Introduction
This passage is about telepathy. There are two types of questions: Matching Sentence Endings (27-30) and Table Completion (31-40).
#IELTS #IELTSReading #IELTS8
Content
Hello, everyone welcome to the chemist, eight test one passage, three with a walkthrough.
And today, looking at a passage called telepathy and that's, a very popular topic in a philosophical discussion and scientific discussion that gets thrown at, you know, the conversations.
And you know, I think that most people engage in different kinds of settings.
So that's, an interesting, um, you know, topic to be looking at in my opinion, can human beings communicate by thought alone.
Can we do that? Um and for more than a century.
The issue of telepathy has divided the scientific community.
Even today it still sparks.
Bitter con controversy controversy controversies.
I guess how you say it among top academics, okay.
So it's going to be that communicating by thought alone, not like the way I am doing it like using, you know, words, right and sound but thoughts all right.
So I see that there are one matching sentence ending and then table completion.
Okay, there are two sets of questions, which makes the task.
A lot easier all right.
So both of them, I know that like not both of them, but you know matching sentence ending questions that you know, but these are usually noted, but they can be exceptions.
So what I'm going to do I'm going to first of all researchers with different ad, differing attitudes towards telepathy agree on what do they agree on.
So they need to agree on something for for me to choose an answer, okay and reporters.
And from test point of view, guys, you need to remember that these, you know, beginnings in order so reports of experience during meditation indicated, uh reports of experience during meditation attitudes to para para.
Psychology would alter drastically with something and recent are on arms.
And something trials a girl recent.
I don't know how you read this honestly written out gansfield trial suggests that success rates will improve with something all right so I'm, not going to read the endings guys why? Because I find the relevant part of the text and then all right just a second.
So all right and so I'm going to look at the second set of questions all right, no more than three words and a name and date description, telepathic result in flaw.
Okay.
In 1982, ganzfeld experiments so involved the person acting as something who picked out one something that person picked out one something the person was acting, however, like as someone from a random selection of four and and who then tried to identify it.
And the result was higher rates were high hit rates, I'm, sorry, higher.
I said, higher rates were higher hit rates were higher than random guessing.
Okay, hit rates were higher.
Positive results could be produced by factors, such as something or something.
Then in 1985, five years later, they conducted alt against full studies were used to for key tasks.
Something was used for key tasks to limit the amount of something carrying out the tests that is also then subjected to something to an investigation or whatever between different test results was put down to the fact.
The difference between the test results would put down that sample groups were not big or small or whatever so that we need adjective.
So like when I'm doing completion, questions, guys, I need to make sure that the answer I'm choosing fits in grammatically that's, really important.
And also I need to remember that in sentence completion or any kind of completion questions.
There are words that I can, you know, definitely, uh, you know, find from the text that that I can make sure that I'm dealing with the right part of the text that's really important all right.
So all right, I guess I'm going to find the first set of questions.
But anyway, I'm going to be looking at these when they start talking about 1982, all right, 1970s since 1970s, parapsychologists at leading universities and research institutes around the world have risked the division of skeptical colleagues by putting the various claims for telepathy to the test in dozens of rigorous scientific studies.
So like they might be facing duration, because they are kind of testing out something that's, not necessarily scientifically vigorous.
Let me put it that way.
The results in their implications are dividing, even the researchers who uncovered them the results are.
So you know, I guess astounding that even the scientists who discovered them are kind of now have divided opinions.
Some researchers say the results constitute compelling evidence.
They make up, you know, they, you know, constitute like form the compelling evidence that telepathy is genuine.
So some researchers other parapsychologists believe the field is on the brink of collapse, having tried to produce definitive, scientific proof in their field, but the skeptics and advocates alike do concur on one issue like that's, like when you mention x and y alike.
It means both both people who support this, um, you know, whole telecommunic telepathy idea in in those who do not support it.
They agree concurrently agree on one issue, that's, guys, 27 that we the most impressive evidence.
So far has come from so-called gansful experiments, the german term that means whole field.
Okay, the most convincing evidence for telepathy comes from gansfield.
Okay, that's, 27, um and reports of tel tell telepathic experiences had by during meditation.
Okay, that's like 28, um, agree on the discovery of mechanism.
No the need to create suitable environment know, their claims of a high the solution to a problem.
The significance, I guess that's the significance of ganzel's experiments because they all agree on one issue.
That is the impressive evidence coming from gansville.
