Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[weirdl]

Sad to say I found the Connie Sonne Million Dollar Challenge flawed. I'm sure the JREF didn't cheat. However this test was so sloppy, I'm embarrassed I ever cited the MDC in an argument.

The JREF ignored its written standards without explanation.
Here's the description of the MDC from the virtual pages of Swift:
The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

The above paragraph is an admirable declaration as to how fair and independent of the MDC would be - independent of the JREF which would only advise and approve.
But that not the way it went down with the Connie Sonne test.

In the Connie Sonne test the JREF did indeed involve itself in the testing procedure. The test was designed, set-up, performed, recorded, and defended by the JREF. Judge, jury, and executioner.
The test was not performed close to where the applicant lives. She lives in Denmark. The test was in Las Vegas.
This preliminary test was not "relatively simple".

Saying one thing and doing another without explanation does not inspire confidence.

[weirdl]

The JREF failed to post the relevant documents.
Here's what I would like to see posted:

Connie Sonne's MDC application
the subsequent agreement JREF had her sign
the affidavit from the academic or a least that academic's name
links to the news stories about her powers


I'm sure thaw absence of these documents is simple negligence. However, I suspect they contain information that contradicts the JREF's narrative

[weirdl]

The JREF narrative is that Connie Sonne is a "dowser" with a media presence and that she designed her own test.
Here are quotes from Swift:

Failed challenge claimant Connie Sonne had oodles of press coverage for her abilities as a psychic.

Please present the oodles. I could only locate one short write up. It didn't attest to any psychic powers. It never mentioned dowsing. It did describe a person willing to go to enormous lengths (and to Central America) to obey the voices in her head.
I don't think Ms. Sonne actually qualified for the challenge. The article certainly was not about the ability being tested.

[weirdl]

Connie Sonne had designed the parameters for her own test. She chose to dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage with the supervision of famous skeptic and mentalist, Banachek.

Not really.
Connie Sonnie included a complete test in her application. It didn't use playing cards, envelops, or a stage. The JREF scrapped it and presented her with their double-enveloped protocol. This existence of the original protocol was never mentioned by the JREF. I have no doubt Ms. Sonne agreed to the changes, but she clearly chose the test she herself designed.
Here is the original protocol:

1. I need 10 pieces of cardboards, where you have written numbers from 1-10 , one number on each piece. You put them on the table, outside my place, with the backside up, so I cant see the numbers. Mix the cards before you put them on the table. Name numbers and I will find them with my pendulum.

2. I need at least 10 persons around a big table, where I am allowed to write with a chalk on it. I also need the hole group to write down their firstnames on seperate pieces of cardboards, put them on the table outsid my place in a horseshoeshape. I will now, with my pendulum pint out the name first andthen the person.

3. You can ask me some questions, one per person. You must ask it, so I can answer it with yes or no. It must be a question, that only the person who will ask know. For example...my favorite t-shirt...is it black?..... or is my dog`s name Fido and so on.

4. I will write the alphabet, in a horseshoeshape on the table, also the numbers. "they" will write something for you...a message, and I can also point out some of you, who can try.

I have no doubt Connie Sonne agreed to the JREF 's test. Implying that she chose it ,when she obviously actually chose the test she submitted, is dishonest. Especially since Ms. Sonne's application wasn't posted and the JREF forgot to tell anyone about it.

Connie Sonne claimed she could dowse for upside-down pieces of cardboard on which letters, numbers or names had just been written in front of ten people. The JREF disproved this by showing she couldn't dowse for machine-printed playing cards inside nested envelops in front of hundreds of skeptics. Orchestrated by a magician.

I find Ms. Sonne's protocol more elegant and undoubtably more entertaining than the JREF's.

The reason I have no doubt that Connie Sonne agreed to the JREF's replacement protocol is the voices in her head told Connie Sonne to trust the JREF and do whatever they said. They were helping her save the world. As she made clear in her application.
She didn't even try the JREF's protocol.

I also object to JREF labeling Ms. Sonne as "Connie Sonne, dowser". It makes her sound like a more credible candidate for the MDC than she actually was.
When I think of a dowser, it's a person you pay to find water. At the very least I imagine a fortune teller. Connie Sonne dowsed with a crystal for her parents. More like a ouija board.

[weirdl]

The JREF didn't allow Ms. Sonne a camera. Seriously.
The JREF put a guard on Ms. Sonne before the test, controlling what she was allowed to see.
The test was run by Banachek, a magician whose main claim to fame (according to the splash page of his own website) is that he cheated official paranormal tests for two years.


My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, she's courageous.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, she's sad.
That's what's sad.

[Czarcasm]

The JREF didn't allow Ms. Sonne a camera. Seriously.
The JREF put a guard on Ms. Sonne before the test, controlling what she was allowed to see.
The test was run by Banachek, a magician whose main claim to fame (according to the splash page of his own website) is that he cheated official paranormal tests for two years.


My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, she's courageous.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, she's sad.
That's what's sad.How many more posts have you got? I'd hate for a response to interrupt your running commentary.

[Czarcasm]

Have you gone through this thread yet? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132871&highlight=Connie+Sonne
It might answer some of your questions.

[realpaladin]

Trolling, are we?

[Uncayimmy]

These posts are essentially the same as the blog comments seen here:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/857-tam-7-recap-w-latvias-only-superhero.html

[Fnord]

I can twirl!

[weirdl]

I figured that would be the only response.
I am debunkerina from the Swift comments, obviously. Just because I repeated my complaints doesn't make them less valid. I rewrote them on the MDC forum as it seemed the most appropriate place.
Yes, Csarcasm I did read that thread. I didn't find any answers to my questions there. Could you please be little more specific.
Please tell me what's wrong with my complaints instead of what's wrong with me. I won't argue that there's plenty wrong with me.

[realpaladin]

I figured that would be the only response.
I am debunkerina from the Swift comments, obviously. Just because I repeated my complaints doesn't make them less valid. I rewrote them on the MDC forum as it seemed the most appropriate place.
Yes, Csarcasm I did read that thread. I didn't find any answers to my questions there. Could you please be little more specific.
Please tell me what's wrong with my complaints instead of what's wrong with me. I won't argue that there's plenty wrong with me.

Well, for one, CS did agree to the protocol that was used.

End of complaint.

[realpaladin]

The JREF didn't allow Ms. Sonne a camera. Seriously.


Any technical device could be used for foul play; altering it so the voice or button clicks can be heard in an in-ear device or felt through body taps.

The JREF put a guard on Ms. Sonne before the test, controlling what she was allowed to see.


Naturally. I claim no such powers but I bet I could increase my chances greatly by having unrestricted access.

The test was run by Banachek, a magician whose main claim to fame (according to the splash page of his own website) is that he cheated official paranormal tests for two years.

Which is a good choice, as he would, like me, see all opportunities for cheating and therefore catch them.



My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

Can you prove this?


The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, she's courageous.

Trusting is not courageous, it is... trusting.

The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, she's sad.

Can she prove it? I have scoured the net, read her .dk site and have not found proof. Just a conveying of the feeling that 'it is not fair that I lost'.


That's what's sad.

That is your opinion. And although it may seem hard, fact of the matter is that she did not succeed, and the voices did not tell her to speak up against injustice at the 'moment supreme'.

[Mojo]

Well, for one, CS did agree to the protocol that was used.


Well that's obviously unfair: the voices in her head could have told her how any given protocol would pan out.

[Cavemonster]

The JREF failed to post the relevant documents.
Here's what I would like to see posted:

Connie Sonne's MDC application
If you've spent time on the forums, you know that applications typically go through revisions based on input from the forums and the JREF directly. There would likely be several versions of this, with the final one having the test as administered whether Connie designed it herself, with the help of the forum or JREF, or if the final test was suggested to her completely by the organization.

Read any MDC thread. Almost all applicants originally submit a test protocol that is not sufficient to the aims of the test. It is not uncommon for a test that has been worked out for a previous similar claim to be suggested by the boards or JREF.

You claim that the test did not test the same ability as her original application. Her communication with the JREF included several claims, and the organization and posters here helped steer her to one that was easier to test and measure than ""they" will write something for you...a message,"

The requirements are that the test be self evident, that it pass a certain standard of odds, and it be set up in such a way that success through non paranormal methods is as close to impossible as can be/

the subsequent agreement JREF had her sign
Connie herself does not claim a contract was violated. You yourself haven't made that claim, nor have any reason to.


the affidavit from the academic or a least that academic's name
links to the news stories about her powers


Both of these requirements serve only to spare the JREF from wasting its time on every random crackpot. Either could easily be waved at the discretion of the JREF without effecting the test itself in any way.


I'm sure thaw absence of these documents is simple negligence. However, I suspect they contain information that contradicts the JREF's narrative

Why?

[GrandMasterFox]

My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

Where?!?

The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, she's courageous.

Yes, because it takes someone a lot of courage to waste less than 20 minutes to try and grab $1,000,000 with absolutely nothing to loose.


The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, she's sad.
That's what's sad.
Pathetic. If she thinks the JREF cheated, there's a simple thing she can do to prove it. Just take the test again. Even if she doesn't trust the JREF, she should have no problem contacting any news organizations and talk to them about making an expose about how corupted the JREF is. They'll just replicate the test cheating-free and voila.

Does she have plans of doing this? I'll bet on "NO".

[GanipGnop]

So we have weirdl who admits they are debunkerina saying exactly the same things C/S whined about, I know you're not a sock puppet but I wonder how many Connie has? Why are you posting the same thing from a different account (I thought multiple accounts was a JREF no,no?). Posting Spamming the same thing under multiple accounts on the JREF could be seen as a feeble attempt to generate a buzz to defend the indefensible.

The "voices" in Sonne's head didn't tell her the MDC challenge was going to be "rigged", they can't give her winning lottery numbers and they can't even convince her crying foul after the fact is a waste of time. Where is Maddie McCann Connie, it is well past September and I haven't heard any revelations? You have much more important things to do than moan about your lack of powers being exposed by skeptics. If you had a problem with the protocols you should have made them known BEFORE you took the test. How could a mere illusionist overwhelm Sonne's "amazing powers from beyond" why didn't the "voices" tell her exactly how she was being "cheated" so she could expose it live? I'm sorry Connie but real physic powers aren't going to be affected by humans how do you cheat against the supernatural?

http://skepticblog.org/2009/08/15/connies-maddie-madness/

Connie if you are reading this :rolleyes: I know a Google search of your name must be depressing after you failed the challenge but you're not going to change your webpression until you demonstrate your amazing powers in a substantial manner. Why not dowse up some hidden treasure if the "voices" are reluctant to help offer to donate it to their favorite charity. Or dowse up winning lottery numbers every month for the next year and publicize your winnings in the media. Attacking your failure only brings more attention to it.

http://skepticblog.org/2009/07/13/connies-conundrums/

I don't know if this has been suggested before but I think lamentations directed at the MDC should have their own thread. The first title that comes to mind is "Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth" but I suppose "Complaint Dept" would be more diplomatic.

[pavel_do]

well JREF does what ever want.. follow rules.. create new ones. or JUST IGNORE everyone.. as they pleased.. I make 6 month soon to hear anything from them.. as reply to mycomplain and inquiry..

[jsfisher]

well JREF does what ever want.. follow rules.. create new ones. or JUST IGNORE everyone.. as they pleased..

Evidence, please.

I make 6 month soon to hear anything from them.. as reply to mycomplain and inquiry..

First, this is not support for your first statement. And as for your complaint, that was you complaining that the JREF closed your file after you told them to close your file, and that was after you jerking the JREF staff around for a year or two instead of converging on a claim and a protocol.

Connie Sonne, on the other hand, did make a definite testable claim. Connie Sonne did negotiate in good faith to reach an acceptable protocol. Connie Soone did allow the test to be conducted before an audience of skeptics. Although she did later rationalize her failure under test at the expense of the JREF, I don't see from any of that how you establish a basis for the bogus claims you made in your post I quoted.

[The Man]

The JREF didn't allow Ms. Sonne a camera. Seriously.
The JREF put a guard on Ms. Sonne before the test, controlling what she was allowed to see.
The test was run by Banachek, a magician whose main claim to fame (according to the splash page of his own website) is that he cheated official paranormal tests for two years.


My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, she's courageous.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, she's sad.
That's what's sad.

Wait, the voices in her head told “her to trust the JREF implicitly”, then told her “the JREF cheated”? I surmise these were the same voices telling her that she (or they) had the ability to find things with her “pendulum”. I also surmise that these same voices should have been guiding her during the test and yet were so easily fooled by those contemptibly mere mortal JREF charlatans’ chicanery. Obviously, the ones she really can’t trust are those dang voices in her head.

[pavel_do]

well I know this thread is not about me.. so sorry in advance.. but I will reply.. ( though before just commented about JREF approach..

Evidence, please.

Well ok..

1. The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.

2. It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked with JREF) and according to his opinion it was good enough for testing. He did not pointed any of options where the protocol seemed unfair and would give me at any point the advantage to win by chance and not by the claimed ability.

3. From James Randi's response one of the reasons to refuse it and limit it to a 20 trials, was the cost of it. According the JREF's rules I have to pay all the expanses related to test, so I see no reason why is JREF concerned about costs.

The designed and discussed protocol of 100 pairs test, meets the generally understood requirements. The probability of winning by chance is less than 1 in 1,000. The time taken is within the bounds of previous challenges. I bear the expenses. I believe there are adequate guards against cheating. The protocol has been checked by an independent statistician (who was kind enough to volunteer his time) who is familiar with the challenge process. The protocol seems to have met with enough approval by the JREF staff that it was deemed suitable for final presentation to James Randi.

The fact that the latest protocol was discussed with JREF for ONE year period, and not even once the JREF expressed it concerns about it as being unreasonable and unacceptable.

SO.. where DID I breached rules and requirements?? and IF I DID.. they why JREF would not point it out.. where I was wrong.. what is the reason for THEM REFUSING TO TEST ME ON FAIR CONDITIONS.. ALL OF A SUDDEN where I had NOTHING against latest protocol and I could be tested any time THEY ready! All of a sudden. I was offered test that guaranties my faller.. YOU expect me to accept it ?? Would you accept it?? I doubt it!

First, this is not support for your first statement. And as for your complaint, that was you complaining that the JREF closed your file after you told them to close your file, and that was after you jerking the JREF staff around for a year or two instead of converging on a claim and a protocol.
you throwing words with no grounds.. I jerked JREF for over a year?? THEY took sometimes 8 month for reply to bloody EMAIL..for a start..


Connie Sonne, on the other hand, did make a definite testable claim. Connie Sonne did negotiate in good faith to reach an acceptable protocol. Connie Soone did allow the test to be conducted before an audience of skeptics. Although she did later rationalize her failure under test at the expense of the JREF, I don't see from any of that how you establish a basis for the bogus claims you made in your post I quoted.

well let me tell you..

I negotiated in good faith! I am willing to be tested! But with fair test! The protocol that we negotiated for almost 1 YEAR was suitable for testing.. and JREF NEVER wrote anything against it beside forbidding me have my representatives and water on table ( that we managed to come to agreement later about). They never explained their reasons about WHY i could not be tested by the protocol that we negotiated before.. any way.. who followed the story, knows what I am talking about...

[jsfisher]

well I know this thread is not about me..


No, it's not, and your self-serving objections are addressed in a thread what was all about you.

[weirdl]

The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, she's courageous.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, she's sad.
Guess that wasn't very clear!
I should have said:
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to trust the JREF implicitly, the JREF says she's courageous.
The voices in Ms. Sonne's head tell her to the JREF cheated, the JREF says she's sad.

check it out:
The audience attending both the test and the press conference applauded her courage in appearing before so many people.
-Alison Smith
I find Connie Sonne's accusation both amusing and sad.
-Banachek

[arthwollipot]

The JREF failed to post the relevant documents.
Here's what I would like to see posted:

Connie Sonne's MDC application
the subsequent agreement JREF had her sign
the affidavit from the academic or a least that academic's name
links to the news stories about her powers


I'm sure thaw absence of these documents is simple negligence. However, I suspect they contain information that contradicts the JREF's narrativeThose of us who attended the test received a package with this documentation. It made for interesting reading.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This thread certainly is weirdl.

[arthwollipot]

Wait, the voices in her head told “her to trust the JREF implicitly”, then told her “the JREF cheated”? I surmise these were the same voices telling her that she (or they) had the ability to find things with her “pendulum”. I also surmise that these same voices should have been guiding her during the test and yet were so easily fooled by those contemptibly mere mortal JREF charlatans’ chicanery. Obviously, the ones she really can’t trust are those dang voices in her head.They're also the voices that told her where Madeline McCann was being held in Portugal, and the same voices which both encouraged her to take the test, and caused her to fail.

Interestingly, she stated at the press conference that she would go public with who and what these voices are in August or September 2009. I've had a Google Alert set up since I returned from TAM, and there's been nothing. I guess the world still "isn't ready".

[weirdl]

The test of Connie Sonne was honest, straightforward, open, and witnessed all over the world as it took place. Ms. Sonne has disappointed us all by reneging on her very positive statement that the test was properly designed and conducted.
-Alison Smith


I find Connie Sonne's accusation both amusing and sad. On the same note, I take it very seriously as well. Connie, or anyone else, should think very carefully prior to making such libelous and slanderous statements. I take defamation of my character quite seriously. [...] Also, there were steps put in place by the JREF to make sure there was no way I could have cheated Connie at all. For this to have happened both myself, the JREF, and anyone else involved would have had to be involved in the entire crime - and yes, it would be a crime. So once again, be very careful prior to making libelous or slanderous statements.
-Banachek
The JREF never mentioned Project Alpha or the voices in Connie Sonne's head. These omissions might have colored some people's view of the test.

After that you will find many comments and blog posts scolding MS. Sonne.

[arthwollipot]

How does this constitute the JREF encouraging members to attack?

[arthwollipot]

Project Alpha is known to anyone who has an interest in the JREF, and the voices were quite adequately described in the information package that was given to those of us who attended.

Actually, now I think about it, it may have just been in the press package, in which case only those of us who attended the post-test press conference received it.

By the way - in the press conference, she reiterated her statement that the test was fair. The entire press conference was broadcast on the Skeptic Zone podcast.

[weirdl]

Thank you for addresses the substance of my comments.
I agree almost everything you say.
Yes, calling the JREF sad is 100% the subjective opinion of this troll. Everyone should ignore it and make up their own minds.
Yes, I can see where all the changes the JREF suggested made it harder to cheat. My theory is that all the changes had that goal.

However, the preliminary test is just to see the applicant can do what they say they can. It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair. This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim. Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.
The idea the Ms. Sonne would cheat is ridiculous. Read her website. She's never convinced anyone she had powers. The only witnesses she names are her parents in the old peeps home. Lots of her site is about how she's repeatedly amazed when people don't believe her. It was bad faith to treat her like a cheater. Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

[weirdl]

Connie Sonne doesn't have magic powers.
That's not my point.

I just think they were careless of their reputation and needlessly mean to a vulnerable person.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I just think they were careless of their reputation and needlessly mean to a vulnerable person.

In case you were wondering, that "vulnerable person" started any meanness that may have gone on.

[not daSkeptic]

Weirdl, I think you're ignoring the significance of what it means to agree. Implicit in any agreement is an unexploited opportunity to disagree. One is given a chance to say no but instead they say yes. Anytime someone voluntarily rejects an opportunity, any consequences that result from that rejection are on them. They could have avoided the situation but chose not to, and so any complaints raised after the fact are just whining.

In order for Connie Sonne to perform that test, she had to agree to many things. She was not forced into these agreements but rather she executed them of her own free will. She had many chances to say no and back out but she chose to keep going. Thus, unless it can be demonstrated that the agreements were violated in some way, Connie and all those who defend her are just being petulant.

[Uncayimmy]

In order for Connie Sonne to perform that test, she had to agree to many things. She was not forced into these agreements but rather she executed them of her own free will. She had many chances to say no and back out but she chose to keep going. Thus, unless it can be demonstrated that the agreements were violated in some way, Connie and all those who defend her are just being petulant.

I think you need to re-read the OP. The premise is:

"Sad to say I found the Connie Sonne Million Dollar Challenge flawed. I'm sure the JREF didn't cheat. However this test was so sloppy, I'm embarrassed I ever cited the MDC in an argument."

While the arguments are not well presented, it doesn't seem that anyone here is actually taking them in the context they were intended. For example, Weirdl already stipulated to what you said. His/her point was that the way the JREF presented the information is misleading. I actually agree with that assessment. Here's the SWIFT quote:

"Connie Sonne had designed the parameters for her own test. She chose to dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage with the supervision of famous skeptic and mentalist, Banachek."

It would be far more accurate to say something like:

"Connie Sonne originally submitted some ideas for test protocols that we found were not practical. After some negotiation we agreed upon a protocol where she would dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage. We later arranged for skeptic and mentalist, Banachek, to supervise the on-stage test, and Miss Sonne agreed."

That's a much better reflection of what actually happened. The JREF didn't need to "spin" it the way they did.

As for some of the other points, I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits. As skeptics we wouldn't tolerate that from a "woo" group doing some sort of similar challenge.

How do we know that the JREF just didn't pick some gullible and mentally ill woman willing to pay her own way for some public humiliation? How do we know it wasn't all a publicity stunt? After all, the JREF had a profit motive for this particular test (they promoted it as part of TAM). I'm not saying they did anything unethical, but if Connie Sonne had press coverage for her abilities, show us. If she had an academic affidavit, show us.

If you think about it, it's actually kind of sad that we have to ask for this kind of information. Personally, I think it's kind of sad that I just accepted the JREF's assertions without evidence. That's not very skeptical.

[not daSkeptic]

... I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits.

UncaYimmy, meet arthwollipot.

Those of us who attended the test received a package with this documentation. It made for interesting reading.

[Gilmar]

Yes, I can see where all the changes the JREF suggested made it harder to cheat. My theory is that all the changes had that goal.
Some of the changes had that goal, others were probably to simplify the test.

It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair.
No, it has to be weighted in nobody's favor to make it be fair.

This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim.
It didn't show if she could repeat her agreed-upon claim that she could accurately determine what the cards were?

Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.
Well, then, Superman would have to stipulate that ahead of time. Even a cursory reading of the comics clearly shows he knows the limits of his own powers. Also, relevance?

The idea the Ms. Sonne would cheat is ridiculous.
Good. Then it shouldn't matter at all if the testers made themselves look ridiculous by putting in safeguards against cheating.

She's never convinced anyone she had powers.
That is certainly consistent with not having any.

Lots of her site is about how she's repeatedly amazed when people don't believe her.
Then she does not learn from her experiences.

It was bad faith to treat her like a cheater.
Trust but verify. She was treated as a potential cheater (there are a lot out there), and as potentially the real thing. If she was the real thing, then all the precautions against cheating wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.
No it isn't. Why can't they also root out cheating in the initial test? It would certainly save on the time & expense of setting up the final test if cheating were blocked in the initial test.

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.
So it was all pointless anyway?

[realpaladin]

Thank you for addresses the substance of my comments.
I agree almost everything you say.


That's nice to hear.

Yes, calling the JREF sad is 100% the subjective opinion of this troll. Everyone should ignore it and make up their own minds.
Yes, I can see where all the changes the JREF suggested made it harder to cheat. My theory is that all the changes had that goal.

They had that goal.

However, the preliminary test is just to see the applicant can do what they say they can. It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair.

Why? I would say they ideally would not have to be weighted in any way; either for or against. Just as neutral as possible.


This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim.

What does make you say that.


Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.

As I read from Connie's own site, there were no problems in having specific types of envelopes, so in the fictive Superman case I think he could have the protocol stipulate that no walls be made of lead.

The idea the Ms. Sonne would cheat is ridiculous. Read her website. She's never convinced anyone she had powers. The only witnesses she names are her parents in the old peeps home. Lots of her site is about how she's repeatedly amazed when people don't believe her. It was bad faith to treat her like a cheater.

Scepticism is all about NOT having faith at all. It is about neutral proof.



Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

No, that is what the preliminary tests are for. The final test is for proving the claim without any shadow of a doubt.

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

That would involve a medical affidavit and legal procedure. Nobody is stopping Connie Sonne, or her guardians, from going that road.

[GrandMasterFox]

It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair.
No, it doesn't need to "seem" fair it has to "be" fair...

