Toronto psychic challenge - Don't be a dick, Randi.

[icerat]

As you might know, a Toronto self-proclaimed psychic "Nikki" told CBC last week that she'd be open to doing the million dollar challenge (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/30/psychic-challenge-randi-nikk.html)

JREF apparently tried to contact her to follow up, and failed. Today Randi issued a response (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/3-newsflash/1404-randi-foundation-responds-to-qpsychic-nikki.html) -

Nikki, I’ve read in the news that you’ve said you’ll take our Million Dollar Challenge and put your claimed psychic abilities to the test. You told CBC News, “I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities, if I was available.”

You seem to be available for interviews, but so far, we haven’t heard anything from you.

If it’s true that you have faith in your own abilities, follow through and take us up on our challenge. I hope that you do follow through, and aren’t just misleading the media to get your name in the news.

Ten years ago this week, infamous U.S. “psychic” Sylvia Browne claimed on national TV that she’d take us up on our challenge. Sylvia must have no faith in her abilities, because all these years since, we’ve been waiting for her to return our calls. James Van Praagh and others have also failed to return calls about the challenge. I hope that you have more integrity than they do.

You can reach us anytime at +1 (703) 226-3794, or at jref@randi.org, to find out more or to accept our challenge and arrange for a test of your abilities. In any case, we will keep the media informed of whether or not you accept the challenge and agree to a test.

James Randi, Founder
James Randi Educational Foundation

CBC reports Nikki's response (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/09/06/psychic-challenge-nikki-randi.html?cmp=rss%26cmp%3DAFC-I78V04166919), saying she got contacted Friday, she'll be in touch.

I think it's great the challenge is getting more publicity, and I have no doubt (rounded to several decimal places) that this "Nikki" has no psychic powers, but to be honest I found Randi's initial response obnoxious. There were a number of not so subtle attacks on "Nikki" that were not necessary in an initial contact process, and frankly I think the implied demand for a quick response is unfair and unwarranted.

Phil Plait's "Don't be a Dick" (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1065-phil-plaits-dont-be-a-dick-talk-at-tam8-now-online.html) seems to apply here. Being arrogant and obnoxious alienates people. It doesn't attract people, and it's unnecessary. Nikki said in the first CBC report -

"I don't like skeptics," Nikki said. "They not only put psychics down, they put everybody down."

In my opinion, Randi's letter reinforces that view. That's not what we should be striving for.

[Ranb]

"I don't like skeptics," Nikki said. "They not only put psychics down, they put everybody down."

Don't be a dick Nikki.

Ranb

[johnnyace]

Looks to me like Randi's just keeping it real.

[not daSkeptic]

There were a number of not so subtle attacks on "Nikki" that were not necessary in an initial contact process, and frankly I think the implied demand for a quick response is unfair and unwarranted.

It does raise some questions at least. This all started just last week, right? Why so eager? What's wrong with a little patience? Also, what's the purpose of rubbing it in about Sylvia Browne and James Van Praagh?

[icerat]

Looks to me like Randi's just keeping it real.

All well and good, but still alienates people. So why do it? Is it necessary?

Don't be a dick Nikki.

Ranb

I agree, but it's a fairly common view of skeptics. Isn't that something we should be trying to change?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would suggest that after many of these, "I'll take the challenge", psychics made such public claims and never took the MDC that Randi has good reason to send such comments. These fake psychics are making yet another false claim in this case directing that claim at Randi. The fake psychics are challenging Randi in a public forum, most likely with no intent whatsoever to take the challenge. It's understandably annoying.

But all I see in Randi's letter is a straight forward challenge and a statement of fact that this fake psychic is not the first one to pretend to intend to take the MDC. If being honest is akin to being a dick, then that leaves the alternative option of being insincerely accommodating.

[Segnosaur]

From the looks of Nikki's web site, she has been making "predictions" for years. The Million Dollar challenge has been around for years as well. As someone involved in the "Psychic" field, she should be familiar with the challenge.

Furthermore, Nikki claims she "needs to know more about the challenge". The initial CBC article was dated August 31. Even if she knew nothing about the challenge before the CBC told her, she would have had 2 days to contact JREF on her own (before JREF called and left her a message). And she had the better part of a week (yes the long weekend was in there) to investigate what the challenge was about.

If she's not contacting the JREF on her own to ask for information, and she can't figure out anything about how the challenge works after almost a week via her own investigations, then why should we cut her any slack? Strike while the iron is hot, and keep up the pressure on her.

[johnnyace]

All well and good, but still alienates people. So why do it? Is it necessary?




The mere existence of the million dollar challenge alienates people. "What? What? He wants me to prove I'm a psychic? Well, I knew he was going to challenge me about this. Where's my check?"

[not daSkeptic]

Strike while the iron is hot, and keep up the pressure on her.

And be the very aggressor skeptics are reputed to be. It would have been sufficient to simply say, "We welcome your participation. Please contact us and we'll get things going." I wouldn't even have an issue with the timing were that all that was said. But the fact that Randi chose to bring up other parties says this new person is not trusted, and it makes him look eager to debunk her.

[carlitos]

I doubt that most people have even heard of "skeptics," let alone are familiar enough with them to have awareness of skeptics' behavioral stereotypes.

[autumn1971]

Seems to me to simply be an easy way to acknowlege having seen or heard of Nikki's TV spot, and making sure that she had correct contact information. It also cuts off any future "they wouldn't have me" arguments, while reminding Nikki that she would be able to instantly gain tons of credibility by following through where Browne and Van Praagh had merely run away.
If one approaches the letter believing that there is a "dickish" skeptic stereotype, any reply containing more than form-letter information can be misconstrued.
My opinion, which I don't claim is worth much, is that the letter is brusk and to the point, but not dickish.

[not daSkeptic]

It also cuts off any future "they wouldn't have me" arguments, while reminding Nikki that she would be able to instantly gain tons of credibility by following through where Browne and Van Praagh had merely run away.

The problem is that being preemptive about it makes the JREF look aggressive rather than welcoming. It suggests judgement has already been passed. Had Nikki actually done as Browne and Van Praagh it would be a different story. But to my knowledge she has not.

[Checkmite]

I agree with the OP; if she was just contacted Friday, I think it's a little too soon to start hee-hawing and "She's not taking the challenge hurrrrr!!!!". It was a three-day weekend.

[Paul2]

There were a number of not so subtle attacks on "Nikki" that were not necessary in an initial contact process, and frankly I think the implied demand for a quick response is unfair and unwarranted.

Which ones in particular were you thinking of?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Captured from Nikki's website today. (Fair use - who knows what the site may say tomorrow)

Here's how Nikki sees 2011:

World Predictions


A terrorist attack in Toronto.
A gold rush in Hawaii.
President Obama has to be careful of parades.
President Obama’s children in danger.
Danger around President Obama.
Syria at war with the United States, the new Iraq.
More UFO sightings.
The Thames River poisoned in a terrorist attack.
Two planes over Washington DC, United States, collide and crash.
Mine disaster Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Israel and Iran at war.
A powerful quake rocks Chicago, Illinois.
A roller coaster will go out of control at a theme park in the US injuring many.
The world’s first brain transplant.
A huge breakthrough in the cure for dementia and Alzheimer’s.
A dense fog - the worst in fifty years - disrupts air travel and transportation woes in London, England
A bionic eye will be invented by a French scientist.
Hillary Clinton nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
A Japanese plane is hijacked on the way to Singapore from Tokyo, Japan.
A disease around maple trees.
A worm destroys the tea plant and plantations in Sri Lanka.
A UFO in the shape of a horseshoe hovers over Roswell, New Mexico.
A towering inferno in San Francisco.
The world’s largest salmon will be caught in British Columbia.
A Hollywood starlet will give birth to a dwarf.
The area of Brentwood in Los Angeles on fire.
North Korea and South Korea at war.
The worst landslides in California history destroy thousands of homes.
A Paris suburb on fire.
An oil spill in the Persian Gulf.
Terrorist attack in Manila in the Philippines.
A biological attack on a US city.
A cruise ship on fire destroying hundreds of lives.
A space tragedy.
An explosion at an American Airforce base.
A terrorist attack at the Statue of Liberty in New York.
A terrorist attack at Grand Central Station in New York.
A bridge blows up in the United States.
Two trains collide in southern England killing many.
A blimp explodes in Germany.
An explosion at an American Express office in Europe.
A heist in Louisville, Kentucky.
A horse and jockey pass away at the Kentucky Derby.
A cruise ship turns upside down after an underwater earthquake under the Adriatic Sea.
Danger and health woes Hillary Clinton.
A prison riot New York.
Prison breakout and riot San Quentin.
A giant spider’s nest will be found in South America.
Polar bears and penguins moving south due to global warming.
Another oil spill in the Persian Gulf.
Widespread damage when a meteorite hits two states in the southwestern United States.
Bill Clinton has to watch his health
Biological attack on the US and Britain.
A world wide computer virus.
Terrorist attacks in Germany, London, England, Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.
An avalanche in Italy.
Sex scandal around a famous political person in Washington, DC, USA.
A terrorist attack in Paris, France.
Sarkozy in danger.
A trampese artist will fall at a circus.
A Turkish airliner is hijacked and blown up.
The largest emerald in the world is found near Bogota, Columbia.
A new species of octopus is found in the Mediterranean Sea.
An arrest in the Jon Benet Ramsey case.
Passing of Fidel Castro.
An arrest in the Madeline McCann case.
A gorilla escapes from a German zoo injuring many.
A US naval ship is hijacked.
A tsunami in Japan.
The Empire State Building on fire.
Earthquake in the Grand Canyon.
Pandemic in Africa spreading worldwide.
A huge earthquake in Japan.
North Korea will attack Japan.
A terrorist attack Los Angeles.
Terrorist attack in Vancouver.
Stock market up and down from one extreme to another.
Government change in Indonesia.
Uprising in Venezuela.
Chavez in danger.
The painting of the Mona Lisa will be stolen.
A politician's children will be kidnapped.
The Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York will burn down.
A terrorist attack on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, California.
A plane will crash into the Hollywood sign in LA.
Mount St. Helens will erupt.
Earthquake in Seattle and Oregon.
Parts of the polar ice cap will melt.
Two subways will collide head on in New York City.
Madam Tussard's wax museum in London, England will burn after a massive fire.
Dick Cheney has to watch his health.
A large American newspaper will go bankrupt.
A new cat burglar in the South of France will rob the rich like in the movie 'To Catch A Thief'.
Sir Richard Branson in danger.
Life on other planets is stronger when new evidence is gathered.
A pill that makes you younger within thirty days.
Breakthroughs in the mystery of autism.
A Las Vegas hotel and casino on fire.



Looks like its going to be a very busy Fall. :(

Why on Earth would anyone take her seriously? :boggled:

Someone needs a brain transplant (#14).

[carlitos]

Oh great, I have to go to Toronto twice in the next 2 months. Now I have to worry about terrorist attacks.

ETA - LOL

Bill Clinton has to watch his health

Dick Cheney has to watch his health.Don't we all.


Re-edit - A newspaper going bankrupt? Wow. That's as bold as predicting that buggy-whip factories would go bankrupt in the 20's.

[The Man]

Someone needs a brain transplant (#14).

Evidently some are in more immediate need than others.



Imagine the donor selection process…

Doctor: “Of the two remaining compatible types, one shows a slight deterioration in the motor cortex while the other has pronounced indications of atrophy from prolonged lack of use.”

Recipient1: “Heck Doc, I’ll take clumsy over stupid any day of the week.”


Or the post operation complications…

Bystander: “Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?!?”

Recipient2: “Sorry, I’m just rejecting my new brain.”

[RobDegraves]

About the OP...

If you were willing to give me a million dollars, it's ok if you are being a dick about it.

Really...

[maggot9779]

Or the post operation complications…

Bystander: “Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?!?”

Recipient2: “Sorry, I’m just rejecting my new brain.”

Surely it would be "Sorry, i'm just rejecting my new body"?

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, but it almost sounds like Nikki wanted to have it both ways. She wanted the publicity, but wasn't willing to play by the Challenge's very public, very accessible, very explicit rules. Randi has had them available from the very beginning when it was only a Grand.

If you want to take the Challenge, you send in an application. You state what you can do, and under appropriate double blind conditions with self-evident criteria as to what qualifies as a "hit," you take it. If you pass the preliminaries, you do it once more, and you get a cashier's check for a percentage of the million, with the rest to follow. Randi has also cautioned that NO ONE has ever passed the preliminaries. Ever.

That's why there's warnings that you try it in real world conditions before you EVER apply for the Challenge.

So, no. Randi's not being a jerk here. It takes some time during the news cycle to get the word out. Seems to me Nikki is trying to play a game, and Randi nailed her on it. The citation of James Van Praagh should have been sufficient evidence of this.

Go for it, Nikki. One more failure won't hurt.

[not daSkeptic]

She wanted the publicity, but wasn't willing to play by the Challenge's very public, very accessible, very explicit rules.

Where are you getting this from?

[Roadtoad]

Where are you getting this from?

From what I'm reading. Am I missing something? (It wouldn't be the first time...:( )

[not daSkeptic]

From what I'm reading. Am I missing something? (It wouldn't be the first time...:( )

According to the article, she claims to want to learn more about the challenge before undertaking it. That's perfectly reasonable. I haven't seen anything to suggest she disagrees with or is trying to circumvent the rules. While she may eventually go the same route as Browne and Van Praagh and never actually apply for the MDC, it's far too early to judge her on that. It's only been a week or so.

[thaiboxerken]

According to the article, she claims to want to learn more about the challenge before undertaking it. That's perfectly reasonable. I haven't seen anything to suggest she disagrees with or is trying to circumvent the rules. While she may eventually go the same route as Browne and Van Praagh and never actually apply for the MDC, it's far too early to judge her on that. It's only been a week or so.

No it's not too early. There is a history of psychics accepting, then avoiding the challenge. What makes you think she's any different than any of the other charlatans out there?

[Checkmite]

57. Sex scandal around a famous political person in Washington, DC, USA.

Poppycock. That'll be the day.

[Explorer]

16. A dense fog - the worst in fifty years - disrupts air travel and transportation woes in London, England

She has been watching too many British black and white movies from the 50s. The Clean Air Act of 1956 sorted out all the pea soupers.

"Gor Blimey Nikki, and stone the crows, you've got this one wrong!"

[chillzero]

No it's not too early. There is a history of psychics accepting, then avoiding the challenge. What makes you think she's any different than any of the other charlatans out there?

Other people's history should never be used as an indicator on another individual's future actions.

[icerat]

About the OP...

If you were willing to give me a million dollars, it's ok if you are being a dick about it.

Really...

Sure, but so what? That has nothing to do with my point, which has nothing to do with Nikki per se. It's about influencing those reading.

Which ones in particular were you thinking of?

"You seem to be available for interviews, but so far, we haven’t heard anything from you."

This is clearly implying she's dodging the challenge and is willing to talk to the media, but not JREF. No evidence is given to support that. Then there's the part about Van Praagh and Browne not returning calls and implying that Nikki mustn't have integrity because she hasn't either.

Sorry, but it almost sounds like Nikki wanted to have it both ways. She wanted the publicity, but wasn't willing to play by the Challenge's very public, very accessible, very explicit rules. Randi has had them available from the very beginning when it was only a Grand.

Where in the rules does it state you must return initial calls from JREF within so many days?

So, no. Randi's not being a jerk here. It takes some time during the news cycle to get the word out. Seems to me Nikki is trying to play a game, and Randi nailed her on it. The citation of James Van Praagh should have been sufficient evidence of this.

Huh? Praagh not contacting JREF is evidence that anyone else not contacting JREF (in only a few days) is evidence someone is playing a game? Really?

No it's not too early. There is a history of psychics accepting, then avoiding the challenge. What makes you think she's any different than any of the other charlatans out there?

Nothing. Not the point, this isn't about Nikki, it's about public perception of skepticism.

[bluesjnr]

60.A trampese artist will fall at a circus

A professional hobo will take a tumble at the circus? That's quite a specific prediction.

[Pup]

Other people's history should never be used as an indicator on another individual's future actions.

I acknowledge the point, but still... how does a person react to each new email from a sincere-sounding Nigerian without breaking that rule just a little?

[Segnosaur]

This is clearly implying she's dodging the challenge and is willing to talk to the media, but not JREF. No evidence is given to support that. Then there's the part about Van Praagh and Browne not returning calls and implying that Nikki mustn't have integrity because she hasn't either.
Well, as I pointed out, there was roughly 2 days between the CBC's first article, and the JREF contacting her. (And that's assuming the initial CBC interview occurred on the same day... it likely came much earlier.)

Just how long does it take to fire off an email saying "I'm ready to take the challenge"?

Where in the rules does it state you must return initial calls from JREF within so many days?
And where in the rules does it say that JREF must be the one to initially make contact?

She had the better part of a week (at least) to contact Randi, even if its just to say "I need more information". What exactly would take her so long?

And again, that's assuming she didn't know about the challenge before the CBC interview. Chances are she knew about it for YEARS.
Huh? Praagh not contacting JREF is evidence that anyone else not contacting JREF (in only a few days) is evidence someone is playing a game? Really?
Nope, Nikki not contacting JREF is evidence of her playing a game.

Seriously, if you found out you won $1 million in the lottery, how long would it take for you to arrange pickup of the money? She claims she has faith in her powers... it should be just like winning the lottery for her.

[aggle-rithm]

You get a dick license at the age of eighty.

My mother has one.

[Segnosaur]

The problem is that being preemptive about it makes the JREF look aggressive rather than welcoming.
On the other hand, NOT being aggressive gives the psychic an 'out'... they can either claim "I didn't know about the challenge", or they can simply ignore it.
According to the article, she claims to want to learn more about the challenge before undertaking it. That's perfectly reasonable.
Yes it would be. Except how long do you think its supposed to take? How long should it take her to do her research?

I can read the FAQ on the challenge in less than an hour. If she still needed more information, why didn't she contact JREF?

It's only been a week or so.
Again, that's assuming that:
- She only found out about the challenge via the CBC interview (she may have known about it for years, if not at least since the ABC show last month)
- The CBC interview was done on the same day it was published. They may have interviewed her days, maybe even weeks ago.

[Beady]

First, no one is under any obligation to take the Challenge. Even if they say they'll take it, they are under no obligation to follow through. How backing away is portrayed by themselves or others is a seperate question.

Second, and something that's often overlooked, is that if someone fails the Challenge, their claimed powers are not disproven. The only thing demonstrated by a failure is that their powers didn't work *this* time. The reason(s) why their powers didn't work is not covered by Challenge rules.

Third, I think there's a great deal of unwarranted snarkiness among skeptics. IMHO, the vast majority of people claiming the existence and/or possession of psychic powers are honest and sincere. They do not deserve disrespect or mockery.

Fourth, since there is currently no evidence supporting the existence of psychic powers, there is no justification, barring non-psychic evidence, for assigning dishonorable motivation to psychics no matter how public they may be. After all, if they can't read your mind then chances are that you can't read theirs.

Finally, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the inability to do something does not mean it is impossible to do. Things like telekinesis, etc, may not fit in with our understanding of physics, but that is the only honest argument against them. A corollary to this is that, just because you can appear to get seemingly impressive results through dishonest means does not prove that honest means for getting the same do not exist.

Disclaimer: No, I do not believe in psychic powers, the occult, magic, whatever, nor am I necessarily defending the "practitioners." My only point is that prejudgment (as evidenced by disrespect) is not a valid skeptical or scientific attribute.

ETA: Ultimately, there is only *one* valid argument against any claim of a particular psychic power: There is no verifiable evidence that it works, but there is verifiable evidence that it *shouldn't* work. Not doesn't or can't work, but shouldn't work.

[icerat]

Just how long does it take to fire off an email saying "I'm ready to take the challenge"?

If I was in her situation it would likely take me several weeks, if not months. I'd want to know what the heck it was all about first. I'm aware of the challenge and it's basics, but even then I don't imagine I'd be in touch for at least a couple of weeks.

And where in the rules does it say that JREF must be the one to initially make contact?

She had the better part of a week (at least) to contact Randi, even if its just to say "I need more information". What exactly would take her so long?

We obviously have very different lives. For me "a week" is a very short period of time.

Nope, Nikki not contacting JREF is evidence of her playing a game.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's irrelevant to my point, which is how the letter comes across to others. It's unnecessarily snarky.

Seriously, if you found out you won $1 million in the lottery, how long would it take for you to arrange pickup of the money? She claims she has faith in her powers... it should be just like winning the lottery for her.

So we should all just run off and reply to those emails from Nigeria then?

[Agatha]

49. Polar bears and penguins moving south due to global warming.

O RLY?

[icerat]

On the other hand, NOT being aggressive gives the psychic an 'out'... they can either claim "I didn't know about the challenge", or they can simply ignore it.

