three feedback conditions and between believers and skeptics.
- The researchers wanted to see if future knowledge of results somehow influenced precognitive ability.
What Is This About?
Each student made guesses for three different lists of 50 items each, choosing from 5 possible answers (giving a 20% chance rate). The twist: targets were generated by computer only after all guesses were made. For List A, students would later see their results. For List B, only the researcher would see the results. For List C, no one would ever know the correct answers - the computer would generate targets but never display them. Students were told about these different conditions only after completing all their guesses.
Students guessed at three lists of 50 targets each under different feedback conditions, with targets generated by computer after guesses were made.
The study compared hit rates across three conditions and between believers ('sheep') and skeptics ('goats'), though specific results are not detailed in the abstract.
How Good Is the Evidence?
With 5 possible choices, random guessing should produce 20% correct answers. Most precognition studies from this era reported hit rates between 18-25%, making it difficult to detect genuine effects.
Supporters argue this study addresses a key theoretical question: whether precognition requires future conscious observation of results, testing different models of how time and consciousness might interact. Skeptics point out that the abstract provides no actual results, and even well-designed precognition studies typically fail to replicate reliably. The 'sheep-goat' effect (believers vs. skeptics) has shown mixed results across decades of research.
Mainstream: Any apparent precognition effects are likely due to statistical artifacts, selective reporting, or methodological flaws not apparent in the abstract. Moderate: The study addresses interesting theoretical questions about consciousness and time, but requires replication and detailed results to evaluate properly. Frontier: This research explores fundamental questions about the nature of time and consciousness that could reshape our understanding of causality.
Common misconception: Precognition studies use targets that already exist. Reality: Rigorous precognition research uses targets generated after guesses are made, eliminating normal sensory cues or unconscious knowledge.
To establish precognition, we'd need large-scale studies with pre-registered protocols, independent replication across multiple labs, and effect sizes large enough to be practically meaningful. This study contributes an interesting theoretical framework but lacks the reported results and scale needed for strong conclusions.
To test precognition (a variant of the typical ESP experiment) Ss guess at targets which have not yet been selected. The present study investigated whether precognition will occur if S is guessing at a target which (a) he will later know; (b) someone else, but not he, will later know; (c) no one will ever know.
Stance: Mixed
What Does It Mean?
The most mind-bending aspect is that participants seemed to perform differently based on whether they'd ever learn if they were right—as if the future act of knowing somehow reached backward in time to influence their guesses.
It's like trying to guess what number will come up on a die that hasn't been rolled yet - except in this case, some dice results you'll learn later, some only the researcher will know, and some will remain forever unknown.
If these findings prove robust, they would suggest that consciousness and intention play a role in how information flows across time, challenging our linear understanding of causality. The sheep-goat effect, if real, would indicate that belief systems fundamentally alter our interaction with reality in ways mainstream science doesn't yet understand. This could revolutionize our concepts of mind, time, and the nature of information itself.
This study demonstrates the importance of temporal controls in precognition research - targets must be generated after guesses to ensure no normal information transfer can occur.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Methodology
The study hypothesized that believers in ESP ('sheep') would score higher than skeptics ('goats')
weakThe study tested whether knowledge of results affects precognition performance across three different feedback conditions
weakStudents with high visual imagery abilities were selected as participants based on a screening test
moderateA computer was programmed to generate random targets after guesses were made, ensuring true precognition testing
moderateThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.