Remember the point the test is carried out:
1)To find out if there is something supernatural
2)To discredit frauds and charlatns
3)To rationalize and educate those who are deluded or mentaly ill

None of this would be served by what you suggest.


This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim. Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.

Again, this is beyond silly...
Any stage performer knows the value of a good rehersal. Seriously, she could have just asked a friend of hers to do the exact same thing suggested by the protocol and make a dry run at home. It always amazes me how many of those people don't bother to do it before the test.

Let's go to your Superman analogy. If he knows he can't see through lead, then he should add it to the protocol. If he doesn't know that, then he should go "HUH?!?" after the test, see any difference between something he does every single day of his life and the test. Find out the cause of his failure and (AGAIN, I tell you) take the test again. He can reapply 1 year
later with the JREF or he can contact any other skeptic group or news media.


Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

You don't get how it works.
The first test is done to screen cheaters and delusioned people.

However, there is always a possibility that someone would cheat in a way the JREF isn't aware of. The JREF should get an opprotunity to see a reasonable controled demonstration of the applicant and if he passed (which no one has so far) then try and keep a closer eye on possibilities of cheating and lowering the odds to prevent pure and dumb luck.

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.
I would say the same on many people I know, but alas, the court system says otherwise.

As for some of the other points, I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits. As skeptics we wouldn't tolerate that from a "woo" group doing some sort of similar challenge.
I can only take a guess as I don't know Randi personally or anyone else who was involved in the test.

In another video on Swift, Randi mentioned how Uri Geller has ruined the people he fooled for years. So it's likely that if any applicant brings support from an academic person, that person could very well recieve the treatment that Connie herself reveals now. It is some form of damage control.

It also gives out an outing for the frauds:
"I wanted to apply for the challenge, but I couldn't get any acadmeic to sign up for me after all the mocking the JREF and co did to 'that guy'".

[MRC_Hans]

Connie Sonne doesn't have magic powers.
That's not my point.

I just think they were careless of their reputation and needlessly mean to a vulnerable person.That is not the purpose of the JREF: To treat a non-sane person (you did yourself, repeatedly, mention 'voices in her head') as that person might need, medically.

Until such time as Ms Sonne (and any other applicant) has been officially declared unable to take care of herself, we must all treat her as as any other person. She applied for the challenge, negotiated, signed, and followed through with a protocol. To stop her at any point in that process and tell her she was not sane would be the real wrong-doing.

She was ensured a perfectly dignified trial. The only undignified part is her backing away from the protocol, once she failed the test. Even that has only been mentioned by the JREF as 'sad', which is a very restrained reaction.

You might be of the opinion that all claim of supernatural comes from insane people, and therefore the MDC is unethical, however, that would be your opinion. The opinion of the JREF (as I understand it, I do not represent them) is that most claimants are sane, if deluded, and others are deliberate frauds.

Hans

[pavel_do]

the JREF presented the information is misleading.

Well..Now I will be accused again mentioning my case.. but they done the same with me on applicant's log in their statement..



How do we know that the JREF just didn't pick some gullible and mentally ill woman willing to pay her own way for some public humiliation? How do we know it wasn't all a publicity stunt? After all, the JREF had a profit motive for this particular test (they promoted it as part of TAM). I'm not saying they did anything unethical, but if Connie Sonne had press coverage for her abilities, show us. If she had an academic affidavit, show us.

great point, explains allot from "their" behavior.. same was mentioned before in thread discussing my case..

I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits. As skeptics we wouldn't tolerate that from a "woo" group doing some sort of similar challenge.

If you think about it, it's actually kind of sad that we have to ask for this kind of information. Personally, I think it's kind of sad that I just accepted the JREF's assertions without evidence. That's not very skeptical.


The thing with Affidavit letters.. and all papers they ask for when you make an application.. (I have no problems with posting all of them ) Why JREF does not make it public? ( yes.. they kind of gave it to all who been present at testing.. well than theree should be no problems in publishing it on JREF site.. Applicants log for example.. from the day of application accepted... or even now after test. if they gave it to all people attending test..? or they took every copy back after test was finished.. causethis classified info?:) ) They have no problem publishing video of the test on youtube showing faller of the applicant.. what not to do the same with Affidavit and other papers that they require for application to be submitted??

And the idea that they 'wave" the affidavit and media presence requirement's on their discretion..make it a bit unfair.. in a way SOME applicant dont have media presence.. or chance to obtain Affidavit not cause they fake.. just cause some of them cant aproach any Phd professors or some one. cause they would not be taken seriously.. so they cant participate in MDC cause JREF says You cant apply without it.. So same time. JREF has one more way to protect them selves from possible threat of a claim that could drow public attention...

[Cuddles]

I'm sure thaw absence of these documents is simple negligence.

Why are you sure of that? As far as I am aware, the JREF has not published these documents for any applicant, although they have been made available to some people such as those that actually attend tests. Why do you think it should have been done differently in this case?

However, I suspect they contain information that contradicts the JREF's narrative

Why do you suspect that? The documents you want are nothing more than the evidence Connie Sonne was eligible to take the challenge under the new requirements. Are you seriously suggesting that the JREF went out of their way to fraudulently allow this particular person to take the challenge, while excluding many other people for no apparent reason? That's a rather odd conspiracy theory.

Connie Sonnie included a complete test in her application.

Yeah, not a good start really. From the challenge rules:
16. This notarized form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.

So not only was her "complete test" a completely useless protocol with nothing in the way of controls and consisting almost entirely of gaping holes to allow her to gain information, it didn't even manage to follow a few very simple rules.

My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

Do you have any evidence of this?

However, the preliminary test is just to see the applicant can do what they say they can.

Well yes. The whole point of the MDC is to see if the applicant can do what they say they can. However, if you are suggesting that the preliminary test should be less strict and less well controlled than the final one, perhaps you should spend some time reading up on how the challenge actually works. The protocol for the two tests is identical.

Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

No. Rooting out cheating is what the whole thing is for, and both the preliminary and final test use the same protocol to do so.

She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

You are not qualified to make that judgement. Unless you can take her to court and have them judge that she is incapable of making decisions for herself, and presumably have her forcibly put into care, it seems rather silly to be making this sort of claim.

How do we know it wasn't all a publicity stunt?

Huh? The entire MDC is a publicity stunt. If you expect something else from it, you're going to be sadly disappointed.

[arthwollipot]

UncaYimmy, meet arthwollipot.Yes, we've met. Thanks. :D

[Pixel42]

Any stage performer knows the value of a good rehersal. Seriously, she could have just asked a friend of hers to do the exact same thing suggested by the protocol and make a dry run at home. It always amazes me how many of those people don't bother to do it before the test.
It amazes me too. I suspect it's because the test is seen only as a way to convince us sceptics of what the applicant already "knows" - they are already completely convinced they have the paranormal ability they claim to have, so see no need to test themselves again using the specific protocol they've agreed to.

Unfortunately any self-tests they've done previously are invariably totally inadequate, with no attempt to exclude the mundane explanations (confirmation bias, unconscious cold reading etc etc) which are usually what have misled them into thinking they have an ability in the first place. They can see that the JREF test is perfectly fair, which is why they agree to it so readily, but they don't understand that it is specifically designed to eliminate the cognitive biases they don't even realise they have. So they are genuinely mystified by their failure and can only conclude that, despite the apparent fairness, JREF must have cheated. The alternative explanation - that they don't actually have a power, and their perception that they do is indeed due to those unconscious cognitive biases - is of course unthinkable.

[The Man]

Thank you for addresses the substance of my comments.
I agree almost everything you say.
Yes, calling the JREF sad is 100% the subjective opinion of this troll. Everyone should ignore it and make up their own minds.
Yes, I can see where all the changes the JREF suggested made it harder to cheat. My theory is that all the changes had that goal.

However, the preliminary test is just to see the applicant can do what they say they can. It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair. This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim. Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.
The idea the Ms. Sonne would cheat is ridiculous. Read her website. She's never convinced anyone she had powers. The only witnesses she names are her parents in the old peeps home. Lots of her site is about how she's repeatedly amazed when people don't believe her. It was bad faith to treat her like a cheater. Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.




“She's never convinced anyone she had powers”? Obviously she has convinced herself and in doing so is essentially just cheating herself, even if she does not realize it. The tests are structured to eliminate or greatly reduce possible conscious or unconscious transfer of information other than by the supernatural methods claimed by the applicant (as noted by others, Superman has never claimed to be able to see through lead). That structure also helps to restrict the possibility of cheating by anyone (including the JREF).


Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

That being the case, how does allowing her delusion to persist and potentially reinforcing it help her in any way?

[GrandMasterFox]

And the idea that they 'wave" the affidavit and media presence requirement's on their discretion..make it a bit unfair.. in a way SOME applicant dont have media presence.. or chance to obtain Affidavit not cause they fake.. just cause some of them cant aproach any Phd professors or some one. cause they would not be taken seriously.. so they cant participate in MDC cause JREF says You cant apply without it.. So same time. JREF has one more way to protect them selves from possible threat of a claim that could drow public attention...

You do realize that's a contradiction? Right?
If you can't convince a professor or the media on your ability how the heck would you get public attention?!?

[not daSkeptic]

well than theree should be no problems in publishing it on JREF site..

How do you know what is and isn't a problem for the JREF? Do you have some inside knowledge of their operations you'd like to share with the rest of us? Maybe there's a reason these materials are not published on the web. Maybe there isn't. Rather than supporting completely unfounded conspiracy theories, why don't you go ask them?

[pavel_do]

You do realize that's a contradiction? Right?
If you can't convince a professor or the media on your ability how the heck would you get public attention?!?


Well I meant that some people is not able to find people willing to serve as academic witnesses.. Like some one live in small city that has no university for example.. beside that..even having one does not guaranty that some one listen to you..
Me for example being in US.. I went to to UNCC (Charlotte. N.C.) very big University with HUGE psychology department and trust me, knocked in "every door" I could of 4 store's building of the psychology department.. and out of at least 20 people I asked and spoken to.. only 1 agreed to spare some time with me.. all the others said.. they too busy for this thing, some said.. good luck, some said.. they don't believe in this nonsense...

I believe if I would have to try obtain same affidavits from local College of my hometown city in Siberia (less then 100.000 inhabitants) I doubt it would be good enough for JREF, the letter from college and we don't have University there.. beside I could be always accused in forgery affidavit or that they not good enough as from unknown college etc... Well JREF would for example say that they would be satisfied with affidavits from Krasnoyarsk University that is 400 miles a way.. or Moscow that is 3 days by train.. I doubt some provincial psychic would made it...So my point was, not about convincing academics but about finding one wiling to spend some time with you at first place..
I hope you undrstand my point.

[pavel_do]

Rather than supporting completely unfounded conspiracy theories, why don't you go ask them?


:) well I would BUT.. sadly JREF has habit NOT REPLY to questions and inquires.. :)

[not daSkeptic]

:) well .. JREF has habit NOT REPLY to questions and inquires.. :)

Have you actually asked them or are you just assuming they won't answer?

[Fnord]

Weirdl,

What is the purpose behind your posts?

- Are you trying for a re-match on Ms. Sonne's behalf?

- Are you trying to discredit JREF?

- Are you trying to make excuses for Ms. Sonne's failure?

- Are you trying to impress someone?

Is Pavel_Do your sock-puppet?

Thank you,

Fnord

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, meet arthwollipot.

That's one, and the JREF charged for it. People didn't get to see it until the deal was set in stone. Sounds like a wonderful policy. What about the rest?

It's funny how much skeptics sound like woos when asked to approach their own ideas skeptically.

[Uncayimmy]

No, it doesn't need to "seem" fair it has to "be" fair...

Remember the point the test is carried out:
1)To find out if there is something supernatural
2)To discredit frauds and charlatns
3)To rationalize and educate those who are deluded or mentaly ill


Bzzzt! Wrong!

* It doesn't need to be "fair" at all. It just has to be agreeable to both sides.

* The challenge is not designed in any way, shape or form to see if there is something supernatural. It's a publicity stunt aimed at reinforcing the premise that the paranormal is bunk.

* There is no goal for educating the claimant. The claimant is just a pawn.


I can only take a guess as I don't know Randi personally or anyone else who was involved in the test.

In another video on Swift, Randi mentioned how Uri Geller has ruined the people he fooled for years. So it's likely that if any applicant brings support from an academic person, that person could very well recieve the treatment that Connie herself reveals now. It is some form of damage control.

It also gives out an outing for the frauds:
"I wanted to apply for the challenge, but I couldn't get any acadmeic to sign up for me after all the mocking the JREF and co did to 'that guy'".
That theory doesn't wash. Apparently they did give out some info at TAM regarding Connie. They have mentioned in passing the institutions where academic affidavits were offered.

[Uncayimmy]

Huh? The entire MDC is a publicity stunt. If you expect something else from it, you're going to be sadly disappointed.
I'm sorry that you didn't grasp the nuance of what I meant. What I am suggesting is that Connie Sonne could have been a plant or at least someone they would not engage under ordinary circumstances (she lacked the proper credentials, for example). However, since she was willing to travel and perform on a public stage, they decided to work with her because it meant extra profits in TAM attendance.

Since the JREF isn't particularly forthcoming with evidence, sort of like the woos they criticize so heartily, they leave themselves open to speculation.

[not daSkeptic]

That's one, and the JREF charged for it. People didn't get to see it until the deal was set in stone. Sounds like a wonderful policy. What about the rest?

What about them? Is the JREF under some obligation to give the information, free-of-charge, to anyone who asks? I agree it would be nice if the data were more readily available, but I assume the JREF has a reason for not making it so.

It's funny how much skeptics sound like woos when asked to approach their own ideas skeptically.

Yes, it is. Rather than tossing around unfounded and extraordinary ideas, why not just ask them?

[Uncayimmy]

What about them? Is the JREF under some obligation to give the information, free-of-charge, to anyone who asks? I agree it would be nice if the data were more readily available, but I assume the JREF has a reason for not making it so.
It's sad that you can't approach the JREF with the same level of skepticism that you approach a woo organization. The JREF is making claims about the applicants, so they should be expected to back up those claims. It's really that simple. You can wring your hands all you want and coo about how they must have a reason because they are good and wonderful.

Yes, it is. Rather than tossing around unfounded and extraordinary ideas, why not just ask them?
I have done no such thing, but thanks for making it a personal issue. What a stunning example of skepticism! It's cute when skeptics get all defensive instead of dispassionately evaluating the evidence at hand.

The point is nobody should have to ask. Claims should be supported without requiring people to come after the fact and privately ask for supporting documentation. That's just stupid and the antithesis of skepticism. There are a couple of recent threads in GS&P that touch on this subject, which is skeptics not treating their own beliefs skeptically.

If the JREF doesn't read this forum or the blog comments, then I'm not going to waste my time sending them e-mails. Besides, the larger point is the attitude you exhibit rather than the data itself.

[pavel_do]

How do you know what is and isn't a problem for the JREF? Do you have some inside knowledge of their operations you'd like to share with the rest of us? Maybe there's a reason these materials are not published on the web. Maybe there isn't. Rather than supporting completely unfounded conspiracy theories, why don't you go ask them?

Have you actually asked them or are you just assuming they won't answer?

waiting for any reply since September.. and re-sent letter a few times to different recipeants! I know for fact my letters was recaived and read! BUT NO reaction.. just ignored.. beside that.. if I recall correct, I am not the only one who's questions was NEVER answered and letters not replied.. for example in my case.. One of the forum members also send letters and PMs with specific questions.. and as far as I know its been a few month now too and No reply.. unless hedidn't say anything. There are more cases when JREF just ignores people for NO reason, without ANY reply from their side! Even out of courtesy..! And limited funding and that they don't have enough people etc its not an excuse!!

[pavel_do]

Weirdl,

Is Pavel_Do your sock-puppet?

Thank you,

Fnord

If you would bother to read thread about my case you would understand where I am coming from..
Though I think you know it perfectly but instead trying to see point in it.. its easier blindly defend JREF and through insults!

[Fnord]

... where DID I breached rules and requirements?? and IF I DID.. they why JREF would not point it out.. where I was wrong.. what is the reason for THEM REFUSING TO TEST ME ON FAIR CONDITIONS.. ALL OF A SUDDEN where I had NOTHING against latest protocol and I could be tested any time THEY ready! All of a sudden. I was offered test that guaranties my faller.. YOU expect me to accept it ?? Would you accept it?? I doubt it! ... I negotiated in good faith! I am willing to be tested! But with fair test! The protocol that we negotiated for almost 1 YEAR was suitable for testing.. and JREF NEVER wrote anything against it beside forbidding me have my representatives and water on table ( that we managed to come to agreement later about). They never explained their reasons about WHY i could not be tested by the protocol that we negotiated before.. any way.. who followed the story, knows what I am talking about...

So, if you are not Weirdl's sock-puppet, then are you Ms. Sonne?

And is English not your first language?

If you answer 'yes' to both, then perhaps you could claim 'miscommunication' as your excuse as to why you failed.

Good luck.

[pavel_do]

So, if you are not Weirdl's sock-puppet, then are you Ms. Sonne?

And is English not your first language?

If you answer 'yes' to both, then perhaps you could claim 'miscommunication' as your excuse as to why you failed.

Good luck.

I should have ignore your RUDE comments..

well NOT EVERY ONE BORN AND RAISED IN US OR UK and not every ones first language is English.. Or you think English is the only and the best language in the world??
NO its not my first language THANK GOD, Edited for Rule 12

[Fnord]

A quote from SkepticBlog, by Mark Edward, posted July 13, 2009...


She insisted that she lost merely because, “…it wasn’t time yet for my powers to be revealed.”


So by her own admission, it was not the JREF's fault that she failed. Why is she now claiming otherwise?

[The Man]

A quote from SkepticBlog, by Mark Edward, posted July 13, 2009...



So by her own admission, it was not the JREF's fault that she failed. Why is she now claiming otherwise?

It's not her it's the voices telling her that the JREF cheated, at least that is what has been reported on this thread.

[Fnord]

It's not her it's the voices telling her that the JREF cheated, at least that is what has been reported on this thread.

The voices in her head? Has she never heard of 'Aluminum Foil'? She should check out the contents of her shopping cart ('Trolley' for you U.K. folks).

;)

[not daSkeptic]

It's sad that you can't approach the JREF with the same level of skepticism that you approach a woo organization.

I do believe I suggested that they be asked for the information in question. Were I blindly accepting of their word, I would make no such recommendation.

The JREF is making claims about the applicants, so they should be expected to back up those claims.

They have. You just seem to dislike how they did it.

You can wring your hands all you want and coo about how they must have a reason because they are good and wonderful.

I never claimed they must have a reason. I said that I assume they do, and as with any assumption it may be wrong. In other words, it's entirely possible they have no reason.

I have done no such thing ...

How do we know that the JREF just didn't pick some gullible and mentally ill woman willing to pay her own way for some public humiliation?

What I am suggesting is that Connie Sonne could have been a plant or at least someone they would not engage under ordinary circumstances (she lacked the proper credentials, for example).


The point is nobody should have to ask. Claims should be supported without requiring people to come after the fact and privately ask for supporting documentation. That's just stupid and the antithesis of skepticism.

You seem to be assuming the JREF desires to withhold the information in question. Do you have any evidence to support this? Might they be willing but unable for some reason? Do you have any evidence to refute that?

If the JREF doesn't read this forum or the blog comments, then I'm not going to waste my time sending them e-mails.

Perhaps reading this forum is a waste of their time. Did you ever consider that? They have a business to run, and they know far more than you or I what is important in that regard. Perhaps email or some non-online form of communication is the best way to get their attention.

[Uncayimmy]

They have. You just seem to dislike how they did it.
Bzzzt! Wrong again! I specifically directed my comment at all of the challenge applications, not just this one. Learning that some information was provided for one at TAM doesn't answer my question.

Keep trying! I'm sure you'll actually make a point sometime.

I never claimed they must have a reason. I said that I assume they do, and as with any assumption it may be wrong. In other words, it's entirely possible they have no reason.

Next time, save us all the effort and keep such a worthless comment bottled up inside.

You seem to be assuming the JREF desires to withhold the information in question. Do you have any evidence to support this? Might they be willing but unable for some reason? Do you have any evidence to refute that?
Stop projecting. I am making no such assumptions. I have my theories as to why they haven't posted the information, but I haven't shared them. You'd do well to keep your speculation about my theories bottled up with the rest of your drivel.

Perhaps reading this forum is a waste of their time. Did you ever consider that? They have a business to run, and they know far more than you or I what is important in that regard. Perhaps email or some non-online form of communication is the best way to get their attention.
It speaks volumes about you that you would suggest that they would spend donations to run a forum that they don't feel is worth reading. I can smell the sweat of desperation as you cling to your sacred cow. Just because you believe in many of the same things that skeptics do doesn't make you a skeptic. There are mindless followers in the Randi camp just as there are in the Browne camp.

[SkepticScott]

As for some of the other points, I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits.I have a packet that was handed out to some of the audience at Ms. Sonne's preliminary test. It has copies of the protocol, the test agreement, her application, the academic affidavit and an article. I can understand not posting it online because of not wanting to embarrass people and not wanting to violate the magazine/newspaper's copyright. I'll bet that you could examine the originals in the files at the JREF.

[Mongrel]

My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

You'll have to point me to the rule that the applicant MUST interact with the forums. Whilst it may be recommended, to help clarify the protocols, it is by no means a necessity.

[Fnord]

My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

Evidence, please?

Provide a link to this 'encouragement' if you can.

[not daSkeptic]

It speaks volumes about you that you would suggest that they would spend donations to run a forum that they don't feel is worth reading.

It also speaks volumes that you would form such opinions about a person whom you do not know and whose position on the matter has not been stated. For all you know, I might actually agree with your ideas. I might think the JREF is in the wrong and suffering from broken management and violating some of the principles upon which they were supposedly founded. But you don't seem to care about finding out where I stand. No, you would rather accuse me of being wrong than take the time to ask.

[Uncayimmy]

I have a packet that was handed out to some of the audience at Ms. Sonne's preliminary test. It has copies of the protocol, the test agreement, her application, the academic affidavit and an article. I can understand not posting it online because of not wanting to embarrass people and not wanting to violate the magazine/newspaper's copyright. I'll bet that you could examine the originals in the files at the JREF.

Whatever risk is incurred by posting it on-line is incurred by handing it out at TAM. Actually, the risk is greater if they copied the article and reprinted it without permission rather than just posting a link to it (links are not copyright violations).

I don't get the embarrassment thing. If an academic says they witnessed something, then so be it. Why would that be embarrassing?

[Uncayimmy]

It also speaks volumes that you would form such opinions about a person whom you do not know and whose position on the matter has not been stated. For all you know, I might actually agree with your ideas. I might think the JREF is in the wrong and suffering from broken management and violating some of the principles upon which they were supposedly founded. But you don't seem to care about finding out where I stand. No, you would rather accuse me of being wrong than take the time to ask.

True.

[GrandMasterFox]

Bzzzt! Wrong!

* It doesn't need to be "fair" at all. It just has to be agreeable to both sides.

Bzzzt! Wrong! (Seriously, how childish are you?!?)
If both sides agree then the test is by definition fair unless you're implying there was some form of duress involved to pressure someone to agreeing to something they don't think is fair?


* The challenge is not designed in any way, shape or form to see if there is something supernatural. It's a publicity stunt aimed at reinforcing the premise that the paranormal is bunk.

Oh thank you so much for enlightening us on matter you know nothing about.
If you'll pardon me, I'll take the word of people actually involved in the challenge over you:

From the JREF's perspective, someone winning the challenge isn't the end of the world. In fact, it's the beginning. If these things are real, WE WANT TO KNOW. In the meantime, all available evidence points to them NOT being real, and that will be our assumption until we're shown differently.

Emphasis mine.

* There is no goal for educating the claimant. The claimant is just a pawn.

Who said anything about educating the CLAIMANT?!? I said educate delusional people or those who are mentally ill. Please pay more attention.
By the very nature of the challenge existence many people raise the question of "why hasn't sylvia browne taken the test?". Now imagine her taking the test and fail. Some of her followers may or may not get a waking call, but it could very well be worth the effort.

Some cases actually do educate the applicant itself though. Perhaps you should read some of the reports from those applicants who bothered doing a dry run and dropped their claims...


That theory doesn't wash. Apparently they did give out some info at TAM regarding Connie. They have mentioned in passing the institutions where academic affidavits were offered.
The theory washes very well.
There is a difference between giving out a flier with some information then having a permanent post in the wall of shame for all eternity on the world wide web.

