A Lucid Proposal For A Preliminary Test

[Mental Professor]

I would like to apply for the preliminary test of the Paranormal Challenge. I have not yet submitted my formal application.

I would ask that I could perform the preliminary test being observed by a group such as The National Capital Area Skeptics (I have not met anyone involved with their organization and have never attended their meetings). If they conclude that I have succeeded, then we can negotiate for the terms and conditions of the actual test. This preliminary test should take less than an hour, and at the very least will give THCAS a change to conduct a tightly controlled experiment.

STATEMENT OF ABILITY: I will demonstrate the ability to read my wife’s thoughts via ESP symbols.

I propose the following testing criteria:

(This test is based on the protocols used in the Achau Nguyen test that can be viewed at csicop.org/specialarticles/nguyen.html . It will require a minimum of 6 observers, but more are welcome to participate.)

My wife and I will be separated, and then scanned with a metal detector. We will remove our shoes, socks and any jewelry, belts, etc. during this check for transmitting equipment. You may examine our ears and the inside of our mouths, also.

We can then be taken to separate rooms for the testing to begin.

Testing procedures for observers:

1. A set of fifty (50) ESP symbols will be used consisting of ten (10) each of the basic Rhine designs; star, circle, square, wavy lines and the cross.

2. Out of my presence, the symbols will be mixed up by one observer and they will place ten (10) symbols face down in an unmarked envelope. This will be repeated five (5) times so there will be a total of 5 unmarked envelopes with ten (10) symbols each.

3. A second observer will select one (1) of the envelopes and take it to the room where my wife is located.

4. A third observer will take the envelope and place the enclosed symbols face down on one side of a two-section card tray. This tray will be on a table and in plain view of all observers in the room. My wife will not make physical contact with the symbols at any time. I will have no contact with the symbols, envelopes or observers.

5. When my wife states that she is ready, a fourth observer will radio the word “sending” to a fifth observer in the room where I am located. The third observer will then turn over the first symbol and place it on the other side of the tray. (This will be done in plain view of all observers so that everyone can verify that only one (1) symbol is being turned over at a time, and that no switches are taking place.) When the symbol is turned over, my wife will stare at the symbol and attempt to transmit her thought to me. A sixth observer will write down the symbol being transmitted.

6. Upon receiving her thought, I will write the symbol down and the fifth observer will then radio back “received” to the fourth observer. The process will then repeat itself for a total of ten (10) times to use all of the symbols in the envelope.

7. Upon completion of the test, the sent and received symbols will be compared. All of the symbols and envelopes can be examined to verify that there were no more than fifty (50) symbols and that there were ten (10) copies of each.


Based on a Binomial Probabilities calculator (faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html), n=10 (number of tries), k= (number of correct symbols), p=.2 (% chance of getting it right) and q=.8 (% chance of getting it wrong).

The percentage chance of getting the number of symbols correct:
1 or more 89.26%
2 or more 62.42%
3 or more 32.22%
4 or more 12.09%
5 or more 3.28%
6 or more .64%
7 or more .086%
8 or more .0078%
9 or more .00042%
10 exactly lots of zeroes after the decimal point

The one factor not considered in this scenario is that each time a symbol is revealed, there is one less chance for that symbol to turn up again. However, for the method we’re using, I don’t think it will have a significant impact on the results. I would welcome input from a mathematician on how to figure those percentages as it is not in my field of expertise.

As a result, would the organization consider 6 correct symbols (6 chances in a thousand) a successful test? I would assume that 7 correct symbols (8 chances in 10,000) would be considered a success.

A few comments on the testing procedures:

We will not require any observers of our own to be at the initial testing. We prefer not to know anyone that will be involved. It can take place in a location of your choice that is in the Washington, DC area.

The test could be modified and use a sheet of 10 symbols instead of separate, random symbols, but that could be prone to accusations of collusion. By having the symbols shuffled and in an unknown order, there is no way that anyone will know beforehand which symbols will be sent. Using a random choice of 5 envelopes insures that a single person does not have control of the outcome.

No observer that is witnessing the symbols being revealed should be in contact with an observer that is witnessing the reception of the symbols. I would like to preserve the sterility of the testing procedures so that there can be no claim of collusion. I understood that results were compared after 3 attempts in the Achau Nguyen test, but I ask that no contact be made with the sets of observers until after the full test has been completed.

Unlike Mr. Nguyen, I will not require any type of caffeinated beverage. I will not emit any powerful energy nor will I attempt to put an image into anyone’s mind. Some ice water for my wife would be great, though.

I would like to use a Faraday Cage at a future demonstration to prove that no electronic signals are being sent or received by my wife or myself.

After reading the statements submitted by other claimants, I think that I have succinctly described the ability that will be demonstrated. Successful results under these tightly controlled conditions should be cogent evidence that I satisfied the preliminary test requirements stated in the Challenge Application. I welcome input on the testing criteria I have suggested.

Drew

[Admiral]

Mental Professor-

First I would like to welcome you to the JREF forums.

Also, congratulations- as far as I've seen, that is the clearest statement of a protocol I have ever seen a potential applicant come up with on his own. You appear to be very reasonable and quite organized, and it looks like you've done your homework on the Challenge.

My only question is this- have you actually tested your ability, using this protocol? I ask because if you haven't, I recommend that you do before you apply. If you discover that you were mistaken, you'd save yourself a lot of time. I'm not implying that your ability doesn't exist, just that it might not. Still, it's your choice, and if you're confident in your abilities, you can certainly apply. (You don't need to send in a protocol with your application, that step comes after. You just need to come up with a two or three sentence description of your claim and what will constitute a positive or negative result. See the FAQ and challenge rules.)

Again, welcome, and good luck with your application!

Edit- fixed typo.

[Timothy]

Q: Have you demonstrated this ability to yourself, your wife, and an outside observer in a similar (but not necessarily as rigorous) way? Or are you simply presenting the first-ever coherent protocol just to get our hopes up? Like captors who break the spirits of their hostages by offering them a ray of hope and then yanking it away?

- Timothy

[tkingdoll]

Welcome, Mental Professor.

I shall watch your progress with interest, please let us know when you've submitted your application.

I too would be interested to know if you have self-trialled under the conditions you state.

[William Smith]

Hello Drew (Mental Professor),


welcome to the JREF Forum.

Like the Admiral, I would like to know if you did any testing on this? How did you do it? What results did you obtain?

Would you feel comfortable with the complete "Achau Nguyen Protocol"? (For interested folks: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28936 post#12) This would save some time.
However, you seem on a productive track with your approach. Kudos.

Welcome again.

[ChristineR]

Welcome, and congratulations on a viable test procedure.


Based on a Binomial Probabilities calculator (faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html), n=10 (number of tries), k= (number of correct symbols), p=.2 (% chance of getting it right) and q=.8 (% chance of getting it wrong).

The percentage chance of getting the number of symbols correct:
1 or more 89.26%
2 or more 62.42%
3 or more 32.22%
4 or more 12.09%
5 or more 3.28%
6 or more .64%
7 or more .086%
8 or more .0078%
9 or more .00042%
10 exactly lots of zeroes after the decimal point

The one factor not considered in this scenario is that each time a symbol is revealed, there is one less chance for that symbol to turn up again. However, for the method we’re using, I don’t think it will have a significant impact on the results. I would welcome input from a mathematician on how to figure those percentages as it is not in my field of expertise.

Drew

It would make a difference under certain circumstances. If you could see the symbols, then you would always get #50 right, and would have much better odds as the test goes on. The difference can be surprisingly large. It wouldn't make much of a difference in a 10-of-50 test, and it wouldn't make any difference if you do not get to see the card after each trial.

This leads nicely to the real problem. Your wife may not choose when to say "sending" and you may not choose when to say "received." These must be done at predetermined intervals. I'll let someone else explain why...if you don't already know, this makes an interesting puzzle.

The puzzle that's interesting me just now is whether the professor is willing to accept this restriction.

[Mr. Scott]

Thank you for not burdening us with an explanation about how ESP works.

Most potential applicants fail to clearly answer the following:

1) What will you do that is paranormal?
2) Under what conditions?
3) With what accuracy?

I think you really need to cover only those three and the dialogue that follows will pick it up from there.

I don't see any problem at first glance in your protocol, though there may be too much detail for this early stage. The JREF and observing group will be the ones to analyze it to be sure all conceivable opportunities to cheat are eliminated.

My suggestion to you would be to just do it. Comprehend all the rules, fill out a valid application with the notarized affidavits, and submit it. Be nice. A million dollars awaits you if you succeed.

Have you demonstrated this ability to three professional people who will submit the affidavits? Perhaps promising them a cut of the prize would motivate otherwise disinterested witnesses to fill those roles.

Forgive me for asking a blunt question: Do you really believe you and your wife share an ESP connection, or do you plan to win the prize by cheating?

[Timothy]

5. When my wife states that she is ready, a fourth observer will radio the word “sending” to a fifth observer in the room where I am located. The third observer will then turn over the first symbol and place it on the other side of the tray. (This will be done in plain view of all observers so that everyone can verify that only one (1) symbol is being turned over at a time, and that no switches are taking place.) When the symbol is turned over, my wife will stare at the symbol and attempt to transmit her thought to me. A sixth observer will write down the symbol being transmitted.

6. Upon receiving her thought, I will write the symbol down and the fifth observer will then radio back “received” to the fourth observer. The process will then repeat itself for a total of ten (10) times to use all of the symbols in the envelope.

1) A negotiated protocol by JREF would probably not like having a radio transmitter in your wife's room and a radio receiver in your room. Obviously looking to avoid any clandestine methods of transmitting information. Some other method (pre-arranged times, five minute intervals, etc.) would preclude having to have any communication between rooms, as long as that scenario fits in with your ability. Edit: And, of course, ChristineR's reason which I blithely neglected.

2) For practical reasons, one would want to know several things from your own initial investigations into the phenomenon to conduct a valid test. How far apart can you and your wife be? (We'd want to make sure that the test didn't fail because you'd tried it 20 feet apart, but the test rooms were 100 feet apart.) You posit being able to do it through a Faraday Cage -- do you foresee any other standard building materials that would prevent transmission?

- Timothy

[Mental Professor]

1. Yes, we have presented this demonstration on numerous occasions with an average of 7 right.

2. I am fine with Nguyen's Protocol, substituting ESP symbols for words. They could be written as a list and placed in an envelope as stated in the notes. Would 20 symbols be preferable? What would JREF consider a successful test? 14 or more out of 20?

This is what I read: (I'm not sure what the strange symbols are...)

1. Mr. Nguyen will be at a small table in the upstairs theater at CFI-West.

2. The receiver(s) will be at a table downstairs in the lobby, less than 25’ apart from Mr. Nguyen.

3. The IIG will make sure no transmitting apparatuses are on Mr. Nguyen’s person.

4. The receiver(s) will be provided with a sheet of paper containing blanks numbered 1 – 20.

5. After Mr. Nguyen and the receiver(s) are situated, ready, and comfortable, Mr. Nguyen will be given a sealed list of 30 words numbered 1-30. Mr. Nguyen will choose 20 of the words, and indicate his choices by circling the numbers next to the words he has chosen.

6. Mr. Nguyen will then send the words one at a time, in numerical order, lowest to highest.

7. Mr. Nguyen agrees not to make any sounds during the sending process.

8. When Mr. Nguyen is ready to send each word, an IIG representative will announce that he is beginning transmission. This information will be relayed to the receiver(s). (“Sending the first word.� e.g.)

9. Mr. Nguyen has up to 2 minutes to send each word.

10. When the receiver(s) has written a response after each transmission, that information will be relayed back upstairs to Mr. Nguyen. (“First word received�, e.g.)

11. After the twenty words have been transmitted and received, the “received� list will be brought back upstairs to be compared with the “send� list. To be counted as a “hit�, a word on the “received� sheet must be spelled correctly, and in the same sequence as the word on the “send� sheet. In accordance with Mr. Nguyen’s claim, a score of 19 out of 20, or 20 out of 20 will be considered a success in this preliminary test.

12. Mr. Nguyen and all who participate agree to being photographed and videotaped during this process.


IIG notes…

1. Word list envelope will be sealed, and contents wrapped in tin foil.

2. No talking (or signaling!) during the test

3. Mix the alphabet around with the word order.

4. Photocopy Mr. Nguyen’s “pick list�, and the “receiver’s sheet.�

5. Ask “Are your ready and is there anything here that would prevent you from being able to perform successfully?�

6. Only the SC and JU will know the list of 30. Only JU and one other SC member will see the final list after Mr. Nguyen has chosen his list.

7. Any IIG member or SC member may raise his or her hand during the demonstration to inform the others of suspicious behavior on the part of Mr. Nguyen.

[William Smith]

1. Yes, we have presented this demonstration on numerous occasions with an average of 7 right.

2. I am fine with Nguyen's Protocol, substituting ESP symbols for words. They could be written as a list and placed in an envelope as stated in the notes. Would 20 symbols be preferable? What would JREF consider a successful test? 14 or more out of 20?

This is what I read: (I'm not sure what the strange symbols are...)

1. Mr. Nguyen will be at a small table in the upstairs theater at CFI-West.

2. The receiver(s) will be at a table downstairs in the lobby, less than 25’ apart from Mr. Nguyen.

3. The IIG will make sure no transmitting apparatuses are on Mr. Nguyen’s person.

4. The receiver(s) will be provided with a sheet of paper containing blanks numbered 1 – 20.

5. After Mr. Nguyen and the receiver(s) are situated, ready, and comfortable, Mr. Nguyen will be given a sealed list of 30 words numbered 1-30. Mr. Nguyen will choose 20 of the words, and indicate his choices by circling the numbers next to the words he has chosen.

6. Mr. Nguyen will then send the words one at a time, in numerical order, lowest to highest.

7. Mr. Nguyen agrees not to make any sounds during the sending process.

8. When Mr. Nguyen is ready to send each word, an IIG representative will announce that he is beginning transmission. This information will be relayed to the receiver(s). (“Sending the first word.� e.g.)

9. Mr. Nguyen has up to 2 minutes to send each word.

10. When the receiver(s) has written a response after each transmission, that information will be relayed back upstairs to Mr. Nguyen. (“First word received�, e.g.)

11. After the twenty words have been transmitted and received, the “received� list will be brought back upstairs to be compared with the “send� list. To be counted as a “hit�, a word on the “received� sheet must be spelled correctly, and in the same sequence as the word on the “send� sheet. In accordance with Mr. Nguyen’s claim, a score of 19 out of 20, or 20 out of 20 will be considered a success in this preliminary test.

12. Mr. Nguyen and all who participate agree to being photographed and videotaped during this process.


IIG notes…

1. Word list envelope will be sealed, and contents wrapped in tin foil.

2. No talking (or signaling!) during the test

3. Mix the alphabet around with the word order.

4. Photocopy Mr. Nguyen’s “pick list�, and the “receiver’s sheet.�

5. Ask “Are your ready and is there anything here that would prevent you from being able to perform successfully?�

6. Only the SC and JU will know the list of 30. Only JU and one other SC member will see the final list after Mr. Nguyen has chosen his list.

7. Any IIG member or SC member may raise his or her hand during the demonstration to inform the others of suspicious behavior on the part of Mr. Nguyen.

7 out of 10 right "on numerous occasions" sounds good.

The "strange symbols" may be the result of formatting problems when the text was copied and recopied.



Drew/Mental Professor, I'd say you're ready for testing. I suggest you send in an application. http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

The JREF fortunately processes Challenge Applications again. If you want to ensure a speedy processing of your claim, enclose three affidavits - as mentioned here: http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#4.8

After your Application got accepted - which most likely will happen if you proceed as before - you should ask the Challenge Facilitator what would constitute a success and a failure.

The Challenge Facilitator has the say what goes. Us Forum Members only give - at best - helpful advice how to proceed productively.

I'd say: Go for it.

[Mr. Scott]

we have presented this demonstration on numerous occasions with an average of 7 right.

Would you mind describing the previous demonstrations in detail for us? What you did, and what were the conditions? Separate rooms? What distance between you and your wife? What was the timing and protocol?

[Gr8wight]

1. Yes, we have presented this demonstration on numerous occasions with an average of 7 right.

2. I am fine with Nguyen's Protocol, substituting ESP symbols for words. They could be written as a list and placed in an envelope as stated in the notes. Would 20 symbols be preferable? What would JREF consider a successful test? 14 or more out of 20?

Hello Mental Professor. I have some questions:

1) Am I correct in assuming that there will be, in all, fifty different "ESP symbols" broken into groups of ten, so that no symbols are duplicated in any of the groups? Or are you proposing ten different "ESP symbols" simply presented in different order in each group?

2) Is using words instead of "ESP symbols" acceptable or unacceptable to you?

3) Christine has proposed that the sending and receiving of the next symbol proceed at fixed intervals, rather than when you and/or your wife declare readiness. Is this restriction acceptable to you?

Thanks for your attention to these questions. I look forward to following the progress of your application.

[Mendeli]

Hello Mental Professor. I have some questions:

1) Am I correct in assuming that there will be, in all, fifty different "ESP symbols" broken into groups of ten, so that no symbols are duplicated in any of the groups? Or are you proposing ten different "ESP symbols" simply presented in different order in each group?


I believe he is proposing neither.

Instead there would be five different "standard Rhine" ESP symbols (star, circle, square, wavy lines and the cross), each duplicated ten times.

quick google search found examples of such symbols here: *link edited out*

edit: the main site of what I linked is full woo with costly phone tarot reading stuff, I'd rather not link to such site for any reason now that I think of it. I'll hotlink to image of the symbols soon.


edit2: Here they are, the square, the star, the wavy lines, the cross and the circle
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/6100446b8bdf9efff.jpg

[Admiral]

I see no reason whatsoever why the symbols would be unacceptable. If this is his claimed ability, they'd let him test it. We don't need to discuss the use of words.

Mental Professor, your claim seems very solid. There will certainly be changes to your protocol, but we can let the Challenge Administrator decide those. I recommend, if you are completely confident in your ability, that you send in a notarized application. Print it, sign it in front of a public notary, write your claim (NOT a protocol- just a paragraph defining your claim, where you are, and what will constitute a positive and negative result), and mail it in.

Also, I recommend you read through the FAQ thoroughly, though I think you already have.

Good Luck!

[petre]

To answer the first question I saw there, I think it is unlikely JREF would be eager to accept results obtainable by chance 0.64% of the time and encourage you to either increase the number correct, or increase the number of trials. For example, I think a suggestion of as little as 11 or more correct out of 20 such trials (0.046% by my math) would be fairly likely for them to accept. They may ask for more though.

Also, I second the motion that JREF would likely prefer to have the trials timed to provide synchronization, rather than any kind of communication between the rooms, if that is possible.

Nguyen's Protocol would be a fantastic starting point, since it is already established and defined.