How does that give you an "out"? It's not like the challenge suddenly disappears if not acknowledged with a few days. There's no out at all, the challenge is still there - and a followup letter is perfectly OK, but it doesn't need the snark.

Yes it would be. Except how long do you think its supposed to take? How long should it take her to do her research?

I can read the FAQ on the challenge in less than an hour. If she still needed more information, why didn't she contact JREF?

She has a life? I have a to do list that will likely never be complete, including stuff that involves an awful lot of money at the end. Other things still get prioritised.

If someone came along promising you a million dollars, and for whatever reason you *didn't* believe it was a legitimate offer (a common belief about the challenge among the woo brigade) would you prioritise researching it above everything else? Or would you fit it in around what you were already doing? Seriously, we're only talking a few days here, three of which see may have been doing like many others and been off camping with the family.

Again though - the reality doesn't matter - it's how this snarky approach will be perceived by those who are open to being influenced. In sales, it's known that attacking a competitor is a good way to alienate a prospect and not get a sale. People react badly to it. They don't like it.

Phil addressed a lot of this type of thing in his talk, watch it if you haven't already.

[icerat]

49. Polar bears and penguins moving south due to global warming.

O RLY?

ROFLMAO! She's half right already! The penguins got a head start :D

[Segnosaur]

First, no one is under any obligation to take the Challenge. Even if they say they'll take it, they are under no obligation to follow through. How backing away is portrayed by themselves or others is a seperate question.
And I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that they should be required to take it. They back out, we point out how suspicious their challenge avoidance is.

Second, and something that's often overlooked, is that if someone fails the Challenge, their claimed powers are not disproven. The only thing demonstrated by a failure is that their powers didn't work *this* time. The reason(s) why their powers didn't work is not covered by Challenge rules.
So, you can't prove a negative. So what's your point?

We're not dealing with claims from a psychic who took the test and failed once. We're dealing with someone who, at this point in time, appears to be avoiding the test.

Third, I think there's a great deal of unwarranted snarkiness among skeptics. IMHO, the vast majority of people claiming the existence and/or possession of psychic powers are honest and sincere. They do not deserve disrespect or mockery.
While there may be many people who believe in the existence of psychic powers, a disproportionate amount of contempt (both by Randi and others in the skeptic movement) is saved for those who not only claim to have psychic powers, but who profit from those claims... the scam artists like Sylvia Browne, who prey on people's misery in order to earn a quick buck. Those people deserve disrespect, scorn, and rabid dogs biting them in the ass.

Fourth, since there is currently no evidence supporting the existence of psychic powers, there is no justification, barring non-psychic evidence, for assigning dishonorable motivation to psychics no matter how public they may be. After all, if they can't read your mind then chances are that you can't read theirs.
Nope, but we can examine their actions and look for patterns.

Consider Sylvia... she openly lied about the challenge. And while we don't have any proof that Nikki is being dishonorable, the fact is she's known about the challenge for days (if not weeks/years). She's had more than enough time to "learn more about the challenge", yet she has not made an attempt to do so.

[icerat]

And while we don't have any proof that Nikki is being dishonorable, the fact is she's known about the challenge for days (if not weeks/years). She's had more than enough time to "learn more about the challenge", yet she has not made an attempt to do so.

Clearly there's differences of opinion on this. I don't consider a few days a long time at all, certainly not any evidence of avoiding anything. You (and others, including Randi) appear to have different views.

If we go back to my original point in the OP, it's really about perception, so if we know there are people like me are going to read that letter and think Randi is being snarky and unreasonable, then even if we don't think he is being unreasonable we should still consider the views of those who do.

The only defence I can think of is if you believe the snarkiness is a more effective way of achieving the goals of JREF. I'd like to see some kind of evidence to back that up, cause it's pretty much the opposite of what the research on influence that I'm aware of says.

[Segnosaur]

Just how long does it take to fire off an email saying "I'm ready to take the challenge"?
If I was in her situation it would likely take me several weeks, if not months. I'd want to know what the heck it was all about first. I'm aware of the challenge and it's basics, but even then I don't imagine I'd be in touch for at least a couple of weeks.
First of all, you are making assumption that she has only had a few days to learn about the challenge. For all we know, she has known about it for years. (I'm being very generous in giving her the benefit of the doubt.)

Secondly, why exactly would it take you so long to learn about it? The challenge is not overly complex.

Lastly, even if she didn't say "I'm ready to take the challenge", she could have at least fired off an email saying "I want to learn more". She didn't. If she's not asking for information and she's not that quick to investigate the challenge herself, then how does she plan to find out more about the challenge? Through her psychic powers?


We obviously have very different lives. For me "a week" is a very short period of time.
Well, as Randi said, she has time to give interviews, so obviously her schedule is not booked so solid to the point where she has absolutely no free time.
Seriously, if you found out you won $1 million in the lottery, how long would it take for you to arrange pickup of the money? She claims she has faith in her powers... it should be just like winning the lottery for her.
So we should all just run off and reply to those emails from Nigeria then?
James Randi is an internationally known figure, appearing on major media outlets like CNN and ABC. JREF and the challenge have been known about for years. The CBC (a pretty well known government-owned media outlet here in Canada) discussed the issue with Nikki. Anyone with any sort of rational thought should see that there's a pretty good chance that James Randi and the million dollar challenge is genuine.

This is not in the same league as the "Nigerian prince with money".

[DavidS]

Someone needs a brain transplant (#14).
Stapling machine, Mr. Clarke. (http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode39.htm)

[icerat]

First of all, you are making assumption that she has only had a few days to learn about the challenge. For all we know, she has known about it for years. (I'm being very generous in giving her the benefit of the doubt.)

It doesn't matter. What assumption is the average reader of cbc.ca going to make?

Secondly, why exactly would it take you so long to learn about it? The challenge is not overly complex.

I don't have enough time to finish all the other things I'm supposed to be doing. I'm happy you sit around all day looking for things to do, I don't.

Lastly, even if she didn't say "I'm ready to take the challenge", she could have at least fired off an email saying "I want to learn more". She didn't. If she's not asking for information and she's not that quick to investigate the challenge herself, then how does she plan to find out more about the challenge? Through her psychic powers?

Maybe do what most people do when curious about something. Think about. Check out the website when they've got a few moments, come back to it later, maybe a few days later, chat to a few friends, etc etc etc.

Well, as Randi said, she has time to give interviews, so obviously her schedule is not booked so solid to the point where she has absolutely no free time.

Arrogance is now being placed on top of snarkiness. The world doesn't revolve around JREF. I have zero spare time. I still find time to sit here and post on the forum, because I elect to do it instead of doing something else. Doesn't mean when something new comes along I'll instantly drop everything else.

James Randi is an internationally known figure, appearing on major media outlets like CNN and ABC. JREF and the challenge have been known about for years.

Go out on the street. Ask 100 people if they know who James Randi is. The result will apparently surprise you.

Again though, your missing the point. For all we know "nikki" might be a psuedonym for Sylvia Browne. It doesn't matter.

[Beady]

And I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that they should be required to take it. They back out, we point out how suspicious their challenge avoidance is.

Suspicions are not evidence, yet you appear to be convicting her(?) of fraud based on suspicions.


So, you can't prove a negative. So what's your point?


My point is that you are reinforcing the image of skeptics as arrogant by pronouncing this Nikki guilty until proven innocent, even though you have no evidence.

We're not dealing with claims from a psychic who took the test and failed once. We're dealing with someone who, at this point in time, appears to be avoiding the test.

What we are really dealing with is a claimed psychic who is aware of the Challenge but has yet to take it.

While there may be many people who believe in the existence of psychic powers, a disproportionate amount of contempt (both by Randi and others in the skeptic movement) is saved for those who not only claim to have psychic powers, but who profit from those claims... the scam artists like Sylvia Browne, who prey on people's misery in order to earn a quick buck. Those people deserve disrespect, scorn, and rabid dogs biting them in the ass.

No argument there. My quarrel is with the claimed skeptics who refuse to adhere to true skepticism.

Nope, but we can examine their actions and look for patterns.

Patterns are cause for investigation, not conclusion.

Consider Sylvia...

No. We're talking about this Nikki, and apparent similarity is no more evidence than are suspicions.

[Beady]

If we go back to my original point in the OP, it's really about perception, so if we know there are people like me are going to read that letter and think Randi is being snarky and unreasonable, then even if we don't think he is being unreasonable we should still consider the views of those who do.

It's been my experience that Randi and JREF really suck at public relations. Their general approach appears to be that they don't have to consider the humanity of their stated target audience because, ironically, they feel that God is on their side. Merely putting the bare facts out there is good enough, and the terms in which those facts are stated doesn't matter.

Anyway, that's why I let my membership in JREF lapse. I'm sympathetic to the cause so I still hang out here, but I can't in good conscience support the slash-and-burn tactics JREF uses.

[fls]

As you might know, a Toronto self-proclaimed psychic "Nikki" told CBC last week that she'd be open to doing the million dollar challenge (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/30/psychic-challenge-randi-nikk.html)

JREF apparently tried to contact her to follow up, and failed. Today Randi issued a response (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/3-newsflash/1404-randi-foundation-responds-to-qpsychic-nikki.html) -

Nikki, I’ve read in the news that you’ve said you’ll take our Million Dollar Challenge and put your claimed psychic abilities to the test. You told CBC News, “I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities, if I was available.”

You seem to be available for interviews, but so far, we haven’t heard anything from you.

If it’s true that you have faith in your own abilities, follow through and take us up on our challenge. I hope that you do follow through, and aren’t just misleading the media to get your name in the news.

Ten years ago this week, infamous U.S. “psychic” Sylvia Browne claimed on national TV that she’d take us up on our challenge. Sylvia must have no faith in her abilities, because all these years since, we’ve been waiting for her to return our calls. James Van Praagh and others have also failed to return calls about the challenge. I hope that you have more integrity than they do.

You can reach us anytime at +1 (703) 226-3794, or at jref@randi.org, to find out more or to accept our challenge and arrange for a test of your abilities. In any case, we will keep the media informed of whether or not you accept the challenge and agree to a test.

James Randi, Founder
James Randi Educational Foundation

CBC reports Nikki's response (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/09/06/psychic-challenge-nikki-randi.html?cmp=rss%26cmp%3DAFC-I78V04166919), saying she got contacted Friday, she'll be in touch.

I think it's great the challenge is getting more publicity, and I have no doubt (rounded to several decimal places) that this "Nikki" has no psychic powers, but to be honest I found Randi's initial response obnoxious. There were a number of not so subtle attacks on "Nikki" that were not necessary in an initial contact process, and frankly I think the implied demand for a quick response is unfair and unwarranted.

Phil Plait's "Don't be a Dick" (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1065-phil-plaits-dont-be-a-dick-talk-at-tam8-now-online.html) seems to apply here. Being arrogant and obnoxious alienates people. It doesn't attract people, and it's unnecessary. Nikki said in the first CBC report -

"I don't like skeptics," Nikki said. "They not only put psychics down, they put everybody down."

In my opinion, Randi's letter reinforces that view. That's not what we should be striving for.

Yeah, I always assumed that Randi was a dick on purpose. But after the "Don't be a Dick" talk at TAM, of all places, I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't realize that he is a dick...in the same way that some in this thread don't see him as a dick.

On the other hand, in the thread about whether Randi successfully changes minds, a number of people have popped in to say he changed their mind. But maybe that's all there is (where else are you going to find the most converts but at the forum dedicated to their hero?).

On the other hand (yeah, I have three), maybe journalists won't bother quoting someone who isn't salty, so it's either dick comments or nothing.

Linda

[Cainkane1]

Maybe she predicted her own failure to stand up to Mr. randis tests?

[Cainkane1]

As you might know, a Toronto self-proclaimed psychic "Nikki" told CBC last week that she'd be open to doing the million dollar challenge (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/30/psychic-challenge-randi-nikk.html)

JREF apparently tried to contact her to follow up, and failed. Today Randi issued a response (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/3-newsflash/1404-randi-foundation-responds-to-qpsychic-nikki.html) -

Nikki, I’ve read in the news that you’ve said you’ll take our Million Dollar Challenge and put your claimed psychic abilities to the test. You told CBC News, “I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities, if I was available.”

You seem to be available for interviews, but so far, we haven’t heard anything from you.

If it’s true that you have faith in your own abilities, follow through and take us up on our challenge. I hope that you do follow through, and aren’t just misleading the media to get your name in the news.

Ten years ago this week, infamous U.S. “psychic” Sylvia Browne claimed on national TV that she’d take us up on our challenge. Sylvia must have no faith in her abilities, because all these years since, we’ve been waiting for her to return our calls. James Van Praagh and others have also failed to return calls about the challenge. I hope that you have more integrity than they do.

You can reach us anytime at +1 (703) 226-3794, or at jref@randi.org, to find out more or to accept our challenge and arrange for a test of your abilities. In any case, we will keep the media informed of whether or not you accept the challenge and agree to a test.

James Randi, Founder
James Randi Educational Foundation

CBC reports Nikki's response (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/09/06/psychic-challenge-nikki-randi.html?cmp=rss%26cmp%3DAFC-I78V04166919), saying she got contacted Friday, she'll be in touch.

I think it's great the challenge is getting more publicity, and I have no doubt (rounded to several decimal places) that this "Nikki" has no psychic powers, but to be honest I found Randi's initial response obnoxious. There were a number of not so subtle attacks on "Nikki" that were not necessary in an initial contact process, and frankly I think the implied demand for a quick response is unfair and unwarranted.

Phil Plait's "Don't be a Dick" (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1065-phil-plaits-dont-be-a-dick-talk-at-tam8-now-online.html) seems to apply here. Being arrogant and obnoxious alienates people. It doesn't attract people, and it's unnecessary. Nikki said in the first CBC report -

"I don't like skeptics," Nikki said. "They not only put psychics down, they put everybody down."

In my opinion, Randi's letter reinforces that view. That's not what we should be striving for.
Theres nothing wrong with Mr. Randis response. He issued the challenge and she seemed to answer it. She failed to follow up like they all do. I believe Mr. Randis frustrated and disappointed which he has a right to be.

[epepke]

Yeah, I always assumed that Randi was a dick on purpose. But after the "Don't be a Dick" talk at TAM, of all places, I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't realize that he is a dick...in the same way that some in this thread don't see him as a dick.

On the other hand, in the thread about whether Randi successfully changes minds, a number of people have popped in to say he changed their mind. But maybe that's all there is (where else are you going to find the most converts but at the forum dedicated to their hero?).

Being a "dick" or not (loaded term that), or rather, what amount of aggressiveness and dismissiveness, is a matter of contention. There seem to be a lot of people on one side or another who are quite convinced, but that and three dollars will get you a cup of black water at Starbucks. Some people are into being aggressive and dismissive (e.g. P.Z. Meyers), and some advocate for less aggressiveness (e.g. Phil Plait). The convictions seem mostly to be based on emotion, and the assertions seem fairly bald. I think it might be more productive to bring skepticism itself to bear on this question and try to reason it out.

I don't have any easy answers, especially as culture is complex. However, the historical record, as well as the mix, indicates that both dicky and dickless behaviors have their place.

I've seen a lot of debates between skeptics/anti-religious and believers. It seems to me that the believers frequently carry the audience because they are dicky to the skeptics. I think that skeptics have an unfortunate tendency to think both that their job is with their debating opponents, and that they can carry the day by addressing arguments to them. What they do not seem to understand is that it is all for the benefit of the audience. If you can make the audience feel smarter than your opponent, then they'll listen to you, and they might be more inclined to remember what you've said. So direct dismissal and ridicule may be appropriate, so long as the audience does not feel that it is toward them. Taking the "high ground" can also be useful, but mostly if it is part of a more sophisticated put-down.

There's also history. I can remember the levels of dickiness throughout my lifetime. During the 60s and early 70s, Madalyn Murray O'Hair was voluble and very dicky, enough so that people think she had a lot to do with the Shempp case, when she didn't. She quieted down a bit, and then the torch was carried by the likes of James Randi, Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner, and Isaac Asimov. Sagan, Gardner, and Asimov were quite gentlemanly, and Randi was only selectively aggressive, as with faith healers on the Johnny Carson show. The rhetoric was pretty mild. This maintained until 2001, during which time IMO The Skeptical Inquirer weakened in quality, but the slack was taken up by other publications such as The Skeptic. After 2001, we got the New (or Gnu, satirically) Atheists, and the rest is history.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causality, but it is interesting to look at. Interest in the paranormal during the 1970's was huge. During the 70s, I was given to watch some Propellor Beanies of the Gods shows and taken to see a "pet psychic" as part of activities at a public school. That significantly fell apart, and skepticism about the paranormal was, to some degree, mainstreamed. Sagan wrote for Playboy and produced Cosmos, and there was a show where Columbo debunked a remote viewer.

At the same time, however, restrictive Christianity grew at a rapid pace. There were other attributed reasons (the advent of cable television, the disillusionment of the Baby Boomers looking for something to replace cocaine which had in turn replaced vaguely Eastern mysticism). However, it might also be possible that dickless skepticism did a good job on most paranormal stuff but entirely failed to do anything about religion.

After 9/11, I think there was a perception that the volume needed to be turned up on rhetoric against religion. Over the past decade, I've seen polls that indicate that the more severe forms of religion have shot up in numbers, but so has atheism. So there's increasing polarization. I don't know if that is helpful or not, but it might be necessary.

Also, despite what Phil Plait says, in some instances it is a war, as when it's about what to teach in schools. This goes beyond evolution; it seems that there are a lot of people, who appear to be unreachable, who are opposed to teaching proper science. This has affected the economy. The US still has excellent schools, but fewer Americans proportionally are taking advantage of them.

So, while I see the appeal of being nice and pleasant, I also see the appeal of being aggressive and dismissive, and I'm not sure which one to pick in all instances, or even if there is a general set of best practices. Like John Lennon, I say "you can count me out...in." I never can make up my mind.

[icerat]

She failed to follow up like they all do.

I was unaware there was such a strict time limit on this. Could you point me to the relevant information?

[not daSkeptic]

No it's not too early. There is a history of psychics accepting, then avoiding the challenge. What makes you think she's any different than any of the other charlatans out there?

Nothing. At the present time I have no data to show she's any different, but I also have no data to show she's the same. Therefore, the proper course of action is to say, "I don't know," and to wait for more information. It would be fallacious to assume a specific member of a group has certain characteristics simply because there are others in the group who do.

Now if you don't want to wait and see that's your right. Just don't be surprised if you're accused of prejudice.

[icerat]

Being a "dick" or not (loaded term that), or rather, what amount of aggressiveness and dismissiveness, is a matter of contention. There seem to be a lot of people on one side or another who are quite convinced, but that and three dollars will get you a cup of black water at Starbucks. Some people are into being aggressive and dismissive (e.g. P.Z. Meyers), and some advocate for less aggressiveness (e.g. Phil Plait). The convictions seem mostly to be based on emotion, and the assertions seem fairly bald. I think it might be more productive to bring skepticism itself to bear on this question and try to reason it out.

There's actually quite a lot of research into persuasion. I recommend Robert Cialdini's book "Influence: Science and Practice" (http://tinyurl.com/3wnu4gv) for a good readable overview of the literature.

One of the principles of persuasion is "liking". You're far more likely to believe someone you like. In general (there's always exceptions of course) people don't like snarky people. We're already fighting against the strongest influencer - "social proof" (ie what you believe everyone else believes) - we really should at least try to be likeable!:)

[Almo]

She called on Randi by mentioning the challenge. That opens the door for Randi to go to town. She should never have mentioned the MDC if she didn't want him breathing down her neck.

[Segnosaur]

First of all, you are making assumption that she has only had a few days to learn about the challenge. For all we know, she has known about it for years. (I'm being very generous in giving her the benefit of the doubt.)
It doesn't matter. What assumption is the average reader of cbc.ca going to make?
Even if the average reader assumed that the CBC interview was the first she heard of the million dollar challenge, as you said it doesn't matter. She knew about it, she didn't follow up on it in any way.

I don't have enough time to finish all the other things I'm supposed to be doing. I'm happy you sit around all day looking for things to do, I don't.
If someone said "I have a million dollars", I'm pretty darn sure I'd actually find time in my day to follow up.

Lastly, even if she didn't say "I'm ready to take the challenge", she could have at least fired off an email saying "I want to learn more". She didn't. If she's not asking for information and she's not that quick to investigate the challenge herself, then how does she plan to find out more about the challenge? Through her psychic powers?
Maybe do what most people do when curious about something. Think about.
Ummmm... yeah. Sure. Think about what? Shouldn't research be the first thing she does so she has something to think about? And if she wanted to learn more, she should be contacting JREF.

Check out the website when they've got a few moments...,
Yup. And reading through the FAQ took less than an hour.

...chat to a few friends, etc etc etc.
Well, if her "friends" didn't know about the challenge, how are they going to help her do her research? And if the friends knew about the challenge before, they should have been informing her of it.

