The phenomenon of “duper's delight” refers to the subtle pleasure individuals experience when successfully deceiving others. This concept, first described by Ekman (1985/2009), manifests through fleeting micro-expressions, involuntary smirks, or nonverbal cues that reveal an underlying sense of triumph in deception. Understanding this psychological behavior is particularly valuable for researchers assessing the sincerity of individuals claiming to have experienced paranormal or anomalous events. By identifying signs of duper’s delight, field investigators can better determine the credibility of witness testimonies and thus differentiate between genuine experiences and intentional fabrications.

Understanding Duper's Delight

Duper's delight arises from the cognitive dissonance between the deception being attempted and the successful evasion of detection. According to Vrij (2008), deceivers may exhibit micro-expressions that last only fractions of a second, making them difficult to detect without careful observation. These involuntary cues often surface due to the emotional reward that deception provides, creating a challenge for researchers who rely on self-reported experiences of the paranormal.

In the context of anomalous experiences, witnesses may either consciously fabricate their encounters or unconsciously embellish details due to psychological influences such as expectation bias or social reinforcement. Some individuals may enjoy the attention and validation that come with extraordinary claims, making them more prone to deceptive behavior. Therefore, researchers must employ critical evaluation techniques, including the analysis of micro-expressions, inconsistencies in narratives, and behavioral anomalies, to distinguish between authentic and deceptive accounts.

Applying Duper’s Delight to Anomalistics Research

To assess the sincerity of paranormal witnesses, researchers should consider a range of both verbal and nonverbal indicators. The key signs of duper’s delight include:

• Involuntary Smirking – A subtle, fleeting smile that appears incongruent with the emotional tone of the story.
• Micro-expressions of Glee – Brief expressions of amusement or excitement at inappropriate moments.
• Inconsistent Body Language – Fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, or excessive blinking, indicating cognitive strain.
• Over-Elaborate Details – Providing excessive, unnecessary details to make a story seem more convincing.
• Evasive Responses – Avoiding direct answers when questioned about specifics.
• Changes in Vocal Tone – Shifts in pitch or speech patterns, particularly when challenged.

By incorporating careful monitoring for these indicators into their methodology, researchers can increase the accuracy of their assessments, ensuring that their studies remain grounded in credible testimony rather than blatant deceit.

Conclusion

Duper’s delight is a crucial concept in assessing the sincerity of reports about anomalous experiences. By recognizing subtle cues of deception, researchers can enhance the integrity of their investigations and contribute to a more rigorous understanding of the paranormal. As methodologies in frontier science continue to evolve, incorporating psychological insights into witness evaluation will remain essential for distinguishing sincerely reported experiences from deliberately fabricated accounts.

References

Ekman, P. (1985/2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. W.W. Norton & Company.

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley.

“Extraordinary Ideas for Ordinary People.”  

Our next episode involves the SSE commentators discussing Eric Dullin’s 2024 article in JSE (“A Detailed Phenomenology of Poltergeist Events:" https://doi.org/10.31275/20243263), which examines the feature patterns of anomalies reported in poltergeist-like disturbances.

This discussion breaks-down Dullin's detailed analysis and classifications into everyday language and examples that are sure to entertain professional parapsychologists and amateur paranormal investigators alike!

Listen now! 

Academia is often portrayed as an "ivory tower" or intellectual fortress—rigorous, isolated, and relentlessly focused on discovery. Yet, researchers and academics thrive not only on data and publications but also social interaction. Socializing is not a distraction; it’s an essential component of intellectual vitality, career development, and mental well-being (O’Meara et al., 2008).

Indeed, scientific innovation doesn’t often occur in isolation. The informal exchange of ideas over coffee or at conferences fosters creativity and interdisciplinary breakthroughs (Collins, 2011). In fact, some of the most transformative insights in history have emerged from casual conversations rather than structured meetings (Latour & Woolgar, 1979/1986). For instance, the double-helix structure of DNA was conceived after informal discussions between James Watson and Francis Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory tearoom (Watson, 1968). Similarly, the foundational ideas behind game theory took shape during conversations between John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern at Princeton in the 1940s (Leonard, 2010). More recently, the concept of the World Wide Web was sparked through casual exchanges between Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (aka CERN) (Berners-Lee, 2000). These examples highlight the indispensable role of informal dialogue in advancing scientific thought.

