A simple proof of common telepathic connectivity

[Quantum Quack]

Have been thinking on this subject of evidential support for telepathic connectivity between people which I believe is absolutely necessary for normal societal function.
I thought I'd throw this common every day occurrence/situation into the melting pot for you guys to have a "critical thought" or two about.
The situation that happens is when two people are on a telephone, cell or land line it doesn't matter because it also happens in face to face situations but is harder to exclude visual clues when trying to justify it as evidence.
Possibly you would care to describe a mundane explanation for this all too common event.

Scenario "Two people talking to each other on a telephone."
One party stops listening.
The other party knows "somehow" that the respondent person has stopped listening and is distracted.
"Are you listening to me?" or " You are not listening are you?" or "I'll call later when you are more receptive" are all common accusations/questions.


How do people know when another has tuned out or is distracted when talking on the phone [across large distances] with out any audible nor visual clues?

Any ideas of a mundane explanation are welcome.

Try to do this test deliberately with one of your unwitting friends and see what happens [If they don't just hang up on you in disgust]
It appears that the closer emotionally you are to the respondent the stronger the implications so I suggest if you are going to try it out pick some one you don't mind getting angry
I think you will find that the result is determined by the knowledge of the test. remove the knowledge of this simple test and a result may be evident.
If you can solve this you may be able to solve about 90% of the worlds domestic communication problems and save a heap of marriages to boot, a Nobel-la or two perhaps [ chuckle]

Edit: telemarketers are great to try this out on but I can assure you as no doubt you have already experienced it is damn hard to avoid getting angry and hanging up when trying to tune out with them. Why is that? What makes the skilled telemarketer so influential? Why do they often make people so angry? [only words on a telephone line after all...should be easy to tune out yes?]

 

[elte]

One thing that happens is that the listener goes quiet. A thing that I don't like about phone conversations that as I'm trying to picture a scenario the speaker is talking about, I can miss things he says later. The speaker notices and might actually think my attention has drifted off onto my own concerns when often, really, I'm just trying to get a good lock on the subject matter. These things are results of the way the brain works but there isn't telepathy involved.

 

[Quantum Quack]

One thing that happens is that the listener goes quiet. A thing that I don't like about phone conversations that as I'm trying to picture a scenario the speaker is talking about, I can miss things he says later. The speaker notices and might actually think my attention has drifted off onto my own concerns when often, really, I'm just trying to get a good lock on the subject matter. These things are results of the way the brain works but there isn't telepathy involved.

When you say "goes silent" what do you mean?
How do you know the listener has gone silent [ when they are supposed to be silently listening any way]?
I call this "tuning out" btw

 

[elte]

When you say "goes silent" what do you mean?
How do you know the listener has gone silent [ when they are supposed to be silently listening any way]?
I call this "tuning out" btw

A longer pause than usual. Maybe it's different there, here it is common to say yeah or uh huh to acknowledge what the speaker says.

Have you ever really focused on one thing the speaker was saying so much that you missed later things? I don't think that wouldn't really be tuning out. It's more like tuning in too finely.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A longer pause than usual. Maybe it's different there, here it is common to say yeah or uh huh to acknowledge what the speaker says.

Have you ever really focused on one thing the speaker was saying so much that you missed later things? I don't think that wouldn't really be tuning out. It's more like tuning in too finely.

sure... sort of like:
"You know Jim we been married for 30 years and well..."
"Yes dear"
"I want a divorce and move out to live with my boyfriend of 20 years"
"uhm......"
"Btw the weather is really hot don't you think and when the kids get out of school you can ...."
"uhm....."

yeah I can relate to being distracted by something said "in passing"

kids are good at picking up on a parent who has tuned out [hard lesson for some]..
Betty yells "Daddy daddy you are not listening to me!!"
Dad says " yes I am Jill"... "no problem"

 

[elte]

sure... sort of like:
"You know Jim we been married for 30 years and well..."
"Yes dear"
"I want a divorce and move out to live with my boyfriend of 20 years"
"uhm......"
"Btw the weather is really hot don't you think and when the kids get out of school you can ...."
"uhm....."

yeah I can relate to being distracted by something said "in passing"

kids are good at picking up on a parent who has tuned out [hard lesson for some]..
Betty yells "Daddy daddy you are not listening to me!!"
Dad says " yes I am Jill"... "no problem"

I think that thing is different from the thing I am talking about. The telephone conversants are lacking the visual feedback that helps with the flow. A way to look at it is that the talker gets ahead of the listener, who was still trying to think about the earlier thing the talker mentioned. I think you are doing wrong to discount my point even though I hadn't said that tuning out doesn't exist as a different thing.

