Statistics regarding applicants

[CWL]

I recently asked Mr. Randi to notify a certain association of dowsers regarding the existence of the JREF Million Dollar Challenge.

In doing so (I received a copy of the communication to the association) Mr. Randi pointed out that some 80 % of all applicants have been dowsers. This got me thinking that it might be of interest to post statisticts regarding past applicants on the JREF homepage - perhaps a table specifying the nature of the claim, the applicant's nationality, etc.

Apart from having a certain amusement value, such statistics would give an interesting indication regarding the frequency of certain bogus claims of a paranormal nature.

[CWL]

No replies... was my proposal really that boring?

[BillyJoe]

CWL,

86 looks and no replies, hey. Pretty embarassing isn't it.
Happened to me too recently - 66 looks in one day, then nothing, and not a single reply. Oh well :(

BillyJoe.

[AliasMiles]

i think it's a great idea. i would love to see a list of all past applicants and their claims.

[Paperghost]

I agree, an excellent idea.

[Questioninggeller]

I think it's a great idea

[CWL]

Thanks everybody. It feels much better now! :D

[SFB]

From Randi's FAQ page (http://www.randi.org/jr/faq.html):


"We at JREF must offer to test any and every applicant, because we cannot be the judges of whether a claim is likely to be valid. Only occasionally, we encounter a claim that is just so silly, we do not offer to go ahead with negotiations. Example: a person claimed to be controlling every event in the world just by shaking his head, and even sent us a video of himself in action. He also "fed" a spirit living in a black stone, through a hole in that stone. We are tolerant, but not quite naive enough to spend time discussing such a claim."

Bold mine.

I support your request too, CWL; for the mere reason to hear of people so whacked!!

[CWL]

Yes, I concede that the amusement value was one of the substantive motives behind my proposal. Although it is sad to see delusional people and although charlatans may indeed be very dangerous, it cannot be denied that wierd claims are, well, pretty damn funny!

Once again, the statistics would notwithstanding be quite interesting from an informatory perspective. Knowing which quackeries are the most common would allow better information in order to prevent them (which I believe is the very essence of the JREF).

[CWL]

Does anyone have any ideas on which data to include and the form in which the data should be presented?

[kitsune]

Originally posted by CWL
Does anyone have any ideas on which data to include and the form in which the data should be presented?

I'm just throwing this stuff out, feel free to use how you like. I'm approaching this from a bit of a business school standpoint, NOT a statistician's.

Number of applicants
Number of applicants accepted for challenge
Claimed paranormal ability
Time taken to go from application to first test

And as for form,

Applicants who get laughed out the door and applicants accepted can be shown as a percentage of people taken (well, we know it's around 80, but who knows what'll come up...)

Claimed paranormal ability-- Hopefully there will be groups of more than just dowsers. Those can be separated into most common to least common. If dowsing is the only common talent, what kind of dowsing? Water? Gold? Oil?

Time can show the mean and median time, to prepare hopefuls.

[CWL]

Dear Kitsune,

Sounds great. One question (to all you regulars to this forum) - how likely is it that anyone that may implement the proposal actually will read this thread?

[kitsune]

Originally posted by CWL
One question (to all you regulars to this forum) - how likely is it that anyone that may implement the proposal actually will read this thread?

I wouldn't bank on it. I'm know JREF higher-ups read the board, but if they read it daily, they've got about 4 pages of thread subjects to wade through first. I'd send an email.

[Ladewig]

Knowing which quackeries are the most common would allow better information in order to prevent them (which I believe is the very essence of the JREF).

I posit that the applicant percentages have nothing to do with believer percentages. Millions of people believe J.E., S.B., and J.VP. can communicate with the dead. These three after-death communicators (like the vast majority of ADCers) know that they cannot pass the challenge and so do not apply for the prize. Many, many dowsers are capable of fooling themselves into believing that they have powers. These people then apply and are honestly surprised when they fail.

I suspect that the largest percentage of applicants are those that fool themselves. The second largest is probably children who have fooled their parents or guardians (e.g. claiming to read through blindfolds but actually peeking).

Here's the only statistic you need;

Number of people who claim paranormal powers...X

Number of people who can demonstrate said powers...X x 0

Nuff said.

[Liamo]

Any progress on this?

Liam

I'd be interested in seeing stats of

number of users on the forum,

and

forum posts.

This data displayed as a time-series would be neat-O.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by CWL
Yes, I concede that the amusement value was one of the substantive motives behind my proposal. Although it is sad to see delusional people and although charlatans may indeed be very dangerous, it cannot be denied that [weird] claims are, well, pretty damn funny!
Hmm. What I'm about to suggest is slightly different than what you're suggesting, but might be worth a moment's thought.

I agree very much about the amusement value. One of the high points to my week now that I've got reliable computer access much of the time (not this coming month, alas!) is turning to the JREF page and reading the commentary.

There's a syndicated feature, "News of the Weird", which is very popular and appears in a lot of those free weekly entertainment papers. The free paper in one city I get to visit often, Knoxville, recently began publishing a monthly column from a member of Rationalists of Eastern Tennessee.

Combining those two thoughts -- and your comment about the amusement value of weird claims -- wouldn't it be great if there were a weekly (or monthly) "Claims of the Weird" feature syndicated to such papers. Each column could detail a different claim, how the negotiations to do testing went, and what the outcome was. Not only could this be a good way to get the information out to a wider audience than those of us who know and love the JREF site, it would also provide welcome competition in the entertainment market to all those astrology columns papers feel compelled to run. (And if the column wound up being popular enough, it could even put some money into the treasury of a deserving skeptical group.)

