Request for Assistance in Self-Test for JAK

[Beth]

I've been in contact with JAK and he is interested in doing a self-test. Basically, he needs data - i.e. birthdates, times and places along with completed questionnaires from the subjects. He will then try to match the personality profiles to the birthdates. I've volunteered to collect the information, and then send it on to JAK in a form he can use for his test.

I need assistance in collecting adequate data. I can get a few people to complete the questionnaires, but a dozen is more than I can manage. If a few other people are willing to tackle getting a questionnaire or two completed, together we should be able to provide JAK with adequate data to run his experiment.

This isn't for the JREF challenge. His claim has been closed. But he still wants to test his system. Anybody here game to help him do it? If so, please pm me that you are interested and your email address. When JAK has his questionaire ready (he's revising it), I'll send you the file and you can return the completed questionnaires to me. When I have a sufficient number collected, I'll pass them and the birth data on to JAK.

Thanks.

[petre]

I've been in contact with JAK and he is interested in doing a self-test. Basically, he needs data - i.e. birthdates, times and places along with completed questionnaires from the subjects. He will then try to match the personality profiles to the birthdates. I've volunteered to collect the information, and then send it on to JAK in a form he can use for his test.

I need assistance in collecting adequate data. I can get a few people to complete the questionnaires, but a dozen is more than I can manage. If a few other people are willing to tackle getting a questionnaire or two completed, together we should be able to provide JAK with adequate data to run his experiment.

This isn't for the JREF challenge. His claim has been closed. But he still wants to test his system. Anybody here game to help him do it? If so, please pm me that you are interested and your email address. When JAK has his questionaire ready (he's revising it), I'll send you the file and you can return the completed questionnaires to me. When I have a sufficient number collected, I'll pass them and the birth data on to JAK.

Thanks.

Just out of curiosity, are you going to maintain a blind and only reveal which birth data goes with which questionnaire after he has estimated which goes with which?

[Beth]

Just out of curiosity, are you going to maintain a blind and only reveal which birth data goes with which questionnaire after he has estimated which goes with which?

Yes

[Goshawk]

Are you going to reveal his results to us, or is it going to be for his eyes-only?

If it's going to be laid open to the JREF forums, protocols and all--i.e. to the public--I'm in. But not if it's just something he's going to use on his own website to "prove" how he was "right". I've no interest in providing him with ammunition/data that he can twist around to suit himself, with no opportunity fo rebuttal from the participants.

[chran]

Yeah, what Goshawk said. Other than that, I'm in!

(meaning, I'll PM Beth when she clarifies that she'll use the data only for good - and stuff)

[eri]

Count me in as well (on Goshawk's terms). But my birth certificate doesn't have my birth time either; I checked. If you need that, would my parent's recollection be enough for the test?

[Beth]

It's JAK's experiment and therefore his decision regarding how much or little of the experimental details he wants to make public. I've asked and I'll let you know what he says. Thanks for all the offers of help.

[Hutch]

Well, I have my Birth Certificate in front of me with the Time of Birth included, so subject to the test protocols, I'm willing to help.

[ehbowen]

I'm willing to participate except for one thing. I believe JAK said that he was looking for married participants so that he could have a questionnaire filled out by the spouse. I have never been married. If that's not a showstopper, sign me up.

[Gayle]

It's JAK's experiment and therefore his decision regarding how much or little of the experimental details he wants to make public. I've asked and I'll let you know what he says. Thanks for all the offers of help.


Before more JREF forum members jump on the bandwagon of helping JAK, please be sure you know what you're getting into.

Is there any evidence that what JAK tells Beth will actually be what JAK does?

What would you think/feel if the only details of the experiment that were made public happened to be a statement on JAK's website saying his system had been standardized with the help of members of the James Randi Educational Foundation forums?

If that possibility is okay with you, then go forward based on your trust of JAK, not on your trust of Beth.



(Full disclosure of my opinion for those who may have missed it in previous posts: I consider Beth honorable. I do not extend the same high regard to JAK. )

[Beth]

This is what JAK wrote me in response: I don't mind you sharing the info. I just want to be kept in the dark about
any of the volunteers' questions, comments, or concerns - unless you think
any of it becomes a "show stopper." If they raise issues which you think I
should address, please email them to me, and I'll respond to you.

I'll post more details later.

[Beth]

This is what is currently being planned:

1. JAK will revise the questionnaire and decide on the criteria for subjects. I'm not sure exactly what he looking for (he may not required married) but my understanding is that he will want at least one questionaire filled out about the subject from someone who knows the subject well.

2. I will make the questionaire available to the members of the JREF forum who have expressed willingness to assist.

3. Completed questionaires will be returned to me. I will remove the names and identify them as 'A', 'B', 'C', etc. and send copies on to JAK. I will also provide him with a separate list of birth information.

4. He will get back to me with his guesses matching the questionnaires with the birth dates. I'll send him a list of the correct matches.

When I get the time and motivation, I'll post a list of the probabilities associated with each possible number of correct matches.

[webfusion]

I will make the questionaire available to the members of the JREF forum who have expressed willingness to assist.

It is clear that James Randi absolutely doesn't wish for this to happen. KRAMER specifically said "Firstly and most importantly, no test involving members of the JREF forum can be acceptable."
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1272516&postcount=43

I am not sure why Beth is being allowed to pursue this on a JREF thread.

[Kaylee]

I will make the questionaire available to the members of the JREF forum who have expressed willingness to assist.

It is clear that James Randi absolutely doesn't wish for this to happen. KRAMER specifically said "Firstly and most importantly, no test involving members of the JREF forum can be acceptable."
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1272516&postcount=43

I am not sure why Beth is being allowed to pursue this on a JREF thread.
I thought Kramer was talking about an official test and not a self-test that isn't eligible for the prize. Could be wrong, I've not had the patience to read most of the posts in the JAK thread.

[Goshawk]

I will also provide him with a separate list of birth information.

4. He will get back to me with his guesses matching the questionnaires with the birth dates.

... When I get the time and motivation, I'll post a list of the probabilities associated with each possible number of correct matches.
This is the part of the protocol that I have a problem with. Say you send him 10 questionaires, and 10 birth dates. First of all, what percentage of "hits" is he going to claim as a "success" for his method/talent? 10 out of 10? 9? Or only 1 out of 10?

Also, I'd really like to see the odds calculated for "hits by pure chance" before we get started. I know nothing about statistics and odds, but it seems to me that merely by random guessing, matching A with 1, B with 2, C with 3, and so forth, like you do on an unexpected pop quiz in school, he oughta get at least a third to a fourth of them right, because that's how it tends to work in school, when you sit there sweating and guess randomly.

[Goshawk]

Having read Kramer's post, I now think this whole thing is probably a bad idea, Beth. If JAK wants to "self-test", why doesn't he arrange it himself? He must know people.

There's no getting around the fact that whether it's for the million dollars or not, it's still utilizing "members of the JREF forums", and it's probably not a good idea for us to allow ourselves to be used like that, especially when he can basically use the data however he wants.

Thus, me bowing out here, unless you and JAK can figure out some way to "self-test" without any kind of link to JREF. I'd be happy to participate at that level.

[Beth]

Wow, I'm really amazed at the negativity this thread is generating. I thought that people posting here were interested in actually seeing someone test their theories. Whether for an official JREF test or not, in the past people have always encouraged applicants to test themselves and helped others in the past.

Now, this test doesn't count regarding the challenge, JAK's case has been closed. He applied, and was quite open about this, because he wanted to test his system. I can understand that. Kramer and Randi are reluctant to provide the assistance he needs to research his theory. That's understandable.

The injunction against using JREF members related to the official JREF test. That's also understandable. But this is not an official test. It's not only allowable for forum members to assist, it would be pretty ridiculous for Kramer or Randi to insist that we can't. They aren't allow to dictate what we can or can't do regarding a test that isn't a JREF official test and I don't believe that there is a remote change that such was their intention.

Anyway, participation is completely voluntary and it will likely be a week or two before JAK has his questionnaire ready. I'll compute and put up the probabilities as soon as get the chance to do the computations. I expect it to take at least a couple of hours and my time is in short supply at the moment. if somebody else wants to do so, such help would certainly be welcome.

Gotta go now. A six year old is demanding my attention.

Bye

[webfusion]

"I thought Kramer was talking about an official test and not a self-test that isn't eligible for the prize. Could be wrong, I've not had the patience to read most of the posts in the JAK thread." ---- from Shera.


and


"The injunction against using JREF members related to the official JREF test." --- from Beth.
=====================================

Actually KRAMER said this:
"Firstly and most importantly, no test involving members of the JREF forum can be acceptable."

Where do you read into this sentence anything about just an official test? It says NO TEST is to be permitted using the JREF forum members. James Randi and KRAMER use pretty plain language here, and simply don't want to have forum members become involved with JAK's 'research' at all.

Additionally, KRAMER specifically makes a point in his final posting, closing the file:
"The JREF is not your free research facility."

Beth, are you attempting to turn it into exactly that?

[Kaylee]

Actually KRAMER said this:
"Firstly and most importantly, no test involving members of the JREF forum can be acceptable."

Where do you read into this sentence anything about just an official test? It says NO TEST is to be permitted using the JREF forum members. James Randi and KRAMER use pretty plain language here, and simply don't want to have forum members become involved with JAK's 'research' at all.


I inferred it because the quote was within a post and thread that was about negotiating a protocol for the preliminary test. I also inferred it because IIRC other posters in the past have tried to encourage and sometimes even develop protocols to help folks test themselves before they did an official test.

That being said, if the JREF decided that they didn't want their forum to be used to continue any additional conversations with JAK by anyone, I would imagine they have that right since it’s a privately owned web site.

But Kramer has never struck me as shy, and I think if additional clarity was needed he would just say so, either directly or through one of the moderators.

Then for anyone interested, the conversation could be moved to private e-mail or another forum.

Additionally, KRAMER specifically makes a point in his final posting, closing the file:
"The JREF is not your free research facility."