Members of the academia are not gods. They can make mistakes and they can be fooled or follow their own delusions. If a person makes an honest mistake there is no reason to brand them for life. Especially since they have nothing to gain either (the applicant gets a shot at $1,000,000 - the academics get squat).

The question isn't why doesn't the JREF publish the applicant's media and academic requirements on the web, the question is does the JREF intentionally hide them from any inquiry?

And to know this, there's a simple thing you can do - as everyone else said, just ask them. Send them a message and ask if you can receive a copy of it.
If you do that and get a response (positive or negative) then we could continue this debate further...


<snipped>
I hope you undrstand my point.
I perfectly understand your point, however, I completely disagree.
I don't recall your exact claim so I'm not sure how simple or complex your demonstration would be.

Even if you demonstrate your ability to a simple crowed of people you know, they can get the buzz going. They tell people who tell people and sooner or later you end up on tv. If frauds like Geller, Browne and Edwards can do it, surely you can as well?

If the JREF risks $1,000,000 and the applicant risks nothing, at the very least they should make *SOME* effort on their part, wouldn't you agree?

Also Pavel if you don't mind if I ask (I never actually talked to an applicant before so this is a first for me) - Have you considered making an offer? Like say, for example, talk to a professor and make an offer to split the money with him somehow if you win?

[Uncayimmy]

Bzzzt! Wrong! (Seriously, how childish are you?!?)
You want to drop the personal attacks, please?

If both sides agree then the test is by definition fair unless you're implying there was some form of duress involved to pressure someone to agreeing to something they don't think is fair?
In what world does "we agree" mean things are automatically fair? If you can get a 10 year old on crutches to agree to a footrace, is that fair?

Oh thank you so much for enlightening us on matter you know nothing about.
If you'll pardon me, I'll take the word of people actually involved in the challenge over you:

Sorry, chum, but passing the challenge proves nothing about the claim. This has been discussed numerous times before, and I don't feel like rehashing it. Go do some research instead of cherry-picking quotes to bolster your argument from authority.

Who said anything about educating the CLAIMANT?!? I said educate delusional people or those who are mentally ill. Please pay more attention.

Beyond the claimant, I didn't realize there was any evidence that such people are in the audience. I look forward to your evidence in this regard.

There is a difference between giving out a flier with some information then having a permanent post in the wall of shame for all eternity on the world wide web.
Wall of shame? What are you babbling about?

Members of the academia are not gods. They can make mistakes and they can be fooled or follow their own delusions. If a person makes an honest mistake there is no reason to brand them for life. Especially since they have nothing to gain either (the applicant gets a shot at $1,000,000 - the academics get squat).
Branding them for life? Oh, the drama!! If they are willing to put their names to an affidavit, then they should be willing to stand behind it. If you have evidence that the JREF is somehow protecting reputations, produce it.

The question isn't why doesn't the JREF publish the applicant's media and academic requirements on the web, the question is does the JREF intentionally hide them from any inquiry?
Sorry, but the question is why they don't produce the documentation to back up their claims. It's critical thinking 101 - back up your claims.

And to know this, there's a simple thing you can do - as everyone else said, just ask them. Send them a message and ask if you can receive a copy of it.
If you do that and get a response (positive or negative) then we could continue this debate further...
The bigger question in my mind is why so many self-proclaimed skeptics, myself included, have not bothered to question the JREF in this regard. Now that I have questioned it, I'm being attacked. Instead of hand-waving and excuse making, fellow skeptics should be wondering the same things I am. Instead of putting the onus on me to ask, you should ask yourself, especially since you're spouting off an unsupported theory about the answer.

Is that the kind of critical thinking that makes you proud of yourself? Not asking the right questions, coming up with possible answers when forced to look at the questions, then demanding that others research your answers for you?

[not daSkeptic]

In what world does "we agree" mean things are automatically fair? If you can get a 10 year old on crutches to agree to a footrace, is that fair?

I would say no, but only because the ability of a 10-year-old to enter into an agreement is questionable. A child is generally thought to be incapable of comprehending such matters, and the capacity for understanding is a requirement. Were it an adult on crutches, however, I would have to say that's a different story so long as they were of sound mind. If they voluntarily elect to participate in something with full knowledge of their disadvantage available to them, that's their choice.

This brings up an interesting question about the MDC, which may actually be your point. Do the applicants have the ability to comprehend what they're getting into? I'm not aware of the JREF requiring any form of certification on this, so I suppose it's entirely possible some people are being tested that should not be. Whether that's by design, an oversight, or simply not of significant concern I cannot say.

[gnome]

If an adult with crutches agreed to a footrace, it would be a perfectly fair test of his claim of being able to win a footrace while using crutches.

[Cuddles]

I'm sorry that you didn't grasp the nuance of what I meant. What I am suggesting is that Connie Sonne could have been a plant or at least someone they would not engage under ordinary circumstances (she lacked the proper credentials, for example). However, since she was willing to travel and perform on a public stage, they decided to work with her because it meant extra profits in TAM attendance.

Since the JREF isn't particularly forthcoming with evidence, sort of like the woos they criticize so heartily, they leave themselves open to speculation.

That's a nice conspiracy theory you have there. Perhaps discussion of it should be taken to the Conspiracy Theories section until you are able to supply some actual evidence to support it.

[pavel_do]

Even if you demonstrate your ability to a simple crowed of people you know, they can get the buzz going. They tell people who tell people and sooner or later you end up on tv. If frauds like Geller, Browne and Edwards can do it, surely you can as well?

If only it would be SO easy...:) I'd be there already.

If the JREF risks $1,000,000 and the applicant risks nothing, at the very least they should make *SOME* effort on their part, wouldn't you agree?

They NOT forced to risk money that is not even JREF's, they has been given to them in order to grant them to a real deal so to say.. They have all rights to protect it, but it has to be fair! You cant offer challenge and make sure NO ONE ever passes it! From the other hand.. having 1.000.000$ for as long as possible is greatest advertising and bait! plus % money give interest as well, and "challenge" and 1.000.000$ bait, helps sale souvenirs, tickets for lectures TAM's etc.. and what would they do if money has to be awarded? sale T-shirt " We were wrong! Its real!!" !???

Applicant lose nothing?? Well..I dont know about other cases but I spent 2 years wit MDC.. for me its allot of time, I put allot of effort, I been to U.S.A 3 times, every time done my best to approach them and be tested in US to make it all easier for them and me same time! It wasn't easy to find academics wiling to spare time with you and them make statements on paper, I spent $ for over 100 different photos, envelopes etc for self testing and finding the best picture that I could use for test etc.. You say.. well 1.000.000$ worth it.. it definitely does.. but what JREF done? replied a few my emails? and made last action by making sure I dont take test on their conditions, without bothering to explain why the latest protocol is not suitable any more.. and we discussed it for over 1 YEAR latest protocol and there is no signs of chance or me to cheat.. and latest arguments was, bottle of water on table and me bringing observer from my side.. Their last statement on Applicant log in false and present me in false light that fact! and I cant post there any of my letters that is unfair.. in a way.. NO? its my page so to say about me and my applicationwith JREF why they can post anything and I don't have any voice there?? I tell you why, cause there my voice could be herd by public in some way and that could make them answersome unpleasant questions.. though they are great at ignoring them and just blame others...

Also Pavel if you don't mind if I ask (I never actually talked to an applicant before so this is a first for me) - Have you considered making an offer? Like say, for example, talk to a professor and make an offer to split the money with him somehow if you win?

Great idea.. I don't really see how it could help with JREF, as its JREF's challenge .. not any of professors.. Maybe I should make offer to JREF:)

Though in my plans for MDC was to donate part of money for charity and research I said it before.

[fls]

If both sides agree then the test is by definition fair unless you're implying there was some form of duress involved to pressure someone to agreeing to something they don't think is fair?

I disagree. I have previously gone into detail on how the test is usually set up to make it unlikely that a claimant can pass even if they have the claimed ability. In most cases, it does not appear that the claimant has the knowledge of statistics necessary to recognize this, and the JREF does not mention this, focussing instead on the odds against passing. If the claimant does recognize this and protests, such as the case with Pavel, they are given a choice of doing the unfair test or being kicked out. In neither case is agreeing to the test 'fair'.

Linda

[Rasmus]

They NOT forced to risk money that is not even JREF's, they has been given to them in order to grant them to a real deal so to say.. They have all rights to protect it, but it has to be fair! You cant offer challenge and make sure NO ONE ever passes it!

But they don't! They only make sure that the test cannot be passed by people without paranormal abilities.

It should be dead simple for anyone with the abilities they claim they have to pass the tests. THAT is how they are designed, after all.

From the other hand.. having 1.000.000$ for as long as possible is greatest advertising and bait! plus % money give interest as well, and "challenge" and 1.000.000$ bait, helps sale souvenirs, tickets for lectures TAM's etc.. and what would they do if money has to be awarded? sale T-shirt " We were wrong! Its real!!" !???

They don't think they will ever have to give away the money. That's not a secret at all. But it's also not the point.

The point is, anyone with a paranormal ability could simply take the money off the JREF in a heartbeat. The tests are all easy to pass assuming the claimant really has the paranormal power they claim to have.

Applicant lose nothing?? Well..I dont know about other cases but I spent 2 years wit MDC.. for me its allot of time, I put allot of effort, I been to U.S.A 3 times, every time done my best to approach them and be tested in US to make it all easier for them and me same time!

I am not familiar with your case, so I can only make very general comments here. Please take them as such.

It wasn't easy to find academics wiling to spare time with you and them make statements on paper, I spent $ for over 100 different photos, envelopes etc for self testing and finding the best picture that I could use for test etc..

Why?

You already knew you had an ability before you applied to the JREF or thought about it, right? And if you already knew what you could do, why should there have been much need to fine tune your ability?

Instead, you could have just explained what precisely you could do with the photos you had and to what degree of accuracy you could do it. From there, one could easily conclude if those results would have been possible by chance alone or - if true - they would realy be indicative of a supernatural ability.

"I can predict the result of a coinflip with a fair coin with an accuracy of 65%" is a simple claim. Just add what kind of coin you are able to work with, and you'll be told just how many coinflips out of how many you'd need to get right in a test. Easy.

Assuming you knew what worked beforehand, there would be no need to try out all sorts of different coins anymore, even if it would have turned out that a Canadian Silver dollar would bring you up to 67%.


You say.. well 1.000.000$ worth it.. it definitely does.. but what JREF done? replied a few my emails? and made last action by making sure I dont take test on their conditions, without bothering to explain why the latest protocol is not suitable any more.. and we discussed it for over 1 YEAR latest protocol and there is no signs of chance or me to cheat.. and latest arguments was, bottle of water on table and me bringing observer from my side.. Their last statement on Applicant log in false and present me in false light that fact! and I cant post there any of my letters that is unfair.. in a way.. NO? its my page so to say about me and my applicationwith JREF why they can post anything and I don't have any voice there?? I tell you why, cause there my voice could be herd by public in some way and that could make them answersome unpleasant questions.. though they are great at ignoring them and just blame others...

I cannot parse any of that.

Again, a very, very general comment: Based on reading the MDC subforum it seems to me that a lot of the applicants simply do not understand what is expected of them. They do not understand what the purpose of a protocol is and they do not understand the position of the JREF in it, which I would summarise as

"We do not think you can do that all, we do not think you have this ability. However, if you could really do it, if oyu really had that ability, you should be able to do X without cheating and without allowing for any other way to do it other than using your ability."

From that arises the need to pretend that the applicant would be cheating or would be using other methods. Once you get over it, building a protocol should be dead simple.



Great idea.. I don't really see how it could help with JREF, as its JREF's challenge .. not any of professors.. Maybe I should make offer to JREF:)

Though in my plans for MDC was to donate part of money for charity and research I said it before.

If you find it hard to work out a protocol or get academic affidavits, offering a chunk of the money to an academic for their help might be a great incentive. (Of ocurse, you would need to convince them they stood a chance of ever seeing the money.)

[MRC_Hans]

You cant offer challenge and make sure NO ONE ever passes it!

Of course you can! The challenge is: Do something supernatural.

Since nobody can do that, nobody can pass the challenge.

It is as simple as that.

Hans

[Rasmus]

I disagree. I have previously gone into detail on how the test is usually set up to make it unlikely that a claimant can pass even if they have the claimed ability. In most cases, it does not appear that the claimant has the knowledge of statistics necessary to recognize this,

Do you have a link for that discussion?

It sounds interesting - right now I cannot see how this could even be determined.

How can the statistics be against me, if we assume that my claimed ability is not real and therefore cannot have any actual chances of success or any actual failure rate?

You'll find I agree that it should not be assumed that the abilities ought to be perfect and flawless. Most people are far from being flawless with the abilities we all accept are real, after all.

and the JREF does not mention this, focussing instead on the odds against passing.

But the odds are only relevant if the claimant has no paranormal ability.

If the claimant does recognize this and protests, such as the case with Pavel, they are given a choice of doing the unfair test or being kicked out. In neither case is agreeing to the test 'fair'.

I'd be interested to read this.

I agree that the JREF seems to have fairly little patience with many a claimant - but I was under the impression that this had nothing to do with how fair or unfair the tests might be.

[kmortis]

Evidence, please?

Provide a link to this 'encouragement' if you can.
It's on page 3125 of the JREF Indoctrination Packet that you should have got shortly after drinking the Skeptic Kool-Aid and Mind Control Drink. It clearly states

[Redacted]

[MRC_Hans]

I disagree. I have previously gone into detail on how the test is usually set up to make it unlikely that a claimant can pass even if they have the claimed ability. In most cases, it does not appear that the claimant has the knowledge of statistics necessary to recognize this,


This is basically correct. The requirement is that the claimant must pass under such conditions that the odds against a random positive are overwhelming. The obvious corollary of this is that weak positives stand little chance of passing.

So the person who claims an ability that only rises a few % over random will be faced with a protocol that is either impossible to pass or will require an extraordinary amount of attempts.

However, I can see no way of avoiding this. The stake is, after all, not just a million $, it is also the basic truth. It is not in the true interest of anybody to risk a paranormal ability being falsely vindicated (except for some deliberate frauds, of course).Thus, tests must be designed to err on the side of caution.

Hans

[fls]

Do you have a link for that discussion?

The discussion took place in the Information on Protocol for Pavel thread, starting about here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5032589#post5032589

It sounds interesting - right now I cannot see how this could even be determined.

How can the statistics be against me, if we assume that my claimed ability is not real and therefore cannot have any actual chances of success or any actual failure rate?

Well that's the approach the JREF and most participants here seem to take - let's assume the claimed ability is not real (which also goes to show that the claim the MDC is about discovering paranormal abilities is untrue) and is a nice example of confirmation bias. However, from the perspective of scientific inquiry, and from the perspective of the claimant, it is also important to look at what results you might expect if the claimed ability is real. This involves performing a calculation of Power. "What is the chance that I will be able to detect an ability that is present?"

You'll find I agree that it should not be assumed that the abilities ought to be perfect and flawless. Most people are far from being flawless with the abilities we all accept are real, after all.

Exactly. Yet this assumption seems to be denied to the claimant - they aren't always asked to perform at 100%, but they are asked to perform at the specified level 100% of the time.

But the odds are only relevant if the claimant has no paranormal ability.

Exactly my point.

I'd be interested to read this.

Same link as above.

I agree that the JREF seems to have fairly little patience with many a claimant - but I was under the impression that this had nothing to do with how fair or unfair the tests might be.

Most people do not seem to realize that this is not the case. It requires some knowledge of statistics that the average person and the average claimant does not have.

Linda

[fls]

It is not in the true interest of anybody to risk a paranormal ability being falsely vindicated (except for some deliberate frauds, of course).Thus, tests must be designed to err on the side of caution.

Hans

Increasing the number of trials does not increase the probability that the claimant will pass due to chance.

If the requirement for passing was set at a particular alpha level (i.e. the probability of a particular result due to chance), then increasing the number of trials would make it easier for them to pass. But it's not. The requirement for passing is set at a particular effect size (i.e. x correct results out of y attempts) instead.

Linda

[Rasmus]

The discussion took place in the Information on Protocol for Pavel thread, starting about here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5032589#post5032589

Thanks.

tjhe maths goes over my head - but like I said, it seems that the demands on the applicants are too high sometimes for their stated abilities, I agree with that.

Well that's the approach the JREF and most participants here seem to take - let's assume the claimed ability is not real (which also goes to show that the claim the MDC is about discovering paranormal abilities is untrue) and is a nice example of confirmation bias.

I don't see that they take that approach when designing protocols. I see what you mean, though. I think.

However, from the perspective of scientific inquiry, and from the perspective of the claimant, it is also important to look at what results you might expect if the claimed ability is real. This involves performing a calculation of Power. "What is the chance that I will be able to detect an ability that is present?"

Exactly. Yet this assumption seems to be denied to the claimant - they aren't always asked to perform at 100%, but they are asked to perform at the specified level 100% of the time.

Yes. It's a challenge. And I agree that it is not at all a scientific examination. You did say that somewhere near here, right? This is about someone demonstrating, clearly, that they can do something.

If I want to demonstrate that I know how to do something then it just sucks to be me if I end up with a bad hair day.

[not daSkeptic]

It requires some knowledge of statistics that the average person and the average claimant does not have.

This alone doesn't make things unfair. People execute legal agreements all the time without any understanding of what they're signing (many times without even reading the thing). It's considered fair so long as they have the opportunity to read it, understand it, and reject it.

[fls]

This alone doesn't make things unfair. People execute legal agreements all the time without any understanding of what they're signing (many times without even reading the thing). It's considered fair so long as they have the opportunity to read it, understand it, and reject it.

I just happen to disagree with the idea that it's fair if someone doesn't realize they're being hoodwinked. I know that not everyone shares this opinion.

Linda

[not daSkeptic]

I just happen to disagree with the idea that it's fair if someone doesn't realize they're being hoodwinked. I know that not everyone shares this opinion.

I think this discussion might benefit from a clarification of context. What is fair in a legal sense is not necessarily the same as what is fair in a colloquial sense. If we are discussing what is legal, then it doesn't matter whether or not someone understands what they're getting into so long as they are capable of doing so. However, if we are discussing, in general, the legal exploitation of a person's weaknesses (e.g. not reading contracts before signing) and whether such behavior is compatible with the supposed ideals of an organization like the JREF, then that's a different matter.

[weirdl]

QUOTE]I would say no, but only because the ability of a 10-year-old to enter into an agreement is questionable. A child is generally thought to be incapable of comprehending such matters, and the capacity for understanding is a requirement. Were it an adult on crutches, however, I would have to say that's a different story so long as they were of sound mind. If they voluntarily elect to participate in something with full knowledge of their disadvantage available to them, that's their choice.[/QUOTE]
Thank you!
People who are not of sound mind, like people who blindly obey voices in their head, cannot enter into valid contracts.

This is from the MDC FAQ.
The JREF has spent valuable time and resources investigating claims that were submitted by people who were obviously suffering from a mental ailment. These people need medical help, not encouragement. By requiring media presence, the JREF ensures that only those people who make an impact on society will be tested, and the individuals who are mentally ill receive no encouragement to continue their delusions.

Well Connie Sonne had press. They have yet to post it. I read one article. It pretty much presented Ms. Sonne as a nice crazy lady who no one believed. She needed medical help not encouragement.

JREF said this as well

4.2 What should I do before I apply?
See a physician for a physical and mental workup to ensure you are up to the task of taking the Challenge. Some of the people who apply for the Challenge are mentally ill, and this is a point that has the potential to be examined during the application process. Tell your physician about your paranormal ability and get their feedback as well.
Test your power at home, in a controlled setting like the one described in your protocol. Bring along skeptics, too. It is best to be able to demonstrate your ability reliably before you apply.


Also I did e-mail JREF president DJ Grothe last week about the documents not being posted. I haven't heard back.

[weirdl]

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis. You had access to the elusive press packet. From your description, it contains ample proof of Ms. Sonne's mental state. Since you didn't correct me about Ms. Sonne submitting a very different protocol to the one she is now credited with "choosing", I figure that's right too.

[weirdl]

If you've spent time on the forums, you know that applications typically go through revisions based on input from the forums and the JREF directly. There would likely be several versions of this, with the final one having the test as administered whether Connie designed it herself, with the help of the forum or JREF, or if the final test was suggested to her completely by the organization.

Thanks. I have been looking for something like that. Could you point the way?
All I could find in the forum was a statement that Ms. Sonne had been presented with the new protocol. I could not find Ms. Sonne's original protocol. I could not find discussions of the changes made. I could easily be wrong.

[weirdl]

Until such time as Ms Sonne (and any other applicant) has been officially declared unable to take care of herself, we must all treat her as as any other person. She applied for the challenge, negotiated, signed, and followed through with a protocol. To stop her at any point in that process and tell her she was not sane would be the real wrong-doing.

But they didn't treat her like any other person. The preliminary test is supposed to be given by a third party - not the JREF staff. It's supposed to be close to where the applicant lives, not at the location the JREF can sell the most tickets.

[Uncayimmy]

But they didn't treat her like any other person. The preliminary test is supposed to be given by a third party - not the JREF staff. It's supposed to be close to where the applicant lives, not at the location the JREF can sell the most tickets.

I think you're falling a bit off the beam on this one. The challenge clearly states that it is "administered by the JREF." This is not in contradiction to their claim that the "JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure" though I can see how you might look at it that way. The direct actions of the JREF in regards to the test should have no bearing on the outcome of the test. You *might* have a point on this (more on that in a moment).

The rules also state, "In all cases, applicant will be required to perform a preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member or representative of the JREF staff can attend."

You are referring to the JREF's blurb about the MDC where they say, "Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives." This is a descriptive rather than prescriptive sentence. It simply tells you what has "usually" happened, not what they are obligated to do.

But back to the JREF being involved in the test. Banachek is not part of the JREF, so that doesn't count. That JREF staff members prepared the cards (as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong, folks) seems in contradiction to the JREF's claim of not being involved.

And then there is the Rosemary Hunter test (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89877) where Jeff Wagg, an employee of the JREF, was directly involved in the test. She had 15 minutes to make him urinate by using the power of her mind. Quite clearly the JREF was directly involved in that test.

So, that blurb on the MDC page (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html) should be tweaked. The rules, however, seem to have been honored.

[arthwollipot]

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis. You had access to the elusive press packet. From your description, it contains ample proof of Ms. Sonne's mental state. Since you didn't correct me about Ms. Sonne submitting a very different protocol to the one she is now credited with "choosing", I figure that's right too.No, there was no evidence of Ms. Sonne's mental state in the packet. There was her initial letter (monograph) of submission, an affidavit from an academic, and a newspaper clipping, but there were no medical or psychiatric reports that I recall. Those of us who read her letter were free to speculate about her mental state, but we had abolutely no proof of anything.

[Uncayimmy]

No, there was no evidence of Ms. Sonne's mental state in the packet. There was her initial letter (monograph) of submission, an affidavit from an academic, and a newspaper clipping, but there were no medical or psychiatric reports that I recall. Those of us who read her letter were free to speculate about her mental state, but we had abolutely no proof of anything.

What did the academic affidavit say she did? How about the clipping?

[arthwollipot]

What did the academic affidavit say she did? How about the clipping?I don't recall specifically - it was six months ago. They basically affirmed that she had demonstrated an ability (described as "dowsing" although I believe that to be innacurate) that defied scientific explanation. The clipping briefly mentioned her efforts to find the missing Madeliene McCann, which is a story that Ms. Sonne went into GREAT detail about in her submission.

[fls]

I think this discussion might benefit from a clarification of context. What is fair in a legal sense is not necessarily the same as what is fair in a colloquial sense. If we are discussing what is legal, then it doesn't matter whether or not someone understands what they're getting into so long as they are capable of doing so. However, if we are discussing, in general, the legal exploitation of a person's weaknesses (e.g. not reading contracts before signing) and whether such behavior is compatible with the supposed ideals of an organization like the JREF, then that's a different matter.

What do you think? For the most part, what psychics do isn't illegal. If that's all this is about, why not simply let them use the same excuse you've made available to the JREF and have done with it?

Linda

[petre]

What do you think? For the most part, what psychics do isn't illegal. If that's all this is about, why not simply let them use the same excuse you've made available to the JREF and have done with it?

