Can Humans Perceive the Geomagnetic Field and Utilize it for Navigation? A Review of “Human Navigation and the Sixth Sense” by Robin Baker

As evidence has accumulated that many animals utilize the Earth’s magnetic field (aka the geomagnetic field) for navigation, it’s reasonable to wonder if humans also do so. Since some members of every group of vertebrates possess the magnetic sense, why shouldn’t humans? Aren’t humans animals? Doesn’t modern biology, including the subdisciplines of genetics, evolution, physiology and anatomy, neuroscience, etc., emphasize the link between humans and lower animals? How can animals have an entire sensory apparatus that nature neglected to grant to humans?

Robin Baker, formerly a professor of zoology at the University of Manchester, asked these same questions over 30 years ago. He didn’t just ask questions, but conducted a pioneering research project to answer these questions. He wrote two books summarizing his research: Human Navigation and the Sixth Sense, at the beginning of his project, and Human Navigation and Magnetoreception, at the end. Having already read Human Navigation and Magnetoreception, I decided to read the earlier published book.

Human Navigation and the Sixth Sense focused on only one type of experiment, bus experiments (he would later add chair and walkabout experiments). It talked a lot about the animal magnetoreception research that motivated Baker to conduct his human research. A frequently-mentioned example was homing pigeon experiments. In these studies, researchers looked at homing success after release from a considerable distance, direction of vanishing point, i.e. the last observed position of the pigeon after release, and the pigeons’ directional preferences in an orientation cage. Experimental manipulations included altering the magnetic field surrounding the animal by means of coils and bar magnets attached to the head. Disruption in homing ability by means of magnets demonstrated that homing pigeons and other animals can perceive and utilize the geomagnetic field to navigate.

Since pigeons can find their way home after being displaced tens of kilometers, why not see if humans can do the same? Since a pigeon’s ability to find its way home is disrupted if a bar magnet is attached to its head, wouldn’t the same hold for a human? That’s the logic that motivated Baker, whose background is zoology, to apply to humans what researchers up to his time had only studied in animals.

How can you prove that humans use a “sixth sense,” i.e. a magnetic sense, to navigate? The simplest and most cost-effective way to transport people from home to the release point is by bus or van. People can make note of landscape details and roads traveled as they are driven around. If they are familiar with the area, they can make educated guesses about where they are based on what they observe.

To get around this problem, Baker decided to blindfold his subjects. Blindfolded subjects wouldn’t be able to observe landscape details. Unless they had an ability to navigate by feeling the twists and turns of the bus (i.e. an “inertial sense”), they would quickly get lost. By suppressing their visual sense, he believed, their magnetic sense would become activated.

Baker drove his blindfolded subjects between 6 and 52 km from the university, which was the “home” reference point. Some experiments involved transporting subjects in a van, and others a motor coach. Along the way, and after reaching the destination (the “release point”), subjects were asked to write down or say their estimate of direction of home and air-line distance from home, and to point to home. They had to do this while still blindfolded.

To summarize the results, Baker found that blindfolded subjects possessed a weak but statistically significant navigational ability. Bar magnets or helmets with electromagnetic coils disrupted this navigational ability. Baker concluded from these results that the blindfolded subjects’ weak navigational ability was due to a “compass in the head”, i.e. a magnetic sense.

Baker made frequent use of charts and diagrams in the book to present his results. Despite these visual aids, I found it hard to understand what was going on. Some of the results could have been more thoroughly explained. The biggest problem, however, was trying to connect the results to a coherent theory. On this conceptual level I found the book lacking.

Reading this book three decades after it was published, I have the advantage of knowing the subsequent bizarre history of the project. I was beginning high school the year the book was published, and don’t remember hearing anything about Baker’s human magnetoreception claims. I think it was publicized more in Great Britain than in the United States.

To summarize the history, after publishing this book and some articles, Baker continued his research project, trying additional types of experiments such as a spinning chair. In the spinning chair experiments, after being blindfolded and spun around, a subject indicated what compass direction he was facing. While Baker was continuing his research in the 1980’s, other scientists in Great Britain and the United States tried to replicate his results. They focused on his claim that blindfolded humans driven in a bus have a weak navigational ability to locate home. They didn’t use the bar magnets or electromagnets, but simply tried to replicate the “control” condition in which the purported magnetic sense was supposed to function. The majority of attempted replications failed. To add to the confusion, Baker claimed that the supposedly failed replications actually succeeded, but that the researchers drew the wrong conclusions from the data.