Well, as Randi said, she has time to give interviews, so obviously her schedule is not booked so solid to the point where she has absolutely no free time.
Arrogance is now being placed on top of snarkiness. The world doesn't revolve around JREF.
So? Nobody is claiming the world does revolve around the JREF. We never suggested she drop everything and rush down to Florida to get tested immediately. I'm talking about a complete lack of activity in a time frame where at least some activity should be expected.

Note in her interview that she did not say "Sorry, I'm too busy saving kittens from burning buildings to research the challenge". She's a psychic. Public relations is part of the job/scam.

Unless you're a brain-damaged idiot incapable of reading more than 1 sentence a day, a week should be more than enough time to at least send off an email saying "Hey, give me more info".


I have zero spare time. I still find time to sit here and post on the forum, because I elect to do it instead of doing something else.
That makes no sense.

Since I doubt that you are paid to post here, and your postings are not a life-or-death situation, you are doing it as a recreational activity. So you do have 'spare time'; you just chose to spend it posting here.

James Randi is an internationally known figure, appearing on major media outlets like CNN and ABC. JREF and the challenge have been known about for years.
Go out on the street. Ask 100 people if they know who James Randi is. The result will apparently surprise you.
Bad logic.

It doesn't matter how many people "off the street" know who James Randi is. The point is you can easily find out about him and the challenge through reputable sources. Even if she had never heard of him before, you can find out about him through ABC, CNN, and a host of other mainstream media outlets.

The Nigerian Prince M'butkiss who wants to give you money.... well, I doubt you'll be able to find anything out about him regardless of how hard you look.

[icerat]

Even if the average reader assumed that the CBC interview was the first she heard of the million dollar challenge, as you said it doesn't matter. She knew about it, she didn't follow up on it in any way.

You don't know that at all. You're assuming it, or being very specific in what you define as "didn't follow up on it in any way".

Again though - irrelevant to the point of this thread.

It doesn't matter if she followed up or not. It doesn't matter if she's John Edwards in drag. It doesn't matter if she's Houdini escaped from the dead and can Skype with other dead people.

What matters is how Randi's response will likely be perceived by a significant number of people.

[Segnosaur]

Suspicions are not evidence, yet you appear to be convicting her(?) of fraud based on suspicions.
I never claimed suspicions WERE evidence. But my suspicions are based on evidence.

The evidence is that she has had at least a week by this point (probably much much longer) to at least contact Randi, even if its just to ask for more information.

So tell me, do you think Randi should also lay off Sylvia Browne or Van Prague? After all, its possible that Sylvia just hasn't gotten around to properly addressing the challenge.

My point is that you are reinforcing the image of skeptics as arrogant by pronouncing this Nikki guilty until proven innocent, even though you have no evidence.
I have evidence. She talked about the challenge (so she obviously knew about it), but after a week still hasn't said "Hey let me take it", or even "Can you tell me more?"

We're not dealing with claims from a psychic who took the test and failed once. We're dealing with someone who, at this point in time, appears to be avoiding the test.
What we are really dealing with is a claimed psychic who is aware of the Challenge but has yet to take it.
Then why did you bother bringing up the issue of "A failed test doesn't disprove psychic ability".

My quarrel is with the claimed skeptics who refuse to adhere to true skepticism.
I am adhering to "true skepticism".

Being a skeptic means following the evidence. Technically we can never 'prove' anything, but what we can do is look at the data we do have and consider probabilities.

The data we have is that an individual at one point claimed to be interested in taking the test, but after many days (during which time she could have written multiple emails to JREF and read dozens of web pages, even if she were busy and only had time to do so during her lunch breaks) she has not done so.

While the data is not "100% proof", its certainly pointing in the direction with enough strength that we can safely conclude she's unlikely to participate.

[Segnosaur]

Theres nothing wrong with Mr. Randis response. He issued the challenge and she seemed to answer it. She failed to follow up like they all do. I believe Mr. Randis frustrated and disappointed which he has a right to be.
And here's another point... what exactly in Randi's response is evidence of him "being a dick"?

He never called her a fraud. He never said "You're no psychic". He simply said "If you trust in your abilities try for the challenge".

At worst he pointed out that she hadn't bothered contacting JREF but that's hardly a 'dickish' move. All you really have is Nikki whining "Wah! I'm hurt".

Compare that to what "Psychic Nikki" said: "I don't like skeptics...They not only put psychics down, they put everybody down. They don't know enough about predictions."

[icerat]

Years ago I expressed interest in trying parachuting one day. I still haven't even looked up any local clubs, how much it costs, anything really. I'm still interested.

[icerat]

Segnosaur. You have several people on this thread agreeing they thought Randi's words were ill chosen. That in itself is evidence of what I'm saying, and it's from people, like myself, who are supporters of Randi and JREF and with some knowledge.

Just because you didn't find it "dickish" doesn't mean others didn't.

[Almo]

Years ago I expressed interest in trying parachuting one day. I still haven't even looked up any local clubs, how much it costs, anything really. I'm still interested.

While I agree with a few of your points in this thread, this analogy fails badly. You aren't a public figure talking on a broadcast medium saying to everyone tuned in that you're interested in skydiving with another public figure with no real intention of actually doing anything about it.

[not daSkeptic]

All you really have is Nikki whining "Wah! I'm hurt".

Do we actually have that? Has she actually whined about anything? Or are you simply attributing that to her because it's what you expect?

[Foster Zygote]

Based on all available evidence I have concluded that "psychics" come in two primary forms: Deluded and lying. Those who are deluded into thinking that they have psychic powers are not necessarily bad people, but they are deluded none the less. Those who lie about their abilities (the vast majority of professional psychics fit into this category) display a callousness that goes well beyond "dickish" as they manipulate the emotional pain of others for their own financial gain. Of course, if any claimed psychic wants me to publicly apologize for calling him/her delusional or a liar, then they are welcome to demonstrate their psychic abilities under controlled conditions, in which case I will be happy to do so. So quit complaining, psychics, and show us your powers.

[Foster Zygote]

While I agree with a few of your points in this thread, this analogy fails badly. You aren't a public figure talking on a broadcast medium saying to everyone tuned in that you're interested in skydiving with another public figure with no real intention of actually doing anything about it.

Not to mention that skydiving is something that people do every day. It's not like there's any question about whether skydiving even exists as an activity.

[Wowbagger]

How is anything in Randi's response arrogant or "dick"-like. Seems like a straight-forward response to me: "If you are confident in your abilities contact us for the challenge."

Of course, it could be read in a arrogant tone. But, then again, so can the song "Somewhere Over the Rainbow".

To me "being a dick" would be much more insulting and accusatory, and such.

[not daSkeptic]

Based on all available evidence I have concluded that "psychics" come in two primary forms: Deluded and lying.

This goes for everyone, not just psychics. In my experience, anyone who asserts a claim is either correct, lying, or mistaken. Nobody is exempt from this. It's just as possible, for instance, for a self-proclaimed skeptic to be incorrect about their critical thinking as a self-proclaimed psychic is about their clairvoyance.

[autumn1971]

Segnosaur. You have several people on this thread agreeing they thought Randi's words were ill chosen. That in itself is evidence of what I'm saying, and it's from people, like myself, who are supporters of Randi and JREF and with some knowledge.

Just because you didn't find it "dickish" doesn't mean others didn't.

Just because you did find it "dickish" doesn't mean others will.
Aside from that, there is another good reason for the JREF to fire off a quick reply: publicity.

Get the name out there as quickly as possible after the TV spot, hope it is reported as well. As has been mentioned, many people don't know about the MDC, so this is a chance to immediatly put a living voice on it, however snarkily that voice might be percieved.

[Segnosaur]

Years ago I expressed interest in trying parachuting one day. I still haven't even looked up any local clubs, how much it costs, anything really. I'm still interested.
While I agree with a few of your points in this thread, this analogy fails badly. You aren't a public figure talking on a broadcast medium saying to everyone tuned in that you're interested in skydiving with another public figure with no real intention of actually doing anything about it.
I'd go a little further and also point out that Almo has also never gone on to point out just how awesome he would be as a skydiver, unlike Nikki who likes to brag about her record as a psychic.

Of course, I could also point out how someone who has never really looked into the costs, local clubs, etc. probably really isn't all that "interested".

[Segnosaur]

Segnosaur. You have several people on this thread agreeing they thought Randi's words were ill chosen.
Yet nobody has ever pointed out exactly what words/phrases that he used that were actually "dickish".

But I guess since you claimed it was, you're automatically right.

[icerat]

Yet nobody has ever pointed out exactly what words/phrases that he used that were actually "dickish".

Actually I did (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7546525&postcount=28).

But I guess since you claimed it was, you're automatically right.

Yes, me claiming I thought a letter was "dickish" does indeed automatically mean I'm right that I thought a letter was "dickish".

Are you suggesting I need to find a better source for my opinion than me? :cool:

[not daSkeptic]

Are you suggesting I need to find a better source for my opinion than me? :cool:

And ultimately that's what this is all about. Opinion. What view will people take of Randi (and the JREF) in response to his statement?

[carlitos]

What matters is how Randi's response will likely be perceived by a significant number of people.
Significant? Really? Who has seen this email?

Randi's twitter followers
The mostly-skeptical types reading this topic and / or blog posts on randi.org
People who clicked on the CBC story online and read the follow-ups
????


For those that do see it, I personally like the idea that they will see that Browne and Edwards (2 well-known names) have failed to take an offer of $1mm.

[George152]

While I agree with a few of your points in this thread, this analogy fails badly. You aren't a public figure talking on a broadcast medium saying to everyone tuned in that you're interested in skydiving with another public figure with no real intention of actually doing anything about it.

Why is he picking on skydiving?
There's a lot of wannabes out there

[icerat]

And ultimately that's what this is all about. Opinion. What view will people take of Randi (and the JREF) in response to his statement?

and, unfairly or not, "skeptics" in general.

Significant? Really? Who has seen this email?

Randi's twitter followers
The mostly-skeptical types reading this topic and / or blog posts on randi.org
People who clicked on the CBC story online and read the follow-ups
????



cbc.ca gets around a million unique visitors a month (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/cbc.ca/). The article which has the letter in question (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/06/psychic-challenge-nikki-randi.html) has had over 270 comments, the original article has over 567 comments (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/30/psychic-challenge-randi-nikk.html). From the frontpage it appears that getting 100 comments is enough to be "most commented" on the site.
Over 2300 people have voted on the associated "do you believe in psychic powers" poll (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/08/do-you-believe-some-people-have-psychic-powers.html), despite the fact the link from the follow up article doesn't work.


For those that do see it, I personally like the idea that they will see that Browne and Edwards (2 well-known names) have failed to take an offer of $1mm.

Yes, that's worth promoting. IMO the snark takes away from it.

[carlitos]

Thanks.

[thaiboxerken]

Other people's history should never be used as an indicator on another individual's future actions.

I don't agree, which is why I avoid neo-nazis

[rhodtpr]

The CBC story on "Psychic Nicki" and the Randi foundation million dollar challenge caught my eye...for reasons somewhat different than the average skeptic.

Knowing (somewhat intimately:o) one of the players in the game gives me an unfair advantage but what the hell; it is what it is and there truly are no secrets among friends.

If I may digress;

If you were a young man living in the City of Toronto (proper) in the 60's - 70's - 80's chances are you, like a good number of University of Toronto undergrad medical students, got your first look at the intimate details of female genital anatomy at an old school burlesque theatre icon known as Le Strip and located at 237A Yonge St., right across from the Eaton Centre.

Le Strip existed due to a loophole in the City of Toronto's bylaws which prohibited total nudity in bars - strippers had to wear a G-string covering vagina and anus if they were performing in any premise that served alcohol. It was indeed, "Toronto the good" and the city burghers were determined to see that it stayed that way.

Ingenuity, being the mother of all invention, inevitably found a way around the city bylaw.

If we can't have total nudity and alcohol - then let's just have total nudity.:blush:

And so, Le Strip, initially founded by old school burslesque entertainer Lori Lane, was established on the 2nd floor of 237A Yonge St in the 1960's.

Performers completed their routines on 2 shifts each day (Sunday's included:eek:) on a raised T-stage, surrounded by about 8 rows of seats holding approximately 125 patrons who each paid anywhere from 8 - 10 dollars for their seat. Once admitted the audience could stay all day and watch the day and night shift for the price of one admission with one stipulation;

...no alcohol!:jaw-dropp

Le Strip flourished amongst the many giants in the business who served alcohol without total nudity.:(

Among the many performers who strutted their stuff on-stage was one "Blue Velvet". Blue was much older than the brat-pack of young girls who paraded about Le Strip. In a world of twenty and thirty somethings' Blue was already well past her 40's (in the mid-1980's) and many argued she should not be on stage competing with the younger girls.

An aspiring part-time actress who had managed to act in bit roles in some really bad Canadian films, "Blue Velvet" had seen her share of tough times.

Sometimes living and sleeping in her van...often having difficulty living within a budget...Blue Velvet eeked out a living on stage - as much to do with the genorousity of the owner of Le Strip who took pity on her predicament and hired her when many would not; as her on-stage demeanour which endeared her to the older men and rain-coaters in the front rows.:crowded:

Most of the time she retired from the stage at the end of her show with a fishnet stocking full of bills from the men in the front rows who never seemed to get tired of close up views of her genitalia as she sprawled backwards in a crab-like pose while thrusting her hips in front of their faces.:eek:

The younger girls in the show protested that her acts were too provocative - sluttish - demeaning; and they demanded she be fired. But Blue Velvet was canny, and nearly-always stayed on the right side of the law.

I got to know Blue Velvet well...I worked at Le Strip as a doorman/cashier/disc jockey from early 1982 until 1990 when she was a regular performer. I got to know her so well that one day in the 1990's (long after I had quit Le Strip and moved on) that I immediately recognized her voice when I heard her performing live on a local radio station in Toronto as "Psychic Nikki".

I've watched over the years as Blue Velvet's career as Psychic Nikki progressed. To me it appears that she is doing nothing different than what I remember of her on stage at Le Strip;

...acting and performing; all the while holding out a promise of the impossible (for a fee) while providing succor to those without much hope in the world.

Don't worry James Randi; the 1 million dollar challenge money is safe for now...as long as Psychic Nikki doesn't get up on a stage in front of you; bend over backwards in a crab like pose; and thrust her vagina inches from your face - hold on to your money!

1 million dollars buys a lot of table dances.:boggled:

Cheers!

[Andrew Wiggin]

Years ago I expressed interest in trying parachuting one day. I still haven't even looked up any local clubs, how much it costs, anything really. I'm still interested.

Someone offering you a million dollars to prove you can skydive?

[Beady]

Then why did you bother bringing up the issue of "A failed test doesn't disprove psychic ability".

Because a lot of people here have either forgotten it, never thought about it that way, or otherwise interpret it as disproof. You seem to be one of them; otherwise, why make such a big deal out of it? It bears repeating: Failing the Challenge (dis)proves nothing.

Or are you maintaining that accepting or not accepting the Challenge is the *real* test?


So tell me, do you think Randi should also lay off Sylvia Browne or Van Prague? After all, its possible that Sylvia just hasn't gotten around to properly addressing the challenge.


I am not willing to allow my part of this thread be derailed by expanding the topic beyond the the subject of the OP.


I am adhering to "true skepticism".

Being a skeptic means following the evidence.


There is *no* evidence beyond your confirmation bias, which is not skepticism.


While the data is not "100% proof", its certainly pointing in the direction with enough strength that we can safely conclude she's unlikely to participate.

So what? It's her choice. Ultimately, the Challenge is nothing more than a triple-dog dare, a gimmick, a bit of showmanship. Taking, not taking, passing or failing it proves and/or demonstrates nothing; the believers will believe, the skeptics will chortle, and maybe 10% of the non-believers will choose sides in rough parity.

A note to Rhodtpr: I really doubt Blue Velvet would get much from Randi, in any event.

[bluesjnr]

The CBC story on "Psychic Nicki" and the Randi foundation million dollar challenge caught my eye...for reasons somewhat different than the average skeptic.

Knowing (somewhat intimately:o) one of the players in the game gives me an unfair advantage but what the hell; it is what it is and there truly are no secrets among friends.

If I may digress;

If you were a young man living in the City of Toronto (proper) in the 60's - 70's - 80's chances are you, like a good number of University of Toronto undergrad medical students, got your first look at the intimate details of female genital anatomy at an old school burlesque theatre icon known as Le Strip and located at 237A Yonge St., right across from the Eaton Centre.

Le Strip existed due to a loophole in the City of Toronto's bylaws which prohibited total nudity in bars - strippers had to wear a G-string covering vagina and anus if they were performing in any premise that served alcohol. It was indeed, "Toronto the good" and the city burghers were determined to see that it stayed that way.

Ingenuity, being the mother of all invention, inevitably found a way around the city bylaw.

If we can't have total nudity and alcohol - then let's just have total nudity.:blush:

And so, Le Strip, initially founded by old school burslesque entertainer Lori Lane, was established on the 2nd floor of 237A Yonge St in the 1960's.

Performers completed their routines on 2 shifts each day (Sunday's included:eek:) on a raised T-stage, surrounded by about 8 rows of seats holding approximately 125 patrons who each paid anywhere from 8 - 10 dollars for their seat. Once admitted the audience could stay all day and watch the day and night shift for the price of one admission with one stipulation;

...no alcohol!:jaw-dropp

Le Strip flourished amongst the many giants in the business who served alcohol without total nudity.:(

Among the many performers who strutted their stuff on-stage was one "Blue Velvet". Blue was much older than the brat-pack of young girls who paraded about Le Strip. In a world of twenty and thirty somethings' Blue was already well past her 40's (in the mid-1980's) and many argued she should not be on stage competing with the younger girls.

An aspiring part-time actress who had managed to act in bit roles in some really bad Canadian films, "Blue Velvet" had seen her share of tough times.

Sometimes living and sleeping in her van...often having difficulty living within a budget...Blue Velvet eeked out a living on stage - as much to do with the genorousity of the owner of Le Strip who took pity on her predicament and hired her when many would not; as her on-stage demeanour which endeared her to the older men and rain-coaters in the front rows.:crowded:

Most of the time she retired from the stage at the end of her show with a fishnet stocking full of bills from the men in the front rows who never seemed to get tired of close up views of her genitalia as she sprawled backwards in a crab-like pose while thrusting her hips in front of their faces.:eek:

The younger girls in the show protested that her acts were too provocative - sluttish - demeaning; and they demanded she be fired. But Blue Velvet was canny, and nearly-always stayed on the right side of the law.

I got to know Blue Velvet well...I worked at Le Strip as a doorman/cashier/disc jockey from early 1982 until 1990 when she was a regular performer. I got to know her so well that one day in the 1990's (long after I had quit Le Strip and moved on) that I immediately recognized her voice when I heard her performing live on a local radio station in Toronto as "Psychic Nikki".

I've watched over the years as Blue Velvet's career as Psychic Nikki progressed. To me it appears that she is doing nothing different than what I remember of her on stage at Le Strip;

...acting and performing; all the while holding out a promise of the impossible (for a fee) while providing succor to those without much hope in the world.

Don't worry James Randi; the 1 million dollar challenge money is safe for now...as long as Psychic Nikki doesn't get up on a stage in front of you; bend over backwards in a crab like pose; and thrust her vagina inches from your face - hold on to your money!

1 million dollars buys a lot of table dances.:boggled:

Cheers!

Welcome to the forum but I hope you are 100% accurate here. You do not say that you have confirmed that the voice you recognised has the face to go with it (I'll give you a pass on any other body parts which may be familiar to you).

I'm intrigued because neither of these two photos (one semi candid, another posed) look like a woman who, according to you, would be at least 71 years old.

[Beady]

I'm intrigued because neither of these two photos (one semi candid, another posed) look like a woman who, according to you, would be at least 71 years old.

I think the top one could. Of course, now that I'm in my early 60s, I'm amazed at how young people in their 80s can seem.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Seems to me to simply be an easy way to acknowlege having seen or heard of Nikki's TV spot, and making sure that she had correct contact information. It also cuts off any future "they wouldn't have me" arguments, while reminding Nikki that she would be able to instantly gain tons of credibility by following through where Browne and Van Praagh had merely run away.
If one approaches the letter believing that there is a "dickish" skeptic stereotype, any reply containing more than form-letter information can be misconstrued.
My opinion, which I don't claim is worth much, is that the letter is brusk and to the point, but not dickish.

I agree (with the bolded bits, not the bit in the middle!). I read through it, waiting to hit the 'dick' bit and then found I was at the end. It was obviously intended for public consumption as well and so neatly pointed out that she was welcome to take it but just saying she would was woth nothing as others have claimed the same and not followed up. Basically it politely but firmly says 'come on then, we're willing and waiting'.

