Carina Landin in test at this moment [Archive]

Garvarn

24th October 2006, 10:29 AM

Carina Landin today failed the preliminary Randi Challenge test conducted in Stockholm by Swedish representatives of the JREF. The test was for Mrs Landin to decide whether 20 different diaries of dead people had belonged to men or women. To succeed, she had to be right on at least 16. Mrs Landin was right on 12, so she failed.

Prior to the test, Mrs Landin today told Svenska Dagbladet that the reason for her to take the test was to show all skeptics that she is in contact with the dead and to make people understand that it is nothing to be afraid of. Allegedly, she is in constant contact with dead people. As the conditions of the Challenge states, Mrs Landin has been involved in and fully accepted the design of the test. She also felt confident regarding the test crew:

- And it feels good that there are scientific scholars present during the test, among them Sven Ove Hansson of the Royal Institute of Technology. I get depressed when people call the likes of me frauds, that's why it's important that this is conducted in a proper way.

It remains to be seen if Mrs Landin will adjust her view on her alleged "ability" in the light of today's result, or if she will continue her psychic business as usual. My own guess is that she will disregard the test on grounds of her just having "a bad day", the test contradicting her own and her client's "experiences" or the standard multitude of excuses provided by the paranormal community. As we have seen before when tests have been done in Sweden, the straightforward alignement with test designs and experimenters prior to testing turn into criticism or even hostility when the results are announced. Mrs Landin's position immediately after the test is that her failure was due to the protocol being violated -- she had requested that the diaries should not be older than the late 1800's, one of them were from the late 1700's and some were from 1850-1880. She is considering to demand a retest but hesitates because the experiment leader has been so nice to her...

In conclusion, the Randi Million is still safe and so is, unfortunately, the convictions of Mrs Landin and her followers.

Interview with Mrs Landin prior to test - in Swedish (http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_13920127.asp)

tkingdoll

24th October 2006, 10:36 AM

Thanks for the update.

Can you just confirm (if you know) whether or not the older diaries, the ones she objected to, were the ones she guessed wrong?

Or were they among the 'hits'?

Also, can you confirm why her request regarding the age of the diaries was not complied with?

Garvarn

24th October 2006, 10:50 AM

Can you just confirm (if you know) whether or not the older diaries, the ones she objected to, were the ones she guessed wrong?

No, I have to get back to you on that. So far, only Landin's comments have been made public.

Also, can you confirm why her request regarding the age of the diaries was not complied with?

No. If Landin's objection is indeed accurate, I find it astonishing that the experimenter team didn't comply with Randi's explicit advice: cancel testing as soon as the test subject mentions anything that is not in order. I found it strange that it took them two years to get the test done in the first place. If they've f****d it up by not following the general procedure, the blame is their's.

drkitten

24th October 2006, 11:50 AM

can you confirm why her request regarding the age of the diaries was not complied with?

Er, who says it wasn't?

I don't know how good Ms. Landin is as a paleographer, but I'm not necessarily going to take her unsupported word about the age of the diaries.

Doubt

24th October 2006, 11:53 AM

There is one sad thing about this. Those that wish to believe will note that she got over half of the diaries right. They will use that as a reason to believe. The notion that the results were well within the bounds of a chance outcome will not make a difference to them.

case sensitive

24th October 2006, 12:20 PM

"Of the 8 wrong one was from 1794 and four were from 1850-1880 I think."

Carina said in an e-mail I just received.

case sensitive

24th October 2006, 12:27 PM

I don't understand the age problem. Do people stop being dead after a while or what? Maybe the old spirits doesn't understand the new psychics "high tech" woo.

Dumb All Over

24th October 2006, 12:31 PM

The problem is Carina forgot to eat pizza before her test. If she had eaten pizza, she would have attained a higher score.

drkitten

24th October 2006, 12:31 PM

I don't understand the age problem.

You don't need to.

Do people stop being dead after a while or what? Maybe the old spirits doesn't understand the new psychics "high tech" woo.

Perhaps the personal congenital radiation or whatever wears off after a while. I can tell which lights in a darkened room have been on recently (they're warm), but only for a few minutes.

"Woo" doesn't necessarily follow anything you recognize as scientific laws. If it did follow scientific laws, it would be science, right?

William Smith

24th October 2006, 12:41 PM

I don't understand the age problem. Do people stop being dead after a while or what? Maybe the old spirits doesn't understand the new psychics "high tech" woo.

I don't understand the "age problem" either, but this is irrelevant. Heck, I don't even understand the nature of her claim; I hear how she explains it and understand the words, but... Also irrelevant.

What matters is - as mentioned before by Chateaubriand - that the test subject should be given anything reasonable she demands. Anything.

We will probably find out more in the next days, concerning the test execution, protocol violations, etc. As with any JREF Preliminary Test, the test subject Ms. Carina Landin has to state before and after the test, if she was satisfied with the conditions offered. The testers should have this on tape and in written.

If they screwed it up by not catering to reasonable demands and if they somehow did not stick to the agreed upon protocol, they will have screwed up royally.

So will have Ms. Landin, if the testers did stick to the protocol.

JoeTheJuggler

24th October 2006, 12:43 PM

Was the age of the diaries part of the protocol she agreed to? If not, too bad. Any "request" that falls outside of the agreed-upon protocol should be summarily denied anyway.

Was Randi's advice followed in getting her to state, just before the test, that she still believes she can do this and there is no other extenuating circumstance that will prevent her from performing as she intends?

There's simply no way we can anticipate every ad hoc hypothesis used to justify a failed result, so the only thing is to have them say up front that nothing else is "wrong" with the set up.

case sensitive

24th October 2006, 12:54 PM

This is a bit sad. I am sure Carina sees it like this:12+5=passed test.
Of course she wants to do it again. There is a lot more at stake than a million. Her beliefs.

Maybe we could help her design a "self-test" of some sort to help her get over her this.

Garvarn

24th October 2006, 01:31 PM

This is the text from the protocol regarding the age of the diaries:

"Furthermore (in accordance with Landin’s wish) diaries older than the late 19th century are avoided as far ass possible."

I sincerely hope it should read "as possible", but (not butt), in any case, this text is an open invitation for the excuses now presented by Mrs Landin. Even the diffuse "late 19th century" makes it possible to explain away the results if only one diary from 1875 had been used. As it reads now, Landin and her follower would be fools not to exploit this opening to the fullest. Isn't there something in the JREF documents regarding these kinds of blurry conditions?

Proposed arrangement of a preliminary test of Carina Landin (http://www.ruter-ess.nu/carina/test.pdf)

ChristineR

24th October 2006, 01:41 PM

The selection of diaries had a lot of constraints. They had to have no marking on the covers which might give a clue to the owner, they could not be excessively "feminine" or "masculine," they had to be deemed by the archivist to be sturdy enough to handle, the users had to be known to be male or female, diaries with multiple users were excluded. Does anyone know the size of this diary archive? I imagine it would take well over a hundred diaries to get 30 appropriate ones.

Garvarn

24th October 2006, 01:58 PM

I imagine it would take well over a hundred diaries to get 30 appropriate ones.

I believe it was decided that 20 diaries were enough, randomly picked, i.e. no stated division between "male" and "female". But I don't see why the particulars of the diaries make allowance for a blurry condition.

Pope130

24th October 2006, 02:25 PM

"Of the 8 wrong one was from 1794 and four were from 1850-1880 I think."