Beth, are you attempting to turn it into exactly that?
Isn't there a difference between time spent by JREF staff and time spent by people who post at the JREF forum?

[petre]

I have just a little too much knowledge of astrology to volunteer myself, which is just as well since I feel I have a knack of being unusual on surveys anyway.

Perhaps it would be helpful at this point if JAK could state clearly (in a short paragraph) what he plans to do should his self-test achieve any measure of success and, perhaps more importantly, what he plans to do if he fails completely (0 correct matches). Such a pre-disclosure may be helpful at this point.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

If you guys want to help him, maybe you could help him formulate an acceptable claim and protocol so he can reapply for the Million Dollar Challenge (and explain to him why his first try got closed). Or design a self test for him to implement on his own. I think anything more than this might blow up in your face.

LLH

[Beth]

If you guys want to help him, maybe you could help him formulate an acceptable claim and protocol so he can reapply for the Million Dollar Challenge (and explain to him why his first try got closed). Or design a self test for him to implement on his own. I think anything more than this might blow up in your face.

LLH

What exactly are you worried about? What do you think might happen? Seriously - what exactly are people here concerned about? I honestly don't understand this negativity towards helping someone do a self-test.

What JAK needs help with is obtaining the information he needs - i.e. personality profiles and birthdate information. This isn't something he can just request his friends to do because if JAK knows the people, that will bias his results and invalidate the test. Likewise, he can't collect the information himself because he has to blinded in regard to which personality profile goes with what birthdate.

I've volunteed to collect the data, and will send JAK the peronality profiles and birthdates separately. This will allow him to create the astrological charts based on the birthday information and then try to match the charts/birthdates to the personality profiles. After he's decided on his matches, he'll send me his guesses and I'll tell him which birthdates go with which profiles. It's a good protocol, the same one that JREF previously agreed to but were unable to collect the necessary data for. That's where the hitch comes in because collecting the personality/birth information isn't easily done, particularly because JREF needs to make sure that this information is gathered in such a way that JAK cannot, in some fashion cheat. That's a good reason to exclude forum members from participating. However, this is a personal self-test that JAK wants to run in order to verify for himself that his system works as he thinks it should. What in the name of the FSM are the skeptics on this forum concerned about in regards to helping him achieve that goal?

Further, since participation is voluntary, if you don't what to bother that's fine. But why discourage others from participating? I'm really amazed at the number of posters that seem to think it's a bad idea for others to assist JAK in this manner and I cannot fathom why? Particularly given that this forum is dedictated to the discussion of such tests and the constant complaints about how applicants don't bother to do such self-testing. Now, here is an applicant that is struggling to manage such a self-test and some forum forum members are actively discouraging other forum members from providing assistance. Why?

[Gr8wight]

KRAMER said this:
"Firstly and most importantly, no test involving members of the JREF forum can be acceptable."

Where do you read into this sentence anything about just an official test? It says NO TEST is to be permitted using the JREF forum members. James Randi and KRAMER use pretty plain language here, and simply don't want to have forum members become involved with JAK's 'research' at all.

Additionally, KRAMER specifically makes a point in his final posting, closing the file:
"The JREF is not your free research facility."

Beth, are you attempting to turn it into exactly that?


The JREF online discussion forum is not the JREF. The people posting on the JREF forums are private individuals who are free to participate in anything they want to. That point has been made clear several times. In fact, the very reason Kramer stopped posting in discussions here was to make this distinction more clear. Nobody who posts on this discussion forum is doing so as an official voice of the JREF. If anybody here participates in this test, it in no way makes the JREF JAK's "free research facility."

All that being said, that distinction may not be as clear to those people outside of the discussion, who only see someone's claims elsewhere, after the fact, that the JREF 'assisted' in the research, with links to this thread as 'evidence.'

[Beth]

The JREF online discussion forum is not the JREF. The people posting on the JREF forums are private individuals who are free to participate in anything they want to. That point has been made clear several times. In fact, the very reason Kramer stopped posting in discussions here was to make this distinction more clear. Nobody who posts on this discussion forum is doing so as an official voice of the JREF. If anybody here participates in this test, it in no way makes the JREF JAK's "free research facility."

Quite right!

All that being said, that distinction may not be as clear to those people outside of the discussion, who only see someone's claims elsewhere, after the fact, that the JREF 'assisted' in the research, with links to this thread as 'evidence.'

Well, since JREF was involved in developing the protocol, it seems to me it would perfectly legitimate to say that JREF 'assisted' in the research if someone wanted to.

However, I'm still not clear on why making such a statement would be considered a) a 'bad' thing to happen or b) why someone would want to make such a statement. JREF is NOT a research facility nor does it have run scientific tests. So claiming that they 'assisted' in the research , whether true or not, does not lend any credence or authority to the results.

[alfaniner]

... So claiming that they 'assisted' in the research , whether true or not, does not lend any credence or authority to the results.


Many psychics claim that they have "assisted" police in investigation matters, ostensibly to lend credence to their own fraud.

[Beth]

Many psychics claim that they have "assisted" police in investigation matters, ostensibly to lend credence to their own fraud.

Okay...and this is relevant how?

[Beth]

I've now computed the probabilities for matching the personality profiles with birthdate information for a set of 12:

0 correct matches: 0.3678794413
1 correct match: 0.3678794392
2 correct matches: 0.1839397321
3 Correct matches: 0.0613131981
4 Correct matches: 0.0153284144
5 Correct matches: 0.0030654762
6 Correct matches: 0.0005111883
7 Correct matches: 0.0000727513
8 Correct matches: 0.0000093006
9 Correct matches: 0.0000009186
10 Correct matches: 0.0000001378
11 Correct matches: 0 - not possible
12 Correct matches: 0.0000000021

JAK currently plans to use 12 subjects, subject to the consideration of being able to obtain that many subjects. Given the difficulty of obtaining that much data, he may end up using a smaller dataset.

[Gayle]

What in the name of the FSM are the skeptics on this forum concerned about in regards to helping him achieve that goal?

I can't speak for anyone else except myself. I don't think JAK is upfront about his goals or his intentions or can be trusted to do as he says he will. I am skeptical of JAK's statements, intentions, honor and judgment, based on his actions in this forum and in the application forum.

Well, since JREF was involved in developing the protocol, it seems to me it would perfectly legitimate to say that JREF 'assisted' in the research if someone wanted to.


It is beneath contempt to suggest it is perfectly legitimate for JAK to say the JREF 'assisted' in the research if he wanted to. That is an outright lie. The JREF rejected assisting in JAK's research.

The JREF, JAK and the investigator were not able to agree to a workable test protocol due to JAK's demands and excessive verbage. Accepting JAK's application is not the same as accepting his protocol. It merely opened the door to negotiations, which broke down.

However, I'm still not clear on why making such a statement would be considered a) a 'bad' thing to happen or b) why someone would want to make such a statement.

A. Do you think it would be "good" for the JREF mission if JAK made a statement implying that the JREF or James Randi himself had helped legitimize JAK's astrological system? Would it be honest? Or is that unimportant to you?

B. See comments above regarding trust.

[alfaniner]

Okay...and this is relevant how?


Psychics lie.

[petre]

What exactly are you worried about? What do you think might happen? Seriously - what exactly are people here concerned about? I honestly don't understand this negativity towards helping someone do a self-test.


Here's a strawman:
I wish to do a numerology test. Please send me a copy of your birth certificate (so I can be sure those numbers are correct), and all the significant numbers in your life. Like your licence number, your bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc.

Now, I doubt he's going to go far with a quetionaire and a birth date, but as Gayle mentioned, there are some that question his motivation. I suggested a reasonable method of him making that clear.

Let's say he gathers all of this information, and gets 0 or 1 hits. Total failure. Now what if he just starts railing against the participants that everyone lied and they're trying to sabotage his research? No upside for us there.

Let's say he gathers all of the information and gets 9 or 10 hits. Then what if he starts railing that even JREF forum members now support him but JREF still won't listen to him, wah wah everything in life is unjust wah, etc. No upside for us there either.

Now, if he were to say something like, "If I fail to get 10 or more hits, it will be clear that I am an idiot and have wasted a lot of time for many people, and that I should look for more productive uses of people's time", that might be helpful.

Also, adding what he intends to do should he get 10 or more hits would be helpful. Is he looking for encouragement that this isn't a waste of time before he puts some effort into finding a good way to get birth certificate information? He certainly didn't need that encouragement before he applied for the challenge and began taking up the time of JREF persons and voulenteer researchers.

[Gayle]

After I submitted my last post, I thought to myself, Who am I do say what is legitimate regarding someone saying that the JREF assisted in their research? The answer is that I'm nobody in particular. Just a forum member.

So I PMed KRAMER and asked him to comment on this statement by Beth.

Well, since JREF was involved in developing the protocol, it seems to me it would perfectly legitimate to say that JREF 'assisted' in the research if someone [JAK] wanted to.

However, I'm still not clear on why making such a statement would be considered a) a 'bad' thing to happen or b) why someone would want to make such a statement. JREF is NOT a research facility nor does it have run scientific tests. So claiming that they 'assisted' in the research , whether true or not, does not lend any credence or authority to the results.

KRAMER had this to say about Beth's statement: Preposterous.

When KRAMER stopped posting in the forums, he made it known that anyone could PM him about anything at anytime. If you have questions on this, then PM him, as I did.

I encouraged Beth to help JAK self-test his system. At that time, I had no idea anyone would promote the idea that it's legitimate for JAK to say his research was "assisted" by the JREF.

That's a flat-out lie. The JREF rejected assisting JAK in his research.

However, that spin is a pretty good demonstration of how your help will be exploited if you decide to participate. If that's okay with you, then go forward ...

[Kaylee]

Here's a strawman:
I wish to do a numerology test. Please send me a copy of your birth certificate (so I can be sure those numbers are correct), and all the significant numbers in your life. Like your licence number, your bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc.
...