[bluesjnr]

According to her Tweet (http://twitter.com/#!/PsychicNikki), on the 6th Sept,

PsychicNikki Psychic Nikki
I have left three messages for thr randi fondation today no response
6 Sep

Can anyone from the foundation confirm this?

Therein she accuses Randi of cashing in on her name to further the MDC as well as firing off a mess o' predictions.

[bluesjnr]

I think the top one could. Of course, now that I'm in my early 60s, I'm amazed at how young people in their 80s can seem.

A good point you make old 'un! there is a high degree of subjectivity here I admit. But 71 would be the absolute minimum as rhodtpr claims she was

already well past her 40's (in the mid-1980's)

Which could be taken to mean that she was 50+ putting her at a minimum 76 years old. I can't see it myself but, as they say, YMMV.

[sadhatter]

As you might know, a Toronto self-proclaimed psychic "Nikki" told CBC last week that she'd be open to doing the million dollar challenge (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/30/psychic-challenge-randi-nikk.html)

JREF apparently tried to contact her to follow up, and failed. Today Randi issued a response (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/3-newsflash/1404-randi-foundation-responds-to-qpsychic-nikki.html) -

Nikki, I’ve read in the news that you’ve said you’ll take our Million Dollar Challenge and put your claimed psychic abilities to the test. You told CBC News, “I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities, if I was available.”

You seem to be available for interviews, but so far, we haven’t heard anything from you.

If it’s true that you have faith in your own abilities, follow through and take us up on our challenge. I hope that you do follow through, and aren’t just misleading the media to get your name in the news.

Ten years ago this week, infamous U.S. “psychic” Sylvia Browne claimed on national TV that she’d take us up on our challenge. Sylvia must have no faith in her abilities, because all these years since, we’ve been waiting for her to return our calls. James Van Praagh and others have also failed to return calls about the challenge. I hope that you have more integrity than they do.

You can reach us anytime at +1 (703) 226-3794, or at jref@randi.org, to find out more or to accept our challenge and arrange for a test of your abilities. In any case, we will keep the media informed of whether or not you accept the challenge and agree to a test.

James Randi, Founder
James Randi Educational Foundation

CBC reports Nikki's response (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/09/06/psychic-challenge-nikki-randi.html?cmp=rss%26cmp%3DAFC-I78V04166919), saying she got contacted Friday, she'll be in touch.

I think it's great the challenge is getting more publicity, and I have no doubt (rounded to several decimal places) that this "Nikki" has no psychic powers, but to be honest I found Randi's initial response obnoxious. There were a number of not so subtle attacks on "Nikki" that were not necessary in an initial contact process, and frankly I think the implied demand for a quick response is unfair and unwarranted.

Phil Plait's "Don't be a Dick" (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1065-phil-plaits-dont-be-a-dick-talk-at-tam8-now-online.html) seems to apply here. Being arrogant and obnoxious alienates people. It doesn't attract people, and it's unnecessary. Nikki said in the first CBC report -

"I don't like skeptics," Nikki said. "They not only put psychics down, they put everybody down."

In my opinion, Randi's letter reinforces that view. That's not what we should be striving for.

Don't be a dick is a funny meme, but absolutely useless advice.

Lets look at the kind of people the woo crowd follows.

Alex Jones - Dick
Sylvia Browne - Dick
Dylan Avery - HUGE dick
John Edwards - dick

The list goes on and on. They all have a Dick attitude, a dick demeanor, and in general are just very dick like. They don't back down, they outright insult folks " Someone with an adjective as a first name..." , and because of this people follow them, they seem like leaders.

And the problem is, that is the one point they have over us. They are willing to outright state their views, to show people they are confidant, and in general be a "face" of their views.

Us skeptics have this weird mindset that by castrating ourselves in regards to our views, we are going to seem more rational than the other side, and people are going to start believing what we have to say. But people don't go for this, they go for the loud guy the person with the big waggling phallus of a personality, not the person meekly stating " well there may not be psychic powers.".

[Segnosaur]

According to her Tweet (http://twitter.com/#%21/PsychicNikki), on the 6th Sept,
PsychicNikki Psychic Nikki
I have left three messages for thr randi fondation today no response
6 Sep

Can anyone from the foundation confirm this?
Hmmm... if you look at her list of tweets, she claims (at Sept 6 at 9:28AM) that when she called the number was "out of service". Then, at 11:35 (less than 2 hours later) she claims she "left 3 messages".

Ummm... did she really leave 3 messages in less than 2 hours? Why? (Yes, sometimes you may have to make repeated calls to people, but a 'normal' person would leave at least a day between calls.) Keep in mind that this was the woman who was complaining that it was unfair of her to take a few days to respond "because there was a long weekend", but because Randi doesn't respond to her messages within 2 hours he's "using her name".

And rather strange that Randi's number goes from "out of service" to accepting calls so quick.

[fls]

How is anything in Randi's response arrogant or "dick"-like. Seems like a straight-forward response to me: "If you are confident in your abilities contact us for the challenge."

Of course, it could be read in a arrogant tone. But, then again, so can the song "Somewhere Over the Rainbow".

To me "being a dick" would be much more insulting and accusatory, and such.

I thought Icerat laid out what parts were dick-like, but it would be the following:

"You seem to be available for interviews, but so far, we haven’t heard anything from you."

"I hope that you do follow through, and aren’t just misleading the media to get your name in the news."

"I hope that you have more integrity than they do."

"In any case, we will keep the media informed of whether or not you accept the challenge and agree to a test."

There were 11 sentences in Randi's post, 4 of which were snarky in tone implying that the absence of an immediate reply can be taken as stalling, misleading the media, and a lack of integrity (plus a veiled threat). Of course, he could have been worse (we have plenty of examples to draw upon).

We can discuss whether dickishness is effective with respect to winning hearts and minds not already won. There has been evidence presented that it is not, countered by personal anecdote (yay!). And realistically, just because it makes me cringe when he says stuff that would make me embarrassed to be associated with him doesn't mean that he isn't effective (i.e. my anecdote doesn't mean anything, either). But I do find the juxtaposition of Phil Plait's talk and Randi's behaviour interesting.

I looked at operationalized definitions of civility and politeness a few months ago with respect to evaluating posts and posters at the JREF forum. The discussions around that issue showed quite clearly that people do not always recognize incivility, even when posts (or whatever you want to call Randi's response) contain examples of name-calling, aspersions, synonyms for liar, indications of non-cooperation, assigning stereotypes, or threats to free speech. So I don't think personal opinion as to whether or not someone perceives an article as dickish are all that useful (i.e. it clearly isn't any sort of unbiased measure).

Linda

[bluesjnr]

Hmmm... if you look at her list of tweets, she claims (at Sept 6 at 9:28AM) that when she called the number was "out of service". Then, at 11:35 (less than 2 hours later) she claims she "left 3 messages".

Ummm... did she really leave 3 messages in less than 2 hours? Why? (Yes, sometimes you may have to make repeated calls to people, but a 'normal' person would leave at least a day between calls.) Keep in mind that this was the woman who was complaining that it was unfair of her to take a few days to respond "because there was a long weekend", but because Randi doesn't respond to her messages within 2 hours he's "using her name".

And rather strange that Randi's number goes from "out of service" to accepting calls so quick.

By way of an update, I just noticed this.

Randi Foundation
@jref Randi Foundation
.@PsychicNikki Just returned your call and got your voicemail again. Looking fwd to hearing from you again later this week as you said.
6 Sep via web

I'm not a fan of Twitter, so I am unfamiliar with the protocol but I assume this represents a reply from JREF.

[fls]

Don't be a dick is a funny meme, but absolutely useless advice.

Lets look at the kind of people the woo crowd follows.

Alex Jones - Dick
Sylvia Browne - Dick
Dylan Avery - HUGE dick
John Edwards - dick

The list goes on and on. They all have a Dick attitude, a dick demeanor, and in general are just very dick like. They don't back down, they outright insult folks " Someone with an adjective as a first name..." , and because of this people follow them, they seem like leaders.

And the problem is, that is the one point they have over us. They are willing to outright state their views, to show people they are confidant, and in general be a "face" of their views.

Us skeptics have this weird mindset that by castrating ourselves in regards to our views, we are going to seem more rational than the other side, and people are going to start believing what we have to say. But people don't go for this, they go for the loud guy the person with the big waggling phallus of a personality, not the person meekly stating " well there may not be psychic powers.".

I don't think anyone is arguing that your followers will be upset if you are a dick to your enemies (in general). What is argued is whether those who are not already your follower will find your dickishness persuasive or attractive (clearly, some will).

Linda

[sadhatter]

I don't think anyone is arguing that your followers will be upset if you are a dick to your enemies (in general). What is argued is whether those who are not already your follower will find your dickishness persuasive or attractive (clearly, some will).

Linda

Yes, but what , exactly do you base the fact that if the other side is real nice , they will get more converts on?

These people chose Sylvia because of her personality, they choose John Edwards because of his personality, not in spite of it. These people are looking for a dick to follow, your fatal flaw is that you assume these people can be logiced or niced into disbelief , and that is not the case. In most situations people go for personality first, information second. And being a meek person is not going to inspire confidence.

Heck, lets extend this beyond skepticism, what kinds of people do people get enamored with? The Jersey shore cast, Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton, Donald Trump, again, the list goes on and on. The average person does not follow someone who is meek, kind, and quiet. By all available evidence, being a dick is the easiest way to gain peoples respect.

"Don't be a dick" is based on a premise that is flawed, you can't logic people out of something that they didn't logic themselves into. Conversely you can't convince someone, by being unconvincing. And your not going to convince someone who looks for "Faith" in a premise , by acting like you don't have any.

In short, by " Not being a dick" we are no longer speaking their language. We are trying to show them we are right , by doing all the things that they perceive as actions taken by those who are wrong.

We are in a bar fight, and everyone on our side is berating us for kicking in the stones, all the while, our own stones are being kicked constantly to cheers of the other side. We know the other side supports kicking someone in the stones, yet some of us rabidly insist that kicking someone in the stones would never gain their respect.

[Beady]

We know the other side supports kicking someone in the stones, yet some of us rabidly insist that kicking someone in the stones would never gain their respect.

You seem to be couching your argument in terms of "Us-Them," when the real concern is the audience in the middle. Virtually no one who's already chosen a side is going to convert (which is why it's news when a conversion does happen), so no one cares how snarky they get when berating the... umm... "enemy." However, from the outside it is often indistinguishable from a playground squabble, with just about as much importance and validity. Some of us would like to try and elevate that level of discourse.

[wardenclyffe]

Among the many performers who strutted their stuff on-stage was one "Blue Velvet". Blue was much older than the brat-pack of young girls who paraded about Le Strip. In a world of twenty and thirty somethings' Blue was already well past her 40's (in the mid-1980's) and many argued she should not be on stage competing with the younger girls.

An aspiring part-time actress who had managed to act in bit roles in some really bad Canadian films, "Blue Velvet" had seen her share of tough times.


Having the titles of some of these Canadian films would help (but not completely) establish the accuracy of this claim. At least we could see if the actress appeared to be the same person known today as "Psychic Nikki."

Ward

[The Man]

Surely it would be "Sorry, i'm just rejecting my new body"?



Technically, as an immune response, it is the body that rejects. Though the whole point of the joke (as noted by Gord in Toronto) is the notion that one could need or get a brain transplant as opposed to what would be someone (a brain) getting, essentially, a body transplant.

[rhodtpr]

Having the titles of some of these Canadian films would help (but not completely) establish the accuracy of this claim. At least we could see if the actress appeared to be the same person known today as "Psychic Nikki."

Ward

It is one and the same person - Prychic Nikki was formerly a stripper in Toronto in the 1980's who worked under the stage name "Blue Velvet".

I used to know all the girls real names that worked at Le Strip...if I remember correctly Psychic Nikki - Blue Velvet's - real name was Linda???

All burlesque performers had to have a license issued by the City Of Toronto in order to perform. Blue Velvet's license is proably still on file with the city clerk.

The movies she appeared in were bit parts in some absolutely terrible Canadian low buidget "slasher/horror" films - really bad but it was a speaking role...and if IIRC the owner of Le Strip (who is also very well known in the humanist/skeptical community in Toronto) got her the gig in order to help her out during a low point in her career.

Cheers!

[rhodtpr]

Welcome to the forum but I hope you are 100% accurate here. You do not say that you have confirmed that the voice you recognised has the face to go with it (I'll give you a pass on any other body parts which may be familiar to you).

I'm intrigued because neither of these two photos (one semi candid, another posed) look like a woman who, according to you, would be at least 71 years old.


The bottom photo was from Blue Velvet's portfolio from the 1980's - she showed me her "acting/stripping" portfolio book way back then when whe was shilling for real acting gigs.

The top (more recent) photo shows her as she is now - still looking good for an old girl!

I may be slightly off on the age - but I am reasonably certain she is in her 60's now.

No wonder the younger ones felt so threatened.

Now, if she would just take her clothes off I could tell for certain!

:D

[rhodtpr]

A good point you make old 'un! there is a high degree of subjectivity here I admit. But 71 would be the absolute minimum as rhodtpr claims she was



Which could be taken to mean that she was 50+ putting her at a minimum 76 years old. I can't see it myself but, as they say, YMMV.


I wouldn't get too worked up about her age - she was in her 40's in the mid to late 1980's.

Her true age would have been on her "Burlesque Entertainer's" license issued by the City of Toronto.

She still looks pretty good in her latest You Tube video's.

Nice to see she has found "regular work".

:rolleyes:

[Beady]

Y'know, I just have to ask.

In what respect did you know her? Professionally, socially, biblically?

[rhodtpr]

Y'know, I just have to ask.

In what respect did you know her? Professionally, socially, biblically?

Professionally and socially -but not carnally.

Damn!

:eye-poppi

[wardenclyffe]

It is one and the same person - Prychic Nikki was formerly a stripper in Toronto in the 1980's who worked under the stage name "Blue Velvet".

I used to know all the girls real names that worked at Le Strip...if I remember correctly Psychic Nikki - Blue Velvet's - real name was Linda???

All burlesque performers had to have a license issued by the City Of Toronto in order to perform. Blue Velvet's license is proably still on file with the city clerk.

The movies she appeared in were bit parts in some absolutely terrible Canadian low buidget "slasher/horror" films - really bad but it was a speaking role...and if IIRC the owner of Le Strip (who is also very well known in the humanist/skeptical community in Toronto) got her the gig in order to help her out during a low point in her career.

Cheers!

I think most people here finds this plausible, but there's still not a lot to go on. Unless her license is filed under Blue Velvet or just Linda, she'd be hard to pinpoint. If you can remember anything about the movies, that would help. There is no shortage of slasher-movie fans in this forum. If we knew titles, co-stars, even plot-points, she could probably be found in no time.

It's probably information that the press would be interested in, but they can't report it saying, "Some guy on an internet forum says...."

It's not that I doubt you; I'm just trying to properly source the information.

Thanks,
Ward

[chillzero]

On the issue of whether Randi's response was appropriate or not ... just consider that it is meant as a genuine invitation to encourage someone to come and meet with either Randi or a JREF rep, and to undertake the Challenge. It seems to me that this response would be less likely to have that affect, and more likely to have a potential applicant feel pre-judged, lumped in with the likes of Sylvia Browne, and facing a potentially adverserial Challenge. They may consider why they'd bother putting themselves through that - particularly when people like Sylvia Browne have been vocal in their community about considering the Challenge a fraud.

It would seem to me to be more appropriate to be polite, and hold back on the snark until the applicant has actually walked away - or left a decent period (months) with no attempt to contact the JREF about it. A few days, and a vague comment that she needs to look into it further is to little to judge this person on.

[bluesjnr]

I think most people here finds this plausible, but there's still not a lot to go on. Unless her license is filed under Blue Velvet or just Linda, she'd be hard to pinpoint. If you can remember anything about the movies, that would help. There is no shortage of slasher-movie fans in this forum. If we knew titles, co-stars, even plot-points, she could probably be found in no time.

It's probably information that the press would be interested in, but they can't report it saying, "Some guy on an internet forum says...."

It's not that I doubt you; I'm just trying to properly source the information.

Thanks,
Ward

I took the direct route and asked her to confirm this story via twitter, as of yet there has been no reply.

We've seen a rapid back down on the alleged age of Nikki so I'm starting to wonder what else may have been exaggerated.

[Segnosaur]

I took the direct route and asked her to confirm this story via twitter, as of yet there has been no reply.
Her twitter postings seem to be a little... erratic.

She posts nothing for a day or 2, then a whole bunch of messages within a couple of hours ("Randi's Phone is out of service". "I left 3 messages". "I'm Not Afraid"....) Then nothing for another 2 day.

Her latest posts have absolutely nothing to do with the challenge.

[Segnosaur]

On the issue of whether Randi's response was appropriate or not ... just consider that it is meant as a genuine invitation to encourage someone to come and meet with either Randi or a JREF rep, and to undertake the Challenge. It seems to me that this response would be less likely to have that affect, and more likely to have a potential applicant feel pre-judged, lumped in with the likes of Sylvia Browne, and facing a potentially adverserial Challenge. They may consider why they'd bother putting themselves through that - particularly when people like Sylvia Browne have been vocal in their community about considering the Challenge a fraud.

It would seem to me to be more appropriate to be polite, and hold back on the snark until the applicant has actually walked away - or left a decent period (months) with no attempt to contact the JREF about it. A few days, and a vague comment that she needs to look into it further is to little to judge this person on.
Well, you see, here's the problem...

If Nikki actually knows who Sylvia et al. is (along with the feud between her and Randi), then she should have known about the challenge for a long long time, and she had ample time to research things, and apply for the challenge on her own. (The extra few days since the CBC interview wouldn't really make much difference.)

If she had no idea who Sylvia is, then why would "lumping her in" actually make much difference? (And frankly, he's trying to give her an "out" by allowing her to distinguish herself from Sylvia by taking the test instead of avoiding it for a decade.)

So, you think he should have waited "a couple of months"... why? Are you (like icerat) of the assumption that everyone should be treated as a brain damaged idiot who can't read more than 1 sentence at a time?

And how do you know that, if Randi waits a month, she won't come back and say "They must not be serious about the test because he didn't ask me to take it".

[chillzero]

I'm of the opinion that potential applicants should be treated with basic respect and politeness until they prove they don't deserve that. Pre-judging them on Sylvia Browne's merits is a major disservice.

You've avoided my comments about how the intention ought to be to encourage them to continue, not put them off.

[Segnosaur]

Yet nobody has ever pointed out exactly what words/phrases that he used that were actually "dickish".

Actually I did (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7546525&postcount=28).
[/quote]
Ah yes, I forgot about that particular post, where you pointed to Randi's statement "You seem to be available for Interviews but so far we haven't heard anything from you".

I guess the reason I forgot about it was because that particular statement wasn't particularly "dickish".

Lets look at it in pieces, shall we?

You seem to be available for Interviews...

Why is that dickish? He's being proactive. He's trying to head off at least one potential excuse she might have... i.e. "I don't have time".

To use your (already debunked) skydiving analogy, if you made the claim "Learning to Skydive is a priority", and you are later caught on film playing frisbee in the park or cruising for transvestite prostitutes with Eddie Murphy, then we can assume your dedication to skydiving isn't as strong as you might claim. (At the very least its less than the importance of playing frisbee and cruising, since those are not exactly life-critical exercises.)

Similarly, if Nikki were "booked solid" (i.e. every moment of her time were booked with work and/or family matters) then she wouldn't have time to chat with CBC (something that I doubt was a "paying gig".) If she has time to do the non-critical task of talking to CBC, she could probably find time to do the job of contacting the JREF.

Again, its more proactive than mean-spirited. (Unless of course you believe that every attempt to be 'proactive' is likewise dickish. "Waaahhhh!!! He didn't leave me an out!")

...but so far we haven't heard anything from you.

A pretty basic statement.

Again, your whole claim to it being 'dickish' seems to be based on the assumption that she's a brain damaged illiterate moron who can't read more than a sentence a day,

Well, gee, maybe Sylvia is actually willing to take the test, but she needs a decade to do the appropriate "research".

[Segnosaur]

I'm of the opinion that potential applicants should be treated with basic respect and politeness until they prove they don't deserve that. Pre-judging them on Sylvia Browne's merits is a major disservice.
Like I said though, he gave her "an out"... he said "Don't be like Sylvia".

You've avoided my comments about how the intention ought to be to encourage them to continue, not put them off.Actually I believe the intention is not necessarily to encourage people to take the test. (I'm pretty sure she'll decline anyways.)

The intention is to show the "believing public" that the evidence for the supernatural is lacking, either through a failed test or (in the case of the "big name" psychics") that they are avoiding the test.

Edited to add: I notice you've failed to address the questions I posed to you: What is the purpose of waiting "months"? How would that be more useful than just waiting "days"?

[not daSkeptic]

So, you think he should have waited "a couple of months"... why? Are you (like icerat) of the assumption that everyone should be treated as a brain damaged idiot who can't read more than 1 sentence at a time?

