JREF challenge - an idea of numbers

[DrBenway]

From the 12/12/99 commentary:

(3) To date, how many persons have been tested for the million-dollar prize offered by JREF?

That's not a simple question to answer. Many hundreds have made application, and most have had to be instructed to reapply sometimes several times because they did it incorrectly or incompletely. There are, at any given time, about 40 to 60 applicants being considered, but from experience we know that the vast majority will drop out even before any proper preliminary test can be designed. Of those who get to the preliminary stage, perhaps half will actually be tested, and some of those will quit before completion. To date, no one has actually passed the simple preliminaries and arrived at the formal test stage, though a couple dozen have completed and failed the preliminaries. So, no one has been formally tested for the big prize, though we're ready and willing."

Not to shift the goal posts Dr. Benway, but that was 4 years ago.

Also, and more importantly,


----
Many hundreds have made application,
----


how many have applied for each type of claim, and what is the breakdown per year?


----
at any given time, about 40 to 60 applicants being considered,
----


Looking for specific numbers, not a range.

Find a place that lists all the results yet that anybody has access to?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Whodini
Find a place that lists all the results yet that anybody has access to? [/B]

I can give you the important stuff I've learned so far, looking at the archives:

Most of the initial applications are reportedly incoherent.
Most of the preliminary trials involve dowsers.
You can find a detailed description of a dowsing test, with some pretty graphs to make you happy, here:
part 1: http://www.randi.org/pdf/swift1-1.pdf
part 2: http://www.randi.org/pdf/swift1-2.pdf

The above "Kassel Dowsing Test" was published in a journal called "Skeptiker" in Germany Jan. 1991.

[DrBenway]

Describes a preliminary trial of a Lithuanian psychic healer.

[DrBenway]

Test of some Indonesians who claimed to have "vibravision." Done at Weber State University in Ogden, UT.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DrBenway
To date, no one has actually passed the simple preliminaries and arrived at the formal test stage,

Which makes it somewhat implausible this "skeptic's" claim that the chance of passing the preliminary challenge is 50-1. Confirmation of yet another lie by the "skeptics".

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Which makes it somewhat implausible this "skeptic's" claim that the chance of passing the preliminary challenge is 50-1. Confirmation of yet another lie by the "skeptics". Hardly.

If a couple of dozen have taken the test, and it's a 50-1 chance, then the odds are about 3 in 5 that none of them will have passed.

Perhaps, Ian, you could do some basic arithmetic first the next time you want to call someone a liar.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DrBenway


Most of the initial applications are reportedly incoherent.
[/B]

What?? JREF have decided a priori that most of the claims cannot conceivably succeed and will refuse to test them! :eek:

look I'm not going to say anything. I just give up.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Hardly.

If a couple of dozen have taken the test, and it's a 50-1 chance, then the odds are about 3 in 5 that none of them will have passed.

Perhaps, Ian, you could do some basic arithmetic first the next time you want to call someone a liar.

What about all the people who start the preliminary testing but drop out before completing? Why did they drop out if not for the fact they reckoned they had no chance of passing?

So only 24 people have ever completed the preliminary test! How long does this preliminary test typically take? It seems strange that people just get up and walk out half way through.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What?? JREF have decided a priori that most of the claims cannot conceivably succeed and will refuse to test them! :eek:

look I'm not going to say anything. I just give up. Um, Ian -

I have corresponded at some length with a claimant who had his application rejected because it was incoherent.

I have the utmost sympathy for JREF, because incoherent is putting it mildly. He simply could not understand the necessary structure for a valid test, no matter how many people explained it to him.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Blah blah.Actually, Ian, the correct response is "I was wrong and I apologise."

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What about all the people who start the preliminary testing but drop out before completing? Why did they drop out if not for the fact they reckoned they had no chance of passing?

So only 24 people have ever completed the preliminary test! How long does this preliminary test typically take? It seems strange that people just get up and walk out half way through.

Strange? How about the simplest interpretation? They simply can't do what they say they can do. The preliminary testing is relatively loose: show us what you claim. The applicants simply can't do it.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Cheers,

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Which makes it somewhat implausible this "skeptic's" claim that the chance of passing the preliminary challenge is 50-1. Confirmation of yet another lie by the "skeptics". Ian is again confused. "Implausible" and "lie" are not synonyms.