Linda

They do use the same excuse, with libral use of the phrase "for entertainment only". Psychics that make use of that disclaimer clearly understand legal matters quite a bit better. Any ideas how we can get those people to apply to the challenge rather than people that aren't as legal-savy? That would seem ideal for both the JREF and those concerned about the exploitation of the deranged.

[fls]

They do use the same excuse, with libral use of the phrase "for entertainment only". Psychics that make use of that disclaimer clearly understand legal matters quite a bit better. Any ideas how we can get those people to apply to the challenge rather than people that aren't as legal-savy? That would seem ideal for both the JREF and those concerned about the exploitation of the deranged.

I realize that they use the same excuse. What I'm wondering is why the JREF can't just roll up shop and leave them alone? If the actions of the JREF are characterized by "it doesn't matter whether we take advantage of people as long as what we do is legal", why doesn't that same characterization make the actions of psychics acceptable as well?

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Deleted.

[gnome]

I realize that they use the same excuse. What I'm wondering is why the JREF can't just roll up shop and leave them alone? If the actions of the JREF are characterized by "it doesn't matter whether we take advantage of people as long as what we do is legal", why doesn't that same characterization make the actions of psychics acceptable as well?

Linda

Being incompetent to defend a bad claim doesn't mean the bad claim should go unchallenged, in the name of "fairness".

[Ivor the Engineer]

Increasing the number of trials does not increase the probability that the claimant will pass due to chance.

If the requirement for passing was set at a particular alpha level (i.e. the probability of a particular result due to chance), then increasing the number of trials would make it easier for them to pass. But it's not. The requirement for passing is set at a particular effect size (i.e. x correct results out of y attempts) instead.

Linda

That’s not the whole story though. While it is true that the probability of passing due to chance does not go up as the number of trials is increased with the null hypothesis effect size held constant, the probability of a real effect being detected (i.e. the power of the test) does go up as the number of trials increases, if the null hypothesis effect size is less than the true size of the underlying effect. However, if the null hypothesis effect size is set higher than the true size of the underlying effect then increasing the number of trials reduces the probability the effect will be detected.

[MRC_Hans]

Increasing the number of trials does not increase the probability that the claimant will pass due to chance.

No, and that was not what I meant. What I meant is that IF a claimant states that her predicted success rate is only slightly over random, then it will require a large number of instances (n) to produce a statistically significant result.

So, it is actually the opposite: The large n reduces the probability of a random positive.

However, the bottom line is that you can't have it both ways: If you try to exclude a false negative, you allow a chance of false positives, and vice versa. And, of course, the JREF must opt to exclude a false positive, which means that there is some chance of a false negative.

- And this is exactly the reason a claimant is asked to predict her performance, and required to stick to that prediction.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

What do you think? For the most part, what psychics do isn't illegal. If that's all this is about, why not simply let them use the same excuse you've made available to the JREF and have done with it?

LindaI think the problem here is that the JREF challenge is really (the way I understand it) directed at the big frauds; the Sylvia Brownes and the Uri Gellers. However, they are not so dumb that they take it, so instead all the small, deluded people line up and are duly whopped. I assume the requirement for media presence and/or affidavits is an attempt to stop the small fishes from coming in, but OTOH they can't very well flatly refuse people, just because they are not big enough frauds.

Hans

[fls]

Being incompetent to defend a bad claim doesn't mean the bad claim should go unchallenged, in the name of "fairness".

I agree. I also didn't say that. I said that if we are agreed that they should be challenged, the challenge should be fair, even if we are given the (legal) opportunity to take advantage of their incompetence.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

I agree. I also didn't say that. I said that if we are agreed that they should be challenged, the challenge should be fair, even if we are given the (legal) opportunity to take advantage of their incompetence.

Linda

I think the particular level of alpha for a challenge test is irrelevant because I doubt claimants believe their paranormal ability prior to performing the test is only a little above what would be expected by chance. More likely is that people come to the conclusion they have paranormal abilities from casual observation. I.e. the effect size is moderate to large.

If alpha was held constant as the number of trials was increased, thus allowing the detection of ever smaller effects, the risk of non-paranormal systematic biases producing a significant result goes up. It therefore makes sense to test the claim being made (i.e. by specifying a claimant exceed a minimum expected effect size to win), rather than if there is a statistically significant difference from chance at fixed level of alpha.

ETA: Fair in this case would be increasing the number of trials until the power of the test was above some minimum threshold, say 50-90%.

[fls]

However, the bottom line is that you can't have it both ways: If you try to exclude a false negative, you allow a chance of false positives, and vice versa.

Again, this is incorrect. False positives and false negatives are not complementary. Reducing the chance of a false negative does not necessarily increase the chance of a false positive.

The chance of a false positive is the alpha level, which can be set independently of any other parameter and is simply a matter of choosing a number.

The chance of a false negative is the beta level, and it is not a single number which is independently chosen, but rather the result of the alpha level, the effect size (which is independent of alpha and of sample size), and the sample size. Increasing the power by changing the effect size or the sample size has no influence on the chance of a false positive (i.e. the alpha level).

And, of course, the JREF must opt to exclude a false positive, which means that there is some chance of a false negative.

This is the part that I really, really wish would stop getting passed around as though it is true. The JREF can both exclude false positives and exclude false negatives. The two are independent, not complementary. The JREF can be fair, if it chooses.

- And this is exactly the reason a claimant is asked to predict her performance, and required to stick to that prediction.

Hans

It is my impression that the claimant is asked to predict their performance only so that the JREF can exclude false positives. I don't think I've ever heard mention of the false negative level from the JREF. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and consider that this is done purely through ignorance. And even though I've mentioned it numerous times now, including within threads that Alison has at times participated in, I wouldn't assume that they've seen it from me. But I have to wonder why the statisticians that they claim they've consulted haven't mentioned it to them. The other option is that they've chosen to be unfair. Which, like I said, I find disappointing, but I realize others do not.

Linda

[fls]

I think the particular level of alpha for a challenge test is irrelevant because I doubt claimants believe their paranormal ability prior to performing the test is only a little above what would be expected by chance. More likely is that people come to the conclusion they have paranormal abilities from casual observation. I.e. the effect size is moderate to large.

If alpha was held constant as the number of trials was increased, thus allowing the detection of ever smaller effects, the risk of non-paranormal systematic biases producing a significant result goes up. It therefore makes sense to test the claim being made (i.e. by specifying a claimant exceed a minimum expected effect size to win), rather than if there is a statistically significant difference from chance at fixed level of alpha.

ETA: Fair in this case would be increasing the number of trials until the power of the test was above some minimum threshold, say 50-90%.

Thank you. Either you are providing independent support or you've been listening to my soapbox rants. :)

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Thank you. Either you are providing independent support or you've been listening to my soapbox rants. :)

Linda

All of the above and I'm currently trying to set thresholds to extract data and sync pulses from the green waveform in the image below in the presence of noise, so I was thinking about this sort of stuff anyway.

Yellow trace is the extracted sync signal and cyan is the data+sync.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_81954b7d3c8d67abf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19119)

[MRC_Hans]

I agree. I also didn't say that. I said that if we are agreed that they should be challenged, the challenge should be fair, even if we are given the (legal) opportunity to take advantage of their incompetence.

LindaTrue, but I don't see 'us' doing that. What the JREF does is try to make sure that if someone wins the MDC, then there was indeed something truely extraordinary going on. - Extraordinary claims ....


Hans

[fls]

That’s not the whole story though. While it is true that the probability of passing due to chance does not go up as the number of trials is increased with the null hypothesis effect size held constant, the probability of a real effect being detected (i.e. the power of the test) does go up as the number of trials increases, if the null hypothesis effect size is less than the true size of the underlying effect. However, if the null hypothesis effect size is set higher than the true size of the underlying effect then increasing the number of trials reduces the probability the effect will be detected.

I'm having trouble picturing this. Can you elaborate on this (Are you taking advantage of something to do with the analysis of ROC curves?)?

Linda

[fls]

True, but I don't see 'us' doing that. What the JREF does is try to make sure that if someone wins the MDC, then there was indeed something truely extraordinary going on. - Extraordinary claims ....

Hans

I object to this ongoing pretense that making sure the claim is extraordinary requires us to place the claimant at a disadvantage. It is entirely possible to both place the claimant at an advantage and make sure the claim is extraordinary. If we were truly interested in evaluating these claims, that is what we would do. That we deliberately choose to do otherwise shows that the condemnation of our actions by those people we call "woos" is legitimate.

Linda

[fls]

All of the above and I'm currently trying to set thresholds to extract data and sync pulses from the green waveform in the image below in the presence of noise, so I was thinking about this sort of stuff anyway.

Yellow trace is the extracted sync signal and cyan is the data+sync.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_81954b7d3c8d67abf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19119)

I'm sorry. This is getting off-topic, but I'm confused. I think of cyan as turquoise and I would guess that it is the green trace (C4) that is data+sync and the cyan (C3) that is sync. But I may not understand what you mean by "sync" or "cyan".

Linda

[Fnord]

So, after more than one-hundred posts in this thread, has anyone yet managed to argue their way into being awarded any of Mr. Randi's millions?

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm having trouble picturing this. Can you elaborate on this (Are you taking advantage of something to do with the analysis of ROC curves?)?

Linda

Imagine two partially overlapping bell curves. Let’s say the one on the left is the null distribution and the one on the right is the estimated effect size for power calculation. In a conventional hypothesis test a vertical line is draw between the two curves so that the area under the null distribution curve to the line right of the line is equal to alpha. The area under the estimated effect size curve to the left of the line is beta.

If we leave the vertical line where it is and increase the number of samples the two distributions become more pointy, with more area closer to the two means. The area under the null distribution curve to the right of the line (i.e. alpha) gets smaller, as does the area under the estimated effect size curve to the left of the line (i.e. beta).

Now, if the threshold is set higher than the actual effect size, then both the null and actual effect size curves are to the left of the vertical line, which means as the number of samples is increased it becomes less likely the actual effect will be detected.

ETA: Apologies for the sloppy terminology, which no doubt is not aiding understanding.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm sorry. This is getting off-topic, but I'm confused. I think of cyan as turquoise and I would guess that it is the green trace (C4) that is data+sync and the cyan (C3) that is sync. But I may not understand what you mean by "sync" or "cyan".

Linda

The green waveform (C4) is the signal coming into the detection system. The big bipolar pulses in this waveform are sync(hronisation) pulses, the small bipolar pulses are data pulses.

The detection system extracts a sync signal by looking for pulses bigger than a threshold, which is set somewhere between the level of the sync and data pulses in the green waveform (C4). This produces the yellow waveform (C1). The cyan* channel (C3) is produced by thresholding the green waveform against a scaled version of the threshold used to extract the sync signal. Because this threshold is lower, the cyan channel contains pulses for both the sync and data pulses in the green waveform.

Anyhow, you're right this is off topic. My next problem is finding someone in the company who knows how this data is supposed to be processed and packaged up to be sent to a PC...



*I'm not being pretentious, that's the name given to the colour in computer programming. To me it looks very much like light blue.:)

[fls]

Imagine two partially overlapping bell curves. Let’s say the one on the left is the null distribution and the one on the right is the estimated effect size for power calculation. In a conventional hypothesis test a vertical line is draw between the two curves so that the area under the null distribution curve to the line right of the line is equal to alpha. The area under the estimated effect size curve to the left of the line is beta.

If we leave the vertical line where it is and increase the number of samples the two distributions become more pointy, with more area closer to the two means. The area under the null distribution curve to the right of the line (i.e. alpha) gets smaller, as does the area under the estimated effect size curve to the left of the line (i.e. beta).

Now, if the threshold is set higher than the actual effect size, then both the null and actual effect size curves are to the left of the vertical line, which means as the number of samples is increased it becomes less likely the actual effect will be detected.

Thanks, I got it. I was making it difficult for myself.

ETA: Apologies for the sloppy terminology, which no doubt is not aiding understanding.

Yeah, it's a good thing I know what you mean by "more pointy". :)

Linda

[fls]

The green waveform (C4) is the signal coming into the detection system. The big bipolar pulses in this waveform are sync(hronisation) pulses, the small bipolar pulses are data pulses.

The detection system extracts a sync signal by looking for pulses bigger than a threshold, which is set somewhere between the level of the sync and data pulses in the green waveform (C4). This produces the yellow waveform (C1). The cyan* channel (C3) is produced by thresholding the green waveform against a scaled version of the threshold used to extract the sync signal. Because this threshold is lower, the cyan channel contains pulses for both the sync and data pulses in the green waveform.

Anyhow, you're right this is off topic. My next problem is finding someone in the company who knows how this data is supposed to be processed and packaged up to be sent to a PC...

Okay, that's what I thought. I just didn't know how your terminology worked.

Linda

[The Man]

I object to this ongoing pretense that making sure the claim is extraordinary requires us to place the claimant at a disadvantage. It is entirely possible to both place the claimant at an advantage and make sure the claim is extraordinary. If we were truly interested in evaluating these claims, that is what we would do. That we deliberately choose to do otherwise shows that the condemnation of our actions by those people we call "woos" is legitimate.

Linda

In a casino the gambler is at a distinct (but relatively small) disadvantage, the house has a slight advantage. The more the gambler plays the more likely they are going to conform to the ordinary outcome of losing money to the casino. So the casino making money is the ordinary outcome. Someone continually playing and winning would be extraordinary. Change that advantage around so that the gambler now has the advantage and the gambler tending to win the more they play becomes the ordinary outcome. You can not separate the advantage from the ordinary outcome. Someone with an extraordinary advantage (supernatural powers, an effective method of cheating, or even an effective method of playing within the rules) should be able to overcome an ordinary disadvantage. Stacking the deck in the claimants favor only makes the ordinary seem extraordinary. For the most part that is why some people may actually believe they have such supernatural powers. They have been stacking the deck in their favor without even realizing it all along. The MDC is not an “evaluation” it is a challenge, thus is suppose to be challenging for the claimant. Having an advantage is not very challenging, but being at a disadvantage is.

[fls]

In a casino the gambler is at a distinct (but relatively small) disadvantage, the house has a slight advantage. The more the gambler plays the more likely they are going to conform to the ordinary outcome of losing money to the casino. So the casino making money is the ordinary outcome. Someone continually playing and winning would be extraordinary. Change that advantage around so that the gambler now has the advantage and the gambler tending to win the more they play becomes the ordinary outcome. You can not separate the advantage from the ordinary outcome. Someone with an extraordinary advantage (supernatural powers, an effective method of cheating, or even an effective method of playing within the rules) should be able to overcome an ordinary disadvantage. Stacking the deck in the claimants favor only makes the ordinary seem extraordinary. For the most part that is why some people may actually believe they have such supernatural powers. They have been stacking the deck in their favor without even realizing it all along. The MDC is not an “evaluation” it is a challenge, thus is suppose to be challenging for the claimant. Having an advantage is not very challenging, but being at a disadvantage is.

I'm not talking about ordinary advantages and disadvantages, or about stacking the deck in the claimants favour (I'm going to start a poll pretty soon to see if anyone can guess how many times I'll have to say that before it sinks in). Everybody is capable of recognizing that it is hard to come up with a correct guess 20 times in a row. Someone with an extraordinary advantage should be able to overcome an ordinary disadvantage. I'm talking about putting in an extraordinary disadvantage without telling anyone, like removing all the 10's from the decks used in 21. Sure, you'll tell them the 10's are gone if someone thinks to asks, but as long as they don't ask, why tell?

Linda

[petre]

I realize that they use the same excuse. What I'm wondering is why the JREF can't just roll up shop and leave them alone? If the actions of the JREF are characterized by "it doesn't matter whether we take advantage of people as long as what we do is legal", why doesn't that same characterization make the actions of psychics acceptable as well?

Linda

Same reason the psychics can't roll up shop, it doesn't further their purpose.

In the case of psychics the purpose is to provide entertainment in exchange for monetary reward, where the reward is greater if they are able to dupe more people into believing their services are more than just entertainment, and the disclaimer serves to protect them legally as they seek to dupe the greatest number possible.

In the case of the JREF the (stated) purpose is education, where the goal is better met if they interact with rational and savy individuals, and the contract provides legal protection when they are unable to avoid vulnerable people in their pursuit.

If one were to assume it is equally important to continue efforts to protect those exploited by psychics via the education provided by JREF activities, is there anything the JREF isn't doing now, but could be doing, to protect the similarly disadvantaged people that tend to apply to the challenge? In absence of any such suggestion I see little choice but to estimate whether ceased or continued activity results in less harm.

[not daSkeptic]

I'm talking about putting in an extraordinary disadvantage without telling anyone, like removing all the 10's from the decks used in 21. Sure, you'll tell them the 10's are gone if someone thinks to asks, but as long as they don't ask, why tell?

But this isn't what's happening. They are being told, they're just either not listening or not understanding. A better analogy would be removing all of the 10's, telling the other party you have done so, and then having them wave their hand at you and say, "Yeah, fine, whatever."

Does the JREF take advantage of this? Probably, most companies do. Could they do more to cover their asses? Sure, they could require more scrutiny rather than just suggesting it. Why don't they? I can speculate about matters of time and cost and lack of necessity, but ultimately I can't answer that without knowing more about them internally.

[fls]

Same reason the psychics can't roll up shop, it doesn't further their purpose.

...

If one were to assume it is equally important to continue efforts to protect those exploited by psychics via the education provided by JREF activities...

Well, that's my question. Why would we assume that it's important to protect those who are exploited by psychics when we aren't interested in protecting those who are exploited by the JREF?

Linda

[fls]

But this isn't what's happening. They are being told, they're just either not listening or not understanding.

Please point me to some examples of the JREF negotiating a test and then telling claimants that this test has been set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass.

Linda

[Uncayimmy]

Well, that's my question. Why would we assume that it's important to protect those who are exploited by psychics when we aren't interested in protecting those who are exploited by the JREF?

You ask an excellent question. I hope this recent trend of questioning skeptics and skeptical organizations continues. Far too often in this forum you'll see a claimant's words or actions picked apart, yet when somebody questions the JREF, it gets very quiet except for a few people going after the person who dared asked the questions.

[not daSkeptic]

Please point me to some examples of the JREF negotiating a test and then telling claimants that this test has been set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass.

Every single written protocol is such an example. It is the equivalent of the house removing all 10's from the deck and announcing they have done so. Not everybody will necessarily pay attention to this announcement and some of those who do may not comprehend the significance of it, but they were still told nonetheless.

Your analogy, wherein the 10's were removed and nobody was told, would be the equivalent of the JREF performing a different protocol than that to which everyone agreed.

[The Man]

Every single written protocol is such an example. It is the equivalent of the house removing all 10's from the deck and announcing they have done so. Not everybody will necessarily pay attention to this announcement and some of those who do may not comprehend the significance of it, but they were still told nonetheless.

Your analogy, wherein the 10's were removed and nobody was told, would be the equivalent of the JREF performing a different protocol than that to which everyone agreed.

Exactly, again it is a challenge and intended to challenge the claimed ability. If one does not think they are up to or understand that challenge (as defined by the agreed protocol) then they should not accept that challenge.

[Uncayimmy]

Every single written protocol is such an example. It is the equivalent of the house removing all 10's from the deck and announcing they have done so. Not everybody will necessarily pay attention to this announcement and some of those who do may not comprehend the significance of it, but they were still told nonetheless.

Your analogy, wherein the 10's were removed and nobody was told, would be the equivalent of the JREF performing a different protocol than that to which everyone agreed.

I think you need to re-read what Linda wrote because I don't ever recall the JREF telling claimants "this test has been set up so that even if [you] have the claimed ability, it is unlikely [you] will be able to pass." Truth is, Randi and most skeptics (myself included) like to tell claimants to just shut up and do what they claim they can do, and if they do, we'll believe. That's contradictory to establishing a test where if they did perform like they claimed to be able to perform, the odds were stacked against them winning the challenge.

[not daSkeptic]

... I don't ever recall the JREF telling claimants "this test has been set up so that even if [you] have the claimed ability, it is unlikely [you] will be able to pass."

If this message can be derived from the protocol, then yes, it has been delivered. It may require specialized knowledge to decipher, but it's there. In this regard it's no different than a casino with unusual house rules stated in complex gaming speak the average player cannot readily comprehend. Don't misunderstand, I'm not condoning this, just identifying it.

Truth is, Randi and most skeptics (myself included) like to tell claimants to just shut up and do what they claim they can do, and if they do, we'll believe. That's contradictory to establishing a test where if they did perform like they claimed to be able to perform, the odds were stacked against them winning the challenge.

I agree it's a contradiction, and I have certain ideas as to why that is, but they're just that.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I think you need to re-read what Linda wrote because I don't ever recall the JREF telling claimants "this test has been set up so that even if [you] have the claimed ability, it is unlikely [you] will be able to pass." Truth is, Randi and most skeptics (myself included) like to tell claimants to just shut up and do what they claim they can do, and if they do, we'll believe. That's contradictory to establishing a test where if they did perform like they claimed to be able to perform, the odds were stacked against them winning the challenge.

Unca nails it...

The tests should be incredibly easy for anyone who can do what they say. If connie can see cards through envelopes, she can tell us what they are. She should be able to name them without error, just the same as if they were sitting face up on the table. It either works or it doesn't, and the challenge has always been a 'put up or shut up'. Same with Pavel and his similar picture in envelope flailings. Same with VFF and her kidney through back-flab lies. Giving them a percentage of acceptible failure is weighting the challenge in their favor, not the JREF's. It makes it even less plausible when they cry foul, and they ALWAYS cry foul, once they're safely off the record. Yes there's a lot of negotiation and calculation, but what it really comes down to is that the claimant, pavel being an especially notably example, often asks for a high enough percentage of acceptable failure to make it possible to pass the test without any special ability. Having a good day is not a paranormal power.

A

[MRC_Hans]

I object to this ongoing pretense that making sure the claim is extraordinary requires us to place the claimant at a disadvantage. It is entirely possible to both place the claimant at an advantage and make sure the claim is extraordinary. If we were truly interested in evaluating these claims, that is what we would do. That we deliberately choose to do otherwise shows that the condemnation of our actions by those people we call "woos" is legitimate.

LindaI'm afraid I'll have to differ. How would you suggest making a protocol that is well protected against a false positive, and yet places the claimant at an advantage?

I'm not even sure what 'an advantage' would mean, in this context.

Hans

[fls]

Every single written protocol is such an example. It is the equivalent of the house removing all 10's from the deck and announcing they have done so. Not everybody will necessarily pay attention to this announcement and some of those who do may not comprehend the significance of it, but they were still told nonetheless.

Your analogy, wherein the 10's were removed and nobody was told, would be the equivalent of the JREF performing a different protocol than that to which everyone agreed.

Exactly, again it is a challenge and intended to challenge the claimed ability. If one does not think they are up to or understand that challenge (as defined by the agreed protocol) then they should not accept that challenge.

If someone says that they will "test" you, does it not imply that if you can do what you say you can do, you will pass the test, and if you can't, you will fail? Isn't that what "test" means? Instead, most Challenge protocols make it unlikely that you will pass regardless of whether you have the ability. Like you, most claimants seem to think that they understand the Challenge, and like you, they fail to notice that it isn't really a 'test' of their ability. If it is reasonable to make this sort of 'test' and expect claimants to be willing to take up the challenge anyway, then there should be no problem with simply making this explicit. If there is nothing to hide, then there is no need to hide behind obfuscatory language.

Linda

[MRC_Hans]

Please point me to some examples of the JREF negotiating a test and then telling claimants that this test has been set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass.

LindaI'm not sure what you are getting at.. Are you claiming that that is what happens? That tests are made so that even if the claimant can do what she claims, she will not pass?

In that case, I'll beg to differ. All trials where I have followed the details, it has been evident that IF the claimant could perform as advertized, then they would have passed the test. Do you have an example of the other?

Hans

[fls]

I'm afraid I'll have to differ. How would you suggest making a protocol that is well protected against a false positive, and yet places the claimant at an advantage?

I'm not even sure what 'an advantage' would mean, in this context.

Hans

I'm talking about a test which would be extremely difficult to pass due to chance, but would be very easy to pass if the claimant has the ability they claim to have. Why is this so objectionable that you have to "differ"?