I'd think something like the following would be a fair start for the proposal:

"I propose to follow Nguyen's Protocol, substituting standard Rhine ESP symbols for the words. Each trial will attempt to send and receive one of the 5 symbols selected at random. I propose a correct identification in 11 or more of 20 trials will signify success"

[ChristineR]

Nope, petre communication between the rooms is fine (there are potential pitfalls, but it isn't impossible). Nguyen's trial had limited communication. But the trials still have to take place at regular intervals....

It's a puzzle. PM me if you like.

[William Smith]

Nope, petre communication between the rooms is fine (there are potential pitfalls, but it isn't impossible). Nguyen's trial had limited communication. But the trials still have to take place at regular intervals....
...


I think #9 of the "Nguyen Protocol" covers the interval question, doesn't it?

#8 and #10 cover the communication, right?

[Ducky]

I would think a protocol to ensure that the cards with the symbols are not handled by the professor or his wife, and are properly randomized. \

I also think that communication of any kind between them is unacceptable. rehearsed cues can be masked in any conversational type communication.

Of course the insistance on those specific symbols makes me think of the possibility of a pre-rehearsed act. If you can truly read your wife's thoughts, why does the symbol used matter?

I don't represent the JREF in any way, just to be clear.

[ChristineR]

No, number nine does not address the problem. Number nine is just a cutoff that keeps the claimant from making the test last forever and forcing the test to be cancelled. ("I would have won, had they only allowed me ONE MORE MINUTE!")

[Ririon]

I don't like the good professor using the word "lucid" in the thread title. I mean, it is a strikingly lucid proposal, but "I have a bad feeling about this.":jedi:

[LordoftheLeftHand]

How about something other than cards with the five symbols? How about cards with common words on them?

LLH

[Manny]

No, number nine does not address the problem. Number nine is just a cutoff that keeps the claimant from making the test last forever and forcing the test to be cancelled. ("I would have won, had they only allowed me ONE MORE MINUTE!")Unless I miss the puzzle, would not the problem be solved if the wife's communication of her having sent the signal and the observer's communication of that fact were independently times? In other words, "Mrs. MP" would have "up to two minutes" to send the signal and the observer would confirm at "exactly two minutes" that she had done so?

I also wonder about 7 symbols only once. I'd hate to see 500 people request the same test and one get lucky. Something like "7 correct symbols in three consecutive trials" or "not fewer than 6 correct symbols in 8 of 10 consecutive trials" might fit the bill for both sides. Though I also join in the chorus of people hastening to add that I do not represent the JREF, I'm just in the peanut gallery.

I also join in the congratulations to you, Mental Professor for a lucid, clear proposal. You may find it a touch condescending that so many people are acknowledging something which seems not all that difficult. If so I apologize. I can only say that we've seen just a huge number of challenge applications which were an absolute mess. Best of luck in your challenge!

[Rasmus]

How about something other than cards with the five symbols? How about cards with common words on them?

Why is everybody so much against the cards?

If the prof is sufficiently trained and experienced using EPS symbols, then by all means let him use those.

I see that it increases the chance of cheating - but I don't think that things need to be overly complicated as long as the protocol is sufficiently tight.

Rasmus.

[petre]

Why is everybody so much against the cards?

If the prof is sufficiently trained and experienced using EPS symbols, then by all means let him use those.

I see that it increases the chance of cheating - but I don't think that things need to be overly complicated as long as the protocol is sufficiently tight.

Rasmus.

Agreed, it would be possible to classify any symbol set and map them to the original set if some deception is planned. The familiar cards should be fine, and I'm confident JREF will sufficiently account for communication opportunities.

[Rasmus]

Agreed, it would be possible to classify any symbol set and map them to the original set if some deception is planned. The familiar cards should be fine, and I'm confident JREF will sufficiently account for communication opportunities.

Well, if you have 5 or 10 or another relatively small number of distinct symbols then you could use a neasy and direct code. Random words, however, would make this impossible or at least require a much more difficult technique.

But since there have been discussions about coin flips recently, I think being able to tell which of 5 symbols is being transmitted is paranormal. If the claimant doesn't have another ability, then that shouödn't be a reason to not let him do the challenge.

Rasmus.

[ChristineR]

I see no problem with cards per se, but Nguyen's protocol won't work with cards. If the goal is to get past the back-forth and do the test as quickly as possible, "Nguyen with cards" wouldn't be my starting point in my application.

[Rasmus]

I see no problem with cards per se, but Nguyen's protocol won't work with cards.

No, but nowhere does it say we have to use that as a starting point, right?

(I think you were saying just that in your next sentence, but I am not really receiving your thouhgs on this clearly enough)

Rasmus.

[William Smith]

Perhaps wait for Mental Professor's next post we should?

[ChristineR]

No, but nowhere does it say we have to use that as a starting point, right?

(I think you were saying just that in your next sentence, but I am not really receiving your thouhgs on this clearly enough)

Rasmus.

People were suggesting that the Prof just use Nguyen's protocol to save the hassle of making his own. But if the cards are his thing, I don't think thats a good idea.

[Rasmus]

People were suggesting that the Prof just use Nguyen's protocol to save the hassle of making his own. But if the cards are his thing, I don't think thats a good idea.

Ah ...

I think so far he has displayed roughly as much as the accumulated reasoning skills of at least 90% of all past applicants - I think if he keeps that up there won't be a problem designing a new protocol. His first draft looks promising to say the least.

And Nguyen's protocol at least suggests that some sort of communication betwene the rooms is permissable - even if not during the trial.

One idea if some degree of coordination is required:

The receiver signals readiness to receive.
The sender then has 5 minutes to begin sending.
Anytime after the 5 minutes, the receiver can confirm through another signal if the symbol has been received.*

After a break, if needed, the process starts over.

This ensures that the two can coordinate their effortd. At the same time it makes it impossible for the sender to reveal any information about the symbols.

It gives the sender time to concentrate, prepare, meditate, etc. and then start sending.

* This provides for some flexibility in the process; at the same time it ensures that the prep-time will not be disturbed.

The protocol so far lacks provsions for the unblinded testing, i.e. an initial run with a known sequence of symbols and possibly even an opportunity to check the detection of sending vs. non-sending .

I realize all of this will make the test more complicated and I am eager to see what others have to say.

[William Smith]

Perhaps wait for Mental Professor's next post we should?

[Rasmus]

Perhaps wait for Mental Professor's next post we should?

But that would be boring! :D

[William Smith]

But that would be boring! :D

But efficient! (Deutsche Tugenden können nützlich sein.) :D

[Gr8wight]

Of course the insistance on those specific symbols makes me think of the possibility of a pre-rehearsed act. If you can truly read your wife's thoughts, why does the symbol used matter?


That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the name "Mental Professor." He's a mentalist by trade. He has an act set up with his wife that he believes will fool people. My guess, anyway.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Your wife may not choose when to say "sending" and you may not choose when to say "received." These must be done at predetermined intervals.I think you nailed this one. ;) Good work! :)

[Rasmus]

Of course the insistance on those specific symbols makes me think of the possibility of a pre-rehearsed act. If you can truly read your wife's thoughts, why does the symbol used matter?

I missed this bit earlier.

Granting him the benefit of the doubt, the cards/symbols are pretty much standard in that type of experiment (or performance). Suggesting them makes things easier, since they are well understood, non-ambigious and easily obtained.

And it is possible that the thoughts that are being send and received are less clear than spoken or written language. So it might be possible to communicate one of a few predetermined symbols, but not neccesarily anything completely arbitrary.

But yes, it gotta be a trick or act - nobody can really belive that a man will understand his woman's thoughts. (That might well be worthy of the grand million dollar price even if they were allowed to talk ...)

Rasmus.

[William Smith]

Perhaps wait for Mental Professor's next post we should?

[ChaoticLimbs]

This would be a fantastically interesting test to perform. I myself would be impressed with seven out of 20 attempts yielding an accurate answer, as my attempts to read my wife's mind have been fruitless. For example, if, in a darkened parking garage, I were to call out to my wife, "where are you?" she would almost certainly answer "over here".

[Mental Professor]

My first chance to get back to the computer...

"nobody can really belive that a man will understand his woman's thoughts."

My wife enjoyed that one. I said 'read her mind', not 'understand her thoughts'!:D UFO's- maybe. Creationism- a slim possibility. But comprehending the female psyche? I'd bet on Gheller bending spoons before that happens.

"This leads nicely to the real problem. Your wife may not choose when to say "sending" and you may not choose when to say "received." These must be done at predetermined intervals."

I think the problem is that previous ESP tests have focused on the receiver's state of mind vs. the sender's. My wife goes into a relaxed alpha state and she can send her thoughts. When she is reaching that point, she will nod to the observer to say 'sending'. My intuition has greater accuracy at that point, although I cannot tell the difference and will not know my success rate until the test is completed.

As I stated before, we will both remove all jewelry rings, watches, glasses, shoes, etc. and leave them off during the entire test. We will be 'wanded' with a metal detector and you may use any type of detecting device to insure that we are not transmitting. We will have no say in the room location, conditions, etc. If you prefer, we will not talk at any time when observers are transmitting via walkie-talkies. Only two words should be spoken once the test has begun; 'sending' and 'received'.

"Forgive me for asking a blunt question: Do you really believe you and your wife share an ESP connection, or do you plan to win the prize by cheating?"

I've never cheated on my wife, but I didn't know they were offering a prize for that.;) I think that JREF's protocols are sufficient to insure that a charlatan would not win the prize. After 17 years of marriage, I'd have to say that we definitely have an ESP connection.

"1) A negotiated protocol by JREF would probably not like having a radio transmitter in your wife's room and a radio receiver in your room. Obviously looking to avoid any clandestine methods of transmitting information. Some other method (pre-arranged times, five minute intervals, etc.) would preclude having to have any communication between rooms, as long as that scenario fits in with your ability. Edit: And, of course, ChristineR's reason which I blithely neglected.

2) For practical reasons, one would want to know several things from your own initial investigations into the phenomenon to conduct a valid test. How far apart can you and your wife be? (We'd want to make sure that the test didn't fail because you'd tried it 20 feet apart, but the test rooms were 100 feet apart.) You posit being able to do it through a Faraday Cage -- do you foresee any other standard building materials that would prevent transmission?"

Radios seemed acceptable in Nguyen's test. I only followed that protocol. So far, we've had no issues with building materials, etc. We've always done the demonstrations with walkie talkies so I assume that the limit would be the transmission range.

"Instead there would be five different "standard Rhine" ESP symbols (star, circle, square, wavy lines and the cross), each duplicated ten times."

That is correct. That's what we've used for practice.

[Timothy]

Well, go ahead and apply. The quicker you do so, the quicker you and the JREF Challenge Desk can bicker over the part that makes it a parlor trick, and officially decline your application. Then we can all get back to normal.

Nice try, though.

- Timothy

[deBergerac]

First let me say thank you for the very clear suggestion for a protocol.
But I have to ask one question that it seems to me that you avoided.

Is it your suggestion that the radio message be sent when your wife nods her head?
This will probably not be accepted.

And a follow up question:
Is it possible for you to perform if the time intervals are fixed?

[porch]

"Forgive me for asking a blunt question: Do you really believe you and your wife share an ESP connection, or do you plan to win the prize by cheating?"

I've never cheated on my wife, but I didn't know they were offering a prize for that.;) I think that JREF's protocols are sufficient to insure that a charlatan would not win the prize. After 17 years of marriage, I'd have to say that we definitely have an ESP connection.
At this point, Mental Professor, I have to suspect you of what I call "honest lying." That's when you're trying to pull off a lie, but have a hard time doing it when asked a direct question, so you try to find ways of lying without "really" lying.

"I think that JREF's protocols are sufficient to insure that a charlatan would not win the prize."

Not really saying whether or not you plan on cheating, is it?

"After 17 years of marriage, I'd have to say that we definitely have an ESP connection."

Yes, when you are very close to someone, you can say, in a fashion of speaking, that you have a psychic link of some sort. This leaves open the possibility that you have 'an ESP connection', and plan on cheating.

My advice is this: If you intend to lie, do it wholehog. No prisoners! At least, that's what I've gleaned from my experiences as a very poor liar.

[Sleepy]

Maybe one of the parties should be placed in a faraday cage to prevent any high-tech cheating.

[NiallM]

My guess is that a predetermined gap between the sending of the "received" message and the sending of the "transmitted" message indicates the card. 20 seconds for wavy line, 10 seconds for square etc etc. It means the first card is a guess (one in five), then the rest should follow.

The protocol should enusure that both messages are at rigidly fixed intervals.

[Lothian]

My understanding of the protocol is that; for the first card the wife says she is ready. ‘Sending’ is transmitted then the first card is turned over. Once that card is ‘received’ and the recording of that card witnessed and recorded then ‘Received’ is radioed back.

This is then repeated. As long as the next card is not revealed to the wife before ‘Sending’ is transmitted and as long as the receiver does not go back and amend ‘guesses’ I don’t see a problem with the protocol. (But I may be missing a trick)

[Antiquehunter]

The protocol should enusure that both messages are at rigidly fixed intervals.

Or simply completely randomized. 'Sender' notifies invigilator that they have 'sent'. Invigilator may send signal to 'Receiver' at any point in time within an x second interval (up to two minutes for sake of argument). However, without the use of a consistent interval or a completely random interval between communication, the likelihood for the 'receiver' to be influenced by counting seconds etc... is significant.

I'm puzzled - not having any ESP ability myself - why would a 'receiver' need to be notified of when to 'receive'? Wouldn't the 'receiver' get the message without being prompted to look for it?

-AH.

[NiallM]

I agree. Fixed or totally random. So long as it's not in the control of the sender.

But, as you imply, a one-way communication should be adequate.

The sender is shown a card and no communication is made to indicate either a start or and end to transmission.

When the receiver indicates that she has recieved the message and writes down teh message, then all that is necessary is to send back the word "received". At this stage, the next card is turned over and transmission begins and so on.

The communication should be one-way only.

[Ririon]

...The communication should be one-way only.
I like the idea that all non-paranormal communication between the two should go in the opposite direction of the ESP communication.

[Mendeli]

Why is it always that they transmit between rooms using paranormal means and then write/draw down the answer using normal means.

I'd much rather transmit between the rooms using radio or by sending a convenional letter and then use my paranormal abilities to write/draw the answer into the answer sheet!

I call it telescribesis

[ChristineR]

Two people can train themselves to count silently together. This takes a few weeks, but hey, we're talking about a lot of money here.

First round:

The tester flips the card over. She (sender) stares for a bit, then says "sending." He waits a bit, then guesses (1 in 5 chance) a card. He signals the tester to radio "recieved."

Both parties begin counting.

For the second and subsequent rounds, she signals to say "sending" at a predetermined count. Because the tester will actually have the radio, some slack must be allowed, i.e. interval 1-10 is star, 11-20 is circle, etc.

The coding can be varied according to predetermined but random rules each round. This makes it all but undectectable.

This technique was used to fool early ESP researchers, back when scientists actually thought ESP might work.

Professor, when I read your protocol, I thought good, good, good, BAD, good, good....It really stood out. I was hoping you say something like "Predetermined times? Sure, why not?" It seemed unfair to use THE C WORD (cheat) with someone who was being so polite and reasonable.

Now we move on. How can we best vary the protocol so that it allows your wife sufficient time to get in the right mental state but does not allow her to signal you?

[politas]

One thing I would like confirmed is the definition of a "correct" answer. Simply getting the correct number or wavy lines cards is far less remarkable than saying "cards 3, 5 and ten were wavy lines."

[TheBoyPaj]

I have no problem with Lothain's suggestion.

Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes.

No information leakage, but flexible to the sender's needs.

Would that be OK with you, Mental Professor?

[politas]

Now we move on. How can we best vary the protocol so that it allows your wife sufficient time to get in the right mental state but does not allow her to signal you?

Simply add an intermediate relay with a random delay for the communication of the "received" message. That breaks the timing loop entirely. So the person in the receiving room keys a radio tuned to a different channel than the radio in the sending room, and an intermediate with waits for an amount of time unknown to either party, then keys the radio tuned to the sending room. The range of time periods in the delay stage should be unknown to the applicant and his wife.

All in all, you need three pairs of radios: S -> R, R -> I, I -> S, to completely avoid direct two-way information flow. (Although computers using a chat program with separate channels would do as well.)

[NiallM]

I have no problem with Lothain's suggestion.

Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes.

No information leakage, but flexible to the sender's needs.

Would that be OK with you, Mental Professor?
That's a good alternative.

I don't want MP to think that I am in any manner accusing him of cheating, by the way.

As has been ppointed, he seems to be well prepared and has as good an understanding of the Challeng requirements as I've seen in a potential candidate. He also seems willing to do what is necessary to get a test. I hope that he pursues it to an actual test. I also hope that he takes on these suggestions in the spirit intended.

[MRC_Hans]

The MP says he needs his wife's signal to indicate just when she feels she is transmitting the best. Thus they want control over exactly when the "sent" signal is transferred. This opens the possibility for the counting scheme. However, it is not too difficult to foil that: The "received" signal from the the MP to his wife can simply be delayed by the supervisers by a random interval. That would disrupt a counting scheme.

So, we have:
1) Card displayed to wife.
2) At her on discretion, wife indicates "sent" signal (through supervisor).
3) Supervisor immidiately transmits "sent" signal.
4) At his own discretion, MP indicates "received" signal.
5) Supervisor waits for a random interval (a random timer can easily be constructed, to indicate a time between 0 and, say, 60 seconds).
6) Supervisor sends "received" signal.

What do you say, Mental Professor? Is something like that acceptable to you? After all, you wouldn't want people to suspect you of cheating ;).

Hans

ETA: Oh, I see Politas already suggested this. :)

[NobbyNobbs]

Alternatively, find out what the longest time period is that the wife has needed to reach the "sending" state. Make that the standard time period between sendings. In other words, if it takes at most 10 minutes to be in a "sending" state, then even if she reaches that state in 2 minutes, she should continue sending for the next 8. At the end of each ten minute interval, the receiver should announce what he received.

[MRC_Hans]

One thing I would like confirmed is the definition of a "correct" answer. Simply getting the correct number or wavy lines cards is far less remarkable than saying "cards 3, 5 and ten were wavy lines."
I am assuming it is direct hits that count, that is, the receiver notes down the received sequence, and it is afterwards compared with the actual sequence.

BTW, there is one fishy thing about your opening post, Mental Professor (don't take this personally, remember, we are just conditioned to suspect foul play). You are talking about knowing which cards are already taken. Consider this:

If the cards come in random order, and you have no knowledge of which cards come up (that is your ability does not exist), this will not change your statistical chances of getting hits.

If you think you know which cards have been taken (but are wrong), it may actually reduce your chances, because, while all sequences are possible, you will be reducing your choice of sequences.

