IIG Live Streaming preliminary $50,000 Paranormal Challenge of Clairaudient

[Susan Gerbic]

On Sunday, August 21, 2011 at 3:00pm PT the Independent Investigations Group will be streaming live the preliminary demonstration of a self described clairaudient. The claimant professes to be able to hear discussions about himself from up to 400 feet. The protocol that was mutually agreed to by both the claimant and the IIG is that a small group of IIG members will be reading from 25 index cards, randomly selected from a group of 50 cards. Each phrase on the card will be read twice by different people.

The claimant will be located in a soundproof room on a different floor in the CFI building. He will be notified by walkie-talkie when the phrases are being spoken and he will write down the phrase he heard. All 50 phrases were agreed to by both parties, but the choices made as to which ones will be in the 25 spoken are random. The claimant must write down exactly what he hears.

The protocol states that the claimant must get 13 of the 25 phrases correct in order to pass this demonstration and move to the final phase of the challenge for the $50,000 prize. If the claimant passes this demonstration the final challenge will be set for a future date with a new agreement on the protocol.

The claimant declined to bring a "speaker" stating that as long as he was able to meet the IIG speakers before hand (and listen to them speak) he did not need his own speaker.

Please join us in this exciting adventure into exploring the limits of knowledge.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/clairaudient-test


Susan Gerbic
Investigator IIGWest
www.iigwest.org (http://www.iigwest.org/)

susan@iigwest.org

[rjh01]

What is the name of this self described clairaudient? Has he done anything like this before?

[Susan Gerbic]

I don't have permission to mention his name yet.

This person hasn't been tested before, I don't think he has approached anyone about his "skills" before.

[SezMe]

OT
Do you commute from Salinas to IIG meetings?
/OT

[Susan Gerbic]

SezMe ~ Actually I do.

I skype in a lot of meetings, and I'm forever on the Internet working on projects. We are in contact all the time.

I'm on a plane tomorrow afternoon to LAX.

[Alan]

Very interesting! Hopefully I'll be able to catch this.

[wardenclyffe]

While it does not sound like it will be particularly action-packed, I'll be watching.

Ward

[SezMe]

SezMe ~ Actually I do.

I skype in a lot of meetings, and I'm forever on the Internet working on projects. We are in contact all the time.

I'm on a plane tomorrow afternoon to LAX.
Wow. And I dropped out of the group because I couldn't stand driving down to LA as often as necessary. Of course, we didn't have all the tech tools now available to make other types of participation possible.

[Susan Gerbic]

SezMe

If it is important you make time. The IIG is doing more as a group than most added together.

A lot is handled on the Internet as I said.

[AdMan]

While it does not sound like it will be particularly action-packed, I'll be watching.

Ward


These things are never action-packed, but still interesting. I'm planning on watching too.

[Susan Gerbic]

Wardenclyff

You never know? We could be watching the beginning of the end of science as we know it. Pretty cool to be on the edge of all this.

[Almo]

We could be watching the beginning of the end of science as we know it.

:dl:

Don't get me wrong; I believe we should do these tests. But...

[666]

I calculate that it's 30 minutes to go until the big event. Can ayone confirm that my conversion from UTC is correct?

[jsfisher]

you got it.

There's a stream up now, but no audio, horrible contrast, and not much going on.

[666]

Looks like a guy in a glowing shirt being strapped into an electric chair.

[SezMe]

There's folks at IIG that know the video/broadcast biz extremely well. Why was this stream so bad both visually and in audio?

[Denver]

Turns out the claimant has been treated the past couple years by a psychiatrist for schizophrenia and hearing voices. If the IIG knew this before the test, I think it was wrong to subject this person to a test for clairaudience. As much as possible, people obviously suffering with mental illnesses (for instance, those who admit to having such an illness and being treated) should be screened out of this kind of thing.

[Lucian]

Turns out the claimant has been treated the past couple years by a psychiatrist for schizophrenia and hearing voices. If the IIG knew this before the test, I think it was wrong to subject this person to a test for clairaudience. As much as possible, people obviously suffering with mental illnesses (for instance, those who admit to having such an illness and being treated) should be screened out of this kind of thing.

On the Ustream chat, they said they'd asked him before the test if he was on medication and he said he was not. That may be because he'd stopped taking it.

[Denver]

On the Ustream chat, they said they'd asked him before the test if he was on medication and he said he was not. That may be because he'd stopped taking it.

I had a lot of trouble with the uStream. But, I would hope that if a claimant comes to the IIG with claims of hearing voices, some of their first questions would be whether the person has a mental illness diagnosis, is he schizophrenic, has he taken medication for this. So, if the IIG knew this, they should not have tested him. And if they did not think to ask these questions when the claimant said he could hear voices and people talking about him, these IIG people really should not be testing anybody.

