Short Answer
Controlled tests to date have not shown solid evidence for psychic ability. When someone believes they have a "sixth sense", anomalistic psychology does not try to deny their experience; it tries to explain that experience through psychological mechanisms documented in the laboratory. The two most frequently cited mechanisms are subjective validation and misattribution.
In other words: the scientific question is not "is this person honest", but "does that experience require a special ability to explain". So far, the answer from researchers is: not yet.
The "Remote Viewing" Experiments Reanalyzed: The Clue Was in the Transcript
In the 1970s, a research group in the United States published "remote viewing" experiments, in which a person was said to describe a location they had never seen, and a judge matched the description to the correct location. The initial results were presented as evidence for the ability to acquire information beyond the ordinary senses.
知识类别: 史料历史文献. 有文献、年代与出处；旁边的注释编号指向该出处。 五类标签In 1978, David Marks and Richard Kammann published a reanalysis in the journal Nature1. They showed that the transcript of the viewer's words, meaning the written record of what the person said during the experiment, contained clues about the order of the locations. Those clues were enough for the judge to match correctly without any special ability1.
In the same analysis, Marks and Kammann described the mechanism they called subjective validation: when reading a vague description, people find the points where the description matches reality, then remember those matches and forget the mismatches1. This mechanism does not require any intent to deceive. It is how human memory and attention operate.
The methodological point is notable: the flaw here was not in the viewer, but in the experimental design. When the transcript leaked clues, the results could look like psychic ability even when no ability was present. This is why later tests had to be more tightly controlled: the judge must not be exposed to any information beyond the material being judged.
The Misattribution Hypothesis: Why Ordinary Experiences Get Attributed to Special Causes
知识类别: 史料历史文献. 有文献、年代与出处；旁边的注释编号指向该出处。 五类标签In 2006, Richard Wiseman and Caroline Watt published a qualitative review in the British Journal of Psychology on the misattribution hypothesis in people who believe in psychic ability2. This review noted several psychological characteristics in the believer group: how they reason about probability, a tendency toward fantasy, and a propensity to see correspondence between things that are otherwise far apart2.
The core mechanism of the misattribution hypothesis is simple: an ordinary experience (a vague feeling, a chance association, a dream that matches a later event) is attributed to a supernatural cause instead of ordinary ones2. This attribution is not morally wrong; it is a form of causal reasoning that the human brain performs continuously.
It should be clear: the Wiseman and Watt review is a qualitative review, meaning it synthesizes and compares existing studies, not a single experiment. Its conclusion concerns general tendencies in the believer group, not specific individuals.
Verification Method: What Should a Proper Test Look Like?
知识类别: 史料历史文献. 有文献、年代与出处；旁边的注释编号指向该出处。 五类标签The textbook Anomalistic Psychology by Christopher C. French and Anna Stone (2014) presents ways to test supernatural experiences and beliefs, including divination, psychic ability, and astrology, through known psychological mechanisms, along with a methods section3. This is an important point: anomalistic psychology does not merely offer alternative explanations, it also sets the standard for a sufficiently good test.
A sufficiently good test must control for information leaks. If the judge can guess the answer from the order of presentation, from numbering, from tone of voice, or from timing, then the results no longer say anything about psychic ability. This is precisely the lesson from the Marks and Kammann analysis1.
A sufficiently good test must also handle the probability problem. When the number of trials is large enough, a few "hits" are normal. If only the hits are reported and the misses are ignored, the results will look more impressive than they are. The misattribution section of Wiseman and Watt shows this is not a theoretical issue, but a measurable tendency2.
Comparison Table of Main Sources
| Source | Type | Data Scope | What the Source Establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marks and Kammann, 1978, Nature1 | Peer-reviewed article | 1970s "remote viewing" experiments | Transcript contained clues about location order; description of subjective validation mechanism |
| Wiseman and Watt, 2006, British Journal of Psychology2 | Qualitative review | Studies on people who believe in psychic ability | Several psychological characteristics in the believer group; misattribution hypothesis |
| French and Stone, 2014, Anomalistic Psychology3 | Academic textbook | Supernatural experiences and beliefs in general | Explanation through known psychological mechanisms, with verification methods |
The "sample size" and "quantitative results" columns are left blank because the sources in the current list exist only as bibliographic entries, without full text to check the figures.
What About the "Sixth Sense" in Everyday Life?
知识类别: 民间观念民间观念. 人们相信、禁忌或口耳相传之事，作为信仰记录，而非已核实的事实。 五类标签Many people report that they "sensed" something was about to happen, and then it happened. That experience is real to the person telling it. What researchers question is not whether the experience is real, but whether it requires a special ability3.
One easily overlooked point: belief can produce real effects. If a person believes they are sensitive to others, they may pay more attention to facial expressions and tone of voice, and therefore read the other person better. The result is that they gain more evidence for their belief. This effect is real, and it is not psychic ability. It is belief changing behavior, and behavior changing results.
Two questions should also be distinguished: one is "is there psychic ability", the other is "are people's experiences real". Anomalistic psychology answers the first as not yet evidenced, and the second as real and explainable through ordinary mechanisms3.
Where the Evidence Is Still Missing
知识类别: 证据不足证据不足. 有人提出，但尚无足够的出处或研究可以确认。 五类标签In this article's source list there is no test conducted on people who claim psychic ability in Vietnam. The results cited above come from research conducted abroad, mostly in Western laboratory settings, and should not be extrapolated to Vietnamese people without research on Vietnamese people.
In Vietnam, "ngoại cảm" is tied to certain social activities. This article does not examine any specific case, does not name any person or organization, and does not comment on those activities. Not examining them is not a conclusion about them; it is a limit on the article's scope.
Some questions remain open in the literature: whether there are cross-cultural differences in how people attribute experiences, and whether scales used in the West transfer to other contexts. The sources in the list do not answer these questions.
Conclusion
There is no solid experimental evidence for psychic ability. There are psychological explanations for the experience people call the "sixth sense". The two most frequently cited mechanisms are subjective validation1 and misattribution2, and the French and Stone textbook places them within a common methodological framework3.
Talking about tests and data does not mean talking about believers. A person can honestly recount their experience, and that experience can still be explained without requiring a special ability. The two statements do not exclude each other.