Finally, if your knowledge of which cards have been taken is real, it will aid you in hitting the last ones, but then you do have the ability, so it will not invalidate your result.

This is a test to see which of the following positions is true; The position of you that you have the ability, and that of the JREF that you don't.

Hans

[Lothian]

I have no problem with Lothain's suggestion.

Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes.

No information leakage, but flexible to the sender's needs.

Would that be OK with you, Mental Professor?Thanks, but it wasn’t my suggestion. I was merely restating what I understood the first post to say.

When my wife states that she is ready, a fourth observer will radio the word “sending” to a fifth observer in the room where I am located. The third observer will then turn over the first symbol and place it on the other side of the tray.

[petre]

Well, I'd think that's enough information to submit a preliminary protocol. As the professor seems well-reasoned, I do hope he'll take the suggestions (and objections) as they help they are intended, rather than any specific attack on his character. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing dialoge with JREF.

[Mr. Scott]

At this point, Mental Professor, I have to suspect you of what I call "honest lying." That's when you're trying to pull off a lie, but have a hard time doing it when asked a direct question, so you try to find ways of lying without "really" lying.

Nailed it, porch!

When Mental Professor turned the idea of cheating on the test into a joke about cheating on his wife, it was as if all the needles on a lie detector went off the chart.

I think NiallM guessed it. Some strategy like 10 seconds delay for card type one, 15 for card type two, etc. That would also account for good but not perfect accuracy.

The excess detail in the initial protocol was a red flag to me. Sometimes, hidden in the preparations to prevent cheating, are the clues to how the cheating will be done.

For example, a mentalist might insist that he stand back-to-back with his ESP receiver, pressing backs together so there is no possible way they could turn and look at each other's cards. But doing so allows them to communicate with subtle back twitches. Ergo the protocol detail said to prevent cheating actually contains the means to cheat.

Mental Professor: Prove us wrong! Rush in your application and claim your million!

[Rasmus]

I think we should grant him the benfit of the doubt!

Right now, I get the impression that we are all a bit over-sensitive. The protocol as suggested turns out to not allow for counting, since the card will only be opened after the sending-signal is relayed ot the receiver.

I think joking is not an entirely susoicious way of dealing with accusations of cheating. What choice does the guy have?

We accuse him of cheating - we're hardly going ot bleie that he won't cheat just on his say-so, right? If he gives a reason for his requirements - if that's what they are - then he's on the defensive.

He's still the most reasonable applicant I have ever seen, and so far he hasn't really done anything bad, either. Granted, the track record of applicants is pretty bad, but let's not let it out on him too much just yet.

The suggested protocl might still need some more provisions, safeguards and changes - but it's a good start, isn't it?

[Ryan O'Dine]

I’d be surprised if someone with the apparent intelligence of Mental Professor thinks he can pull off a simple parlor trick on James Randi. I mean, he must know who Randi is. (Although I guess there’s no penalty for trying. And it is a million bucks. Still -- always nice to give a little benefit of the doubt.)

In any event, it would be nice if you, Mental Professor, could convince your wife to join us here. That would:
1. Give you a little back-up
2. Give us another perspective on the phenomenon
3. Embiggen this hip party of a thread

I promise, she won't be accused of cheating... much. ;)

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I have no problem with Lothain's suggestion.

Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes.

No information leakage, but flexible to the sender's needs.

Would that be OK with you, Mental Professor?

I think this is a good idea.

I still don't like the symbols being known to the test subjects before the test. It would be much harder to prearrange a cheating method of sending data to your partner if you don't know what type of data you will be sending.

This is an interesting challenge!

LLH

[NiallM]

I think we should grant him the benfit of the doubt!

Right now, I get the impression that we are all a bit over-sensitive. The protocol as suggested turns out to not allow for counting, since the card will only be opened after the sending-signal is relayed ot the receiver.

I think joking is not an entirely susoicious way of dealing with accusations of cheating. What choice does the guy have?

We accuse him of cheating - we're hardly going ot bleie that he won't cheat just on his say-so, right? If he gives a reason for his requirements - if that's what they are - then he's on the defensive.

He's still the most reasonable applicant I have ever seen, and so far he hasn't really done anything bad, either. Granted, the track record of applicants is pretty bad, but let's not let it out on him too much just yet.

The suggested protocl might still need some more provisions, safeguards and changes - but it's a good start, isn't it?
I couldn't possibly agree more with anyone right now.

I strongly feel that there is a possibility of a test here - and that the details can be worked out to ensure that it can be done in a transparent way.

I've said - and I must repeat - that this is the best opening shot a protocol that I've seen here. I really hope that it can be followed up and turned into an actual test. On the evidence so far, I don't think that we should assume a cheat in any way; if someone is up for a test, we should welcome it, help it, and make suggestions for the protocol. Clearly, we are all interested in pointing out possible gaps in the test, but we're - I hope - not implying any cheating.

I'm not, for one. I'm just suggesting ways to avoid any possible accusation of gaps in the protocol.

[Mental Professor]

"The MP says he needs his wife's signal to indicate just when she feels she is transmitting the best. Thus they want control over exactly when the "sent" signal is transferred. This opens the possibility for the counting scheme. However, it is not too difficult to foil that: The "received" signal from the MP to his wife can simply be delayed by the supervisors by a random interval. That would disrupt a counting scheme.

So, we have:
1) Card displayed to wife.
2) At her on discretion, wife indicates "sent" signal (through supervisor).
3) Supervisor immediately transmits "sent" signal.
4) At his own discretion, MP indicates "received" signal.
5) Supervisor waits for a random interval (a random timer can easily be constructed, to indicate a time between 0 and, say, 60 seconds).
6) Supervisor sends "received" signal.

What do you say, Mental Professor? Is something like that acceptable to you? After all, you wouldn't want people to suspect you of cheating ."

That sounds fine! I hadn't considered the possibility of counting. (Is that really possible? Even with practice, I don't think it could be maintained.) The observer would have the option of replying 'received' at any time after I had written down the symbol.

"Alternatively, find out what the longest time period is that the wife has needed to reach the "sending" state."

She can usually reach that state in a minute or two with slow breathing.

"If the cards come in random order, and you have no knowledge of which cards come up (that is your ability does not exist), this will not change your statistical chances of getting hits."

Out of all the possible outcomes in the number of tries, there will only be 5 chances where all of the symbols are the same. For example, if the first card selected for the group of 50 is a 'star', then there will be only nine (9) stars left but there will still be ten (10) of all the other symbols.

It will not affect this test, per se, but it does affect the probabilities of certain outcomes. If I were truly guessing, then I would avoid making guesses of the same symbol more than the statistical average.

We can avoid this issue by either having the first observer write down the list of symbols instead of using cards. Or we could allow the observer to 'stack' the symbols in his/her own preference, making the "all one symbol" scenario just as likely as any other.

"Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes."

"Right now, I get the impression that we are all a bit over-sensitive. The protocol as suggested turns out to not allow for counting, since the card will only be opened after the sending-signal is relayed to the receiver."

Yes, that was my proposal.

Sidebar:

I consider myself one of 'you' more than I consider myself one of 'them'. :) Everyone has made rational, logical points and it’s my job is to respond to them. I take no offense and expect to be challenged. These postings should be composed in a spirit of fun.

I don't like the work 'skeptic'. It has such a negative connotation. Like atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, etc. I have a mental picture of some old geezer that hasn't smiled in years. Someone who throws rocks at the kids who cross his yard and complains about everything. Can't we come up with a positive term that would reflect our searching for the truth? Let's leave the negative monikers to the angry zealots who view any question as a threat. What is a good synonym for "Open-Minded"?

Unlike all of Mr. Randi's detractors, he is truly the open-minded one. He says, "Sure, I'll believe you, just show me the proof." His nay-sayers have made up their minds beforehand and refuse to choose logic over emotion.

Did I cover everything? Let's have some fun! If anyone knows a member of the Capitol Skeptics, have them send me an e-mail. I'd be happy to give a preliminary preliminary demonstration.

Drew

[Ririon]

1. You didn't just start using colored text, did you? Look at the thread next door (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56987)... Try to use the quote function instead.

2. Apply. Please. Now.

[gruk]

That sounds fine! I hadn't considered the possibility of counting. (Is that really possible? Even with practice, I don't think it could be maintained.)

It is, with a bit of training and refreshing. My "count seconds" seems to be quite out (two rtries to measure 50s, first was 25s, second was 35s), though it used to be quite good, some years back.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Why that particular skeptic group? I would be weary of using any group requested by the testee. One million dollars can buy all sorts of things. All we know about this group is that they have "skeptics" in the name.

Just passing the preliminary has significant value even if he goes no further. Get a reading from the first psychic to pass the Randi challenge only 4.99 per minute! Maybe he has a book ready to send to the printers only waiting for a quote to put on the cover.

Achu had to cross the ocean to meet a approved tester how far are you willing to travel?

[Gr8wight]

Achu had to cross the ocean to meet a approved tester how far are you willing to travel?

Achau had to travel to California only because a skeptical group willing to participate could not be found by the JREF on Hawaii. Still, he did that willingly, and by his own suggestion. If he had been unable to do so, nobody would have blamed him.

It is up to the JREF to decide if a skeptical organisation meets with their approval to conduct a test. Simply disqualifying the D.C. group for no reason other than Mental Professor suggested them does sound somewhat alarmist.

[NiallM]

This becomes more promising.

You seem open to the tweaks to the protocol. JREF will have more suggestions (remember, we're only forum members here, and we don't speak for them).

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a test at some stage here.

By the way, the word "sceptic" (yes, I'm from the far side of the pond) isn't as attached to negative connotations as you seem to tthink. Yes, we demand some proof, but that's about all.

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, MP!

I just want to jump in and add my voice to the requests that you go ahead and apply. You're way WAY ahead of where most other people are when they apply (in that you've actually thought of a protocol and, goodness! your claim, as you've described it, actually is specific and makes sense and is testable -- whee!). Go for it!

-- Kat

[Gr8wight]

This becomes more promising.

You seem open to the tweaks to the protocol. JREF will have more suggestions (remember, we're only forum members here, and we don't speak for them).

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a test at some stage here.

That would certainly depend upon whether Mental Professor ever actually...you know...submits an application.

[Mental Professor]

1. You didn't just start using colored text, did you? Look at the thread next door... Try to use the quote function instead.
Thanks for the heads up! I don't want to be grouped with those other guys!

2. Apply. Please. Now.
The application has been notarized and it’s ready to go. I did make the following change to Paragraph 7 on the advice of my attorney:

When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. Mr. Randi, any persons peripherally involved and the James Randi Educational Foundation surrender any and all rights to legal action against the applicant, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.
In this litigious society, if one party gives up rights, then BOTH parties should give up the same rights. I'll finish my description and my protocol proposals and have it in the mail by Monday.

Why that particular skeptic group? I would be weary of using any group requested by the testee. One million dollars can buy all sorts of things. All we know about this group is that they have "skeptics" in the name.
I assumed that they would be an acceptable group. I got their info from Achu's test. I tried to contact the Washington Area Sylvia Browne Fan Club but they kept picking up the phone before it rang and it creeped me out.

Just passing the preliminary has significant value even if he goes no further. Get a reading from the first psychic to pass the Randi challenge only 4.99 per minute! Maybe he has a book ready to send to the printers only waiting for a quote to put on the cover.
I'm just doin' it for the CHICKS! Oh yea, and the 500,000 bucks. (The wife gets half.)

How far are you willing to travel?
I know there seems to be a dearth of B.S. detectors in the DC area, but I'm sure that JREF could find a local group that they trust.

[Forty-Two]

Best of luck. This is one of the most aptly-named threads I've ever seen in the Million Dollar Challenge forum. :)

[Admiral]

Post deleted- weird formatting issues.

[Admiral]

The application has been notarized and it’s ready to go. I did make the following change to Paragraph 7 on the advice of my attorney:


In this litigious society, if one party gives up rights, then BOTH parties should give up the same rights.

Now, this could end up being an issue. The FAQ Rule 2.7. reads:

2.7. I disagree with a rule, or if I strongly feel that a rule shouldn't apply in my case, how do I go about changing it or getting it waived?

You don't. The Challenge rules will not be changed for you.

You can ask to get a rule changed, but you should expect to have your request rejected, and you should not expect the JREF to engage you in a debate over such matters.

Now, it's their challenge, so its their right to use whatever contract they want. However, I think Drew has a very good point- with the contract as it currently stands, would the JREF be able to sue a prize claimant for damages to its reputation? Admittedly, this would be a very underhanded trick, but it seems to me to be legally possible.

The JREF has taken great care to make the Challenge as honest as possible- they've made sure that there is no question that the money is there and that they can't get out of paying it if a challenger wins. However, here's a serious question for any lawyers on the forum- could the JREF then have grounds to sue the claimant?

Drew, feel free to do what you want, but my advice would be not to send in the application until this issue is resolved.

[Flange Desire]

... I tried to contact the Washington Area Sylvia Browne Fan Club but they kept picking up the phone before it rang and it creeped me out.

Very funny MP!

[DevilsAdvocate]

So, we have:
1) Card displayed to wife.
2) At her on discretion, wife indicates "sent" signal (through supervisor).
3) Supervisor immidiately transmits "sent" signal.
4) At his own discretion, MP indicates "received" signal.
5) Supervisor waits for a random interval (a random timer can easily be constructed, to indicate a time between 0 and, say, 60 seconds).
6) Supervisor sends "received" signal.Although that would disrupt a counting-scheme parlor trick, it wouldn't eliminate the benefit. There would need to be some kind of time limits. For example, let’s say the sender has 4 minutes after a card is turned over to indicate “sent”. After that, the receiver has 4 minutes to indicate “received”. Then the testers throw in a random delay of up to 4 minutes—say they draw a number out of a hat from 0 to 4 and delay that many minutes.

So let’s say that the trick is that the sending waits the following number of minutes before giving the “send” signal. We assume the parlor tricksters can keep perfect time in their head.

Star = 0 minutes, Circle = 1 minute, Square = 2 minutes, Wavy lines = 3 minutes, Cross = 4 minutes.

If the receiver gives the “received” signal and the next “sent” signal comes back 8 minutes later, there can only be one possibility: the random delay was 4 minutes and the sender delay was 4 minutes. Sender delay of 4 minutes = Cross! Works the other way around: delay of 0 minutes can only mean Star. Similarly, a delay of 1 minute would mean either Star or Circle, so the receiver has a 50% chance of guessing right, which is far more than the expected probabilities. Even if the delay is broken down into a variable number of seconds, the delay between the “received” signal and the next “sent” signal can eliminate some possibilities. So the parlor tricksters would have at least the predetermined probably of guessing, plus the counting-scheme advantage, which could be anywhere up to a 100% give-away depending on how the delays and cards play out. A certain advantage, and certainly not blind or double-blind. ;)

[Mental Professor]

Drew, feel free to do what you want, but my advice would be not to send in the application until this issue is resolved.
I'll send it in and let them review the clause. They seem like reasonable folk and I'm sure they'll work with me on that issue. It doesn't change any of the terms of the test. It only provides protection. Otherwise, it could be used as an excuse for so-called psychics to reject the challenge.

I can hear Sylvia on Larry King now- "Of course I agreed to take part in Randi's silly challenge. But he wanted to reserve his right to take legal action against me and I had to waive mine..."

__________________

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. - Brian Fantana in Anchorman

[DevilsAdvocate]

I hadn't considered the possibility of counting. (Is that really possible? Even with practice, I don't think it could be maintained.)It's not that hard.

"Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes."

"Right now, I get the impression that we are all a bit over-sensitive. The protocol as suggested turns out to not allow for counting, since the card will only be opened after the sending-signal is relayed to the receiver."

Yes, that was my proposal.I see. Looks good then. A counting scheme could only reveal what the previous card was to eliminate possibilities, but combined with a random delay, the amount of information that could be transmitted seems negligible (although I haven't crunched the numbers).

I don't like the work 'skeptic'...Can't we come up with a positive term that would reflect our searching for the truth?The word you are looking for is "bright", which isn't too popular. :boggled: If you’ve got better ideas feel free to post them in the Paranormal section.

[Mental Professor]

Although that would disrupt a counting-scheme parlor trick, it wouldn't eliminate the benefit. There would need to be some kind of time limits.
:idea: How about this- No 'received' signal has to be sent! I'm given a set time of 3-4 minutes to receive her thoughts. At that point, they start my wife on the next symbol whether I'm ready or not. The need for communication from my room is obviated and there's no risk of counting. This solution should satisfy everyone's concerns! :) TAAA DAAA!

__________________

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. - Brian Fantana in Anchorman

[DevilsAdvocate]

:idea: How about this- No 'received' signal has to be sent! I'm given a set time of 3-4 minutes to receive her thoughts. At that point, they start my wife on the next symbol whether I'm ready or not. The need for communication from my room is obviated and there's no risk of counting. This solution should satisfy everyone's concerns! :) TAAA DAAA!I assume that by "start my wife on the next symbol" you mean that "your wife starts preparing".

This doesn't reduce the risk of a counting scheme. As I said, as long as the "sending" signal goes out BEFORE the card is revealed to the sender, the only information the sender could transmit is information about previously revealed cards. For example if the sender waits a one minute delay to before giving the "sending" nod to signal that the last card was a Circle, it doesn't matter whether the one minute delay starts after the "received" nod is given or after a predetermined time because in both cases both the sender and receiver know when any 'signal' delay would start.

In any event, it would be good to add to your protocol simply because it reduces the amount of communication necessary to conduct the test. :)

[Flange Desire]

....
Otherwise, it could be used as an excuse for so-called psychics to reject the challenge.

Just add it to the ever growing list.

I suspect that this will actually be the stopping point.
Randi is unlikely to modify the challenge terms for one particular applicant
- such an action would set a bad precedent IMHO.

[Orphia Nay]

I think you're right, Flange Desire.
If Drew is willing to concede that point, however, I have some suggestions as to the test.

There shouldn't be 'sending', 'sent', 'receiving' or 'received' signals at all.

Otherwise, the sender can count from a 'sending' signal made by the observer(not just her own signal) to her own 'sent' signal, as an example.
Another example might be that she could count from the 'received' signal to her own 'sent' signal.

Unless a separate observer sends the 'sent' signal.

But that might add other complications. A million dollars would be handy to bribe 'observer/s', and is probably nothing compared to the amount of publicity opportunities winning it would generate.

Wouldn't it be simpler and better to allow 5 minutes for each transmission, timed synchronously by timers with alarms in each room, with a random period of between 0 and 1.5 minutes before showing the sender the symbol? No communication would be required between each room, except perhaps before the test to check the accuracy of the alarms.

[Rasmus]

I really don't see the problem? All signals would be given *before* the next relevant card is reveiled, so it is not possible to relay any information about that card.

