An informal Paranormal Empathy test

[petre]

I think "Paranormal Empathy" will suffice for the claimants ability.

Helianthus had been in early discussions with KRAMER about an ability to tell things about people. The actual text from her introduction:

I receive psychic messages (as people call them) about others and events: past, present and future. I use Tarot cards only as a method to help me sort through it all. I've done written readings for people and I would like to offer to do that for the challenge. I can write several, say
8-10 or as many as you like, readings over a period of time. I usually write between 1,000 and 2,000 words, but that includes some spiritual advice and I would leave that stuff out. I only need an outside party to pick out the people to be read for. They can put a name in a sealed envelope or something and just let me know when the person has been decided on. I need a few days per reading, partly because of having kids, but mostly because that's the way I have to let this happen.

She has since decided not to apply for the challenge. Since I'd be as likely as any to ask why, let me just say that as I understand it, she feels the disruption to her life (whether she succeeds or fails) outweighs the benefit of the award (taking into consideration whatever her precieved chance of winning same).

However, she is still interested to see how skeptics might view the same things she sees when she does this. Her exact words:

I just want the chance to give this a try with a real skeptic, I guess.

So in that spirit, I've agreed to provide a similar proving ground. To that end, I propose:

1. Success may encourage her to further explore her ability, but gives nothing more. Failure will indicate only that whatever abilities she may have did not perform the task we have set for them. (i.e. nothing is riding on the outcome)

2. I will select 3 people (test subjects), identify as much information as I possess about them (living or dead, occupations in life, noteworthy physical traits, interests, education, etc), and send such information to a 3rd party (a volunteer from the forum, if one is to be found). The test subjects' names (first name only) will then be posted here.

3. Helianthus may take as much time as desired in identifying any information that is divined about the selected individuals.

4. Discussion will ensue on the nature of the information provided in #3. What exactly would constitue a "match" for each piece, what percentage of the population would likely be considered a "match" for that piece, etc. I (and any volunteers that are privy to the actual individuals) will not participate in this step since we will be biased.

5. The identities and information about the test subjects will be revealed, and an evaluation under the terms in #4 will be performed, and success determined. This is what I consider the "skeptic analysis" (the part that Helianthus appears to be looking for).

6. An after-analysis will be performed, to see what kind of "matches" we can come up with if we relax the parameters set in #4. I'm not sure what I'd call this, "layman analysis"?

I welcome any and all suggestions for improvement (though we're trying to keep it simple, there isn't $1 million riding on it) and any volunteers to be "keepers of the data", as it were.

[Nick Bogaerts]

You would be better off with a test which require no judgment call. A binary dead/alive would be very good, but you would need more test subjects, so the logistics might be an issue.

[petre]

You would be better off with a test which require no judgment call. A binary dead/alive would be very good, but you would need more test subjects, so the logistics might be an issue.

True, though I considered a number of problems with this approach:

1. What if one of the test subjects has a change in status (I'd presume only in the living->dead direction) during the test period?

2. Since the "applicant" seeks better understanding of the ability, I thought we might do better than to simply test it's ability to detect a subject's vitality.

In short, I felt something a bit more complex was a good way to examine several aspects of the described ability.

[drkitten]

1. What if one of the test subjects has a change in status (I'd presume only in the living->dead direction) during the test period?

Agree beforehand to throw the test results out and re-test, or alternatively to not count the question concerning that person.


2. Since the "applicant" seeks better understanding of the ability, I thought we might do better than to simply test it's ability to detect a subject's vitality.

I disagree. The simplest and most initially plausible "understanding" of the ability is just that it doesn't exist. The existence of the ability should be established before any further testing is justified.

[Nick Bogaerts]

True, though I considered a number of problems with this approach:

1. What if one of the test subjects has a change in status (I'd presume only in the living->dead direction) during the test period?

Then you have one data point which should be considered invalid. But that should not happen very often. Hopefully, not at all.

2. Since the "applicant" seeks better understanding of the ability, I thought we might do better than to simply test it's ability to detect a subject's vitality.

In short, I felt something a bit more complex was a good way to examine several aspects of the described ability.

Do you not think it is better to establish whether or not the ability exists in the first place before investigating it further?

[petre]

Then you have one data point which should be considered invalid. But that should not happen very often. Hopefully, not at all.



Do you not think it is better to establish whether or not the ability exists in the first place before investigating it further?

The issue I had with it was trying to force how we think the ability works into the protocol. The ability, as described, generates information about the test subject. A near-chance performance on living/dead would just leave a situation like, "Wow, this is really bad at telling if people are alive or dead. Good thing it provides so much other useful information that could be correct."

I was going to be as permissive as possible and allow the readings themselves to dictate what questions were to be answered. If, after the readings are done, the applicant feels very strongly that the living/dead question can be answered, then indeed we'll add it to the list. If they indicate location, then we'll test the accuracy of that as well.

Perhaps we can simply add another level of testing to the top, and have that try to answer Kramer's original 3 questions:

Is the subject:
1. Living or dead.
2. Residing or buried in England.
3. With or without children (we should specify what this means exactly, a matter for later discussion)

So the first step will test whether or not the ability can divine specific questions asked beforehand. The second step will try to examine what the reading actually says and come up with specific pass/fail criteria for it's information. Then a final step (though only really necessary if performance in the 2nd step wasn't so good) will examine the readings in the light of the true information, and see how the human mind can find correlation with a known target that would not have been guessed without the goal in mind.