[CWL]

Lovely. I especially like the idea that this could provide additional funds to the JREF.

[CWL]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Here's the only statistic you need;

Number of people who claim paranormal powers...X

Number of people who can demonstrate said powers...X x 0

Nuff said.

Nuff said? I respectfully disagree.

My main point was that the suggested statistics would give an interesting insight in the nature of the "paranormal powers" that the claimants purport to posses, i. e. Such insight is hardly gained by your suggested bundling.

[Aster]

Great idea. I hope this will be realized.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[RichardR]

OK, which one of you is "Alexander"? (http://www.randi.org/jr/051603.html) From Randi's column:

A correspondent signed only as "Alexander" seems to be having difficulty understanding some basics about the JREF. He says we should write up all the applications and what resulted, plus charging the applicants for handling their request. He also suggested that publishing all this "might help to avoid people trying to do the same test again that has already failed in the past." I responded to him:

Nothing would help an applicant avoid doing the same test. Each thinks he/she is the real thing, and cannot fail. And, we can't charge: it's against our mandate. Applicants even bitch that we won't pay the costs of their coming to Florida to be tested. Again, each and every applicant is thoroughly convinced of his/her powers, and will remain so even after failing any number of tests.

He also wants "a list of what tests have been conducted, who the challengers were and contact details or links." Sure, so long as you'll come to Florida and spend a few months getting it together. This task would be huge, involving months of full-time work and the resulting costs to the JREF. As we've repeated many times, the records are available to anyone who wants to come here and go through drawers and cartons of records and thousands of computer files.

Alexander also wrote that this investment of labor and money "would make [our] site seem more respectable and less like the crazies that [we] complain about." His perception is ridiculous. We've received wide approval and acceptance for our site — which currently receives some 85,000+ page views a day, internationally. I'll rest on that record.
Anyone? :D

Dear all,

Regarding Randi's comments


He also wants "a list of what tests have been conducted, who the challengers were and contact details or links." Sure, so long as you'll come to Florida and spend a few months getting it together. This task would be huge, involving months of full-time work and the resulting costs to the JREF. As we've repeated many times, the records are available to anyone who wants to come here and go through drawers and cartons of records and thousands of computer files.


The fact that it might be hard work doesn't remove the fact that it is needed. What is Andrew doing exactly right now...


Alexander also wrote that this investment of labor and money "would make [our] site seem more respectable and less like the crazies that [we] complain about." His perception is ridiculous.


No, your perception about his perception is, and is mistaken. You yell that peer review is needed, etc., then don't even publish your results in the slightest. The fact that it is available in 'drawers and cartons and computer files somewhere' does not make it truly available and accessible.


We've received wide approval and acceptance for our site — which currently receives some 85,000+ page views a day, internationally. I'll rest on that record.


Arguement ad populam. The fact that many people visit the site has nothing at all to do with making the records available.

The records would be valuable information to skeptic and non-skeptic alike. This should be obvious.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The fact that it might be hard work doesn't remove the fact that it is needed. What is Andrew doing exactly right now... Making himself look REAL busy as he sees Randi lugging those files in his direction. :)

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
No, your perception about his perception is, and is mistaken. You yell that peer review is needed, etc., then don't even publish your results in the slightest. The fact that it is available in 'drawers and cartons and computer files somewhere' does not make it truly available and accessible.Peer review doesn't really apply. He is not exactly performing a scientific trial after all. He is merely offering a million dollars if someone can demonstrate paranormal abilities. So, has anyone won the million dollars?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Arguement ad populam. The fact that many people visit the site has nothing at all to do with making the records available.
Yes, I guess the number of hits per day doesn't automatically make it a popular site.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The records would be valuable information to skeptic and non-skeptic alike. This should be obvious. I think we are all agreed about that. So who wants to organize those records. What are you doing exactly right now?.......SH?.......anyone?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear all,

Regarding Randi's comments



The fact that it might be hard work doesn't remove the fact that it is needed. What is Andrew doing exactly right now...

[/b]

No, your perception about his perception is, and is mistaken. You yell that peer review is needed, etc., then don't even publish your results in the slightest. The fact that it is available in 'drawers and cartons and computer files somewhere' does not make it truly available and accessible.

[/b]

Arguement ad populam. The fact that many people visit the site has nothing at all to do with making the records available.

The records would be valuable information to skeptic and non-skeptic alike. This should be obvious.

Sincerely,

S. H. [/B]Yep, I think "Alexander" was our erstwhile friend “Sherlock Holmes” (aka Whodini), before he deleted himself (again). :D

[psiphi]

Granted, going back over years of applications and specifics would be a herculean task. Wouldn't something be better than nothing? Why not come up with a format this month and start keeping the necessary records from now on.

Then we could look back in six months to a year and see where we've been and who's doing what.

:rolleyes:

Regards,

[BillyJoe]

Psiphi, why don't you apply for the job?

(Yeah, your name's "psiphi" but, at the start of a sentence, I insist on capitalizing it, sorry.)

[psiphi]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Psiphi, why don't you apply for the job?

(Yeah, your name's "psiphi" but, at the start of a sentence, I insist on capitalizing it, sorry.)

Sorry about the caps, BillyJoe. I do have the time on my hands but I do not feel qualified for the task... so I will shut up.

Best regards, :rolleyes:

[davefoc]

There was a long discussion on roughly this topic over in banter
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19713&perpage=40&pagenumber=1