After Baker published Human Navigation and Magnetoreception in 1989, which was both an answer to critics and a summary of his completed research, he changed gears entirely. He moved on to popular science books on the evolutionary biology of sex, such as Sperm Wars. His latest book is a novel.

Once Baker left the human magnetoreception research field, no one else picked it up. It disappeared, as if it fell into a black hole. Unlike the animal magnetoreception field, which developed into a prolific research specialty, the human magnetoreception field went into a long-term coma after Baker left it.

There were fundamental problems with Baker’s experimental methodology that led to his failure to scientifically establish the existence of a human magnetic sense. One problem was that he blindfolded subjects. We now know the magnetic compass that birds and some other animals use for navigation is part of the visual system, and requires light. This is known as the “radical pair” mechanism. Blindfolding subjects will block such a compass, assuming that humans have one. To be fair to Baker, when he began these experiments over 30 years ago there was little evidence in favor of the radical pair mechanism.

Another fundamental problem was that Baker assumed that the magnetic sense was unconscious. Since we can’t ask animals what they feel or perceive, we don’t know if their magnetic sense is conscious. But the five “basic” senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch) are conscious, so it’s difficult to accept the existence of an unconscious sense. It’s even more difficult to prove it, as Baker found out after publishing this book. Baker compares the magnetic sense to a sense of time, which is unconscious. But time isn’t an environmental stimulus that is sensed by a specific organ, as the geomagnetic field is believed to be sensed by the magnetic sense organ.

Baker made a crucial error in assuming that possessing the magnetic sense was normal and functional. According to Baker, “[I]f a sense normally exists, absence of that sense may have clinical side effects” (p. 123). He studied normal people, usually college students. He made no effort to isolate or identify people who had special abilities. As a result, the group composite navigational abilities he studied were weak, masked by considerable statistical noise, and difficult to replicate.

Another problem with Baker’s research is that he assumed that humans could utilize their magnetic sense to point toward home, or write down or say the distance from and direction toward home. It’s not clear that even animals that are known to possess the magnetic sense could do such things, if they had the brain capacity to do them. Animals are tested by measuring in what direction they move toward home. Moving toward home is not the same thing as pointing toward home, or telling what direction home is.

Baker assumed that magnetic home and the university were one and the same. But what if magnetic home was located far away from the university? How could the subjects’ magnetic sense guide them back to the university, if their magnetic home was located hundreds of kilometers away?

Based on my own research, I have come to the conclusion that the magnetic sense is a conscious sense, based on feelings, dysfunctional, and possessed by a minority of people. These magnetically perceptive people feel differently if they are north or south of magnetic home. Magnetic home is not the same as actual home. The location of magnetic home, which is a north-south transition, is based on where and when a person grew up.

While for pigeons and migratory birds the magnetic sense is normal and functional, for modern humans in developed countries it isn’t. Feeling depressed if we’re north of home, or manic if we’re south of home, provides no navigational benefit. Familiarity with the area, maps and GPS devices can tell us where we are relative to home with much more precision than our magnetic sense does. Also, the fact that we travel so much and live much longer than our primitive ancestors did makes it likely that magnetic home and actual home will be separated by a considerable distance. Our magnetoreceptive feelings interfere with our ability to function in the modern world. In fact, they interfere to such an extent that most people with these feelings are diagnosed with psychiatric disorders and prescribed medications.

Baker’s research paradigm of driving subjects around in a bus can be modified to test these human navigational abilities that I assert are based on a magnetic sense. I talk about experimental methods in depth in my research paper, but I’ll summarize them here. Instead of blindfolding subjects, which blocks their visual-based magnetoreceptor, the bus windows should be covered. The internal bus lights will provide subjects with the light they need to activate their magnetoreceptor. Since the magnetoreceptive feeling of being north or south of home is greatly enhanced by looking directly at the early afternoon sky, a sunroof should be installed that is usually kept closed. When opened, subjects will be able to look at the sky without seeing landscape details. Subjects should then be driven to areas close to their magnetic home. Since magnetic home is different for each person, only one person at a time should be driven around in the bus. By looking at the sky through the open sunroof, the subject can then indicate where he is relative to his magnetic home. Since he’ll have no knowledge of what direction north or south is, he won’t be able to point to home, as in Baker’s experiments. He also won’t be able to estimate distance to home, since the feelings aren’t capable of being converted to distance. All that his magnetic sense can tell him is whether he is north of, south of, or in his magnetic home.