 

[Read-Only]

When you say "goes silent" what do you mean?
How do you know the listener has gone silent [ when they are supposed to be silently listening any way]?
I call this "tuning out" btw

I agree with elte completely. It happens to me quite frequently in calls that are more than just casual in nature. I'll have to pause at times to think about the deeper implications of what the other individual has just said. And sure - there are those times when I *am* distracted, like from a child pulling on my sleeve for attention. I'll generally announce when that sort of thing happens.

Taken all in all, there are MANY very ordinary things that can occur that introduces a natural pause ("going silent") in a telephone conversation without having to resort to some rather silly claim of ESP.

I've read (but never bothered commenting before) on many of your posts like this one. It's my firm conclusion that instead of trying to be objective about these thing, you're guilty of a common error - that of "finding the results you WANT to find."

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think that thing is different from the thing I am talking about. The telephone conversants are lacking the visual feedback that helps with the flow. A way to look at it is that the talker gets ahead of the listener, who was still trying to think about the earlier thing the talker mentioned. I think you are doing wrong to discount my point even though I hadn't said that tuning out doesn't exist as a different thing.

what makes you think I have discounted your point? I happen to feel it is very valid. However you have not addressed mine either.
In fact you have missed the entire point. It is not your behavior that is at issue it is the one who is listening to you that is and how YOU know that they are listening to you or not [over the telephone]

 

[Quantum Quack]

I agree with elte completely. It happens to me quite frequently in calls that are more than just casual in nature. I'll have to pause at times to think about the deeper implications of what the other individual has just said. And sure - there are those times when I *am* distracted, like from a child pulling on my sleeve for attention. I'll generally announce when that sort of thing happens.

Taken all in all, there are MANY very ordinary things that can occur that introduces a natural pause ("going silent") in a telephone conversation without having to resort to some rather silly claim of ESP.

I've read (but never bothered commenting before) on many of your posts like this one. It's my firm conclusion that instead of trying to be objective about these thing, you're guilty of a common error - that of "finding the results you WANT to find."

Of course pauses are natural but the question is how do you know that the listener has drifted off. Not that it happens. as you said it happens all the time.

Example: A long explanation to someone and half way through explaining you realize that the person is no longer listening. The question is how do you realize that they are no longer listening when there is absolutely no way of knowing by conventional means?
and maybe YOU are wishing for the results you want to find as well...and are being far from objective...

 

[Read-Only]

Of course pauses are natural but the question is how do you know that the listener has drifted off. Not that it happens. as you said it happens all the time.

Example: A long explanation to someone and half way through explaining you realize that the person is no longer listening. The question is how do you realize that they are no longer listening when there is absolutely no way of knowing by conventional means?
and maybe YOU are wishing for the results you want to find as well...and are being far from objective...

Nope, I'm being FAR more objective than you are - simply because I'm NOT looking for anything. <grin> You are the one that's actively HUNTING for something to justify your belief. And that clear to anyone who's read your dozens and dozens of your posts on your favorite subject.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nope, I'm being FAR more objective than you are - simply because I'm NOT looking for anything. <grin> You are the one that's actively HUNTING for something to justify your belief. And that clear to anyone who's read your dozens and dozens of your posts on your favorite subject.

so do you want to address the Op or not?
or can't you read what is written as proven countless times [including now]
Go on, objectively deal with the OP then and not something you chose to read but what is actually written.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are the one that's actively HUNTING for something to justify your belief

The only thing I am hunting for with this thread is to discover why the posters only on this forum appear to suffer some form of clinical *dyslexia regarding anything I post.
Can't read what is written yet when I take the posts to others there isn't a problem...eh what? go Figure.

*Dyslexia:

Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty in learning to read fluently and with inaccurate comprehension despite normal intelligence.[1][2] This includes difficulty with phonological awareness, phonological decoding, processing speed, orthographic coding, auditory short-term memory, language skills/verbal comprehension, and/or rapid naming.[3][4][5]

Developmental reading disorder (DRD), or dyslexia, is the most common learning disability.

 

[elte]

Of course pauses are natural but the question is how do you know that the listener has drifted off. Not that it happens. as you said it happens all the time.

Example: A long explanation to someone and half way through explaining you realize that the person is no longer listening. The question is how do you realize that they are no longer listening when there is absolutely no way of knowing by conventional means?
and maybe YOU are wishing for the results you want to find as well...and are being far from objective...

You understand that I don't believe in telepathy. That's because explaining the way the brain works without it does a good job and has never failed to do it better than ESP could account for it.

In that example you just gave, the talker finds out when the listener says something that doesn't fit in properly.