[hcmom]

I had a lot of trouble with the uStream. But, I would hope that if a claimant comes to the IIG with claims of hearing voices, some of their first questions would be whether the person has a mental illness diagnosis, is he schizophrenic, has he taken medication for this. So, if the IIG knew this, they should not have tested him. And if they did not think to ask these questions when the claimant said he could hear voices and people talking about him, these IIG people really should not be testing anybody.

Does being schizophrenic automatically disqualify you for having a paranormal ability?

[Denver]

Does being schizophrenic automatically disqualify you for having a paranormal ability?

I have no idea. What I am saying, is if someone with a mental illness of a type known for hearing voices and people talking about them, is claiming he is hearing voices and people talking about him, he should not be subject for that kind of paranormal testing.

[jsfisher]

I have no idea. What I am saying, is if someone with a mental illness of a type known for hearing voices and people talking about them, is claiming he is hearing voices and people talking about him, he should not be subject for that kind of paranormal testing.


Well, if someone who was actually clairaudient visited a psychiatrist, what would the likely diagnosis be?

[Denver]

Well, if someone who was actually clairaudient visited a psychiatrist, what would the likely diagnosis be?

Once any clairaudient is shown to exist, healthy or otherwise, I might reexamine my opinion on this IIG test. I also was not thrilled about the way the one IIG guy, when notified that they were bringing in the claimant, made the crack "Send in the clown... doh!". Yeah, funny. But not very respectful for the role.

[seekinshadows]

Considering the fact that someone who claims to have a psychic ability would possibly also claim that the voices they are hearing is part of that said ability, then it would be not in the interest of the challenge to disqualify him simply on his supposed "mental illness" alone. Who's to say that the voices he hears aren't indeed a psychic ability in of itself (or themselves - depending upon how many voices he hears, LOL).
Investigating claims of the paranormal, by nature, IIG would have to open themselves up to such possibilities and arguments.

And what a psychiatrist would say about someone hearing voices is kind of a moot point because most psychiatrists would say that anyone claiming any psychic ability would have some sort of mental illness or disorder.

I wasn't able to watch the live feed, but I do agree about the professionalism of comments, if such a comment was made. It is unscientific to go into a test or experiment with such a bias. That alone is considered a possible variable and anyone claiming to be scientific should guard against it.

[rjh01]

I have no idea. What I am saying, is if someone with a mental illness of a type known for hearing voices and people talking about them, is claiming he is hearing voices and people talking about him, he should not be subject for that kind of paranormal testing.

Well, if someone who was actually clairaudient visited a psychiatrist, what would the likely diagnosis be?

Can I modify what Denver says? I think any testing should be done only after either

a. Evidence sighted that the person earns their income from claimed paranormal powers or
b. Under the supervision of medical people, such as a psychiatrist who have known the person for months or years.

If the person is not mentally sick their GP should be able to certify everything is OK. If the psychiatrist thinks they may have real powers then this would be a good way to find out. They can do their own testing and when they cannot show that it does not exist then IIG would be a good next step.

It is not up to IIG, or similar organisations, to work out if they will be doing any damage to the claimant mentally.

[chillzero]

Once any clairaudient is shown to exist, healthy or otherwise, I might reexamine my opinion on this IIG test.

Catch 22.

[Pixel42]

Can someone who watched it say what the result was please?

[wardenclyffe]

I missed the live stream, but apparently, the claimant called off the test when they were just a few words in. He wasn't hearing what was being said in another room. We've all seen other claimants who continued anyway, perhaps hoping to get lucky and win the lottery. Gotta give this guy credit for quitting when it was clear that his powers weren't working.

Ward

[SezMe]

Can someone who watched it say what the result was please?
I only caught the last part of the stream. Jim Underdown, the head screw of the LA IIG said (paraphrasing): "You failed."

[Rasmus]

Catch 22.

Indeed.

In fact, I would expect people to go mad if they could really hear what other people are thinking about them - not even factoring in that everybody else really would treat them as if they were mad.

It is hard to imagine how it would play out - I could be easily convinced of such an ability, after all. Someone would just have to tell me what I was thinking 3 or 5 times in a row.

[chillzero]

Indeed.

In fact, I would expect people to go mad if they could really hear what other people are thinking about them - not even factoring in that everybody else really would treat them as if they were mad.

It is hard to imagine how it would play out - I could be easily convinced of such an ability, after all. Someone would just have to tell me what I was thinking 3 or 5 times in a row.


Well ... I was more thinking of the following aspect, rather than that they may go mad, if they had such an ability:
Turns out the claimant has been treated the past couple years by a psychiatrist for schizophrenia and hearing voices.
Well, if someone who was actually clairaudient visited a psychiatrist, what would the likely diagnosis be?
I have no idea. What I am saying, is if someone with a mental illness of a type known for hearing voices and people talking about them, is claiming he is hearing voices and people talking about him, he should not be subject for that kind of paranormal testing.

