Most (or at least many) parapsychologists nowadays will concede that the fear of psi is prevalent both in and outside parapsychology. In fact, parapsychologists might betray it in quite subtle ways. As Eisenbud has persuasively argued, one way laboratory researchers in the field exhibit that fear is by means of seemingly innocent or careless mistakes, oversights, and omissions which undermine an experiment. Eisenbud viewed these missteps as analogous to apparently innocent slips of the tongue, bits of behavior that reveal thoughts and feelings of which the speaker may be consciously unaware. But perhaps an even more interesting manifestation of the fear of psi is a widespread kind of “methodological piety,” in which researchers exhibit “endless pseudo‑scientific fussiness and obsessional piddling, which, as often as not, results in never getting anything done unless under conditions that virtually strangulate the emergence of anything faintly resembling a psi occurrence.” To put it another way, some researchers manage to make experiments so complicated and artificial that they snuff out all manifestations of psi except, apparently, enough to be significant at the .05 level (that is, only marginally significant according to the standard prevailing in the behavioral sciences). That’s still sufficient to merit publishing a paper, and it helps the researcher to feel successful and to justify his or her work within the field generally. But it’s not enough to seriously hallenge a possibly deeper wish that psi simply doesn’t occur.