Dream Telepathy Claims
The idea that dreams can transmit information between minds got its most serious test at the Maimonides Dream Lab in the 1960s and 70s. The results looked positive to some researchers and unconvincing to others - and half a century later, replication remains the unsolved problem. An honest look at the evidence.
Of all the paranormal dream claims, dream telepathy is the one that got the most serious laboratory attention, and that makes it the most interesting to examine honestly. It's not a claim that was never tested; it's a claim that was tested, produced disputed results, and has never reliably replicated. That trajectory tells you more than a flat "no" would.
This is a claims article. The research is taken seriously, and so is what it failed to establish.
The Maimonides experiments
In the 1960s and 70s, Stanley Krippner and Montague Ullman ran a series of studies at the Maimonides Dream Laboratory in Brooklyn. The setup: a "sender" in another room concentrated on a randomly chosen target image while a "receiver" slept, was woken during REM, and reported their dreams. Judges then scored how well the dream reports matched the target.
Some sessions produced matches that looked remarkable, and the program became the flagship evidence for dream telepathy. A later review by Sherwood and Roe (2003) aggregated the Maimonides work and subsequent studies and found the results statistically above chance overall.
Why "above chance" isn't the end of the story
Above-chance in a body of disputed studies is a weaker claim than it sounds. Critics have pointed to real problems: judging procedures that left room for subjective matching, small sample sizes, and inconsistent methods across studies. And the decisive issue is replication.
The post-Maimonides studies were generally weaker than the originals, and the effect has not held up reliably under tighter conditions. A result that appears in some studies and disappears in others, and that hinges on how loosely a dream report is scored against an image, is exactly what chance plus methodological noise produces. This is the same lesson psychology learned the hard way with precognition research, where a headline positive result (Bem 2011) failed independent replication (Ritchie, Wiseman, and French 2012). See precognition-claims.
The honest verdict
Dream telepathy hasn't been demonstrated. It also wasn't dismissed without a hearing, which is why it deserves a more careful answer than the other claims. The fair summary: a genuine, decades-long research effort produced suggestive but methodologically contested results that have not reliably replicated, and that is not enough to establish an effect this extraordinary.
As with dream intuition, a striking apparent match between your dream and someone else's experience is real as an experience and best explained by coincidence and selective memory rather than transmission. For the broader out-of-body claims context, see monroe.
FAQ
Is dream telepathy real? There's no accepted evidence that it is. Dream telepathy - one person's dream receiving information from another's mind - was tested most seriously at the Maimonides Dream Laboratory in the 1960s and 70s, and a later review by Sherwood and Roe (2003) found the results statistically above chance. But the studies have been heavily criticized for methodological messiness, and the central problem is that the effect has not reliably replicated. Above-chance in disputed studies is not the same as demonstrated.
What were the Maimonides dream telepathy experiments? They were studies run by Stanley Krippner and Montague Ullman in which a 'sender' concentrated on a target image while a sleeping 'receiver' dreamed; the receiver's dream reports were then judged against the target. Some sessions produced striking-looking matches. Supporters see a real effect; critics point to loose judging procedures, small samples, and a lack of consistent replication as reasons the results don't establish telepathy.
Why isn't disputed evidence enough? Because extraordinary claims need robust, replicable evidence, and dream telepathy has produced neither consistently. A finding that appears in some studies but vanishes in others, and that depends on judgment calls in scoring, is exactly the pattern you'd expect from chance plus methodological noise. Until an effect replicates reliably under tight conditions, the honest position is that it hasn't been demonstrated.
References
- Sherwood SJ, Roe CA (2003). A review of dream ESP studies conducted since the Maimonides dream ESP programme. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(6-7), 85-109.
- Ritchie SJ, Wiseman R, French CC (2012). Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem's 'Retroactive Facilitation of Recall' Effect. PLOS ONE, 7(3), e33423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033423
This article is part of the REMstack Knowledge Base - a free, open, data-driven resource for Phase practitioners. All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is dream telepathy real?
There's no accepted evidence that it is. Dream telepathy - one person's dream receiving information from another's mind - was tested most seriously at the Maimonides Dream Laboratory in the 1960s and 70s, and a later review by Sherwood and Roe (2003) found the results statistically above chance. But the studies have been heavily criticized for methodological messiness, and the central problem is that the effect has not reliably replicated. Above-chance in disputed studies is not the same as demonstrated.
What were the Maimonides dream telepathy experiments?
They were studies run by Stanley Krippner and Montague Ullman in which a 'sender' concentrated on a target image while a sleeping 'receiver' dreamed; the receiver's dream reports were then judged against the target. Some sessions produced striking-looking matches. Supporters see a real effect; critics point to loose judging procedures, small samples, and a lack of consistent replication as reasons the results don't establish telepathy.
Why isn't disputed evidence enough?
Because extraordinary claims need robust, replicable evidence, and dream telepathy has produced neither consistently. A finding that appears in some studies but vanishes in others, and that depends on judgment calls in scoring, is exactly the pattern you'd expect from chance plus methodological noise. Until an effect replicates reliably under tight conditions, the honest position is that it hasn't been demonstrated.
Comments
Want to join the discussion? Log in
Loading...