This experimental methodology is more a series of in-depth case studies than a group experiment. While labor-intensive, the only equipment needed is the bus. Although case studies provide limited generalizability, the navigational ability should be strong and reliable enough that it can be replicated.

For any scientist contemplating doing these above-mentioned bus experiments, an important question is: how do I select individuals with this ability? I mention some tests that can be done in my Are You Sensitive page, but I admit that I don’t know how this magnetic sense functions in other people. As with any new research area, the initial experiments will require adaptability and persistence, along with the willingness to take risks and accept failure.

Robin Baker was a pioneer, but most pioneers fail. Human magnetoreception has always been a controversial subject, one that few researchers dared to touch. Several centuries ago, Mesmer became a famous fraud by claiming that humans possess a magnetic sense, and today we call a hypnotized person “mesmerized”. I give Baker credit for jeopardizing his career by being the first person to systematically study the human magnetic sense. The world (especially the magnetoreceptive psychiatric population) now desperately needs a scientist with the courage to follow in Baker’s footsteps and restart human magnetoreception research. With the improved knowledge of animal magnetoreception that we possess today, along with my human magnetoreception hypothesis, this new research could lead to the breakthrough that Baker was denied.

Thoughts on the One Year Anniversary of Harrymagnet.com

The Harrymagnet.com site went live on October 25, 2009. The content on the site represented a summary of 2 years of my own independent research. This research suggests that I have the ability to perceive the Earth’s magnetic field, and that this ability directly influences how I feel. My psychiatric symptoms (OCD + tics + mild chronic depression) are navigational tools, directing me toward magnetic home. I had observed magnetic home (aka “The Happy Zone”) in Utah and North Carolina. By recording GPS coordinates and observing how my magnetic home moved in response to things like changes in bedtime and bed angle, I had acquired a great deal of data. I wrote a research paper that presented the data with my analysis. Before going public with the data, I first contacted some researchers, sending them my abstract and asking if they wanted to read the full paper. I found it difficult to select researchers to query, as I wasn't aware of anyone doing research in the navigational aspect of human magnetoreception. (Robin Baker studied this in the 1970’s and 1980’s, but has since moved onto other things). Only one (a British researcher who specialized in parapsychology research) asked to see the paper, and he didn’t provide any feedback.

Disappointed by the lack of interest in this initial query, I decided to adopt the pseudonym “Harry Magnet,” purchase a domain name, and put the research paper and some other information on the website. I had two goals in doing this:

1. Since I had no idea who might be interested in studying human magnetoreception, instead of my trying to find them, I’d let them find me.
2. I wanted to find out if there were other people with similar magnetoreceptive abilities as mine.

I utilized Google Adwords to market the site, along with sending select queries to additional researchers. After some time, my site became listed in the first 3 pages of relevant search results, such as “human magnetoreception” and “human magnetic sense.” Some people clicked on my Two Mysteries multimedia article by doing a Google image search.

After a year, I haven’t made much progress in either of my goals. Only one researcher has given me any feedback about my paper, an American psychologist named Jorge Conesa-Sevilla (whom I had queried). No one has expressed any interest in researching the human magnetoreception phenomena I describe in my paper. There may be some people conducting research without telling me, but I have no reason to believe that any such research is happening.

Perhaps more disappointing to me is the lack of feedback among people with similar magnetoreceptive abilities. I created an Are You Sensitive page, with some simple steps that people could take to verify whether or not they are magnetoreceptive. I provided several ways for people to provide feedback, including Facebook, anonymously commenting on my blog, and also contacting me directly. I only heard back from two people, who provided information suggesting that they may be magnetoreceptive, but I was unable to follow up with them.

I thought that my website might generate some online buzz, but there have only been two sites I’m aware of that have mentioned me. One, a bipolar discussion forum, talked about me soon after my site became live. Another, a mental health blog, mentioned one of my book reviews. While I’m grateful to these authors for their mentioning me, I was hoping for a great deal more buzz after a year.