Carina said in an e-mail I just received.

Of the twelve right answers how many were from before 1850?

Robert

ChristineR

24th October 2006, 02:26 PM

I believe it was decided that 20 diaries were enough, randomly picked, i.e. no stated division between "male" and "female". But I don't see why the particulars of the diaries make allowance for a blurry condition.

The protocol you linked to called for 15 male and 15 female and a coin flip to determine which pile the next diary came from. In the event of more than 15 flips coming up the same the sequence was discarded and restarted. That's where I got thirty.

Jeff Wagg's comment in the applications topic seems to imply that the diaries were not "too old" and that Carina only felt that they were too old.

I don't recall where I saw it, but I think Carina may have said something about spirit ties to the objects fading with time. It sounds plausible enough until you start thinking about it.

William Smith

24th October 2006, 02:48 PM

...
It sounds plausible enough until you start thinking about it.

This makes for great sig material. :D Do I have your permission, ChristineR?

Perhaps we shall wait for the "official" protocols from Mr. Hansson to be acknowledged and posted here by Jeff. Don't worry, I'm curious, too.

Jeff Wagg

24th October 2006, 03:54 PM

tkingdoll

24th October 2006, 04:19 PM

Er, who says it wasn't?

I don't know how good Ms. Landin is as a paleographer, but I'm not necessarily going to take her unsupported word about the age of the diaries.

I find it highly unlikely that she made up those dates, given Jeff's comment here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2033493#post2033493).

As it stands, it looks like the wording of the protocol was vague enough to allow for this issue to arise, which is unfortunate.

Macoy

24th October 2006, 04:22 PM

Frankly, I'm stll skeptical.

Dumb All Over

24th October 2006, 04:51 PM

Me too.

And don't call me Frankly.

Macoy

24th October 2006, 05:35 PM

Shortly, I'll be making my own challenge.

Macoy

24th October 2006, 05:41 PM

Indeterminately, maybe I won't.

Dazed

24th October 2006, 05:56 PM

How did she know the diaries were older than they were supposed to be? :\

ChristineR

24th October 2006, 06:01 PM

This makes for great sig material. :D Do I have your permission, ChristineR?

Perhaps we shall wait for the "official" protocols from Mr. Hansson to be acknowledged and posted here by Jeff. Don't worry, I'm curious, too.

Naturally! Quote away. :D

tkingdoll

24th October 2006, 06:11 PM

How did she know the diaries were older than they were supposed to be? :\

If you follow the link in my last post, Jeff provides the answer.

Dazed

24th October 2006, 06:16 PM

tkingdoll

24th October 2006, 06:18 PM

"It seems that some of the diaries were older than was stipulated by the claimant's protocol."

That doesn't explain how she knew that. Unless I'm missing something. I had read that already by the way.

I was referring to this bit:

She has been given access to the history of the diaries to verify their authenticity.

Dazed

24th October 2006, 06:22 PM

Oh, thanks, duh.

Well, I doubt she'll do any better with newer diaries, but good luck to her.

Spindrift

24th October 2006, 06:56 PM

logical muse

24th October 2006, 08:37 PM

I'm not good with statistics so what are the odds that she could get 12 out of 20 right?

About the same as getting 12 heads (or 12 tails) in 20 coin tosses.

JoeTheJuggler

24th October 2006, 10:45 PM

Am I the only one thinking 12 out of 20 isn't too bad.

Sort of like the parapsychologists' study results that show an effect that is "nearly statistically significant." That means no effect was demonstrated. That's exactly why you agree on the number you have to make. There's no interpretation of results. Either she got at least 16 right, or she didn't. Even 15 right would have been a failure, and would have meant nothing. If she'd gotten 16 or more right, then the next step is to try for a replication. (Yes, it's unlikely, but chance can result in 16 or more right--even 20 right.)

It's a shame about the dated diaries, if that was part of the protocol. Has anyone heard whether the source of diaries can come up with 20 more (not reusing the same ones) that fit all the requirements?

Thinktoomuch

25th October 2006, 01:29 AM

Spindrift's comment could be a prophecy of worse things to come.
Let us consider a possible scenario.
She is retested and comes up with 11 to 15 correct answers.
JREF sais that is a fail, goodbye.
She says: "Thank you for giving me a scientific assessment of my abilities. It appears that I am very good but not as good as I thought. I can now tell everybody that I have been tested twice and I have always been more right than wrong. There is still a lot to learn about these powers."

What does JREF do? Grin and bear it or offer to test her until she scores a 9/20? If she accepts and by chance gets >10, say, 5 tests in a row, it would still be a long way from statistical significance within reasonable confidence limits, but at that point she would be on all the tabloids as The Psychic Who Is Always More Right Than Wrong.
It could evolve in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

MRC_Hans

25th October 2006, 01:42 AM

That's the basic problem with the JREF challenge: I't only really good when people don't dare to take it.

Hans

Mojo

25th October 2006, 02:43 AM

After the test, she was concerned that two of the books were older than what she had asked for. She has been given access to the history of the diaries to verify their authenticity. (source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2033493#post2033493))Was she told of the age of the diaries before or after the test? If before, did she raise the objection before the test, or only afterwards?

case sensitive

25th October 2006, 03:48 AM

Carina says there will be a re-run.

case sensitive

25th October 2006, 03:58 AM

Am I the only one thinking 12 out of 20 isn't too bad.

I'm not good with statistics so what are the odds that she could get 12 out of 20 right?

I know it doesn't really matter, but I'd be curious to hear about her reasons for not using the older diaries.

The diaries "psychometric-smell" fades after some time. That is how I understand it. The test have nothing to do with the dead Carina claims. I agree.

Paul2

25th October 2006, 05:16 AM

Why is 16 out of 20 successful and 15 out of 20 isn't? Is it just because that's what was agreed to, more or less arbitrarily, or is there a statistical, mathematical reason?

matt_magic

25th October 2006, 05:31 AM

The reason 16 is considered a success is because it was agreed upon.

The reason for picking the limit 16 was based in statistics. To label at least 16 diarys correctly by guesswork corresponds to approximately ½% chanse.

By the way, I find it extremely unlikely that Carina Landin would be able to sense wether a diary was written by a male or female, but not wether she gets a feeling for it or not (if it is too old). It does not matter what I think though. She should be tested according to protocol. Not that it will matter though. My guess is that she will continue to claim powers after she fails next test.

Alkatran

25th October 2006, 05:33 AM

Why is 16 out of 20 successful and 15 out of 20 isn't? Is it just because that's what was agreed to, more or less arbitrarily, or is there a statistical, mathematical reason?

The preliminary usually has around a 1/1000 chance of passing by random chance alone. We can calculate the chance that someone gets n correct guesses or more using this formula:
(sum of (i choose 20) from n to 20) divided by 2^20

If you plug 15 into this, you get a ~1/50 chance. 16 gives a ~6/1000 chance. 17 gives a ~1/1000 chance. I don't know why they didn't use 17. So they were actually giving slightly better odds than they say they do!

For the interested: the chance of getting 12 or better is ~1/4.

case sensitive

25th October 2006, 05:48 AM

Randi is doing re-runs and giving nice odds. What is happening? What's next? Randi and Geller best friends?

