As of now, the title of the most downloaded podcast on Spotify has shifted away from The Joe Rogan Experience. Rogan’s acclaimed series has been eclipsed by The Telepathy Tapes, a fresh 10-part documentary series exploring the purported supernatural capabilities of non-speaking individuals with autism—a theme that many misunderstand.

Produced and hosted by renowned documentarian Ty Dickens, The Telepathy Tapes presents a polished and earnest podcast narrative claiming that non-verbal individuals with autism possess telepathic abilities, foresight, and a means to communicate with the deceased. The creators suggest that these individuals convene in a “telepathic chat room” known as The Hill, implying that if the assertions made in The Telepathy Tapes are accurate, our entire understanding of the mind and reality could be fundamentally flawed.

However, skepticism remains paramount. Despite its impressive production quality and earnest interviews featuring scholars with advanced credentials, the phenomena discussed in The Telepathy Tapes can be explained through non-supernatural means. The majority of these claims are merely rehashed ideas that were refuted over a century ago.

Dissecting the Bold Claims of The Telepathy Tapes

The podcast’s structure is quite revealing. It kicks off with the relatively “conservative” assertion that non-verbal individuals with autism can access thoughts unbeknownst to them via traditional communication means. Initially, it acknowledges the reservations of listeners regarding its unorthodox assertions and reserves the more unconventional claims—such as a “telepathic chat room” and communication through lucid dreaming—for later episodes, when a foundation of belief among listeners is presumably established.

The first episode, titled “Unveiling the Hidden World of Telepathic Communication in a Silenced Community,” is largely composed of recorded sessions where non-verbal individuals appear to vocalize thoughts of others, laying groundwork for more radical claims.

The production seems meticulously crafted to persuade—featuring a skeptical crew member whose perspective is altered, along with video evidence available on a paywalled site for independent review. However, crucial information is omitted in this initial episode: the communication efforts of non-verbal participants are frequently aided by the very individuals whose thoughts they are purportedly interpreting.

Understanding Facilitated Communication

Facilitated communication (FC), also termed supported typing, proposes that with assistance, non-verbal persons can interact meaningfully. This technique suggests that individuals lacking fine motor skills can communicate by having their hands guided or stabilized by an aide, allowing them to point or type. Advocates of this method liken it to a person managing to walk with the aid of a cane.

Though versions of facilitated communication emerged in Europe during the 1960s and in Australia during the 1970s, it wasn’t until 1989 that educator Douglas Biklen introduced FC to American audiences. Early research reported remarkable outcomes, as previously mute individuals could communicate with their families for the first time. Some even wrote poetry or gave TedX Talks. The scientific community harbored doubt, but media coverage was overwhelmingly positive.

In tandem with these inspiring tales arose multiple allegations of abuse, emphasizing the critical need for the validity of facilitated communications to be legally established.

The inaugural case addressing these issues occurred in Australia in 1990, involving a woman named “Carla,” who demonstrated severe disabilities. Through FC, she communicated potential abuse, resulting in state intervention. Ultimately, double-blind tests showed that meaningful responses were only delivered when the facilitator was privy to the inquiries, effectively nullifying the claims of FC. Subsequent cases reached analogous conclusions, leading to the scientific community thoroughly disproving FC proponents’ assertions, relegating the method to obscurity until the introduction of The Telepathy Tapes.

The visuals utilized in The Telepathy Tapes underscore the limitations of facilitated communication. Below, a figure illustrates a non-verbal individual working with a facilitator using Spelling to Communicate, known as Rapid Prompting Method or Spelling, a more contemporary variant of FC that doesn’t involve physical contact. Many participants featured in The Telepathy Tapes utilize this method.

Credit: The Telepathy Tapes – Fair Use

The Rapid Prompting Method involves pointing toward letters to assemble words on a letter board, a typing device, or through handwriting. A fundamental principle of this method is that the facilitator does not physically contact the non-verbal participant. However, in the above illustration, the individual operates the letter board, allowing the facilitator to move their hands or body, which could inadvertently cue the non-verbal communicator’s responses.

While Dickens touches upon the controversies surrounding FC in episode 8 of The Telepathy Tapes, he frames it in a manner suggesting that the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association stifles these spelling techniques due to “outdated studies and biases,” neglecting to mention that no studies on spelling (or any facilitated communication method) have ever successfully passed double-blind testing, a significant prerequisite before discussing telepathy.

The Ideomotor Reflex and Facilitated Communication

Many assertions regarding paranormal or psychic phenomena typically arise from deception or the work of performers, yet the discourse on Facilitated Communication and spelling seems different. It is unlikely that advocates of spelling are conscious of misleading anyone; they likely believe in its legitimacy. There is an explanation that does not invoke the supernatural: the ideomotor reflex.

The ideomotor reflex explains how involuntary physical motions can occur in response to thoughts or anticipations. Simply contemplating something can unconsciously incite a physical movement. This explains how Ouija boards generate interactions with spirits and how dowsers are said to discover underground water sources. In the context of Facilitated Communication, the facilitator might be unintentionally guiding the participant toward specific responses.