I’m not currently doing Google Adwords. I get only a handful of daily hits to my site and blog. Otherwise, nothing. To what do I attribute my lack of success?

One observation I’ve made is that while it’s easier than ever to publish, it’s harder than ever to get anyone to read what you publish. The Web has allowed anyone with a computer and Internet connection to have a voice. While this democratization of publishing is a good thing, it has created a situation in which there is so much content that it’s very hard to distinguish the few gems from the mass of irrelevant, poorly written, and useless body of information. I imagine that the few people who have clicked on my site take a cursory look and then say to themselves, “Harry Magnet, who’s he? Why should I spend my time reading this stuff?” They then leave the site.

This is where a middleman can be very useful. A creative person cannot achieve eminence alone. He needs a middleman, an intermediary to tell people that his idea is important and worthy of notice. In the past, publishers and agents served this gatekeeping role, but today it is very hard for someone without a name to get published. I didn’t even try.

The problem with my project is that all my results are based on subjective experience. That’s why I’d never get published by a peer-reviewed journal, or book or magazine publisher. The middleman I need at present is a scientist willing to research human magnetoreception, to put to the test the claims I make in my research paper. Successful results, published in a peer-reviewed journal, would bring me attention and support.

As I said above, I’m not aware of anyone in the world studying the navigational aspects of human magnetoreception. That implies that if I want to find someone to research this, I’d need to convince him to go beyond his narrow subspecialty and begin a new field of research. It’s hard to find such a person, even though there are people studying related phenomena such as the human magnetic sense, and bioelectromagnetics. Scientific research in general has become very conservative, with few people daring to study new things. Curiosity was the primary motivator of the great scientists of the past, and I need at least one scientist to become curious enough about my project to risk defying conventional wisdom.

Another potential middleman is a practitioner willing to work with me to try out my techniques on other people. I’ve made some changes to my sleeping behavior and environment that have helped me feel better. Others can make similar changes. I have no credentials and cannot be an independent practitioner, but I’d like to work with someone. This will likely be someone I meet locally, as it is hard to try these techniques from a distance.

My experience the past year has convinced me that it was a mistake to rely solely on online media to spread my message. I should have focused more on developing local connections. One reason for this is that although I have a presence on Facebook, I have little interest in acquiring virtual friends. I prefer face-to-face interaction, and have a difficult time trusting or befriending people I haven’t met in person. Due to my exclusive use of online media, I haven’t made any progress on answering these important questions:

• Who else has magnetoreceptive abilities like mine?
• What psychiatric disorders are connected to magnetoreception?
• How different are others’ magnetoreceptive experiences compared to mine?

I’m going to be leaving North Carolina soon, and I’m not sure yet where I’ll end up living. Wherever it is, I’ll try to network with other people with psychiatric disorders, along with practitioners and researchers. I’ll keep the website, Facebook page, and blog up, and utilize it both as something to refer my local connections to, along with having an online presence. Hopefully by the time of the second year anniversary of Harrymagnet.com, I’ll have more positive results to convey.

Is Astrology Scientifically Verifiable? A Review of “Astrology: Science or Superstition” by Eysenck and Nias

Hans Eysenck and David Nias take on the contentious issue of whether or not astrological ideas can be scientifically verified in their book Astrology: Science or Superstition. This book, published in 1982, goes over a lot of research, both of traditional astrology and of a newer quasi-astrology called “cosmobiology.” While the book is almost 30 years old, I decided to read it because I admire and enjoy reading the works of Hans Eysenck.

Hans Eysenck (1916-1997) is my favorite 20th century psychologist. While not as well known or influential as Freud or Skinner, I think that Eysenck was on the right track in his research and theories. During the mid-twentieth century, when unproved psychoanalytical theories were predominant, Eysenck was a fervent critic. Eysenck did groundbreaking work in personality theory, backed by extensive empirical research. He’s most famous for his theory breaking personality down into three fundamental categories: extraversion, introversion, and psychoticism. He was a pioneer in the study of the biological basis of personality, intelligence, and mental health. Not one to shy from controversy, his view that racial differences in IQ are (partially) genetically determined got him punched in the face during a talk.