Zep

25th October 2006, 06:09 AM

case sensitive

25th October 2006, 06:20 AM

I suspect he wants to show that he is not a vindictive old fart, like the woos like to paint him as, but a fair-minded investigator. What would be the objection to a retrial if the applicant thought the protocol was not being adhered to?

I don't think there was anything wrong with the test. It followed the protocol. But maybe I am reading the wrong protocol...

Now I like to see her tested again anyway so it is just fine by me.

Beth

25th October 2006, 06:27 AM

Assuming a 50/50 probability by chance alone.

The probabiliby of getting 16 or more out of 20 correct is 0.0013
The probability of getting 15 or more out of 20 correct is 0.0059

So it takes 16 or more out of 20 to meet the JREF requirements for the preliminary test.

The probability of getting 12 or more out of 20 correct is 0.2517

If we drop the 5 older diaries that she missed,
the probability of getting 12 or more out of 15 is 0.0176

Gr8wight

25th October 2006, 06:30 AM

I don't think there was anything wrong with the test. It followed the protocol. But maybe I am reading the wrong protocol...

Now I like to see her tested again anyway so it is just fine by me.

The test did not follow the protocol exactly. In the original protocol, Carina specified an upper limit on the age of the diaries to be used. The testers included several diaries that violated this limit. Therefore, the test results are invalid. Randi is not "being nice." He is doing what is correct and necessary in this situation.

ChristineR

25th October 2006, 06:32 AM

The preliminary usually has around a 1/1000 chance of passing by random chance alone. We can calculate the chance that someone gets n correct guesses or more using this formula:
(sum of (i choose 20) from n to 20) divided by 2^20

If you plug 15 into this, you get a ~1/50 chance. 16 gives a ~6/1000 chance. 17 gives a ~1/1000 chance. I don't know why they didn't use 17. So they were actually giving slightly better odds than they say they do!

For the interested: the chance of getting 12 or better is ~1/4.

Strictly speaking this is not correct because certain cases were excluded from the 2^20 possible choices...namely the cases where there were 20 males, the cases where there were 19, 18, 17, 16, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0 males.

However it's pretty hard to talk about "chance alone" in this case. If by chance you mean Carina was simply flipping coins to make her guesses then yes, your formula is correct because we can think of 20 diaries randomly labeled not M or F but rather "right" or "wrong." There are (your formula) ways of getting 16 or more right and (your formula) ways of getting 12 right, etc.

However if we take into account the fact that Carina knows that there are actually fewer than 2^20 possible outcomes her chances go up.

But the fact is that Carina was not flipping coins, not even mentally. If you give a human being 12 diaries and ask her to label them M and F she will almost always show a great deal of non randomness in her choice.

For example, she will be unlikely to pick 15 male, let alone all 20 male. She will avoid sequences like MMMMMF even though these sorts of sequences are very likely to appear by chance.

Or let's say we gave Carina a bag of 30 tokens, 15 labeled M and 15 labeled F. She picks by grabbing a token from the bag. Afterwards tokens are not returned to the bag. But that is not how the diaries were selected. Every M you pick in that case increases the chance of your next token being an F. I would expect that this was roughly Carina's strategy.

So it's kind of pointless to talk about "chance alone" unless you know Carina's guessing strategy.

case sensitive

25th October 2006, 06:37 AM

Gr8wight

25th October 2006, 06:40 AM

Is the original protocol different than the one Randi signed (if that is how he does it)? How many protocols are there and isn't the last protocol the one and only?

My apologies. The "agreed upon protocol" I should have said.

tkingdoll

25th October 2006, 06:40 AM

The test did not follow the protocol exactly. In the original protocol, Carina specified an upper limit on the age of the diaries to be used. The testers included several diaries that violated this limit. Therefore, the test results are invalid. Randi is not "being nice." He is doing what is correct and necessary in this situation.

From what I can see, that's not exactly right. It looks like the protocol was sloppily-worded, in that it stated the diaries should not be older than late 19th century if possible. And so, it was followed.

That means the testers might have thought if it was not possible to get newer diaries, it was OK to use older ones, and their interpretation of 'late' 19th century might have differed from Carina's.

Is 'late' 19th century anything after 1850? Or anything after 1875? If that's not defined up front, then it's going to lead to this sort of issue. Unfortunate, but I would say the fault was in the protocol, not the test.

Gr8wight

25th October 2006, 06:45 AM

From what I can see, that's not exactly right. It looks like the protocol was sloppily-worded, in that it stated the diaries should not be older than late 19th century if possible. And so, it was followed.

That means the testers might have thought if it was not possible to get newer diaries, it was OK to use older ones, and their interpretation of 'late' 19th century might have differed from Carina's.

Is 'late' 19th century anything after 1850? Or anything after 1875? If that's not defined up front, then it's going to lead to this sort of issue. Unfortunate, but I would say the fault was in the protocol.

I agree. And that is also the fault of the sceptical society who negotiated that protocol. They are charged with eliminating escape holes. They did not do so in this case. Telling is the fact that they included one diary from the eighteenth century. It shows that they did not pay as much attention to this condition as they should have. If they were unable to locate enough diaries that were not older than about 125 years, they should have approached Carina and discussed the problem. They absolutely should not have gone ahead with a test with a potential escape hole that large.

rebecca

25th October 2006, 06:50 AM

Agreed. By the sounds of it, this was hardly a scientific test of her abilities and she has every right to complain. If she's for real, they screwed up her chances of showing it. If she's full of it, they gave her a loophole and of course she's taking it.

Rob Lister

25th October 2006, 06:57 AM

Gr8wight

25th October 2006, 07:04 AM

Wow. I'm surprised this protocol was aggreed upon by Randi.

This protocol seems to suggest that there is no non-supernatural way to distingish between male and female entries. Handwriting alone would give a good clue, or so my gut tells me.

I believe the protocol specified that Carina would not be allowed to examine the handwriting. As well, the diaries were selected so as to hopefully have no telltale signs of gender identity on the outside.

case sensitive

25th October 2006, 07:05 AM

Gr8wight

25th October 2006, 07:09 AM

I believe the protocol specified that Carina would not be allowed to examine the handwriting. As well, the diaries were selected so as to hopefully have no telltale signs of gender identity on the outside.

You know, I've just been thinking about this for a couple of seconds, and thought that if I were to take this test, given that women's diaries (IMO) would be more likely than men's diaries to have telltale signs of gender on the outside (for example, is a brown leather diary male or female? Is a diary with pink butterflies on the outside male or female?) it seems to me that women's diaries would be more likely to be removed in the sorting process than men's. I would simply guess male for every diary and feel confident of getting a result significantly over 50%. Maybe not good enough to pass, but I like my odds.

case sensitive

25th October 2006, 07:12 AM

Gr8wight

25th October 2006, 07:15 AM

But you could only have 15/20. Not good odds at all.

Ah. You have spotted the flaw I had overlooked in my sinister plan. Clearly you are better suited to be a criminal mastermind than I.

ChristineR

25th October 2006, 07:20 AM

You know, I've just been thinking about this for a couple of seconds, and thought that if I were to take this test, given that women's diaries (IMO) would be more likely than men's diaries to have telltale signs of gender on the outside (for example, is a brown leather diary male or female? Is a diary with pink butterflies on the outside male or female?) it seems to me that women's diaries would be more likely to be removed in the sorting process than men's. I would simply guess male for every diary and feel confident of getting a result significantly over 50%. Maybe not good enough to pass, but I like my odds.