I would really hope that everyone who does provide birth certificates white out their names and also their parents names. The birth certificates and questionaires can be tagged in other ways.

[Beth]

Psychics lie.

Um, most people lie. Not everybody. And not all psychics. Further, JAK isn't a psychic. His claim is astrology. I ask again, why is this relevant?

[Beth]

I can't speak for anyone else except myself. I don't think JAK is upfront about his goals or his intentions or can be trusted to do as he says he will. I am skeptical of JAK's statements, intentions, honor and judgment, based on his actions in this forum and in the application forum.


Well, it's up to you to decide for yourself about such things. I have exchanged numerous emails with him and have a different opinion. While I don't always agree with him, I do feel that he is being honest in regard to wanting to test his system for real. More than anything else, he wants to know how well it can actually perform - a sentiment I can strongly identify with.
It is beneath contempt to suggest it is perfectly legitimate for JAK to say the JREF 'assisted' in the research if he wanted to. That is an outright lie. The JREF rejected assisting in JAK's research.

The JREF, JAK and the investigator were not able to agree to a workable test protocol due to JAK's demands and excessive verbage. Accepting JAK's application is not the same as accepting his protocol. It merely opened the door to negotiations, which broke down.


I'll simply have to disagree with you here. If you think me beneath contempt for disagreeing with you, so be it. But JREF did, in fact, negotiate an acceptable protocol agreement with JAK. JREF, not JAK failed to carry out their end of the deal. The JREF representative was unable to collect the necessary data. Had he done so, the test would have gone forward as previously specified. The protocol we're currently planning on using is the same as the one JREF originally agreed to, but it's quite possible that we'll make some changes. Given the difficulty in collecting data, I think it highly probable that JAK will have to go forward with a smaller dataset than twelve.

A. Do you think it would be "good" for the JREF mission if JAK made a statement implying that the JREF or James Randi himself had helped legitimize JAK's astrological system? Would it be honest? Or is that unimportant to you?

Mainly it's unimportant to me. I think you seriously overestimate the credibility and legimacy such a statement would provide him, assuming he were to make it, which I doubt he would. Is the possibility that he might make some claim regarding the involvement of the JREF in his testing procedure a more serious concern than that he might make the statement that JREF refused to test him? I consider the later a more serious problem, but I honestly don't think JAK will make either statement. My assessment is that the highest probability result is that his self-test will give results no better than chance and he will not be making any public statements about it.

On the other hand, do you think it is "good" for the JREF mission to close a claim when they have failed to carry out their end of the agreement? Do you think it is "good" for the JREF mission for people on this forum to actively discourage others from assisting someone in performing a self-test of their supposed claim? Despite all the complaints that are made about how applicants don't bother to self-test properly, there is little recognition given to how difficult it is to do a good self-test. Anyone making a serious attempt to do so will require the help of others.

Personally, I think the best thing to do for the JREF mission is to facilitate as many people performing a self-test as possible. Those who are arguing against providing such help comes across to me as being afraid to see a test actually take place. Do you think he'll succeed?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Beth, I almost guarantee this will end leaving you disappointed or worse. This guy couldn't negotiate a working protocol with A MILLION DOLLARS ON THE LINE. He will certainly not negotiate a fair protocol with nothing on the line. He will either try to deceive you or jerk you around. IMO he is either a scammer or insane. I think he is a scammer. But your time is yours to waste as you see fit. I wish you the best of luck.
LLH

*edited for spelling

[Beth]

Here's a strawman:
I wish to do a numerology test. Please send me a copy of your birth certificate (so I can be sure those numbers are correct), and all the significant numbers in your life. Like your licence number, your bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc.

JAK wouldn't be recieving copies of the birth certificates. For purposes of a self-test, only the information about birth date, time and place is needed.

Now, I doubt he's going to go far with a quetionaire and a birth date, but as Gayle mentioned, there are some that question his motivation. I suggested a reasonable method of him making that clear.

Let's say he gathers all of this information, and gets 0 or 1 hits. Total failure. Now what if he just starts railing against the participants that everyone lied and they're trying to sabotage his research? No upside for us there.

You're presupposing bad behavior on his part. Any reason to think he'll do that? Any reason to care if he does? Just put him on ignore.


Let's say he gathers all of the information and gets 9 or 10 hits. Then what if he starts railing that even JREF forum members now support him but JREF still won't listen to him, wah wah everything in life is unjust wah, etc. No upside for us there either. Again, you're presupposing bad behavior on his part.


Now, if he were to say something like, "If I fail to get 10 or more hits, it will be clear that I am an idiot and have wasted a lot of time for many people, and that I should look for more productive uses of people's time", that might be helpful.

Also, adding what he intends to do should he get 10 or more hits would be helpful. Is he looking for encouragement that this isn't a waste of time before he puts some effort into finding a good way to get birth certificate information? He certainly didn't need that encouragement before he applied for the challenge and began taking up the time of JREF persons and voulenteer researchers.

He's just looking for data to test his system. Nothing more. It's not like he's asking you to believe in his system. Only to help test it.

But, hey, why help anyone test a paranormal claim? It only encourages them, right? People should never bother testing such things, they should just believe what the skeptics tell them.

Sorry, I'm getting tired and cross. I would have thought this forum - specifically for examing paranormal claims, might just have a few interested parties who would be considerate and helpful to someone trying to actually test their theory.

[Beth]

I would really hope that everyone who does provide birth certificates white out their names and also their parents names. The birth certificates and questionaires can be tagged in other ways.

JAK doesn't need copies of birth certificates. Just the relevant information on the birth certificate. No need to worry about whiting out information, but it would be a good idea if a copy was provided.

[Beth]

Beth, I almost guarantee this will end leaving you disappointed or worse. This guy couldn't negotiate a working protocol with A MILLION DOLLARS ON THE LINE. He will certainly not negotiate a fair protocol with nothing on the line. He will either try to deceive you or jerk you around. IMO he is either a scammer or insane. I think he is a scammer. But your time is yours to waste as you see fit. I wish you the best of luck.
LLH

Thanks for the kind thoughts. However, I made a conscious decision some years ago to believe the best of everyone until proven otherwise. Yes, sometimes I'm disappointed, but for the most part, it's a philosophy that has led me to better relationships with almost everyone - well worth the price of the occasional disappointment. So far, JAK has yet to disappoint me. Perhaps he will, but until then, I will believe that he is, like me and most of the rest of us on this forum, simply searching for the truth. He's just looking a bit harder than most.

[petre]

JAK wouldn't be recieving copies of the birth certificates. For purposes of a self-test, only the information about birth date, time and place is needed.

Given that, then, if he fails to have significant results will he believe the information he was provided was accurate? If he's not willing to state that for the record now, then what's the point of helping if he might just call you a liar later (I'll get to the presupposing in a second)


You're presupposing bad behavior on his part. Any reason to think he'll do that? Any reason to care if he does? Just put him on ignore.


All I have to go by are his dealings with JREF. When prompted to correct an issue with going forward with the protocol (the accurate collection of birth moment down to the minute) he chose to dive into a discussion on the semantics of words. Doesn't make him an evil person, just a limited window into what to expect.

It still comes down to motivation. If he's interested in really pursuing this, why bother with inconclusive tests using data collected electronically from people off a message board, when that really won't tell you much? Is a failure going to convince him to give up? What would a success encourage him to do next?

I keep trying to stick with short messages, I know you're probably feeling assaulted from all sides. I hope it's clear that it's his motivations I question, I feel you are sincere.

Note: Edited to fix extra words

[Beth]

After I submitted my last post, I thought to myself, Who am I do say what is legitimate regarding someone saying that the JREF assisted in their research? The answer is that I'm nobody in particular. Just a forum member.

So I PMed KRAMER and asked him to comment on this statement by Beth.



KRAMER had this to say about Beth's statement: Preposterous.

Well, I don't disagree with that. JREF has done so little it's definitely a stretch to call it 'assisting'. :) However, I still feel it would be a legitimate statement. If JAK were to say he felt they assisted in developing a protocol, I could hardly argue with him about that point.


I encouraged Beth to help JAK self-test his system. At that time, I had no idea anyone would promote the idea that it's legitimate for JAK to say his research was "assisted" by the JREF.

The only one 'promoting' that idea is you. You proposed it and I said (and still feel) it would be legimate if he were to do so. I don't think he will. So why are you so upset it?

That's a flat-out lie. The JREF rejected assisting JAK in his research. They've rejecting providing him with any further assistance.

However, that spin is a pretty good demonstration of how your help will be exploited if you decide to participate. If that's okay with you, then go forward ...

JAK has yet to participate in this thread. Therefore, he hasn't put any kind of 'spin' on anything yet. The 'spin' we've been discussing is purely your own conjecture about how he might behave based solely on what you know of him through his posts and messages on this forum.

Now even if he were to be as bad as you make him out to be (an assessment I don't agree with it) I would be okay with such exploitation. I happen to think it's more important to help someone test their theories than it is withhold such assistance because I can imagine some way in which they would behave badly regarding it at some future date. I'm disappointed that so few others here don't feel the same, but obviously such a sentiment is in the minority here.

[Beth]

Given that, then, if he fails to have significant results will he believe the information he was provided was accurate? If he's not willing to state that for the record now, then what's the point of helping if he might just call you a liar later (I'll get to the presupposing in a second)

It still comes down to motivation. If he's interested in really pursuing this, why bother with inconclusive tests using data collected electronically from people off a message board, when that really won't tell you much? Is a failure going to convince him to give up? What would a success encourage him to do next?


The motivation, the reason to bother doing a test without the best possible data? To learn. What JAK's reaction will be to whatever the results are, I don't know.

What I do know is that when you have a burning desire to learn something, you use whatever resources you can get. Okay, you recognize it's not the best, but you never get perfect data. That doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. If you truly want to test yourself, to learn more about what you can and cannot do, you work with whatever resources you have available and draw whatever conclusions you can from what you do. And move forward based on the results you get.

