Some quantum particles have soulmates, and scientists can use their “spooky” connections to send secret messages across the world, instantly.
The implications here for psychology are profound. If we can already use quantum entanglement to teleport “secret messages,” as the above-linked article suggests, imagine the possibilities for communicating thoughts, feelings and other psychological information, which to my mind are probably subtler than quantum particles.
Mystics, gurus, saints, shamans and alleged psychics have been talking about this possibility for eons. The problem is, a lot of people claim to be psychic when quite possibly they are just allowing their imagination – or possibly evil powers – to sway their better judgment.
The other day while talking to a Catholic friend about the so-called spiritual gift of “reading hearts” and other supernatural beliefs, we agreed it is best to form an hypothesis instead of supposing you really know what’s going on in another person’s heart and mind.
As my friend put it, “I like the word maybe.”
She has a knack for simplifying potentially complex things that lesser minds could spend countless hours writing pages and pages on.
Likewise, some years ago while talking about the sacrament of confession in the RCIA program I asked the presiding priest, “What do you do if you know someone is lying to you?”
The priest replied sharply, “You mean if you get the impression someone is lying.”
God bless that priest. He has saved me from making a lot of stupid mistakes in the years to come.
It is by far most sensible to form an hypothesis instead of pretending we know about someone else’s hidden thoughts, feelings, intentions or deeds.
For me, the art of discerning the truth (discernment is a popular Catholic term with two related meanings) is like a detective game or puzzle. First, we get an impression about someone, then we carefully observe and analyze everything else that follows to see if we gain support – or not – for that initial impression.
It’s a complex game and I’m simplifying the process quite a bit for this post.* But being rational and as scientific as possible about intuition and alleged insight is far better than being mistaken into believing we know something when we don’t.
Perhaps this kind of approach represents the ‘New Science of Mind’ that Jungians, post-Jungians and other holistic thinkers have been calling for ever since Sigmund Freud cracked the eggshell of the unconscious.
* For example, people can always change their minds; or they might unconsciously desire something that they themselves are repressing and not yet conscious of.