I have already challenged Ian to document the alleged "lies" he has been told by skeptics. As expected, he has failed to do so.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
JREF have decided a priori that most of the claims cannot conceivably succeed and will refuse to test them!Another false statement from Ian. He certainly does seem to love making these fact-free accusations, doesn't he?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What?? JREF have decided a priori that most of the claims cannot conceivably succeed and will refuse to test them! :eek: How does that follow from your DrBenway quote: ”Most of the initial applications are reportedly incoherent”?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What about all the people who start the preliminary testing but drop out before completing? Why did they drop out if not for the fact they reckoned they had no chance of passing?
They probably did drop out because they reckoned they had no chance of passing. You might like to open your eyes and consider this could be because they didn’t have the special powers they said they have.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What?? JREF have decided a priori that most of the claims cannot conceivably succeed and will refuse to test them! :eek:
By "incoherent," I mean, it's difficult to figure out what the applicant is actually claiming he or she can do. This doesn't surprise me. Many people who believe they have "special powers" are mentally ill. In addition to delusions, such persons often suffer from a disorganized thought process.

Here's what Randi says about who gets tested (from the 12/12/99 commentary):
"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."

Ian, go read the dowsing test I referenced above for an example of a claim being tested. Hopefully that example will help clear up your questions about procedures.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DrBenway

By "incoherent," I mean, it's difficult to figure out what the applicant is actually claiming he or she can do. This doesn't surprise me. Many people who believe they have "special powers" are mentally ill. In addition to delusions, such persons often suffer from a disorganized thought process.

Here's what Randi says about who gets tested (from the 12/12/99 commentary):
"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."



Fair enough.

----
If a couple of dozen have taken the test, and it's a 50-1 chance, then the odds are about 3 in 5 that none of them will have passed.
----


From what I've understood, more than 50 have taken the priliminary test.

Of course, without the actual data (not merely the entertaining commentaries about the data) we have no way of telling.

We wouldn't be debating this very point if we had access to the data.

:)

[Denise]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
If a couple of dozen have taken the test, and it's a 50-1 chance, then the odds are about 3 in 5 that none of them will have passed.
----


From what I've understood, more than 50 have taken the priliminary test.

Of course, without the actual data (not merely the entertaining commentaries about the data) we have no way of telling.

We wouldn't be debating this very point if we had access to the data.

:)

Um, again.. If you go to the JREF, you can have access to the data.

Originally posted by Denise


Um, again.. If you go to the JREF, you can have access to the data.



Denise,

So every time one would like to get some data they have to fly to Florida? Then one you are there, you aren't even guaranteed access to the files. And if you are, then you have to scan through all the files and compile everything from scratch, so to speak?

If you have a different question the next week, you have to fly down and do it all over. :)

That doesn't seem too practical.

If things were in a location available to everyone who is interested, we wouldn't have this discussion, for example, over the simplest of questions: How many people have taken the preliminary test, we could just do a query on a webpage and poof, the results would appear. :)

[Denise]

Originally posted by Whodini




Denise,

So every time one would like to get some data they have to fly to Florida? Then one you are there, you aren't even guaranteed access to the files. And if you are, then you have to scan through all the files and compile everything from scratch, so to speak?

If you have a different question the next week, you have to fly down and do it all over. :)

That doesn't seem too practical.

If things were in a location available to everyone who is interested, we wouldn't have this discussion, for example, over the simplest of questions: How many people have taken the preliminary test, we could just do a query on a webpage and poof, the results would appear. :)

If the JREF allows, then fine. But it's their data, and their tests.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Whodini
how many have applied for each type of claim, and what is the breakdown per year?
Whodini, although that information may be interesting to you, it may not be interestng to the JREF.

It's possible to collect all sorts of data about certain things. But collecting data in an organized way is costly. People don't usually do it unless they have a specific question they're hoping the data will answer.

For example, I probably turn away more patients than I take, either because I think they'd be better served by someone else, or because I don't take the person's insurance, or I don't have time, etc. I could collect information about who called, when they called, what their problem is, why I recommended they go elsewhere, etc. But of what value to me would all that information be?

Likewise, if the JREF is corresponding with people who think they might want to try for the million dollars, and the correspondence sometimes goes on for a few weeks or months, or it abruptly stops, for whatever reason, well, who cares?

Looking for specific numbers, not a range.