I think that's all JAK is trying to do. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm willing to help him anyway. Because I think it's important to encourage people to self-test. Otherwise, you're just asking them to take on faith what you believe or don't believe. And that's not a skeptical approach now is it? :)

Beth

P.S. Thanks for stating you think I'm sincere.

[Gayle]

Beth wrote:
I would be okay with such exploitation.

GAH!

Everyone reading this thread and other threads in this forum probably now has enough information to decide for themselves how to move forward.

This would probably be a good place for someone to tell a funny story using smilies.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

This would probably be a good place for someone to tell a funny story using smilies.

Alternatively, get some popcorn and beer, sit back, and watch the show. :)

[Beth]

Beth wrote:


GAH!

Everyone reading this thread and other threads in this forum probably now has enough information to decide for themselves how to move forward.

This would probably be a good place for someone to tell a funny story using smilies.


I'm sorry, but what exactly is it that would bother you about it? I'm not troubled. Presumably you and others are. Why?

[webfusion]

On the other hand, do you think it is "good" for the JREF mission to close a claim when they have failed to carry out their end of the agreement?

There was no 'agreement' --- just another typical applicant who goes in circles and ends up nowhere.

Beth, if you want to be of help to JAK, maybe open a private website for him with your own resources, and try to obtain your subjects using your own bandwidth. That certainly would be VALID.

Now, where is that guy from Rochester? I wonder how his affaydavits is comin' along?

[Czarcasm]

The motivation, the reason to bother doing a test without the best possible data? To learn. What JAK's reaction will be to whatever the results are, I don't know.

But all that ever seems to be "learned" in these types of tests is that the test didn't work this time-maybe there will be a different result with another group of people. The testee then continues until blind chance eventually brings some semblance of "sucess", and victory is declared.

[Rasmus]

Well, I don't disagree with that. JREF has done so little it's definitely a stretch to call it 'assisting'. :) However, I still feel it would be a legitimate statement. If JAK were to say he felt they assisted in developing a protocol, I could hardly argue with him about that point.

ÄI haven't read very much of the originla threat yet - having said that ...

I would argue about that point. It is dishonest to the core. Lying by omission.

Did I have lunch wiht a famous person only because I sat in the same restaurant as they did?

The JREF may have troied to assist in developing a protocol, but none was ever created. So any protocol that does exist will have bene created without the help or assistance of the JREF.

The designer of that new, actual protocol may have benefited from prior contact with the JREF, but that's hardly the same, or is it?

They've rejecting providing him with any further assistance.

Seems to me they made clear from the start what the rules were. Seems to me that they made clear that they could not bear the costs of gathering all that data. It also seems they were indeed very willing to give support where they put at leas tduring the early stages of the application.

Now even if he were to be as bad as you make him out to be (an assessment I don't agree with it) I would be okay with such exploitation.

I find that rather strange ...

I happen to think it's more important to help someone test their theories than it is withhold such assistance because I can imagine some way in which they would behave badly regarding it at some future date.


In which case you've said nothing about being okay if such exploitation actually did occur. You just said that you thnk the risk is sufficiently low and that oyu consider the potential benefitis to be more important. Fair enough.

I'm disappointed that so few others here don't feel the same, but obviously such a sentiment is in the minority here.

People are apaprently concerend that their names, and the name of the JREF, could very well be used to support something that they all dissagree with with. In the case of the JREF at least that would significantly harm the reputation of the JREF.

I think those are legitimate concerns, and it should be expected that those seeking favours ensures that these concerns are adequately adressed, no?

Your suggestion that those zthat do have concerns should just turn their back is hardly showing any respect to these concerns at all. It strengthenths the basis for those concerns and legitimates that others are informed of the reasons for these concerns.

Rasmus.

[Beth]

Here is JAK's response to some of the questions brought up:


"What are we doing?" The issue, upon which the JREF challenge was based,
still intrigues me. Is it possible that the "ancients" monitored the
heavens and found correlations between events and planetary positions?


"Will success or failure of a test prove or disprove astrology?" No. I do
not believe any test will be definitive. The test I envision will only
provide some support to the possible correlation between celestial mechanics
and human events. If some positive correlation can be shown, then the
techniques I use warrant more investigation. Failure may only indicate the
weakness of my techniques or the misapplication thereof.


"Is the target '10 out of 12' correct matches?" No. The target is to have
a higher correlation than chance. Chance will be determined by the test
structure and the number of volunteers.

"Why bother?" Humanity has not been inspired by science since the race to
put a human on the Moon in the 1960s. If anything can be found within the
rubble of astrology which is systematic and reproducible, it can have
profound effects. It can touch the life of every person on the globe. It
could inspire new interest in astronomy, mathematics, and the social
sciences. Interest in applying it could touch every human endeavor.
Overall, though likelihood for success may seem infinitesimal, the rewards
for success could be virtually infinite. Plus, the costs for the test are
minimal - primarily time on the part of the investigators and participants.
Why bother? Why not?! Sounds like fun!


I'm sorry, but I spent far too much time yesterday arguing about this test so I won't be defending or arguing about what he has written. I don't necessarily agree with him, but my own motivations are a bit simplier. I simply want to help JAK get the test completed. Those who are interested in participating can pm me for the questionnaire. As an added incentive to participate, when the test is completed, I'll inform the participants of the results.

[Beth]

ÄI haven't read very much of the originla threat yet - having said that ...

I would argue about that point. It is dishonest to the core. Lying by omission.

Did I have lunch wiht a famous person only because I sat in the same restaurant as they did?

:D Yes, I would place it on that plane. About as honest and about as detrimental to the reputation of the person so mentioned. And may I take this opportunity to remind everyone that JAK has yet to commit this foul deed. It has only been speculated that he might.



The JREF may have troied to assist in developing a protocol, but none was ever created. So any protocol that does exist will have bene created without the help or assistance of the JREF.
I disagree. Data collection was attempted. It was not attempted without a protocol in place. However, it's not a point I wish to continuing debating. You are free to disagree.


People are apaprently concerend that their names, and the name of the JREF, could very well be used to support something that they all dissagree with with. In the case of the JREF at least that would significantly harm the reputation of the JREF.

I think those are legitimate concerns, and it should be expected that those seeking favours ensures that these concerns are adequately adressed, no?

Your suggestion that those zthat do have concerns should just turn their back is hardly showing any respect to these concerns at all. It strengthenths the basis for those concerns and legitimates that others are informed of the reasons for these concerns.

Rasmus.

My apologies. I did not take the concern as seriously as many here apparently do. In regards to people's names, it isn't really necessary that actual names be given. You could, if you were to participate, participate under the name of Rasmus (I'm presuming that isn't your real name). I need to know which personal profiles go with what birth information, but actual names are not necessary to accomplish that.

As far as the name of JREF goes, everytime they agree to a test, they are assisting and supporting people in such pursuits. I'm afraid that I fail to see what the potential harm to the JREF is from people like me assisting JAK after they have closed his file.

If you have any other concerns, please let me know. Thank you.

[petre]

"Will success or failure of a test prove or disprove astrology?" No. I do
not believe any test will be definitive. The test I envision will only
provide some support to the possible correlation between celestial mechanics
and human events. If some positive correlation can be shown, then the
techniques I use warrant more investigation. Failure may only indicate the
weakness of my techniques or the misapplication thereof.


So it appears this is to be the first of many trials (excuse my assumption of failure, I try to avoid it normally). It is clear that the failure of one won't assuage his thirst for a correlation.

Perhaps before delving further into mystical divining, he should examine all the variables actually involved...

It seems birth time to the minute may be important, how about to the second? Nanosecond? How could one ever be sure they are using enough significant digits? Certainly an amazing success would indicate you're on the right track, but how accurate would your measurements have to become before you were sure the entire system is faulty after repeated failed tests?

And since we're down to the minute, how is that minute accurately determined? The moment the head first emerges? When the child is clear of the mother's body? When the cord is cut?

And what about the effect of modern technology? A quarter of all babies born in the US are born by cesarean (not sure if it is always noted on the birth certificate either). If a child is born by cesarean, is the birth time valid? Should the projected due date be used instead? What if labor is induced early by trauma or medication?

What about time zones? Should birth times be normalized to GMT or left local? Should Daylight Savings Time be considered?

Perhaps we are lucky and the universe goes by whatever time they write on the birth certificate :rolleyes:

There is more than one calandar of divisions for sun signs, which is correct? Is any? Is it possible they are all wrong, but that there exists some division that will produce results better than chance?

It seems clear that he's not interested in just one test, but many. Perhaps thousands. Maybe millions. I think it's going to take a LOT more data to finally prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is absolutely no correlation between birth time and any aspect of personality.

[Rasmus]

:D Yes, I would place it on that plane. About as honest and about as detrimental to the reputation of the person so mentioned.

There *are* people that I wouldn't want ot have lunch with and whom I wouldnt ant to go around claiming they'd have had lunch with me ...

And may I take this opportunity to remind everyone that JAK has yet to commit this foul deed. It has only been speculated that he might.

True, and duly noted.

I disagree. Data collection was attempted. It was not attempted without a protocol in place. However, it's not a point I wish to continuing debating. You are free to disagree.

Not unless I find the time to actually read al the relevant threads.

My apologies. I did not take the concern as seriously as many here apparently do. In regards to people's names, it isn't really necessary that actual names be given.

I would find it much easier to consider giving my data away if I could do so without a name cnnected to the data at least.

You could, if you were to participate, participate under the name of Rasmus (I'm presuming that isn't your real name). I need to know which personal profiles go with what birth information, but actual names are not necessary to accomplish that.

The various questions concerning the precise time of birth are intruiging. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, the precide time of my own birth is unknown. Or so my parents tell me. I would have to see what the birth certificate says, though.

Since my birt hwasn't entirely uncomplicated the recoded time might well be off, and of course it is questionable if either the actual time of my birth or the recorded time bear any relation to the time I would have been born under normal conditions.