Networking, as exemplified by the above examples, can obviously enhance collaboration opportunities, providing access to funding, co-authorships, and career advancements (Granovetter, 1973). But beyond these professional benefits, socialization is crucial for researchers’ mental health. The pressure of academic life—publish-or-perish, grant applications, and administrative duties—can be isolating and stressful. Meaningful social interactions can help to provide emotional support, build resilience, and prevent burnout (Levecque et al., 2017). Graduate students and early-career researchers particularly benefit from mentorship and peer networks that help to navigate the complexities and overt drama of academia. Institutions must therefore recognize and encourage social engagement as part of academic culture. From structured networking events to informal gatherings, fostering collegiality strengthens the research community and accelerates progress.

For researchers, the message is clear—Step out of the lab, engage with peers, and embrace the power of connection. Science advances not just through rigorous inquiry, but through the vibrant, dynamic relationships that sustain it. SSE membership is one way to gain valuable connections, so join today (if you haven’t already) and start faithfully attending SSE’s new quarterly webinars and ongoing annual conferences. We’d love to see you!

References

Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving the web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web. Harper San Francisco.

Collins, H. M. (2011). Gravity’s shadow: The search for gravitational waves. University of Chicago Press.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979/1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.

Leonard, R. (2010). Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the creation of game theory: From chess to social science, 1900–1960. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778278

Levecque, K., Anseel, F., Beuckelaer, A. D., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46, 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. Jossey-Bass.

Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. Scribner. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3035117

This 2025 project is all about chats that provide “Extraordinary Ideas for Ordinary People.”  

These "breakdowns" will be fun and accessible to lay audiences. Hear our slate of science commentators discuss the peer-reviewed research and thought leadership published in JSE.

The first episode involves our commentators discussing Michael Sudduth’s 2024 treatise in JSE (“The Augustine-Braude Bigelow Survival Debate: A Postmortem and Prospects for Future Directions”: https://doi.org/10.31275/20243309), which examines evidence and reasoning related to research on postmortem survival of consciousness.

This discussion breaks-down Sudduth’s detailed and technical analysis into everyday language and examples that are sure to entertain and educate anyone intrigued by the idea of “life after death.”

Listen now! 

Most frontier and mainstream scientists embrace the premise and practice of “citizen science”—the type of research that involves the public in scientific discovery (see e.g., Finger et al., 2023). It’s a way for motivated people to contribute to scientific knowledge by collecting and sometimes analyzing data, thereby partnering with scientists to answer real-world questions. SSE’s own Journal of Scientific Exploration even has a subsection devoted to “Student and Citizen Science Research,” see e.g.: Ramesh Thadani’s (2023) “The Jersey Devil: Examining a Phenomenon Obscured by Myth (https://doi.org/10.31275/20232859) or David Schumaker et al.’s (2023) “Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Profile and Baselines at a Non-Haunted Control Location” (https://doi.org/10.31275/20232725).

But over recent years we have observed the rise of so-called “influencers” throughout society—including their overt participation (invited or not) in scientific discourse. Two major types of actors in this context are “Mobile Journalists” and “Citizen Skeptics.” Mobile journalists, or “mojos,” are professional or freelance reporters who use portable devices like smartphones, tablets, or lightweight cameras to gather, edit, and share news stories. They can work from almost anywhere, covering events in real-time and often publishing directly to online platforms or social media. This approach makes journalism faster, more flexible, and accessible, especially in breaking news situations.