Most scientists avoid studying astrology, considering research in the field to be a waste of time and resources, kind of like studying psychic phenomena or human magnetoreception. But what if there is something to it, something that we don’t understand very well at present, but may lead to a new understanding of human behavior? It must be remembered that not long ago, the idea that some psychiatric disorders have a genetic component would have been laughed off as ridiculous. The same with the idea that taking pills would treat symptoms of depression or schizophrenia. What about splitting the atom, landing a man on the moon, or video conferencing with someone halfway around the world? Things that are common knowledge or obvious now weren’t always so.

Eysenck and Nias begin their book by discussing how mainstream scientists are irrationally hostile to anything connected to astrology. They then describe astrology, and delve into the research on the subject. They don’t find much research support for traditional astrology, e.g. whether birth charts and sun signs have any connection to personality, occupation, or personal destiny. Any studies that seemed to show a positive result either had methodological or statistical problems, or failed in replication. While many astrologers are sincere and mean well, any advice they give people isn’t based on research or science.

The authors then turn to what they call “cosmobiology”, or the scientific study of how extra-terrestrial factors influence living organisms. Much of the research in this field consists of initial studies that have not been replicated, and thus can’t be considered to be proven. I’ll omit these studies and focus on the few findings that have been replicated and that Eysenck and Nias consider to be solid. One is that eminent people are born more often between the winter solstice and spring equinox. (“Eminent people” are those who have accomplished enough to be listed in one or more encyclopedias). One study showed 36 eminent people born per day during the peak in February, compared to 27 people per day at the trough in June. There’s a similar trend for schizophrenia. A 1998 study confirmed this excess of winter births for schizophrenia, and also for bipolar and unipolar depression. Eysenck’s book on creativity explains that psychosis and creativity are biologically linked, and the seasonal of birth data support his hypothesis.

One possible explanation for the season of birth data is that the parents of eminent or mentally ill children have a greater tendency for conceiving a child in the spring than the average parent. Why this is the case isn’t clear. Another explanation for the greater prevalence of mentally ill winter births is that babies born during the winter are more susceptible to infections, and these infections cause their mental illness. There’s been no definitive link, however, between any known kind of infection and schizophrenia or mood disorder. This viral hypothesis doesn’t explain why eminent people should be born more often in the winter.

Eysenck and Nias take up the question of whether the sunspot cycle correlates with biological or historical cycles, but don’t find any solid evidence in favor of this. In his later book on creativity, however, Eysenck mentions Ertel’s research. Ertel found a correlation between the sunspot cycle and creative achievement in the arts and sciences. There’s more worldwide creative achievement in the nadir of the solar cycle as compared to the peak. There were also worldwide bursts of creativity during periods in which there were few or no sunspots, such as the Maunder Minimum (1620 – 1710). To my knowledge, Ertel’s research has not been replicated, so this isn’t solid evidence by Eysenck’s and Nias’ standards. Eysenck, however, thought it significant enough in his creativity book to devote 7 pages in explaining it.

The most solid evidence Eysenck and Nias come up with, to which they devote an entire chapter, is the research done by Michel Gauquelin (1928 – 1991), i.e. the Mars Effect. Gauquelin researched the connection between planetary position at time of birth and eminence. From the perspective of the rotating earth, planets rise and set, as do the sun and the moon. Gauquelin divided each planets’ path into 12 sectors, similar to, but not identical with, astrological houses. Gauquelin studied birth records of eminent doctors, artists, scientists, and athletes. He found that eminent scientists tend to be born more often just after the rise (i.e. when the planet first appears on the horizon) or upper culmination (i.e. the highest point) of Saturn, while eminent artists are less likely to be born during these times. He found that eminent doctors are more likely to be born with Mars or Saturn in the sectors following the rise or upper culmination. He found that for eminent military leaders and for “iron willed” athletes, Mars was more likely to be in the sector following the rise or upper culmination (remember that Mars is the ancient god of war).

Eysenck and Nias consider the Mars Effect to be successfully replicated. Since the book is 30 years old, I checked out more recent sources. A 2005 article describes the history of the controversy. To summarize, the jury is still out whether or not this effect is a statistical artifact or not. The previously mentioned Ertel became involved in the controversy, claiming that the Mars Effect did exist in the replications, if one focuses only on eminent people. For example, only highly successful athletes show this effect, not average ones.