Linda

[MRC_Hans]

If someone says that they will "test" you, does it not imply that if you can do what you say you can do, you will pass the test, and if you can't, you will fail? Isn't that what "test" means? Instead, most Challenge protocols make it unlikely that you will pass regardless of whether you have the ability. Like you, most claimants seem to think that they understand the Challenge, and like you, they fail to notice that it isn't really a 'test' of their ability. If it is reasonable to make this sort of 'test' and expect claimants to be willing to take up the challenge anyway, then there should be no problem with simply making this explicit. If there is nothing to hide, then there is no need to hide behind obfuscatory language.

LindaThen they must have confused me too. If, say, a dowser claims that he can find an object under a tea-mug 80% of the time, and he is asked to do just that, then how is it not a test of his ability?

Hans

[pavel_do]

I think you need to re-read what Linda wrote because I don't ever recall the JREF telling claimants "this test has been set up so that even if [you] have the claimed ability, it is unlikely [you] will be able to pass." Truth is, Randi and most skeptics (myself included) like to tell claimants to just shut up and do what they claim they can do, and if they do, we'll believe. That's contradictory to establishing a test where if they did perform like they claimed to be able to perform, the odds were stacked against them winning the challenge.

Could not be nailed better!! Bravo to Both of you! and THANK YOU!

[pavel_do]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.. Are you claiming that that is what happens? That tests are made so that even if the claimant can do what she claims, she will not pass?

In that case, I'll beg to differ. All trials where I have followed the details, it has been evident that IF the claimant could perform as advertized, then they would have passed the test. Do you have an example of the other?

Hans

Well I can perform and latest protocol with 100 pairs is suitable enough for that and it has been reviews by independent statistician who previously worked with JREF and he found it good enough.. Still.. I am not given FAIR chance to perform what I claim! The JREF sew that seems like I can be a bit of a pain in the neck so to say..and possible could show the results that make every one wonder.. so they wanted me in the end to accept there protocol that guaranties my failure! And they not bothered to explain why the previous one was not good enough, beside mentioning that its too expansive that is not good enough as I pay for it any way.

If they so sure I am not able to do what I claim, why not give me a fair chance to show it to them and every one?? Why do they have to give me no choice but accept protocol that fails me? From the beginning they kind of tell you.. Tell us what you can do and how and under what conditions and do it.. and we just make sure you cant cheat....Seems like a nice catch just like 1.000.000$ but when it comes to business they tell you.. NO you cant do it your way. forget it... its only our way! You take ot or we tell everyone you looser!If that the case, than they shoul post THEIR test protocols for different claims, and than that is the real challenge.. I come on JREF web site, I read THEIR protocol and I say I challenge you, I can pass it! YOUR TEST!.. that would be fair I guess, till that its just winding and playing around with rules and use and change them as they pleased and even if you sort of beat all therules, they tell you.. sorry Randi's words are final.. good buy looser.. you can reapply in 1 year.. ( but we'll make it double difficult for you ..;) so you will not be even accepted..;))

[fls]

Unca nails it...

The tests should be incredibly easy for anyone who can do what they say. If connie can see cards through envelopes, she can tell us what they are. She should be able to name them without error, just the same as if they were sitting face up on the table. It either works or it doesn't, and the challenge has always been a 'put up or shut up'. Same with Pavel and his similar picture in envelope flailings. Same with VFF and her kidney through back-flab lies. Giving them a percentage of acceptible failure is weighting the challenge in their favor, not the JREF's.

You made sense up until that last line. The tests should be incredibly easy for anyone who can do what they say. Giving them a percentage of acceptable failure allows this to happen and at the same time the test can continue to be weighed in the JREF's favour if they cannot do what they say they can do. It's a win-win situation. Why is there so much resistance to this idea?

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm in complete agreement with Linda. It is unfair to expect the average claimant (with or without paranormal abilities) to have sufficient knowledge of statistical hypothesis testing to be able to figure out the power of the test.

If the JREF uses statisticians to help design tests, why can't they also get them to quote the Type I (false positive) and Type II (false negative) rates of a test given the effect size claimed achievable by a claimant for all the interested parties to see?

Apart from making the challenge useless for anything other than PR to those ignorant of statistical hypothesis testing, it also seems dishonourable to set claimants up to fail and not make it explicit that they only have a tiny chance of success even if they can do what they claim.

[Darat]

Sorry I'm really not following this, can you try to explain again(!) (in no more than A level maths!) how if I can do what I say I can do the challenge is biased against me demonstrating my ability.

[fls]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.. Are you claiming that that is what happens? That tests are made so that even if the claimant can do what she claims, she will not pass?

Yes. The power (the probability that an ability will be detected when that ability is present) of many tests is about 0.50 and for many tests, it is even lower. This is the result of setting the threshold for passing at or above the level that can reasonably be assumed based on the claims made. The power isn't at a level which would make it easy for the claimant to pass (such as 0.8 or 0.9).

In that case, I'll beg to differ. All trials where I have followed the details, it has been evident that IF the claimant could perform as advertized, then they would have passed the test. Do you have an example of the other?

Hans

Can you give an example where the power level was greater than 0.60? An example otherwise would be the one I offered at the start of this conversation.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5032589#post5032589

I can also go through the Challenge protocols and show you examples where the threshold for passing was set at the same level as was claimed by the challenger.

Linda

[MRC_Hans]

Well I can perform and latest protocol with 100 pairs is suitable enough for that and it has been reviews by independent statistician who previously worked with JREF and he found it good enough.. Still.. I am not given FAIR chance to perform what I claim! The JREF sew that seems like I can be a bit of a pain in the neck so to say..and possible could show the results that make every one wonder.. so they wanted me in the end to accept there protocol that guaranties my failure! And they not bothered to explain why the previous one was not good enough, beside mentioning that its too expansive that is not good enough as I pay for it any way.

I haven't followed your protocol negotiations (if public at all), but in some I have followed, the protocol suggested by the claimant was statistically sound, but the way the test was suggested left room for cheating. So the JREF tightened the procedure, whereafter the claimant basically (not saying it directly, of course) found they would not be able to live up to their claimn and backed out (or obfusciated the negotiations till JREF had to close them down).

Hans

[fls]

Sorry I'm really not following this, can you try to explain again(!) (in no more than A level maths!) how if I can do what I say I can do the challenge is biased against me demonstrating my ability.

I rest my case.

If this seems a bit nonsensical to a clever and involved person such as Darat, why are we expecting the average claimant to grasp this point all on their own? In fact, this whole conversation makes my case for me. I have linked to a more detailed explanation and I've attempted some elaboration on this point, and yet most people still seem to fail to grasp it. If this is "so easy a caveman could do it", then why am I still having to argue it?

Linda

(I will elaborate on 'power' in a bit for you, Darat.)

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sorry I'm really not following this, can you try to explain again(!) (in no more than A level maths!) how if I can do what I say I can do the challenge is biased against me demonstrating my ability.

When people claim to be able to do something at a particular level of performance, what they typically mean is on average they achieve that level of performance. Sometimes they will perform better, other times they will perform worse. E.g., I can drive to work in 20 minutes. Sometimes it only takes me 15 minutes, other times it takes me 25 minutes or longer.

By setting the threshold for passing the challenge at their claimed (average) level of performance, there is a 50% chance they will perform below this level and fail the test.

[Startz]

Linda does a great job of explaining this. Probably better than I can, but let me give it a try.

Suppose an applicant says he can recite two lines of Klingon, flap his arms, and fly like a bird. All we'd ask of a protocol would be that he do this once, with appropriate controls in place.

But suppose the applicant admits that his Klingon accent is imperfect, and that he only achieves lift-off about one time out of three. Would it still be reasonable to have a protocol in which he only gets one chance?

Follow Linda's logic here. If the applicant is right, one chance means he'll probably fail. Three shots at flight mean he has a good chance of winning (about 70 percent).

From JREF's point of view, the only limit on the number of tests should be the time involved. Heck, if he can ever fly it's paranormal.

My view is that the purpose of the Challenge is to stand as a rebuke to those who claim paranormal abilities, by saying "prove it." If JREF tells our Klingon flapper that he only gets one chance, then it's a pretty wimpy rebuke.

[Darat]

When people claim to be able to do something at a particular level of performance, what they typically mean is on average they achieve that level of performance. Sometimes they will perform better, other times they will perform worse. E.g., I can drive to work in 20 minutes. Sometimes it only takes me 15 minutes, other times it takes me 25 minutes or longer.

By setting the threshold for passing the challenge at their claimed (average) level of performance, there is a 50% chance they will perform below this level and fail the test.

But isn't it in the case of (at least) some claims the JREF and the applicant set the success criteria below their "claim rate"? So if I said "I can move a pen across the table without any physical contact whenever I want"" the challenge would be set so that I'd only have to do it 5 times out of ten. Doesn't that in effect balance out this negative bias?

[Darat]

Linda does a great job of explaining this. Probably better than I can, but let me give it a try.

Suppose an applicant says he can recite two lines of Klingon, flap his arms, and fly like a bird. All we'd ask of a protocol would be that he do this once, with appropriate controls in place.

But suppose the applicant admits that his Klingon accent is imperfect, and that he only achieves lift-off about one time out of three. Would it still be reasonable to have a protocol in which he only gets one chance?

Follow Linda's logic here. If the applicant is right, one chance means he'll probably fail. Three shots at flight mean he has a good chance of winning (about 70 percent).

From JREF's point of view, the only limit on the number of tests should be the time involved. Heck, if he can ever fly it's paranormal.

My view is that the purpose of the Challenge is to stand as a rebuke to those who claim paranormal abilities, by saying "prove it." If JREF tells our Klingon flapper that he only gets one chance, then it's a pretty wimpy rebuke.

As far as I am aware the applicant wouldn't only get the one chance if that was their claim rate.

[fls]

Sorry I'm really not following this, can you try to explain again(!) (in no more than A level maths!) how if I can do what I say I can do the challenge is biased against me demonstrating my ability.

I'm going to use proportion correct as an example, since that is one of the most frequent types of claims made ("I can tell whether a kidney is missing or absent, what the card is, which envelope contains a photograph of a card, etc.). The outcome assuming they don't have the ability is fairly straightforward - it shouldn't be any better than the outcome due to chance (i.e. the 'odds').

What is more tricky is looking at the outcome assuming that they do have the ability. First we need to determine the effect size of their ability. Many claimants come here stating that they have 100 percent accuracy, but since this usually represents their success under uncontrolled conditions, it is reasonable to suspect that their success rate will be less under controlled conditions, especially considering that normal factors such as nervousness will also influence performance. Since the MDC test will be taking place under controlled conditions, the claimant needs to figure out their success rate under those conditions. Pavel performed some controlled tests and took the average of those tests when he claimed a 67 or 70 percent success rate. Since the claimants tend to be statistically naive, I would suspect that the various success rates quoted would represent other measures as well - the best they've ever done, the worst, the median or mode, a range, etc.

If we were to repeat the Challenge testing over and over again and if we set the threshold at the claimed success rate, whenever the success rate represents the central tendency, about half the time the results will fall below the threshold (as Ivor explained). Taking into consideration that the claimant is more likely to perform a bit more poorly under stressful conditions, or that they have likely given an exaggerated number for their success rate, you can expect that considerably more than half the time the results will fall below the threshold. There is also a tendency for Randi to ask for a somewhat higher threshold than the claimed success rate in order to maintain high odds while keeping the number of trials to a minimum. And claimants seem to judge whether or not that is achievable by whether they have ever performed that well, rather than by whether they usually perform that well.

Linda

[fls]

But isn't it in the case of (at least) some claims the JREF and the applicant set the success criteria below their "claim rate"? So if I said "I can move a pen across the table without any physical contact whenever I want"" the challenge would be set so that I'd only have to do it 5 times out of ten. Doesn't that in effect balance out this negative bias?

Yes, one of the solutions I have proposed is that the success rate be set lower than the claimed success rate. It can be worked out just how much lower will give a power of 0.8 to 0.9, which would be very fair. This may require that the number of trials be increased in order to make sure that success is very unlikely due to chance.

Linda

[SkepticScott]

I rest my case.You seemed to have missed Darat's point. If a claimant claims to be able to do something much better than chance, how is a protocol that is designed so there is only a 1 in 1000 chance of the claimant passing by chance if the claimant doesn't have the power you claim biased against the claimant?

For example, if X claims to be able to control a coin flip, having it land the specified way 90% of the time, I could set up a test where:
(a) each trial consists of flipping a coin 15 times,
(b) a trial is a pass if the coin lands heads each of the 15 times
(c) the test consists of 20 trials. If X passes even one trial, X has passed the test.

By chance, there the chance of passing a trial by chance is 0.0000305. The chance of passing any of 20 trials is 0.0006102. This is less than one in 1000.

On the other hand, if X has the power X is claiming, the chance of passing a trial is 0.2058911. The chance of passing any one of 20 trials is 0.9900551. This is better than a 99% chance!

I think the JREF designs their tests this way, so it is very unlikely that someone would pass by chance, but very likely that they would pass if they have the power they claim.

If X claimed to be able to control the coin flip 100% of the time, then the test is even easier. Flip the coin 10 times, if it lands heads each time, X passes. If not, then X fails since X did not demonstrate 100% control.

I X claimed to be able to control the coin flip 51% of the time, then the test becomes much longer, but I'll be someone could design a test that has a 99% chance of being passed with that power, but a 0.1% chance of being passed by chance.

[Andrew Wiggin]

When people claim to be able to do something at a particular level of performance, what they typically mean is on average they achieve that level of performance. Sometimes they will perform better, other times they will perform worse. E.g., I can drive to work in 20 minutes. Sometimes it only takes me 15 minutes, other times it takes me 25 minutes or longer.

By setting the threshold for passing the challenge at their claimed (average) level of performance, there is a 50% chance they will perform below this level and fail the test.

I'd be in complete agreement with you if the average claimant here came in saying 'I can do this feat X percent of the time'. Connie said she could see through envelopes. So did Pavel. So did VFF, for a certain value of envelope. So did Edge, for coffee cans and dirt. So do all of the remote viewing and dowsing crowd. It's only after they realize that it's actually going to be rigorously tested that the statistics come out, and the protocol negotiations start to drag. I think this should be binary.

For your example: Don't test the claim 'I can drive to work in 20 minutes'. That's the secondary claim that appears when the primary claim of 'I can drive to work' falls through. If driving to work was a paranormal feat, either you could or you couldn't. If you say 'I can drive to work' and I say 'prove it', then you come back talking about time constraints, probability of getting there, acceptable failure rates that will still result in a 'getting to work' pass, multiple tries just in case, etc., then I'm going to start to doubt you can even drive or own a car...


A

[fls]

You seemed to have missed Darat's point. If a claimant claims to be able to do something much better than chance, how is a protocol that is designed so there is only a 1 in 1000 chance of the claimant passing by chance if the claimant doesn't have the power you claim biased against the claimant?

It doesn't. I have said that already multiple times in this thread. It is one of the points I have been trying to drive home. I'll repeat this so it is clear that I agree. A protocol designed so that there is only a 1 in 1000 chance of the claimant passing by chance (if the claimant doesn't have the claimed ability) has no effect on whether the protocol is biased against the claimant. It is possible to make a test that is both in favour of the JREF (if the claimant does not have the ability) and is in favour of the claimant (if the claimant does have the ability), as you go on to demonstrate.

For example, if X claims to be able to control a coin flip, having it land the specified way 90% of the time, I could set up a test where:
(a) each trial consists of flipping a coin 15 times,
(b) a trial is a pass if the coin lands heads each of the 15 times
(c) the test consists of 20 trials. If X passes even one trial, X has passed the test.

By chance, there the chance of passing a trial by chance is 0.0000305. The chance of passing any of 20 trials is 0.0006102. This is less than one in 1000.

On the other hand, if X has the power X is claiming, the chance of passing a trial is 0.2058911. The chance of passing any one of 20 trials is 0.9900551. This is better than a 99% chance!

Yes. This is exactly what I have said could be done.

I think the JREF designs their tests this way,...

Well, they don't. My point is, if you actually look at the tests which have been designed, they rarely give the claimant such a good chance of passing if they have the claimed ability. If the JREF designed tests like the one you outlined above, I would have no complaint.

Linda

[fls]

I'd be in complete agreement with you if the average claimant here came in saying 'I can do this feat X percent of the time'. Connie said she could see through envelopes. So did Pavel. So did VFF, for a certain value of envelope. So did Edge, for coffee cans and dirt. So do all of the remote viewing and dowsing crowd. It's only after they realize that it's actually going to be rigorously tested that the statistics come out, and the protocol negotiations start to drag.

I agree. And that's where we (us forum participants) have a chance to be valuable. Because we can help them form a testable claim and we can help them figure out what their succes rate will be under controlled conditions, instead of the uncontrolled conditions they are used to, which can then be used to determine whether or not protocol negotiations will be fruitful (a small effect size will need a large number of trials which Randi is unlikely to agree to unless the time needed for each trial is very small).

Linda

[Startz]

As far as I am aware the applicant wouldn't only get the one chance if that was their claim rate.

I spent a considerable amount of time helping Pavel put together a statistically sensible protocol, as did others here. It is certainly true that the details of Pavel's claim evolved a great deal in response to what people here on the forum suggested. But the protocol that was officially submitted was designed precisely to meet the JREF standard of avoiding a false positive while still giving Pavel a reasonable chance of success if his ability was as suggested. And JREF just plain blew him off.

Perhaps there were other reasons than statistical issues for JREF's actions, but there is no evidence to that effect. The only thing we know for a fact is that the response of JREF was to insist on a protocol that did not give Pavel much chance of succeeding if his claim were true.

[Paul2]

Well, they don't. My point is, if you actually look at the tests which have been designed, they rarely give the claimant such a good chance of passing if they have the claimed ability. If the JREF designed tests like the one you outlined above, I would have no complaint.

Linda
Can you offer a specific example?

[fls]

Can you offer a specific example?

There is the example I have referred to previously (that of Pavel).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5032589#post5032589

Linda

[fls]

Can you offer a specific example?

I've just been going through the first page (i.e. the most recent page) of MDC claims. Of those who have reached the stage where a protocol has been suggested and the claimant made a statement as to their success rate:

Claimant|Reported Success Rate|JREF Success Rate
Edge/Mike Guska|50 - 70%|70%
Raymond Powell|100%|100%
Chris Cordero|96%|44% (4/9)
Carina Landin|80%|80%
Connie Sonne|?|100%
Patricia Putt|?|50%
Natal'ya V.|100%|100%
Eileen McKusick|?|71% (5/7)
Pavel|67%|~90-100%

If anyone can fill in some of the question marks, please do so. The only reported success rates that were likely based on their own controlled tests were Mike Guska's and Pavel's (as far as I can tell).

Note that for Chris Cordero, the JREF provided a test which would be close to what I am suggesting (with the exception that Chris' reported success rate was probably not determined by him under controlled conditions).

Linda

[The Man]

If someone says that they will "test" you, does it not imply that if you can do what you say you can do, you will pass the test, and if you can't, you will fail? Isn't that what "test" means? Instead, most Challenge protocols make it unlikely that you will pass regardless of whether you have the ability. Like you, most claimants seem to think that they understand the Challenge, and like you, they fail to notice that it isn't really a 'test' of their ability. If it is reasonable to make this sort of 'test' and expect claimants to be willing to take up the challenge anyway, then there should be no problem with simply making this explicit. If there is nothing to hide, then there is no need to hide behind obfuscatory language.

Linda



Not “test”, challenge. Just what do you think I‘m failing to notice? If I claim I have a way of reading cards inside envelopes with 100% accuracy then I should not fail at all, unless I can’t really read cards inside of envelopes with 100% accuracy. I imagine that you might claim that you can read a card if I show you it’s face. How many cards do you think you will get wrong under those conditions? Now if I propose a protocol where you will only be shown the face of the card for .0000003 seconds, then perhaps you might not want to agree to that protocol.


When people claim to be able to do something at a particular level of performance, what they typically mean is on average they achieve that level of performance. Sometimes they will perform better, other times they will perform worse. E.g., I can drive to work in 20 minutes. Sometimes it only takes me 15 minutes, other times it takes me 25 minutes or longer.

By setting the threshold for passing the challenge at their claimed (average) level of performance, there is a 50% chance they will perform below this level and fail the test.


How would setting the threshold for your driving time at your average time be in any way a challenge to your driving abilities? Sure you may fail 50% of the time from your average under average conditions (which you don’t really know when you leave your house what the conditions will be, average, better for you or worse). Being given the conditions you will be driving under, if your have no confidence in your abilities to perform as required (perhaps even better than your average time) under those conditions, than I recommend that you do not accept such a challenge. A 50-50 chance at 1 million, how is that bad (particularly when you’re not putting up even money if you fail)?


I've just been going through the first page (i.e. the most recent page) of MDC claims. Of those who have reached the stage where a protocol has been suggested and the claimant made a statement as to their success rate:

Claimant|Reported Success Rate|JREF Success Rate
Edge/Mike Guska|50 - 70%|70%
Raymond Powell|100%|100%
Chris Cordero|96%|44% (4/9)
Carina Landin|80%|80%
Connie Sonne|?|100%
Patricia Putt|?|50%
Natal'ya V.|100%|100%
Eileen McKusick|?|71% (5/7)
Pavel|67%|~90-100%

If anyone can fill in some of the question marks, please do so. The only reported success rates that were likely based on their own controlled tests were Mike Guska's and Pavel's (as far as I can tell).

Note that for Chris Cordero, the JREF provided a test which would be close to what I am suggesting (with the exception that Chris' reported success rate was probably not determined by him under controlled conditions).

Linda

Well there you go. 3 exactly at the claimed rate, 1 at the high end of the claimed rate, 3 unknown claimed rates, 1 higher than the claimed rate and 1 lower. So based on that evidence (excluding the unknowns for now), more are set at the claimed rates than not. How is setting the success rate at what is claimed a test that has been “set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass”? Do not forget that a claimed success rate is part of the claimed ability. As Ivor the Engineer notes above, if it is your average success rate then it is equally likely that you will pass as fail. If you’ve given a higher than average rate, whose fault is that? If you have given an absurdly low rate (approaching or below chance) then it is not surprising that the protocol would require a higher rate for the challenge.

[weirdl]

You said Ms. Sonne claimed to be able to dowse through envelops.
She never claimed that! The JREF substituted their protocol for her original claim without making that switch clear. This is one of my major complaints.
Ms. Sonne only claimed the ability to dowse for upside-down cardboard peices that had been freshly written on.
I know she agreed to the changes, but Ms. Sonne did that because the voices in her head told her the JREF was helping her save the world and she should trust them completely.
Before anyone goes there, Connie Sonne would not have won if she had been treated fairly. I don't believe in magic.

[Uncayimmy]

Not “test”, challenge. Just what do you think I‘m failing to notice? If I claim I have a way of reading cards inside envelopes with 100% accuracy then I should not fail at all, unless I can’t really read cards inside of envelopes with 100% accuracy. I imagine that you might claim that you can read a card if I show you it’s face. How many cards do you think you will get wrong under those conditions? Now if I propose a protocol where you will only be shown the face of the card for .0000003 seconds, then perhaps you might not want to agree to that protocol.
If you propose such a protocol, that would enormously damage your credibility and be a tacit admission of fear that the ability exists.

What you are "missing" is that the JREF claims to be so incredibly confident that the paranormal cannot be demonstrated that it advertises a challenge with a $1M enticement to prove them wrong. If they even just propose a protocol where someone with a "genuine" ability could easily fail (this includes coin-flip odds), they come across as cowards. It looks like they are "fixing" the test and that their confidence with the $1M is just so much bluster.

Who gives a **** if the claimant is stupid or arrogant enough to accept the protocol? What's important is the message that the worldwide audience receives. Suppose that message includes, "The JREF proposed and the claimant accepted a protocol where if the claimant actually has the ability claimed, there's only a 50% chance he will win the money." The JREF looks like a bunch of asses in the minds of many of the people they want to reach with the challenge.

[weirdl]

I have been asked to prove this.
I concede upfront that the definitions of "encourage" and "attacks" are the only the opinion of one troll.

The encouragement consists of a Swift post on August 2, 2009 entitled Connie Sonne Preliminary Challenge Test at TAM 7.
This post includes such dewdrops as:

I find Connie Sonne's accusation both amusing and sad. On the same note, I take it very seriously as well. Connie, or anyone else, should think very carefully prior to making such libelous and slanderous statements. I take defamation of my character quite seriously. [...] Also, there were steps put in place by the JREF to make sure there was no way I could have cheated Connie at all. For this to have happened both myself, the JREF, and anyone else involved would have had to be involved in the entire crime - and yes, it would be a crime. So once again, be very careful prior to making libelous or slanderous statements. -Banachek

The article made no mention of the voices in Connie Sonne's head.
The article made it look like Ms. Sonne was an active participant in the procedure, whereas my research indicates she was no more than a gullible dupe. The post declares:
She chose to dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage with the supervision of famous skeptic and mentalist, Banachek.

