Knowing the nature of what you are trying to qualify or assess would be a good start.
Most people who have had psychic experiences have also experienced the effect it has on ego.
Yes, though many experiences have an effect on ego.
Typically they will then make wild claims about deliberate and culpable control of certain abilities. However those abilities IMO are not able to be utilized by deliberate volition adequately enough to prove anything of substance to the scientific fraternity.
Quite a jump there from claims of abilities to actual.
Their claims to deliberate and testable abilities in no way diminish the reality of their experience except only the issue of culpability and deliberateness.
They (the claims) may not diminish their experience, but neither do they provide proof of actual psychic functioning.
As I suggested to one very ill person years ago:
"You are only experiencing and amplified awareness of psychic effects that every one normally takes for granted"
Being conned by your own ego is very common and easily achieved.
Yes, it happens all the time. Sometimes though, ego is not a dirty word IMO - it's one of the drivers of achievement.
So IMO the only field that has any where near the capacity to assess these things is the field of Behavioral Sciences, which unfortunately is hamstrung by the fact that according to current medical opinion any and all psychic experience(s) is psychotic/hallucinogenic in nature. [ even if shared with others ]
99.99% of it may well be.
IMO, until science approaches this issue allowing for the unpredictable and non repeatable "at will" nature of the beast, there is no field capable of assessing it adequately.
Therefore you gotta stop carping at science for not saying 'yes sir yes sir three bags full sir'
The OP has stated categorically that the method described always works. These sorts of claims destroy any credibility as it is easy to realize that the claim is terribly flawed.
I won't comment on the OP other than to say he's been asked for some proof repeatedly in various threads but hasn't given it.
I personally accept with out doubt, that the capacity of people to communicate in a way that is commonly referred to as psychic is valid, however I also accept that it is not able to be performed in a deliberate, repeatable, predictable and culpable fashion.
I don't disagree with that. The only difference I think, is that you and I have a far different definition of 'psychic'. I would guess that 99% of what you'd call psychic, I'd call psychotic, or hallucinogenic, or accute human perception as per the 'Blink' article.
[However the persons ego and God complex ambitions drive them to believe that they can hence the problem with such claims of grandeur.]
Yes, claims of grandeur abound in many areas.
Example:
You have over 20 million schizophrenics [NPD's] all complaining about "broadcasting their thoughts"
Have you ever asked "Why is it that they all share the same symptomatic experiences?"
The same question can be asked for all DSM rated issues...
'cause they're human ? Humans share an abundance of symptomatic thoughts.
(PS - no matter, but I don't know what NPD's and DSM are)