I haven't done the numbers, but with 50 cards in the test to begin with, even outright telling the receiver about past cards wouldn't increase his odds by much.

To make things even more secure, can we have totally random cards?

Select one card out of the 50, writre down the symbol, return the card to the stack, shuffle, repeat? Mind you, I *like* the idea of having one person making the envelopes and the next person selecting an envelope.

Regarding the change of the contract: I do hope this won't be a show-stopper, but I tend to agree with MP's lawyer here: It is a bit unfair; even though I think there is a good reason the clause is worded as it is, considering who the JREF is usually up against. (i.e. chances are much bigger that an applicant damages his reputation after losing a test. I think the JREF would still be very reputableeven if they had todish out the money; in fact, they, too, would probably benefit financially in the long run.)

Rasmus.

[Orphia Nay]

I just think it's better either without signals, or with signals not made at the moment the challenge participants indicate.

[Admiral]

I don't see what the fuss is about signals- MP has agreed just to use fixed time periods. This way, no information except psychic information, of course) has the chance to pass between the two rooms. None.

However, this clause is still worrying me. I'm on Mental Professor's side on this one- the JREF shouldn't be able to sue the applicant, except for things like breach of contract... I'd be very interested to hear the challenge coordinator's opinion on this.

[nathan]

The JREF has taken great care to make the Challenge as honest as possible- they've made sure that there is no question that the money is there and that they can't get out of paying it if a challenger wins. However, here's a serious question for any lawyers on the forum- could the JREF then have grounds to sue the claimant?

I think that senario is unlikely. It would be like 'I'm suing you because you made a bet with me and I lost, so now I look stupid -- you shouldn't have let me make the bet'. I think that would be a contender for 'stupidest lawsuit in the world'. I suspect the plaintiff of such a suit would lose (probably in summary judgement). And that would make them look even stupider.

Hasn't the JREF had to take out restraining orders before? Although I suspect in those cases it never got to the signed contract stage, so the contract would be moot.

Anyway, MP is right in that contracts are generally fairer if they are bidirectional

[Dorman]

If the "sending" message is to be transmitted instantaneously to the receiver, the following possibility still is not ruled out:

The transmitter and receiver have synchronized watches. If the "sending" message is sent between 0 and 10 sec after the minute, it's a star. If sent between 10 and 20 sec, it's a square, and so on (just a variation on the counting scheme, but does not need any communication between the participants since they are using an external reference point).

-Dorman

[TheBoyPaj]

Yes, this is the counting possibility that we are discussing. It is removed if the "sending" message is sent before the symbol is revealed to the sender.

[NiallM]

If the "sending" message is to be transmitted instantaneously to the receiver, the following possibility still is not ruled out:

The transmitter and receiver have synchronized watches. If the "sending" message is sent between 0 and 10 sec after the minute, it's a star. If sent between 10 and 20 sec, it's a square, and so on (just a variation on the counting scheme, but does not need any communication between the participants since they are using an external reference point).

-Dorman
Exactly. So the best that thing is that an independent person turns the next card simultaneously with a sign to the receiver that transmission has started. The signalling of the start of transmission must be completely out of the hands of the applicants.

I think he *did* mention that they wouldn't be wearing watches, though.

[Gr8wight]

If the "sending" message is to be transmitted instantaneously to the receiver, the following possibility still is not ruled out:

The transmitter and receiver have synchronized watches. If the "sending" message is sent between 0 and 10 sec after the minute, it's a star. If sent between 10 and 20 sec, it's a square, and so on (just a variation on the counting scheme, but does not need any communication between the participants since they are using an external reference point).

-Dorman

I think it has been made clear that the next symbol will not be revealed to the sender until *after* she has signaled her readiness to transmit. I believe that Mental Professor has also allowed for the protocol to be changed to where the sender will only signal readiness to begin the test, and cards will be revealed at fixed intervals after that.

[ChristineR]

A three minute set period would solve the counting problem. (Hooray!) You might want to consider some sort break provision, otherwise you'll be locked in a room for thirty minutes, or more, if they do more than ten trials. I don't know if this sort of thing is hard to maintain for thirty minutes or not.

[Mental Professor]

The transmitter and receiver have synchronized watches. If the "sending" message is sent between 0 and 10 sec after the minute, it's a star. If sent between 10 and 20 sec, it's a square, and so on (just a variation on the counting scheme, but does not need any communication between the participants since they are using an external reference point).
No watches and no clocks in the room. We would have been scanned and examined.

BTW, Has anyone tried to estimate time intervals on their own? I can't even guess 15 seconds correctly, much less a minute. And trying to coordinate that with someone else? I'd like to hear from somebody that's tried that.

__________________

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. - Brian Fantana in Anchorman

[petre]

I'll send it in and let them review the clause. They seem like reasonable folk and I'm sure they'll work with me on that issue. It doesn't change any of the terms of the test. It only provides protection. Otherwise, it could be used as an excuse for so-called psychics to reject the challenge.

I can hear Sylvia on Larry King now- "Of course I agreed to take part in Randi's silly challenge. But he wanted to reserve his right to take legal action against me and I had to waive mine..."


I would strongly advise either checking with JREF before modifying the application (challenge@randi.org) or specifically calling attention to the matter in a note sent with it.

Since it does not alter any other rule (only adds one) I don't think it is likely to become an unsurmountable hurdle, but they may wish to add specific exceptions to the added limitation.

[Admiral]

I'm sorry, but I have to repeat myself- can someone tell me why the protocol can't just have set five minute intervals? That way, there is no chance of a counting scheme. None. Mental Professor agreed to this:

How about this- No 'received' signal has to be sent! I'm given a set time of 3-4 minutes to receive her thoughts. At that point, they start my wife on the next symbol whether I'm ready or not. The need for communication from my room is obviated and there's no risk of counting. This solution should satisfy everyone's concerns! TAAA DAAA!

Drew, is it possible for the sender not to send a signal either? Just give your wife exactly five minutes, after which both the observer in the sending room and the receiving room start the next card. The observers can have stopwatches, even if the applicants can't.

This would solve every single issue- why are we still talking about the need for a "sending" signal?

[TheBoyPaj]

BTW, Has anyone tried to estimate time intervals on their own? I can't even guess 15 seconds correctly, much less a minute. And trying to coordinate that with someone else? I'd like to hear from somebody that's tried that.

Yes, it's not difficult. I just did a minute to within a second. And all you would need to do is distinguish 10 seconds from 20, from 30, etc.

[Mental Professor]

Yes, it's not difficult. I just did a minute to within a second. And all you would need to do is distinguish 10 seconds from 20, from 30, etc.
I still don't think it can be done in the testing methods we're discussing. Anyway, I'm sure that Randi will come up with a way to insure that doesn't happen.

I've sent an e-mail about the legal change so they'll be aware of it when my application arrives next week. Let's see how things go!

Drew

__________________

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. - Brian Fantana in Anchorman

[Mr. Scott]

Why doesn't your wife send you the "sending" signal telepathically? Seems like that would simplify things. You could likewise send her your "received" signal the same way.

Is there some reason ESP will only work if the receiver is informed, through conventional communication channels, that a message is being sent? If you can't demonstrate ESP without a redundant channel of conventional communication, what good is it to anyone?

This contradiction detonates a majority of psychic bunk. The supernatural powers are shown to be so weak they prove no use but to suggest supernatural powers may exist.


KING: Why do you care about your late grandfather?

VAN PRAAGH: Well, number one, if we can listen to them, number one it proves life after death.

[Admiral]

I don't think we should criticize these applicants and say "If you can do symbols, why not words?" or "Why do you have to know whether you're sending or receiving?"

If they make a claim, and that claim is paranormal, then it's applicable. As Randi says, if a woman claims she can play the violin, don't sit her down in front of a piano and ask her to prove it.

And I ask again- why can't there just be fixed time intervals? Five minutes for each card. That way, there's NO COMMUNICATION between the rooms besides telepathic communication. None.

If anyone can think of a flaw in having no communication between the rooms, please point it out to me. I think it's the easiest and clearest protocol, and saves us discussions about adding time intervals and other such nonsense.

So, I ask again- why not just have five minutes per card? The observers in both rooms have stopwatches, and start at a predetermined time. This takes care of every consideration, as far as I can tell.

[Mr. Scott]

On 5/19 at 4:06 AM NiallM suggested how MP may intend to cheat. Fourteen hours and one minute later MP challenged rule 1:7 "on advice of his attorney" to protect him against legal action from the JREF. Now MP won't agree to a protocol which eliminates a clear avenue of cheating.

My recipe suggestion is for raw mouse, and includes how to catch 'em:

1) Tempt with cheese.
2) When mouse arrives, play until bored.
3) Swallow.

[petre]

On 5/19 at 4:06 AM NiallM suggested how MP may intend to cheat. Fourteen hours and one minute later MP challenged rule 1:7 "on advice of his attorney" to protect him against legal action from the JREF. Now MP won't agree to a protocol which eliminates a clear avenue of cheating.

My recipe suggestion is for raw mouse, and includes how to catch 'em:

1) Tempt with cheese.
2) When mouse arrives, play until bored.
3) Swallow.

With the application on the way, it's in JREF's hands now (the matter, not the application :)). We've tried to help him prepare for what they may object to, let us hope that it is enough to bring a test.

[NiallM]

On 5/19 at 4:06 AM NiallM suggested how MP may intend to cheat. Fourteen hours and one minute later MP challenged rule 1:7 "on advice of his attorney" to protect him against legal action from the JREF. Now MP won't agree to a protocol which eliminates a clear avenue of cheating.

My recipe suggestion is for raw mouse, and includes how to catch 'em:

1) Tempt with cheese.
2) When mouse arrives, play until bored.
3) Swallow.
Sadly, I see similar signs.

Try a gratin with the mouse. A nice Bechamel, with some nutmeg and grated cheddar. Sprinkle with breadcrumbs and finish under the grille.

[ChristineR]

I may be getting lost in here, but I think that MP has agreed to preset intervals without signals. This eliminates the chance for signalling but does not require the poster to use dictionary words.

[Gr8wight]

On 5/19 at 4:06 AM NiallM suggested how MP may intend to cheat. Fourteen hours and one minute later MP challenged rule 1:7 "on advice of his attorney" to protect him against legal action from the JREF. Now MP won't agree to a protocol which eliminates a clear avenue of cheating.

My recipe suggestion is for raw mouse, and includes how to catch 'em:

1) Tempt with cheese.
2) When mouse arrives, play until bored.
3) Swallow.

Am I missing something? I thought Mental Professor had agreed to a fixed interval for revealing cards, and the elimination of commuication between rooms. Hasn't he?

:idea: How about this- No 'received' signal has to be sent! I'm given a set time of 3-4 minutes to receive her thoughts. At that point, they start my wife on the next symbol whether I'm ready or not. The need for communication from my room is obviated and there's no risk of counting. This solution should satisfy everyone's concerns!

Am i reading that wrong?

[Mr. Scott]

Am I missing something? I thought Mental Professor had agreed to a fixed interval for revealing cards, and the elimination of commuication between rooms. Hasn't he?

Am i reading that wrong?

Ok. Good call. Post #81, which still doesn't eliminate a conventional communication channel from the sender to the receiver. Red flag. Perhaps clock time to initiate sending would eliminate one last wire feeding into the Faraday Cage. We still haven't seen what modifications in his original proposal are really ending up in his official proposal.

I imagine the Challenge Administration most likely would be processing challenge applications in order received, rather than putting MP's to the front of the queue. That would mean a considerable delay before we can watch its official processing.

[Mental Professor]

I imagine the Challenge Administration most likely would be processing challenge applications in order received, rather than putting MP's to the front of the queue. That would mean a considerable delay before we can watch its official processing.

How long is the application process taking?
(I have generic ESP, not Precognition ... :) )

[William Smith]

How long is the application process taking?
(I have generic ESP, not Precognition ... :) )

Only a JREF Representative can answer this sensible. Mental Professor, I suggest you inquire at challenge@randi.org

[NiallM]

How long is the application process taking?
(I have generic ESP, not Precognition ... :) )
Once again, I applaud your enthusiasm. I really really hope that your application (you've sent it by now, I presume) is handled very quickly. I look forward to a test soon.

You have tested your ability in test conditions, by the way?

[Gr8wight]

I imagine the Challenge Administration most likely would be processing challenge applications in order received, rather than putting MP's to the front of the queue. That would mean a considerable delay before we can watch its official processing.

I think a challenge facilitator can handle more than one claim at a time. Kramer certainly did. Of all applications received, some will be rejected immediately, due to being untestable. Some applicants will never be heard from again. Some applicants will have to be coddled and hand-held because they are incapable of understanding what controls are necessary in a good protocol. And some, hopefully like Mental Professor, will proceed promptly. If Kramer Mark II were to handle applications one at a time, and not open another application until the previous one was closed, the process would be interminable.

[Mental Professor]

I dropped the application in the mail (DC area) this afternoon so I would expect them to receive it within a week.

You have tested your ability in test conditions, by the way?I've done demos at the local University.

If any DCMDVA forum posters want a preview, maybe we can get together and give it a try...

[William Smith]

I hope we will see your application soon in the Challenge Application thread.

Best wishes from Germany, Mental Professor.

[NiallM]

I dropped the application in the mail (DC area) this afternoon so I would expect them to receive it within a week.

I've done demos at the local University.

If any DCMDVA forum posters want a preview, maybe we can get together and give it a try...
Well best of luck with the application. The demonstrations you mention.. how rigorous were the conditions?

[Gr8wight]

Here is another example of Mental Professor's careful choice of words. When asked if he had tested his ability, he replied:

I've done demos at the local University.

Demos. Not tests, but demos. Again, I get the feeling that he is talking about a practised mentalism act that he hopes he can slide by the testers. Somewhere, we are missing a crucial detail. I'm sure Randi will spot it.

[Admiral]

I think many members of this forum are a bit too paranoid about this applicant.

I think the argument that many skeptics are using goes as follows:

When someone applies for the Million Dollar Challenge, one of three things must be true:

a)They're telling the truth, and they do have a paranormal ability.
b)They're crazy, or just mistaken.
c)They're lying and intend to cheat.

Now, it is the usual position of skeptics to assume that (a) is false. After all, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,"

In most cases, skeptics just assume the case is (b). We've had many, many kooks on this forum. In the last few months that I've been here, hondaracing, wanderingwtf, john d. maguire, and pepper have made ridiculous claims about the challenge- not to mention people like Interesting Ian and Dr. A. Sheik, who, as far as I can tell, will continue being ridiculous forever.

However, in this case, Mental Professor has had such a rational dialogue and made such a realistic claim (and has been so friendly and reasonable) that most people here wouldn't expect him to be crazy or mistaken. Therefore, they assume he intends to cheat.

This just isn't being fair. Pay attention to the protocol, and look at where opportunities for cheating actually exist. When skeptics say "Anyone who claims to have ESP MUST be lying," they're being just as dogmatic as woos accuse skeptics of being.

I thought for a long time that if someone showed up with a clearly defined claim and a reasonable demeanor and said he intended to apply for the Challenge, the forum could just focus on creating an airtight protocol, not on attacking his integrity. I don't mean to sound condescending, especially since I'm still new here, but I'm a little disappointed.

[GroundStrength]

I thought for a long time that if someone showed up with a clearly defined claim and a reasonable demeanor and said he intended to apply for the Challenge, the forum could just focus on creating an airtight protocol, not on attacking his integrity. I don't mean to sound condescending, especially since I'm still new here, but I'm a little disappointed.

I am a mentalist and not a very good one and this IMO this is a advanced two-person telepathy act. Maybe a real good one. Randi will spot the 'cheat' very quickly, if not in the protocol for sure in the act.

[Thing]

Just a shot in the dark: Drew, is this (http://drewhempel.gnn.tv/blogs/14623/Telepathy_and_Telekinesis_Now_in_Labs) you?

[Bob Klase]

Nailed it, porch!

When Mental Professor turned the idea of cheating on the test into a joke about cheating on his wife, it was as if all the needles on a lie detector went off the chart.

But what difference does it really make? If he intends to cheat, it's up to JREF to insure that the protocols prevent cheating. If he cheats and succeeds, he wins. Makes no difference whether he admits planning to cheat, plans to cheat and doesn't admit it, or doesn't cheat at all- if he succeeds according to whatever protocol is agreed upon, he still wins.

[timokay]

But what difference does it really make? If he intends to cheat, it's up to JREF to insure that the protocols prevent cheating. If he cheats and succeeds, he wins. Makes no difference whether he admits planning to cheat, plans to cheat and doesn't admit it, or doesn't cheat at all- if he succeeds according to whatever protocol is agreed upon, he still wins.

I don't think that this is the case. (let me know if I am wrong)

If an applicant cheats, wins, and gets away with it forever... THEN he wins.

But claiming paranormal ability, and then be proven a fraud via some kind of trickery, is criminal fraud.
(Btw, it is my DREAM to have real laws that prosecute this, putting psychics and frauds in JAIL.)

The challenge is not for magic, or slight of hand, or the best facsimile of paranormal ability. If you claim a paranormal ability, then it is on you to actually present this real ability. If you are found to be cheating, then you are liable to be prosecuted.

Unless I am wrong, which already happened once this year.

[Mr. Scott]

Just a shot in the dark: Drew, is this (http://drewhempel.gnn.tv/blogs/14623/Telepathy_and_Telekinesis_Now_in_Labs) you?

That guy Drew Hempel, who may or may not be Mental Professor, published a criticism of Randi on his blog:

The Problem With Magic Randi (http://drewhempel.gnn.tv/blogs/14651/The_Problem_With_Magic_Randi)

The forum may already know about this article, though.

[Pup]

If an applicant cheats, wins, and gets away with it forever... THEN he wins.

But claiming paranormal ability, and then be proven a fraud via some kind of trickery, is criminal fraud.

I believe in the case of the challenge, as long as both parties agree to the protocol and the challenger passes the test, that's all that matters, regardless how it's done. Once the protocol is negotiated, JREF defines the ability to pass that particular challenge as "paranormal" for the purpose of awarding the prize, believing that cheating would be impossible with the controls they demand.

However, a nagging concern about that issue might make an applicant want a clause in the contract that the JREF couldn't sue them afterwards.

[Mr. Scott]

Time for another blunt question:

Mental Professor, A.K.A. Drew, are you the same person as Drew Hempel, M.A. (http://drewhempel.gnn.tv/), who publishes paranormal themed blogs and articles?

[Mental Professor]

Just a shot in the dark: Drew, is this you?
Sorry bud, that style of prose is waaay above my ability to confuse. The closest I came to hyperentanglement was dropping an armful of coathangers at the drycleaners. I'm not recycling those anymore!

[Mr. Scott]

Mental Professor, A.K.A. Drew, are you the same person as Drew Hempel, M.A., who publishes paranormal themed blogs and articles?