A person claims they hear voices. Under current mental health regulations, they will likely be diagnosed with schizophrenia. According to Denver this should disallow them from being tested for .... hearing voices.

Should it ever happen that a person is actually clairaudient, then under Denver's requirements, they could not be tested, because without evidence of clairaudience, no one could be tested for it. It qualifies as "a mental illness of a type known for hearing voices". :boggled:

[Rasmus]

Well ... I was more thinking of the following aspect, rather than that they may go mad, if they had such an ability:

and i agree with that. i just think that additionally it is not a very far fetched idea that you would go mad - hence even being mad (rather than being falsly diagnosed because of your ability) would not be a good reason to not test a person.

[chillzero]

gotcha, sorry :)

[rjh01]

Anyone who could read other people's minds could make lots of money playing poker for a living. And do it in conditions that most of us would say are not good enough to test for paranormal powers. There would be several paranormal ways of doing it too. If this person had the ability he claimed then he too could win big at poker.

Maybe that is why no-one has won the MDC? They are all too busy playing poker.

[Rasmus]

Anyone who could read other people's minds could make lots of money playing poker for a living. And do it in conditions that most of us would say are not good enough to test for paranormal powers. There would be several paranormal ways of doing it too. If this person had the ability he claimed then he too could win big at poker.

Maybe that is why no-one has won the MDC? They are all too busy playing poker.

And that is only one of the more obvious choices. You could be a police investigator, an interrogation specialist, a hostage negotiator or really anything that needs some people skills. And you would be incredibly successful in all of these.

[Denver]

Can I modify what Denver says? I think any testing should be done only after either

a. Evidence sighted that the person earns their income from claimed paranormal powers or


It might be a good idea to prioritize these kinds of cases, if part of the goal of the IIG is to protect society from fakes and frauds. But I'm not sure if that is one of their goals. If one of their goals is to educate on the subject of paranormal claims and how to test them, then I think even those with no financial involvement (except hoping for the $50K) should probably still be allowed to be tested.


b. Under the supervision of medical people, such as a psychiatrist who have known the person for months or years.

If the person is not mentally sick their GP should be able to certify everything is OK. If the psychiatrist thinks they may have real powers then this would be a good way to find out. They can do their own testing and when they cannot show that it does not exist then IIG would be a good next step.

It is not up to IIG, or similar organisations, to work out if they will be doing any damage to the claimant mentally.

It might be a good idea to have at least someone qualified, like a psychiatrist, involved in the pre-selection process, to help decide if it is a good idea to test the person. Ideally, the person's doctor would be great (though perhaps privacy rules might make that difficult). I agree that no one other than the client's own doctor can really make an informed medical judgment as to the risks to the clients mental health (perhaps someone very close to the client, like their family, could also have good input). But I think still it is possible for even a non-medical person to decide if the test might be ethically questionable, which in this case I believe it was, since it seemed to risk the dignity of an ill and vulnerable human being.


A person claims they hear voices. Under current mental health regulations, they will likely be diagnosed with schizophrenia. According to Denver this should disallow them from being tested for .... hearing voices.

Should it ever happen that a person is actually clairaudient, then under Denver's requirements, they could not be tested, because without evidence of clairaudience, no one could be tested for it. It qualifies as "a mental illness of a type known for hearing voices". :boggled:

Yes that can be a Catch-22. However, under my suggestions, they would not be tested for such as claim if it is know beforehand they were diagnosed with schizophrenia and taking/taken medication for hearing voices. My reasoning is 1) If we assume clairaudience can exist in humans, not all will have been under medical care, and so non-diagnosed ones could perhaps be tested, with the proper care, just not those that the IIG knew were mentally ill, and 2) It is not ethical to treat a person solely as a means to an ends, and deciding that determining if clairaidience really exists is more important than the health and dignity of someone who is potentially ill, is not ethically right. If that is a Catch-22, then so be it.

[jsfisher]

Can someone who watched it say what the result was please?

It became very clear the claimant had never really tested his ability. He detected nothing during the testing, and asked that it be stopped.

He said he'd been hearing voices at a distance for the past three years or so. He characterized them as gossip about him, never about other people or things. During the test, where two individuals 70 feet away in another room (he claimed to have a range of 400 yards) recited words and phrases randomly from the list the claimant had created, he heard nothing, and eventually asked that they think about him as they read the words.

It went down hill from there. The claimant seemed to struggling to understand what adjustments needed to be made to make it work, that the failure was test not him.

Except for the glib off-camera remark ("send in the clowns"), the IIG was professional in its handling of the testing. I did think they pushed a bit to much in the post-test interview to suggest the claimant had deluded himself, but that's mostly an impression.