# Talking to plants.. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [November 6, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330 "2006-11-06T18:23:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Caltonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71c47a/32.png) [@Caltonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caltonian)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/1 "2006-11-06T18:23:47Z")
[http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2\_108.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_108.html) The question was whether the old adage that talking to plants helps them grow, is true or not. Something not considered by Cecil in his answer, and which I have long thought to have been the reason that talking to plants is ‘beneficial’, is because we exhale carbon dioxide, which is then inhaled by the plant. There’s no need to be a nutter and actually talk of course. Im sure simply breathing would have the same effect…if what I thought is true :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/2 "2006-11-07T00:40:12Z")
But how would that explain the claims that were discussed in the column, which included exposing plants to ultrasonic sounds or recorded music, neither of which would produce carbon dioxide for the plants to inhale? ---
**Author:** ![Iamonfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@Iamonfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamonfire)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/3 "2006-11-08T11:04:44Z")
Plants have feelings. You are in denial if you think they don’t. > [@](#): > > In one experiment the team had about three cabbage plants growing in soil in the same room, and placed in a row within a few inches of each other. Two of the plants were connected to polygraph machines. Then, without warning, a man dressed in distinct clothing walked into the room with a large blade and chopped the third cabbage into pieces. When completed, he left the room. > > The polygraph machines registered severe reactions from the other two cabbage plants during the attack, and for some time afterward. > > Every time the man that attacked the third plant walked back into the room, the cabbage plants reacted with repeated alarm that was almost as severe as the response shown during the actual attack. They obviously recognized the attacker. > > In yet another experiment in 1966, a lie detector specialist again connected a plant to a polygraph. He said the machine registered changes while he just stood by, thinking about burning the plant’s leaves. The plant could read his thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/4 "2006-11-08T12:54:48Z")
> [@](#): > > In one experiment the team had about three cabbage plants growing in soil in the same room, and placed in a row within a few inches of each other. **About** three? Does that mean two? Four? It may seem picayune, but when an alleged experiment is described that loosely, it makes me less likely to take the alleged results of said alleged experiment as gospel. (Actually, I think I remember reading about this stuff in the 1960s or early '70s, and it seemed pretty impressive to my childhood self. At the time, I hadn’t developed the critical thinking skills that have resulted in my current state of denial.) ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/5 "2006-11-08T19:40:12Z")
How do you connect a polygraph to a plant??? ---
**Author:** ![Iamonfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@Iamonfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamonfire)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/6 "2006-11-09T23:03:19Z")
with a wire ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/7 "2006-11-10T03:26:06Z")
What, you just stick a single wire into the plant somewhere and claim to read, well, anything? One wire does not make a circuit. I call BS on this claim. I rather think we’re not in denial, you are in wishful thinking mode. ---
**Author:** ![Iamonfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@Iamonfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamonfire)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/8 "2006-11-10T17:53:15Z")
Aah, the 2000+ plus post club have shown up. It was an experiment by Cleve Backster, one of the leading lights in the 60’s and 70’s on Polygraph technology, still Lecturing at San Diego I believe. It’s also discussed in “The Secret Life of Plants” a seminal book on this subject. But then a pompous ass such as yourself will know all this already - so I guess I’m wasting my breath ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/9 "2006-11-10T19:51:34Z")
The Plants Respond: An Interview with Cleve Backster [http://www.derrickjensen.org/backster.html](http://www.derrickjensen.org/backster.html) ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/10 "2006-11-10T20:13:36Z")
The big problem… as far as consciousness research in general is concerned, is repeatability. The events I’ve seen must be spontaneous. If you’ve thought them out in advance, you’ve already changed them. It all boils down to a very simple thing: repeatability and spontaneity do not go together, and as long as members of the scientific community overemphasize that aspect of scientific methodology, they’re not going to get very far in consciousness research. **Cleve Backster** ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/11 "2006-11-10T20:42:22Z")