If they followed the protocol that was posted they started with 15 generic looking male and 15 generic looking female diaries, and then flipped a coin to decide which pile to select from. I'm not sure whether 19th century diaries ever had pink butterflies on them, and I wouldn't be surprised if the archives had signifigantly more male diaries to pick from in any case. So long as the collection is large enough to get 15 of each it doesn't matter how many diaries are left on the shelves.

It is possible that they didn't have 15 generic female diaries (which weren't very fragile, etc.) from "the late 19th century" or later to work with. That seems unlikely because they choose diaries in the first place because of the archives.

Garvarn

25th October 2006, 07:35 AM

ChristineR

25th October 2006, 07:39 AM

Chateaubriand, has it been acknowledged that the diaries were too old? Or are we still relying on Carina's claim?

She wouldn't be the first person to fail the test and then declare that something she specificially said would be acceptable was not in fact acceptable.

Garvarn

25th October 2006, 07:47 AM

Chateaubriand, has it been acknowledged that the diaries were too old? Or are we still relying on Carina's claim?

We're still relying on Landin's claims. However, she has been shown the details of the books and no statement has been issued from the experimenters, or the JREF. As the test is currently under JREF review, I think it is safe to conclude that something about the test proceedings is causing doubt -- but that is just an unqualified guess.

Alkatran

25th October 2006, 08:52 AM

Strictly speaking this is not correct because certain cases were excluded from the 2^20 possible choices...namely the cases where there were 20 males, the cases where there were 19, 18, 17, 16, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0 males.

But the fact is that Carina was not flipping coins, not even mentally. If you give a human being 12 diaries and ask her to label them M and F she will almost always show a great deal of non randomness in her choice.

I didn't know those situations, were excluded. But even if Carina doesn't choose randomly, the fact that the diaries are chosen randomly ensures that all choosing strategies which don't know the correct answers will end up giving random results.

Alkatran

25th October 2006, 08:58 AM

Did she miss all of the old diaries? Did she hit all the old diaries? Did she only hit half of them?

WTF was the JREF thinking, violating the protocol like that?! This is the type of thing people will repeat for years if she doesn't retest!

drkitten

25th October 2006, 09:04 AM

WTF was the JREF thinking, violating the protocol like that?! This is the type of thing people will repeat for years if she doesn't retest!

"The JREF" wasn't doing the thinking. That's part of the problem -- the skeptics group in Sweden that ran this test kind of blind-sided the JREF.

f97tosc

25th October 2006, 09:27 AM

I suspect he wants to show that he is not a vindictive old fart, like the woos like to paint him as, but a fair-minded investigator. What would be the objection to a retrial if the applicant thought the protocol was not being adhered to?

I think if she had passed the test, then surely she would not have demanded a retrial because of the age of the diaries.

So by finding this protocol violation (if that is what it is), she is (approximately) doubling her chances of passing.

Nevertheless, if there really is a protocol violation then it seems like JREF doesn't have much of a choice but to offer a retrial. This story just reemphasizes the need for an extremely tight protocol and adhering to it very strictly.

alfaniner

25th October 2006, 10:15 AM

I also hope that they are not providing the results until all diaries have been sorted, rather than verifying with each guess. That could mess up the randomness immensely.

Gr8wight

25th October 2006, 12:54 PM

"The JREF" wasn't doing the thinking. That's part of the problem -- the skeptics group in Sweden that ran this test kind of blind-sided the JREF.

Except Randi had to sign off on the protocol in order for this to be an official test. I suspect the fact that the Swedish group had kept Carina waiting for two years to be tested caused the test to be pushed ahead faster than might have been prudent.

tableplay

25th October 2006, 01:07 PM

OK, the challenge results are officially "UNDER REVIEW."

We're awaiting data on the books. If they were in fact too old, the results of this challenge will be null and void, and the challenge will need to be re-run with a completely different set of diaries.

I'll keep you updated.

I suppose if she takes enough tests, she's bound to get 16 or more right eventually . . . ;-)

edit: oops sorry for the redundancy, I didn't see f97tosc's post.

Triper

25th October 2006, 02:05 PM

The scanned test protocols and a preliminary report in Swedish can be found on
VoF's homepage now, but I'm not allowed to submit urls here.
The address is: www dot vof dot se slash landin slash index dot html.

Jon.

25th October 2006, 02:29 PM

Surely if the diaries were too old to properly "sense" the sex of the original diarist, she would have known that upon her attempt, if she is really doing what she says she is doing? She would have come up with no answer at all, rather than a wrong one?

Of course, this does not change the fact that there should be a retest if the protocol was in fact not followed. However, I would be interested to know if she objected to any of the diaries during the test itself.

JoeTheJuggler

25th October 2006, 02:40 PM

I suspect he wants to show that he is not a vindictive old fart, like the woos like to paint him as, but a fair-minded investigator. What would be the objection to a retrial if the applicant thought the protocol was not being adhered to?

I think because the rules say so. If the age of the diaries was specified in the protocol, and the protocol wasn't followed, you re-test (as long as it's still possible).

That's why it's set up this way--Randi's personality (either way, vindictive or fair-minded) has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

JoeTheJuggler

25th October 2006, 02:48 PM

Garvarn

25th October 2006, 02:59 PM

In addition to the links provided above, a final test design in English can be found here:

Final test design (http://www.vof.se/landin/protokoll-060521.pdf)

Pipirr

25th October 2006, 03:11 PM

My swedish is not the best but this is my attempt at translating a key paragraph or two from the report. Maybe Triper can check..

“Landin gave as an explanation for her lack of success that some of the diaries were too old (the earliest was from 1794 and the next eldest from 1855).

In discussions after the test Landin said that only diaries younger than 100 years should be in the test. This is a rule that I had not heard about before the test. Landin had approved the test protocol that I sent to Randi and that he approved. There it is explicit that diaries older than 100 years can be included.”

From the protocol (which is translated into english already):

“A few days before the test the archives and SOH select 15 diaries written by men and 15 written by women. As far as possible, diaries without handwriting on the outside are chosen. (If this cannot be avoided, the handwriting will be covered by SOH with some method approved by A.) Furthermore (in accordance with Landin’s wish) diaries older than the late 19th century are avoided as far as possible.”

Final words from the report:

“It is to be expected that Landin and I give different interpretations of the test results. I interpret it as simply unsucessful and that we have not found sufficient grounds to proceed with further testing. At the same time I can understand she is concerned about the method by which she was tested, and naturally seeks factors in the test setup that can explain the result.

It should not burden her that she did not go further to the next stage of Randi’s challenge... It is a positive that she took part in the test and that she constructively worked together to develop a test that is clearly decisive.”

Did I miss something? It reads as though the protocol wasn't tight enough to eliminate her excusing the test failure based on the diary age. Although she did agree to the protocol, so she should have no complaint.

Garvarn

25th October 2006, 03:31 PM

Did I miss something? It reads as though the protocol wasn't tight enough to eliminate her excusing the test failure based on the diary age. Although she did agree to the protocol, so she should have no complaint.

I think you got the vital paragraphs. And you point out where the design is flawed. If I understand the JREF intentions correctly, a test protocol should be tight enough to eliminate excuses of this kind. It is, of course, impossible to avoid many of the common excuses used by claimants in, or after, these or other tests of alleged paranormal abilities. But in this case, the excuse is derived from the protocol as such and, further more, it is a flaw recognized not only by the claimant and her followers, but also some of her supposed critics.

