This is a new one for me: But the occasion most assuredly calls for it… Something has come up in my daily blogging activities that calls for a direct ‘open letter’ from me to the author(s) of a study in your esteemed collection of peer-reviewed journals…
A nice warm cup of of Camomile Tea, to calm my shocked and awed nerves…
Frontiers Media SA
Avenue du Tribunal-Fédéral 34
1005 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel +41 (0)21 510 17 00
Mesdames et Monsieurs:
It has come to my attention that someone, somewhere in your vast research and editorial complex has tuned-in to my psychic frequency, and run off willy-nilly with my very thoughts.
Imagine my shock to discover that a team of researchers had organised their informational release concerning the results of a new data-mining exercise using the exact same editorial structure that I regularly employ to digest reports and abstracts about food and nutrition studies for presentation to my decidedly non-academic audience.
I customarily organize my reports under the same array of subheads for reader convenience: What they did; What they found; The takeaway; and My take. The team in question used the following subheads to organize their public abstract as follows: What did we do?; So what did we find?; Our recommendations for the future.
Coincidence?
For many decades, I have been acutely aware of a phenomenon a colleague and I first identified in 1969, when we both attended the same high school.
In short, however, on more than one occasion, a ‘great idea’ one or the other of us had formulated was published and claimed by another entirely unconnected source. In some cases, the parallel ‘discovery’ was documented as having taken place in some widely disconnected locale. In others, months or years had passed between our original inspiration and the other parties’ disclosure of their claim.
Limited facilities and funds have conspired to preclude further research. Although, my colleague and I agreed such work was definitely necessary before going public with our discovery.
Inability to replicate
In addition, preemptive attempts to intentionally replicate the random results which first led us to record our experiences with the phenomena in question have resulted in a gradual reduction in interest over time. However, each time in the future my colleague and I have been about to consign the entire issue to the clinical dumpster, another clear occurrence of the unexplained effect has taken place.
Such unpredictable and annoying behaviour by the miscreants behind the entire business still plagues both my colleague and me to this day – so much so that we have assigned a ‘convenience’ name to these adventures in hyper-cognizance: Mind Piracy.
‘Great minds’
No less an authority than Wikipedia, itself, has acknowledged the principle of Multiple Discovery. Whether Mind Piracy merely constitutes instances of multiple discovery remains to be seen. And, if so, why do occurrences of Mind Piracy often seem to involve issues as random and trivial as the one which prompted this communication?
It almost makes one wonder if some unseen or as-yet-unknown natural principle(s) may be at work. Others with whom I have dared to discuss the Mind Piracy effect have suggested the possibility that some hidden mode of communication may be at work – call it psychic Dark Energy. It has, in fact, been suggested that the existence of psychic Dark Energy could account for the vast majority of ‘missing’ common sense in our universe!
Meanwhile, I must ask you…
Please instruct your Mind Pirates to cease and desist in their invasive and possibly damaging psychic activities – at least until further, conclusive research can be undertaken on the matter…
Until then,
I remain yours,
most devotedly and sincerely,
________________________________
Margaret J.A. James (Mrs.) (Retd.)
Maggie@maggiejs.ca