I don't think she chose that. The playing cards, envelops, and magicians were all the JREF's ideas. Ms. Sonne would have gone along with almost anything. She never even tried the protocol she was supposed to have basically designed.

The attacks from others, which were encouraged by the JREF's example, started immediately afterwards in the comments. I won't quote any of those because I don't think the commenters would have been so mean if they realized Ms. Sonne's vulnerable mental state. they are easy to find

Here's an example of the tone from The Mad Skeptic (post August 15, 2009). He knew about the voices:
A true believer would have gracefully bowed out (as you initially did on the Sunday night after TAM7) and quietly gone back to the fold that embraced their belief in you and your powers. That should have been enough for someone who believes in their “gift” and their “mission.” Instead, you went on the offensive and made an issue against the very protocol you signed off on and chose to get snarky with some of the world’s biggest experts in the field. Sour grapes? A boatload full I’d say.

She doesn't have a "fold", by the way.

[Uncayimmy]

You said Ms. Sonne claimed to be able to dowse through envelops.
She never claimed that! The JREF substituted their protocol for her original claim without making that switch clear. This is one of my major complaints.
Ms. Sonne only claimed the ability to dowse for upside-down cardboard peices that had been freshly written on.
I know she agreed to the changes, but Ms. Sonne did that because the voices in her head told her the JREF was helping her save the world and she should trust them completely.
Before anyone goes there, Connie Sonne would not have won if she had been treated fairly. I don't believe in magic.

I think you are making some excellent points. All too often skeptics fall into the trap of thinking that skepticism is a set of a beliefs rather than a process. I confess to not looking at the Connie Sonne demonstration as critically as I should have because in my mind she was just another woo with magical thinking. What you are doing is admirable, which is to remind people to look at everything skeptically, especially our own actions.

Some of what the JREF has written about Connie is sloppy at best and misleading at worst. There seems to be a pervasive attitude of, "Well, she's just another woo who failed a test and claimed to be cheated, so why should we care?" That's ********. If a "woo" organization were to make claims this inaccurately, skeptics would be all over it like stink on ****. They would question their integrity and rightly so. After all, the JREF had a financial interest in having this demonstration take place at TAM.

Your accusations of encouraging attacks I think are weak, but I appreciate that you acknowledge that it's a matter of opinion. If I squint my eyes and look at it the right way, I can see where you're coming from. The JREF does lead by example, and I would say there's no shortage of followers. If I understand you correctly, I believe you're saying a more appropriate response from Banachek might have been:

While I don't appreciate the accusations of cheating Ms. Sonne has made, I will not take them all that seriously. Her beliefs in many aspects of her life seem to hinge on what she believes the spirits (voices in her head, I think) are telling her. It could be that the spirits are telling her that I cheated. It could also be that the spirits told her she would be successful, so faced with failure, her only choices were to believe the spirits were wrong or to assume that I cheated. In a way I'm flattered she thinks I could get away with cheating with all the controls that were in place. The truth is, I did not cheat, and I'm sorry Ms. Sonne feels that I did.

Again, if I'm understanding you correctly, a more "understanding" response like that would "encourage" more understanding whereas the aggressive response that Banachek made, while understandable to a degree, encouraged other aggressive responses.

Am I stating your position correctly?

[weirdl]

You definitely have the gist of my views.
Here is what Jeff Wagg says:
The actions you take do not occur in a vacuum. Everything you do has an impact on something else. If you do something "good," more "good" things are likely to happen because of it. For example, if you throw your trash in a trashcan, others may see you do this and follow suit. Your action has encouraged similar actions. If you throw something out the window of your car, others might see this and decide to do the same.

This is obviously simple, and yet it can be very powerful. If we think of karma as a real force, we can make the world a better place. People will imitate other people, and this will build on itself. Even if you do something out of sight of others, the act of doing influences your behavior, which can influence the behavior of others. At the very least, it can make you feel better about yourself, which is an effect right there.

[weirdl]

Also thank you.
You write well and have an open mind.
I write so poorly people think I'm Danish.

[The Man]

If you propose such a protocol, that would enormously damage your credibility and be a tacit admission of fear that the ability exists.

Good thing I don’t propose the protocols, ain’t it?


What you are "missing" is that the JREF claims to be so incredibly confident that the paranormal cannot be demonstrated that it advertises a challenge with a $1M enticement to prove them wrong.

Nope, never missed that.


If they even just propose a protocol where someone with a "genuine" ability could easily fail (this includes coin-flip odds), they come across as cowards. It looks like they are "fixing" the test and that their confidence with the $1M is just so much bluster.

Ok, you put up a million, then you can give it away on less than “coin-flip odds”. How would that make you look? I’m sure people will be lining up to take your challenge.



Who gives a **** if the claimant is stupid or arrogant enough to accept the protocol? What's important is the message that the worldwide audience receives. Suppose that message includes, "The JREF proposed and the claimant accepted a protocol where if the claimant actually has the ability claimed, there's only a 50% chance he will win the money." The JREF looks like a bunch of asses in the minds of many of the people they want to reach with the challenge.

Well I guess the claimant should give that “****”. If not, then who else can? Again 50-50 odds to win a million ain’t bad at all. If I thought that playing the bagpipes well ( a certain percentage of people enjoying the music) would count as paranormal, I’d give it a shot (but I’d have to practice more).

[Uncayimmy]

Good thing I don’t propose the protocols, ain’t it?

What a terrific rebuttal! That's putting the old "E" back in JREF! It's responses like that keep me coming back!

Nope, never missed that.
Looks can be deceiving.

Ok, you put up a million, then you can give it away on less than “coin-flip odds”. How would that make you look? I’m sure people will be lining up to take your challenge.
Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you are unable to follow what is really a rather simple discussion. Neither I nor Linda said anything about risking the money on coin-flip odds. I was considering explaining it all to you again, but I think that would be a waste of effort. The only thing worse then dealing with woo mentality is when it's coming from someone who considers himself a skeptic.

[weirdl]

Social Proof is not the only way the JREF encouraged attacks sayeth this troll.
Every time the JREF nudged the facts it was in a way that made them look better and Connie Sonne look worse. They implied (in my opinion wrongly) that Ms. Sonne was actively involved in her own test design, that she requested playing cards and envelops.
They asserted Connie Sonne had "oodles of press" verifying her powers. They called her "Connie Sonne, dowser" that made me think that she was a practicing dowser or could at least produce a witness. I think they subconsciously hid the fact that Connie Sonne in not in her right mind. My opinion.
The JREF bragged about haw transparent the test was, but the only way I can get the documents that prove that is if I go to Vegas and pay $400 dollars after I built a time machine.
They made Connie Sonne look like a bad sport.

[Sean84]

*snip*
They made Connie Sonne look like a bad sport.

That's what you call some one who doesn't get their way and then cries foul despite it being their own fault.

[weirdl]

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis that the word on the street that the once courageous Ms. Sonne is a bad sport. Where do you think you got that idea?
JREF's been crying foul for not getting their way too. It was their own fault.
The only evidence the JREF presents that this test was fair is that Connie Sonne agreed to it. That's it. The reputation of the JREF is based on a piece of paper a mad woman signed. She didn't even look at it. Watch the video. She refuses to read it and says "I trust you". Chump.
She was in the midst of a manic episode which the JREF had no doubt greatly heightened with its inappropriate lavish attention. (A press conference!)
I think they're mad at her for blowing the only tiny claim to legitimacy this test had: her trust.
I was a chump too. I thought it was fair without question at first.

[Sean84]

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis that the word on the street that the once courageous Ms. Sonne is a bad sport. Where do you think you got that idea?
JREF's been crying foul for not getting their way too. It was their own fault.
The only evidence the JREF presents that this test was fair is that Connie Sonne agreed to it. That's it. The reputation of the JREF is based on a piece of paper a mad woman signed. She didn't even look at it. Watch the video. She refuses to read it and says "I trust you". Chump.
She was in the midst of a manic episode which the JREF had no doubt greatly heightened with its inappropriate lavish attention. (A press conference!)
I think they're mad at her for blowing the only tiny claim to legitimacy this test had: her trust.
I was a chump too. I thought it was fair without question at first.

Please show me where I ever said she was "once courageous".

My opinion is my own and that happens to be that she was a fraud who got caught out. Please don't twist my words to serve your agenda in the future.

[weirdl]

I meant the JREF used to say she was courageous. Sorry I twisted your words. Forgive me, I'm Danish.
She's no fraud.
What do you base that on?

[Sean84]

I meant the JREF used to say she was courageous. Sorry I twisted your words. Forgive me, I'm Danish.

Actually, you twisted my words by making it "the word on the street." It is simply how I viewed the matter. But, that's fine; all forgiven.


She's no fraud.
What do you base that on?


I base it mostly on her lack of super powers.

[fls]

Not “test”, challenge.

The JREF refers to "test".

Just what do you think I‘m failing to notice? If I claim I have a way of reading cards inside envelopes with 100% accuracy then I should not fail at all, unless I can’t really read cards inside of envelopes with 100% accuracy. I imagine that you might claim that you can read a card if I show you it’s face. How many cards do you think you will get wrong under those conditions? Now if I propose a protocol where you will only be shown the face of the card for .0000003 seconds, then perhaps you might not want to agree to that protocol.

As I mentioned previously, claims are likely based on uncontrolled conditions, and may not represent the average. So a claim of 100%, or the other claims which are less, likely represent a success rate that is lower than the claim - sometimes much lower. If you want to test the claim, then it makes sense to get a better idea of just what the success rate is under controlled conditions (Pavel as an example) or failing that, to make some sort of informed guess and erring on the side of making it achievable if they have the ability.

A 50-50 chance at 1 million, how is that bad (particularly when you’re not putting up even money if you fail)?

It makes sense that some people would go for a 50/50 chance. There shouldn't be any problem with the JREF simply making that explicit. As it is now, the use of the word "test" can imply that you will pass if you have the ability and you will fail if you do not. And the statement "To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests," can imply that they did not pass the tests because they did not have a paranormal ability. Since neither of those implications are correct, if the JREF doesn't intend to mislead their audience, then it shouldn't be a problem for the JREF to simply make that explicit:

"Protocols are often designed to give you a 50/50 chance or less of success even if you are able to do what you claim you can do."

"Since passing is at best a coin toss if you have the claimed ability, as expected, to date, no one has passed the preliminary tests."

Well there you go. 3 exactly at the claimed rate, 1 at the high end of the claimed rate, 3 unknown claimed rates, 1 higher than the claimed rate and 1 lower. So based on that evidence (excluding the unknowns for now), more are set at the claimed rates than not. How is setting the success rate at what is claimed a test that has been “set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass”?

As I mentioned previously, even setting it at the claimed rate does not provide a reasonable test. And these success rates are likely formed under conditions that grossly over-estimate the effect.

Do not forget that a claimed success rate is part of the claimed ability. As Ivor the Engineer notes above, if it is your average success rate then it is equally likely that you will pass as fail. If you’ve given a higher than average rate, whose fault is that? If you have given an absurdly low rate (approaching or below chance) then it is not surprising that the protocol would require a higher rate for the challenge.

I agree and I think that is where forum participants can be useful, especially if the JREF makes it clear that the claimant is unlikely to pass the test if they have the claimed ability, unless they pay close attention to these factors and manage to negotiate a reasonable test on their behalf. If the JREF made this explicit in their pre-amble, instead of making statements that imply the opposite, I think it would provide incentive for the claimants to pay more attention to the recommendations to perform controlled tests, in order to form a much better estimate of their success rate. I think it would improve the process considerably if the JREF was more straightforward, instead of continuing to use statements which mislead. If there is no intent to mislead, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Linda

[Andrew Wiggin]

You said Ms. Sonne claimed to be able to dowse through envelops.
She never claimed that! The JREF substituted their protocol for her original claim without making that switch clear. This is one of my major complaints.
Ms. Sonne only claimed the ability to dowse for upside-down cardboard peices that had been freshly written on.
I know she agreed to the changes, but Ms. Sonne did that because the voices in her head told her the JREF was helping her save the world and she should trust them completely.
Before anyone goes there, Connie Sonne would not have won if she had been treated fairly. I don't believe in magic.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and reread her claim, but the impression I got was that she stated she could determine the cards in the envelopes. I've noticed a lot of claims begin to evolve the instant the claimant realizes that the claim will actually be rigorously tested, so I accept in advance that her original claim might have been different, but at the same time, if a related claim was proposed and she accepted that, that's her right, as only she can state what she can do.

A

[Andrew Wiggin]

@ Wierdl:

OK, I'm back from reading, and I call shenanigans. While the original claim was not cards in envelopes, it WAS numbers through cardboard. Cards, which by their nature have printed numbers on them, inside cardstock envelopes is a very reasonable way to implement a claim of being able to determine printed numbers through cardboard and Connie agreed to this format for the test. I don't see how this can be construed as the JREF taking advantage of her in any way.

A

[weirdl]

Thank you for responding. Thank you very much for checking the source. Thank you for confirming that Conne Sonne never claimed (or even attempted to be able dowse for cards inside envelops inside envelops. She never claimed she could dowse for anything but human handwriting on cardboard. Upside down.
But you thought she did.
And you're the only one who got the wrong idea.

Check it out
The challenger, Connie Sonne, claims to have the ability to be able to find certain playing cards by dowsing for them.
Crispian Jago

She never claimed that.
This is from a blog is called Science, Reason and Critical Thinking

It's no wonder. I call shenanigans too. Here's part of the JREF's official response to Connie Sonne's accusations of cheating.
Connie Sonne had designed the parameters for her own test. She chose to dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage with the supervision of famous skeptic and mentalist, Banachek.

No way she chose that. Agreed? Agreed. Technically. (She seems to have been in the middle of a psychotic break.)
Since the JREF forgot to post Ms. Sonne's application and her own test design, nobody knew they had changed her protocol. A lot.

I don't believe in magic, but I have read comic books. If I know anything about how magic works it's that every power has a lot of specific rules and limits. Superman can't see through lead. Who's to say dowsing for inhuman printed cards is the same as dowsing for cardboard dripping with the hot magic of fresh human writing?

Also cards and envelops are a lot easier to cheat with than handwritten cards. I mean for the JREF to cheat with. They didn't cheat. It was just dumb to make such suspicious changes. And kept it quiet.

[Andrew Wiggin]

What a bunch of conspiracy theory claptrap. Nothing changes the fact that she agreed to the protocol. That's all that matters here. I can think of several reasons why handwritten numbers on the back of cardboard wouldn't be acceptable. Ink shadowing through the card, and creasing from the writing implement come to mind. I'm not thinking she was trying to cheat by those methods, but at the same time, she obviously had received some positive feedback in the past, and subconscious clues are a good way to do that.

Regardless of the minor details you're pretending mean the JREF pulled a fast one, her claim breaks down to numbers written with ink, cardboard hiding it, and she can still dowse/see through and tell what the numbers are. I don't care who brought up the idea of cards in envelopes as a replacement, for all we know, it could have been either connie or the JREF, since neither one of us was privy to the actual offline negotiations. From the outside, all we see is that it was finalized, connie agreed to it, it was tested, and she had a spectacular failure, completely consistent with her having no powers at all. The protocol she agreed to looks very fair from where I'm standing. If you think cards in envelopes would make it easier to cheat, the burden of proof is on you to prove that cheating was possible, or that cheating occurred. From my end, it looks like the JREF took every possible precaution to make sure that neither they nor connie could cheat.

Still, this all comes down to the fact that she entered into an agreement, by that agreement she failed, then slandered the JREF claiming they'd cheated her. That's what makes the whole thing pathetic, and beyond defense.

A

[connie sonne]

it is NOT what you think at all. I will return.

Connie

[Czarcasm]

it is NOT what you think at all.Well, that cleared everything up, didn't it? I will return.No doubt. When come back, bring explanation, 'k?

[Marcus]

I spent a considerable amount of time helping Pavel put together a statistically sensible protocol, as did others here. It is certainly true that the details of Pavel's claim evolved a great deal in response to what people here on the forum suggested. But the protocol that was officially submitted was designed precisely to meet the JREF standard of avoiding a false positive while still giving Pavel a reasonable chance of success if his ability was as suggested. And JREF just plain blew him off.

Perhaps there were other reasons than statistical issues for JREF's actions, but there is no evidence to that effect. The only thing we know for a fact is that the response of JREF was to insist on a protocol that did not give Pavel much chance of succeeding if his claim were true.
That was dissapointing when Randi, having not participated in the saga, casually waved off the protocol you guys worked so hard on. You'd think that one of the mods that was participating could make him aware of the details.

[Marcus]

it is NOT what you think at all. I will return.

Connie
Hello Connie,

Would you care to share with us now, in a hopefully brief manner, exactly how you were cheated by JREF?

[The Man]

What a terrific rebuttal! That's putting the old "E" back in JREF! It's responses like that keep me coming back!

Glad to see your needs are being fulfilled.


Looks can be deceiving.

Advice you should take to heart.



Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you are unable to follow what is really a rather simple discussion. Neither I nor Linda said anything about risking the money on coin-flip odds.


“Either you're being deliberately obtuse” or just don’t remember what you wrote.


If they even just propose a protocol where someone with a "genuine" ability could easily fail (this includes coin-flip odds), they come across as cowards. It looks like they are "fixing" the test and that their confidence with the $1M is just so much bluster.

So when you said “this includes coin-flip odds” you didn’t really mean “coin-flip odds”?


I was considering explaining it all to you again, but I think that would be a waste of effort. The only thing worse then dealing with woo mentality is when it's coming from someone who considers himself a skeptic.

Oh by all means please do, but seeing as you’re the one claiming…


…they come across as cowards. It looks like they are "fixing" the test and that their confidence with the $1M is just so much bluster.

And


Looks can be deceiving.

You might try explaining that to yourself first.

[The Man]

The JREF refers to "test".

Ok, a mere issue of semantics anyway.



As I mentioned previously, claims are likely based on uncontrolled conditions, and may not represent the average. So a claim of 100%, or the other claims which are less, likely represent a success rate that is lower than the claim - sometimes much lower. If you want to test the claim, then it makes sense to get a better idea of just what the success rate is under controlled conditions (Pavel as an example) or failing that, to make some sort of informed guess and erring on the side of making it achievable if they have the ability.

I certainly never disagreed that the claims are likely based on uncontrolled conditions. As I remarked to myself, but again whose fault is that?




It makes sense that some people would go for a 50/50 chance. There shouldn't be any problem with the JREF simply making that explicit. As it is now, the use of the word "test" can imply that you will pass if you have the ability and you will fail if you do not. And the statement "To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests," can imply that they did not pass the tests because they did not have a paranormal ability. Since neither of those implications are correct, if the JREF doesn't intend to mislead their audience, then it shouldn't be a problem for the JREF to simply make that explicit:

"Protocols are often designed to give you a 50/50 chance or less of success even if you are able to do what you claim you can do."

"Since passing is at best a coin toss if you have the claimed ability, as expected, to date, no one has passed the preliminary tests."

I wouldn’t expect that one needs to make the blatantly obvious any more explicate than it already should be to anyone who applies a little critical thinking. For those who don’t, making the blatantly obvious even more explicate usually doesn’t change anything (at least that has been my experience)

Oh I certainly understand your position and even sympathize with it, but my assertions remain.

1) If you do not fully understand and accept what you are agreeing to, then don’t agree.

2) When the money is yours to administer, you are free to do so as you see fit (within the law of course).









As I mentioned previously, even setting it at the claimed rate does not provide a reasonable test. And these success rates are likely formed under conditions that grossly over-estimate the effect.

Again whose fault is that? I don’t see how it is incumbent on the JREF to guess what your rate under controlled conditions should be, particularly when you claim a specific rate yourself.




I agree and I think that is where forum participants can be useful, especially if the JREF makes it clear that the claimant is unlikely to pass the test if they have the claimed ability, unless they pay close attention to these factors and manage to negotiate a reasonable test on their behalf. If the JREF made this explicit in their pre-amble, instead of making statements that imply the opposite, I think it would provide incentive for the claimants to pay more attention to the recommendations to perform controlled tests, in order to form a much better estimate of their success rate. I think it would improve the process considerably if the JREF was more straightforward, instead of continuing to use statements which mislead. If there is no intent to mislead, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Linda

Good advice regardless of what the JREF makes clear in its pre-amble.

[fls]

I certainly never disagreed that the claims are likely based on uncontrolled conditions. As I remarked to myself, but again whose fault is that?

I wouldn’t expect that one needs to make the blatantly obvious any more explicate than it already should be to anyone who applies a little critical thinking. For those who don’t, making the blatantly obvious even more explicate usually doesn’t change anything (at least that has been my experience)

Oh I certainly understand your position and even sympathize with it, but my assertions remain.

1) If you do not fully understand and accept what you are agreeing to, then don’t agree.

2) When the money is yours to administer, you are free to do so as you see fit (within the law of course).

Again whose fault is that? I don’t see how it is incumbent on the JREF to guess what your rate under controlled conditions should be, particularly when you claim a specific rate yourself.

I understand that you are not interested in using the MDC to get people to examine these claims. I suspect that the JREF is not, either. I simply think that if this is the case, it should be made more explicit. You may claim that this is all blatantly obvious, but the extended discussions I have had on this topic here suggest otherwise. A substantial number of people do seem to have the impression that someone with a claim for which a testable and reasonable protocol can be worked out can apply to the MDC and undergo a test. And that if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do, they will pass the test.

Linda

[The Man]

I understand that you are not interested in using the MDC to get people to examine these claims. I suspect that the JREF is not, either. I simply think that if this is the case, it should be made more explicit. You may claim that this is all blatantly obvious, but the extended discussions I have had on this topic here suggest otherwise. A substantial number of people do seem to have the impression that someone with a claim for which a testable and reasonable protocol can be worked out can apply to the MDC and undergo a test. And that if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do, they will pass the test.

Linda

Then you’re understanding would be wrong. The MDC does get people to examine these claims, including the claimed accuracy. You may claim, and you have, that the test is “set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass”, but performing your stated ability at around your stated (and hopefully average) accuracy will be the most likely outcome (that’s what makes it the average), unless you’re just simply wrong about that ability and/or accuracy. Again if you agree to a protocol then that is what you are claiming you will do to pass the test. If you are able to do what was agreed you will pass, that should be blatantly obvious.

Yes I understand and as I said even sympathize with your assertion “it should be made more explicit”, but would differ on how it should be made more explicit.

My additional caveat might go something like this.


“You don’t have a ******* flying hairy rat’s *** chance in hell of winning this challenge, because if you actually had the ability you claimed you would already be famous and rich (heck some are famous and rich even without having the abilities they claim).”


Dan

[Uncayimmy]

So when you said “this includes coin-flip odds” you didn’t really mean “coin-flip odds”?
I know what I wrote. The coin flip odds referred specifically to the claimant actually being able to perform as claimed, which, as well all know, the JREF believes is impossible. Therefore, the money was never at risk over coin-flip odds.

The point here is that if the claimant is able to perform as claimed, the odds requirement for the test should allow success to the largest degree possible so long as winning by chance is sufficiently reduced. Why you seem to have trouble with this I don't know and really don't care.

[not daSkeptic]

Basic experimental statistics (as I understand them, but I may be wrong):

Two possible realities: 1) The given phenomenon exists, or 2) the phenomenon does not exist.

Two possible experimental outcomes: 1) The given phenomenon is detected, or 2) the phenomenon is not detected.

Thus, a 2x2 matrix of combinations:

|Exists|Does Not Exist
Detected|A|B
Not Detected|C|D

In an ideal world, A and D would be the only outcomes that ever occur. But we don't live in an ideal world and thus B and C can also occur. In order to get as close as possible to the ideal, a good experiment is designed to minimize the likelihood of B and C.

The allegation being made about the MDC is that while the protocols minimize the odds of B (a false positive), they do not necessarily minimize the odds of C (a false negative). Thus, while the overall challenge may be fair in the legal sense (the applicants are voluntarily agreeing to the protocols), the design of the protocols is improper.