That means impressive like they're significant.
So I would say the answer for question, okay, I'm gonna again have to remove this.
Um so that's going to be e for question.
Number 27., concur is standard for agree and and differing attitudes that skeptics and advocates alike.
And that significance, that's impressive evidence.
Now that next one is like going to be 28, because immediately followed by they're talking about telepathic experiences had by by people during meditation and led by a psychologist to suspect that telepathy might involve signals passing between people that was so fain that they were usually swamped by normal brain activity.
Uh-Huh.
So there is normal brain activity that is going on in your brain right? And they are so strong that the signals that are so weak and faint, a kind of swamp.
They are like in the on.
The background in this case, such signals might be more easily detected by those experiencing meditation like tranquility and relaxing holofield lights and sound and warmth.
So they're, saying, like if that's the case, if that's like, if the brain activity is kind of swamping the signals that are so faint, why don't we detect those signals by meditation like tranquility in a very calm situation? All right? Um, 28 is going to be now let's.
Look for the answer.
The discovery mechanism, no indicated the need to create a suitable environment for telepathy.
I guess that's kind of what the it is like.
We need to create a whole field of light sound and warmth where there has to be trunk tranquil environment.
So I would say the answer for question number 28 is going to be, but let's let's, look their claims of a high success solution to the problem posed by random guessing, a more careful selection of subjects.
I need to keep altering conditions.
No to keep altering is continuously, altering the condition that's.
Not what the text is saying, though, um, okay, the ganzfeld experiment tries to recreate these conditions with participants sitting in soft.
Reclining chairs.
Reclining is like when you can recline right like this in a sealed room sealed me in closed room.
Okay, let's look at questions.
And and then I'm going to look at this question 29 when they start talking about attitudes.
But here I can see that they're starting to talk about ganzfeld, like I can say the gears as well listening to relax, listening to relaxing sounds while their eyes are covered with special filters, letting in only soft pink light.
So the filter only lets in the soft pink light, an early ganzfel experiment that help with your tests involve identification of the picture.
So the person had to that the early ones that involve identification of a picture chosen from a random selection of four taken from a larger image bank.
So there is an image bank and then person had to identify a picture from four, you know of them so involve a person acting as a do.
I know, the idea was the person acting as a sender would attempt to be in the image.
So the idea was the person acting as a sender would attempt to beam the image over to the receiver, relax, it, the sale room let's understand that part.
So like that 132 guys is going to be one picture from from selection of four right that's like what it is picture who picked out meaning picked out like the identified picture from random selection of four and who then tried to identify it.
Um.
So what would happen the person acting as a sender would attempt to beam the image? The beam? I guess like beam? The image like beam is light right to the receiver, relaxing in a sealed room to receive what receiver is trying to the receiver is trying to identify it receiver.
And there is a sender.
Okay.
A sender is trying to picking one and then sending on to to the receiver.
And in the cylinder once the session was over the person who asked was us to identify, which four of the images had been used random guessing would give, uh, okay, obviously out of four.
What did happen in like 31 and 33 like the random guessing? Would you know only have 25 chance if telepathy is real? However, the hit rate would be higher in 19.
The results from the first were analyzed by one of its pioneers american psychologist charles hunter.
They pointed to typical rates better than a 30 a small effect.
But one which, uh, statistical texts suggest could not be put down to chance.
It wasn't, the chance that you know hit rate success was actually higher than random guessing, which was 25, um, the implication was that ganzfeld method had revealed real evidence for telepathy.
So that that's what the conclusion was, oh, there is evidence for telepathy.
But there was a crucial flaw in this argument.
One routinely overlooked in more conventional areas of science.
There is one aspect that gets ignored just because the chance had been ruled out as an exception did not prove telepathy as it must exist.
That's a good point just because chance if we change remove the chance out of the equation, doesn't mean, teleport exists.
There are many other ways of getting positive results.
These range from sensory leakage where clues about now they're defining what sensory leakage clues about these pictures, accidentally reach the receiver to outright front.
It could be the fraud or sensory leakage like through the filter.
I could see the picture right so 34 and 35 is going to be, um now, leakage such as sin, siri like pitch, or or like outright, fraud I'm, not going to write outright.
Just fraud makes sense just fraud all fraud in response to the researchers issued a review of all the cancelled studies.
So what about this attitudes alter drastically in response to in response? The researchers issued a review of all the gansfield studies done up to 1985 to show that 80 percent had found statistically significant evidence? However, they also agreed.