I think everyone should be treated as if they have a life.

And how do you know that, if Randi waits a month, she won't come back and say "They must not be serious about the test because he didn't ask me to take it".

Nobody's saying Randi should have said nothing. The invitation to take the challenge was perfectly fine. The other stuff is the problem.

[not daSkeptic]

He's trying to head off at least one potential excuse she might have ...

(emphasis mine)

That is what makes some people think he's being a dick. By acting based on what could happen rather than what did happen, it sends the signal (however inadvertently) that one is expecting it to happen. It's a form of prejudice.

[Segnosaur]

Then why did you bother bringing up the issue of "A failed test doesn't disprove psychic ability".
Because a lot of people here have either forgotten it, never thought about it that way, or otherwise interpret it as disproof.
I doubt anyone here has ever forgotten that point.

We didn't discuss it here because its not relevant. This isn't us trying to get her to do the test a second time... its about her first test.

Running around trying to give lessons in skepticism is doing nothing but feeding your ego.

You seem to be one of them; otherwise, why make such a big deal out of it?
Ummm... you were the one that brought up the issue. If you didn't think it was a "big deal" why did you make the point in the first place?

Its like setting a fire and wondering why all the guys are running around with firehoses.

So tell me, do you think Randi should also lay off Sylvia Browne or Van Prague? After all, its possible that Sylvia just hasn't gotten around to properly addressing the challenge.
I am not willing to allow my part of this thread be derailed by expanding the topic beyond the the subject of the OP.
Actually, a discussion of people like Sylvia is on subject.

After all, the argument is "Randi was a dick to Nikki". That could mean one of 2 things:
- Randi was mean in this particular case only (which, as many here have said, he wasn't really)
- Randi is always mean.
How people (such as yourself and others) view Randi's treatment of Sylvia is relevant in this case. If you decide his treatment of Sylvia is fair then you'll have to establish why you consider Nikki and Sylvia in a different class. If you think he treats Sylvia unfairly too, then it brings up the question: Can any criticism of psychics be done, because somewhere there will be people, regardless of how "nice" you are, who will always consider your comments "dickish".

I am adhering to "true skepticism".

Being a skeptic means following the evidence.
There is *no* evidence beyond your confirmation bias, which is not skepticism.
Actually, there is evidence. You just choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Segnosaur]

So, you think he should have waited "a couple of months"... why? Are you (like icerat) of the assumption that everyone should be treated as a brain damaged idiot who can't read more than 1 sentence at a time?
I think everyone should be treated as if they have a life.
Yup, and the better part of a week is more than enough time to either investigate/apply for, or ask for more information on the challenge, even if someone has a life.

Seriously, a million dollars is on the line, and she can't be bothered to be proactive and ask for more information on her own, but can't spend time (for free no less) in an interview with CBC?

He's trying to head off at least one potential excuse she might have ...
That is what makes some people think he's being a dick. By acting based on what could happen rather than what did happen, it sends the signal (however inadvertently) that one is expecting it to happen. It's a form of prejudice.
So, any attempt at all to be Proactive is considered "being a dick"?

You know, there is a point where you just have to recognize that you can't walk on eggshells forever.

You might as well complain that Randi put his phone number in his message. "Oh my god! He's being prejudice because someone might assume that having there implies she's not able to look it up!"

[xjx388]

I think that skeptics are dicks by nature -at least the vocal ones are. It's not polite to challenge people's beliefs, call people liars, etc.

For example, the other day one of my employees showed me a picture that she swore was taken on her uncle's ranch over the past weekend. It was a pretty spooky looking picture of a deer with a transparent little indian girl close by; she had the whole office freaked out. I told her straight out that the picture was a fake and that her uncle was pulling her leg. She insisted that it was taken by her uncle and got mad at me because I was calling him and her a liar: "My uncle is a judge! Why would he lie to me?" Well, I don't back down from these kinds of things so I did about 5 minutes of Google-Fu and came up with the exact picture (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9lSwJ-jeXxQ/TP5t6O6BvPI/AAAAAAAABgA/30E-i3_ja8A/s1600/deer-sees-ghost.JPG) she insisted her uncle shot. I even discovered that it was an iPhone App that created the image. So I took a picture of her at her work station and put an image of the little indian girl on her desk. She was actually pissed at me for exposing her judge uncle as a liar.

So yeah, skeptics come across as dickish because the very nature of debunking is dickish.

[chillzero]

Actually I believe the intention is not necessarily to encourage people to take the test. (I'm pretty sure she'll decline anyways.)

The intention is to show the "believing public" that the evidence for the supernatural is lacking, either through a failed test or (in the case of the "big name" psychics") that they are avoiding the test.
Well ... this fails when all it does is discourage people from taking the challenge. All that the "believing public" see is someone being sarcastic to someone they believe had genuine intent to be tested. They see no reason why anyone should associate with such sarcastic, cynical people who have already determined what the applicant will (not) do, despite their insistence that they do not believe in psychic abilities.
Therefore, the intent should be to encourage applicants. The best defence will be a high number of failed applicants rather than a high number of disgruntled, unhappy people who feel they have been mistreated. The latter should be defended against by clear displays of respect. I've seen Rando do it when face to face with applicants - he should do it from the first early days also.

Edited to add: I notice you've failed to address the questions I posed to you: What is the purpose of waiting "months"? How would that be more useful than just waiting "days"?
Because, obviously, since psychic powers do not exist, nobody should act as if they have definitive knowledge of what the applicant fills their days with. A few days is not sufficient time to hold up as clear evidence that they are avoiding the challenge. They could be offline, ill, online looking up information and reading past challenges, taken up with personal issues, working, .... any number of things. Less than a week is a ridiculous time period in which to start complaining that they are avoiding contact.

[Segnosaur]

By the way, since we're talking about Nikki... you might be interested in this:
Nikki, the famed "psychic to the stars", maintains a list of predictions for the coming year... A visit to her website will lead you to believe that she predicted Heath Ledger's death....But I happened to give a talk last night on the Way of the Woo, and in my research, I copied Nikki's 2008 predictions two days ago. Looking at my copy, I didn't see Heath Ledger's name mentioned anywhere. (The author confirmed this by looking at google's cache.)

Now, this was from a blog rather than a mainstream media source, so take it for what you will...

http://wayofthewoo.blogspot.com/2008/01/heath-ledger-and-nikki-psychic-to-stars.html

http://wayofthewoo.blogspot.com/2008/01/heath-ledger-and-nikki-psychic-to-stars.html

[Segnosaur]

Well ... this fails when all it does is discourage people from taking the challenge. All that the "believing public" see is someone being sarcastic to someone they believe had genuine intent to be tested.
You are, of course, assuming that Randi's "sarcasm" will end up alienating more people than the alternative of saying nothing/waiting.

People can have short attention spans. By waiting a month or 2, many people will have forgotten Nikki would have ever talked about the challenge, and they'd probably complain about the "cranky person dragging something up after months.".
Because, obviously, since psychic powers do not exist, nobody should act as if they have definitive knowledge of what the applicant fills their days with. A few days is not sufficient time to hold up as clear evidence that they are avoiding the challenge. They could be offline, ill, personal issues, working...
Perhaps that's why Randi made it a point of bringing up the fact that she's doing interviews. If she were ill, dealing with personal issues, or working then she would likely have less time to get involved in an (probably) non-paying interview.
... online looking up information and reading past challenges,
She'd have to be a pretty slow reader.

Maybe she's busy taking skydiving lessons. I hear those are pretty important to people.

[rhodtpr]

I took the direct route and asked her to confirm this story via twitter, as of yet there has been no reply.

We've seen a rapid back down on the alleged age of Nikki so I'm starting to wonder what else may have been exaggerated.

Ah, bud - what part don't you believe?

Her age?

Her previous career?

Or whether she is clairvoyent?

As for exaggeration...I have underplayed her career as a stripper in Toronto and dredged up the past not so as to condemn or vilify her , but to merely point out that what she is doing now is not so different than what she did before becoming "Psychic Nikki".

:rolleyes:

[wardenclyffe]

I think that skeptics are dicks by nature -at least the vocal ones are. It's not polite to challenge people's beliefs, call people liars, etc.

For example, the other day one of my employees showed me a picture that she swore was taken on her uncle's ranch over the past weekend. It was a pretty spooky looking picture of a deer with a transparent little indian girl close by; she had the whole office freaked out. I told her straight out that the picture was a fake and that her uncle was pulling her leg. She insisted that it was taken by her uncle and got mad at me because I was calling him and her a liar: "My uncle is a judge! Why would he lie to me?" Well, I don't back down from these kinds of things so I did about 5 minutes of Google-Fu and came up with the exact picture (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9lSwJ-jeXxQ/TP5t6O6BvPI/AAAAAAAABgA/30E-i3_ja8A/s1600/deer-sees-ghost.JPG) she insisted her uncle shot. I even discovered that it was an iPhone App that created the image. So I took a picture of her at her work station and put an image of the little indian girl on her desk. She was actually pissed at me for exposing her judge uncle as a liar.

So yeah, skeptics come across as dickish because the very nature of debunking is dickish.

Good work.....dick.

Ward

P.S. I meant the former, and not the latter.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Other people's history should never be used as an indicator on another individual's future actions.Why not? Such history at least should provide us with probable predictions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm of the opinion that potential applicants should be treated with basic respect and politeness until they prove they don't deserve that. Pre-judging them on Sylvia Browne's merits is a major disservice.

You've avoided my comments about how the intention ought to be to encourage them to continue, not put them off.That's a tad different from "indicator". Here I agree.

[not daSkeptic]

So yeah, skeptics come across as dickish because the very nature of debunking is dickish.

I wasn't aware that debunking was the be-all-end-all of skepticism. I thought the point was to question and to explore. Could you not have handled that particular situation differently? Were you forced to debunk her or did you choose to do so? Did you ever question yourself?

[fishbob]

All well and good, but still alienates people. So why do it? Is it necessary?



I agree, but it's a fairly common view of skeptics. Isn't that something we should be trying to change?

Somebody is confusing 'skeptics' with climate change denialists.
We can't do much about the denialistas, who often claim to be skeptics.

[Segnosaur]

I wasn't aware that debunking was the be-all-end-all of skepticism. I thought the point was to question and to explore.

Even if exploration and discovery is key to skepticism, that doesn't mean debunking doesn't have a part.

Debunking is a form of exploration and education.
Could you not have handled that particular situation differently? Were you forced to debunk her or did you choose to do so?
Yeah, he could have let things go. He could have kept things to himself. He chose to 'debunk' her.

Do you think society would be better off if everyone took the same attitude? Many people here may not be skeptics if somewhere someone jumped in and 'debunked' the supernatural for us at some point. And more skepticism is better for the world in my opinion.

[not daSkeptic]

Seriously, a million dollars is on the line, and she can't be bothered to be proactive and ask for more information on her own, but can't spend time (for free no less) in an interview with CBC?

Is there some reason you are assuming so much about her and are not willing to be patient until more information becomes available?

So, any attempt at all to be Proactive is considered "being a dick"?

Not at all. It comes down to risk analysis. What is the risk of waiting? Is there justification for being proactive? It's when the answer to the latter question is no or the justification is weak that one is interpreted as a dick. You seem to feel that Randi is justified in presuming Nikki's fraudulence. Others disagree and are willing to wait for more data before passing judgement.

[not daSkeptic]

Even if exploration and discovery is key to skepticism, that doesn't mean debunking doesn't have a part.

I'm unaware of claiming otherwise.

Debunking is a form of exploration and education.

One of many.

Yeah, he could have let things go. He could have kept things to himself. He chose to 'debunk' her.

Do you think society would be better off if everyone took the same attitude? Many people here may not be skeptics if somewhere someone jumped in and 'debunked' the supernatural for us at some point.

Why the apparent dichotomy?

[bluesjnr]

Ah, bud - what part don't you believe?

Her age?

Her previous career?

Or whether she is clairvoyent?

As for exaggeration...I have underplayed her career as a stripper in Toronto and dredged up the past not so as to condemn or vilify her , but to merely point out that what she is doing now is not so different than what she did before becoming "Psychic Nikki".

:rolleyes:

You can :rolleyes: as much as you like but I don't necessarily disbelieve any part of your story. I'm simply looking for evidence (we're kinda keen on that here) for what seems to be a disingenuous move on your part to discredit her further.

As for exaggeration - that's what you did with regard to her age and were called on it. I can't say whether or not you have overstated or understated her past.

[bluesjnr]

And news just in, Psychic Nikki denies any connection to Blue Velvet but makes a bizarre statement to do so. I asked, "Did you used to perform under the stage name "Blue Velvet". Her response (I'm the "berryio in question) -

No berryio but I did a reading for a pink poodle once

So.........

[Segnosaur]

Seriously, a million dollars is on the line, and she can't be bothered to be proactive and ask for more information on her own, but can't spend time (for free no less) in an interview with CBC? Is there some reason you are assuming so much about her and are not willing to be patient until more information becomes available?
I consider myself a person with relatively normal mental capabilities. When someone mentions a topic of interest, I can investigate the basics of the subject within an hour or 2. Given my work schedule and family requirements, it may take a day to get around to it, but it can be done. (And that's just because I find a topic interesting! No millions on the line.)

I'm assuming that Nikki has roughly the same mental capabilities as I do. She expressed an interest. To assume that she needs 'longer' is to assume she's somehow mentally deficient, of which I've seen no evidence.. (Or maybe she has to spend all her time skydiving.)


So, any attempt at all to be Proactive is considered "being a dick"? Not at all. It comes down to risk analysis. What is the risk of waiting? Is there justification for being proactive?Yes, there is justification for being proactive... By removing a common 'out' that she may use (e.g. "I'm too busy saving kittens from rabid crocodiles") it reduces the chance of any discussion being dragged out (and possibly forgotten).

"Want to take the test? We saw you had free time". "But <insert excuse here>"

Is better (for the skeptic cause anyways) than:

"Want to take the test?" "No, I'm too busy". "But you had all this free time to do X". "But, <insert excuse here>"

Edited to add:
Consider Randi's battle with Sylvia... Some of her claims were that she "didn't believe the money existed", and "The money's not in escrow". What if Randi had been proactive back when he challenged her on Larry King, and actually had all those arrangements made ahead of time? I'm sure Silvia would still not have taken the test, but it would have been more useful in showing her to be a fraud to get her excuses out of the way ahead of time.
It's when the answer to the latter question is no or the justification is weak that one is interpreted as a dick. You seem to feel that Randi is justified in presuming Nikki's fraudulence. Others disagree and are willing to wait for more data before passing judgement.I feel that while Randi may be assuming she's fradulent I don't consider the letter to be "dickish"..

Just out of curiosity, did you (or anyone else using the "don't be a dick" argument) actually listen to Phil's entire speech? (or read his follow up blog) Yeah, he said "don't be a dick", but he also talked about what he meant about "being a dick". (Personal attacks, inflamitory language, etc.) Nothing in Randi's response comes anywhere near that sort of thing. As I pointed out, he didn't claim she was a fraud or deluded. The whole "OMG! Randi only waited a week!" I doubt would qualify as a personal attack or inflammatory language.

[jj]

How in the name of creation is Randi being a jerk here?

He's entirely right to point out that people have notoriously avoided actually taking the challenge, rather than actually engaging the JREF.

[Segnosaur]

Even if exploration and discovery is key to skepticism, that doesn't mean debunking doesn't have a part.
I'm unaware of claiming otherwise.
In your previous post, you said "I wasn't aware that debunking was the be-all-end-all of skepticism".

Why did you write that?

Debunking is a form of exploration and education.
One of many.
And its probably the one that's most appropriate here.

Yeah, he could have let things go. He could have kept things to himself. He chose to 'debunk' her.
Why the apparent dichotomy?
Well, because there really are only 2 options.... try to do something to challenge people's false claims or keep silent. (Well, I suppose a 3rd option is that he could have started to believe just like the woman.)

What exactly do you think are the alternatives?

[icerat]

How in the name of creation is Randi being a jerk here?

He's entirely right to point out that people have notoriously avoided actually taking the challenge, rather than actually engaging the JREF.

Sure, and nowhere has anyone said that's being a jerk. I outlined some of the issues earlier, Linda (fls) above did a much better job.

[rhodtpr]

You can :rolleyes: as much as you like but I don't necessarily disbelieve any part of your story. I'm simply looking for evidence (we're kinda keen on that here) for what seems to be a disingenuous move on your part to discredit her further.


As for exaggeration - that's what you did with regard to her age and were called on it. I can't say whether or not you have overstated or understated her past.

Disingenous...hardly - truthful...yes.

:rolleyes:

So, she is either in her 60's or early 70's - ya, I really exagerated her age!

;)

I see you asked her about her previous career as "Blue Velvet" and I see she is denying it;

...let the games begin.

:)

[Segnosaur]

How in the name of creation is Randi being a jerk here?

He's entirely right to point out that people have notoriously avoided actually taking the challenge, rather than actually engaging the JREF.
Sure, and nowhere has anyone said that's being a jerk. I outlined some of the issues earlier, Linda (fls) above did a much better job.
No, she didn't.

She pointed out more phrases from Randi's response, but none were really all that "dickish" (as Phil described in his speech.)

Phil's complaint was against people using inflamitory language and personal attacks. Nothing in the letters falls into either of those categories.

Saying "I hope you follow through", or "We'll keep the media Informed" are not personal attacks, and they are not inflamatory. He was not saying "We'll tell the media that you're a fraud" or "You're a crook who won't follow through".

[bluesjnr]

Disingenous...hardly - truthful...yes.

:rolleyes:

Rhodtpr, I'm not disputing the veracity of your anecdote. I'm looking for evidence that it is true.

So, she is either in her 60's or early 70's - ya, I really exagerated her age!

;)

You said she was "was already well past her 40's (in the mid-1980's)". It seems to be have been an exaggeration on your part as you corrected it the moment it was questioned. It's no big deal but the devil is in the detail.

I see you asked her about her previous career as "Blue Velvet" and I see she is denying it;

...let the games begin.

:)


Indeed, if your story is true then it shows that she is capable of lying which is a required skill for all psychics.

[icerat]

She pointed out more phrases from Randi's response, but none were really all that "dickish" (as Phil described in his speech.)

As already noted, we clearly have a difference of opinion on this. The very fact that I (and others) have this different opinion is clear evidence that some people have this different opinion.

QED.

[not daSkeptic]

I consider myself a person with relatively normal mental capabilities. When someone mentions a topic of interest, I can investigate the basics of the subject within an hour or 2. Given my work schedule and family requirements, it may take a day to get around to it, but it can be done. (And that's just because I find a topic interesting! No millions on the line.)

I'm assuming that Nikki has roughly the same mental capabilities as I do. She expressed an interest. To assume that she needs 'longer' is to assume she's somehow mentally deficient, of which I've seen no evidence.. (Or maybe she has to spend all her time skydiving.)

You are assuming yourself to be average and you are assuming her to be the same. Some people are smarter than others, some are dumber. Some are more capable, some are less. Some have more obligations and responsibilities, some have fewer. There are also many different ideas about what constitutes average. Your entire assessment of Nikki's behavior is based upon your personal opinions of society, on what you think is normal and reasonable. Not everybody shares the same view.

Yes, there is justification for being proactive... By removing a common 'out' that she may use (e.g. "I'm too busy saving kittens from rabid crocodiles") it reduces the chance of any discussion being dragged out (and possibly forgotten).

Again, risk analysis applies. What would be the impact of that happening? Would it really be that big of a deal to wait and see?

"Want to take the test? We saw you had free time". "But <insert excuse here>"

Is better (for the skeptic cause anyways) than:

"Want to take the test?" "No, I'm too busy". "But you had all this free time to do X". "But, <insert excuse here>"

Free time by your definition. I learned a long time ago not to assume one's own views of how people should spend their time are held by everyone. It makes one look very foolish.

Consider Randi's battle with Sylvia... Some of her claims were that she "didn't believe the money existed", and "The money's not in escrow". What if Randi had been proactive back when he challenged her on Larry King, and actually had all those arrangements made ahead of time? I'm sure Silvia would still not have taken the test, but it would have been more useful in showing her to be a fraud to get her excuses out of the way ahead of time.

Why is such immediacy so important? What is so urgent that it couldn't wait for a bit?

I feel that while Randi may be assuming she's fradulent I don't consider the letter to be "dickish"..

I guess we differ on that. I consider anyone who presumes guilt to be a dick.

Just out of curiosity, did you (or anyone else using the "don't be a dick" argument) actually listen to Phil's entire speech? (or read his follow up blog) Yeah, he said "don't be a dick", but he also talked about what he meant about "being a dick". (Personal attacks, inflamitory language, etc.)

He also said the following:

Young Earth Creationism is baloney. I don't back off from saying that -- it's absolutely wrong. If I had said it even in that way I would have alienated this young woman. Instead I ...