Notice how eminence is an important factor in the Mars Effect, as it is in Ertel’s sunspot cycle research, and as it is in the season of birth research. Perhaps eminent people have some type of capability that others don’t have. This capability may be related to the magnetic sense, as the geomagnetic field is known to be influenced by sunspots and other extraterrestrial factors.

I can see a similarity between the controversy about the Mars Effect, and the controversy about Robin Baker’s human magnetoreception research. In both cases, one side argues that the replications were successful, and the other side argues that they weren’t. The key questions are methodological and statistical in nature. Mainstream science is not convinced, and the research project becomes abandoned.

My own opinion about the Mars Effect, echoing that of many scientists, is “so what?” Even if the Mars Effect exists, it can’t be used to predict anything. It’s an interesting correlation, showing that birth times may be connected to extraterrestrial events, but doesn’t really tell much about human psychology or human behavior. Eysenck would probably argue that it’s difficult in general to make predictions in the social sciences. There are so many influences and factors involved in human behavior, that correlational research is often the only method that can be used. The size of the correlations in the Mars Effect is as high as in other mainstream social science research. So why dismiss the Mars Effect, solely on the grounds that we don’t understand how it can work?

Eysenck and Nias make the analogy to Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton didn’t understand how gravity worked, but was able to construct a successful theory of gravitation. We don’t understand how cosmobiology works, but why can’t we take it seriously, do the necessary research, and come up with a theory? In their concluding chapter, the authors make the connection between cosmobiology and geomagnetism. It’s likely that any extraterrestrial effects are mediated by the geomagnetic field. Research in animal and human magnetoreception is directly relevant to cosmobiology.

I would like to see more research in cosmobiology, but would like to see us move away from the correlational in favor of the experimental. Robin Baker did experimental research on human magnetoreception, but the effect sizes were so small and difficult to reproduce that he was unable to convince other scientists. My human magnetoreception hypothesis points the way to another research paradigm that may have more successful results. I (and some others) have a limited functionality GPS. While this GPS doesn’t provide a great deal of navigational information, the limited information it does provide can be used as the basis for experimental tests. I have the ability to distinguish between being north or south of magnetic home. This ability can be tested in a double-blind manner, by driving me around in a bus with a sunroof and covered or blocked windows. If my sleeping behavior is experimentally controlled as I describe in my research paper, I will be near-perfect in my ability to distinguish between being north or south of home. The effect won’t be masked by statistical noise, as it was in Baker’s experiments and in the various correlational research studies mentioned in this book.

In conclusion, I recommend this book as an accessible, well-written discussion of astrological research.

Are Some Anxiety Disorders Connected to Magnetoreception? A Review of “Phobias: Fighting the Fear” by Helen Saul

I came across the book Phobias: Fighting the Fear after doing a Google search on “human magnetoreception.” This 306 page book is an excellent summary of the status of scientific knowledge of anxiety disorders at the beginning of the 21st century. Helen Saul (the author) is a scientific journalist, and writes for a general audience. The book is comprehensive in scope, as revealed by the chapter titles:  “History,” “Evolution,” “Genetics,” “Neurophysiology,” “Behavior,” Cognition,” “Personality and Temperament,” “Gender and Hormones,” “Light and Electromagnetism,” and “A Physical Problem.” Those who want to check her sources can consult the “Further Reading” section at the end of the book.

One thing I gleaned from this book is the wide diversity of anxiety disorders. It’s likely that syndromes that are combined together into a single disorder (e.g. panic disorder) have different etiologies. Since we can only diagnose anxiety disorders based on symptoms, we are certainly combining different disorders into one “package.” It is similar to headaches. A headache is a symptom, but it can be caused by many different things (migraines, tension, stroke, brain tumor, etc.) Similarly for panic disorder and other anxiety disorders.