[QUOTE=Iamonfire] But then a pompous ass such as yourself will know all this already [/QUOTE] You may not direct personal insults at another poster outside the BBQ Pit forum. Attack their position if you want, but not the person. bibliophage moderator CCC ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/12 "2006-11-10T21:47:11Z")
[QUOTE=Iamonfire] It was an experiment by Cleve Backster, one of the leading lights in the 60’s and 70’s on Polygraph technology, [/QUOTE] Oh, why didn’t you say so sooner? You’re actually citing as a credential his work with the [orgasm detector](http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn101102.html)? > [@](#): > > The polygraph looks for abrupt increases in heart rate, blood pressure and perspiration. The polygraph is, therefore, a highly reliable detector of orgasms. But does it detect lies? Only if you’re lying about having an orgasm. ---
**Author:** ![Kat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kat)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2006, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/13 "2006-11-11T01:48:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Then, without warning, a man dressed in distinct clothing walked into the room with a large blade and chopped the third cabbage into pieces. Why does it matter how he was dressed? Cabbages have no eyes. How did they observe his physical appearance with no sight organs? Now, if they had experimented using potatoes… Plus, even if the polygraphs picked up something from the cabbages, why assume it was “alarm”? Polygraph results on humans are vastly misunderstood: I expect that to be even more true for results on cabbages. ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/14 "2006-11-11T02:24:16Z")
Psychic plants aside, I also suspect part of the reason that plants who are talked to fare better because it encourages the person to pay more attention to how its doing. After all, you are less inclined to neglect your ferns if you think of them as living, sentient beings who need your care and affection. Plants have also been known to give off various chemicals under a variety of circumstances–IIRC, there’s a species of plants that can attract predators of pest insects that munch on their leaves, or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/15 "2006-11-11T03:39:49Z")
[QUOTE=Caltonian] Something not considered by Cecil in his answer, and which I have long thought to have been the reason that talking to plants is ‘beneficial’, is because we exhale carbon dioxide, which is then inhaled by the plant. [/QUOTE] Unless you are talking about a pretty well-sealed environment, this is very unlikely to have a significant effect. A human’s breath is not going to increase the local concentration of carbon dioxide in any meaningful way over that present in the general atmosphere if there is much circulation going on. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2006, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/16 "2006-11-11T04:18:05Z")
[QUOTE=Iamonfire] Plants have feelings. You are in denial if you think they don’t. [/QUOTE] And if you think they do, you’re in good company with the likes of L. Ron Hubbard, another world-renowned scientist. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Iamonfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@Iamonfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamonfire)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/17 "2006-11-12T21:15:15Z")
So I provide a link to a practising academic whose work has influenced some fairly major texts and you provide a sarcastic remark about a renowned fruitcake? Hubbard got his tomatoes to grow to 15ft or something daft, Cleve Backster ran experiments that changed peoples perceptions. If you are going to try to look sardonic and clever, at least give me some facts to sheen over a vacuous post. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2006, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/18 "2006-11-12T23:15:05Z")
[QUOTE=Iamonfire] So I provide a link to a practising academic whose work has influenced some fairly major texts and you provide a sarcastic remark about a renowned fruitcake? [/QUOTE] What link would that be? ---
**Author:** ![Iamonfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@Iamonfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamonfire)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/19 "2006-11-12T23:19:55Z")
[this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster) and [this one](http://www.parapsychology.org/dynamic/070100.html) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330/20 "2006-11-12T23:50:22Z")
[QUOTE=Iamonfire] [this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster) and [this one](http://www.parapsychology.org/dynamic/070100.html) [/QUOTE] A few points. \*Those links do not appear upthread. You said you had provided a link. Where is that one? \*The Wiki article says nothing about Backster being a “practicing academic,” or about him “still lecturing at San Diego.” The other link is simply a description of a magazine. What was the point of that? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/talking-to-plants/379330.md?page=2)