Anyone can fall prey to the ideomotor effect—intelligence or specialized knowledge does not provide immunity—and acknowledging one has been misled can be profoundly impactful. A compelling interview from 60 Minutes showcases well-meaning facilitators grappling with this reality:

The kind of unconscious “cueing” that appears to illuminate FC can manifest even without direct contact. Humans can subconsciously pick up on subtle cues to elicit a desired answer. This also occurs in animal training; horses can be trained to respond to similar signals.

The Intriguing Tale of Clever Hans, the Mathematical Horse

In the early 1900s, Wilhelm von Osten, a math teacher and amateur horse trainer, claimed that his horse Hans could perform arithmetic. To prove his assertion, he would pose questions, such as, “If the eighth day of the month falls on a Tuesday, what is the date of the subsequent Friday?” and Hans would answer by tapping his hoof the correct number of times.

Though Clever Hans drew crowds and admirers, skepticism grew, prompting a scientific committee—including a veterinarian, circus manager, cavalry officer, and various educators—to formally question the claims.

The group ensured Hans was separated from the trainer to prevent any cueing. They conducted tests without an audience to prevent any interferences. They phrased the questions and ensured that Hans did not see any answers. Yet, even under these controlled conditions, Hans continued to correctly answer mathematical questions.

Initially, the panel concluded there was no deception involved, but the investigation was handed over to psychologist Oskar Pfungst, who conducted more rigorous tests. Pfungst revealed that Hans could only answer correctly when the trainer was aware of the correct answer and when Hans could see him. Clever Hans was indeed a clever animal, but his apparent mathematical skills emerged from deciphering the unintentional body language cues of von Osten.

While not equating non-verbal individuals with equines, the parallels between Clever Hans’ mathematical abilities and facilitated communication reveal a shared structure: without visibility of or connection to the facilitator, or without the facilitator knowing the correct answer, no meaningful communication occurs.

Within many instances depicted in The Telepathy Tapes, the facilitator often comprises a parent of a non-verbal child, indicating that subtle, unspoken communication between them—such as minor movements or posture changes—may provide a more plausible explanation than telepathic abilities.

Challenges in Testing Telepathy

Standard Facilitated Communication can be fairly easily disproven, such as by revealing an image to the non-verbal participant and a different image to the facilitator, as demonstrated in this video:

In contrast, testing telepathy as presented in The Telepathy Tapes becomes complicated. This difficulty arises because the mind that is meant to be decoded is held by the facilitator, preventing any method of separation to truly validate the telepathic claims.

One segment concerning Uno cards further exemplifies this issue. The facilitator selects a card unbeknownst to anyone else, yet the subject consistently identifies the correct answer. Instead of interpreting this as evidence that communication must stem from the facilitator’s knowledge, it is framed as proof of the non-verbal individual’s telepathic talents.

As future episodes unfold, the series begins to assert that certain participants possess the ability to read not just one mind but everyone’s thoughts. This assertion should simplify testing for telepathy—by using an impartial third party to mentally jot down a number without revealing it to anyone and subsequently challenging the non-verbal participant to telepathically decipher it. However, such tests are conspicuously absent from The Telepathy Tapes, as are tests involving multiple facilitators. This absence raises questions about the likelihood of those tests yielding successful results.

Preemptively, The Telepathy Tapes offers rationalizations for any unsuccessful telepathy examinations, citing a familiar argument against supernatural phenomena frequently explored in research settings: the assertion that psychic abilities inherently resist scientific validation. The mere presence of skepticism is said to disrupt psychic equilibrium or provoke undue stress in the “psychic,” thus rendering their prowess observable solely in front of believers.

While there is no definitive proof to dismiss this claim outright, the distinction between invisible elements that are scientifically validated, like electricity, and those that lack empirical support, like telepathy, remains noteworthy: Electricity functions independently of belief; it will illuminate the room regardless of one’s skepticism regarding its existence.

Critical Concerns About The Telepathy Tapes

An element of the argument presented in The Telepathy Tapes posits that scientific skepticism silences non-verbal voices. “What justification exists to dismiss the experiences of parents who have forged a connection with their children?” the podcast seems to challenge.

“Such statements carry significant risk as they can undermine effective communication methods anchored in empirical evidence,” warns Dr. Sham Singh, a psychiatrist at the WINIT Clinic. “There are scientifically validated tools and techniques that empower non-verbal individuals to convey their thoughts and emotions. These encompass augmentative and alternative communication devices and interventions rooted in behavioral science. Favoring unsupported telepathic approaches over established methods risks jeopardizing the advancements many individuals and families have achieved through validated resources.”

This isn’t the sole issue surrounding the podcast. The societal tendency to undervalue the capabilities of those with disabilities is not a new sentiment. Some individuals on the autism spectrum do showcase exceptional skills in various domains, yet portraying non-verbal individuals as possessing mystical powers misrepresents their real-life experiences.

“This entire discussion around telepathy raises deeper questions about society’s understanding of neurodiversity,” Dr. Singh elucidates. “The intrigue around telepathic phenomena reflects a yearning to attribute unique, even mystical abilities to autistic individuals, and while such intentions stem from a good place, they inadvertently diminish their authentic experiences. Instead of focusing on purported powers, efforts should be directed towards providing non-speaking individuals with accessible, evidence-based resources that empower them to engage with their world effectively.”