The main reason I read this book was for the information included in the “Light and Electromagnetism” chapter. Saul begins the chapter with a section called “Mary’s Story.” Mary Dwarka is an agoraphobic housewife who developed an original hypothesis about her disorder. (Agoraphobia is a fear of public places and open spaces, sometimes associated with panic attacks.) Dwarka believes that agoraphobia is basically a travel disorder, a disruption of our navigational ability. People suffering from this disorder get disoriented when trying to use modern transport systems. “It could be due to the magnetic fields set up by subway or electric train systems, the artificial lighting on almost all public transport, or even just the sheer speed and distances covered. Whatever the underlying reason, it is the disorientation, rather than anxiety, that triggers the panic reaction” (p. 228). Agoraphobics are also upset by the lack of an escape route. If you’re on a train, you can’t get off until it stops at the next station. If you’re traveling in a car on a highway, you have to wait until the next exit to get out. Our Stone Age ancestors wouldn’t have been so confined as they wandered through the forests and jungles. Dwarka attributes the fact that women are 2 to 3 times more likely than men to have agoraphobia to fluctuating hormones. Her symptoms, as those of some other women, went into remission during her pregnancy.

Saul then summarizes Robin Baker’s human magnetoreception research. Baker, working in the 1970's and 1980's, was a pioneer in the study of human magnetoreception. It must be remembered that Baker studied normal subjects, and wasn’t specifically interested in the application of magnetoreception to psychiatric disorders. Saul mentions his research as support for Mary Dwarka’s hypothesis.

Saul next turns to the effects of light on anxiety disorders. She mentions the research of Arnold Wilkins, who studied the effects of fluorescent lights on several medical conditions, including epilepsy. Some people are very sensitive to fluorescent lighting, TV’s, and strobe lights. This sensitivity can take the form of seizures.

Agoraphobics are sensitive to sunlight. The Greek physician Hippocrates wrote of sunlight sensitivity 2400 years ago. A third of agoraphobics wear sunglasses or prefer to go out in the dark. Many are particularly sensitive to fluorescent lighting. Wilkins found that strip lights, glare, bright sunshine, and sunlight broken by trees or railings are troublesome for agoraphobics.

Saul mentions some alternative magnetic treatments like Empulse and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). Both of them seem to help some people with anxiety disorders, but evidence is not conclusive. It must be remembered that they produce artificial magnetic fields that are many times more powerful than the geomagnetic field. They are as unnatural as drugs.

My human magnetoreception hypothesis combines the two threads in the “Light and Electromagnetism” chapter. Like Mary Dwarka, I believe that some psychiatric disorders are connected to navigation and magnetic fields. Some cases of agoraphobia  + depression may be magnetoreceptive in origin. Agoraphobia is a positive symptom, and is a signal that you are south of magnetic home. Depression is a negative symptom, and is a signal that you are north of magnetic home. Dwarka is correct in saying that some agoraphobics become disoriented from modern transport symptoms. The speed and distance traveled, along with the artificial lighting, are disorienting. For people who are sensitive to the geomagnetic field, modern travel exposes them to far greater magnetic field differences than our Stone Age ancestors experienced. Evolution has not adapted humans to handle these differences.

I am sensitive to bright sunlight, as are many agoraphobics. I attribute this sensitivity to the fact that the sunlight activates my limited functionality GPS. This internal GPS tells me if I’m north or south of magnetic home.

One problem with the book is that it is entirely text. Saul is an excellent writer, and I didn’t have a problem following it, but I have a background in psychology. Saul would have made the book accessible to a wider audience if she had included some pictures, charts, and tables.

I winced when I read the sentence: “I. P. Pavlov . . . was an early learning theorist in the 1940s whose dogs famously heard a bell before receiving food” (p. 139). Pavlov died in 1936.

I recommend this book as a readable introduction to the science and treatment of anxiety disorders. I commend Saul for her willingness to talk about subjects like light and electromagnetism, subjects that mainstream scientists avoid like the plague.

The Difference Between Magnetoreception and Bioelectromagnetics

Earlier this month, I did a search in Pubmed on the term “magnetoreception”. An article came up which described an experiment on humans. The abstract ended with the following sentence: “Magnetoreception may be more common than presently thought.” The implication is that humans may have magnetoreceptive abilities.

The experiment involved studying how exposure to low-intensity, low-frequency magnetic fields can alter pain sensitivity in humans. Subjects were exposed to acute thermal pain while lying in an fMRI machine. Experimental subjects received the magnetic field exposure (which involved different magnetic fields than the fMRI machine normally produced), while control subjects didn’t receive this. The fMRI machine imaged both experimental and control subjects’ brain activity. Significant differences in activity were found in various brain regions in the experimental versus control group.