Do I have all of this right?

[jsfisher]

You know, this whole issue of fairness to the applicant would carry a lot more weight if just one of the preliminary tests came close.

As fair as I know, all have come up in the range of chance, no?

[fls]

Then you’re understanding would be wrong. The MDC does get people to examine these claims, including the claimed accuracy.

Do you think Connie Sonne examined her claims - specifically, do you think she performed a controlled test of the protocol prior to TAM?

You may claim, and you have, that the test is “set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass”, but performing your stated ability at around your stated (and hopefully average) accuracy will be the most likely outcome (that’s what makes it the average), unless you’re just simply wrong about that ability and/or accuracy.

As I mentioned previously, what do you think the chance is that any claimant is correct about their accuracy?

Again if you agree to a protocol then that is what you are claiming you will do to pass the test. If you are able to do what was agreed you will pass, that should be blatantly obvious.

See? What is blatantly obvious happens to be untrue. Why not simply make it true instead?

My additional caveat might go something like this.

“You don’t have a ******* flying hairy rat’s *** chance in hell of winning this challenge, because if you actually had the ability you claimed you would already be famous and rich (heck some are famous and rich even without having the abilities they claim).”

Dan

How is this consistent with your claim that we are interested in getting people to examine their claims? Does this statement really seem like the sort of thing that would engage someone who is naive?

Linda

[fls]

Do I have all of this right?

Yes.

Linda

[The Man]

I know what I wrote. The coin flip odds referred specifically to the claimant actually being able to perform as claimed, which, as well all know, the JREF believes is impossible. Therefore, the money was never at risk over coin-flip odds.

So now you don’t think the test is set up so the claimant is unlikely to pass, even if they have that claimed ability? Again if they do have the claimed ability at the claimed (average) accuracy, then that will be the most likely outcome of the test.



The point here is that if the claimant is able to perform as claimed, the odds requirement for the test should allow success to the largest degree possible so long as winning by chance is sufficiently reduced. Why you seem to have trouble with this I don't know and really don't care.


Again when it’s your million you can agree to whatever protocol you like. “Why you seem to have trouble with this I don't know and really don't care.”

[The Man]

Do you think Connie Sonne examined her claims - specifically, do you think she performed a controlled test of the protocol prior to TAM?

Specifically, perhaps. Critically, doubtful. Controlled test of the protocol, unlikely. If she didn’t, again whose fault is that?



As I mentioned previously, what do you think the chance is that any claimant is correct about their accuracy?

As I mentioned previously, whose fault is that.




See? What is blatantly obvious happens to be untrue. Why not simply make it true instead?

Untrue? how? Do what you agreed to do to pass (the protocol) and you pass. Are you claiming someone has successfully completed the agreed protocol and did not pass?





How is this consistent with your claim that we are interested in getting people to examine their claims?

Telling people they are most likely going to fail because they don’t actually have the ability they are claiming is a pretty direct way of telling them they should probably examine their claimed abilities. How is it inconsistent with that goal?

Even without any additional disclaimer, failure at some expense (even if just in time and effort) is often a good way to get people to examine their claims and abilities (particularly those that might not examine them otherwise). Of course there is no guarantee that anyone will actually or critically examine their claims, abilities or the protocol.



Does this statement really seem like the sort of thing that would engage someone who is naive?

Linda

Does yours? Proclaiming that even if you have your claimed ability you will be unlikely to pass, it hardly seems conducive to inspiring someone to actually examine or even submit their claim. Particularly someone naïve, who would most likely just consider it a sham and not bother with the claim anyway (if they bothered to read any of it anyway). Why bother examining your claim or submitting it when you will be unlikely to pass even if you have your claimed ability? If you want to actually proclaim the truth then go all the way and say the mostly likely reason they will be unlikely pass the test (because they don’t have the claimed ability). Your disclaimer only feeds into the delusion that they have the ability, but some people will just do anything to deny that ability. Not to mention the legal ramification of asserting the test protocol was deliberately set up to defraud or mislead (not acting in good faith).

[The Man]

Basic experimental statistics (as I understand them, but I may be wrong):

Two possible realities: 1) The given phenomenon exists, or 2) the phenomenon does not exist.

Two possible experimental outcomes: 1) The given phenomenon is detected, or 2) the phenomenon is not detected.

Thus, a 2x2 matrix of combinations:

|Exists|Does Not Exist
Detected|A|B
Not Detected|C|D

In an ideal world, A and D would be the only outcomes that ever occur. But we don't live in an ideal world and thus B and C can also occur. In order to get as close as possible to the ideal, a good experiment is designed to minimize the likelihood of B and C.

The allegation being made about the MDC is that while the protocols minimize the odds of B (a false positive), they do not necessarily minimize the odds of C (a false negative). Thus, while the overall challenge may be fair in the legal sense (the applicants are voluntarily agreeing to the protocols), the design of the protocols is improper.

Do I have all of this right?


Indeed not an ideal word, thus it still remains the responsibility of the claimant to do their due diligence.

[fls]

Specifically, perhaps. Critically, doubtful. Controlled test of the protocol, unlikely. If she didn’t, again whose fault is that?

As I mentioned previously, whose fault is that.

I'm not trying to lay blame. I'm suggesting that if we are interested in examining and testing these claims (and I understand that that isn't necessarily the case), then we are not doing a very good job of this if we don't stimulate the claimants to perform controlled tests on their own, and if we subject them to a poor test (given that a good test allows them to pass when the ability is present and fail when the ability is absent). If you are unconcerned or you wish to place all the onus for that outcome on the claimant, that is fine. I worry that it puts the lie to the E in JREF, but getting past that aspect, I'm suggesting that at the least it should be made blatantly obvious that all the onus for making sure the test is fair will be on the claimant.

Untrue? how? Do what you agreed to do to pass (the protocol) and you pass. Are you claiming someone has successfully completed the agreed protocol and did not pass?

I think I misunderstood what you were saying, and I wasn't clear about what I meant.

When I said, "and that if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do, they will pass the test", what I meant was that a substantial number of people seen to think a claimant will pass a test where the threshold has been set at the claimed success rate under uncontrolled conditions, if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do (with respect to having some sort of paranormal ability).

Telling people they are most likely going to fail because they don’t actually have the ability they are claiming is a pretty direct way of telling them they should probably examine their claims abilities. How is it inconsistent with that goal?

Even without any additional disclaimer, failure at some expense (even if just in time and effort) is often a good way to get people to examine their claims and abilities (particularly those that might not examine them otherwise). Of course there is no guarantee that anyone will actually or critically examine their claims, abilities or the protocol.

Does yours? Proclaiming that even if you have your claimed ability you will be unlikely to pass, it hardly seems conducive to inspiring someone to actually examine or even submit their claim. Particularly someone naïve, who would most likely just consider it a sham and not bother with the claim anyway (if they bothered to read any of it anyway). Why bother examining your claim or submitting it when you will be unlikely to pass even if you have your claimed ability? If you want to actually proclaim the truth then go all the way and say the mostly likely reason they will be unlikely pass the test (because the don’t have the claimed ability). Your disclaimer only feeds into the delusion that they have the ability, but some people will just do anything to deny that ability.

That's the question, isn't it. What sort of activities lead to the sorts of outcomes we are looking for? I'm not certain about the effects of derision (and I agree that there is a possibility that it is beneficial), so I wouldn't want to necessarily proceed with it unless I had some evidence. But I am pretty sure that misleading someone in the way I have described does not serve any useful purpose.

Not to mention the legal ramification of asserting the test protocol was deliberately set up to defraud or mislead (not acting in good faith).

By bringing this up, do you think my posts may give a former claimant the idea of laying a suit against Randi? Does the signed protocol protect Randi against this claim? (Now you've made me a bit nervous.)

Linda

[The Man]

I'm not trying to lay blame. I'm suggesting that if we are interested in examining and testing these claims (and I understand that that isn't necessarily the case), then we are not doing a very good job of this if we don't stimulate the claimants to perform controlled tests on their own, and if we subject them to a poor test (given that a good test allows them to pass when the ability is present and fail when the ability is absent). If you are unconcerned or you wish to place all the onus for that outcome on the claimant, that is fine. I worry that it puts the lie to the E in JREF, but getting past that aspect, I'm suggesting that at the least it should be made blatantly obvious that all the onus for making sure the test is fair will be on the claimant.

Unfortunately that onus is entirely on the claimants, not just in checking the protocol but also assuring they are accurately representing their claims. I have absolutely no idea how we could stimulate such people to do a controlled test on their own. As I said before I certainly agree with forum members trying to help develop protocols. The question would be how do we get the word out and convince people that there is help out there.





I think I misunderstood what you were saying, and I wasn't clear about what I meant.

When I said, "and that if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do, they will pass the test", what I meant was that a substantial number of people seen to think a claimant will pass a test where the threshold has been set at the claimed success rate under uncontrolled conditions, if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do (with respect to having some sort of paranormal ability).

That’s ok, but why I specifically referred to the protocol.




That's the question, isn't it. What sort of activities lead to the sorts of outcomes we are looking for? I'm not certain about the effects of derision (and I agree that there is a possibility that it is beneficial), so I wouldn't want to necessarily proceed with it unless I had some evidence. But I am pretty sure that misleading someone in the way I have described does not serve any useful purpose.

Unfortunately I simply do not know and can’t imagine what would, particularly considering someone who has convinced themselves they have some paranormal ability. Understandably a lot of people may lack the training, knowledge or experience to understand, conduct or even recognize a controlled test. So even just trying to make that need more explicit, I doubt will do any good. How do you suddenly convince someone to start thinking critically about their abilities and claims when what brought them to this juncture is most likely not thinking critically about their abilities and claims? I seriously doubt a few blurbs on some paper work will suddenly make that light go on.






By bringing this up, do you think my posts may give a former claimant the idea of laying a suit against Randi? Does the signed protocol protect Randi against this claim? (Now you've made me a bit nervous.)

Linda

No it might only be such if it was an explicit assertion in the agreed contract that indicated it was not entered into in good faith. I imagine there are also statements in the protocol agreement asserting that you have read, understand and agree with the protocol. So again the onus is on the claimant and they most likely have specifically attested to reading, understanding and agreeing to the protocol. Again how do you get people to do what they are willing to attest to but may not have done?

[Startz]

Unfortunately that onus is entirely on the claimants, not just in checking the protocol but also assuring they are accurately representing their claims. I have absolutely no idea how we could stimulate such people to do a controlled test on their own. As I said before I certainly agree with forum members trying to help develop protocols. The question would be how do we get the word out and convince people that there is help out there.


I agree with a great deal of what you say, but are you assuming that JREF will necessarily agree to a "fair" (however defined) protocol?

What upsets some of us is that there seems to have been at least one case in which a claimant pretty much did what you (and others) have suggested and JREF then declined to accept the protocol.

[Uncayimmy]

You know, this whole issue of fairness to the applicant would carry a lot more weight if just one of the preliminary tests came close.

Why? Are you arguing that critical thinking, skepticism and scientific approach only apply sometimes?

[fls]

Unfortunately that onus is entirely on the claimants, not just in checking the protocol but also assuring they are accurately representing their claims. I have absolutely no idea how we could stimulate such people to do a controlled test on their own. As I said before I certainly agree with forum members trying to help develop protocols. The question would be how do we get the word out and convince people that there is help out there.

Something like?...

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, you may be at a disadvantage if the test is set near the success rate you think you have. It is to your advantage to perform controlled tests to help you choose a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."

Unfortunately I simply do not know and can’t imagine what would, particularly considering someone who has convinced themselves they have some paranormal ability. Understandably a lot of people may lack the training, knowledge or experience to understand, conduct or even recognize a controlled test. So even just trying to make that need more explicit, I doubt will do any good. How do you suddenly convince someone to start thinking critically about their abilities and claims when what brought them to this juncture is most likely not thinking critically about their abilities and claims? I seriously doubt a few blurbs on some paper work will suddenly make that light go on.

I agree that there is a substantial number for whom it will make no difference. And that includes the audience, as well. I am thinking of the few where you can actually make a difference (and I think Pavel is one of them). I have been a teacher, so I know what it's like to keep trying to get through over and over and over again. But those few times that you do are all the reward that you need.

ETA: I have selfish motives as well, as I am interested in pursuing claims of anomalies in a way that would allow for real progress. Identifying skilled individuals is one way to pursue this, so I don't want to miss an opportunity to do so.

I think the points that you raised can serve as an incentive, though. If you make it clear to the claimant that it is their fault if the protocol is not fair, by telling them that they shouldn't assume that it will be fair just because both have agreed to a particular success rate, maybe that will get them to take a step back from defensive mode into active participant mode. I don't know.

No it might only be such if it was an explicit assertion in the agreed contract that indicated it was not entered into in good faith. I imagine there are also statements in the protocol agreement asserting that you have read, understand and agree with the protocol. So again the onus is on the claimant and they most likely have specifically attested to reading, understanding and agreeing to the protocol. Again how do you get people to do what they are willing to attest to but may not have done?

If you give them cause to mistrust what they are attesting to?

Linda

[MRC_Hans]

Yes. The power (the probability that an ability will be detected when that ability is present) of many tests is about 0.50 and for many tests, it is even lower. This is the result of setting the threshold for passing at or above the level that can reasonably be assumed based on the claims made. The power isn't at a level which would make it easy for the claimant to pass (such as 0.8 or 0.9).



Can you give an example where the power level was greater than 0.60? An example otherwise would be the one I offered at the start of this conversation.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5032589#post5032589

I can also go through the Challenge protocols and show you examples where the threshold for passing was set at the same level as was claimed by the challenger.

LindaI think we are back to agreeing on the facts. If you set up a test to give a high assurance against false positives, you will increase the risk of false negatives. That is a simple mathematic fact. I still fail to see how a claimant would fail if they perform as advertised. So the claimant might be better than random, but not good enough to pass, if they don't quite live up to their own prediction. I don't see that as unfair.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Also thank you.
You write well and have an open mind.
I write so poorly people think I'm Danish.Excuse me! I'm Danish, and I am not accused of writing poorly. You will find that most of the many Danes here write excellent English.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Basic experimental statistics (as I understand them, but I may be wrong):

Two possible realities: 1) The given phenomenon exists, or 2) the phenomenon does not exist.

Two possible experimental outcomes: 1) The given phenomenon is detected, or 2) the phenomenon is not detected.

Thus, a 2x2 matrix of combinations:

|Exists|Does Not Exist
Detected|A|B
Not Detected|C|D

In an ideal world, A and D would be the only outcomes that ever occur. But we don't live in an ideal world and thus B and C can also occur. In order to get as close as possible to the ideal, a good experiment is designed to minimize the likelihood of B and C.

The allegation being made about the MDC is that while the protocols minimize the odds of B (a false positive), they do not necessarily minimize the odds of C (a false negative). Thus, while the overall challenge may be fair in the legal sense (the applicants are voluntarily agreeing to the protocols), the design of the protocols is improper.

Do I have all of this right?Unfortunately, you can't have both. Some protocols are more complex, but if we stick to the schematic protocol, there is a middle zone (represented by B and C in your table) where the result is stochastic with the weight moving from a high chance of a false positive (B) to a high chance of a false negative (C).

Now, some might find this unfair to the paranormal claimant, but the only reasonable thing to do when setting up a single trial with high stakes, on an extraordinary claim, is the require extraordinary evidence, which means that the ideal point is just where C ends and D begins.

The claimant can counteract this by stating a conservative success rate.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

The article made no mention of the voices in Connie Sonne's head.
The article made it look like Ms. Sonne was an active participant in the procedure, whereas my research indicates she was no more than a gullible dupe.

Excuse me! Do you really suggest that the JREF should mention that they thought they were dealing with 'the voices in CS's head'?

They were dealing with Connie Sonne, and as long as not otherwise proved, anybody doing that must assume that she is a reponsible person. Had it been evident that she was insane, then the only proper thing to do would be to refuse to negotiate at all.

It seems that you have determined that CS is not sane and are complaining that JREF has treated her as if she was.

Hans

[Ivor the Engineer]

Unfortunately, you can't have both.

<snip>

In many cases you can. Linda has already explained this countless times.

[fls]

I think we are back to agreeing on the facts. If you set up a test to give a high assurance against false positives, you will increase the risk of false negatives. That is a simple mathematic fact.

I refer you to this example by SkepticScott:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5634965#post5634965

Linda

[fls]

Unfortunately, you can't have both. Some protocols are more complex, but if we stick to the schematic protocol, there is a middle zone (represented by B and C in your table) where the result is stochastic with the weight moving from a high chance of a false positive (B) to a high chance of a false negative (C).

Now, some might find this unfair to the paranormal claimant, but the only reasonable thing to do when setting up a single trial with high stakes, on an extraordinary claim, is the require extraordinary evidence, which means that the ideal point is just where C ends and D begins.

The claimant can counteract this by stating a conservative success rate.

Hans

Hans, for the sake of daSkeptic, I feel obliged to point out that your explanation is wrong. I've pretty much given up on you, but I'd prefer that you don't affect others' understanding.

Linda

[petre]

Well, that's my question. Why would we assume that it's important to protect those who are exploited by psychics when we aren't interested in protecting those who are exploited by the JREF?

Linda

Well, we wouldn't "assume that it's important to protect those who are exploited by psychics when we aren't interested in protecting those who are exploited by the JREF". At least I hope we wouldn't. That's why I suggested we assume the opposite of that, namely "that it is equally important to protect" both.

Your arguement in stating the first assumption is, perhaps, that JREF isn't interested in the welfare of applicants, but that wasn't my question.

My question, then, was taking that assumption (again, I'm talking about "that the welfare of either is equally important"), what changes could be made at the JREF to improve protection of the applicants without sacrificing the service they do for the victims of psychics?

You see, if we are able to determine some positive change for applicants, we could suggest such change. If such a change appears sound and the JREF declines it without reason, then one would have grounds for suggesting JREF was uninterested in the welfare of applicants.

You've made one suggestion already in the intervening discussion:
Something like?...

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, you may be at a disadvantage if the test is set near the success rate you think you have. It is to your advantage to perform controlled tests to help you choose a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."



If I'm not mistaken JREF already points applicants to the forum as a resource, it may seem reasonable to suggest more specifically that they seek assistance on establishing a success rate favorable to the applicant's chances via self-testing. Would you care to send it via e-mail, or shall I? (unless a moderator comments in the meantime, noting that JREF has been made aware of such suggestion I suppose).

[The Man]

Something like?...

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, you may be at a disadvantage if the test is set near the success rate you think you have. It is to your advantage to perform controlled tests to help you choose a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."

All you really need is the last sentence.

Again you really don’t want to be making explicit statements that could be construed as going to intent. Sure it may be an unwritten rule of contract negotiation, but no one wants to put it in writing or see it in writing on the contract or the paper work outlining the negotiation process.

“In negotiating this contract we will seek any possible advantage such that the resulting agreement will screw the ever-loving ******* **** out of you.”

Intent is difficult to infer, but if you make explicit statements (in the documentation) going to your intent that do not indicate a fair intent (or you acting in good faith) you’re much better off not including those statements. Unfortunate though it may be, if that leaves a somewhat naive person to figure out the potential ramifications of the agreed success rate on their own, but again this is not an ideal world.



I agree that there is a substantial number for whom it will make no difference. And that includes the audience, as well. I am thinking of the few where you can actually make a difference (and I think Pavel is one of them). I have been a teacher, so I know what it's like to keep trying to get through over and over and over again. But those few times that you do are all the reward that you need.

Indeed if it reaches just one it is easy to say it is worth it, but there may be other factors to consider (particularly as I mentioned before legal ramifications) when entering into a contract. Rightfully so, those matters are up to the attorneys and the administrator of the MDC.




ETA: I have selfish motives as well, as I am interested in pursuing claims of anomalies in a way that would allow for real progress. Identifying skilled individuals is one way to pursue this, so I don't want to miss an opportunity to do so.

Well data is collected, I don’t know how readily available it is, but I don’t see why the JREF can’t have its cake (the prize remains unclaimed) and eat it too (get good and useful data even in a failing tests).




I think the points that you raised can serve as an incentive, though. If you make it clear to the claimant that it is their fault if the protocol is not fair, by telling them that they shouldn't assume that it will be fair just because both have agreed to a particular success rate, maybe that will get them to take a step back from defensive mode into active participant mode. I don't know.

Again rough ground legally, fair is what both parties agree is fair, unless of course one party specifically makes assertions that go to intent and that intent being to deliberately deceive the other party. Nothing makes the understanding of the success rate by one party the responsibility of the other party, but once you start inferring an intent, or just the potential, to obfuscate a potential lack of fairness by the agreed success rate you leave your self open (I think) to matters of legal redress. As long as you don’t make that assertion explicit in writing, its caveat emptor when it comes to the success rate (for both parties). Once you do start claiming not only a potential lack of understanding by the applicant of the implications of the success rate, but also explicitly remark to a potential, or intent, to use that lack of understanding in a way that you also explicitly state goes to the fairness of the agreement, you’ve just opened up a very big nasty can of worms and dumped them all over yourself (again I think, since I’m no lawyer).




If you give them cause to mistrust what they are attesting to?

Linda

Not really sure what you are asking here, but the one they really should not be trusting is themselves and that is whom they need to be given cause to mistrust. Again it is most likely that lack of mistrust in themselves that has brought them to this juncture in the first place.


My own disclaimer.

I am not a lawyer nor do I have any connection nor affiliation to or with the JREF or the MDC, other then simply being a member of this discussion forum.

Dan “The Man”.

[connie sonne]

To Weirld : You do`nt believe in magic........ neither do I.

People can call themself magican. It`s people who can fool the eyes and minds - AND people who works together with scientists and[U] electric engineers[U] and so on.

Then there are people who really can something in diffenrent ways - but that is NOT magic.

Unfortunately among them, there are frauds and charlatans. People who are spinning gold on their claims. They CAN`T do anything at all - they are just frauds and they know it. Among them you find Uri Geller, Houdini and Sylvia Brown( and many others). Sylvia can`t do anything, but her son can by the way!

Those three person are spinning gold, no doubt about that, and JREF made it be possible. They worked together ! in a "mission". That mission will be described later on at my website www.conniesonne.dk .

But shortly : JREF and many others knows that there are something bigger, but they don`t know what it is. .

IF they allowed people who really could do something to convince people out there about the paranormal

[Sean84]

To Weirld : You do`nt believe in magic........ neither do I.

People can call themself magican. It`s people who can fool the eyes and minds - AND people who works together with scientists and[U] electric engineers[U] and so on.

Then there are people who really can something in diffenrent ways - but that is NOT magic.

Unfortunately among them, there are frauds and charlatans. People who are spinning gold on their claims. They CAN`T do anything at all - they are just frauds and they know it. Among them you find Uri Geller, Houdini and Sylvia Brown( and many others). Sylvia can`t do anything, but her son can by the way!

Those three person are spinning gold, no doubt about that, and JREF made it be possible. They worked together ! in a "mission". That mission will be described later on at my website www.conniesonne.dk .

But shortly : JREF and many others knows that there are something bigger, but they don`t know what it is. .

IF they allowed people who really could do something to convince people out there about the paranormal

Fraud.

[connie sonne]

IF JREF allowed people who really could do something to convince the rest of the population ,for example through the Challenge, that the paranormal excists, THEY would loose their control, and they will NOT do that.

And that it was it all is about : CONTROL.

But no matter what people do, think or talk about.... it will NOT change the way the truth will come out.

But I`m sorry to say that a lot of people still will die before someone are going to listen to me. And I`m also sorry to say, that I can`t do anything about that. I can only do what I`m doing.

[connie sonne]

JREF knows that I`m talking the truth. Before the Challenge, I gave them a cd-rom with the voices from those who are behind me. They KNOW that I could`nt manipulate with the soundfiles- Experts could easily control it!
JREF NEVER mentioned it for the public. And yes Weirdl: you are right, I NEVER designed the parameters myself, JREF did but I agreed. As you can read, I tried to convince JREF that I could do a lot more things, which would`nt be so boring as it was. I will write much much morre at my website.

I also gave the voicefiles to Bart Farkas and Mark Edwards. They NEVER mentioned it. Mark is a part of "the mission" , trying to debunk everything paranormal in his kind of way.

Bart Farkas is only being used - and he is afraid of his job. And I understand that!

I do like both of the men anyway, it is NOT their fault things are what they are!