Sorry bud, that style of prose is waaay above my ability to confuse. The closest I came to hyperentanglement was dropping an armful of coathangers at the drycleaners. I'm not recycling those anymore!

Non-denial duly noted.

[NiallM]

Well, if the application is indeed in the post, we'll have a name soon enough.

[jon]

Just to be really paranoid ;) if there's any (non-ESP) signal going from the sender to the receiver, there's also a possibility that counting could be used to tell the receiver what the previous symbol (not the one being 'sent') was - could skew the odds slightly, along the lines of card-counting in pontoon. Presumably to avoid this being an issue (don't think it'd have enough impact to allow a 'pass', but could be part of a strategy?) you might want to either shuffle the pack of symbols after each 'transmission', start off with more than 50 cards, or just use a computer to pick a random symbol each time...

[Mental Professor]

Non-denial duly noted.
It aint me. I'm not that guy. He is not me.

[Mental Professor]

Hey...

[Mental Professor]

How many posts do I need...

[Mental Professor]

before I lose my 'New Blood' status?

[Admiral]

25.

[Admiral]

Non-denial duly noted.

Wow, you can't seriously think they're the same person. You find it hard to believe that there are two people that believe in ESP that are both named Drew?

Their writing styles are COMPLETELY different- your other guy writes pseudoscientific blabber about all sorts of woo stuff, while our Drew has an attitude of "My wife and I have ESP." It's a very, very, very different claim.

Just because a google search for "Drew Randi ESP" turned up something doesn't make him the guy...

[William Smith]

before I lose my 'New Blood' status?

If you want to increase your post count without the mods frowning, check out the "Humour" Forum.

[Yahzi]

However, in this case, Mental Professor has had such a rational dialogue and made such a realistic claim (and has been so friendly and reasonable) that most people here wouldn't expect him to be crazy or mistaken. Therefore, they assume he intends to cheat.
Exactly my thoughts - we find a rational claimant, and the more rational he is, the more we assume he's cheating. It does seem a bit... counter-productive.

Here's my problem: the more rational Mental Professor is, the more I like him - which means the less interested I am in seeing him tested. :(

I think everybody is doing good on the protocol thing - after all, the first test isn't for the prize, it's just to determine if Randi should actually pay attention - so I won't comment on that.

My questoin is this: MP, how will you feel when the test fails? You seem like a nice guy; I'd like to know you would be as astounded and amazed at the human ability to construct reality despite facts as we would be at finding out telepathy really was true. I'd like to think both parties stood to gain here.

I don't mean to sound condescending, especially since I'm still new here, but I'm a little disappointed.
I can't say I'mn disappointed, because that would imply I expected different. But yes, we could all at least pretend we think he's honest, until we know otherwise. That's the value of politeness - it saves you from eating so much crow. :D

[Plasmadog]

Exactly my thoughts - we find a rational claimant, and the more rational he is, the more we assume he's cheating. It does seem a bit... counter-productive.

It's not at all counter-productive. The stronger the suspicion of cheating, the more effort will be put into tightening up the protocol. The better the protocol, the more useful the results, whatever they may be.

What is counter-productive is the all the hand-wringing about how it's not polite to accuse the claimant of cheating. The whole point of the protocol negotiation is to eliminate the slightest possibility of cheating. You can't very well engage in that process without at least implying that the claimant might be planning to cheat.

Bear in mind also that nobody has ever given a successful demonstration of paranormal abilities to an audience of skeptics without later being discovered as a fraud. We can hope that Mental Professor will not follow in their footsteps, but it is not unreasonable to expect that he will.

[Gr8wight]

My questoin is this: MP, how will you feel when the test fails?

I expect he'll just shrug, and say, "well, you caught me."

[ImOne]

...
What is counter-productive is the all the hand-wringing about how it's not polite to accuse the claimant of cheating.
...

That is an anti-social attitude. It's never polite to accuse someone of cheating, and if you must you ought to wait until you can prove it.

...
You can't very well engage in that process without at least implying that the claimant might be planning to cheat.
...

Yes you can. You say, "we want to make sure no one can accuse you of cheating".

[Ririon]

I expect he'll just shrug, and say, "well, you caught me."
That'll be a first! :)

[rjh01]

Or maybe the sun-spots were wrong.

[Mental Professor]

What is counter-productive is the all the hand-wringing about how it's not polite to accuse the claimant of cheating. The whole point of the protocol negotiation is to eliminate the slightest possibility of cheating. You can't very well engage in that process without at least implying that the claimant might be planning to cheat.
What I am attempting is to participate in a testing program that is based on scientific principles. If I fail, it doesn't prove anything. If I pass, it still doesn't prove anything. Most people will not change their beliefs either way.

What if Mr. Nguyen had passed his test with flying colors? What would it have proven? Would anyone actually believe that he had discovered something that no one else knew? Would people reading the results accept the possibility of ESP, or would they question the parameters of the test? I think that even if Randi had paid the claimant, most people would still believe that it was a hoax.

What if Mr. Nguyen, along with his associate had a special chip implanted in their heads that was undetectable, but allowed them to communicate. Would that be 'cheating'? Would it be wrong to use it? It would allow him to do what he claimed. He would have passed the test and would truly have the gift that he described.

Were the dowsers that Randi exposed in Australia 'cheating'? They still believed in their powers, even after Randi proved it was Malarkey!

I think that the posters have brought up interesting points. They are approaching it from a logical perspective. They are looking at the flaws in the testing procedure to see how the data could be manipulated.

One of the most interesting is the idea of counting. (I can't do that, and my wife can't either. That is not what we're doing. I personally don't think it would be possible. That would be a good challenge!) I think there are too many variables that would negate any chance of that being successful. But, if I am successful, people will suspect that it was performed that way. I cannot change their minds.

FOR THE RECORD- My wife and I do not have any secret implants. We cannot count to keep track of the symbols. We have no way to communicate with each other. We can't use secret codes because we aren't talking during the test. We can be examined and scanned. We won't have any control of the participants or the venue. This is not part of a business venture.

We truly believe in our abilities and welcome further investigation.

[Plasmadog]

That is an anti-social attitude. It's never polite to accuse someone of cheating, and if you must you ought to wait until you can prove it.

Of course it's not polite. It's not polite to suggest that someone is delusional either, but that is what you have done by assuming he will fail.
But what I meant was that simply discussing the ways in which it is possible to cheat, and ways to close those loopholes, will unavoidably imply suspicion. However, it does not amount to an accusation of cheating. MP understands this, as he pointed out in post #65.

People should not shy away from a frank discussion of those matters for fear of being seen as rude. Imagine how disappointing it would be if someone won the million by exploiting a loophole that nobody wanted to close out of fear of offending the claimant.

[Flange Desire]

snip ...
FOR THE RECORD- My wife and I do not have any secret implants. We cannot count to keep track of the symbols. We have no way to communicate with each other. We can't use secret codes because we aren't talking during the test. We can be examined and scanned. We won't have any control of the participants or the venue. This is not part of a business venture.

We truly believe in our abilities and welcome further investigation.

Thanks for your candour and good humour in all of this.

Your checklist provides much food for thought -
most of those assumptions can be checked and validated;
whilst ommissions from the list can also be considered.

I just LOVE a good puzzle!

[ImOne]

Of course it's not polite. It's not polite to suggest that someone is delusional either, but that is what you have done by assuming he will fail.

I have done no such thing.


But what I meant was that simply discussing the ways in which it is possible to cheat, and ways to close those loopholes, will unavoidably imply suspicion. However, it does not amount to an accusation of cheating. MP understands this, as he pointed out in post #65.

People should not shy away from a frank discussion of those matters for fear of being seen as rude. Imagine how disappointing it would be if someone won the million by exploiting a loophole that nobody wanted to close out of fear of offending the claimant.
Agree 100%, except the part about implying suspicion. It's standard protocol.

[Admiral]

Of course it's not polite. It's not polite to suggest that someone is delusional either, but that is what you have done by assuming he will fail.
But what I meant was that simply discussing the ways in which it is possible to cheat, and ways to close those loopholes, will unavoidably imply suspicion. However, it does not amount to an accusation of cheating. MP understands this, as he pointed out in post #65.

People should not shy away from a frank discussion of those matters for fear of being seen as rude. Imagine how disappointing it would be if someone won the million by exploiting a loophole that nobody wanted to close out of fear of offending the claimant.

I have no fear of offending him. And I certainly have no intention of "going easy" on him. In fact, I would like him to to answer, directly, this question: CAN YOU PERFORM WITH FIXED TIME INTERVALS FOR EACH CARD, AND NO "SENDING" OR "RECEIVED" SIGNAL?

If he agrees to this, there is NO point in continuing the discussion about counting, since it is impossible.

I think the protocol should be tested, critically examined, and torn apart. I think that we should assume that any possibility for cheating at all makes the test invalid. However, there's a difference between doing that and saying "I've noticed that you can't answer the question 'Do you intend to cheat?' directly."

Skeptics shouldn't make unreasonable accusations with no evidence (For example, that MP was Drew Hempel.) In my view, the reason for this is simple. The JREF expects applicants to behave appropriately and reasonably- applicants that call the Challenge a sham and call Kramer or Randi a liar don't last very long, and with good reason. As long as the JREF acts honestly in its dealings (for example, by holding the million dollars and offering proof of its existence, having a third party observer conduct the test, and contractually agreeing to give up the money if the demonstration is successful), the applicant has no right to call the Challenge a sham.

However, the skeptics have a responsibility to act just as reasonably. As long as the protocol is airtight, the applicant works productively with the JREF, and there is no evidence that the applicant is anything but honest, we shouldn't imply he's cheating or lying.

That doesn't mean I believe him- I don't believe claims until there is evidence. However, the point of the Challenge is to test the claim, not to belittle applicants. Implications and unfounded accusations don't help test the claim, and they're not going to help expose flaws in the protocol. That's just my thoughts on the tone of this thread.

On the other side of this, Mental Professor, don't be so quick to say that if you suceeded in the Challenge, you wouldn't change anyone's mind. You'd be surprised at the effect real evidence has on rational people. Of course it would require more tests, but if ESP were actually demonstrated in a scientific test repeatedly, the general paridigm of scientific thought would certainly shift.

Anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated claims, and cheap mumbo-jumbo don't change scientists' minds. Reality does. So let's see just how real these powers are.

[SirPhilip]

Let's keep this mannered. Mental Professor and his wife seem genuinely curious about their supposed connection. Calling him a "fraud" if it turns out to be nonsubstantial is out of line, as he isn't pandering anything to the public. I also can't imagine a better claimant - of all the loons the JREF deals with on a weekly basis, one reasonable, clear man and his wife of 17 years cutely step up to the plate and take the million.

Best of luck to you both! Given an airtight protocol, I'm sure a lot of us will be crossing our fingers. :)

[Mojo]

I have no fear of offending him. And I certainly have no intention of "going easy" on him. In fact, I would like him to to answer, directly, this question: CAN YOU PERFORM WITH FIXED TIME INTERVALS FOR EACH CARD, AND NO "SENDING" OR "RECEIVED" SIGNAL?

If he agrees to this, there is NO point in continuing the discussion about counting, since it is impossible. If there is an uncertainty about exactly how long it can take to receive a message, I think having a "received" signal should be OK as long as it is stipulated that the next card will start to be "sent" a fixed period after the "received" signal; this only involves information going from the receiver to the sender. So the test could be run like this:

Test starts. Sender starts sending first card. When the receiver thinks they have received the first card they note what they have received and the "received" signal is given. After whatever interval has been determined, say for the sake of arguiment five minutes (this can be agreed in advance depending on how long the participants feel they need to rest between cards) the sender starts sending the second card, and so on.

If the interval between the "received" signal and the next card being sent is fixed, there is no way it can be used to send coded signals via counting, and no need for a "sending" message; the receiver knows that the next card will start to be sent five minutes (or whatever period has been agreed) after the "received" signal.

[Pup]

First, just gotta say I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's a joy to read a thread started by a logical, reasonable, articulate candidate. Thank you, professor!

From the original proposal:

Upon receiving her thought, I will write the symbol down and the fifth observer will then radio back “received” to the fourth observer. The process will then repeat itself for a total of ten (10) times to use all of the symbols in the envelope.

7. Upon completion of the test, the sent and received symbols will be compared. All of the symbols and envelopes can be examined to verify that there were no more than fifty (50) symbols and that there were ten (10) copies of each.

(snip)

No observer that is witnessing the symbols being revealed should be in contact with an observer that is witnessing the reception of the symbols. I would like to preserve the sterility of the testing procedures so that there can be no claim of collusion. I understood that results were compared after 3 attempts in the Achau Nguyen test, but I ask that no contact be made with the sets of observers until after the full test has been completed.

I may have overlooked where this was addressed previously in the thread, but has there been any discussion about the first sentence quoted above?

The professor has requested that the sending witnesses not communicate with the receiving witnesses during the sending/receiving period. However, will there be a definite video/witness record of each of the professor's written answers as it's made, to prove what symbol he wrote down to correspond with each symbol being sent?

This would prevent anyone from claiming that he somehow discovered the symbols being sent at the end of the test, when communication between the two rooms opened up again, and managed to change his answers after the sending/receiving period, but before they were judged.

[Gr8wight]

First, just gotta say I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's a joy to read a thread started by a logical, reasonable, articulate candidate. Thank you, professor!

From the original proposal:



I may have overlooked where this was addressed previously in the thread, but has there been any discussion about the first sentence quoted above?

The professor has requested that the sending witnesses not communicate with the receiving witnesses during the sending/receiving period. However, will there be a definite video/witness record of each of the professor's written answers as it's made, to prove what symbol he wrote down to correspond with each symbol being sent?

This would prevent anyone from claiming that he somehow discovered the symbols being sent at the end of the test, when communication between the two rooms opened up again, and managed to change his answers after the sending/receiving period, but before they were judged.

In a typical protocol, a witness in the sending room would record each symbol as it is revealed, and a witness in the receiving room would record each symbol that Mental Professor marks down, as that is done. So, the answer to your question is, yes.

[steenkh]

For curiosity, Drew (MP) (sounds good, doesn't it ;)), have you already included the affidavits in your application, or will you have to spend time hunting those when your claim is received?

[petre]

For curiosity, Drew (MP) (sounds good, doesn't it ;)), have you already included the affidavits in your application, or will you have to spend time hunting those when your claim is received?

I would think it yet a bit presumpt...presu...early to be sending affidavits in the initial correspondence. At the very least I would think it good form to discuss intended affidavit signers before submitting such, and then only if requested.

[steenkh]

I never saw Kramer negotiating the affidavit signees before it happened. He just demanded affidavits, and told who would be acceptable, and I believe he rejected a few affidavits after having received them because they had not been signed by the right people. In fact, I think he only ever received a few affidavits, because this demand was always a show stopper.

[Skiltch]

Perhaps M. Professor could get the affadavits in case he needed them, but not send them until requested?
M. Professor -- what's the longest time that you'd normally need to send a symbol? Perhaps you could just have fixed intervals of that time.

[Yahzi]

You can't very well engage in that process without at least implying that the claimant might be planning to cheat.
ImOne answered that very nicely. In my own question to him I suggested he might have found a way to cheat that is unique, interesting, and unconcscious.

Bear in mind also that nobody has ever given a successful demonstration of paranormal abilities to an audience of skeptics without later being discovered as a fraud.
I am extremely well aware of that. My point is that this is the first time I have ever seen someone propose to give a demonstration in a lucid and rational way. All the rest of them are gibbering lunatics.

It's MP's sheer reasonableness that I think deserves to be respected. He sounds like someone who is rational, just wrong. It does us no harm - and potentially much good - to act as if this is the case.

After this demonstration fails, MP might actually be willing to consider that he was wrong. And the kind of treatment he recieves from us now might have some emotional impact on how he deals with that knowledge.

We can hope that Mental Professor will not follow in their footsteps, but it is not unreasonable to expect that he will.
Not at all unreasonable - just unnecessary. At this point.

When I watch cop shows, I always wonder why the cops are a little more polite when they are arresting the prime suspect. Don't they know they are on TV, there is 30 minutes left in the episode, and therefore they almost certainly have the wrong guy? And of course you never see them apologize for arresting and verbally abusing the wrong guy. (Well, once I did see that). You can imagine the experience doesn't leave a lot of good will on the part of the victim - which is bad, because the system is absolutely necessary and needs everyone's support.

I can understand a police officer saying, "We have strong evidence that you did it, so we have to arrest you." I can forgive him for doing his job. But convicting me before the trial, calling me a scumbag, bouncing my head off the squad car as he puts me in because he thinks he's got a real Bad Guy? That's not acceptable, necessary, or helpful.

We don't have to assume MP is dishonest, even while we explain to him the necessity of making sure dishonesty is impossible. We can appreciate his rational and polite discourse without conceeding his claim. We can be friendly with someone who has not yet irrevocably branded themselves as the enemy of all light and truth.

How do you know you can trust someone? Because they trust you. I know it is expensive and difficult to keep being the ones who first offer the olive branch of trust, and keep getting smacked with it; but that's our job, as skeptics, as "brights," as decent human beings.

Of course it's not polite. It's not polite to suggest that someone is delusional either, but that is what you have done by assuming he will fail.
But if you have noticed, MP has taken our polite suggestions that he is delusional in a polite way. He understands we think he is delusional, and he can talk rationally about the possibility. All I am asking for is that we can do the same, without becoming unduly viscious.

But what I meant was that simply discussing the ways in which it is possible to cheat, and ways to close those loopholes, will unavoidably imply suspicion.
Not necessarily. MP can understand we have to protect ourselves from others without necessarily infering we are protecting ourself from him.

Indeed, his willingness to accept the need for this protocol is the best possible proof that he actually believes what he says.

He is acting rationally. Whether he is or not, it behooves us to act rationally too. We can up-front state that we are certain he is wrong, and even that he is "cheating" in some unconscious way, without accusing him of conspiracy to commit theft.

But I see SirPhillip has covered all this in many fewer sentences.

[Yahzi]

Most people will not change their beliefs either way.
You've made a bit of an error here.

It is true that the woos will not stop believing in woo, regardless of the evidence - if you pass or fail will not matter in the least to them.

But it is not true that the world of science, reason, and logic is indifferent to evidence. While scientists are human beings, and subject to all the same biases as anyone else, the system of science rewards those who prove everybody else wrong. Scientist's natural human inclination to be rewarded exceeds (on average) their natural human inclination to not have to change their mind.

If you pass this first test, you will attract the attention of Randi himself. A man who has just been reminded of his mortality. He will want to leave a mark in the world before he goes, and he would find the notion that there was more to humanity mind than just body remarkably comforting, so he would no doubt love to give you the money as his final act on this stage. (After all, it's not even his million dollars!) And remember that no one has ever passed the preliminary test. So when he tests you for the prize, he will be very, very motivated for something special to happen. He will make sure the test is air-tight, so that if it does, he can club all his fellow skeptics with it.