At the stage of initial correspondence over the application, it may not always be clear which applicants are still interested and which have given up. Let's say a week goes by after the JREF sends a letter asking for clarification. Then a month goes by, but no reply from the prospective applicant. Do you see my point? It probably is more realistic to report an estimated number.

Whodini, why do you want specific numbers, as opposed to the range given of 40-60 applicants being considered at any given time? What question do you have that this information might answer?

This issue reminds me of a "bad science" red flag: some researchers will collect data on an an enormous number of variables without any hypothesis in mind relevant to those variables, then will run a bunch of statistical tests after the study is complete to see if anything stands out as significant. If the researchers report the significant correlation, but don't report all the other variables they looked at, their findings will look a lot more significant to naive readers than they really are.

Correlations between data pairs will occur by chance alone. So if you do a study on, say, the effect of prayer on illness, and you get data on days spent in the hospital as your dependent variable, but you also get data on subjective sense of improvement, time until the illness returns, ability to return to work, social activities, amount of alcohol consumed, participation in AA meetings, etc., etc., well, you're bound to find something with a significant statistical correlation, just by chance alone, if you have enough variables in your study.

Studies guilty of this sort of data mining say weird things like this:
"Prayer didn't correlate with days spent in the hospital. But it did correlate with toe nail growth, showing that prayer improves growth of new connective tissues." ;)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Whodini
From what I've understood, more than 50 have taken the priliminary test.
Go read my initial post to this thread again. I'll quote the relevant bit here: "a couple dozen have completed and failed the preliminaries."

"A couple dozen" = 24, give or take a few.

----
Whodini, why do you want specific numbers, as opposed to the range given of 40-60 applicants being considered at any given time?
----


Because I'd want a graph of claimants vs. year that looks like a time series rather than a graph with a horizontal band at 40 and a horizontal band at 60.


----
What question do you have that this information might answer?
----


None a priori, but certainly the data could suggest interesting questions, room for improvement, etc.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Whodini
Because I'd want a graph of claimants vs. year that looks like a time series rather than a graph with a horizontal band at 40 and a horizontal band at 60.
Whodini, did you even bother to read my initial post? Let me quote the relevant bit here: "There are, at any given time, about 40 to 60 applicants being considered."

If Randi had said more specifically, "at any given time, 52 applicants are being considered," how might that help you with your "claimants vs. year" graph?

What are you going to do with this graph of yours, anyway? Make a wall hanging for your dorm room? Might I suggest a nice Dali print instead?


None a priori, but certainly the data could suggest interesting questions, room for improvement, etc.

That's pretty funny. Next time I need someone to draw up a few graphs of trivial information relevant to no one, I'll know where to turn.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What?? JREF have decided a priori that most of the claims cannot conceivably succeed and will refuse to test them!


No, is has nothing to do with succeeding. They were incoherent.

How come you never told us you applied???

[PixyMisa]

I'd go with an Escher print myself.

In fact, I did.

Originally posted by Denise

If the JREF allows, then fine. But it's their data, and their tests.


Denise,

That is certainly true.

Although, if they don't allow 3rd party examination of the data upon request, one has to wonder why (besides legal reasons), and wonder if they are truly interested in free inquiry and examination of their own results.

But then again, the JREF does not claim to be a scientific institution.

I'm not dogmatic about it, just curious, and the idea of a database able to be accessed from the web is interesting.

Also, it would be nice to direct people (mostly believers) to, instead of saying something vague like: "Go to Florida", or "See the Commentaries", etc.

DrBenWay,

Yes, I did read your post.

I said from what I understand. -From what I remember hearing somewhere in the past.


----
If Randi had said more specifically, "at any given time, 52 applicants are being considered," how might that help you with your "claimants vs. year" graph?
----


I'd doubt it was constantly 52 each and every year. I'm interested in the TRENDS and overall PATTERNS.


----
What are you going to do with this graph of yours, anyway? Make a wall hanging for your dorm room? Might I suggest a nice Dali print instead?
----


LOL. I like Dali, but those animals with the really long legs give me nightmares.

What would I do with it? It is hard to say because I have no idea what the graphs would look like, now do I? In general, I'd examine them for trends and outliers, and these graphs and basic exploratory analysis would suggest further courses of analysis.

The analysis isn't too important. What is important is that interested parties have access to the data.