There are NO GODS and the DEVILS are only the human being!!

All religion is man made, just because of one thing : For getting control over it all at least, when THEIR right time comes( and it will NOT happen :) )

And Marcus: Yes, of cause I will write about the cheating, as I have told you all the time, but NOT in a brief manner, and NOT on this forum. I will be writing about it on my own website.
I know that JREF looks at my website too, they can just read it there.

[connie sonne]

To Pavel Do : You are right about saying that some people think that english is the only language. And I`m glad to say that I agree with you comment about being born in another country. I`m also glad that my english is NOT my first language:) !

The most important thing is, that people understand your and the opposite. Some people are trying to "hurt" us with our language, because they can`t hit us in another way.
I can only laugh about that, because I really don`t care at all :)!

Connie

[connie sonne]

Sean : :) You will see !

[chillzero]

IF JREF allowed people who really could do something to convince the rest of the population ,for example through the Challenge, that the paranormal excists, THEY would loose their control, and they will NOT do that.

And that it was it all is about : CONTROL.


Are you claiming that the JREF control all the information that goes out over the internet, newspapers, news broadcasts and all wider media?

[Sean84]

Sean : :) You will see !

I have seen. Don't worry about me in the future.

[connie sonne]

chillzero....who knows :),but they are a part of something much bigger than most of the people knows here!

[connie sonne]

I missed something:). When I wrote about Bart Farkas, I forgot this:

Bart Farkas is afraid of LOOSING his job. That was what I meant. Sorry.

[chillzero]

chillzero....who knows :),
Actually, I think most of us know ... and you are wrong.
If you had an ability you have any number of ways to get the news out there that the JREF could not interfere with.

but they are a part of something much bigger than most of the people knows here!
Really? Such as?
What's your evidence?

[Chaos]

chillzero....who knows :),but they are a part of something much bigger than most of the people knows here!

Really?

What about you?

Please present your evidence, as detailed and extensive as possible and with all questions that might theoretically arise already answered and with all cheap excuses for denial already covered, that you and all the other frauds are NOT part of a vast international conspiracy of frauds and conmen (and conwomen) who are out to falsely convince people of the existence of something called "supernatural powers", because they try to control everyone by making them believe that they have those powers and can do all sort of supernatural things with those powers.

In short, before you go around accusing others of fraud and conspiracy, prove to us, up to the same standards you demand, that YOU are not exactly what you claim JREF to be. Yes, I´m aware that doing so is impossible for you, because your standards are loaded like anything - well, tough luck for you, you made your bed, now lie in it.

[Marcus]

And Marcus: Yes, of cause I will write about the cheating, as I have told you all the time, but NOT in a brief manner, and NOT on this forum. I will be writing about it on my own website.
I know that JREF looks at my website too, they can just read it there.
Okay. I doubt if any JREF people read your website, but I'm sure some forum member will see it and link it here. I have to say, though, I don't think a long diatribe will convince anyone. If you actually were cheated, you could state the specifics in a paragraph or two, and it wouldn't take months to do it.

[fls]

Well, we wouldn't "assume that it's important to protect those who are exploited by psychics when we aren't interested in protecting those who are exploited by the JREF". At least I hope we wouldn't. That's why I suggested we assume the opposite of that, namely "that it is equally important to protect" both.

Your arguement in stating the first assumption is, perhaps, that JREF isn't interested in the welfare of applicants, but that wasn't my question.

My question, then, was taking that assumption (again, I'm talking about "that the welfare of either is equally important"), what changes could be made at the JREF to improve protection of the applicants without sacrificing the service they do for the victims of psychics?

Getting rid of the attitude that this:

"the test is usually set up to make it unlikely that a claimant can pass even if they have the claimed ability. In most cases, it does not appear that the claimant has the knowledge of statistics necessary to recognize this, and the JREF does not mention this, focussing instead on the odds against passing. If the claimant does recognize this and protests, such as the case with Pavel, they are given a choice of doing the unfair test or being kicked out. In neither case is agreeing to the test 'fair'."

is fair.

You see, if we are able to determine some positive change for applicants, we could suggest such change. If such a change appears sound and the JREF declines it without reason, then one would have grounds for suggesting JREF was uninterested in the welfare of applicants.

Are you willing place a bet on this? Seriously. I'm willing to shoot off an e-mail to Randi making my case, but I'm pretty certain what the response will be and I wouldn't mind getting something out of it for the effort (like a sooper dooper avatar or forum title).

You've made one suggestion already in the intervening discussion:

If I'm not mistaken JREF already points applicants to the forum as a resource, it may seem reasonable to suggest more specifically that they seek assistance on establishing a success rate favorable to the applicant's chances via self-testing. Would you care to send it via e-mail, or shall I? (unless a moderator comments in the meantime, noting that JREF has been made aware of such suggestion I suppose).

The JREF points to the forum in the FAQ. But I don't think that most applicants perceive the need to make a concerted effort. Pavel's effort was atypical. I think a statement which gives them reason to suspect that they really need to give this aspect greater attention, would get more applicants to come our (those of us who have participated in the MDC forum) way and for them to be more co-operative (like actually doing the tests we suggest).

Anyway, I'm willing to send an e-mail.

Linda

[fls]

All you really need is the last sentence.

The last sentence is already in the FAQ. I am looking at finding a way to give applicants a nudge - something that gets their attention and makes them think, "oh, maybe I better look into this a bit more."

Again you really don’t want to be making explicit statements that could be construed as going to intent. Sure it may be an unwritten rule of contract negotiation, but no one wants to put it in writing or see it in writing on the contract or the paper work outlining the negotiation process.

“In negotiating this contract we will seek any possible advantage such that the resulting agreement will screw the ever-loving ******* **** out of you.”

Intent is difficult to infer, but if you make explicit statements (in the documentation) going to your intent that do not indicate a fair intent (or you acting in good faith) you’re much better off not including those statements. Unfortunate though it may be, if that leaves a somewhat naive person to figure out the potential ramifications of the agreed success rate on their own, but again this is not an ideal world.

Indeed if it reaches just one it is easy to say it is worth it, but there may be other factors to consider (particularly as I mentioned before legal ramifications) when entering into a contract. Rightfully so, those matters are up to the attorneys and the administrator of the MDC.

Again rough ground legally, fair is what both parties agree is fair, unless of course one party specifically makes assertions that go to intent and that intent being to deliberately deceive the other party. Nothing makes the understanding of the success rate by one party the responsibility of the other party, but once you start inferring an intent, or just the potential, to obfuscate a potential lack of fairness by the agreed success rate you leave your self open (I think) to matters of legal redress. As long as you don’t make that assertion explicit in writing, its caveat emptor when it comes to the success rate (for both parties). Once you do start claiming not only a potential lack of understanding by the applicant of the implications of the success rate, but also explicitly remark to a potential, or intent, to use that lack of understanding in a way that you also explicitly state goes to the fairness of the agreement, you’ve just opened up a very big nasty can of worms and dumped them all over yourself (again I think, since I’m no lawyer).

Then simply add a modifier which makes it clear that this is unintentional.

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, due to the nature of normal variation and the biases that creep into informal experiments you may inadvertently be at a disadvantage if the test is set near the success rate you think you have. It is to your advantage to perform controlled tests to help you choose identify a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."

Otherwise, I hope you are not suggesting that it is better to hide that you intend to be unfair.

Not really sure what you are asking here, but the one they really should not be trusting is themselves and that is whom they need to be given cause to mistrust. Again it is most likely that lack of mistrust in themselves that has brought them to this juncture in the first place.

Yes, that's who they should be given cause to mistrust.

Linda

[not daSkeptic]

... I NEVER designed the parameters myself, JREF did but I agreed.

Why did you agree? I'm genuinely curious. If it was not the test you wanted, why did you not refuse?

[jsfisher]

Why? Are you arguing that critical thinking, skepticism and scientific approach only apply sometimes?

No, not at all. I am merely observing that some people seem to be getting themselves wrapped around the axle over an issue of no demonstrated significance.

[fls]

No, not at all. I am merely observing that some people seem to be getting themselves wrapped around the axle over an issue of no demonstrated significance.

So what?

Who gives a **** what other people feel like getting wrapped up about?

Linda

[Dumb All Over]

IF JREF allowed people who really could do something to convince the rest of the population ,for example through the Challenge, that the paranormal excists, THEY would loose their control, and they will NOT do that.
Connie, why do you feel you need the JREF to convince the rest of the population? If you truly have paranornal powers, couldn't you just convince the rest of the population all by yourself? Think about it. You really don't need the JREF at all to demonstrate your abilities. Go on and demonstrate all you want. No one is stopping you.

[The Man]

The last sentence is already in the FAQ. I am looking at finding a way to give applicants a nudge - something that gets their attention and makes them think, "oh, maybe I better look into this a bit more."

Sorry, my mistake it should have said the last two sentences. Giving the nudge is the big problem. One would think that when entering into a negotiation to win one million dollars from one of the leading organizations of skeptics and critical thinkers in the world, that in itself should give you reason to pause. Just like if you were going to negotiate a real-estate deal from Donald Trump or license your new software development to Microsoft. You will likely and quickly find yourself outclassed and out gunned.

Case in point.


IF JREF allowed people who really could do something to convince the rest of the population ,for example through the Challenge, that the paranormal excists, THEY would loose their control, and they will NOT do that.

And that it was it all is about : CONTROL.

But no matter what people do, think or talk about.... it will NOT change the way the truth will come out.

But I`m sorry to say that a lot of people still will die before someone are going to listen to me. And I`m also sorry to say, that I can`t do anything about that. I can only do what I`m doing.

The kind of nudging required in this instance might take a bulldozer and still get nowhere.



Then simply add a modifier which makes it clear that this is unintentional.

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, due to the nature of normal variation and the biases that creep into informal experiments you may inadvertently be at a disadvantage if the test is set near the success rate you think you have. It is to your advantage to perform controlled tests to help you choose identify a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."


A lot better, but I would still replace “be at a disadvantage” with “place yourself at a disadvantage”, again clearly and specifically identifying that it is the claimant’s responsibility to make their claim appropriately.



Otherwise, I hope you are not suggesting that it is better to hide that you intend to be unfair.

Not something I would even have to suggest. If your intent is to be unfair then you would have to be a blithering idiot to announce such intent in the documentation. If your intent is not to be unfair then you would have to be absolutely inconceivably ignorant to make assertions that such could even possibly be your intent in the documentation. Again what anyone else may consider it is irrelevant as long as those administering the challenge and negotiating the agreement consider it to be fair then their intent is to be fair.




Yes, that's who they should be given cause to mistrust.

Linda

Well that is the rub of it, Linda. Clearly, as in the case in point above, mistrusting the JREF is not a problem (at least anymore), but how do we get the one person who really needs to be mistrusted placed in an equivalent standing?

[jsfisher]

So what?

Who gives a **** what other people feel like getting wrapped up about

Me, for one. It can be the source of great amusement.

[weirdl]

Ms. Sonne! It is my honor to be addressed by you.
I apologize for repeatedly making it clear that I think you are not of sound mind. It is an important part of my argument.
I think that way about everyone who has voices like yours. Even Joan of Arc.
When I first heard about you I thought you were a fraud. The MDC is supposed to be for frauds. Then I read your website.
I found you to be extremely honest. You are a remarkable person, a better person than I will ever be. I admire you.
I will stop commenting if you say so.

[weirdl]

You are right. I apologize.
I never meant to imply that Danes spoke English badly. It was a stupid thing to say. I was only trying to poke fun of my own bad writing. It came out all wrong and I'm sorry. (Bad writing.) I have nothing but admiration for the scholarship and language skills of the Danish People.

[weirdl]

I want to make clear I suspect no conspiracy, not even a cover-up.
I don't think today's JREF could manage a conspiracy. The days of Project Alpha are long past.
It all looks like ordinary everyday human bias to me. It's so easy to forget to mention facts that make us look bad and exaggerate facts that make us look good. We all do it. That's why checks like peer review are so important. That's why it's so important to post the source materials so readers can fact check.

[TheDoLittle]

it is NOT what you think at all. I will return.
When come back, bring explanation, 'k?

Also, if and when you return, would you mind revealing the location of Madeleine McCann?



ETA: I see you did came back and still no Maddie. <sigh>

[connie sonne]

Weirdl: Thank you for your comment. Of course I don`t want you to stop commenting. All people have their rights to tell and discuss their oppinions. Thank "god" for that:) ! But sometimes I wonder: How can people judge other people without knowing them at all ? This is not for you - I only ask generally. People can be very rud. But again....it`s their problems :).

People ask me to reveal the place where Maddie is. I don`t know now, if she is moved again, but I have told it all. I wrote it all at my website, and if people are`nt interested in that, they must be without.

Normally I don`t write so much here. I don`t want to spent the time with it, I have much more important things to do I must say. But sometimes I do, therefore I will explain some of it here. But you must understand, that most of your questions about me can`t be answered before I tell the HOLE story. Therefore my website

[connie sonne]

Things has to be done in the right way. Things are not as you all see it. Eventhough you try to compare me with others who claims they have abillities, it will not work.

It is NOT how it works.

And Weirdl: No you are right, JREF can`t mannage a conspiracy themself - but they are NOT alone. As I said before, they are a part of something much bigger. And also about that I will write it at my website.

Dumb All Over : Yes I have the powers, but it don`t work as you and many others have described. It works like this: One step at time, this one step leads to another step. Strange for you - but not for me, I`m used to it now :). and yes of course I will demonstrate it all - again, when the right time comes:). You ask why I believe JREF will try to convince the rest of the population? As I told before, it takes a lot of time to write it and I can`t make it shortly because it is not enough that I have it all in my head - you all want evidences, right?? And you will get it !!

[connie sonne]

Da Skeptic : No, it was NOT the test I wanted. But I did agree because of one thing : Eventhough I knew on beforehand that JREF wasn`t what they looked like - I knew that something would happen. The next step on my way. I had a feeling before the Challenge that I did not get the money. But I did not care.

It was NOT my point at all.

And yes, I was rigth, something happend. The next step. The cheating. If I didn`t go to Vegas, I would not have known about it, would I ?
About my abillities you must know : Dowsing and the voices are only a part of it :)!!

Connie

[Pixel42]

Eventhough you try to compare me with others who claims they have abillities, it will not work.

1. X claims to have paranormal ability and applies for MDC

2. Upon questioning on this forum it becomes clear that X's belief that they have a paranormal ability is based on anecdotal evidence and they have never done any rigorous self-testing

3. It is patiently explained to X by several posters how easy it is to inadvertantly fool yourself into believing you have a paranormal ability using anecdotal evidence alone. Concepts like confirmation bias and cold reading are simply and clearly explained. X either ignores this information or insists that it doesn't apply to them

4. It is patiently explained to X by several posters that a JREF test protocol is designed to eliminate these mundane explanations and that it is essential they do a dry run of the agreed test protocol before undergoing the formal test. If they do so they will almost certainly discover that their supposed ability does not exist. X ignores this advice and assures us that they are 100% confident that they will pass the formal test even though they have never tried it or anything remotely like it.

5. X takes the JREF test and fails it completely and utterly

6. X desperately tries to find some excuse for why they failed, never once considering that the reason is that they have indeed inadvertantly been fooling themselves all along and a rigorous test protocol revealed that fact, exactly as JREF forum posters had predicted

7. X never ever repeats the JREF test protocol but continues to convince themselves of their ability using the same flawed anecdotal evidence that led them to wrongly believe they had it in the first place

I have seen this sequence of events unfold several times since I started reading this forum, and sadly watched you follow it exactly. So that comparison does indeed work.

[Cuddles]

Yes, of cause I will write about the cheating, as I have told you all the time, but NOT in a brief manner, and NOT on this forum. I will be writing about it on my own website.

Hmm, that sounds familiar.

I will get a website where I will put it ALL

7 months later you're still merely claiming that you will write about it at some point. Given that you're claiming not only to have been cheated out of a million dollars, but also that this cheating is somehow going to result in a lot of people dying, one might have thought you'd be a little quicker at giving everyone the "facts".

[fls]

Sorry, my mistake it should have said the last two sentences. Giving the nudge is the big problem. One would think that when entering into a negotiation to win one million dollars from one of the leading organizations of skeptics and critical thinkers in the world, that in itself should give you reason to pause. Just like if you were going to negotiate a real-estate deal from Donald Trump or license your new software development to Microsoft. You will likely and quickly find yourself outclassed and out gunned.

I suspect that the claimant is thinking more of putting that blow-hard Randi in his place. And that they expect any trickery to come from Randi. They don't expect the trickery to come from the ordinary behaviour of experiments. We need to point out that the trickery (I know, I know. That's not the word I'll use :)) is going to come from an unexpected direction.

Case in point.

The kind of nudging required in this instance might take a bulldozer and still get nowhere.

I agree. I was thinking that this would mostly be directed at the subset of applicants (which may be small) who are educable.

A lot better, but I would still replace “be at a disadvantage” with “place yourself at a disadvantage”, again clearly and specifically identifying that it is the claimant’s responsibility to make their claim appropriately.

That's a good change. I am thinking of e-mailing Randi with a proposed wording, so any tweaks are appreciated.

Well that is the rub of it, Linda. Clearly, as in the case in point above, mistrusting the JREF is not a problem (at least anymore), but how do we get the one person who really needs to be mistrusted placed in an equivalent standing?

Bulldozer? :)

I'm thinking that saying something unexpected, that making it explicit that it is the applicants that usually place themselves at a disadvantage, might get them to start to doubt (as long as it doesn't look like an excuse).

Linda

[fls]

Me, for one. It can be the source of great amusement.

Shouldn't you be egging it on, then?

Linda

[not daSkeptic]

Da Skeptic : No, it was NOT the test I wanted. But I did agree because of one thing : Eventhough I knew on beforehand that JREF wasn`t what they looked like - I knew that something would happen. The next step on my way. I had a feeling before the Challenge that I did not get the money. But I did not care.

It was NOT my point at all.

This explanation would be much more credible had you documented your objective prior to the test. As it stands, there is no way to tell whether you're being honest and this truly was your goal, or whether you're just changing the goal to fit the results. You may in fact be telling the truth, but now there's no way to know.

[weirdl]

Big men.
For shame.
This is exactly the kind of behavior I've been talking about.
Way to go, JREF.

[TSR]

Big men.
For shame.
This is exactly the kind of behavior I've been talking about.
Way to go, JREF.

,
You can actually *document* this "bullying" and show that is is taking place with JREF's approval

Because all *I've* seen is you libeling Connie by saying she's not competent to handle her own affairs, and Connie ducking the question of where Maddie is, while pretending she's been "cheated"
,

[petre]

Getting rid of the attitude that this:

"the test is usually set up to make it unlikely that a claimant can pass even if they have the claimed ability. In most cases, it does not appear that the claimant has the knowledge of statistics necessary to recognize this, and the JREF does not mention this, focussing instead on the odds against passing. If the claimant does recognize this and protests, such as the case with Pavel, they are given a choice of doing the unfair test or being kicked out. In neither case is agreeing to the test 'fair'."

is fair.


Part of the difficulty in altering this mindset is that that the applicant-adversarial parties (skeptics) belive that ANY test which sufficiently excludes the paranormal will be "unfair" to the applicant. Why bother with a more complicated protocol the applicant won't pass when a simple protocol the applicant won't pass will do?

There is an added difficulty in that the JREF often gets very poor data from an applicant. An applicant may use terms like "most of the time" to describe a 10% success rate. While such does not grant carte blanche to disregard an applicant's input in designing a test, one could see how an institution of limited resources (among them patience) might choose to suggest parameters and elect to deem applicant-approval as a sufficient measure of "fairness", faced with the alternative of a rather detailed and focused request for an applicant to provide parameters which are likely to be insufficiently grounded anyway.

Additionally, (refering to cases like Pavel's current claim) the JREF definately has a bias against claims of marginal paranormality. Their public interest is directed to claims the public is likely to acknowledge (thus the addition of the media requirement). If even believers of the paranormal do not give a phenomenon much notice, why then ought an organization of skeptics?


Are you willing place a bet on this? Seriously. I'm willing to shoot off an e-mail to Randi making my case, but I'm pretty certain what the response will be and I wouldn't mind getting something out of it for the effort (like a sooper dooper avatar or forum title).

The JREF points to the forum in the FAQ. But I don't think that most applicants perceive the need to make a concerted effort. Pavel's effort was atypical. I think a statement which gives them reason to suspect that they really need to give this aspect greater attention, would get more applicants to come our (those of us who have participated in the MDC forum) way and for them to be more co-operative (like actually doing the tests we suggest).

Anyway, I'm willing to send an e-mail.



I would be far more willing to place a wager on the effectiveness of your suggested wording changes resulting in more applicants self-testing, but allowing for the possiblity you may be a master crafter of motivational prose I believe I would like to see the request first before placing my bet :)

I would be interested to see your e-mail, when ready, and any response you get. While I did joke about your offer of a bet, I also don't think I'd bet against a suggestion that may encourage an applicant to do more self-testing with minimal effort required on the part of the JREF.

[Paul2]

Big men.
For shame.
This is exactly the kind of behavior I've been talking about.
Way to go, JREF.

Weirdl, I started with post #211 and didn't see any bullying. I saw several posters respond substantively and they formed a conclusion that is definitely not favorable to Connie, but letting the chips fall where they may entails just that type of thing, and it's not bullying.

So, either I missed it after post #211, in which case please enlighten me, or the bullying happened before post #211, in which case can you please provide specific quotes, or I missed the bullying after post #211, please enlighten me in this case too.

[weirdl]

No, there was no evidence of Ms. Sonne's mental state in the packet. There was her initial letter (monograph) of submission, an affidavit from an academic, and a newspaper clipping, but there were no medical or psychiatric reports that I recall. Those of us who read her letter were free to speculate about her mental state, but we had abolutely no proof of anything.

Am I to understand the only way the JREF is allowed to determine if the applicant is of sound mind is if the applicant spontaneously includes a certificate of insanity with their application?
Without such a certificate the JREF is free to conceal any details that might lead one to speculate about the applicant's mental state?

[weirdl]

That would seem ideal for both the JREF and those concerned about the exploitation of the deranged.

Putting the JREF and "those concerned about the exploitation of the deranged" in different categories is a bad sign.

[Daide]

Now, I may be wrong about this but how often have MDC's shown anything higher than random chance? I understand that asking for 70% accuracy to pass to the actual challenge seems like these odds may lead to a false negative but I'm curious as to how many have shown to even have better than guessing.

Please don't feel that I am begging the question. I honestly am curious to know about how much above random chance these results wind up being. I'd be more than happy to have a stipulation in the MDC that if the first test winds up with a result slightly above statistical significance that another test should be run.

[Uncayimmy]

Now, I may be wrong about this but how often have MDC's shown anything higher than random chance? I understand that asking for 70% accuracy to pass to the actual challenge seems like these odds may lead to a false negative but I'm curious as to how many have shown to even have better than guessing.

Please don't feel that I am begging the question. I honestly am curious to know about how much above random chance these results wind up being. I'd be more than happy to have a stipulation in the MDC that if the first test winds up with a result slightly above statistical significance that another test should be run.

Define statistically significant.

You also have to look at what the possible results are. Take, for example, VisionFromFeeling's missing kidney detection test. There were three trials where she had to pick the target out of 12 possible locations. The possible results were roughly:

0 - 1 in 4
1 - 1 in 4
2 - 1 in 52
3 - 1 in 1,728

How would you deal with that?

[Andrew Wiggin]

Big men.
For shame.
This is exactly the kind of behavior I've been talking about.
Way to go, JREF.

Just so we're clear on this:

You're actually saying that asking connie to tell the truth, follow through with her promises, and take responsibility for her actions is bullying, but that calling her crazy is OK...

Right...

A

[Daide]

Define statistically significant.

You also have to look at what the possible results are. Take, for example, VisionFromFeeling's missing kidney detection test. There were three trials where she had to pick the target out of 12 possible locations. The possible results were roughly:

0 - 1 in 4
1 - 1 in 4
2 - 1 in 52
3 - 1 in 1,728

How would you deal with that?

Well what I'm talking about depends entirely on the test. If there's... let's say 10 trails of 10 or what not then what I'm talking about becomes far simpler. If there's only 3 trials then obviously what I'm talking about isn't going to work. Some tests could obviously take a long time with too many trials but at the same time please realize I'm not offering a magic solution that works in every and all MDC's.