[Nick Bogaerts]

The second step will try to examine what the reading actually says and come up with specific pass/fail criteria for it's information.

Okay, what about this:

You give a list of names to the psychic, who makes a reading for each, in written form. You then give a copy of all the readings (withholding the names) to the subjects, and have them identify which is theirs.

There is a slight problem with this, since some information can be guessed from the name alone, such as sex and nationality, so you may have to restrict it to males with English names.

[petre]

Okay, what about this:

You give a list of names to the psychic, who makes a reading for each, in written form. You then give a copy of all the readings (withholding the names) to the subjects, and have them identify which is theirs.

There is a slight problem with this, since some information can be guessed from the name alone, such as sex and nationality, so you may have to restrict it to males with English names.

Not to mention, I had planned to use some dead subjects, and some I don't even personally know. I had considered having a neutral third party with a description of the people and the blank readings try to match them up.

[ChristineR]

The problem I see right away is that if the name is very unusual, then information about the person can be found on the Internet and various other sources. If the name is common, then the reader can claim that the reading fits some other John Smith. If you give the reader enough information to ascertain which John Smith is in question, then you're back to the first problem.

[Nick Bogaerts]

The problem I see right away is that if the name is very unusual, then information about the person can be found on the Internet and various other sources. If the name is common, then the reader can claim that the reading fits some other John Smith. If you give the reader enough information to ascertain which John Smith is in question, then you're back to the first problem.

Petre did did specify he was only going to give the first name. If the psychic only has "Christine R." or "Nicholas B." there is not much that can be done with it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Petre did did specify he was only going to give the first name. If the psychic only has "Christine R." or "Nicholas B." there is not much that can be done with it.

Why not just give the initials "C.R." and "N.B."? Even less can be divined from that!

My mum, my cousin and I went to see a psychic back in the early 80's. They wanted to go, and I was up for a laugh. The only things she knew about me, she got from asking questions of my mum (mum went before me, of course), and none of the things she predicted for me came true. Not one! Later that year, the psychics house caught fire, and I laughed thinking "She didn't see that coming!". But then maybe she did. Apparently no-one was home at the time....:rolleyes:

[petre]

The applicant appears ok with just a first name, the only important factor being that a specific person is selected and (in mind?) for the reading. Indeed, she answered some test questions Kramer put forth with just the first name of 3 individuals. Sadly, he left JREF before identifying if any (or all) were correct.

I'm enlisting the aid of a volunteer (sat556 has offered to assist) that I will send the identity of the selected subjects to, which may (or may not) assure the applicant some. In the end, the applicant will have only our word about the selected individuals. Similarly, outside observers will have only our word that there was no collusion. Indeed, were I an outside observer and see a greater-than-likely success rate, I would entertain collusion as a likely explaination.

In the end, the exercise is mostly for the benefit of the applicant. All that's really in it for us is a chance to show someone how a critical thinker might approach such a situation.

I haven't yet decided who exactly would make good subjects. A name like "Madona" might be a bit obvious, though I had been considering including the name O ( + > for fun :)

[Oolon Colluphid]

The cards never lie...(dang! Where's a tongue-in-cheek smiley when you need one!)

[petre]

Now that I've got someone to hold and verify the data, I believe I'll start working on picking some good test subjects. I'll see if I can get some time in the next day or so.

[Tirdun]

If you need a test subject, I'll volunteer. I've even got a generic first name!

[LW]

Is the subject:
3. With or without children (we should specify what this means exactly, a matter for later discussion)

The problem with this was already identified by the Ancient Greek, though they presented it in the inverse direction. Joke #201 from Philogenos:

On returning from a trip, someone asked a charlatan prophet how his family was. "They are all well, especially your father." "But my father’s been dead for ten years!" "Ah, clearly you do not know your real father."

[petre]

The problem with this was already identified by the Ancient Greek, though they presented it in the inverse direction. Joke #201 from Philogenos:

I was going to recomend something like, subject is considered to "have children" if subject was the legal guardian of a minor at any time.

I felt I could pick plenty of folks that would not fall on any strange borderlines.

[petre]

Alright, here are the people I've chosen:

1. Stephen
2. Janice
3. Gabriella
4. Bill
5. Ben

I've identified their full (or at least fairly-complete) information to sat556, and am now off to pm the "challenger" with these names and request:

A. The rawest form of information generated (if possible)

B. The full reading

C. Identify living/dead, current location (as best as can be determined), and whether they were ever the legal guardian of a minor (had children that survived birth or were adopted).

I'll post this information here, discuss the information in part B (what would constitute a "hit" for each, how likely such might be, etc) and finally reveal the identity and information about each subject.

I'd also like to encourage other folks to pm me with guesses about the people listed. I'm interested to see how a neutral party might try and guess things (or even full identities) about the subjects.

[petre]

It seems she has a full pm box, so with luck she'll wander by here to see the names and get started.

[petre]

It seems she has a full pm box, so with luck she'll wander by here to see the names and get started.

A bit of space was cleared up, and I was able to send a message. She now knows names have been posted, but she warns she's into the busy spring planting time and it may be a while before any information is posted. I've suggest she should feel free to post about a single subject, even if it will be a long time before all are covered, so that discussion may continue here.