Editing Reverse speech

{{short description|Pseudoscientific claim of subconscious hidden messages}}
{{About|the theory of reversed messages in normal speech|hidden messages in recordings|backmasking|the act of speaking backwards|backward speech| the act of speaking while inhaling or gasping|ingressive speech}}
'''Reverse speech''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific topic]]<ref name="demon"/><ref name="newbrook"/><ref name="darkecho">{{Cite web | url=http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/reverse.html | accessdate=6 February 2009 | last=Shirley | first=John | title=Reverse Speech | work=The Skeptical Believer | url-status=dead | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090129080431/http://darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/reverse.html | archivedate=29 January 2009 | df=dmy-all }}</ref> first advocated by David John Oates which gained publicity when it was mentioned on [[Art Bell]]'s nightly [[Coast to Coast AM]] radio talk show.<ref>May 23rd 1997 Coast to Coast AM broadcast with [[Sean David Morton]] and "Victor".</ref> It is based upon the theory that during [[spoken language]] [[Language production|production]], human speakers [[subconscious]]ly produce [[hidden message]]s that give insights into their innermost thoughts. Oates claims that it therefore has applications in [[psychotherapy]], [[criminology]] and business [[negotiation]]. The theory has been rejected by mainstream science and [[academia]].

==Claims==
{{Listen|filename=Neil Armstrong, small step for man (reversed).ogg|title="small step for [a] man", followed by the same phrase reversed|description=|format=[[Ogg]]}}
Oates' claim is that, on average, once in every 15–20 seconds of casual [[conversation]] a person produces two related sentences—a "forward-spoken" message that is heard consciously, and a "backwards" message unconsciously embedded in the person's speech. These two modes of speech, forward and backward, are supposedly dependent upon each other and form an integral part of human communication. In the dynamics of interpersonal communication, both modes of speech combine to communicate the total psyche of the person, conscious as well as unconscious. Oates claims that backward speech is always honest and reveals the truth about the speaker's intentions and motivations.<ref name="oates">{{Cite web | url=http://www.reversespeech.com/article0903.htm | last=Oates | first=David | accessdate=6 February 2009 | title=Reverse Speech – Voices From The Unconscious | publisher=reversespeech.com | url-status=dead | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090224145854/http://www.reversespeech.com/article0903.htm | archivedate=24 February 2009 | df=dmy-all }}</ref>  The most famous recording that allegedly demonstrates this is the speech given by [[Neil Armstrong]] at the time of the first human [[lunar landing]] on 20 July 1969. If played backwards, the words "small step for man" sound somewhat like "Man will spacewalk."<ref>[http://www.reversespeech.com/Simple_Examples.htm Reverse Speech Technologies · Examples]</ref>

An alternative explanation for this phenomenon is [[pareidolia]], the tendency of the human brain to perceive meaningful patterns in random noise. Pareidolia is even more likely to occur when a person consciously tries to detect a pattern, as is the case for someone listening for intelligible phrases in backwards speech. The power of [[suggestion]] is then used to nudge the listener to hear what the presenter wants him to hear. David John Oates, for example, almost always tells the listener in advance what he should expect to hear, thereby planting a suggestion that would make the listener more likely to actually "hear" that phrase. A study has shown that when listening to the same clips without being told in advance what to expect, the results have a higher variation.<ref name="newbrook"/>

==Rejection by the scientific community==
Most academics in the field of [[linguistics]] have not paid attention to Oates' work,<ref name="advertiser">{{Cite web| work=[[The Advertiser (Adelaide)]] | url=http://www.reversespeech.com/imgs/advertiser2.jpg | title=Play that back | last=Duffy | first=Michael | accessdate=6 February 2009}}</ref> and it has been called a pseudoscience.<ref name="demon">{{Cite web| url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/demon-haunted_sentence_a_skeptical_analysis_of_reverse_speech1/ | title=The Demon-Haunted Sentence: A Skeptical Analysis of Reverse Speech | first=Tom | last=Byrne |author2=Matthew Normand  | accessdate=2010-09-27 | year=2000 | work=[[Skeptical Inquirer]]}}</ref><ref name="newbrook"/>  For the most part, universities and research institutes have refused to test Oates' theories because of a lack of theoretical basis to make his predictions even worth testing, and the fact that many of his claims are untestable,<ref name="newbrook"/><ref name="darkecho">{{Cite web | url=http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/reverse.html | accessdate=6 February 2009 | last=Shirley | first=John | title=Reverse Speech | work=The Skeptical Believer | url-status=dead | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090129080431/http://darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/reverse.html | archivedate=29 January 2009 | df=dmy-all }}</ref><ref name="dic">{{Cite web| work=[[Skeptic's Dictionary]] | url=http://skepdic.com/reversespeech.html | title=reverse speech | accessdate=6 February 2009}}</ref> but one of the few scientific experiments to evaluate Oates' claims did not support his findings.<ref name="advertiser"/>  Others have criticized "reverse speech" as lacking a rigorous [[methodology]] and not being informed by an understanding of issues in linguistics,<ref name="newbrook">Newbrook, Mark, and Jane Curtain (1997). {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/19980207000019/http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/revspeech1.htm |date=7 February 1998 |title="Oates' Theory of Reverse Speech." }} ''[[Australian Skeptics]]'' '''17'''(3).  Retrieved on 22 March 2009. Archived from [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/revspeech1.htm the original] on 7 February 1998. [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1997/3.pdf PDF]</ref> and characterized Oates as "more interested in making a profit than educating others," pointing out the large amount of merchandise and services his website sells.<ref name="demon"/><ref name="dic"/>  Reverse speech has been compared to the controversial field (labelled a pseudoscience by some) of [[neuro-linguistic programming]].<ref name="dic"/>  Because of the "dogmatic" tone of Oates' material, reverse speech has been compared to "fringe literature."<ref name="newbrook"/>

Oates' own claims about the applications of reverse speech have also been challenged.  One report has questioned whether reverse speech was ever really used in police work, as Oates claimed.<ref name="newbrook"/>  Likewise, his claim that reverse speech has applications in [[psychology]] and psychotherapy is not supported by mainstream research in those fields.<ref name="newbrook"/> Oates' work has been described as "dangerous" because of its potential for misuse and the likelihood of leading to [[false accusations]] of people in criminal courts, similarly to the controversial practice of [[facilitated communication]].<ref name="demon"/>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{Hidden messages}}
{{Authority control}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2020}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Reverse Speech}}
[[Category:Perception]]
[[Category:Human voice]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Pseudolinguistics]]