And the scientific world would love a new puzzle. We're down to measuring morality in monkeys; showing psychic powers would be more interesting than splitting the atom.

In religion, you get rewarded for confirming what people already know. In science, it's the opposite.

I think that even if Randi had paid the claimant, most people would still believe that it was a hoax.
But a few more tests, and they would start believing. You may have to perform this demonstration in controlled settings ten or twenty times before scientists all over the world are fully convinced.

What if Mr. Nguyen, along with his associate had a special chip implanted in their heads that was undetectable, but allowed them to communicate.
1. Yes, it would be cheating, because it would not be "paranormal."

2. An undetectable chip with those capabilties would be worth far more than a million dollars!

We truly believe in our abilities and welcome further investigation.
Have you honestly considered the ramifications of failure? If you fail, will you still believe? If Randi points out to you the unconscious but thouroughly mundane way in which you have been performing this feat, will you accept the truth?

We are prepared to change our minds based on the evidence (all the testiness you see in this thread is in fact proof of that, however unlikely that might seem). Are you prepared to change your mind based on evidence, too?

[Yahzi]

To put things in perspective: My job is extracting signal from noise. I can take a web-cam and use it to detect a missing layer of molecules.

Give me a psi-effect strong enough that a pair of amatuers can detect it, and I will conquer the world.

[Mr. Scott]

Mental Professor:

Randi has the following paragraph at the end of his Challenge Application Page: (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)

Please be advised that several applicants have suffered great personal embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate, before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved many applicants much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution. This advice is offered only so that the applicant might be spared these problems. -- James Randi

In that spirit I suggest a test you and your wife can perform alone (to avoid embarassment in case you fail) that should be quite effective to determine if you really do have the power you believe you have.

The details of the test I am proposing are not meant to dictate but are only offered as examples to illustrate the concepts.

1) Choose separate sending and receiving rooms in your home that are far enough apart to assure that almost no sounds or voices will not be exchanged.

2) Prepare a method of binary signalling between the rooms so that a "sending" and "received" message may be sent without allowing any subtleties to be exchanged. A loud bell, knock on a pipe, or police whistle might do. A ring between cell phones (enough to display caller ID) could be ideal.

3) Blind shuffle a deck of Zener cards. Agree on the number of cards that will be sent. Hand the cards to your wife, who will take them to the sending room while you wait in the receiving room.

4) Have your wife issue a "sending" signal each time she sends a card, at which point she will write down the symbol of the card.

5) When you receive the symbol, write it down and send the "received" signal to your wife.

6) Repeat until the agreed upon number of cards is sent, then get together and compare results.

I can understand how one would be hesitant to perform a rigorous test on one's self. I've been there. But, compare the private embarassement the two of you might experience with the public embarassment of failing the JREF Challenge, and it should be clear what is preferable.

Please share with the forum the details and results of such a practice test as soon as you can. If you decline to do this, we would very much like to know why.

[Dumb All Over]

All this talk of protocol when the application itself will never be accepted in its current form. The professor said he added his own wording to the challenge rules and submitted this as part of his application. I believe, until this wording is removed, the app. will be rejected.

[Mr. Scott]

All this talk of protocol when the application itself will never be accepted in its current form. The professor said he added his own wording to the challenge rules and submitted this as part of his application. I believe, until this wording is removed, the app. will be rejected.

That's right. From Challenge Rules FAQ: (http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.7)

2.7. I disagree with a rule, or if I strongly feel that a rule shouldn't apply in my case, how do I go about changing it or getting it waived?

You don't. The Challenge rules will not be changed for you.

You can ask to get a rule changed, but you should expect to have your request rejected, and you should not expect the JREF to engage you in a debate over such matters.

[petre]

All this talk of protocol when the application itself will never be accepted in its current form. The professor said he added his own wording to the challenge rules and submitted this as part of his application. I believe, until this wording is removed, the app. will be rejected.

That was part of my warning that the matter be hilighted in the initial contact. I believe it possible that they would accept this added declaration of limited liability on the part of the applicant.

Or, they might indeed reject it, though I expect they would cite specific situations where JREF would like to reserve the right for legal action and give the applicant the opportunity to modify the clause to allow for such.

[Dumb All Over]

I would be surprised and disappointed if JREF accepted the application with the added wording. Randi's million, Randi's rules.

[dogjones]

I'd be far more disappointed if this applicant wasn't tested simply because this issue couldn't be surmounted.

The requested change is perfectly reasonable, anyway - if the JREF thinks it is important to be protected from litigation, then why should this protection not be provided to the applicant as well?

[prewitt81]

Even better: http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.6

"It all comes down to the very nature of a challenge. It's not a contest; there are not two parties competing for the same prize. It's a challenge. It's someone who, as a result of extensive experience, doesn't believe you can do what you say you can do, daring you to do what you say you can do. It's a dare. It's not at all a friendly agreement. It's an adversarial arrangement, and because of that, the JREF sees no reason to change the rules for its adversaries."

[Dumb All Over]

I'd be far more disappointed if this applicant wasn't tested simply because this issue couldn't be surmounted.


Prepare to be disappointed.

When you stand back, there's nothing too special about this applicant. He said his application was submitted with changes to the rules. I believe him. If true, he's no better than countless other applicants who cannot, or will not, follow simple directions.

My question is for the professor. When your challenge application is returned to you with a rejection stamp, will you continue to follow the advice of your lawyer and insist that this added wording remain in your application, or will you submit a new application, minus the added wording?

[roger]

Mental Professor, I live in the DC area. I'd certainly be willing to observe you performing an informal run of this or any test. I am not a formal member of any sceptic organization, however, so I am not likely to forward your claim with JREF.

[Bob Klase]

The requested change is perfectly reasonable, anyway - if the JREF thinks it is important to be protected from litigation, then why should this protection not be provided to the applicant as well?

On first look I thought the same thing- if JREF is insulated from being sued, why not the appliant as well. But then I also considered, if the JREF is putting up a million dollars, then why shouldn't the applicant as well.

[dogjones]

Well, not quite the same thing. The chances of the JREF paying the million are pretty much 0, as this would require approx 3000 years of human inquiry to be re-written.

Litigation, on the other hand, can happen at a drop of a hat - and the awards and costs can well exceed a million bucks. I say protect all parties involved so no-one has to worry about the whole distasteful activity.

This being said, as Dumballover said, Randi's challenge, Randi's rules. And I would be interested to see if the applicant reapplies minus the added wording if he is rejected outright.

[Alex_Turner]

I've been lurking for well over a year, and this topic has compelled me to register, mostly because of this:


The application has been notarized and it’s ready to go. I did make the following change to Paragraph 7 on the advice of my attorney:
In this litigious society, if one party gives up rights, then BOTH parties should give up the same rights. I'll finish my description and my protocol proposals and have it in the mail by Monday.


I kept lurking, hoping that there was a lawyer on the thread who would call BS. But since now, many days later, nobody has, I will do so.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I do work in a law firm. I see dozens, maybe hundreds, of contracts cross my desk every week, and since I'm a geek and want to go to law school, I read pretty much every one, so I like to think that I've picked up a thing or two.

One thing I've learned is there are many different types of contracts, and they all tend to include different types of language, clauses, and terms. Relevant to this discussion is a type known as a "Contract of Adhesion." This is a contract that is non-negotiable; you either take it or leave it. While generally frowned upon by courts, Contracts of Adhesion have been held as valid, but are subject to a higher standard of review than a contract where parties are standing in more equal positions. But I digress, as I am prone to do, this is not my point.

My point is this:
If you consulted an attorney, he would (should?) have told you that this was clearly a Contract of Adhesion. He then would have (should have?) told you that you were wasting your time trying to change the terms. Mutual limitation of liability, like you want here, pretty much never appears in these kind of contracts. Why? Because of the unequal negotiating positions intrinsic to Contracts of Adhesion, the superior party will never accept the term (barring incompetence).
Furthermore, he probably would have advised you that since this was a Contract of Adhesion, it would most likely be to your advantage to not try and change the terms, as more avenues would be open to you if you ever had to ask for a judgment of invalidity (specifically the 'I didn't understand it' argument, as well as the 'unsophisticated parties' possibility demolished by consulting council).


Thus, in my not-professional opinion, if you had really consulted a lawyer on this matter he would have told you this, and not the idealistic, but legally-worthless:

"In this litigious society, if one party gives up rights, then BOTH parties should give up the same rights."

Had you consulted a lawyer, you would not have tried to waste your time like this. I can only conclude one of two things. Either:

A. You're lying about consulting council, and merely want an excuse to insert a provision you think will protect you from litigation (and probably wouldn't, given that the JREF wouldn't have to file suit in Florida, but again, I digress). Either you think you need this shield because you're planning fraud, or you simply like to play amateur lawyer, as I do.

or B. I'm completely wrong, and, for whatever reason (maybe he's a friend you asked casually?) your lawyer actually did tell you to try and get mutual limitation of liability. In that case, your lawyer, in my opinion, didn't put much thought into it.

I apologize that I must question your word, but I honestly think A is more likely.

Please note: This is a personal opinion; nothing in the above constitutes legal advice. Etc. Etc. So on and so forth.

[Dumb All Over]

Well said, Alex. I suspect conclusion A more accurately reflects the true state of affairs. This professor might just hold a PhD in chain-yanking.

[William Smith]

Well said, Alex. I suspect conclusion A more accurately reflects the true state of affairs. This professor might just hold a PhD in chain-yanking.

Conjecture, speculation, etc.

We will know in a short while what Mental Professor brings to the table. Patience people, patience.

[Alex_Turner]

I pass no judgment as to the Professor's supernatural abilities.
I just don't think he's consulted a lawyer, and if I'm right, and that was a misrepresentation, that makes me nervous.

EDIT: For clarity.

[William Smith]

...
Had you consulted a lawyer, you would not have tried to waste your time like this. I can only conclude one of two things. Either:

A. You're lying about consulting council, and merely want an excuse to insert a provision you think will protect you from litigation (and probably wouldn't, given that the JREF wouldn't have to file suit in Florida, but again, I digress). Either you think you need this shield because you're planning fraud, or you simply like to play amateur lawyer, as I do.

or B. I'm completely wrong, and, for whatever reason (maybe he's a friend you asked casually?) your lawyer actually did tell you to try and get mutual limitation of liability. In that case, your lawyer, in my opinion, didn't put much thought into it.

I apologize that I must question your word, but I honestly think A is more likely.

Please note: This is a personal opinion; nothing in the above constitutes legal advice. Etc. Etc. So on and so forth.

I pass no judgment as to the Professor's abilities.
...


What am I missing, Alex_Turner?

[Dumb All Over]

We will know in a short while what Mental Professor brings to the table.
With all due respect, Gzuz, it seems we know an awful lot at present. We know precisely what his claim is. We know generally how he plans to demonstrate his abilities. Heck, how many other past applicants can this be said of at this early stage?

And we also know he said he sumitted an application that changes the terms of the rules. This is important. I would like to see this guy tested as much as anyone. I feel he won't be tested if he submits applications that are unacceptable. The posts on protocol have been enlightening. But the second I read about his addition to the rules, a huge red flag went up. By adding his own language to the rules, he, in essence, is posing a challenge to Randi. And if I know Randi, (AND I DON'T!) Randi won't be challenged.

I would like the Mental Professor to reconsider and submit an application that offers a far more hopeful outcome for testing.

[William Smith]

With all due respect, Gzuz, it seems we know an awful lot at present. We know precisely what his claim is. We know generally how he plans to demonstrate his abilities. Heck, how many other past applicants can this be said of at this early stage?

And we also know he said he sumitted an application that changes the terms of the rules. This is important. I would like to see this guy tested as much as anyone. I feel he won't be tested if he submits applications that are unacceptable. The posts on protocol have been enlightening. But the second I read about his addition to the rules, a huge red flag went up. By adding his own language to the rules, he, in essence, is posing a challenge to Randi. And if I know Randi, (AND I DON'T!) Randi won't be challenged.

I would like the Mental Professor to reconsider and submit an application that offers a far more hopeful outcome for testing.

Dumb All Over, you claim to know "an awful lot", yet you do not skimp on the speculation about what could, would and should happen.

Patience, lad, patience.

Also, if you "would like the Mental Professor to reconsider and submit an application that offers a far more hopeful outcome for testing", politeness requires you address this to him, not me.

Speculation will most likely not change the outcome of Mental Professor's application.
We can and will offer our help if he inquires about specifica concerning the Challenge. Most of us did so.

So far, so good. He said he sent his application. It will take time to process. The JREF will let us know when something important happens. Count on it.

Patience, lad, patience.

[Dumb All Over]

Dear Mr. Mental Professor,

Would it be too informal of me to call you Mental? I'm sorry. Forget it.

I fear your application is in grave jeopardy of being rejected. I am of but a small minority who believes this. It would be neato to see your claim tested. Please, would you consider sending a new application that does not alter the original wording of the rules?

XXXOOO
Dumb All Over

[Mental Professor]

I've been working on a post describing what we do in a lot more detail. It explains what actually happens and how we made the discovery. It's not finished, but I want to respond to the attorney thing.

If you consulted an attorney, he would (should?) have told you that this was clearly a Contract of Adhesion.

The attorney works nearby and is a friend. The notary works in his office.

The only thing I discussed with him was the liability clause. I did not tell him what it was for or why I was doing it. (We haven't told anyone in our social circle about this. This is still in the testing stage and that is why we've started here so early in our discovery.) I will take the full contract to him and get his opinion. Thanks for the heads up and taking the time to post!

In the meantime, I received this as an e-mail:

We cannot accept any changes to the rules.

Jeff Wagg

JREF

Was I surprised? A little. I understand them not wanting to make an exception and setting precedent. But my application is VERY different from every other one I’ve read. I asked for something reasonable and they shot it down without adequate consideration. It is definitely fodder for the ones that question Mr. Randi’s motives.

If Ms. Browne accepted the invitation to be tested on Larry King, would Randi refuse if Sylvia didn’t sign a piece of paper first? How would that look? If Uri showed up in sunny Florida with a spoon in his hand, would Randi say ‘get lost’ if he didn’t sign the agreement? I understood that Randi used to walk around with a check in his pocket and accepted ‘testees’ on the spot. What happened to his curiosity?

I have always admired JREF and its founder. There’s so much B.S. that is accepted as gospel in the media. We need this type of organization to point out the fiction that is touted as fact. But I have lost respect for their process and the flaunting of their challenge. I only asked for what they themselves requested - protection from unnecessary litigation. It is fair, it is reasonable and it should be granted.

I’ll talk to my attorney in the morning.

In the meantime, I’ll still be pursuing more testing and I’ll keep everyone posted. Thanks for the support!

[Alex_Turner]

The only thing I discussed with him was the liability clause. I did not tell him what it was for or why I was doing it. (We haven't told anyone in our social circle about this. This is still in the testing stage and that is why we've started here so early in our discovery.) I will take the full contract to him and get his opinion. Thanks for the heads up and taking the time to post!


Ok, that's a reasonable answer; I'm satisfied.

I only asked for what they themselves requested - protection from unnecessary litigation. It is fair, it is reasonable and it should be granted.

That's part of the reason I doubted you'd spoken to a lawyer.It isn't legally reasonable in this situation. The JREF is negotiating from a vastly superior position. Unless you possess actual paranormal ability, they hold all the cards. Why would they give up a few of them? It's patently unreasonable for them to do so.

[William Smith]

Mental Professor, you may have reasons to believe your "application is VERY different from every other one I’ve read".
However, because of what is stated here, http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.7 you should not feel disappointed. It's an integral part of the JREF Challenge, hence the mentioning in the Challenge FAQ - which you should have read.

Mental Professor, I should tell you that with every mention of the words "lawyer", "attorney", "liability clause", etc., your credibility suffers an enormous blow.
Why?
Because every Applicant or potential Applicant who mentioned said words has fizzled with his claim, or weaseled out of protocol negotiations or simply wasted the Forum Member's and often JREF Staff's time with complaints about "legal issues". Sometimes weeks and months of said time and effort.

If you want to pursue the path of seeking an attorney, fine.

A lot of the Forum Members deeply wish you would instead invest this energy in the testing of your "ability" and in defining a satisfactory protocol.

[Dumb All Over]

Dumb All Over, you claim to know "an awful lot", yet you do not skimp on the speculation about what could, would and should happen.
Thankfully, what could, would and should happen, did happen.

[Mental Professor]

A lot of the Forum Members deeply wish you would instead invest this energy in the testing of your "ability" and in defining a satisfactory protocol.

I plan to continue, but not with JREF. I will keep you posted and will hook up with the locals for a demo.

I'm not looking for a way to get out of testing. I know too many people that have been sued for ridiculous reasons, but they had to defend themselves anyway. I think it is only fair that EVERYONE is protected. If it wasn't an issue, then Randi would not have put it in the application. HE thinks that it is important enough to address it.

I'll post more tomorrow.

Drew

[William Smith]

Thankfully, what could, would and should happen, did happen.

The skeptic (and often cynical) realist in me says: "Well, d'uh!"

The hopeful (and often naive) optimist in me says: "He still might apply and agree to test his claim."

[Dumb All Over]

The fat lady is singing. I agree it is naive to imagine he will re-apply and agree to test his claim. No. Tomorrow we'll get some lame post explaining why he won't go through with this. It will have to do with legalities and such. And some people will waste a lot of time debating him.
Time to move on. NEXT APPLICANT!

[steenkh]

I plan to continue, but not with JREF. I will keep you posted and will hook up with the locals for a demo.

Another applicant faling by the wayside even before the testing. Amazing!
The excuse that Randi might sue the hell out of you is the dumbest I have ever heard.

[Flange Desire]

SNIP
I asked for something reasonable and they shot it down without adequate consideration. It is definitely fodder for the ones that question Mr. Randi’s motives.
SNIP
But I have lost respect for their process and the flaunting of their challenge.
SNIP

No, you asked for something unreasonable, and your suggestion that it was done without adequate consideration is unfounded.
As you were well aware, no changes to the rules are allowed.

There is and was no flaunting of the challenge.
Any such suggestion is purely diversion and excuse.
How can one 'lose their respect for the process', when the process IS SOUND, IS PERFECTLY WELL DOCUMENTED, AND HAS NOT CHANGED ???

I personally will be very dissapointed if you wimp out like all the rest.

[Flange Desire]

I plan to continue, but not with JREF.

Yes, JREF will only hand over the million to someone who can actually demonstrate paranormal powers.

[rjh01]

It does not take much to work out the mental professor's idea. Pity he did not stick with them. He would be one of the very few people who could have got three statements.

[TheBoyPaj]

But my application is VERY different from every other one I’ve read.