Similarly, the concept of citizen skeptics has emerged in today’s interconnected world as a significant force in public discourse. These are individuals or groups who actively question, investigate, or challenge established claims, particularly those made by authorities, experts, or institutions. Mojos and citizen skeptics more broadly, operate at the intersection of empowerment, accountability, and public participation—leveraging modern tools to scrutinize information and advocate for evidence-based transparency. This all has become more pertinent given many social media platforms stopping the practice of “fact-checking"— which legally equates to mere counter-opinions endorsed by that platform's owners or managers. 

Citizen skeptics and citizen scientists both represent grassroots engagement with knowledge and inquiry, but they differ in focus and approach. Citizen scientists actively participate in scientific research, collaborating with professional scientists to collect data, analyze findings, and contribute to scientific knowledge. Their efforts are typically aligned with established methodologies and aim to expand understanding within scientific frameworks.

In contrast, citizen skeptics typically focus on questioning, critiquing, and evaluating existing claims, often challenging institutional authority or alleged misinformation. While citizen scientists tend to work within the system to generate knowledge, citizen skeptics often scrutinize the system itself, advocating for accountability and transparency. Despite these differences, both roles rely on public access to information and emphasize the value of informed, active participation, underscoring the evolving relationship between expertise and public engagement in the digital age.

Empowerment Through Access to Information

The digital age has democratized access to information, enabling ordinary citizens to engage critically with complex issues. Online platforms, public records, and scientific data offer unprecedented opportunities for non-experts to examine claims and construct counter-narratives. As Brossard and Scheufele (2013) pointed out, this accessibility empowers the public to participate in scientific and policy discussions, breaking down barriers that traditionally limited such engagement to experts.

Focus on Accountability and Transparency

Citizen skeptics often emphasize the need for greater transparency and accountability within public and private institutions. By exposing perceived inconsistencies, conflicts of interest, or potential corruption, they aim to uphold ethical standards and restore trust in governance. As Callahan (2017) noted, this pursuit of accountability can serve as a check on power and privilege, promoting fairness in societal decision-making.

Community Collaboration

Collaboration plays a vital role in the efforts of citizen skeptics. Online communities and grassroots organizations serve as hubs for sharing resources, analyzing evidence, and amplifying critiques. Social media, in particular, has become a powerful tool for mobilizing collective skepticism, allowing voices to resonate far beyond traditional platforms (Hargittai & Shaw, 2013).

Critiques of Expertise and Authority

Citizen skeptics challenge the notion of unassailable expertise, often questioning the biases or errors inherent in expert judgment. While this approach can promote critical thinking and scientific literacy, it also carries risks. Lewandowsky et al. (2017) warned that skepticism, if not grounded in credible evidence, can lead to the spread of misinformation or the proliferation of conspiracy theories.

Benefits and Risks

The role of citizen skeptics in society is both impactful and complex. On the positive side, they can uncover errors, hold powerful entities accountable, and foster a more informed and engaged public (Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). However, without a strong foundation in critical thinking or reliable sources, their efforts may unintentionally contribute to the spread of pseudoscience, divisive narratives, or misinformation (Lewandowsky et al., 2017).

Supporting and Guiding the Cause

Citizen skeptics and mojos exemplify the potential for active public participation in the pursuit of truth and accountability. By questioning established norms and leveraging modern tools, they can contribute to a more participatory democratic society. However, the effectiveness of their efforts depends on their ability to approach skepticism with rigor, integrity, and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning. Frontier scientists should strive to be effective mentors in this regard. Indeed, at its worse, citizen skeptics might foster nothing more than “white noise” that irresponsibly erodes the public’s trust in science. But at its best, citizen skeptics can perform the valuable exercise of producing constructive free speech composed of cogent commentary informed by critical thinking about data and its implication.

References

Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339, 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329

Callahan, D. (2017). The givers: Wealth, power, and philanthropy in a new gilded age. Knopf.

Finger, L., van den Bogaert, V., Schmidt, L., Fleischer, J., Stadtler, M., Sommer, K., & Wirth, J. (2023). The science of citizen science: A systematic literature review on educational and scientific outcomes. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1226529. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1226529

Hargittai, E., & Shaw, A. (2013). Digitally savvy citizenship: The role of social media in civic participation. Daedalus, 142, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00218

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the "post-truth" era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008

Read about January's Maverick Milestones, see the announcement of our new quarterly webinar series, including information about the Remote Viewing Unlocked! A “Try It Yourself!” Workshop coming March 19, and the Member Spotlight interview with Daching Piao.