... the teachers came up to me later and they were so glad that I handled it that way.

[not daSkeptic]

Well, because there really are only 2 options.... try to do something to challenge people's false claims or keep silent.

What exactly do you think are the alternatives?

Keeping silent and "letting it go" are not necessarily the same thing. An alternative would be for him to explore the matter purely for the sake of his own personal curiosity. But based on his own statement of events, it would appear he was more interested in debunking her than anything else. He denounced the validity of the photograph before he had even researched it. Yes, ultimately he was correct, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't follow the evidence. He followed his own personal desires. He wasn't in it for the truth, he was in it to prove her wrong. He may have been right, but he was also a dick.

[fls]

Just out of curiosity, did you (or anyone else using the "don't be a dick" argument) actually listen to Phil's entire speech? (or read his follow up blog) Yeah, he said "don't be a dick", but he also talked about what he meant about "being a dick". (Personal attacks, inflamitory language, etc.)

I listened to it. I disagreed with the advice. I just find it interesting that Plait would give this advice at an event associated with Randi.

What makes me cringe isn't so much the tone, but that the tone is coupled with fallacious reasoning. And I don't think the two are independent.

Anyway, Randi managed to alienate me a long time ago by deliberately insulting me when there was no advantage or need to do so. And I can't help but wonder why the hell it would be to anyone's benefit to alienate me? I sorta think I'm the kind of person you'd want to have on the side of Organised Skepticism. It was weird to discover that I'm not, but I can take my lumps. :)

Nothing in Randi's response comes anywhere near that sort of thing. As I pointed out, he didn't claim she was a fraud or deluded. The whole "OMG! Randi only waited a week!" I doubt would qualify as a personal attack or inflammatory language.

Yes, you've made it clear that you don't read what he said as uncivil.

Linda

[xjx388]

Good work.....dick.

Ward

P.S. I meant the former, and not the latter.

:D

[wardenclyffe]

Anyway, Randi managed to alienate me a long time ago by deliberately insulting me when there was no advantage or need to do so. And I can't help but wonder why the hell it would be to anyone's benefit to alienate me? I sorta think I'm the kind of person you'd want to have on the side of Organised Skepticism. It was weird to discover that I'm not, but I can take my lumps. :)
Linda

Is this old news that has been hashed and re-hashed elsewhere? If so, could you provide a link to the pertinent thread? If not, could you explain here what happened?

Thanks,
Ward

[fls]

Is this old news that has been hashed and re-hashed elsewhere? If so, could you provide a link to the pertinent thread? If not, could you explain here what happened?

Thanks,
Ward

Not really (in answer to your questions). But this would serve as an example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73944

Linda

[aggle-rithm]

John Edwards - dick


I thought he was a douche. Didn't he win an award?

[sadhatter]

Well, you see, here's the problem...

If Nikki actually knows who Sylvia et al. is (along with the feud between her and Randi), then she should have known about the challenge for a long long time, and she had ample time to research things, and apply for the challenge on her own. (The extra few days since the CBC interview wouldn't really make much difference.)

If she had no idea who Sylvia is, then why would "lumping her in" actually make much difference? (And frankly, he's trying to give her an "out" by allowing her to distinguish herself from Sylvia by taking the test instead of avoiding it for a decade.)

So, you think he should have waited "a couple of months"... why? Are you (like icerat) of the assumption that everyone should be treated as a brain damaged idiot who can't read more than 1 sentence at a time?

And how do you know that, if Randi waits a month, she won't come back and say "They must not be serious about the test because he didn't ask me to take it".

For a big name psychic not to know about the challenge it would take a ream of coincidences, that would be almost Benny Hill like in their consistency.

And for someone not to be able to understand about the challenge within a day would take a lack of reading comprehension that would make me question how she uses the net at all.

And for her not to be able to get ahold of Randi or someone within the organization within 3 days max, would also stretch credulity. I mean for the love of crap, when i sent him an e-mail about a tattoo, i got a response within 48 hours.

How many belief stretching things before even our devils advocate folks realize she is just screwing about?

[sadhatter]

(emphasis mine)

That is what makes some people think he's being a dick. By acting based on what could happen rather than what did happen, it sends the signal (however inadvertently) that one is expecting it to happen. It's a form of prejudice.

...and?

One of the most satisfying moments in a human's life is when one can show a detractor up. Regardless of Randi's views , if her powers are real, her powers are real. And the more randi expresses disbelief the worse he will look when she can show them to be real.

One thing i have realized in my life is that when someone has a skill, be it computer repair, stage magic, acting , knife throwing, etc. The whole " Your not nice so i am not going to prove myself. " never happens, it is a quick smirk, a demonstration, and a variation of " **** you" when they are done.

This whole " Your not nice enough for me to show you your wrong." line, is just something used by folks who have been caught saying something they cannot do.

[sadhatter]

And news just in, Psychic Nikki denies any connection to Blue Velvet but makes a bizarre statement to do so. I asked, "Did you used to perform under the stage name "Blue Velvet". Her response (I'm the "berryio in question) -



So.........

I would say that puts her age at around 45 or so. It is a style of humor common among people who don't have any legitimately funny friends, and by default are the funniest of the folks they know. The Proto-Joke i call it, it seems soley the realm of those around that age, you know there was a joke there, but they couldn't take the time to think of it so they just tossed some half cooked almost joke out there.

[xjx388]

I wasn't aware that debunking was the be-all-end-all of skepticism. I thought the point was to question and to explore.

"Debunking" is one major practical application of a skeptical mind frame. James Randi' has done pretty well with it, I think . . . ;) If debunking isn't questioning and exploring, then what is it?

Could you not have handled that particular situation differently? Were you forced to debunk her or did you choose to do so? Did you ever question yourself?Could I have handled the situation differently? Sure, I guess I could have said, "What a cool picture!" and walked away. Or a simple, "meh," might have sufficed. But I've been heavily influenced by Randi's writing and other work and I couldn't just let it go. I was a teacher for many years before my current career and it was a "teachable moment," as they say. If we don't seize these teachable moments as skeptics, then what's the point of being a skeptic? Are the tricksters and believers keeping quiet? Wasn't it more dickish of her uncle to so baldly lie to her and let her believe?

All I'm trying to say is that anytime you open your mouth as a skeptic, it's usually to challenge someone's belief in some form or another. This can be perceived as "dickish" activity. So yeah, I question myself about stuff like this all the time and my answer is always: "I'd rather be seen as a dick than as a fool."

[chillzero]

Why not? Such history at least should provide us with probable predictions.

I would say possible rather than probable ... and I'd also say that bearing those possibilities (even if you consider them probablities) in mind should still not justify condemning the person as if they have already copied previous history, when they have not.... yet.

[not daSkeptic]

...and?

If that's the approach you want to take, be my guest. Just don't be surprised if you don't get the response you'd like.

One of the most satisfying moments in a human's life is when one can show a detractor up.

That appears to be important to you. It isn't to everyone.

[fls]

Why not? Such history at least should provide us with probable predictions.

I would guess that you have been on the receiving end of "probable predictions" with respect to nursing stereotypes. I would also guess that you didn't always appreciate it. ;)

Linda

[not daSkeptic]

"Debunking" is one major practical application of a skeptical mind frame. James Randi' has done pretty well with it, I think . . . ;) If debunking isn't questioning and exploring, then what is it?

Debunking is a tool that can be used in exploration. The problem is when debunking is the reason for exploration. Some look for a path to Chicago, others travel a path and end up there. The difference is motivation.

[Limbo]

"I don't like skeptics," Nikki said. "They not only put psychics down, they put everybody down."

In my opinion, Randi's letter reinforces that view. That's not what we should be striving for.


Yeah, Randi is a dick and dicks flock to his banner. When a dick like Randi gets in someones face it changes their psychological state. Changes in the psychology of a psychic can be psi-inhibitive. Not only that, but when a crowd of dicks, such as the JREF community, becomes aware of a psychic claimant a collective sheep-goat effect can kick in, adding another layer of psi-inhibition. Throw the psychology of the claimant off balance by being a dick and let the unconscious psi of an unwitting army of dicks do the rest. Presto, an unbeatable "challenge" despite the reality of psi.

So, if you are the founder of an educational foundation and you want your "challenge" to go unbeaten, be a dick and attract a lot of followers who are dicks too.

THE CAPRICIOUS, ACTIVELY EVASIVE, UNSUSTAINABLE NATURE OF PSI: A SUMMARY AND HYPOTHESES (http://jeksite.org/psi/jp03.pdf)

ABSTRACT:

Many parapsychological writers have suggested that psi may be capricious or actively evasive. The evidence for this includes the unpredictable, significant reversal of direction for psi effects, the loss of intended psi effects while unintended secondary or internal effects occur, and the pervasive declines in effect for participants, experimenters, and lines of research. Also, attempts to apply psi typically result in a few very impressive cases among a much larger number of unsuccessful results. The term unsustainable is applicable because psi is sometimes impressive and reliable, but then becomes actively evasive.

One of the most testable models for this property is that psi effects occur against a background of supporting and opposing motivation and psi influence due to the extreme polarization of attitudes toward psi in the population. These attitudes may have genetic and gender associated components. Another possible explanation is that the primary function of psi is to induce a sense of mystery and wonder. Other possible functions of psi also need to be investigated. For example, psi could contribute to evolution by briefly influencing random processes to enhance diversity, without pecifically guiding evolution or having sustained effects. Some type of higher consciousness may influence or control psi effects. (bold mine)

[jj]

Yeah, Randi is a dick and dicks flock to his banner. When a dick like Randi gets in someones face it changes their psychological state. Changes in the psychology of a psychic can be psi-inhibitive.

Just saying something (i.e. "Randi is a dick") does not make it so. Asserting changes in psychologicals state affect psi assume that psi is real, when there is no evidence at all for that.

Please, if you wish to discuss things with skeptics, stick to facts the next time.

[Limbo]

Just saying something (i.e. "Randi is a dick") does not make it so. Asserting changes in psychologicals state affect psi assume that psi is real, when there is no evidence at all for that.

Please, if you wish to discuss things with skeptics, stick to facts the next time.


I'm not assuming psi is real. I've experienced spontaneous veridical psi many times and I'm familiar enough with the parapsychological literature to know that there is evidence, despite the assertions of grumpy old skeptics.

Here, add these to your reading list.

An Introduction to Parapsychology (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Parapsychology-Harvey-J-Irwin/dp/0786430591)
Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism, and the Inexplicable Powers of the Human Mind (http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable/dp/0553803352)
Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence (http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Anomalous-Experience-Examining-Scientific/dp/1557986258/)

[icerat]

A non-dickish letter from JREF President to D.J.Grothe to James Van Praagh (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/1417-a-message-to-james-van-praagh.html) -

Dear James Van Praagh:

As you know, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a long-standing challenge to self-proclaimed psychics, paranormalists, and mediums such as yourself: if you can demonstrate real psychic abilities under fair, mutually-agreed-upon conditions that prevent cheating, we will give $1 million USD to you or any spiritualist group or charity you wish.

I wanted to write to you personally to encourage you to take up this challenge and negotiate a testing protocol with us. From your statements, you appear to have faith in your ability to talk with the dead and obtain information to share with the living. You have also devoted much time to promoting belief in the supernatural, and to promoting spiritualist beliefs as a form of self-improvement and emotional comfort.

If you believe that what you do is real, and you want to help more people believe in the positive benefit of your claimed supernatural abilities, then what better way could there be to accomplish that than by taking our challenge and participating in a fair test of your psychic abilities?

If you proved your abilities and won our prize, millions of people would be persuaded overnight to believe in the spiritual world as you describe it, and you could use the million dollars to fund your work.

We at the James Randi Educational Foundation encourage you to accept our Million Dollar Challenge and we eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely,

D.J. Grothe
President
James Randi Educational Foundation

[snuffkin]

Hello, I'm new :) I wanted to say, I don't believe Randi was being a dick at all. I am so bored with the excuses celebrity psychics come out with as to why they can't take the test. The longer they wriggle out of doing it, the longer they carry on claiming to speak to dead people (including, of course, the spirits of the rich and famous) and earning millions from it.
There are 55,000+ fans on the Sylvia Browne facebook page, and if you join one of the discussion threads, and you dare to bring up the Randi Challenge among them, as I have done in the past (when I've had a few hours of bashing my head against a brick wall time to spare) they (the fans) will continually say that Sylvia won't take it because 'it's a scam, the test is unfair, Randi won't allow third party people to be involved, Sylvia doesn't care/doesn't need to prove herself', etc, and they see these as valid reasons.
Is there no one that stop people like Sylvia from being able to do this for a living?? I realise that Randi cannot force anyone to take the challenge, but surely he is better to be more direct in his approach instead of softly softly, because the self proclaimed psychics are already getting far too much attention, celebrity status and validation from the media and the public.
I really wish there were a law against what they are doing. Anyone know why there isn't?? If basically anyone can pretend to be psychic and charge money for it?

[snuffkin]

A professional hobo will take a tumble at the circus? That's quite a specific prediction.

Lol. Love it.

[Halfcentaur]

Cripes, that massive list of disasters, and only 3 months left in the year. I wonder how she rationalists her hits and misses, as opposed to just guessing.

[fls]

I've been thinking...Nikki did respond pretty quickly after Randi was a dick...maybe there's something to this?


Linda

[thaiboxerken]

I would say possible rather than probable ... and I'd also say that bearing those possibilities (even if you consider them probablities) in mind should still not justify condemning the person as if they have already copied previous history, when they have not.... yet.

So if someone identified themselves as a Nazi, would you think they might be racist?

Yes or no?

[Beady]

Running around trying to give lessons in skepticism is doing nothing but feeding your ego.

*My* ego? I'm not the one parsing sentence fragments and conducting a one-man(?) show to try and prove a point.

If you decide his treatment of Sylvia is fair then you'll have to establish why you consider Nikki and Sylvia in a different class.

I don't *have* to establish anything. As for why I think Nikki and Sylvia are *currently* in different classes, Nikki is at the moment a largely unknown quantity, and I refuse to assign guilt by mere association. That way lies prejudice and bigotry, and I intend to keep off that path as much as I can. My opinions are subject to additional facts coming to light, but you've produced nothing.

Actually, there is evidence. You just choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

Don't let my boss know; I'll be fired.

[chillzero]

So if someone identified themselves as a Nazi, would you think they might be racist?

Yes or no?

Considering that racism is part of the fascist and nazi belief system and agenda, then that would be an easy assumption to make - but I'd also be prepared to reassess that on appropriate evidence. I may even wait to see their actions or stated opinions before making such a judgement personallly - that's just how I am.

I don't see the comparison with determining in advance that someone who identifies themself as psychic (when there is no set psychic belief system or agenda) is deliberately avoiding contact with the JREF.


Nice godwin, though.

[chillzero]

Nikki is at the moment a largely unknown quantity, and I refuse to assign guilt by mere association. That way lies prejudice and bigotry, and I intend to keep off that path as much as I can. My opinions are subject to additional facts coming to light, but you've produced nothing.

Very nicely put.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

*My* ego? I'm not the one parsing sentence fragments and conducting a one-man(?) show to try and prove a point.



I don't *have* to establish anything. As for why I think Nikki and Sylvia are *currently* in different classes, Nikki is at the moment a largely unknown quantity, and I refuse to assign guilt by mere association. That way lies prejudice and bigotry, and I intend to keep off that path as much as I can. My opinions are subject to additional facts coming to light, but you've produced nothing.


"a largely unknown quantity"? Look at her "predictions" I posted earlier. She is an ill-educated fanticizer.

:boggled:

[MRC_Hans]

Nikki, I’ve read in the news that you’ve said you’ll take our Million Dollar Challenge and put your claimed psychic abilities to the test. You told CBC News, “I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities, if I was available.”

You seem to be available for interviews, but so far, we haven’t heard anything from you.

If it’s true that you have faith in your own abilities, follow through and take us up on our challenge. I hope that you do follow through, and aren’t just misleading the media to get your name in the news.

Ten years ago this week, infamous U.S. “psychic” Sylvia Browne claimed on national TV that she’d take us up on our challenge. Sylvia must have no faith in her abilities, because all these years since, we’ve been waiting for her to return our calls. James Van Praagh and others have also failed to return calls about the challenge. I hope that you have more integrity than they do.

You can reach us anytime at +1 (703) 226-3794, or at jref@randi.org, to find out more or to accept our challenge and arrange for a test of your abilities. In any case, we will keep the media informed of whether or not you accept the challenge and agree to a test.

James Randi, Founder
James Randi Educational Foundation

I think it's great the challenge is getting more publicity, and I have no doubt (rounded to several decimal places) that this "Nikki" has no psychic powers, but to be honest I found Randi's initial response obnoxious. There were a number of not so subtle attacks on "Nikki" that were not necessary in an initial contact process, and frankly I think the implied demand for a quick response is unfair and unwarranted.

Now, James Randi is not know for his diplomatic style, but I can't see what is wrong with his address, as quoted.

This person claims to have paranormal powers and claims to want to take the challenge. So what is he/she waiting for? Christmas??

This: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html - is the very first hit you get when Googling james randi challenge. So it is indeed suspicious that Nikki claims publicly to want to take the challenge, but hasn't contacted the JREF.

Hans

"I don't like skeptics," Nikki said. "They not only put psychics down, they put everybody down."

It certainly doesn't put me down. And we don't put psychics down, they let themselves down.

Hans

[Beady]

"a largely unknown quantity"? Look at her "predictions" I posted earlier. She is an ill-educated fanticizer.
:boggled:

I meant, regarding her motivation. I was unbder the impression that's what we are discussing, not her "accuracy."

This person claims to have paranormal powers and claims to want to take the challenge. So what is he/she waiting for? Christmas??

Whoa! Maybe I missed something, but the last I knew she had merely said she would look into it; she did not say she wanted to take it. At this point she is obligated to do nothing at all about the Challenge, even so much as to consider it.

[Checkmite]

For better or worse, she presumably runs a business and is booked for however-much time into the future. Asking her to cancel appointments and make arrangements to take this challenge immediately is unreasonable. Since she is the one who stands to lose by taking this challenge, I see no reason not to leave when she takes it up to her convenience. If that happens to be never, sure she can be criticized - but I'd give her at least a month before deploying the insult-tillery.

[Segnosaur]

Whoa! Maybe I missed something, but the last I knew she had merely said she would look into it; she did not say she wanted to take it.
Her exact words (from an article in the opening post) were: "I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities if I was available..I am the real thing so I don't have to worry about this stuff."

Granted she doesn't come right out and say "I want to take the test", but its a little bit more firm than "I will look into it".
If you decide his treatment of Sylvia is fair then you'll have to establish why you consider Nikki and Sylvia in a different class.
I don't *have* to establish anything.
You're right you don't. Its an online forum. You could post random gibberish in an unknown elf-language.

But if you want to be convincing and illustrate your point, then yes, you do need to show the differences between Nikki and Sylvia, and why you think one should be treated differently than the other.

As for why I think Nikki and Sylvia are *currently* in different classes, Nikki is at the moment a largely unknown quantity, and I refuse to assign guilt by mere association.
You don't need to "assign guilt by association".

We have an individual who (according to a reference that I posted earlier) "falsified" predictions after-the-fact. So, if nothing else that should make us suspicious. She's also directed accusations at skeptics "not understanding predictions".

We also have an individual who claims to "want to know more about the challenge" but made no effort to contact the JREF, in a time frame that even a brain-damaged completely drunk moron could have investigated the million dollar challenge and at the very least sent off an email (on her own, without an invitation).

Those facts are more than enough to be critical of Nikki, even if we had no other history of other psychics to go by.

[Segnosaur]

For better or worse, she presumably runs a business and is booked for however-much time into the future.
Perhaps that's why Randi, in his letter to her, said something like "you seem to have time for interviews". I'm assuming the interviews were not a "life or death" situation.
Asking her to cancel appointments and make arrangements to take this challenge immediately is unreasonable. Since she is the one who stands to lose by taking this challenge, I see no reason not to leave when she takes it up to her convenience.
Ummm... who said she had to "take the challenge" immediately? I don't think anyone here claimed that that was necessary.

I would have been happy even if she would have contacted JREF to even just ask "I don't understand/explain how this works", something that would have been quick and easy to do. (Something that could take all of 2 minutes. Heck, she could have done that while watching TV.)

Instead, we get people jumping in and saying "Well, a week isn't enough time!", leaving me wondering how someone could be so brain-damaged that they couldn't read a simple FAQ in under an hour.

[Segnosaur]

A non-dickish letter from JREF President to D.J.Grothe to James Van Praagh (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/1417-a-message-to-james-van-praagh.html) -

Dear James Van Praagh:

As you know, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a long-standing challenge to self-proclaimed psychics, paranormalists, and mediums such as yourself: if you can demonstrate real psychic abilities under fair, mutually-agreed-upon conditions that prevent cheating, we will give $1 million USD to you or any spiritualist group or charity you wish.
Ah but wait.... D.J. Grothe in his letter called him a "self-proclaimed" psychic, and he mentioned "cheating"! How dickish! Doesn't he know that Van Praagh is known as a psychic by all his followers? And how dare he bring up the suggestion of cheating!