As far as the name of JREF goes, everytime they agree to a test, they are assisting and supporting people in such pursuits. I'm afraid that I fail to see what the potential harm to the JREF is from people like me assisting JAK after they have closed his file.

I will not specualte any further without reading the original threads, feeling that it would be unfair if I continued to create possible scenarios in which peolpe might harm the JREF.

If you have any other concerns, please let me know. Thank you.

Will do.

Oh: You might want to find a second person who could pass the data on to JAK, thius ensuring that it is indeed double blinded. (or agree, in advance, in a format of passing on both the profiles and the birthdates; i.e. both in truly radom order or some such thing as not give away any hints.)

Rasmus.

[Beth]

There *are* people that I wouldn't want ot have lunch with and whom I wouldnt ant to go around claiming they'd have had lunch with me ...

Okay. But if I were so fortunate as to be in the same restaurant as Elizabeth Taylor or Brad Pitt eating lunch at the same time, I'd be claiming I had lunch with them to all friends. :D Course, I'd explain about how we never actually spoke, but such brushes with celebrity are difficult to keep to oneself.

I would find it much easier to consider giving my data away if I could do so without a name cnnected to the data at least.

The various questions concerning the precise time of birth are intruiging. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, the precide time of my own birth is unknown.

Since JAK is insistent that time of birth must be accurate, I'm afraid you wouldn't qualify. However, the desire for anomomity is understandable and can be accomodated.

Oh: You might want to find a second person who could pass the data on to JAK, thius ensuring that it is indeed double blinded. (or agree, in advance, in a format of passing on both the profiles and the birthdates; i.e. both in truly radom order or some such thing as not give away any hints.)

Rasmus.

I don't think a second person is necessary as I have never met JAK in person and do not anticipate doing so as we live in different parts of the country. All exchanges of information will be either through the internet or snail mail. I will randomize both sets of information to avoid giving any clues of that nature. Thanks for the suggestion.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

From JAK
"Will success or failure of a test prove or disprove astrology?" No. I do
not believe any test will be definitive. The test I envision will only
provide some support to the possible correlation between celestial mechanics
and human events. If some positive correlation can be shown, then the
techniques I use warrant more investigation. Failure may only indicate the
weakness of my techniques or the misapplication thereof.

Basically he is saying that if the test is not a success astrology still works, he just misapplied his techniques. He is saying that it is not falsifiable. This seems to be typical of claimants. How is this any different than the excuses a dowser gives after a failure?

"Is the target '10 out of 12' correct matches?" No. The target is to have
a higher correlation than chance. Chance will be determined by the test
structure and the number of volunteers.

WARNING WARNING, he is setting you up here. It appears he is saying that any performance better than chance will be considered a success! Consider the following. I claim I can predict the outcome of a coin flip. We decide that any performance better than change will be considered a success. We do 1 flip. The odds are that I will get .5 flips right out of 1. Since it is impossible to get exactly .5 flips right, I will get either 0 or 1 flips correct. So 50% of the time I will do better than chance. This is almost identical to the situation he is proposing. BTW It doesn't matter how many flips we do, as long as it is an odd number I will beat chance 50% of the time. And with an even number of flips the odds of beating chance are still pretty good.


So ultimately he is saying that if he beats the odds even slightly he will be successful, and if he fails only his methodology is a failure and he will still think astrology is valuable (at which point he will likely just retool and try again). With this procedure he is guaranteed to succeed, and I think he knows it. I also think this is why his file was closed (wisely) by Kramer.

I hope this explains why I and others have such a distain for JAK. I have much more respect for dowsers and similar claims (at least they are honest, though self deluded).

LLH

[KnotKnitWit]

I hope this explains why I and others have such a distain for JAK. I have much more respect for dowsers and similar claims (at least they are honest, though self deluded).

LLH

I think that you've clearly stated the main reason many people wouldn't want to assist in this 'test'. I'm new to the forum but I've read every word of the JAK threads and every word of his emails to Kramer. (I'm a charter member of Masochists Anonymous. :D ) In my opinion, JAK has been disingenuous throughout the entire procedure.

Additionally, I'm concerned about Beth's dismissal of the need for a truly double-blind protocol. The mere fact that she has been JAK's strong advocate in these discussions demonstrates that she lacks the indifference necessary for an accurate test protocol. No matter how much she claims that she just wants to 'help', she has tried to refute every negative commentary put forth. She also defended JAK's attempt to sell 'lessons' to Gayle. Therefore, she is actively 'on JAK's side', however much she may deny this. Without the structure of a true double-blinded test, any possible results, positive or negative, are flawed from the outset.

Moreover, JAK's attempt to sell 'lessons' to Gayle and JAK's defense of that attempt, tells me that JAK isn't a bit interested in developing a 'science' as much as he is interested in claiming a result so that he can sell 'lessons' in his new 'science'. I have no problem with any concerns about JAK's possible future claims about JREF as a 'sponsor' of his procedure.

I think that Beth will end up hurt by her interactions with this man but one assumes that she is an adult who is able to make her own choices. Aiding JAK is not a choice that I would make and Beth's advocacy would make me suspect any JAK-related statement she might make. I think that Beth is honorable but I also think that JAK has affected her in a way that has clouded her own objectivity.

Were I to participate in JAK's little project, I would end up feeling used.

[Chaosium]

I think that Beth will end up hurt by her interactions with this man but one assumes that she is an adult who is able to make her own choices. Aiding JAK is not a choice that I would make and Beth's advocacy would make me suspect any JAK-related statement she might make. I think that Beth is honorable but I also think that JAK has affected her in a way that has clouded her own objectivity.Nobody pays attention to the uncharismatic woos, after all.

[alfaniner]

Um, most people lie. Not everybody. And not all psychics. Further, JAK isn't a psychic. His claim is astrology. I ask again, why is this relevant?

Astrologers lie.

[Beth]

Additionally, I'm concerned about Beth's dismissal of the need for a truly double-blind protocol.

How would suggest implementing a 'truly double-blind' protocol. What do you suggest be done differently? And why? Who should be blinded to what and how?

The mere fact that she has been JAK's strong advocate in these discussions demonstrates that she lacks the indifference necessary for an accurate test protocol.

The existance of the protocol is to provide for solid answers regardless of the beginning beliefs of anyone participating. THus, whatever bias the participants might have, the test results will stand. If I provide him with personality profiles without names or other identifying information and an equal number of birth dates, time & locations, both randomized - how is this insufficiently blinded? I ask this as a serious question. If you can provide me with a valid reason and I have the resources to change this aspect of the protocol, I will.

No matter how much she claims that she just wants to 'help', she has tried to refute every negative commentary put forth. She also defended JAK's attempt to sell 'lessons' to Gayle. Therefore, she is actively 'on JAK's side', however much she may deny this. Without the structure of a true double-blinded test, any possible results, positive or negative, are flawed from the outset.

Hmmm. Any test done by someone who seems to like JAK is automatically flawed because they like him and should not participate. People who don't like him don't want to participate. How, exactly, is he to run a self-test without any participants? What is your suggestion for how he obtain suitable participants?

I was quite disappointed when Kramer closed his file, and while data sufficiently rigorous for the JREF test is hard to obtain, the protocol for a self-test can be relaxed a bit. JAK doesn't need to safe-guard against cheating for such a test.

Now, I won't send him the correct matches until he's sent me his guesses, but that's for my benefit, not his. Suggestions for improvement are welcome, but please keep in mind that this is not designed to be a rigorous test, but a self-test for JAK to see for himself how well his system can perform under conditions that are quite difficult for him to arrange without assistance.

For example, the suggestion of sending the data through an intermediary requires an additional person willing to act as that intermediary. I'm not exactly inundated with volunteers, so given that I see no benefit of including such a step and it requires an additional volunteer, I am reluctant to commit to doing so.

I think that Beth is honorable but I also think that JAK has affected her in a way that has clouded her own objectivity.

Thank you. I think. :)

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

In my humble opinion, there seems to be two problems that are making potential participants less than enthusiastic.

1) Saying the JREF 'assisted in the test protocols'. JAK has already said that anything greater than chance would, in his mind, show a 'hit'. So what if he sets up a website, selling his lessons, and proudly proclaiming on the front page, "Independent tests conducted with the assistance of the James Randi Educational Foundation showed that Astrology works". Would you see this statement as being disingenuous? I'm not saying that this would happen, but the fact that the potential is there is unnerving.

2) In his own words:
"Will success or failure of a test prove or disprove astrology?" No. I do not believe any test will be definitive. The test I envision will only provide some support to the possible correlation between celestial mechanics and human events. If some positive correlation can be shown, then the techniques I use warrant more investigation. Failure may only indicate the weakness of my techniques or the misapplication thereof.

This statement certainly does not inspire confidence. That sounds a little too much like "I know it works. If this test doesn't prove that, the test must be wrong". So why bother assisting in such a test then? What is to gain by it?

Unfortunately, this could have gone very differently, if JAK stated from the start that the JREF will not be mentioned in any way, shape, or form throughout this test, or after the test has been completed. It would have also been helpful to tell participants that any result, pass or fail would be considered evidence. Not definitive evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

[Beth]

In my humble opinion, there seems to be two problems that are making potential participants less than enthusiastic.

1) Saying the JREF 'assisted in the test protocols'. JAK has already said that anything greater than chance would, in his mind, show a 'hit'. So what if he sets up a website, selling his lessons, and proudly proclaiming on the front page, "Independent tests conducted with the assistance of the James Randi Educational Foundation showed that Astrology works". Would you see this statement as being disingenuous? I'm not saying that this would happen, but the fact that the potential is there is unnerving.

JAK has never said such a thing, nor has he given any indication that he would do so in the future. It is merely speculation on the part of some forum posters that he might. Someone posted that forum participants helping would allow him to make such a statement. I posted that he could, in fact, make such a statement now. Others have posted that they feel such a statement would be a lie. Regardless of whether it's true or not, he could make such a statement, so it seems to me the argument is against helping him because it would lend credence to such a statement. Further, since I am helping him, he has obtained the aid of forum participants, whether anyone else were to volunteer or not. At any rate, I'm sorry it's turned into such a dispute.