Read the Full Newsletter

In today’s hyper-polarized political and intellectual landscapes, the idea of ‘winning’ dominates debates, discussions, and even research. This pursuit of victory often overshadows the true purpose of inquiry—the search for legitimate knowledge. When positions are framed solely as pro or con, individuals risk oversimplifying complex issues and undermining the collaborative process necessary for genuine understanding. This sort of dichotomous thinking is flawed, whereas a genuine a shift toward truth-seeking can transform discourse.

The Fallacy of Binary Thinking in Research

Binary thinking, where debates are framed as a contest between opposing sides, reduces nuanced issues to oversimplified arguments. For instance, in discussions and published papers on sensitive topics like anthropomorphic climate change and receptivity to ‘misinformation or conspiratorial thinking,’ the focus often shifts to proving the ‘deniers’ wrong rather than collaboratively addressing important uncertainties or exploring innovative solutions (Oreskes, 2018). This adversarial approach fosters confirmation bias, where individuals prioritize evidence supporting their position while ignoring contradictory data (Nickerson, 1998).

When researchers or debaters aim to ‘win,’ they may prioritize persuasive rhetoric over intellectual rigor. This mindset can lead to cherry-picking evidence or manipulating interpretations to fit a narrative, a phenomenon seen in controversial fields like nutrition science or political economics (Ioannidis, 2005). By contrast, framing debates as opportunities to refine collective understanding allows for more productive and ethical inquiry.

The Philosophy of Truth-Seeking

Truth-seeking, as opposed to ‘winning,’ requires humility and open-mindedness. Karl Popper’s philosophy of falsifiability underscores the importance of actively seeking to disprove one’s hypotheses rather than defending them at all costs (Popper, 2002). This approach aligns with the scientific process, which traditionally values iterative refinement over definitive conclusions.

Moreover, truth-seeking emphasizes the process over the outcome. In fields like medicine, for example, randomized controlled trials are designed not to confirm a predetermined hypothesis but to rigorously test it, regardless of whether the results align with researchers' expectations (Straus et al., 2018). By prioritizing truth over victory, researchers contribute to cumulative knowledge that benefits society, as well as the scientific enterprise.

The Psychological Pitfalls of Playing to Win

Psychologically, the drive to ‘win’ fosters adversarial mindsets, eroding trust and cooperation. Studies in conflict resolution suggest that framing disagreements as zero-sum games exacerbates polarization and reduces the likelihood of consensus (Fisher et al., 1991). In contrast, adopting a collaborative mindset encourages empathy and the exploration of shared goals, fostering environments where truth is more likely to emerge. Whether or not disparate communities inside and outside of frontier science fields will ever forge powerful alliances in the shared pursuit for knowledge remains to be seen (see e.g., Houran, 2022; Houran & Schofield, 2023).

Toward a Culture of Collaborative Inquiry

Creating a social and intellectual culture that values truth over victory requires systemic changes. For instance, educational systems must prioritize critical thinking and intellectual humility over rote memorization and competition (Paul & Elder, 2021); media platforms should reward balanced, evidence-based reporting rather than sensationalist headlines that push government propaganda or cater to ideological echo chambers, and academia needs to balance incentives for publishing ground-breaking results with rewards for replicability and methodological rigor.

The Bottom Line

You can only lose if you’re playing to win—this adage reminds us that the pursuit of victory, rather than truth, is a misguided and even counterproductive endeavor in intellectual and societal discourse. By moving beyond combative or tribal mindsets and instead embracing the complexity of truth-seeking, individuals and institutions can foster deeper understanding, greater collaboration, and more meaningful progress. The pursuit of truth is not a competition, but a shared responsibility and journey—one that we must embark on together in good faith and a sense of adventure.

References

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin.