The issue, as I see it, is not whether complying with Landin's request would have altered the result -- let's face it, she is simply not able to do what she claims. The issue is that the test should be flawless and provide no opportunity for a claimant to blame poor results on test procedure. And regardless what happens in this case, it should set an example for future test designs supervised by the JREF. The Challenge is a too important symbol to be blemished by this kind of sloppiness.

Thinktoomuch

25th October 2006, 03:40 PM

Triper

25th October 2006, 03:41 PM

My swedish is not the best but this is my attempt at translating a key paragraph or two from the report. Maybe Triper can check..I think you did a good job!
I small remark
“[...] some of the diaries were too old (the earliest was from 1794 and the next eldest from 1855). "rätt" is better translated to "rather". "[...]some of the diaries were rather old [...]"

Edit : I see now that Chateubriand already has approved the translation.

Garvarn

25th October 2006, 03:50 PM

I would like to add something that was omitted in the translation above:

"Before we parted, Landin gave as an explanation for her lack of success that some of the diaries were too old (the earliest was from 1794 and the next eldest from 1855)"

It may otherwise be understood as if Landin has launched her excuse in the discussions after the test, when she in fact brought it up before leaving the archives of the Nordic Museum.

(Edit: corrected where the test took place.)

Pipirr

25th October 2006, 03:54 PM

Thank you, Triper and Chateaubriand.

I note that her saying "some of the diaries were rather old..." isn't such an emphatic excuse as saying they were 'too old' might be. Good to clarify that point.

The results didn't show how old the diaries were. Did she guess the oldest diaries correctly? If so that should remove that excuse.

Garvarn

25th October 2006, 04:26 PM

I note that her saying "some of the diaries were rather old..." isn't such an emphatic excuse as saying they were 'too old' might be. Good to clarify that point.

Well, I am far from able to judge Landin's emphasis -- I think it's enough that the protocol makes such an excuse possible and that it allowes her to explain away her result accordingly. The design text reads something like:

"Furthermore, (on Landin's request) dairies that are no older than late 19th century will be obtained if possible."

Where it should state explicitly the period from which the books might be. Then Landin would have had the opportunity to object and the protocol could have been revised. If it is discovered that diaries are hard to come by, choose other types of objects. The aim of the test is not to satisfy the comfort or convenience of the experimenters, but to provide an unquestionable answer about the performance of the claimant.

definitely

25th October 2006, 04:49 PM

I would like to add something that was omitted in the translation above:

"Before we parted, Landin gave as an explanation for her lack of success that some of the diaries were too old (the earliest was from 1794 and the next eldest from 1855)"

It may otherwise be understood as if Landin has launched her excuse in the discussions after the test, when she in fact brought it up before leaving the Royal Institute of Technology.

Chateaubriand, I'm not sure I see what point you are trying to make here. However, I would like to add something too: the testing did not at all take place at the Royal Institute of Technology, it was at the Nordic Museum in Stockholm...

Garvarn

25th October 2006, 05:08 PM

Chateaubriand, I'm not sure I see what point you are trying to make here. However, I would like to add something too: the testing did not at all take place at the Royal Institute of Technology, it was at the Nordic Museum in Stockholm...

Yep, I've been sloppy too... Someone already messaged me about it. I'll change it -- thanks!

The point I'm trying to make is that a protocol of a JREF supervised preliminary test should not make allowance for excuses of the kind that Landin has made in this case. More to the point, the protocol should explicitly eliminate possibilities of such excuses being made -- especially since the Challenge attract people that are very keen on making excuses. We can not continue to pick on different parapsychologist's methodologies if we allow for flawes -- even if they are just semantic -- in "our own" testing just because we like the experimenters and have a hunch that the claimants will fail anyhow. The Challenge tests needs to be flawless in the public eye, not only in the eyes of the experiments. After having whatched several documentaries on Randi's different tests, it is evident that Randi will go to extremes just to make this aspect clear. You may argue about Randi's bias but the test itself must be conducted in a way that eliminates controversies regarding the results. Landin's excuses should be "I had a bad day," "from my own experience I know what I can do so the test don't matter," or any of the other standard arguments -- but not something that can be derived from the test itself.

Alkatran

25th October 2006, 05:35 PM

Chateaubriand, I'm not sure I see what point you are trying to make here. However, I would like to add something too: the testing did not at all take place at the Royal Institute of Technology, it was at the Nordic Museum in Stockholm...

One of the goals of the test is to minimize the excuses for failure. Randi always talks about dry runs where the claimant knows what they should get, to let them confirm their power is not affected by anything except the lack of information.

Flange Desire

25th October 2006, 07:49 PM

Why is 16 out of 20 successful and 15 out of 20 isn't? Is it just because that's what was agreed to, more or less arbitrarily, or is there a statistical, mathematical reason?

Yes, it is because that was what is agreed to.
You develope your test protocol wherin you clearly specify what constitutes a 'success'.

You then either pass or fail.
Without the endless arguments about 'almost passed' and 'just barely failed'.

NiallM

26th October 2006, 03:21 AM

Let us be fair to the applicant here.

No-one can ask any more than that she take the test.

She did.

She found something about the test that was at odds with the protocol.

She appears to be willing to do a retest.

At least she's stepping up to the plate. I don't believe a word of her claim, but she seems to be prepared to put it up for examination.

Of course, this is contingent upon her actually agreeing to a retest.

If I were her, I would demand a "null" result for the prelimnary and demand that the next test be a full test, with a correspondingly higher success rate demanded. It would give her a chance at the million - one which she could win by chance.

rjh01

26th October 2006, 04:43 AM

One way to maybe have avoided this issue would have been to have had one person do the test with the same diaries a few days beforehand. He would have failed and then he would need to come up with an excuse why. If he came up with this excuse the loophole could have been shut.

This should be done before any test, maybe several times. The person would have orders to try to pass the test anyway he can. If not come up with every possible excuse.

tkingdoll

26th October 2006, 05:10 AM

Well, I am far from able to judge Landin's emphasis -- I think it's enough that the protocol makes such an excuse possible and that it allowes her to explain away her result accordingly. The design text reads something like:

"Furthermore, (on Landin's request) dairies that are no older than late 19th century will be obtained if possible."

Where it should state explicitly the period from which the books might be. Then Landin would have had the opportunity to object and the protocol could have been revised. If it is discovered that diaries are hard to come by, choose other types of objects. The aim of the test is not to satisfy the comfort or convenience of the experimenters, but to provide an unquestionable answer about the performance of the claimant.

You're quite right, the dates should be speficic, and also the phrase 'if possible' should not be there. The diaries either have to be from that time period or they don't. The 'if possible' gives a second opportunity for problems.

CFLarsen

26th October 2006, 05:17 AM

Blue Bubble

26th October 2006, 05:50 AM

MRC_Hans

26th October 2006, 05:54 AM

I think it is important to note that Ms. Landin did approve the protocol in advance. While the testers should certainly have made a better protocol (as the presumed professionals, this is primarily their responsibility), she can't say she was cheated or anything. She went for the protocol as it was, and she failed. Period.

Now, if she wants to be re-tested, I quite personally find that the only allowance the JREF should make due to the fault in the protocol is to start negotiating a new protocol immidiately, instead of imposing the usual one year waiting period stipulated in the rules. No more.