I repeat: JAK has never said such a thing, nor has he given any indication that he would do so in the future.


2) In his own words:

This statement certainly does not inspire confidence. That sounds a little too much like "I know it works. If this test doesn't prove that, the test must be wrong". So why bother assisting in such a test then? What is to gain by it?

I think that a single test will not convince anyone of anything, no matter what the results. Just as I would not expect you to be convinced by positive test results if that were to happen, I would not expect JAK to be convinced by a negative result.

So why bother testing? Because test results will give him something to think about. Because changing his mind about his astrological system will not occur without testing. Why would anyone give up a belief based on their own personal experiences just because of the say so of stangers on the internet? That's why self-testing is important. It provides evidence more concrete than subjective self-assessment. But self-test is not an easy thing to do, and in this case it is not something that can be accomplished alone.

I continue to be amazed at the ill will generated by the prospect of helping JAK conduct a self-test. I can only say that in my opinion, skeptics should be championing believers performing tests, not denigrating and discouraging such testing. I am quite disappointed to see that the majority of posters on this thread have been doing the latter, not the former.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I think that a single test will not convince anyone of anything, no matter what the results. Just as I would not expect you to be convinced by positive test results if that were to happen, I would not expect JAK to be convinced by a negative result.

This is part of the problem. With a proper protocol a single test would mean something. I think Kramer put it very well when he said to JAK The JREF always strives to achieve a test protocol whose results will be conclusive. A test that may or may not prove the vailidity of the claim cannot be accepteable to us.

I recommended a protocol to JAK a long time ago because I assumed he was going to make vague claims that would be untestable and just end up chasing his own tail.

Beth, did it not disturb you when JAK said "target is to have a higher correlation than chance"?

I guess it just boils down to is any test that most of us would be willing to participate in would likely be rigid enough to qualify for the Million Dollar Challenge, so you and JAK might as well just go for the money.

LLH

[KnotKnitWit]

Nobody pays attention to the uncharismatic woos, after all.

BINGO! :clap: You truly punched the right button with that statement.

[KnotKnitWit]

How would suggest implementing a 'truly double-blind' protocol. What do you suggest be done differently? And why? Who should be blinded to what and how?




(snip by KnotKnitWit)

Beth, I'm new to the forum and just getting a feel for the ambience of this forum community. I do NOT want to get into an argument with you. I've stated my own opinion and I see no virtue in continuing to flagellate an already deceased equine. If you don't know how to design a valid double-blind test, perhaps you might consider that you may not be the perfect intermediary in JAK's test.

[Beth]

Beth, I'm new to the forum and just getting a feel for the ambience of this forum community. I do NOT want to get into an argument with you. I've stated my own opinion and I see no virtue in continuing to flagellate an already deceased equine. If you don't know how to design a valid double-blind test, perhaps you might consider that you may not be the perfect intermediary in JAK's test.

I do know how to design a double-blind protocol. In this case, I think single blind is all that is truly essential. That's why I asked what additional blinding you thought would be necessary, why, and how it might be accomplished. If you have some ideas, I'm willing to listen and modify my approach, but if you don't have any suggestions, then just complaining that you don't like it isn't a helpful criticism.

Further, while I may not be the perfect intermediary I am so far the only person who has expressed willingness to be that intermediary. Are you volunteering to take over for me?

[Complexity]

Beth, I think you're doing all of us a grave disservice.

If you want to aid and abet a woo, you owe it to JREF and its forum to distance yourself completely from JREF and the forum while you waste your time.

Please do not solicit assistance from forum members, use the forum to bounce your protocol off of, use the forum discuss the progress of the self-trial, or use the forum to discuss any results.

My recommendation: leave the testing to those best qualified to conduct them. In this case, JREF or its equivalent.

JAK and his ilk are full of it. You've stepped in woo and are being PC and nice about it rather than swearing and wiping it off. Shame on you.

You do not know enough about probability, statistics, experimental design to participate in test design or analysis. All you will do is deepen the confusion and provide more cover for someone who is wrong.

[Goshawk]

Beth, what you're missing is that we have a fear of being "used" by JAK. We've all seen how woos can post half-truths on their websites, which then get picked up by other woos and spread all over the Internet. It doesn't take much imagination for us to visualize JAK taking just the simple fact that the recruitment for subjects for this "self-test" is taking place on the JREF forums, and running with it, inflating it into, "My JREF Test".

Why don't you start a Yahoo group to recruit? I'd be happy to join you there, and submit data, just as long as JREF isn't mentioned. I can even get folks at this end to submit data, because I'm curious to see whether he can do it.



Question for KnotKnitWit: Would a double-blind protocol mean like giving him data from Famous Dead People, like Beethoven and Hitler?

[Goshawk]

Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA (a suburb of Minneapolis)

Hi, and welcome to the Forums! :)

My understanding was that Minneapolis was actually a suburb of Eden Prairie. No?

:D

[KnotKnitWit]

I do know how to design a double-blind protocol. In this case, I think single blind is all that is truly essential. That's why I asked what additional blinding you thought would be necessary, why, and how it might be accomplished.

This is your pet pony, Beth, not mine. I have no desire to get involved in this charade, due to my total lack of interest in punching a hole in my skeptical worldview.

If you have some ideas, I'm willing to listen and modify my approach, but if you don't have any suggestions, then just complaining that you don't like it isn't a helpful criticism.

I find it most interesting, psychologically speaking, that you would, on the one hand, claim the ability to serve as disinterested intermediary and, on the other hand, seek to define a statement of opinion as 'criticism'. It is my understanding that stating one's opinion is encouraged on this board. Am I wrong?

Further, while I may not be the perfect intermediary I am so far the only person who has expressed willingness to be that intermediary. Are you volunteering to take over for me?

Considering that the totality of my feedback has been extremely negative toward your little Science Fair project, asking if I'm volunteering to take over for you seems disingenuous in the extreme. I'm perfectly willing to be shown otherwise. Do you intend to do that?

Edit: sloppiness

[KnotKnitWit]

Beth, I think you're doing all of us a grave disservice.

If you want to aid and abet a woo, you owe it to JREF and its forum to distance yourself completely from JREF and the forum while you waste your time.

Please do not solicit assistance from forum members, use the forum to bounce your protocol off of, use the forum discuss the progress of the self-trial, or use the forum to discuss any results.

My recommendation: leave the testing to those best qualified to conduct them. In this case, JREF or its equivalent.

JAK and his ilk are full of it. You've stepped in woo and are being PC and nice about it rather than swearing and wiping it off. Shame on you.

You do not know enough about probability, statistics, experimental design to participate in test design or analysis. All you will do is deepen the confusion and provide more cover for someone who is wrong.

Ay-ay-ay-men. Ay-ay-ay-men. Ay-ay-men, ay-men, ay-men. Can ya sing it?

[KnotKnitWit]

Question for KnotKnitWit: Would a double-blind protocol mean like giving him data from Famous Dead People, like Beethoven and Hitler?

That wasn't what I had in mind but I like it, I like it!:D

[Beth]

Beth, what you're missing is that we have a fear of being "used" by JAK. We've all seen how woos can post half-truths on their websites, which then get picked up by other woos and spread all over the Internet. It doesn't take much imagination for us to visualize JAK taking just the simple fact that the recruitment for subjects for this "self-test" is taking place on the JREF forums, and running with it, inflating it into, "My JREF Test".

Why don't you start a Yahoo group to recruit? I'd be happy to join you there, and submit data, just as long as JREF isn't mentioned. I can even get folks at this end to submit data, because I'm curious to see whether he can do it.


I'm never started a Yahoo group, but if I can figure out how without too much difficulty I'll give it a try and post here about joining it. Thanks for the suggestion. That was helpful.

[Beth]

Beth, I think you're doing all of us a grave disservice.

If you want to aid and abet a woo, you owe it to JREF and its forum to distance yourself completely from JREF and the forum while you waste your time.

Please do not solicit assistance from forum members, use the forum to bounce your protocol off of, use the forum discuss the progress of the self-trial, or use the forum to discuss any results.

My recommendation: leave the testing to those best qualified to conduct them. In this case, JREF or its equivalent.

JAK and his ilk are full of it. You've stepped in woo and are being PC and nice about it rather than swearing and wiping it off. Shame on you.

You do not know enough about probability, statistics, experimental design to participate in test design or analysis. All you will do is deepen the confusion and provide more cover for someone who is wrong.


Let me rephrase to make sure I am understanding you correctly. Assisting someone in performing a self-test is doing a disserver to the JREF forum. Any test that does not mean the requirements of the Million $ challenge and isn't an official JREF test isn't worth participating in. I am only encouraging people in their foolish beliefs.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that preaching about the value of skeptical thinking and testing beliefs is fine, but the actual practice of performing such tests should be left to those who are learned in such matters. Is it your opinion that the ordinary person is incapable of performing such tests and is likely to leap to the wrong conclusion unless the results are carefully interpreted by people knowledgable about such things?

If this is not the essense of what you are saying, my apologies. If it is what you are saying, well, it doesn't seem all that much different to me from preachers who claim that the ordinary person is incapable of understanding god's will without an interpreter (him). Listeners should believe what they are told without questioning or doubting those who are going to the trouble of explaining the "Truth" to them.

To me, skepticism is about testing things for oneself, not about relying on the efforts of professionals to do it for you. I am happy to assist JAK because I think such testing is to be applauded and supported. I do not feel that purpose of the JREF challenge is simply to ridicule applicants and debunk their beliefs, though I am beginning to wonder if that belief of mine is simply naivity since in practice that seems to be what occurs.

I do not think that every test need be conducted to the requirements of the million dollar challenge in order to be useful to the person seeking a better understanding of what is happening and attempting to determine whether or not their performance is significantly better than what would be expected by chance alone.

