He doesn't have any special powers, he admits it, and everybody knows it". Additional chapters cover the Star Gate project (1985 to 1995) the work of Rupert Sheldrake, and the ganzfeld experiments. The final chapter covers the evolution of Marks' own beliefs and attitudes toward the field of parapsychology as a whole. Reception Echoing the concerns of the authors regarding the general popularity of parapsychology, psychologist Stuart Sutherland referred to The Psychology of the Psychic as “an excellent book", and noted that it "was turned down by over thirty American publishers, all of whom were competing to publish books endorsing psychic phenomena. The paranormal is therefore available.” Peter Evans of New Scientist reviewed the book shortly after its first publication in 1980, stating that: "The really interesting question from the scientific standpoint, and one that the authors write about absorbingly in their last few chapters is 'Why do people, including eminent scientists, insist on being so gullible?' . . . Why? Because they want Uri to succeed." Writers more inclined toward belief in psychic phenomena, such as Robert L. Morris of The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, found the book lacking in some areas but useful in others. “The authors are to be commended for the effort they made to carry out their evaluation beyond a simple assessment of the literature they reviewed. As we shall see, however, their specific strategies and tactics leave much to be desired.” Morris recounts examples of miscommunication between the authors and researchers at Stanford Research Institute, and draws the conclusion that, "it is evident that those who wish to evaluate research results need to evolve better procedures for getting at the facts. Researchers need to describe their procedures in more detail, both in print and in unpublished documentation available for inspection, especially if strong claims are made about the presence of psi in the data. Critics need better access to relevant details; they also need to express their questions and doubts more effectively and specifically, if the interactions are to proceed in good faith. When a given information exchange ends, all parties concerned should have a clear understanding of why the information was sought and how it will be used." David Marks acknowledged this criticism, as well as Morris' larger point that the authors had ignored a great deal of the research generally regarded as reliable in parapsychological circles, and therefore