I would classify this experiment as an example of a bioelectromagnetic phenomenon, but not as a magnetoreceptive phenomenon. Bioelectromagnetics is the study of how electromagnetic fields interact with living beings; magnetoreception (aka magnetoception) is the study of how animals utilize magnetic fields for orientation. There has been much more research on bioelectromagnetics than on magnetoreception. One familiar bioelectromagnetic research area is the possible increased cancer risk from cell phone radiation.

Magnetoreception involves the perception of magnetic fields for orientation, i.e. to alter behavior. Some animals (e.g. migratory birds) navigate partially based on information in the geomagnetic field. Magnetoreception is basically a “sixth sense,” similar to vision or hearing, in which sensory information is processed by the brain to produce a perception. In this case, the perception is some sense of where the animal is, where it needs to go, and how to get there (i.e. an internal GPS, possibly combined with an internal compass).

To my knowledge, there has been only one research project involved in understanding whether or not humans have magnetoreception. This was undertaken by Robin Baker at the University of Manchester in the 1970’s and 1980’s (summarized in his book Human Navigation and Magnetoreception). Baker did a variety of studies designed to ascertain whether or not humans have magnetoreceptive navigational abilities. I talk about his research in my scientific paper. It’s difficult to summarize his results; a fair assessment is that he was unable to convince the scientific community in the existence of human magnetoreception.

For two years, I studied what I believe to be my own magnetoreceptive abilities. Unlike Robin Baker, who studied a weak orientational ability (involving internal GPS and compass ability) in normal subjects, I focused only on a limited-functionality GPS ability that was directly connected with my psychiatric symptoms. My research revealed that my symptoms (negative versus positive) indicate whether I’m north or south of (magnetic) home. I claim no compass ability at all. I can’t tell whether I’m facing or moving north, south, east, or west. All I can do is feel whether I’m north or south of magnetic home. To get to magnetic home, I need to utilize external navigational aids (e.g. maps, roads, technical GPS, etc.).

The most important aspect of my research is not that it will provide an awesome new navigational tool for humans. The modern technical GPS is great as a navigational tool, and my internal GPS is no match for it. The significant part of my research is that it provides an explanation for the environmental cause of psychiatric disorders. Right now, this environmental cause is unknown, and as a consequence we’re unable to effectively treat mental illness, or to prevent new cases from happening. Drugs treat symptoms, and can help many people function better, but they are no cure. To find a cure (or way to prevent psychiatric disorders from happening), we must understand the environmental cause. My hypothesis is that psychiatric symptoms are navigational tools, the human equivalent of the animal instinctual response to being north or south of home. This hypothesis can be tested (I describe some experiments in my scientific paper), and if confirmed, can hopefully lead to a future in which schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are as rare as smallpox and polio are today.

Why I went public now

Some people may wonder why I went public with a lot of my personal information, including a detailed description of my disorder. The video isn't exactly flattering. This wasn't my original intention. I wanted to find a scientist to work with me and verify if I really have magnetoreceptive ability. The problem is, I'm not aware of any scientist who is actually studying human magnetoreception. Robin Baker studied it in the 1970's and 1980's. Since then, he's moved on to other things. I was able to contact him via his agent, and although he declined to help me, he gave me some valuable advice. He said I need to find other people with similar magnetoreceptive ability. This is necessary for generalizability.

I tried some other scientists who I thought might be interested, but only got one to read my paper. He did not give me any feedback. I decided that it was useless to keep querying scientists about this.

My main marketing goal initially will be to reach out to selected clinical populations: bipolar, OCD/Tourette, and schizophrenia. The reason for this is that I think that these people have magnetoreceptive abilities like mine, but just don't know it. Unlike scientists, who have no incentive to research some half-crazy thing like human magnetoreception, these patients have enormous motivation to learn more about this. Like me, anyone suffering from these disorders wants to feel better. If there is a Happy Zone, as I'm convinced there is, who wouldn't want to find it? While not the Garden of Eden or Nirvana, the Happy Zone is certainly a desirable place to be in.

I think that if enough people claim to have similar abilities, and the techniques I describe in my website and research paper turn out to have beneficial psychological effects, a few scientists may become interested. It will take some time, and there's still the question of funding, but I think eventually research will get started.