There was still too many problems in the experiments, which could lead to positive results.
And they draw through up a list demanding new standards for future research.
After this, many researchers start switch to auto against fault.
Studies tests, okay, that's.
Now, the second set of questions guys, an automated variant of the technique, which used computers to perform many of the key tasks, such as the random selection of images, right, that's like ultimate variant of the technique by minimizing human involvement used for key tasks to limit the amount of something by meaning other than human involved.
The idea was to minimize the risk of flawed results.
United results from hundreds of test work studied by in a meta-analysis statistical finding overall results from the set of studies that though less compelling than before the outcome was still impressive.
Okay.
So now we need to after many research switched an automated variant of the technique used computers, which use computers to perform many of the key tasks, such as the random selection of images.
So this time the computers were used computers were used that's 36, right to use for key tasks to limit them out of and what they did by minimizing that they minimized human involvement.
So that was the you know, the idea behind using computers, 30 sx is going to be and 37 is going to be human involvement, minimize ascendant for limit the amount of human interval.
And then like the results from hundreds of uh tests were studied in a meta-analysis that's like then results were then subjected to a meta analysis.
That's going to be 38 meter.
Okay, I'm.
Sorry, meta analysis.
If you subject something to something, it means guys you, uh, you make it experience that, um between different as well as put down the or not the very less compelling.
The outcome was still yet.
Some par remain disturbed yet some parapsychologists remain, uh disturbed by the lack of consistency.
Okay, the between and individual again.
So there was, however inconsistency and defenders have tell point out the demanding impressive evidence from every ignores one basic statistical value.
It takes large sample to detect small.
Okay that guys this one is going to be 39 is going to be 39 is going to be like consistency, the lack of consistency, the consistency between the consistency, the lack of consistency.
Okay, I guess it makes sense right? The lack of consistency, a lack of consistency.
I guess that's like consistency between the lack of consistency between different test results was put down to the fact, the defenders like they are now defenders are putting it down to the fact that pointing out like that's, one basic statistical fact, it takes large samples to detect small.
You know, that's going to be 40 and 40 is going to be like no were not large.
They were not large because to to detect small effects to find small effects.
You need large groups.
And it wasn't the case was with with with uh alt against full studies.
If as current results suggest telepathy produce hit rates only marginally above it's, unlikely to detect the bite typical ganzfeld's involving around 40 people.
The group is not just big enough.
Okay, it could be large it will it could be big either one? I guess works.
So now one only one many studies are combining method with the faint signal of telepathy that's.
What the researchers became and that's, what the researchers seem to be finding, um, what they are currently not finding.
However, is the any change in attitude of mainstream scientists, most totally reject the very idea of telepathy.
The problem stems at least in part from the lack of any plausible mechanism.
There is no mechanism.
So in their saying like now, they're, putting it the other way around the there is not much but change of attitude.
And people are outright rejecting the idea of telepathy because there's not good believable mechanism for telepathy.
If there was one, they would believe they discovered mechanism for telepathy.
Okay.
So I would say that that's it for question.
Number, uh, for question.
Number okay, a is going to be 29 is going to be 29 is going to be and attitudes will change very theories have been put forward.
Many focusing on esoteric.
Esoteric.
Guys means only experts understand it ideas from theoretical physics.
They include quantum entanglement in which even events affecting one group of atoms instantly affect another group.
No matter how far they far apart.
They might be, um.
So while physicists have demonstrated entanglement with specifically prepared atoms.
No one knows if it also exists between atoms and making up human minds answer such such questions, would transform spiral psychology.
This has prompted some reason same researchers.
Some researchers argue that the future lies not in collecting more evidence, but in probing possible mechanisms.
Okay.
So the we should not be collecting more evidence instead, testing possible mechanisms.
Some work has already began with researchers trying to identify people who are particularly successful in.
You know.
So the work has already began actually turns out and earlier results show that creative and artistic people do better than the average in one study musicians achieved a higher rates hit 56 percent.
So if you character collect yours, you know, subjects, meaning people who are participating in the in the in the experiment like meaning, like more careful selection, the the selection of subjects guys people who are participating in the in the um experiment or study.
And if you are choosing creative and artistic people, their results are better, and at least that's, what the case with the university of edinburgh study that guys concludes our video walkthrough for cambridge, a test one passage three later on.