I do not feel that testing is something that need (or should) be left to professionals, but rather a skill that is easily obtained and the use of which should be encouraged. However, if you are truly concerned about my capablity to assist, please be assured that I am sufficiently schooled in statistics and experimental design to handle this test. I am a professional statistician and I often design and conduct experiments in an industrial setting.

[Beth]

This is your pet pony, Beth, not mine. I have no desire to get involved in this charade, due to my total lack of interest in punching a hole in my skeptical worldview.

Okay. I understand. You do not wish to challenge your cherished beliefs. That's fine. :)


I find it most interesting, psychologically speaking, that you would, on the one hand, claim the ability to serve as disinterested intermediary

I haven't claimed to be disinterested. I've stated that by observing proper protocol requirements, my interest should not affect the results in any way. I think that's true. Do you have reason to believe otherwise and if so, do you have suggestions on how to improve the protocol to eliminate the effect?

Given that I have no particular interest or belief in astrology and all I will be doing is collecting the data, making sure that the birth information is completely isolated from the personal profiles JAK will receive, and randomizing the sequence he receives the data in, I'm most curious how you think my interest will affect the results.

and, on the other hand, seek to define a statement of opinion as 'criticism'. It is my understanding that stating one's opinion is encouraged on this board. Am I wrong? Stating one's opinon is indeed encouraged. Are you claiming that an opinion cannot also be a criticism? I feel differently.

At any rate, I am soliciting criticisms that can be used to make the test a better test. Criticism in regard to preforming the test at all strike me as being hypocritical at best for a self-identified skeptic. If you aren't going to encourage individuals to self-test, IMO then are are advocating that people have faith in others, not in their own abilities to test and think critically about the results.


Considering that the totality of my feedback has been extremely negative toward your little Science Fair project, asking if I'm volunteering to take over for you seems disingenuous in the extreme. I'm perfectly willing to be shown otherwise. Do you intend to do that?

My point was that when you say I am not the best person to perform this task, what you mean is that I am not the best possible person. I do, however, seem to be the best available person. If one is truly committed to testing, one must make do with the resources they have available. Since I feel that its better to do the best test one can manage rather than not test at all, I will continue to assist JAK in his endeavor despite the criticisms I receive for doing so.

My opinion is that the negativity that you and others here have expressed regarding JAK's self-test is far more damaging to JREF and it's mission that supporting and assisting such a test. I realize that others feel differently. That's okay. But I'm entitled to state my opinion just as you are entitled to state yours.

[Czarcasm]

Beth, are you deliberately not getting it? It is not to our advantage to help out in this poorly designed test in any way. If it is a failure, he can either misrepresent the results and use the good name of JREF to his advantage(this HAS been done before-dozens of times burned, twice shy and all that), or declare, as he has already done, that a failure merely means that he needs to be retested because he refuses to even consider the possibility that what he is proposing is impossible. If, by slim chance, he succeeds, then he can misuse the results and lay claim to the Prize via public opinion, which has certainly been done before. We are here to fight ignorance, not give it every advantage under the sun.

[KnotKnitWit]

Love the nym. BRILLIANT! :clap:

[Kaylee]

Beth, your patience is awe-inspiring! :)

Here's the web site for Yahoo Groups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/)

There's a link on the bottom left corner to start your own group. You will need to have a Yahoo ID if you don't have one already (see top right on the same web page). Feel free to PM or e-mail me if you have any questions.

BTW, if you haven't selected a name yet for your group, perhaps one that is general and not specific to JAK or his experiment? Then the Yahoo forum could be more easily found and used by other people who are interested in discussing how to design and test ideas and hypotheses using scientific procedures.

As we discussed, I also have no interest in astrology, but am very interested in people testing their ideas (or others) whenever possible. I'm glad to help and will let you know when I track down my birth certificate.

[Complexity]

Let me rephrase to make sure I am understanding you correctly. Assisting someone in performing a self-test is doing a disserver to the JREF forum. Any test that does not mean the requirements of the Million $ challenge and isn't an official JREF test isn't worth participating in. I am only encouraging people in their foolish beliefs.

You've almost got it right.

Why do you think some magicians have taken the lead in debunking woo? It is because they make their living fooling people and have few illusions left about the difficulty in fooling nearly anyone. Scientists are notoriously easy to fool - our egos lead us to believe that we can't be taken in. You are easy to fool.

Purveyors of woo make their living by false claims and misdirection (think of them as evil magicians, however inept). They eat people like you for lunch.

Assisting a purveyor of woo in a test that isn't at least as well designed as the JREF-negotiated tests is doing a grave disservice to humanity.

Any test that does not mean the requirements of the Million $ challenge or its equivalent isn't worth participating in.

You are not only encouraging people in their foolish beliefs, you risk going over to the dark side, and risk sharing some responsibility for the fraud and deepening of ignorance that will ensue.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that preaching about the value of skeptical thinking and testing beliefs is fine, but the actual practice of performing such tests should be left to those who are learned in such matters.

Yes - the actual practice of performing such tests should be left to those who are sufficiently learned in such matters. How much learning? That depends on the nature of the claim. Where does one get the learning? Not necessarily from universities.

Is it your opinion that the ordinary person is incapable of performing such tests and is likely to leap to the wrong conclusion unless the results are carefully interpreted by people knowledgable about such things?

Yes. Get your head out of the ground and look around!

If this is not the essense of what you are saying, my apologies. If it is what you are saying, well, it doesn't seem all that much different to me from preachers who claim that the ordinary person is incapable of understanding god's will without an interpreter (him). Listeners should believe what they are told without questioning or doubting those who are going to the trouble of explaining the "Truth" to them.

You owe me no apologies for these words.

There is a huge difference - I believe that nearly everyone has the intellectual potential to learn to think skeptically, to properly identify the limits of their gullibility learning, and to seek the assistance of others less gullible and more learned when appropriate. I believe that each person owes it to himself to learn to think skeptically over the course of his life.

To me, skepticism is about testing things for oneself, not about relying on the efforts of professionals to do it for you. I am happy to assist JAK because I think such testing is to be applauded and supported. I do not feel that purpose of the JREF challenge is simply to ridicule applicants and debunk their beliefs, though I am beginning to wonder if that belief of mine is simply naivity since in practice that seems to be what occurs.

I absolutely want you to test things for yourself. I also want you to learn what your limits are. When someone is trying to fool you, your limits are narrower than you like to think.

JAK deserves no assistance. JREF bent over backwards to give him an opportunity to provide evidence (I will not use the word 'proof' in this context) for his claims, JREF offered a large sum of money as incentive, and still JAK wouldn't rise to the occasion.

Instead, JAK is content to take cover in the warm-fuzzy "self-test" that you are contriving.

If you had encountered JAK's claims before JREF became involved, I would expect you to view them skeptically and use what was available to you (his claims, your mind, correspondence, research) to evaluate his claims as far as you liked.

Once a tool having the qualities of JREF became involved, I would defer to them in the areas of experimental design, execution, and interpretation, participate in the forum to raise questions, and disregard JREF in the future if it doesn't do these things openly, with integrity, and with professionalism.

I do not think that every test need be conducted to the requirements of the million dollar challenge in order to be useful to the person seeking a better understanding of what is happening and attempting to determine whether or not their performance is significantly better than what would be expected by chance alone.

You are wrong. If you conduct a test for your own edification and to your own standards and keep the results and your interpretation of them to yourself, the only person you may damage is yourself. So be it. If you can't conduct such a test privately, there will be side-effects that will damage others to the extent that your personal test is inadequate.

I do not feel that testing is something that need (or should) be left to professionals, but rather a skill that is easily obtained and the use of which should be encouraged.

Testing does not need to be left to professionals (they may be the worst able to do these tests) - they need to be left to those at least minimally able to conduct the tests in a hostile environment.

I assure you that the skills required to perform these tests adequately are not easily obtained.

However, if you are truly concerned about my capablity to assist, please be assured that I am sufficiently schooled in statistics and experimental design to handle this test. I am a professional statistician and I often design and conduct experiments in an industrial setting.

I am happy that you have some schooling in statistics and experimental design. I'm uneasy that you use phrases such as "significantly better than what would be expected by chance alone" without defining what that would mean in the experiment that you propose. I would expect a statistician to do so with care and clarity.

Nothing in your training or professional experience prepares you for the human aspect of these tests. The objects of your tests in your work do not (I presume) lie, misrepresent, misdirect, have an agenda, or are able to read you and use that information to bamboozle you.

As far as I can tell, you fall into the "I'm smart, I'm educated, I can't be fooled" category that is so very easily fooled by a purveyor of woo.

In short, I stand behind everything I said originally.

[KnotKnitWit]

Okay. I understand. You do not wish to challenge your cherished beliefs. That's fine. :)

I didn't say that. I said that I had no interest in punching a hole in my skeptical worldview. And I mean that. I'm old enough to have seen enough woo for anyone's lifetime and my worldview arose from putting my finger in such woo and finding it far more insubstantial than cotton candy...when it wasn't brown and sticky. That's how people become skeptics, Beth. They examine. They investigate. They reason. They do not buy lances, armour and expensive white chargers to ride on crusade, defending the indefensible...no matter how charismatic or adorable it may be. My desire to assist in investigating what I believe to be just another scam dips into negative numbers.

Your continued (long) replies to the very well-thought-out responses of forum members; your defensiveness in the presence of those responses and your inability to simply find another venue to sell your guru all indicate, in my opinion, that any objectivity you may once have had has long since been gone with the wind. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that JAK is encouraging you to stay in the JREF forum in order to get just one positive response to exploit at a future time. You and he will just have to carry on bravely, shoulder to shoulder, faces turned into the storm, without me.

If someone else, however, manages to punch a hole in my worldview I will be perfectly delighted. In fact, at my age, if my skeptical worldview is going to be punched, I would hope it happened before I check out. I want to be around to see it.