Houran, J. (2022). Editorial: An introduction and mission of building bridges to reach the unknown . Journal of Scientific Exploration, 36, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.31275/20222439

Houran, J., & Schofield, M. (2023). Championing “exchange and cooperation” efforts in frontier science: Epilogue to the Special Issue. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 37, 776–786. https://doi.org/10.31275/20233207

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), Article e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Oreskes, N. (2018). Why trust science? Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvfjczxx

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2021). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (4^th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery (2^nd ed.) Routledge.

Straus, S. E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2018). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (5^th ed.). Elsevier.

Holiday parties can’t stop frontier science! Enjoy the latest issue with its varied array of topics:

• Jeff Mishlove’s Guest Editorial about a new parapsychology education program.
• New findings on scopaesthesia (the sense of being stared at), reincarnation-type phenomena, and random event generator (REG) effects at Egyptian sacred sites
• Thought leadership on biological and spacetime correlates of higher states of consciousness, plasma ball phenomena
• Book reviews about UAPs and government programs, remote viewing, and freedom of speech
• And Bill Bengston’s special obituary for SSE Founder Peter A. Sturrock

Read the issue:

https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/issue/current

We eagerly invite scholars and researchers to support SSE’s Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) as peer reviewers. Contribute your expertise to support rigorous research, advance knowledge in frontier science, help to shape impactful scholarship.

What We’re Looking For:

• A passion for high-quality research and academic integrity.
• Expertise in your field, with experience in research and publication.
• Commitment to providing constructive, balanced feedback.

Your Benefits:

• Expand your academic network.
• Enhance your reviewing skills and stay updated on the latest research.
• Receive recognition for your contributions.

To join our esteemed team of reviewers, please send the JSE’s Editor-in-Chief your areas of interest and expertise today at: editor@scientificexploration.org

by William Bengston

Peter Sturrock, founding President of the SSE, passed away peacefully in his home, surrounded by his friends and family, on August 12, 2024, at the age of 100. Peter was a leader among those rare scientists who made major contributions in both conventional and non-conventional science.  On the conventional side, Sturrock was known worldwide for his profound contributions to the fields of astrophysics, plasma physics, and solar research.  He continued that work until the very end of his life as a distinguished physicist and emeritus professor at Stanford University.

On the less conventional side, Peter, along with peers such as the late Bob Jahn, was among the visionary founders of the SSE. In 1981 they called for a new, generalist society that could function as a magnet for scientists and researchers doing rigorous scholarly work in areas we now label as anomalous.  These early founders pushed back against the balkanization of knowledge acquisition which prohibited scholars from veering too far from orthodoxy.  Peter and the founders recognized that without a means to network and share ideas, little progress could be made in areas shunned by traditional fields. And so the Society for Scientific Exploration was born to sponsor regular conferences, and the Journal of Scientific Exploration was soon after founded as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

We wouldn’t be here without Peter.

A simple recitation of his many accomplishments, however impressive, doesn’t grasp the profound influence he had on generations of scholars, both conventional and not so conventional.  Some personal anecdotes: I first met Peter in 1999 while attending my first SSE conference. After giving a presentation to the group of luminaries assembled, and having no history with them, I was somewhat uncertain what to expect.  Soon after I finished, both Peter (and Bob Jahn) approached me with nothing but encouragement and inquired what they could do to help. 

That offer never wavered over the quarter century I knew Peter. When I’d be in California we’d try to meet at a restaurant, or at his home in Palo Alto.  Sometimes he’d already assembled a group of people who were interested in providing various types of support for me.  I would find myself, with his encouragement, giving a spontaneous presentation of some recent work.  He obviously took pleasure in being a magnet for scholarly discussions.

When we were at an SSE conference in the US or Europe, we’d try to spend some time in private conversation, catching up with whatever we were working on.  I’d be interested in his recent thoughts on UAPs, or the Shakespeare authorship question, or his conventional research on dark matter or neutrinos or whatever.  While excited about his ongoing research, he was equally interested in whatever I was working on.