----
That's pretty funny. Next time I need someone to draw up a few graphs of trivial information relevant to no one, I'll know where to turn.
----


You might not be able to imagine a use for it, therefore you call it "trivial" and "relevant to no one", but it is really not relevant to your interests.

I believe thousands of other people would be interested, skeptics and believers alike.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
I'd go with an Escher print myself.

In fact, I did.


I have one of those, but I don't live in a dorm (thank God!).

I have the one of him holding a sphere.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Whodini
I'd doubt it was constantly 52 each and every year. I'm interested in the TRENDS and overall PATTERNS.


I'm seriously starting to wonder about your reading skills. Where does the word "year" appear in the phrase: "at any given time, 52 applicants are being considered"?

What is important is that interested parties have access to the data.

And who are these interested parties? What is their concern, specifically? Are they questioning whether the methods used in challenge events are valid? If so, I'd refer them to the Kassel piece for a concrete example of a test.

You realize that the "Randi challenge" isn't the only one of its kind out there. Many countries and private organizations offer similar challenges. I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for, but you may need to contact several of these organizations, before you'll be able to generalize about "the data," whatever those data are that you so long to possess.

If you can formulate a specific question, something better than, "give me all your raw data," I recommend you write to the JREF for an answer. If the information you need is in back issues of "Swift," be prepared to pay for them, just like everyone else.

----
I'm seriously starting to wonder about your reading skills.
----


*sigh*

You'll have to do better than that to get under my skin Dr. Maybe get a scalpal from your pretty assistant.


----
Where does the word "year" appear in the phrase: "at any given time, 52 applicants are being considered"?
----


If there are so many applicants at a given time, there are a certain number of applicants per year.

Am I missing something there?


----
And who are these interested parties? What is their concern, specifically? Are they questioning whether the methods used in challenge events are valid?
----



I'd suspect because I am interested and others admitted on this board to being interested, that a lot of people would be interested, and that extends to large groups of people.

Do I know each and every one of these people or groups and their concerns/ideas, no, I don't.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Whodini
If there are so many applicants at a given time, there are a certain number of applicants per year.
You can't calculate the number of applicants per year based upon Randi's statement that "at any time," 40-60 are being considered. That should be clear, right? Thus, I don't understand why you were referring to the "40-60" number, if you're wondering about applicants per year.

As I've said about a zillion times before, details regarding the JREF challenge events are in "Swift." Sorry that you have to wade through other stuff to get what you're looking for.

But you don't really give a poopie about this "data" stuff, do you? You're far more interested in trolling the boards here just to pass the time. You'll move on to some new issue in a few days, once this topic drops off the front page.

That's ok. I've played the troll myself more than once. :)

----
But you don't really give a poopie about this "data" stuff, do you? You're far more interested in trolling the boards here just to pass the time. You'll move on to some new issue in a few days, once this topic drops off the front page.
----



You made some good points regarding the year vs. at any time. But you're on ignore now for the above comments. I just don't care to spend time responding to another accuser.

:(

It might appear to be trolling, due to the fact that I reply to each and every one of the people who reply to me. Think about it.

[Skeptoid]

It's unfortunate that Randi used the phrase, "at any given time ..." because it tells you nothing about the rate at which the claims are processed nor does it tell anything about the rate at which new ones are received. It could be the same 40-60 laying around the office since 1994 for all we know.

Originally posted by Skeptoid
It's unfortunate that Randi used the phrase, "at any given time ..." because it tells you nothing about the rate at which the claims are processed nor does it tell anything about the rate at which new ones are received. It could be the same 40-60 laying around the office since 1994 for all we know.


Good points Skeptoid.

In fact saying "40 to 60 at any given time" isn't saying anything specific at all.

The rates certainly would be interesting to study- something which would be apparent by plotting the applicant numbers over the months. Perhaps there is a peak of applicants in the summer months? Why? Etc. -Could be starting points for more interesting questions.

[neutrino_cannon]

Perhaps you could ask Randi?

This is my 250th post! yay!

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Whodini
Maybe get a scalpal from your pretty assistant. I see that you are also a sexual deviant.
At least we have something in common. :cool:

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I see that you are also a sexual deviant.
At least we have something in common. :cool:


I must have missed the humor.

[BillyJoe]

Seems u did miss the humour (but then, you are an American). :D

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Seems u did miss the humour (but then, you are an American). :D


Only by geography.
:D

[BillyJoe]

I see you changed your location, but where in the hell is Delete?