That said, JAK won't be the one. I've got 45 years of skepticism behind me and, during those 45 years, the woo I've most often encountered is astrology. Despite claims from 'real astrologers', many people read and believe newspaper and magazine horoscopes, 'What's your sign.' was arguably the most popular pick-up line of my young adulthood and 'My horoscope said...' is probably the most common phrase heard around water coolers and in break rooms to this day. In those 45 years, there has never been even the tiniest, most microscopic hint that astrology is anything more than a way for liars and con artists to scam money from fools. Even your so-beloved JAK couldn't wait to try to net a paying fish...unluckily for him, a fish that had teeth. He wanted to charge to give lessons in a 'theory' for which he cannot even forumlate a testing protocol. Oh no, he has to find someone else to draw in the suckers...a methodology that was old when Simon Magus was an apprentice.

Poke all the holes you like, Beth. Go on Oprah and 60 Minutes and the cover of Time, but, this nonsense bores me and I have no further desire to participate, even to correct your misapprehensions.

But, you knew that.

[Beth]

Goshawk: I have now set up a group at yahoo.com called 'self-test'. Thanks for the suggestion. It was very easy. I think this will be a good way to organize JAK's self test and, perhaps others as they arise.

I have set this up as a private group. Anyone who is interested will need to notify me that you want to join and what your yahoo ID is in order to participate.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-test/

Shera: Thanks much for the kind words. It means a lot to me.

LOTLH, Rasmus, Czarcasm, KnotKnitWit, Complexity, and others: Thanks for your patience in explaining your point of view to me. I can't say I agree with you in regards to my participation in this experiment - I don't - but I do understand you better now.

[Czarcasm]

Beth, before you go I have one question for you.
If the test goes through and he fails completely, will it change your thoughts on the subject or will you help him design yet another test?

[Beth]

Beth, before you go I have one question for you.
If the test goes through and he fails completely, will it change your thoughts on the subject or will you help him design yet another test?

His failing the test completely would not change my thoughts on the matter. I'm not expecting him to succeed so why would failure change my mind?

As far as whether I would assist him with another test depends on a number of factors, primary being his behavior during this test and afterwards.

Why do you ask? What does my attitude about his potential failure mean to you?

[Gayle]

Beth, congratulations. I think you're on the right track here by setting up a yahoo group separate from the JREF forums.

Going back a number of posts, there's one thing I would like to clarify. The contempt thing. I do not hold you in contempt. I never have. In fact, I like the persona you present in the forums, even when I disagree with your ideas. You are tough and courteous.

I was talking about a statement. Specifically, a statement about JAK being assisted by the JREF. Kramer called it preposterous. But again, it was the statement, not you as a person. I still have the same opinion that I expressed here:

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=1120524#post1120524

It has never appeared to me that you want to help JAK prove his claim; rather you want to help him test, regardless of the outcome.

It's apparent that you disagree, but many of us do not trust JAK. We do not trust him to avoid exploiting the JREF connection in a way that would not accurately reflect what really went on.

It is my hope that through self-testing, JAK can come back with a refined application and protocol, along with affidavits from three people who took his questionnaire and were told their birthdates from a list of birthdates.

I hope JAK reciprocates your kindness. You have your own candle flame experiment. Good luck on both projects.

Gayle

[Goshawk]

Anyone who is interested will need to notify me that you want to join and what your yahoo ID is in order to participate.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-test/
But...then that necessarily involves JREF. "Hi, this is Goshawk from JREF, can I join?" etc.

The whole point is to NOT involve JREF.

Are you only going to allow people to join who come in from this thread, or from JREF? Then you're limiting JAK's sample group to "members of JREF".

Which doesn't sound good to me.

[Beth]

But...then that necessarily involves JREF. "Hi, this is Goshawk from JREF, can I join?" etc.

The whole point is to NOT involve JREF.

Are you only going to allow people to join who come in from this thread, or from JREF? Then you're limiting JAK's sample group to "members of JREF".

Which doesn't sound good to me.

Yes, other people will be allowed to join. I'm not limiting JAK's sample group in that manner. It turns out I don't need to know your email address though. I thought I would need that, but yahoo handles it automatically through your yahoo ID. However, I do want to know who is volunteering and how to contact them because I may need to if JAK has any questions regarding particular responses. For example, if the response to question 14 from subject 'G' is illegible, I would need to be able to contact that person to confirm the answer.

[Goshawk]

Why would responses be "illegible"? How could we submit handwritten surveys over the Internet? :confused:

I don't think JAK ought to be allowed to ask for clarifications, which just provides him with an opening for cold reading, for refining his answers according to the subject's input. He says he can tell this stuff just by looking at our profile or whatever; let him show us that he can do that, without "clarification" or second-guessing.

[Goshawk]

And if we know that you don't know who we are--if we're sure that you couldn't have linked up any of our surveys with current JREF members, because you personally were never told who from JREF had signed up--then that guarantees that if there are any questions as to whether you personally had coached him or helped him or given him hints, out of your knowledge of the JREF folks, then the subject wouldn't even come up, because you would never have known who exactly had participated, other than their Yahoo names.

[gtc]

Actually, at least some Yahoo groups show part of the email next to the yahoo name, so you may be able to work out some details.

So you might appear as:

"Go. S. Hawk" <hawkgos@...>

There is also a button to send an email via yahoo. In that case your email address is transmitted.

[Beth]

Goshawk

Not everybody will necessarily submit via the internet. They can download the file, but if they perfer to write teh answers and mail it in, that's fine.

As far as the types of cheating that might occur such as cold reading or coaching - I'm sorry, but this is a self-test. It's meant to help JAK evaluate his system, not prove to anyone else that it works. I'm not planning on doing any coaching for him, but neither is this protocol is designed to prevent cheating on his part. For JREF, with a million dollars resting on the outcome, prevention of possible cheating is a paramount concern. For a self-test, it's not necessary. However, for that reason, JAK can't claim the results of this test as definitive either. Hopefully, they will be useful to him. But that's all they are designed for.

[Goshawk]

You can use a Yahoo nick that is different from your JREF nick, and a different e-mail address. Whatever e-mail you use is displayed next to your name.

*********

This made me go "huh?" in a big way:

neither is this protocol is designed to prevent cheating on his part
"Huh?"

Beth, for a self-test, I would think that "preventing yourself from cheating" would be even MORE important than on a test to win a million dollars. If JAK allows himself to cheat on this, then he never will know whether his system works, will he? So what's the point to this whole thing, if you're not going to set up the test for him so as to preclude the possibility of cheating? By deliberately seeming to make possible the coordination of his answers with your own special knowledge of who the contributors are, not only are you inviting him to cheat, by putting temptation in his (and your) way, but also you're laying him open to never being able to bring any of his test results to any group of skeptics (JREF or otherwise) and say to them, "Hey, look, this is how my self-test came out" with any level of credibility. Because they'll just say, "Well, yeah, but how do we know that Beth didn't help you? Because your whole test protocol was set up to allow Beth to potentially help you, and you to cheat."

I'm hearing that you're more interested in helping JAK figure out how to refine his method and make his method work, than in finding out whether his method works in the first place. Because if he thought it worked well enough to apply for the Challenge, upfront, then it seems to me that he oughta have enough faith in it to be able to run it with a group of volunteers without needing to check with you on anything.

Personally, what I'm interested in is finding out whether his method works as-is, not "refined".

I'm not interested in a beta-tested version.

Also--and I believe I mentioned this before--if he really wants to do a self-test, surely he must know 20 or 30 people that he could ask to submit surveys, and experiment with those. He doesn't really need us for a self-test.

[Beth]

You can use a Yahoo nick that is different from your JREF nick, and a different e-mail address. Whatever e-mail you use is displayed next to your name.

*********

This made me go "huh?" in a big way:


"Huh?"

Beth, for a self-test, I would think that "preventing yourself from cheating" would be even MORE important than on a test to win a million dollars. If JAK allows himself to cheat on this, then he never will know whether his system works, will he?
,,,,,
By deliberately seeming to make possible the coordination of his answers with your own special knowledge of who the contributors are, not only are you inviting him to cheat, by putting temptation in his (and your) way, but also you're laying him open to never being able to bring any of his test results to any group of skeptics (JREF or otherwise) and say to them, "Hey, look, this is how my self-test came out" with any level of credibility. Because they'll just say, "Well, yeah, but how do we know that Beth didn't help you? Because your whole test protocol was set up to allow Beth to potentially help you, and you to cheat."

That's correct. This success of the test depends on the integrity of myself and JAK and the other participants. That's fine for a self-test, but not for bragging rights elsewhere.

Self tests are designed to prevent inadvertant bias, not deliberate cheating. That's why I'm acting as administrator and blinding JAK from which questionaires go with which birthdates. If JAK only gets questionnaires from people he knows, then his prior knowledge of who is participating will render the test useless to him.

He could cheat however, by taking the birthdate information and doing some research and trying to obtain further information about the people associated with the birthdates in order to match them to the questionaires. Not an easy thing to do, but possible. For a million dollars, someone might try. I can understand why JREF would want protections built in against such cheating.

However, what I'm doing won't prevent him from deliberate cheating. I'm presuming he won't. I'm also presuming that the subjects recruited here won't email JAK with further information. Because I'm making that presumption and not taking steps to prevent deliberate cheating, even if JAK passes, the results will not be convincing to others. Only to himself. Which is the point of a self-test.

[Complexity]

Beth is depressing me more than JAK does.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Zombie thread woot!

Well the only activity on the yahoo group in the last year has been me asking for updates... Is it safe to say this is never going to happen?

LLH

[Beth]

So far, I have obtained 4 completed questionaires. I'm considering going ahead and sending those to JAK because I don't think I'm going to get any more. Why don't you participate?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

So far, I have obtained 4 completed questionaires. I'm considering going ahead and sending those to JAK because I don't think I'm going to get any more. Why don't you participate?

Since I've already made several posts antagonistic towards JAK I don't think it would be appropriate for him to be given a survey I filled out. I could lie and make it impossible for him to correctly identity me with his "powers".

LLH