Hans

MRC_Hans

26th October 2006, 05:57 AM

I'd like to know if she got that darned one single diary from 1794 correct or not.

If she got it correct, then what does she have to complain about ?

If she got it wrong, we could be magnanimous and award it a hit instead. So she might have got 13 out of 20.

She still failed.

She will fail any re-test.It would not be reasonable to count it as a hit. You could exclude it from the data and recalculate the result from the remaining 19.

Hans

drkitten

26th October 2006, 07:20 AM

I think it is important to note that Ms. Landin did approve the protocol in advance.

She approved the protocol, but not the dataset, which can be reasonably seen to have violated the agreed-upon protocol.

Jeff Wagg

26th October 2006, 07:36 AM

What's happening right now is that the JREF is collecting data from the Swedish group and we're determining the best course of action.

Carina is being very cooperative through this process.

Garvarn

26th October 2006, 08:00 AM

But it was a post-hoc complaint? She knew during the test that the diaries were that old?

No, she found that out after the test and used it as an excuse for her failure. She just knew that the protocol stated that the diaries should not be older than the late 19th century if possible. Paraphrasing Randi, the claimants have to state under what circumstances the can do what they claim. Landin's request, as stated in the protocol, can be interpreted as such a circumstance, which the experimenters left "flexible". Although Landin sanctioned the protocol, the text should not have made such excuses possible. In all fairness, Landin has no experience of sound methodology, but the experimenters do. They should have made that particular aspect more clear and exact.

Speed of Light

26th October 2006, 10:09 AM

Hi
There is something that no-one has mentioned.
It has often been said on the forum that for the preliminary test, the probability of succeeding by chance alone, must be smaller than 1 in 1000, and for the final test, 1 in a million.

By my calculations, for this test, the probability of getting 16 or more correct out of 20, purely by chance alone, works out as (approx) 1 in 169.234.

ChristineR

26th October 2006, 10:20 AM

Hi Speed of Light.

The rule is generally that both the preliminary and final tests have odds of 1 to 1000, giving a total chance of 1 to 1,000,000.

We don't know why they gave Landin more favorable odds, but I suspect that it was as much the hassle of getting all those diaries as anything else. Even if Landin can do what she claims she wouldn't be expected to get 100%. For example, she might get an image of a husband who cherished his dead wife's diary for years and label the diary male.

If she could in fact get 80% right then it would take more than 20 diaries to get a good test. If the final test ever happens they'll have to come up with more than 20 diaries. This is all allowed for in the rules.

steenkh

26th October 2006, 11:37 AM

There is something that no-one has mentioned.
It has often been said on the forum that for the preliminary test, the probability of succeeding by chance alone, must be smaller than 1 in 1000, and for the final test, 1 in a million.

By my calculations, for this test, the probability of getting 16 or more correct out of 20, purely by chance alone, works out as (approx) 1 in 169.234.

I cannot do these calculations myself, but others have performed them in this thread, notably here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036874&postcount=46) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2036874&postcount=42), and they disagree with you.

CFLarsen

26th October 2006, 11:44 AM

No, she found that out after the test and used it as an excuse for her failure. She just knew that the protocol stated that the diaries should not be older than the late 19th century if possible. Paraphrasing Randi, the claimants have to state under what circumstances the can do what they claim. Landin's request, as stated in the protocol, can be interpreted as such a circumstance, which the experimenters left "flexible". Although Landin sanctioned the protocol, the text should not have made such excuses possible. In all fairness, Landin has no experience of sound methodology, but the experimenters do. They should have made that particular aspect more clear and exact.

"If possible" is an invitation for excuses. I still think she doesn't have a case, though. She saw it, and ran with it.

Mr. Stick

26th October 2006, 11:55 AM

Garvarn

26th October 2006, 11:58 AM

"If possible" is an invitation for excuses. I still think she doesn't have a case, though. She saw it, and ran with it.

I fully agree. But my point is that a JREF test protocol should not invite such excuses, and I think that James Randi stresses this point over and over again whenever he can.

ChristineR

26th October 2006, 12:00 PM

CFLarsen

26th October 2006, 12:04 PM

I fully agree. But my point is that a JREF test protocol should not invite such excuses, and I think that James Randi stresses this point over and over again whenever he can.

There's always room for improvement, that's true.

triad

26th October 2006, 12:05 PM

I fully agree. But my point is that a JREF test protocol should not invite such excuses, and I think that James Randi stresses this point over and over again whenever he can.
But now we are aware of the fact! Just for the future :?

macgyver

26th October 2006, 12:19 PM

About the same as getting 12 heads (or 12 tails) in 20 coin tosses.

I just did this, and I got 15 heads and 5 tails....I still would have lost.

Interesting (but not unusual) was the long run (10) of heads in a row.

Beth

26th October 2006, 12:58 PM

I also get 1 in 169.234, assuming "by chance" means coin-flipping.

2^20 ways to label the diaries "right" or "wrong" = 1048576

20!/(20! * 0!) ways to get 20 right = 1
20!/(19! * 1!) ways to get 19 right = 20
20!/(18! * 2!) ways to get 18 right = 190
20!/(17! * 3!) ways to get 17 right = 1140
20!/(16! * 4!) ways to get 20 right = 4845

1048576 / (1+20+190+1140+4845) = 169.2

You've got it upside down. It should be (1+20+190+1140+4845) / 1048576 = .0059

Or you can do it like I did in Excel: =1-BINOMDIST(15, 20, 0.5, 1) will give the probability of getting 16 or more correct which also gives .0059

ETA: I did make a computational error in my earlier post. I had the .0059 as the probability of getting 15 or more correct. It's not, it's 16 or more correct and 0.0013 is the probability of getting 17 or more correct [Excel formula 1-BINOMDIST(16, 20, 0.5, 1)]. Since JREF tests typically ask for p-values of .001, I suspect the person who arrived at 16 as the necessary number to succeed may have made the same computation error I did in my earlier post.

If Carina takes into account the fact that there are at least 5 male and at least 5 female diaries her odds are even better.

True.

Garvarn

26th October 2006, 02:50 PM

Landin has made a comment on her website (http://www.ruter-ess.nu/carina/tester/index.html#anchor7412771). This is en excerpt:

"After the test:

The test leader (SOH) came in and opened every envelope, marked the protocol and produced the correct answers. When it was done, my answers were compared to the correct ones and the result was 12 out of 20.

I requested to look at the eight books I missed. Unfortunately, I didn't check them that carefully and didn't personally take note of the years when they were written, who wrote them or their content.

In my view, a diary is a book in which someone has made daily notes regarding that someone's life. From a quick read-through of the eight books I missed, I remember that

1 book was a collection of recipes
1 book was a documentation regarding the mating of animals

I don't call that diaries! Afterwards, I have been given access to the archive registration numbers of the used diaries, which gives me an opportunity to check both the content and age if I want, but at the moment, I don't have the opportunity to go through them. Just before I write this, I have learned that I'm going to get the age of all the books.