Only because you show unprecedented signs of preparedness. It is true that most applicants do not put much thought into the wording of their claim, but the fact that you chose to do so does not entitle you to special treatment.

I asked for something reasonable and they shot it down without adequate consideration.

The "no exceptions" rule is in the FAQ. Clearly it has been considered before.

It is definitely fodder for the ones that question Mr. Randi’s motives.

No sweat. If Randi didn't brush his teeth one morning, some kook would be crying fraud.

If Ms. Browne accepted the invitation to be tested on Larry King...

Which she did,of course. And she weasled and backed down.


I plan to continue, but not with JREF. I will keep you posted and will hook up with the locals for a demo.

Ah, good old unquestioning "locals". And demos. We all love demos. So much better than those irritating tests, with their controls and protocols.

[steenkh]

OK, folks, the party is over, there is nothing more to see! Move on!

[porch]

The excuse that Randi might sue the hell out of you is the dumbest I have ever heard.
Unless you planned to win by cheating. Then it's probably a reasonable concern.

*Note the doughnut-sharp insinuation.

[steenkh]

Unless you planned to win by cheating. Then it's probably a reasonable concern.
True enough! :)

[Ririon]

I don't like the good professor using the word "lucid" in the thread title. I mean, it is a strikingly lucid proposal, but "I have a bad feeling about this.":jedi:
Trust your feelings, young Ririon, let go...

So... Say I wanted to provide "fodder for the ones that question Mr. Randi’s motives"... Wouldn't a good idea be to make a surprisingly "lucid proposal" and then make some legal strawman to get it thrown out on a technicality? :(

I say: There is no professor, there is no wife, there is no telepathy, there is no freakin' spoon. Just one more woo pulling our collective legs. Feel free to prove me wrong any time, "Mental Professor".

[Pup]

If you post again, professor, I'd like to know if adding the safeguard I mentioned in post #147 would be any problem.

The professor has requested that the sending witnesses not communicate with the receiving witnesses during the sending/receiving period. However, will there be a definite video/witness record of each of the professor's written answers as it's made, to prove what symbol he wrote down to correspond with each symbol being sent?

This would prevent anyone from claiming that he somehow discovered the symbols being sent at the end of the test, when communication between the two rooms opened up again, and managed to change his answers after the sending/receiving period, but before they were judged.

Preventing this method of cheating didn't seem to be addressed in the original protocol, other than the request that the correctness of any answers never be checked before the end of the test, which would of course facilitate this method, rather than hinder it.

The professor seemed to be very eager to eliminate any possibility of "counting," but unfortunately after I posted this, the thread got bogged down in legal points which might prevent the test, so this issue never got fully discussed.

[Darat]

I plan to continue, but not with JREF. I will keep you posted and will hook up with the locals for a demo.

I'm not looking for a way to get out of testing. I know too many people that have been sued for ridiculous reasons, but they had to defend themselves anyway. I think it is only fair that EVERYONE is protected. If it wasn't an issue, then Randi would not have put it in the application. HE thinks that it is important enough to address it.

I'll post more tomorrow.

Drew
Remember Randi is putting a million dollars on the line, you are putting (at this stage) nothing more then an hour or two of your time.

Also I am curious about something and (I will state it clearly so there is is no confusion or concerns that I am trying to "spring a trap") a tad suspicious.

You knew the terms and conditions when you first posted here. Why have you now decided you don't want to continue with those terms? The JREF hasn't changed anything, the Challenge remains exactly the same as it was when you first said you would apply.

[ImOne]

Remember Randi is putting a million dollars on the line, you are putting (at this stage) nothing more then an hour or two of your time.

The MP may feel he could be the target of legal action since the JREF specifically wants to retain that right while he is stripped of same.

You knew the terms and conditions when you first posted here. Why have you now decided you don't want to continue with those terms? The JREF hasn't changed anything, the Challenge remains exactly the same as it was when you first said you would apply.
He did apply. His terms have been rejected.

[Bob Klase]

I'm not looking for a way to get out of testing. I know too many people that have been sued for ridiculous reasons, but they had to defend themselves anyway. I think it is only fair that EVERYONE is protected. If it wasn't an issue, then Randi would not have put it in the application. HE thinks that it is important enough to address it.

Before trying to apply that generic statement(s) to a specific situation, it would probably be useful to research how often the JREF has been sued (or threatened with lawsuits) by (would-be) challengers and how many times the JREF has sued (or threatened lawsuits) against challengers.

It might also be useful to talk to your lawer about exactly what rights you'd be giving up and which ones are protected by the inclusion of "as far as this may be done by established statutes."

I understand them not wanting to make an exception and setting precedent. But my application is VERY different from every other one I’ve read.

But the key is still that they would be making an exception. And I think almost every challenger could make the claim that their application is Very different from the other ones.

[Darat]

The MP may feel he could be the target of legal action since the JREF specifically wants to retain that right while he is stripped of same.

He did apply. His terms have been rejected.

No he did not apply - the application for the Challenge can be found here: http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

What he did was create a new "challenge" and ask the JREF to agree to his new challenge. Since that is not what the JREF administers they obviously said "no".

When he applies as per the Challenge application then it can be said he applied and if then the JREF turns him down he can correctly state his application was turned down.

However so far he has not applied to take the "One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge".

[ImOne]

No he did not apply ...
Alright, alright. I guess he requested to be allowed to apply with a modification.

[Mojo]

Unless you planned to win by cheating. Then it's probably a reasonable concern. Not really. All that is necessary to win the million is to perform the task specified within the agreed protocol. Nothing is said about exactly how the task is to be accomplished. It is up to the JREF to make sure that the agreed protocol is tight enough that the task can not be accomplished by non-paranormal means.

If the protocol specifies, for example, that MP correctly guesses 15 out of 20 cards correctly and he does this while following the agreed protocol, he wins no matter how he achieved it.

I can't see what possible grounds Randi could have for legal action against an applicant, unless of course the applicant were to do something like making defamatory statements about Randi after having failed.

[aggle-rithm]

Another applicant faling by the wayside even before the testing. Amazing!
The excuse that Randi might sue the hell out of you is the dumbest I have ever heard.

True...of course, it's easy to see why rule #7 exists. Randi would be up to his eyeballs in lawsuits by now, and even if we won every one of them, he would still be bankrupted by the legal fees.

It's the woos like Uri Geller, Sylvia Browne, etc., who have the deep pockets to pursue frivolous lawsuits against someone they want to silence, not Randi. The claimants have nothing to fear from him.

[Mental Professor]

Geez, where do I start today? How about a little more detail on what’s going on. Here’s the background on how we got started in this:

Recently, my wife and I were trying some experiments with ESP symbols. We took turns being the ‘sender’ and ‘receiver’. Basically, we both were coming up with results that were no better than ‘chance’. I started recording data on the receiver’s mindset, mood, environment, etc. When I studied the results, I found no meaningful data, whether it was my wife or myself.

I then studied the sender’s states. My results as being a sender offered nothing interesting in the data. But I did notice a peculiar result when my wife was acting as a sender. On many of the occasions where I had guessed correctly, my wife stated that she had drifted into a daydream-like (lower alpha or theta) state. She compared it to reading a book and not remembering what was on the page, or driving a car and not remembering the last few miles. Kinda like hypnosis- very similar to relaxing meditation.

It seemed to only happen at the point she was changing from beta (active) to the alpha or theta state. If she was already relaxed, the results were within the realm of chance. We kept experimenting and she got very adept at relaxing and ‘coming back’ when she wished. She would focus on the symbol at the point of relaxation and my correct guesses would far exceed what could be explained by chance.

What is different when I’m ‘guessing’ correctly? Nothing. It feels the same as when I’m wrong. I am going by my intuition. It just happens that she is somehow influencing my intuition at the time. What I do know is that if I make a ‘guess’ when she is transitioning for one state to another, that ‘guess’ is far more accurate than any other time.

I also found that if I tried to think about it and not go with my gut feeling, then my success rate dropped to around 20% (chance). In other words, when I went with my intuition, I was right most of the time.

If I asked you quickly to name one of the symbols, you would come up with one. Why would you name that particular one? Something in your brain told you to select one. Our brains don’t function as a true random number generator. We make guesses based on our intuition. For example, if I asked a group of people to think of a number between 1 and 10, the largest percentage would guess ‘7’. It just ‘seems like the right one to pick’. Although it doesn’t apply to our scenario, here is a good link on intuition: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2349

I don’t expect people to believe us without proof. We’ve told very few people about this. We’ve done some tightly controlled experiments and the results have been impressive. I started with this forum so that I could have some rational, skeptical feedback on a testing protocol. My goal was to work backwards and figure out if there were any unconscious influences. Your input has been helpful.

The professor has requested that the sending witnesses not communicate with the receiving witnesses during the sending/receiving period. However, will there be a definite video/witness record of each of the professor's written answers as it's made, to prove what symbol he wrote down to correspond with each symbol being sent?That’s fine! All my answers would be sealed and given to an observer BEFORE anyone started talking, the test was over, we went to another room, etc.

Ah, good old unquestioning "locals". And demos. We all love demos. So much better than those irritating tests, with their controls and protocols.Lighten up. ‘Demos’ was a word choice. I expect any demo to have controls and protocols. If I wanted to go to some gullible group and get positive affirmations, I would have no problem finding volunteers. I’m looking at this from a scientific standpoint and not some publicity stunt. I thought JREF would be a good, objective starting point. (That, and the fact that they're offering a million bucks. :) )

The professor seemed to be very eager to eliminate any possibility of "counting," but unfortunately after I posted this, the thread got bogged down in legal points which might prevent the test, so this issue never got fully discussed.I think you’ve brought up an excellent point and one that I’ve thought a lot about. (No, my wife and I are not counting.) I’ve even considered the possibility of it happening subconsciously but it wouldn’t explain the results we’ve had.

We’d both be having to do it simultaneously, we’d have to have a starting point and we’d have to maintain that in our heads for at least 3-40 minutes to complete the test. By eliminating the ‘received’ signal from my end I’d have no way to signal back to her. Anyone that watches our demonstration (test or whatever you want to call it) will see that it’s not what’s happening.

I’d welcome any control on the test that would disprove the counting method. What do you suggest? (I personally don’t think that it’s possible to keep an accurate count for more than a minute, much less a half-hour.) I’m happy to interact with the observers or do whatever is requested. Tell me what would work.The excuse that Randi might sue the hell out of you is the dumbest I have ever heard.Litigation, on the other hand, can happen at a drop of a hat - and the awards and costs can well exceed a million bucks. I say protect all parties involved so no-one has to worry about the whole distasteful activity.Everybody sues everybody nowadays. After a recent ordeal my neighbor suffered, I saw what frivolous litigation can do. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or not, you still have to do the dance. There's an enormous incentive for JREF to see me fail, no matter what their intentions. I take them at face value, but the money involved is a major factor. I’m not an attorney. My lawyer won’t be back until after Mem. Day weekend so I will talk to him then.

Wouldn't a good idea be to make a surprisingly "lucid proposal" and then make some legal strawman to get it thrown out on a technicality?I used the term ‘lucid’ after reading other applications. I couldn’t understand them. My goal is to be tested.

[TheBoyPaj]

Then agree to the challenge rules as stated.

[roger]

I’d welcome any control on the test that would disprove the counting method. What do you suggest? It's been proposed already. When your wife is in an agreeable mental state, you receive a "ready" signal, preferably electronic in nature (say, a light is turned on). She is then, and only then, showed the card, and you have 5 minutes to write down your guess.

Second, pick the card from a fresh set of a 5 card set each time, so there is no influence from card counting (yes, we can statistically account for that issue, but why not just keep things simple). This eliminates the effect of her providing you information about what the last card was by how long it takes her to reach the correct mental state for the next card.

--------

You stated you have tested this quite a bit. Have you done it with truly strict controls, i.e. you have no way to see, hear, etc., your wife while the trial is underway? You also make blithe statements about how you don't think information could be passed unconsciously, which suggests to me that

1) you underestimate this method of information transferral

2) there was in fact a way for this information to be passed in the way you ran the tests, thus the trials were not at all strict.

Of course your statements were made in different paragraphs and I might be entirely wrong in my assumptions.

But that's the problem we have in communicating with potential applicants. Again and again, they don't say what happened, they sort of summarize it, and then think that they have provided useful information. It gets frustrating, because nothing is actually being communicated.

Instead of writing "We’ve done some tightly controlled experiments and the results have been impressive" it would be far more helpful for us all if you wrote:

"Our test consisted of 1)... 2)... 3) ... and the results were ....". Then we could helpfully reply by stating "wow, your results are impressive", or we could identify a problem in the protocol and suggest how you might fix it.

[alfaniner]

MP, I will ask what I usually ask when discussions get this long.

Have you done a proper double-blinded test yet? Of more than just a few guesses, mind you.

[Ririon]

...My goal is to be tested.
Why then, are you trying so hard NOT to be tested by the JREF? Saying one thing and doing the exact opposite hurts your credibility.

[Dumb All Over]

MP, we now know you will never be tested by JREF so long as you submit applications contrary to the rules. What could your lawyer possibly tell you at this point that would be helpful? There's no need to wait until after Memorial Day. If you plan on being tested, send a proper application. It's that simple. Do you plan to do so?

[SirPhilip]

I used the term ‘lucid’ after reading other applications. I couldn’t understand them. My goal is to be tested.Your goal is to complete the challenge, with that said, I'm quite surprised you haven't done mock double-blind tests before wanting to have a go at the real thing. You really feel you are ready despite not establishing confidence under similer conditions/controls?

Why not? :confused:

[joller]

I can't see what possible grounds Randi could have for legal action against an applicant, unless of course the applicant were to do something like making defamatory statements about Randi after having failed.
I think even if the modification to the protocol was accepted by JREF, which it was not, it still wouldn't protect an applicant who would decide do defame Randi, or for example, stab him in the chest during or after the test (I know, Randi wouldn't be present during the test).

[Mental Professor]

I think even if the modification to the protocol was accepted by JREF, which it was not, it still wouldn't protect an applicant who would decide do defame Randi, or for example, stab him in the chest during or after the test (I know, Randi wouldn't be present during the test).The application wouldn't protect Randi if he stabbed me. (He wouldn't need to- I've seen him pull the guts out of people without cutting anyone.) That's not the point. It's about civil issues, not criminal.

If my lawyer says it's no big deal, then I will continue with JREF. Otherwise, I'll start with one of the other groups where no money changes hands and therefore no agreements need to be signed.

Your goal is to complete the challenge, with that said, I'm quite surprised you haven't done mock double-blind tests before wanting to have a go at the real thing. You really feel you are ready despite not establishing confidence under similer conditions/controls?As I stated in the thread, I'm just beginning with this. I wanted to start with the PRELIMINARY TEST. The results have been very encouraging, but I don't work at a lab and don't know people that do. The goal of the thread is to come up with a scientific protocol for testing and then to find a group that will assist me with it.

Why not start with you guys instead of the cold readers working at the local psychic fair? I'd rather fail with a test before skeptics than astound a bunch of palm readers. Look at all the great feedback I've gotten so far. People have thought about this and given me some great input. That is the goal of this thread.

BTW, Jeff did post my application today.

[Flange Desire]

BTW, Jeff did post my application today.

Congratulations for getting that far MP.
Hopefully you will get some (more) good legal advice, and reapply soon.

Designing a proper test protocol for the JREF challenge makes a lot more sense than doing some clunky ol demo for some local group ...
The results of a JREF challenge test would be unambiguous.
What more could one want?

[NiallM]

I think that the legal advice that you got was incomplete - or at least, that is the sense that you convey. How can the legal advice be complete if the lawyer you consulted isn't aware of the entire issue?

[aggle-rithm]

I also found that if I tried to think about it and not go with my gut feeling, then my success rate dropped to around 20% (chance). In other words, when I went with my intuition, I was right most of the time.

If I asked you quickly to name one of the symbols, you would come up with one. Why would you name that particular one? Something in your brain told you to select one. Our brains don’t function as a true random number generator. We make guesses based on our intuition. For example, if I asked a group of people to think of a number between 1 and 10, the largest percentage would guess ‘7’. It just ‘seems like the right one to pick’. Although it doesn’t apply to our scenario, here is a good link on intuition: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2349


I think you would agree that there is some sort of non-verbal communication happening here, either of a paranormal or a mundane nature.

Although it's not strictly necessary, it might be useful to think about possible mechanisms. Either you are somehow getting the answers from her subconsciously through subtle cues involving the five senses, or you are doing it through some sort of signal that has somehow left the confines of her skull, crossed the room, and penetrated into your brain.

Subtle cues are known to exist, but the sort of mysterious "signal" that would be required for telepathy to work has never been observed or demonstrated.

Regardless, I think you see the necessity to remove ANY possibility of subconscious, non-verbal communication that could be conveyed through sight, sound, touch or smell. Since it is far more likely that a known mechanism is at work then an unknown one, ALL the known mechanisms must be accounted for, no matter how unlikely they are. Unlikely events occur with far greater frequency than impossible ones.

[EHocking]

The application wouldn't protect Randi if he stabbed me. (He wouldn't need to- I've seen him pull the guts out of people without cutting anyone.) That's not the point. It's about civil issues, not criminal.

If my lawyer says it's no big deal, then I will continue with JREF. ...As someone else has pointed out here, I also think that your legal advice is incomplete.

While not a lawyer myself, I think the clause 7 should be read in full:

"When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to leagal action against Mr.Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the james Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statues.

Italics theirs.

The former is essentially to head off nuisance legal action taken in a hissy fit by a disgruntled applicant after failing. The italicised part, leaves the door open for genuine legal measures to be pursued.

If this is a sticking point, I'd suggest that your legal advisor deals directly with JREF to get clarification on the matter.

Yours appears to be a straightforward claim that is simple to demonstrate, it would be a shame to see it fold due to a seemingly, non-existent legal issue.

[EHocking]

...[re double blind test]As I stated in the thread, I'm just beginning with this. I wanted to start with the PRELIMINARY TEST. The results have been very encouraging, but I don't work at a lab and don't know people that do. The goal of the thread is to come up with a scientific protocol for testing and then to find a group that will assist me with it. MP (may I call you MP?), you don't necessarily need a lab to conduct a blinded test.

Try a test with you sitting in one room and your wife in another.

Both of you have a sheet of paper numbered 1 - 10

The idea being that your wife writes down the card she is "sending" and you write down the card you "receive".

To indicate the start of a "send", have your wife ring a small hand bell (or buzzer, whatever - as long as it is not a verbal signal).

Have her signal the start of each try at a regular interval (3-5mins) so as reduce the possibility that you are counting.

Have your wife shuffle the Zenner cards and then turn over the top one and note which it is.

You write what you think it is.

Repeat 10 times.

By my calculations, as score of 8 successes or better from 10 trials (given 5 cards, shuffled each time) gives you a result better that chance at 1:10,000. Enough for the preliminary Challenge.