Oh, and by the way, there is one other difference between the Van Praagh and Nikki situation... Nikki was the one who preemptively mentioned her interest in the challenge. She opened herself up to it. On the other hand, I do not recall Van Praagh at any time saying "Oh yeah, Randi's challenge! I can win it!"

[Segnosaur]

I consider myself a person with relatively normal mental capabilities. When someone mentions a topic of interest, I can investigate the basics of the subject within an hour or 2. Given my work schedule and family requirements, it may take a day to get around to it, but it can be done. (And that's just because I find a topic interesting! No millions on the line.)

I'm assuming that Nikki has roughly the same mental capabilities as I do.
You are assuming yourself to be average and you are assuming her to be the same. Some people are smarter than others, some are dumber. Some are more capable, some are less.
Well, technically I did say relatively similar mental capabilities.

But even if she were dumber, just how much dumber would she have to be to take a week to "investigate" something that I could do in under an hour? (Even with whatever personal or business obligations that she has.) You're talking a pretty brain damaged individual.

Yes, there is justification for being proactive... By removing a common 'out' that she may use (e.g. "I'm too busy saving kittens from rabid crocodiles") it reduces the chance of any discussion being dragged out (and possibly forgotten).
Again, risk analysis applies. What would be the impact of that happening? Would it really be that big of a deal to wait and see?
As I explained before... people have short attention spans. Outside of a few people who have vested interests, most people would forget anything that is said within a few days/weeks. The risk is that if we don't follow up quickly and wait a month before responding, we'll just get people saying "Challenge? What challenge? Wasn't there something about that but I forget!"

Since you seem to be concerned about "risk analysis", what do you think the risk of calling her out after a week? After all, I doubt many people are sitting there staring at their callendars, saying "Oops, it was only a week!" And if there are people who fell for her "he's asking me too soon", they are likely hardcore believers who would probably fall for anything she says anyways.

"Want to take the test? We saw you had free time". "But <insert excuse here>"

Is better (for the skeptic cause anyways) than:

"Want to take the test?" "No, I'm too busy". "But you had all this free time to do X". "But, <insert excuse here>"
Free time by your definition. I learned a long time ago not to assume one's own views of how people should spend their time are held by everyone.
Once again... Randi pointed out how she had time for interviews. An interview is not a life-or-death situation. It is not something that is a money-maker for her.

Consider Randi's battle with Sylvia... Some of her claims were that she "didn't believe the money existed", and "The money's not in escrow". What if Randi had been proactive back when he challenged her on Larry King, and actually had all those arrangements made ahead of time? I'm sure Silvia would still not have taken the test, but it would have been more useful in showing her to be a fraud to get her excuses out of the way ahead of time.
Why is such immediacy so important? What is so urgent that it couldn't wait for a bit?
Because, as I have said before (in this post and others), people's attention spans are short.

Think back to the Sylvia interview... both he and Silvia had a national audience on a major Cable program. (Probably more than just skeptics and Sylvia fans, you had people would would be "on the fence".) Just think of how valuable it would have been to have a "gotcha" moment during that show. Instead, Sylvia was able to say "Ok, I'll take the test", and then avoided things for a decade. I doubt anyone outside of her hardcore followers or followers of the JREF even knew about the steps she's taken to avoid the test.

Re: The action of "debunking" a fake photograph...

Well, because there really are only 2 options.... try to do something to challenge people's false claims or keep silent.

What exactly do you think are the alternative
Keeping silent and "letting it go" are not necessarily the same thing. An alternative would be for him to explore the matter purely for the sake of his own personal curiosity.
Sorry, I should have clarified.... I was speaking in terms of his interaction with the individual in question.

Yes, he could have investigated things for his own amusement/curiosity, but in terms of his interaction with the woman and her co-workers, he would have been "letting it go".

And while "letting it go" (or not telling people how it was done) might have been the easiest route, its not a very productive one. While the woman may be pissed off, hopefully both she and her coworkers will be a bit more skeptical when seeing pictures like that again.

But based on his own statement of events, it would appear he was more interested in debunking her than anything else. He denounced the validity of the photograph before he had even researched it. Yes, ultimately he was correct, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't follow the evidence.
Actually, he probably did "follow the evidence".

Remember, he had more "evidence" than just the picture in front of him... he had (I assume) knowledge of similar photos, the general capabilities of image processing software, other supernatural claims, etc., all of which constitutes evidence.

I don't need to hear the 100th claim of a creationist or a 9/11 troother to assume their latest claim is invalid, given the fact that the previous 99 claims were likewise invalid. Likewise the "debunker" didn't need to know the exact tool that was used to make the picture in question if he knew if tools like photoshop could do the same thing.

[thaiboxerken]

Considering that racism is part of the fascist and nazi belief system and agenda, then that would be an easy assumption to make - but I'd also be prepared to reassess that on appropriate evidence. I may even wait to see their actions or stated opinions before making such a judgement personallly - that's just how I am.

I don't see the comparison with determining in advance that someone who identifies themself as psychic (when there is no set psychic belief system or agenda) is deliberately avoiding contact with the JREF.


Nice godwin, though.

Avoiding challenges, like the MDC, is part of being a psychic. Most that are challenged to try the MDC never follow up, even those that proclaim to accept the challenge in public. Why should anyone think your favorite psychic would actually follow up?

[not daSkeptic]

Well, technically I did say ...

Meh ... 100th claim of someone who thinks of themselves as a critical thinker. I assume it's invalid.

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, but I still don't see what made Randi seem so "unkind" to anyone. If anything, (repeating myself), I thought he was fairly direct, and rather diplomatic. I know I'd be a hell of a lot less so.

[not daSkeptic]

Sorry, but I still don't see what made Randi seem so "unkind" to anyone.

The suggestion that Nikki would be another Sylvia Browne.

[Roadtoad]

The suggestion that Nikki would be another Sylvia Browne.

History involving others would suggest this would be likely.

[rhodtpr]

I would say that puts her age at around 45 or so. It is a style of humor common among people who don't have any legitimately funny friends, and by default are the funniest of the folks they know. The Proto-Joke i call it, it seems soley the realm of those around that age, you know there was a joke there, but they couldn't take the time to think of it so they just tossed some half cooked almost joke out there.

No bud...she was in her 40's in the mid-80's - at a time when most girls who were in the business were in their 20's and a "old" strippper was in her 30's.

I used to do the bookings at Le Strip - each performer had to present her City of Toronto license which had on it; the name, DOB and address of the performer.

Just because Psychic Nikki has some good portfolio pictures of her from a younger era and can use makeup to make herself look younger doesn't mean she isn't older than she looks.

She is probably collecting Canada Pension while she is doing her gigs as Psychic Nikki.

Remember, entertainment is all about illusion.

;)

[not daSkeptic]

History involving others would suggest this would be likely.

That may be good enough for you, but it isn't for me. I'm not about to assume someone is a fraud just because others before them were. I'm going to wait for evidence pertaining to their particular case.

[Beady]

Granted she doesn't come right out and say "I want to take the test", but its a little bit more firm than "I will look into it".

She then says she's leery of skeptics. That reinforces the tentative nature of her statement.

But if you want to be convincing...

*Now* who's lecturing?


We have an individual who (according to a reference that I posted earlier) "falsified" predictions after-the-fact. So, if nothing else that should make us suspicious. She's also directed accusations at skeptics "not understanding predictions".


Neither of which is pertinent to the question of whether she can do what she says she can do.


We also have an individual who claims to "want to know more about the challenge" but made no effort to contact the JREF, in a time frame that even a brain-damaged completely drunk moron could have investigated the million dollar challenge and at the very least sent off an email (on her own, without an invitation).


So what? I've already explained why the Challenge is nothing more than a publicity stunt; she's in show business and would presumably recognize it for what it is. Maybe she just plain doesn't care about it; maybe she's skeptical of JREF's motives (wonder why?); maybe she said "I'll look into it" the same way a parent promises to "think about" getting a pony for their child (these two, btw, are my own favorite interpretation). There's all kinds of possible motiviation other than simple fear of exposure.

Those facts are more than enough to be critical of Nikki, even if we had no other history of other psychics to go by.

Sigh. And again: You cannot discern individual motivation by simple group association.

[Beady]

Sorry, but I still don't see what made Randi seem so "unkind" to anyone. If anything, (repeating myself), I thought he was fairly direct, and rather diplomatic. I know I'd be a hell of a lot less so.

OK. Here's my edit of the original, removing the snarky parts:

Nikki, I’ve read in the news that you’ve said you’ll take our Million Dollar Challenge and put your claimed psychic abilities to the test. You told CBC News, “I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities, if I was available.”

If it’s true that you have faith in your own abilities, I hope that you follow through and take us up on our challenge. You can reach us anytime at +1 (703) 226-3794, or at jref@randi.org (jref@randi.org), to find out more or to accept our challenge and arrange for a test of your abilities. You may also read more about the Challenge, including the rules, on our web site at http://forums.randi.org.

Hoping to hear from you.

Sincerely,

[Ethan Thane Athen]

(emphasis mine)

That is what makes some people think he's being a dick. By acting based on what could happen rather than what did happen, it sends the signal (however inadvertently) that one is expecting it to happen. It's a form of prejudice.

Now see, I agree with your last bit, I just don't see it as being that bad ie not dickish. I really don't see a problem with effectively saying 'Sigh, we've heard these sort of claims before, let's hope you're not going to be like the others and gib out. Come on then, we're up for it, put your money where your mouth is and prove you're not like the others'.

Cynical? Yes - though I'd argue realistic. After all, all she's doing is talking about the challenge, why hasn't she applied (or begun the process of doing so)? If people want to / intend to do something they usually just do it, whereas those who are going to prevaricate just talk about doing it.

I tend to agree with those who say a politer response may have been 'better' at this early stage (so we can be whiter than white) but I don't think the response was that bad. Yes it could have been nicer but 'dickish'? Nope, just blunt, cynical and a bit world weary.

She's made a claim and he's calling her out on it - isn't that his job?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

For better or worse, she presumably runs a business and is booked for however-much time into the future. Asking her to cancel appointments and make arrangements to take this challenge immediately is unreasonable. Since she is the one who stands to lose by taking this challenge, I see no reason not to leave when she takes it up to her convenience. If that happens to be never, sure she can be criticized - but I'd give her at least a month before deploying the insult-tillery.

The whole point of the challenge is to call psychics out so surely it should be waved in the face of any psychic when they court publicity - especially when they mention being interested in it.

[chillzero]

Cynical? Yes - though I'd argue realistic.
<snip>
Yes it could have been nicer but 'dickish'? Nope, just blunt, cynical and a bit world weary.

Perhaps this is only a problem to those of us who spend time tying to convince people that 'cynic' and 'skeptic' are two different terms, with entirely different meanings. If you are happy for those to be continually conflated, then maybe that's fine, for you. I'd prefer to put some distance between the two in the eyes of the general public.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

...
As I explained before... people have short attention spans. Outside of a few people who have vested interests, most people would forget anything that is said within a few days/weeks. The risk is that if we don't follow up quickly and wait a month before responding, we'll just get people saying "Challenge? What challenge? Wasn't there something about that but I forget!"

...

This! She's in the public eye now therefore now is the time to call her out. The public have incredibly short attention spans.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Perhaps this is only a problem to those of us who spend time tying to convince people that 'cynic' and 'skeptic' are two different terms, with entirely different meanings. If you are happy for those to be continually conflated, then maybe that's fine, for you. I'd prefer to put some distance between the two in the eyes of the general public.

Snarky much? Ironic considering the topic of this thread. Your point could have been perfectly made without the bolded bit. ;)

I understand where you're coming from - maybe you missed the bit where I agreed it probably would have been better to be more polite - I just don't think the tone was that bad.

Oh and I perfectly understand the difference between 'cynic' and 'skeptic' but I also believe there's a difference between being cynical and being a dick.

[Beady]

Well, given the latest development it appears that it is now proper to say that she is, in fact, dodging the Challenge. Her motivation for doing so, however, is still unclear and, where internal or factual evidence to the contrary is absent, her stated reasons must be given at least nominal credence.

[chillzero]

Link?
(Or C&P if it is on Twitter)

[Segnosaur]

Well, given the latest development it appears that it is now proper to say that she is, in fact, dodging the Challenge. Her motivation for doing so, however, is still unclear and, where internal or factual evidence to the contrary is absent, her stated reasons must be given at least nominal credence.
Ummm... why must they be given any credence?

Most of her excuses appear to be nothing more than willful ignorance... "Randi doesn't have the money", "Could be faking it", "Test is controlled". The JREF has tried multiple times to provide that information but she's not accepting it. I'd say she's actually making an effort to keep herself uninformed.

The only other argument she made was "No time until next year"... Ok, lets give her the benefit of the doubt... lets say she's got critical stuff to do every day between now and the end of the year that she can't take off... [i]why did she not say "Schedule me for January of next year"?

[Segnosaur]

Link?
(Or C&P if it is on Twitter)

Its right on the main JREF page.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/1419-psychic-nikki-backs-away-from-jrefs-million-dollar-challenge.html

[chillzero]

Thank you.

[Beady]

Ummm... why must they be given any credence?

I make my living by making decisions about other peoples' lives that have to stand up in court. One general principle is that, barring contradictory evidence in the record of proceedings for that particular case, the claimant's statements will be given due consideration. In other words, I take a person's statements at face value unless I have discovered a direct, specific, articulable and demonstrable contradiction in the evidence of record.

Most of her excuses appear to be nothing more than willful ignorance... "Randi doesn't have the money", "Could be faking it", "Test is controlled". The JREF has tried multiple times to provide that information but she's not accepting it. I'd say she's actually making an effort to keep herself uninformed.

Do you have any *evidence* that she doesn't believe what she says?

y other argument she made was "No time until next year"... Ok, lets give her the benefit of the doubt... lets say she's got critical stuff to do every day between now and the end of the year that she can't take off... [i]why did she not say "Schedule me for January of next year"?

I dunno. Why didn't she? Please include the source of your information.

[Almo]

A non-dickish letter from JREF President to D.J.Grothe to James Van Praagh (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/1417-a-message-to-james-van-praagh.html)

Nice find, Icerat.

[carlitos]

That may be good enough for you, but it isn't for me. I'm not about to assume someone is a fraud just because others before them were. I'm going to wait for evidence pertaining to their particular case.

I'll stick with assuming that anyone calling themselves a "psychic" is a fraud. My hit rate while operating under this assumption is 100%.

[icerat]

OK. Here's my edit of the original, removing the snarky parts:

Nikki, I’ve read in the news that you’ve said you’ll take our Million Dollar Challenge and put your claimed psychic abilities to the test. You told CBC News, “I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities, if I was available.”

If it’s true that you have faith in your own abilities, I hope that you follow through and take us up on our challenge. You can reach us anytime at +1 (703) 226-3794, or at jref@randi.org (jref@randi.org), to find out more or to accept our challenge and arrange for a test of your abilities. You may also read more about the Challenge, including the rules, on our web site at http://forums.randi.org.

Hoping to hear from you.

Sincerely,

Perfect!

Now that she has however very clearly and publicly dodged the test it's fine to start sticking the boot in, but again it can be done professionally. I've no idea who wrote the latest jref letter (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/1419-psychic-nikki-backs-away-from-jrefs-million-dollar-challenge.html), but I think it's fine.

[Beady]

I'll stick with assuming that anyone calling themselves a "psychic" is a fraud. My hit rate while operating under this assumption is 100%.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, "fraud" involves a knowing or reckless without belief misrepresentation or concealment.

So, you're saying that *no one* calling themselves a psychic actually believes in their own abilities?

[carlitos]

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1420-psychic-nikki-not-psychologically-ready-to-prove-she-can-actually-do-anything-besides-talk-that-is.html

In case anyone hasn't seen it.

[carlitos]

According to Black's Law Dictionary, "fraud" involves a knowing or reckless without belief misrepresentation or concealment.
I'm not a lawyer, so I use conversational English and not Black's Law Dictionary. That said...

So, you're saying that *no one* calling themselves a psychic actually believes in their own abilities?
This is a fair point. However, using a casual definition of fraud as "scam," "deceit" or "trickery," does one knowingly have to be lying in order to still be a fraud?

Example - I saw a woman at a health expo last weekend demonstrating the "power band" or some such thing. I think that she really believed it worked. She believed that she was pressing down on the person's arms in the same way the second time, and hadn't honestly considered that the fraud victim was merely more physically and mentally prepared the second time around (while, of course, wearing the braceet). She's still a fraudster, albeit an unwitting one.

[not daSkeptic]

... using a casual definition of fraud as "scam," "deceit" or "trickery," does one knowingly have to be lying in order to still be a fraud?

Yes! Scams and tricks involve deception, and therefore one does knowingly have to be lying. If they're not knowingly telling a falsehood, if they're simply mistaken, then they cannot be scamming or tricking or deceiving.

[not daSkeptic]

She's made a claim and he's calling her out on it - isn't that his job?

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick for doing it. Not everyone who fashions themselves a critical thinker takes such an approach. His style, and apparently that of many others here, is to preempt. Whether or not his assumptions are ultimately correct is irrelevant. He still presumes guilt.

[not daSkeptic]

I'll stick with assuming that anyone calling themselves a "psychic" is a fraud. My hit rate while operating under this assumption is 100%.

Your hit-rate does not necessarily influence how your attitude is perceived by others. You can be correct every time and still be seen as a dick because of the manner in which you conducted yourself. Now if your public image doesn't concern you, fine. It does concern others.

[Pixel42]

Yes! Scams and tricks involve deception, and therefore one does knowingly have to be lying. If they're not knowingly telling a falsehood, if they're simply mistaken, then they cannot be scamming or tricking or deceiving.
Agreed, but isn't there a middle group of the wilfully ignorant - people who have been given every opportunity to educate themselves as to the true nature of their supposed paranormal ability and have chosen not to take them - who are at least partly culpable for taking money from often desperate and vulnerable people under false pretences?

[carlitos]

Your hit-rate does not necessarily influence how your attitude is perceived by others. You can be correct every time and still be seen as a dick because of the manner in which you conducted yourself. Now if your public image doesn't concern you, fine. It does concern others.
Where in the world did I say that I don't care about my public image? :confused:

Agreed, but isn't there a middle group of the wilfully ignorant - people who have been given every opportunity to educate themselves as to the true nature of their supposed paranormal ability and have chosen not to take them - who are at least partly culpable for taking money from often desperate and vulnerable people under false pretences?
Interesting point. I get so mad when I see the storefront psychics in poor neighborhoods.

[stanfr]

Yes! Scams and tricks involve deception, and therefore one does knowingly have to be lying. If they're not knowingly telling a falsehood, if they're simply mistaken, then they cannot be scamming or tricking or deceiving.

I disagree. Using legal terminology, one is required to excercise 'due diligence'. In this information age, it's very easy to quickly learn that your professed 'skill' has no basis in reality. You cannot shoot someone and then later claim you thought quantum mechanics would dissolve the bullets before they entered your victim's skull. You're a murderer, and numerous court cases have established that fact.

[Beady]

You're a murderer, and numerous court cases have established that fact.

Numerous court cases have also established different degrees of homocide dependant on several factors, including intent, knowledge and general circumstances. It's entirely possible to kill someone in front of 20 witnesses and cameras, and to either avoid arrest or conviction. Killing someone isn't necessarilly murder. Your analogy is too flawed to be pertinent.

[thaiboxerken]

Wow. She's dodging the challenge. Who could've predicted that, Chillzero?

[Beady]

I'm not a lawyer, so I use conversational English and not Black's Law Dictionary.

Calling someone a fraud in conversational English can still get you sued, so it might be an idea to familiarize yourself with Black's.

[stanfr]

Do you have any *evidence* that she doesn't believe what she says?

Yeah, like legal precedence, there is ample evidence that this is the same modus operandi that has been employed by countless prior fake psychics, it's a pattern of deception and later excuses; about as obvious as the the fact that the earth is a sphere to any Judge or rational jury..

[stanfr]

Calling someone a fraud in conversational English can still get you sued, so it might be an idea to familiarize yourself with Black's.

And if you sued someone for that, I might sue you for a frivolous lawsuit. You're exemplifying why i gave up my career as a trial attorney, and took on a career as a scientist!

[stanfr]

Numerous court cases have also established different degrees of homocide dependant on several factors, including intent, knowledge and general circumstances. It's entirely possible to kill someone in front of 20 witnesses and cameras, and to either avoid arrest or conviction. Killing someone isn't necessarilly murder. Your analogy is too flawed to be pertinent.