I have on several occasions, verbally and by e-mail, notified SOH (I have kept the correspondence) that I don't want diaries that are older than 100 years. In spite of me explicitly expressing this, I authorized the protocol with the following text:
"Furthermore (in accordance with Landin’s wish) diaries older than the late 19th century are avoided as far as possible."
In retrospect, I shouldn't have authorized the protocol with that fuzzy writing, but since I am unsuspecting by nature, I thought that the late 19th century is only some yeras older than 100 years. A book written in 1906 is 100 years. A book written in 1896 is 110 years. The reason why I didn't want older book is that the traces disappears. An older book, that may have been handled by many, can, in my view, loose its origin.

A checking of the years of the eight books I missed showed that 5 of them were written in the following years:

1794, 1855, 1857, 1879, and 1888

In a conversation with SOH a couple of weeks ago, I asked via e-mail if SOH had found diaries from the 20th century. SOH replied:

"Yes, but some (singular in Swedish, C:s note) is from the end of the 19th century."

Question: 12th October 2005 -- Carina (Landin, C:s note) wrote

"I would appreciate if the diaries were primarily from the 20th century."

Reply from SOH 16th October 2005:

"I have spoken to the archive official. They don't want really old diaries to be unnecessary handled. A first guess is that it's easiest to get hold of books from the 19th and 20th century. I'll get back to you when I know more."

/... /

(Some paragraphs accounting for the communication between Landin, Randi and the experimenters. I have omitted them pending the result of the JREF review.)

/... /

All this is new to me and most of all strange and something that I never pursued or believed in my wildest imagination would happen, in spite of being warned by my mentor. (Sorry, this is a bit messy even in Swedish -- C)"

I would appreciate any proof reading by Swedish forum members.

Beth

26th October 2006, 02:54 PM

Thanks for the info. if possible, I'd aslo like to know the ages of all the diaries, both those missed and those correct.

Garvarn

26th October 2006, 03:19 PM

Thanks for the info. if possible, I'd aslo like to know the ages of all the diaries, both those missed and those correct.

Of course, Beth, I'll keep you posted as the info comes along.

JoeTheJuggler

26th October 2006, 03:34 PM

Again, the protocol should be a yes/no sort of thing. It doesn't matter whether the ones she missed were among the older diaries. Nor does it matter that she didn't complain during the test (whether or not she knew they were too old).

What matters is that the older diaries should not have been used if it was possible to run the test with newer ones. So the only question is, was it possible? If so, the protocol was not followed, the test should be re-run (if it's possible to find a new set of acceptable diaries to use).

If these were the only ones that would otherwise work (similar outsides, no scent, no handwriting evident, etc.), then the protocol was in fact followed and she failed the test.

I think her complaint is not a post-hoc explanation of her failure, because the issue is in the protocol. The only question that needs to be answered is, "Was the protocol followed?" If the answer is no, the next question is, is a re-test even possible?

I am still amazed that you were able to find a supply of diaries that fit the other requirements.

William Smith

26th October 2006, 03:59 PM

Thanks to all you guys who keep us posted with translations. Nice work.

Chateaubriand, your nick always gives me a craving for a big steak - even when I just ate. I wonder why that is. Could you change your avatar to some kind of potato product? Alternatively: Red wine or herb butter? Teek, are you reading this?

Pipirr

26th October 2006, 04:16 PM

In a conversation with SOH a couple of weeks ago, I asked via e-mail if SOH had found diaries from the 20th century. SOH replied:

In fact she asked if he had diaries from the 1900's (1900-talet). Had she confused the 19th century with the years beginning 19xx?

Just a question about the subtleties of the swedish language...

Garvarn

26th October 2006, 04:16 PM

Chateaubriand, your nick always gives me a craving for a big steak - even when I just ate. I wonder why that is. Could you change your avatar to some kind of potato product? Alternatively: Red wine or herb butter? Teek, are you reading this?

Na, it should prompt you to endulge in French Romanticism! ;o) But the avatar has nothing to do with my nickname here. I use it with another nick on a Swedish forum and kind of like the grin... It's "me"... ;o)

Garvarn

26th October 2006, 04:19 PM

In fact she asked if he had diaries from the 1900's (1900-talet). Had she confused the 19th century with the years beginning 19xx?

Just a question about the subtleties of the swedish language...

I would be amazed if Landin and SOH corresponded in English... I don't see how the Swedish equivalents are confusing, since we don't use the anglo-american 19th, 20th, etc. system...

Pipirr

26th October 2006, 04:24 PM

case sensitive

26th October 2006, 06:20 PM

I would be amazed if Landin and SOH corresponded in English... I don't see how the Swedish equivalents are confusing, since we don't use the anglo-american 19th, 20th, etc. system...

I am not sure they speak the same "language". Remember they are very different people, one male, one female, one with a lot of education and one with very little. And add to that very different belief systems. ;)

Garvarn

26th October 2006, 06:47 PM

I am not sure they speak the same "language". Remember they are very different people, one male, one female, one with a lot of education and one with very little. And add to that very different belief systems. ;)

I'm not sure either -- but I am sure that they share the same understanding of the concept, definition and meaning of "century" and "100 years old".

f97tosc

26th October 2006, 07:40 PM

I would appreciate any proof reading by Swedish forum members.

I have gone through your translation and I think it is OK.

PBTree

26th October 2006, 08:16 PM

Was she told of the age of the diaries before or after the test? If before, did she raise the objection before the test, or only afterwards?

My question as well. Did she realise somehow during the test that "this diary doesn't feel right", or looking for excuses after?

And another thing. She can either do it or she can't. 20 out of 20 sounds fine to me otherwise whenever she advises her "clients", she should be made to tell them up front that she is only x'ty percent right at any given time and that may or may not be your dead auntie we are talking to.

PBTree

26th October 2006, 08:28 PM

As suspected, Carina Landin's followers in the Swedish "believer" community are exploiting the discussed loophole to the fullest. One poster on the www.soultravel.nu forum sums it up:

"As we said before, if the test is properly designed you will pass. But the test wasn't conducted according to the protocol (the age of the books), so if you are able and allowed to, Carina... Do it again!"

Landin is also getting credit for having performed "way over chance". Go figure...

Once again this is where allowing anything less than 100% is wrong.

To all of her believers out there who are possibly reading this.

Do you realise that if she gets even 18 out of 20, for every 20 people she 'reads' or whatever it is she does, 2 of you are getting completely wrong, wrong, wrong information. Which of you is it???

Jeff Wagg

26th October 2006, 09:39 PM

Just to let you know.. we're still reviewing this. It's going to take a bit of time to sort out as we're dealing with translations and such. If a final determination is made, I'll post it.

JoeTheJuggler

26th October 2006, 10:02 PM

Finally! This is the real point, not all the legalistic nitpicking. Let her pick those that she can "sense" and ask for 100% accuracy!

Except that that's not the agreed-upon protocol.

C'mon--if the woo had broken protocol (people in the room who shouldn't be there, cell phones in the room, etc.), we'd consider the test void.

macgyver

26th October 2006, 10:06 PM

Which of you is it???

Obviously the answer is: All of them.

Thinktoomuch

27th October 2006, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Thinktoomuch http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2039032#post2039032)
Finally! This is the real point, not all the legalistic nitpicking. Let her pick those that she can "sense" and ask for 100% accuracy!

Except that that's not the agreed-upon protocol.

C'mon--if the woo had broken protocol (people in the room who shouldn't be there, cell phones in the room, etc.), we'd consider the test void.

Of course. My point was that the "professionals" dug their own grave from the beginning.