Blind testing need not be elaborate, but you do need to take care with the method so that you do not end up fooling yourself.

[Dumb All Over]

If my lawyer says it's no big deal, then I will continue with JREF. Otherwise, I'll start with one of the other groups where no money changes hands and therefore no agreements need to be signed.
Mental, please don't forget to mention to your lawyer that a million dollars is at stake. I'm sure if your lawyer knew this, he would not only advise you to continue with JREF, he would encourage you to move quickly and to abide by the rules. Lawyers love money.

[alfaniner]

Have you done a proper double-blinded test yet? Of more than just a few guesses, mind you.


... My lawyer won’t be back until after Mem. Day weekend so I will talk to him then.

So, this weekend is a no-go, then?

[William Smith]

So, this weekend is a no-go, then?

Ah, come on alfaniner. Mental Professor is showing a continued interest. We should thank him for it.

[Beth]

Professor,

Please check your private messages.

[Dumb All Over]

May I be the first to thank MP for his continued three-bean salad.

[Mr. Scott]

On many of the occasions where I had guessed correctly, my wife stated that she had drifted into a daydream-like (lower alpha or theta) state. She compared it to reading a book and not remembering what was on the page, or driving a car and not remembering the last few miles. Kinda like hypnosis- very similar to relaxing meditation.


That is where you have deluded yourself.

I suspect that it was after the test, and after you started tallying the hits and misses, that your wife testified in which ones she was in the special state and in which ones she was not. What our minds are too good at doing is revising the memory of what was happening in our minds, in order to satisfy present conditions.

By allowing her to do this, you discount the misses she attributes to being in the non-optimal state, and count the hits because of her after-the-fact testimony that she was in the right state when the hits were made.

That is the next part of your test you need to double-blind.

Have your wife write down, during testing, the state of mind she is in while she is sending each card. Don't let her edit that later after the hits and misses are tallied, in writing or verbally.

The JREF will not allow misses to be excused when your wife says that she was not in the right state of mind when those particular cards were being sent. This is, Drew, what you are in effect doing and it is not preparing you well for any formal test.

[Mental Professor]

Regardless, I think you see the necessity to remove ANY possibility of subconscious, non-verbal communication that could be conveyed through sight, sound, touch or smell. We're in separate rooms at different parts of the house. There's no way to communicate.


Try a test with you sitting in one room and your wife in another...Repeat 10 times. We've done it 8 times on 8 different days. We're averaging 7 correct guesses out of 10.


May I be the first to thank MP for his continued three-bean salad.Just 2 beans from now on. My rabbit died.


So, this weekend is a no-go, then?Sorry, I'm married and don't swing that way.


Yesterday, I e-mailed Jeff and asked him for a referral to a local group that would be willing to run the tests. I received this from him today:You could try getting in touch with these folks directly: http://www.ncas.org/ They’re very good.

Passing any tests they offer would certainly put you closer to winning the challenge. I’ve asked Randi to reply personally to your request for a rules change.

Jeff Wagg

JREF

I also received this:The decision stands...

James Randi.Although he didn't change things, he took the time to consider my request and personally send a response. :)

Since this was my original plan (finding a locale for a preliminary test) I will contact NCAS and see if we can arrange a demo with the test controls we've been discussing.

I'll post more as things progress...

Drew

[Plasmadog]

...To indicate the start of a "send", have your wife ring a small hand bell (or buzzer, whatever - as long as it is not a verbal signal).
Ideally it would be something like the sort of doorbell that always sounds the same, no matter how long or hard the button is pressed.

[Mendeli]

There's an enormous incentive for JREF to see me fail, no matter what their intentions.

How come? I would rather think that there's an enormous incentive for JREF to see you succeed! Proving telepathy exists would revolutionize science, JREF would definitely get more funding, far outweighing the loss of a million.

[Flange Desire]

Unlikely events occur with far greater frequency than impossible ones.

Thank you for that pearl.

[steenkh]

To indicate the start of a "send", have your wife ring a small hand bell (or buzzer, whatever - as long as it is not a verbal signal).

Have her signal the start of each try at a regular interval (3-5mins) so as reduce the possibility that you are counting.
If MP and his wife are testing themselves, they do not need to account for fraud. Even if MP is counting subconsciously, he will still have to have agreed on the code with his wife, and he would know it.

[EHocking]

If MP and his wife are testing themselves, they do not need to account for fraud.True. But the protocol that JREF negotiate with them would need to, so I was merely proposing that they attempt a blind test very much like the conditions they would work under in the JREF Challenge.Even if MP is counting subconsciously, he will still have to have agreed on the code with his wife, and he would know it.I agree. That's why I said "subconsciously" - I'm presuming that they are *not* cheating, but that their tests to date have not been constructed to controlling potential cheating.

If they *were* cheating, then, as you say, they would know that they are attempting fraud and our suggestions for them to blind-test themselves prior to a JREF Challenge are pointless.

[Ririon]

...I also received this:Although he didn't change things, he took the time to consider my request and personally send a response. :)

Since this was my original plan (finding a locale for a preliminary test) I will contact NCAS and see if we can arrange a demo with the test controls we've been discussing...
Are we to understand from this that you have abandoned your request to change the rules, and will attempt the challenge with the official rules in place?

[EHocking]

We're in separate rooms at different parts of the house. There's no way to communicate.

We've done it 8 times on 8 different days. We're averaging 7 correct guesses out of 10.7 out of 10 is still within the bounds of chance (that is significant chance at odds of 1:10,000). This web page (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html) is a simply stated summary of how these odds are arrived at - refer to table II.

Note that 8 tries a day doesn't constitute a single trial of 80 when referring to the table above - otherwise you would have nailed the Challenge with 56 successes from 80 trials (threshold being 30 successes).

But since you say you *average* 7, you therefore must have tries when you achieved a score of 8 - that would get you past the preliminary Challenge (unless JREF have upped the ante from 10,000:1 odds for the prelim).

I don't suppose you have documented these tests?
How many times, of the 8 tries, did you get scores better than 7?

(edited for arithmetic)

[Pup]

I first thought that the professor was planning to cheat, and I was looking forward to it. A battle of wits between titans, Randi vs. the Mental Professor, Sherlock Holmes vs. Moriarty. Bring it on!

Now I'm thinking it's going to turn out more like some subtle version of Clever Hans, that will melt away under scientific test conditions. Bummer.

Of course, the best outcome of all would be actual proof that there is some way to communicate by telepathy, which is why I'm still hoping the professor will agree to the challenge. If he's not planning to cheat, and if this isn't some kind of Moriarty-like attempt to humiliate Randi at his own game, the chance of Randi or the JREF sueing a reasonable person for reasonable behavior after an honest attempt at the challenge and a gracious loss or fair victory, seems to be about nil.

[Mr. Scott]

Now I'm thinking it's going to turn out more like some subtle version of Clever Hans, that will melt away under scientific test conditions. Bummer.

I think that's a part of what's going on. If Drew has not carefully studied the case of Clever Hans he should right away. Clever Hans story. (http://skepdic.com/cleverhans.html)

It's quite possible that Mrs. Drew is altering her speech, composure, breathing, demeanor, and body language according to which of the five symbols she is sending. This she may do completely unconsciously, and Drew, having known her signs for 17 years, can pick up on them, also unconsciously.

You can see a present day version of Clever Hans, a mind-reading Jack Russell Terrier, in an online video I've shared in another thread: Clever Maggie (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57301)

[rjh01]

Of course the mental professor will now know that we know those tricks and would now not use them. The method he will use is one that James Randi and co have never seen before.

[Mental Professor]

Only time for a quick post...

It's quite possible that Mrs. Drew is altering her speech, composure, breathing, demeanor, and body language according to which of the five symbols she is sending. This she may do completely unconsciously, and Drew, having known her signs for 17 years, can pick up on them, also unconsciously.

In our few tightly controlled experiments, we're in separate rooms and we cannot see nor hear each other. The observers are in control.

[Dumb All Over]

In our few tightly controlled experiments, we're in separate rooms and we cannot see nor hear each other.
You get positive results when you're in separate rooms. How about separate floors? Separate houses or buildings? Separate neighborhoods? Separate cities? Separate states? Separate countries? Separate hemispheres? Separate planets?

[Yahzi]

I know too many people that have been sued for ridiculous reasons, but they had to defend themselves anyway.
Randi has never sued anyone. His organization has never sued anyone. He has been sued, numerous times. He has nothing to gain by suing you.

Neither do the people who so him have anything to gain - but that's the whole point. They sue because they are irrational. So Randi tries to protect himself from irrationality.

Has Randi demonstrated any irratoinality on his part? Is there any reason you need to assume it?

There's an enormous incentive for JREF to see me fail, no matter what their intentions.
Which is?

Need I remind you - it's not even his money?

Ignoring the fact that if you could, in fact, pass the Challenge, you would make Randi more famous than the Beatles.

Your complete dismissal of Randi's integrity - and your blindness to the possibilities open to Randi if you could indeed pass - speak volumes about you. Unfortunately, they are all negative.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

If my lawyer says it's no big deal, then I will continue with JREF.

Well any word from your lawyer?

LLH

[Paul2]

Randi has never sued anyone. His organization has never sued anyone. He has been sued, numerous times. He has nothing to gain by suing you.

Neither do the people who so him have anything to gain - but that's the whole point. They sue because they are irrational. So Randi tries to protect himself from irrationality.

Has Randi demonstrated any irratoinality on his part? Is there any reason you need to assume it?


Which is?

Need I remind you - it's not even his money?

Ignoring the fact that if you could, in fact, pass the Challenge, you would make Randi more famous than the Beatles.

Your complete dismissal of Randi's integrity - and your blindness to the possibilities open to Randi if you could indeed pass - speak volumes about you. Unfortunately, they are all negative.Extremely well considered and thought-out. Nothing can substitute for excellent logic.

[MandosV]

Do little red flags of warning jump out all over the place for anyone else but me, when after pages of posts and days of discussion MP has yet to try a practice test following the reasonable protocols recommended on this page?

[Admiral]

Do little red flags of warning jump out all over the place for anyone else but me, when after pages of posts and days of discussion MP has yet to try a practice test following the reasonable protocols recommended on this page?

Not really. For me, the red flags come from the fact that unless he stops making demands about the contract, he'll never get his application accepted.

[rjh01]

Do little red flags of warning jump out all over the place for anyone else but me, when after pages of posts and days of discussion MP has yet to try a practice test following the reasonable protocols recommended on this page?

He says he has done a 'few tightly controlled experiments'. But what that means I am not sure. See quote below.

Only time for a quick post...
In our few tightly controlled experiments, we're in separate rooms and we cannot see nor hear each other. The observers are in control.

I have two worries with the Mental Professor
1. He has done what he claims to have done. We could have someone who will at long last pass the preliminary test. This is unprecedented.

2. We have not heard from him since the above quote 4 days ago and it has been more than 5 days since we had any lengthy response. Before that we have heard from him nearly every day. Is he still trying for the prize?

I hope we can look forward to reading a lengthy progress report from him. With luck it will state he will give details of an independent test he has arranged. This is my wishful thinking.

[Admiral]

MP, I strongly recommend you avoid sending any correspondence to Mr. Wagg using the word "lawyer."

Why? Because in the history of the Challenge, the moment the applicant starts talking about lawyers is the moment he starts accusing the JREF of fraud and threatening to sue. There have been multiple lawsuits against the JREF or against Randi- all pointless, self-absorbed exercises, usually from applicants who failed the test and sued Randi because of the harm it caused them, or because he refused to take their application. I'm not saying you'll be one of those people- I'm saying that after this history of legal messes, the JREF is not interested in getting involved in legal disputes.

There is no reason to want legal protection from the JREF if you can do what you say you can. Consider the JREF's position if you win the prize:

They're suddenly a household name- because the media will all give stories about someone who won a million dollars for being telepathic, and in the process mention the JREF and their long-standing Million Dollar Prize. Randi has stated that he'd be happy if someone won the million. The JREF wouldn't "cease to exist"- there are dozens of other things Randi argues against, such as alternative medicine, dowsing and creationism- not to mention psychics that refuse to be held to the same standard you were. Also note that Randi isn't interested in putting people down- he's interested in finding out about the world, and debunking scams and hoaxes that distort understanding. If psychic powers are real, he'd be happy about it.

Anyway, you won the prize, and you and the JREF are well known. At that point, you say the JREF could sue you. If it did, it wouldn't be well-known- it would be the punchline of a joke. It would give an image of itself as money-grubbing, selfish, and unreasonable. (Think about the two women who sued McDonald's because they were obese, a few years ago.) They signed a contract to pay you money if you suceeded, and then after paying you, claimed that you did something unfair? Not only wouldn't such a lawsuit succeed, the JREF would have to be immensely stupid (not to mention selfish, dishonest, and unreasonable) to attempt it.

There reasons applicants would want to sue the JREF- a brief look at history supports this. If you go through the test fairly, there are no reasons the JREF would want to sue you.

If you really have this power, than it's a ridiculous choice to give up the million based on a fantasy that the JREF is that stupid.

[steenkh]

But of course, if the prize was won through dishonest means (say, if the independent tester turned out not to be independent after all), it is possible that the JREF would sue.

Randi has stated that the prize can be won through trickery, but that it would be unlikely. However, if anybody considers out-tricking Randi, it would nevertheless be wise to consider the risk of a lawsuit.

[Rasmus]

But of course, if the prize was won through dishonest means (say, if the independent tester turned out not to be independent after all), it is possible that the JREF would sue.

Randi has stated that the prize can be won through trickery, but that it would be unlikely. However, if anybody considers out-tricking Randi, it would nevertheless be wise to consider the risk of a lawsuit.

I am not so sure that a lawsuit would do oyu any good. The contract doesn't detail how the applicant has to perform his task. It only says what has to be done under which circumstances. So if an applicant cheats in a way that Randi has not forseen, he still fulfilled the contract and is entitled to the price.

The procedures really do work both ways: There is a protocol that both parties agee on, after all. The JREF believes that only paranormal abilities can make you pass - but that is not an actual requirement of the contract.

Rasmus.

[Hellbound]

I am not so sure that a lawsuit would do oyu any good. The contract doesn't detail how the applicant has to perform his task. It only says what has to be done under which circumstances. So if an applicant cheats in a way that Randi has not forseen, he still fulfilled the contract and is entitled to the price.

The procedures really do work both ways: There is a protocol that both parties agee on, after all. The JREF believes that only paranormal abilities can make you pass - but that is not an actual requirement of the contract.

Rasmus.

Well, in the case steenkh pointed out, there might be cause. It sort of depends on how the "trick" was accomplished. I could see a case made for an independent verifier who wasn't really so independent..since the rules specify that it should be an independent observer. I dunno, though. Not having seen the actual negotiations and final result, I would assume it would depend on the exact wording of the agreement between JREF and the applicant.

[Darat]

Well, in the case steenkh pointed out, there might be cause. It sort of depends on how the "trick" was accomplished. I could see a case made for an independent verifier who wasn't really so independent..since the rules specify that it should be an independent observer. I dunno, though. Not having seen the actual negotiations and final result, I would assume it would depend on the exact wording of the agreement between JREF and the applicant.

I read Rasmus's comments earlier and was thinking about them and just reading your post clarified the difference between trickery and cheating as far as the Challenge is concerned.

There are two ways of winning the Challenge, cheating or doing what you said you could do. Cheating in this context should mean breaching the terms of the Challenge so that would cover bribing an independent observer or getting someone to cheat when setting up the experiment. And I think this kind of cheating would be actionable by the JREF or a strong defence for them not having to pay out.

Now the "doing what you said you could do" in terms of the Challenged means just that, the how you do it is not part of the Challenge. So if you do indeed have telepathy great then you can win the challenge likewise if you've invented real working x-ray spectacles or learnt a new magic trick that fools everyone and you use that to win the Challenge you would have still won the Challenge fair and square.

[ChaosEngineer]

I also found that if I tried to think about it and not go with my gut feeling, then my success rate dropped to around 20% (chance). In other words, when I went with my intuition, I was right most of the time.


There's a risk of introducing bias here. When you get a low success rate, you might retroactively decide that you were in the wrong mental state and throw out the results. But if you got a high success rate, you'd assume the test was valid regardless of your mental state.

If you're consistently able to get in the right mental state and you never throw away results, then this isn't a problem. Otherwise you need to take another measurement. After you've received all the symbols but before you've checked your answers, decide on a scale of 1-10 how confident you are. Then you can see how well you did whenever your confidence was above a certain threshhold.


As I stated in the thread, I'm just beginning with this. I wanted to start with the PRELIMINARY TEST. The results have been very encouraging, but I don't work at a lab and don't know people that do. The goal of the thread is to come up with a scientific protocol for testing and then to find a group that will assist me with it.


That's fine, but it's maybe a little early to be talking about the preliminary test. The JREF isn't a psychic research foundation, so they're not going to want to put a lot of effort into helping you refine your abilities. They want you to refine your abilities and then apply for the challenge. (And, remember, if you fail the preliminary, you have to wait a year before you re-apply.)

Likewise with local skeptics' groups. It'll be easier to set something up, but if you fail the first time it's not likely they'll ever give you a second chance.

Of course this thread's had a lot of good suggestions for tightening up the protocol, but probably the next step should be for you to get some friends to run you through a more formal version of the test. Once you're able to get consistent results, you can think about taking the preliminary test.

Also, the JREF will probably ask for three affidavits before they let you take the preliminary, so enlisting your friends will give you a head-start on the process.

[Dumb All Over]

Mental Professor, where are you?

I'm beginning to hear the chirp of crickets.

[William Smith]

Mental Professor, where are you?

I'm beginning to hear the chirp of crickets.

I'd rather see him silently and efficently work towards his test than post just to satisfy (y)our curiosity. Teasing him will most likely not speed up this process.

[Dumb All Over]

I'd rather see him silently and efficently work towards his test than post just to satisfy (y)our curiosity. Teasing him will most likely not speed up this process.
The guy says he has ESP, or mental telepathy, or whatever, and he wants Randi's money. I plan on teasing him relentlessly.

He said he'd post here after Memorial Day. It's after Memorial Day.

Chirp, chirp, chirp.

[Yahzi]

Chirp, chirp, chirp.
But see, you don't need to post the chirp, chirp, chirp.

Just think it really hard, and Mental Professor will get the message.

:D

[Dumb All Over]

I'm thinking.......I'm thinking..........

Nope. Nothing.

Maybe I need to learn to think more loudly.

[Yahzi]

I'm thinking.......I'm thinking..........

Nope. Nothing.
But you're not the psychic one. Just yesterday, I saw MP outside with a can of insecticide at 3:00 in the morning.

:D

[rjh01]

The next post in this thread will be Mental Professor's post. Please everyone prove me right.

If I am wrong then the post that comes after me will be pointless.