 

[elte]

what makes you think I have discounted your point? I happen to feel it is very valid. However you have not addressed mine either.
In fact you have missed the entire point. It is not your behavior that is at issue it is the one who is listening to you that is and how YOU know that they are listening to you or not [over the telephone]

(I think I addressed it in that last post I put up)

 

[Quantum Quack]

You understand that I don't believe in telepathy. That's because explaining the way the brain works without it does a good job and has never failed to do it better than ESP could account for it.

In that example you just gave, the talker finds out when the listener says something that doesn't fit in properly.

well at least you seem to grasp the issue.
so you have never experienced realising that a person has stopped their listening during the course of you saying something for longer than 50 words or so?
Whether you believe in telepathy or not is irrelevant to the OP. [Unless you wish to discuss how objective critical thought is tainted by beliefs or disbelief's]
Disbeliefs can be just as potent at distortion as belief... you do realize this don't you...

 

[Quantum Quack]

(I think I addressed it in that last post I put up)

well good for you!.. maybe someone else has something to offer....

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's because explaining the way the brain works without it does a good job and has never failed to do it better than ESP could account for it.

I guess the massive assortments of brain disorders, illnesses and diseases that man has managed to cure or even treat adequately is worth noting..... zilch... yeah we know heaps about how the brain works. Sorry your point doesn't wash.
take dyslexia for example: been evident for thousands of years [classified in mid 1800's] and still no ideas about what and how.... I mean really! and I get accused of being subjective.
I had a father who was a classic at this [reP] in his later years....
On the telephone he would ask " How are you son?"
and if your answer was longer than one word he would stop listening most of the time but not all of the time... but my brothers and I could always tell ...

 

[elte]

well at least you seem to grasp the issue.
so you have never experienced realising that a person has stopped their listening during the course of you saying something for longer than 50 words or so?
Whether you believe in telepathy or not is irrelevant to the OP. [Unless you wish to discuss how objective critical thought is tainted by beliefs or disbelief's]
Disbeliefs can be just as potent at distortion as belief... you do realize this don't you...

Yes, disbeliefs can be off in relation to reality, too.

I don't see any evidence why I shouldn't disbelieve in telepathy except the mere arguments of people who promote the notion that it exists.

If I'm talking a long time on a subject by phone without pause, I'm already aware that the listener might have lost concentration on all I'm saying, if he is quiet. It's just reason. (I've even dosed off, myself)

I've never observed telepathy and if you say you have, you shouldn't expect me to think you have the right viewpoint and I don't. I think something similar about religion, too. I don't feel that I have to take others' word for things, especially if they haven't convinced me that taking their word for it is truer to reality than me going by what I have lived and learned.

 

[elte]

I guess the massive assortments of brain disorders, illnesses and diseases that man has managed to cure or even treat adequately is worth noting..... zilch... yeah we know heaps about how the brain works. Sorry your point doesn't wash.
take dyslexia for example: been evident for thousands of years [classified in mid 1800's] and still no ideas about what and how.... I mean really! and I get accused of being subjective.
I had a father who was a classic at this [reP] in his later years....
On the telephone he would ask " How are you son?"
and if your answer was longer than one word he would stop listening most of the time but not all of the time... but my brothers and I could always tell ...

Our sense of self is what is stored in our living cells and their interconnectedness within our bodies.

There are a lot of things we don't know, but that doesn't mean what we do know is wrong.

Brain disorders are another topic. I don't even think a lot of brain disorders are really disorders, but just how the brain reacts to bad situations that it is in.

OK, on your last comment. I just don't believe it was telepathy that was at play.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, disbeliefs can be off in relation to reality, too.

I don't see any evidence why I shouldn't disbelieve in telepathy except the mere arguments of people who promote the notion that it exists.

If I'm talking a long time on a subject by phone without pause, I'm already aware that the listener might have lost concentration on all I'm saying, if he is quiet. It's just reason. (I've even dosed off, myself)

I've never observed telepathy and if you say you have, you shouldn't expect me to think you have the right viewpoint and I don't. I think something similar about religion, too. I don't feel that I have to take others' word for things, especially if they haven't convinced me that taking their word for it is truer to reality than me going by what I have lived and learned.

I totally agree with you. You are presuming though, as a form of cynicism [stating that I don't have the right view is a subjective prejudice], I guess, that any one who espouses an interest in telepathy is trying to evangelize it. Well I am not trying to convince any one. They and only they can do it themselves via personal experience.
Some people reading the OP will have had the experience mentioned and also consider it to be common and quite mundane... yet the OP places a highlight on this mundane experience as being a simple proof of telepathic connectivity. if you haven't had this experience then is it fair that you should discount those who have?
"A good listener knows when his audience has turned off"