Is anyone claiming the alleged psychic is legally incompetent, or somehow justified?? I don't think so.

I initially thought Randi's letter was a bit harsh (the references to Sylvia etc) but In retrospect, The MDC is founded upon the concept of 'put up or shut up'. It's what makes the MDC so important. In that spirit, I think his language was justified.

[carlitos]

Calling someone a fraud in conversational English can still get you sued, so it might be an idea to familiarize yourself with Black's.

Thanks. I'll take my chances in this hypothetical "fraudulent huckster / psychic sues internet poster 'carlitos' for defamation" scenario.

[not daSkeptic]

In this information age, it's very easy to quickly learn that your professed 'skill' has no basis in reality.

Is it? Or is it really easy to find people claiming said skill has no basis in reality? There's a difference between reading what people say and accepting it. Many people think the scientific explanations of things are wrong and therefore reject them. Other people think the paranormal explanations of things are wrong and reject them. Does due diligence require only certain sources to be valid?

You cannot shoot someone and then later claim you thought quantum mechanics would dissolve the bullets before they entered your victim's skull.

It was my understanding that the law says, with very few exceptions, shooting someone is illegal. Period. One's beliefs are irrelevant. I am not aware of a similar illegality regarding statements about the existence of psychic abilities. I am, however, aware of the illegality of gains through intentional deception.

[not daSkeptic]

Wow. She's dodging the challenge. Who could've predicted that, Chillzero?

Did anybody ever say she wouldn't?

[thaiboxerken]

Did anybody ever say she wouldn't?

Some were saying it was wrong to make that prediction.

[not daSkeptic]

Some were saying it was wrong to make that prediction.

Not the same. One of them is a statement about her behavior. The other is a statement about our behavior.

[thaiboxerken]

Not the same. One of them is a statement about her behavior. The other is a statement about our behavior.

I agree. However, I don't agree that we should not predict this type of behavior from all of these people that claim to have superpowers. It's a pattern for these people,, that's wy it's predictable.

[icerat]

Some were saying it was wrong to make that prediction.

No, I think some were saying it was wrong to make that assumption. Not quite the same thing.

[thaiboxerken]

No, I think some were saying it was wrong to make that assumption. Not quite the same thing.

It's a pretty good asumption, though. I assume KKK members are racist, for example.

[not daSkeptic]

I assume KKK members are racist, for example.

Yes, but if you saw a KKK member walking down the street minding his own business, would you get in his face about his views?

[not daSkeptic]

However, I don't agree that we should not predict this type of behavior from all of these people that claim to have superpowers.

Then don't be surprised if people call you a dick.

[thaiboxerken]

Then don't be surprised if people call you a dick.

I'm not. I expect it, no matter how polite I am about questioning their beliefs.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, but if you saw a KKK member walking down the street minding his own business, would you get in his face about his views?

no. But if he posted on a forum or public arena, I would. Nikki did just that.

[not daSkeptic]

no. But if he posted on a forum or public arena, I would.

No matter what he posted?

[not daSkeptic]

I'm not. I expect it, no matter how polite I am about questioning their beliefs.

Great. As long as you're honest about your approach.

[thaiboxerken]

No matter what he posted?

Obviously what was posted would be taken into account. This is why I have no qualms about what I posted to ChillZero about Nikki.

[Pixel42]

Is it? Or is it really easy to find people claiming said skill has no basis in reality? There's a difference between reading what people say and accepting it. Many people think the scientific explanations of things are wrong and therefore reject them. Other people think the paranormal explanations of things are wrong and reject them. Does due diligence require only certain sources to be valid?
Due diligance requires examining all sources and giving due weight to the evidence each can muster to support their position. It also requires recognising and taking into account any desire one might have that one particular position will turn out to be the correct one when assessing that evidence.

Conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers, creationists, psychics ... these people may be mistaken rather than liars, but they are not honestly mistaken, if you see what I mean. They choose to give credence only to the cherry picked pieces of evidence which allow them to continue to believe what they want to believe, and wilfully ignore the mountains of evidence which contradict those beliefs.

Of course the same is true of the clients of the so-called psychics; they too only need to do a little digging to find the evidence that would convince any reasonable person that the psychic cannot do what they claim to do. So they are at least partly culpable for their own deception.

[chillzero]

Wow. She's dodging the challenge. Who could've predicted that, Chillzero?
hehe ... confirmation bias.

Did anybody ever say she wouldn't?

Some were saying it was wrong to make that prediction.
I'm glad that now we can actually assess her comments based on evidence, rather than such unproven, unscientific things as predictions.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

hehe ... confirmation bias.




I'm glad that now we can actually assess her comments based on evidence, rather than such unproven, unscientific things as predictions.

Yeah, but let's face it, it was a prediction similar to 'There'll be a major earthquake somewhere in the ring of fire this year'. ;)

[fls]

I don't think this has anything to do with whether our prejudices are accurate in this case. It isn't Nikki's mind we are trying to change, but rather alter the perception of those who are inclined to take her seriously. The MDC is a good way to highlight this, because it forces Nikki to expose herself. We want to set it up so that Nikki doesn't have any excuse not to take the test, so it becomes obvious, when she backs out, that there is only one reason she backed out. She can't do it.

By being a dick, we thwart that. We give her an excuse to back out. Nobody likes working with a dick. So to the observers understand why she wants to drop it, and we're no further ahead.

Linda

[Gr8wight]

I don't think this has anything to do with whether our prejudices are accurate in this case. It isn't Nikki's mind we are trying to change, but rather alter the perception of those who are inclined to take her seriously. The MDC is a good way to highlight this, because it forces Nikki to expose herself. We want to set it up so that Nikki doesn't have any excuse not to take the test, so it becomes obvious, when she backs out, that there is only one reason she backed out. She can't do it.

By being a dick, we thwart that. We give her an excuse to back out. Nobody likes working with a dick. So to the observers understand why she wants to drop it, and we're no further ahead.

Linda

I don't buy it. On one hand, we have One Million Dollars. On the other hand, we have putting up with a dick for a couple of hours. Really doesn't seem like too difficult a choice to me. Anyone who agrees with Nikki (or any other purveyor of woo) that she shouldn't aggravate herself by spending two hours tolerating a dick in return for a million smackers is intellectually complicit with her fraud.

[fls]

I don't buy it. On one hand, we have One Million Dollars. On the other hand, we have putting up with a dick for a couple of hours. Really doesn't seem like too difficult a choice to me. Anyone who agrees with Nikki (or any other purveyor of woo) that she shouldn't aggravate herself by spending two hours tolerating a dick in return for a million smackers is intellectually complicit with her fraud.

But you're not the target audience. Cast some doubt on the existence of the money, use the dickishness to cast doubt on whether an agreeable protocol will be reached, and it's no longer about what you'd put up with for a sure million, but about what you'd put up with for a chance at something which is questionable to begin with.

Linda

[carlitos]

But you're not the target audience. [Dishonestly] Cast some doubt on the existence of the money, [Dishonestly] use the dickishness to cast doubt on whether an agreeable protocol will be reached, and it's no longer about what you'd put up with for a sure million, but about what you'd put up with for a chance at something which is questionable to begin with.

Linda

Yeah, dishonest frauds tend to do dishonest things like that. Regardless of the tone of an email from James Randi.

[Verklagekasper]

There were a number of not so subtle attacks on "Nikki" that were not necessary in an initial contact process, and frankly I think the implied demand for a quick response is unfair and unwarranted.
Nothing of this applies to Randi's perfectly valid response. "Unfair", "unwarranted" and "not necessary in an initial contact process" rather applies to her bragging in public on his expense without contacting him first about the challenge.

[fls]

Yeah, dishonest frauds tend to do dishonest things like that. Regardless of the tone of an email from James Randi.

Yes, but the e-mail is there for the onlookers to read, and if you make it civil instead of uncivil, then Randi won't be seen as a dick from the start, and the rest of what follows will more clearly show Nikki up when she backs out. There is substantial research out there on how onlookers perceive tone, and if you leave out elements of incivility, it isn't perceived as uncivil. As soon as you introduce elements of incivility and impoliteness, it is perceived as uncivil, even if it's mild. Onlookers aren't going to be persuaded that she deserves incivility before she backs out. They just might think the backing out was because of the incivility.

Linda

[Reno]

You can ask a celebrity level psychic to take The Challenge as politely as you like. You can stick a cherry on top and sprinkle it with sugar. You can kiss their feet and say please please please.

It’s highly unlikely that the psychic will take The Challenge because there is absolutely no benefit to the psychic whatsoever. There is only a detriment: guaranteed failure probably won’t affect their business, but it could be a bit of a pita and will likely irk the psychic to see the failure in print, or on the TV at any time in the future, and the possibility of having some journalist stick a microphone into your face and question you about your failure is not going to be pleasant.

So it doesn’t matter how you challenge the psychic to take The Challenge. If you do it nicely, you’re a nice dick and the psychic won’t take The Challenge. If you do it dickishly, you’re a nasty dick and the psychic won’t take The Challenge. In both cases, the psychic is going to lie about their reasons for not taking The Challenge. If you’re not being a dick about it, it only means that they can’t use the excuse that you’re a dick.

Bystanders aren’t going to think that a psychic must be real because the challenger is a dick. They’ll just think the challenger is a dick. Bystanders aren’t going to think that a psychic must be real because the challenger is a nice person. In the end, the bystander will believe whatever they want to believe and nothing you or I can do will change that – because the psychic simply won’t take the test.

So, The Challenge is not really about testing psychic ability - The Challenge is about exposing the fact that psychics will not take The Challenge. And when they don’t, we should shout about it from the rooftops. Call them out as dickishly as possible and hound them mercilessly, gathering as much media attention to the fact that no psychic will take the challenge because they can’t do what they claim.

The bystander can’t help but eventually be influenced by seeing EVERY SINGLE celebrity level psychic dodge the challenge. But the bystander can only be influenced if the dodge is exposed in the media loudly and repetitively.

Having said all that, how did Randi manage to convince baby-whisperer Derek Ogilvie to take The Challenge?

[fls]

In the end, the bystander will believe whatever they want to believe and nothing you or I can do will change that – because the psychic simply won’t take the test.

This is the sentence which is relevant in your post.

I don't think you really believe that. If we are unable to persuade bystanders, then nothing we do here or in public is worthwhile.

I think we actually do believe that we have the potential to persuade. And once we admit this, then it makes sense to look at the ample research out there on persuasion instead of sitting back and crowing amongst ourselves.

Linda

[Reno]

I don't think you really believe that. If we are unable to persuade bystanders, then nothing we do here or in public is worthwhile.

Linda

Let me clarify by expansion: "In the end, the bystander will believe whatever they want to believe and nothing you or I can do will change that" (in regards to the issue of asking the psychic to take The Challenge, and the psychic refusing)

We have other methods of persuasion, of course: reasoning, teaching, explaining, presentations, etc. These methods may or may not persude the bystander that the psychic is indeed fake, but I honestly believe that being a dick won't persuade the bystander of anything other than that you are being a dick.

[fls]

Let me clarify by expansion: "In the end, the bystander will believe whatever they want to believe and nothing you or I can do will change that" (in regards to the issue of asking the psychic to take The Challenge, and the psychic refusing)

We have other methods of persuasion, of course: reasoning, teaching, explaining, presentations, etc. These methods may or may not persude the bystander that the psychic is indeed fake, but I honestly believe that being a dick won't persuade the bystander of anything other than that you are being a dick.

Okay.

I like the idea of exposing the dodge in the media loudly and repetitively. That probably requires new meat each time, but still...

Linda

[not daSkeptic]

Linda has an excellent point. If someone is trying to dodge a critical analysis of their claim, they'll look for any excuse to do so. Prejudging their claim hands them an excuse on a silver platter. It allows them to say, "Look, they've already decided I'm wrong."

[Segnosaur]

Linda has an excellent point. If someone is trying to dodge a critical analysis of their claim, they'll look for any excuse to do so. Prejudging their claim hands them an excuse on a silver platter. It allows them to say, "Look, they've already decided I'm wrong."
Of course, nowhere in Randi's initial letter does he ever say "You are not psychic."

Of course, a lot of people have claimed Randi is a dick because he dared mention Sylvia/Van Praagh, but in Randi's letter he doesn't even state that they have no powers. So he's not even pre-judging them. (At least not in what he's written.)

Now, Nikki did fall back on some of the old excuses (like "No Money/Test is fixed") but there's nothing in the excuses that I've seen that in any way reflects on Randi's dickishness. (And nothing that she wouldn't have stated anyways, regardless of how "nice" Randi acted.)

[not daSkeptic]

Of course, nowhere in Randi's initial letter does he ever say "You are not psychic."

Of course, a lot of people have claimed Randi is a dick because he dared mention Sylvia/Van Praagh, but in Randi's letter he doesn't even state that they have no powers. So he's not even pre-judging them. (At least not in what he's written.)

I'm unaware of anybody ever saying anything about prejudging whether or not these people had powers.

[rhodtpr]

I don't buy it. On one hand, we have One Million Dollars. On the other hand, we have putting up with a dick for a couple of hours. Really doesn't seem like too difficult a choice to me. Anyone who agrees with Nikki (or any other purveyor of woo) that she shouldn't aggravate herself by spending two hours tolerating a dick in return for a million smackers is intellectually complicit with her fraud.


Believe me, Nikki has put up with many "dicks" over the years;

...yours would hardly faze her.

;)

[Verklagekasper]

Yes, but the e-mail is there for the onlookers to read, and if you make it civil instead of uncivil, then Randi won't be seen as a dick from the start, and the rest of what follows will more clearly show Nikki up when she backs out. There is substantial research out there on how onlookers perceive tone, and if you leave out elements of incivility, it isn't perceived as uncivil.
Skeptics feel so insecure about their arguments that they try to convince by being nice rather than by arguing. Skepticism has lost its case. Don't label yourself "skeptic" unless you want people to speak on behalf of you who think that being popular is more important than occupying a position of critical thinking.

Well, at least that's the impression an onlooker will get when he reads this thread.

[fls]

Skeptics feel so insecure about their arguments that they try to convince by being nice rather than by arguing. Skepticism has lost its case. Don't label yourself "skeptic" unless you want people to speak on behalf of you who think that being popular is more important than occupying a position of critical thinking.

Well, at least that's the impression an onlooker will get when he reads this thread.

I am happy not to label myself skeptic if you want to trademark it to mean something which I am not.

However, I must admit that I don't understand your post. You seem to making the claim that "being nice" and "arguing" are opposite ends of the same line???

Linda

[Verklagekasper]

I am happy not to label myself skeptic if you want to trademark it to mean something which I am not.
Deal! So, I want to trademark it to mean something which you are not. Your turn.

However, I must admit that I don't understand your post. You seem to making the claim that "being nice" and "arguing" are opposite ends of the same line???

No. It's a matter of priorities, not contrasts. Like, for you, being kind to frauds and nutters has a higher priority than having the decency not to lecture a 83-year old about acting "civil".

[fls]

Deal! So, I want to trademark it to mean something which you are not. Your turn.

I'm not into labels. I don't need a turn.

No. It's a matter of priorities, not contrasts. Like, for you, being kind to frauds and nutters has a higher priority than having the decency not to lecture a 83-year old about acting "civil".

You have misunderstood the issues I raised in this thread, then. I didn't say anything about being kind to frauds and nutters.

Linda

[Segnosaur]

Of course, nowhere in Randi's initial letter does he ever say "You are not psychic."

Of course, a lot of people have claimed Randi is a dick because he dared mention Sylvia/Van Praagh, but in Randi's letter he doesn't even state that they have no powers. So he's not even pre-judging them. (At least not in what he's written.)
I'm unaware of anybody ever saying anything about prejudging whether or not these people had powers.
Well, in a previous post you said: Prejudging their claim hands them an excuse on a silver platter. It allows them to say, "Look, they've already decided I'm wrong.".

It sounded to me like you were suggesting that somehow Randi had initially prejudged their claims (i.e. said something to make them think he already "decided they're wrong".) Nothing in the letter made that accusation.

Now if this was a hypothetical case fine (i.e. stating "in general don't initially accuse psychics of having no power"), in which case I misunderstood what you were trying to say. But since the thread was started with the purpose of discussing s specific case of "Randi being a dick" then I had assumed that your statement also tied back to the letter.

[not daSkeptic]

... having the decency not to lecture a 83-year old about acting "civil".

Why should that be a priority?

[not daSkeptic]

It sounded to me like you were suggesting that somehow Randi had initially prejudged their claims (i.e. said something to make them think he already "decided they're wrong".) Nothing in the letter made that accusation.

The prejudgement was not about Nikki's claims as a psychic but whether or not she would dodge the challenge.

[fls]

Why should that be a priority?

I think that was just meant to be a rhetorical question.

Linda

[autumn1971]

The prejudgement was not about Nikki's claims as a psychic but whether or not she would dodge the challenge.

I don't see any unwarranted prejudgement at all. Examples are given of other folks who reneged on a public statement to address the MDC. Randi merely called those to the attention of the intended audience, (mostly the hoped for general public, but also directly to Nikki,) to point out the very real possibility that another person would say one thing and do the opposite.
Prejudice is good, as long as one is open to changing one's opinion upon examination of further evidence. Since every bit of evidence available indicates that "psychics" who appear on TV are likely to welcome the chance to prove their powers while on camera, but blanche when the rubber hits the road, so to speak, gently reminding Nikki of this is entirely warranted, and not the least bit "dickish".

[not daSkeptic]

Since every bit of evidence available indicates that "psychics" who appear on TV are likely to welcome the chance to prove their powers while on camera, but blanche when the rubber hits the road, so to speak, gently reminding Nikki of this is entirely warranted, and not the least bit "dickish".

The fact that he said it isn't the problem. It's when he said it. He could have just welcomed Nikki to the challenge and left it at that. After she backed away, then he could have brought it up. There would have been no issue. Hell, it wouldn't even have taken a month. But he didn't do that. He was too eager to lump her in with the others.

This is exactly the same as the story told by xjx388. He denounced the photograph as a fake before he actually had the evidence to prove it. He may have had certain suspicions beforehand, but he didn't wait before acting on them. He was too eager to debunk.

In both of these cases, you have a person who seems to lack the patience to wait and gather data before acting. That is the problem. That makes them dicks.

[Segnosaur]

Since every bit of evidence available indicates that "psychics" who appear on TV are likely to welcome the chance to prove their powers while on camera, but blanche when the rubber hits the road, so to speak, gently reminding Nikki of this is entirely warranted, and not the least bit "dickish".
The fact that he said it isn't the problem. It's when he said it. He could have just welcomed Nikki to the challenge and left it at that. After she backed away, then he could have brought it up. There would have been no issue.
And many of us still don't see it being an issue, even if he mentioned it in the "first contact".

Seriously... it may have been "goading" to her, but hardly dickish. How exactly does it hurt her cause?
Randi: "Don't back out like those other people"
Nikki: "Well, I'll show you! I'll back out of the challenge!"
That hardly makes Nikki look good (or Randi look bad).

Plus, there's a definite advantage in being proactive... by pointing out how well-known Psychics avoid the challenge he's (hopefully) getting people to examine Nikki's actions in advance, which is much more useful in getting people to think skeptically than in waiting until after (when most "Nikki fans" may not even bother paying attention any more.)

This is exactly the same as the story told by xjx388. He denounced the photograph as a fake before he actually had the evidence to prove it. He may have had certain suspicions beforehand, but he didn't wait before acting on them. He was too eager to debunk.
As I pointed out before, he probably had evidence... the combined knowledge of "the supernatural" along with a basic knowledge of the abilities of computers to "process" images.

Recall the example that Phil used in his "don't be a dick" speech (when a woman tried to use a creationist argument on him)? Phil did not need to say "Let me look at the information you have and I will come up with a counter-argument later". He basically said "the sources you use often quote outdated science". Because he used his general knowledge (rather than waiting to learn the specifics) he was probably a lot more effective in "getting through" to the woman than waiting.

Similarly, by being "eager to debunk", xjx388 probably did more to foster critical thinking. We improve things by getting others to think better. That can't be done if we don't challenge nonsense right up front, even if we don't know exactly how such "nonsense" was generated.

[icerat]

The fact that some (even many, even most!) people may not think it was dickish is irrelevant. It remains the a significant number thought it was, and that this was unnecessary.

So the question is whether being "dickish" is advantageous or not, with regard the goals of JREF.

I would argue, based on the extensive research on "influence" in sales & marketing (link to Cialdini's book earlier), that it is, overall, unnecessary and counter-productive.

You clearly believe otherwise. Do you have any data to back up your opinion?

[Foster Zygote]

The fact that some (even many, even most!) people may not think it was dickish is irrelevant. It remains the a significant number thought it was, and that this was unnecessary.

So an action is to be defined as "dickish" if a "significant number" of people feel that the action is "dickish". A huge number of people thought that Martin Luther King was being "dickish", so what is wrong with your argument?