ESP: Target Position – Does It Matter?
On this page
Can teenagers predict words better than symbols?
Imagine receiving a test in the mail asking you to predict the future—not just once, but in four different rounds with over 100,000 teenagers participating. In 1970, researchers Robert and Joan Joesting did exactly that, creating one of the largest precognition experiments ever conducted. They discovered something puzzling: participants who started strong with traditional ESP symbols but then struggled with word-based predictions suddenly bounced back in the final round, scoring significantly higher than expected. The pattern held true when they replicated the experiment, suggesting something more than random chance was at play.
Adolescents showed better precognition scores with word targets than symbol targets.
In 1970, researchers conducted one of the largest precognition experiments ever attempted, mailing tests to over 100,000 teenagers across America. The study was designed to test whether the type of target material - traditional ESP symbols versus everyday words - might influence psychic performance. This was during the height of public interest in ESP research, when scientists were exploring whether laboratory conditions might be missing something important about how psychic abilities work in real life.
The data suggest that precognitive ability might be influenced by the type of target material and the position within a test sequence.
Key Findings
- Surprisingly, the same teenagers who had struggled with word targets earlier performed significantly better on words than symbols in the final comparison.
- This pattern held up when the researchers repeated the analysis with a larger group.
- The results suggest that the type of target material might genuinely affect precognitive performance, with words potentially being easier to predict than abstract symbols.
What Is This About?
The researchers created a four-part mail-in test where participants tried to predict future targets. The first and third sections used traditional ESP symbols (like stars and circles), while the second and fourth sections used regular words. They selected 150 teenagers who had scored unusually high on the symbol sections but low on the word sections for detailed analysis. The participants didn't know what the targets would be when they made their predictions - they were trying to sense information from the future.
Over 100,000 adolescents completed a mail-in precognition test with four segments alternating between standard ESP symbols and words as targets.
Participants who scored high on standard ESP targets but low on word targets showed significantly better performance on the final word segment compared to the standard symbol segment.
How Good Is the Evidence?
With over 100,000 participants, this was one of the largest ESP experiments ever conducted - roughly equivalent to testing the entire population of a mid-sized city. Most ESP studies involve fewer than 100 people.
Supporters argue this massive study provides compelling evidence that precognition exists and that target material matters, suggesting our understanding of psychic abilities needs refinement. Skeptics point out that with such a large sample, statistical flukes become more likely, and the lack of proper controls means the results could reflect selection bias or data analysis problems rather than genuine psychic phenomena.
Mainstream: The results likely reflect statistical artifacts or methodological flaws rather than genuine precognition. Moderate: The pattern is intriguing and suggests target material effects deserve further investigation with better controls. Frontier: This demonstrates that precognition is real and that meaningful targets work better than abstract symbols.
Many people think ESP tests always use mysterious symbols, but this study shows that everyday words might actually work better. The choice of target material isn't just decoration - it might fundamentally affect the results.
To settle this question, we'd need controlled laboratory studies with proper randomization, blinding, and pre-registered analysis plans, plus independent replication by skeptical researchers. This study provides the sample size but lacks the methodological rigor needed for strong conclusions.
Both pilot and replicating studies showed significantly higher scoring on the fourth segment than on the third.
Stance: Mixed
What Does It Mean?
This experiment involved more participants than most modern psychology studies combined, yet it's been almost completely forgotten by science. The idea that our minds might perform differently at predicting symbols versus words hints at deep mysteries about how consciousness might transcend time.
It's like the difference between trying to guess what word someone is thinking versus what shape they're imagining - this study suggests our minds might be naturally better tuned to predict meaningful content rather than abstract symbols.
If these patterns prove robust, they could revolutionize our understanding of how the mind might access future information. The systematic variation based on target material and sequence position might reveal fundamental principles about the nature of consciousness and time. Such findings could potentially inform new approaches to studying precognition and other anomalous phenomena.
Large sample sizes can make even tiny differences appear statistically significant, so it's crucial to also report effect sizes to know if the differences are practically meaningful.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
Participants showed significantly higher scoring on word targets in the fourth segment compared to standard ESP targets in the third segment
moderateThe pattern of higher performance on word targets was replicated across both pilot and main studies
moderateInterpretations
Target material type (symbols vs. words) appears to influence precognitive performance
weakPosition effects in ESP testing may influence precognition performance depending on target material type
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.