ChristineR

27th October 2006, 06:34 AM

There is no reason why a paranormal ability needs to be 100% accurate, and there's no reason to suspect that Landin's power, even if it exists and is 100% accurate all of the time would be 100% accurate at determining the sex of someone who wrote a diary.

I think she would have preferred her normal techniques, which appears to be warm reading and relies heavily on plausible but unverifiable scenarios ("I see a woman walking by a farmhouse"). Sex was chosen because it's binary (except in a few extraordinary cases).

Anacoluthon64

27th October 2006, 07:13 AM

I'm not good with statistics so what are the odds that she could get 12 out of 20 right?Oddly enough, a whole lot better than her getting 120 correct out of 200, or 1200 correct out of 2000, provided she's operating, as sceptics expect, at chance levels.

The probability of getting exactly 12 correct out of 20 is 12.0%, while that of getting 12 or more correct out of 20 is 25.2%, i.e. one in four tests will by pure chance show a result of 12 or more correct out of 20. Not very convincing, that. Compare this to a probability of 0.18% of her getting 120 or more correct out of 200. Such a result would occur by pure chance about once in 550 tests.

The pass criterion of 16 or more correct out of 20 occurring by pure chance has a probability of 0.59%, i.e. about once in 169 tests.

'Luthon64

Almo

27th October 2006, 02:10 PM

Garvarn

31st October 2006, 05:20 AM

Anyone heard anything about the progress of the JREF review of this test?

Garvarn

2nd November 2006, 12:19 PM

Mr. Stick

2nd November 2006, 12:41 PM

That was very informative.
Her argument that "too old diaries" are the cause of her poor results is thus complete BS.

She gets 6 right both on the 10 oldest and on the 10 newest diaries! In fact 5 of her right answers are among the 6 oldest. It's hilarious!

BTW can you provide a link to the published account?

thomps1d

2nd November 2006, 12:47 PM

She gets 6 right both on the 10 oldest and on the 10 newest diaries! In fact 5 of her right answers are among the 6 oldest. It's hilarious!

Ahh, but you see, the very presence of the old diaries screwed her up because...well...the quantum...thingamajigs interfered with the chi energy flowing from...the...flux capacitor of her spirit guide.

Something like that, I'm sure.

NiallM

2nd November 2006, 12:51 PM

To be fair to her, she shows a 100% record with diaries written in the early 60's.

Before I'd seen these results, the suggested compromise for me would have been along the lines of: let us work out a percentage required to define success. In this case it would be 75%. Now let us remove the earlier diaries and recalculate the result based on her guesses from among the remaining diaries. Let's eliminate all diaries before 1850, based on the fuzzy insertion in the protocol.

This leaves 14 diaries, and a result of 50-50. An exact split which rather conveniently matches chance outcome.

Mr. Stick

2nd November 2006, 01:06 PM

To be fair to her, she shows a 100% record with diaries written in the early 60's.

Yes, and she also gets 100% correct of the diaries written in 1935. :rolleyes:

Beth

2nd November 2006, 01:15 PM

Chateaubriand

Thanks for posting the information. It does appear that age of the diary had no bearing on her success rate.

NiallM

2nd November 2006, 01:51 PM

Chateaubriand

Thanks for posting the information. It does appear that age of the diary had no bearing on her success rate.

Au contraire, it appears that the oldest diaries actually inflated her success rate.

Of course, she'll probably claim that her abilities are confounded by the taint of residues of Victorian protoplasm or some such garbage.

Garvarn

2nd November 2006, 02:00 PM

BTW can you provide a link to the published account?

Sure. The columns are, from the left:

# in test / Right gender / Gender according to Carina Landin / Right or wrong (+ / -) / Archive file / Description / Year

M = Male (Swedish "Man")
K = Female (Swedish "Kvinna")

Link: The Diaries in the Test With Carina Landin, 24th Oct. 2006 (http://www.vof.se/landin/alla-dagbocker.pdf)

monoman

2nd November 2006, 02:05 PM

Is there any word from Landin regarding this new information?

Garvarn

2nd November 2006, 02:22 PM

Is there any word from Landin regarding this new information?

I just looked through her website. No comment as of yet. I also listened to a radio interview done on the morning after the test. It gave me a hunch of what Landin will be emphasizing -- that this was a psychometric test that has nothing to do with contacting the dead. So, for Landin it will be business as usual as far as her mediumship goes.

Blake Rieger

2nd November 2006, 03:06 PM

If she's talking about a fading 'smell', that's not even necessarily supernatural.

Humans often handle their diaries a great deal- and cover them in pheromones.

A dog could easily pick out which diaries are male and female after a hundred years if trained to do so, and while a large part of human pheromone detection has become subconscious, if she's actually smelling the diaries, it's perfectly within the bounds of olfactory science that she could get a slight statistical lead on the sex of the diary owners.

I do believe it has been shown experimentally that people of different sexual orientations can smell and almost always prefer certain pheromone combinations from other humans of compatible orientations. Women can also smell fear pheromones.

Granted, if she did manage to pick that up with perfect accuracy after a hundred years that would be a rather impressive sniffer- but nothing supernatural.

Even 20 for 20, consistently, this lady would not be demonstrating something supernatural.

However, put the things in a plastic bag, and then you might have something.

William Smith

2nd November 2006, 03:29 PM

Thanks for the update, Chateaubriand.

I am looking forward to the comments of Ms. Landin.

Pipirr

2nd November 2006, 07:50 PM

Gr8wight

2nd November 2006, 08:47 PM

She did pretty good on the oldest diaries. With the guessing.

Is there really any need for a retest here? Diary age didn't hold her back, so it's an odd complaint for her to make.

Looking forward to the updates and her comments; thanks to the Swedes and the Chateaubriands for keeping us appraised.

It is clear from the distribution that she was simply grasping at an available straw, but that her excuses are obviously unjustified. I don't see that a retest should be necessary. However, she did attempt to place a limit on the ages of the diaries, and diaries that were too old were used. If she insists, a retest may be unavoidable.

MRC_Hans

3rd November 2006, 12:25 AM

The experiment leader has published an account of Landin's full result. Here are the ages of the 20 diaries and Landin's guesses (R=right, W=wrong):

1787 - R
1794 - W
1800 - R
1825 - R
1828 - R
1831 - R
1879 - W
1859 - W
1860 - W
1867 - R
1881 - R
1889 - W
1896 - R
1895 - R
1932 - W
1935 - R
1943 - W
1953 - W
1963 - R
1961 - R

Her argument that "too old diaries" are the cause of her poor results is thus complete BS.Considering this result, IMHO there is no need for a retest. While you could accuse the testers of a protocol flaw, it obviously did not impact her results negatively, and anyway, she has approved of the protocol.

Let her make another application in a year, if she will, as the rules stipulate. End of story.

Hans

rjh01

3rd November 2006, 12:51 AM

But in a year's time
1. The general public may not be able to apply.
2. She would need three people to say she can do amazing things
3. She needs to be still of the belief that she can do it.

The R and Ws appear to be random. The test I applied. About 50% of Rs follow a W and 50% of Ws follow a R.

f97tosc

3rd November 2006, 05:42 AM

A linear regression of the test result shows that for 1=right, 0=wrong, the best fit line (in the least square sense) is

0.8 - [# of years after 1700]*0.0013

Indeed, if the trend continues she should be focusing on older books!

Startz

3rd November 2006, 08:10 AM

scratchy

3rd November 2006, 08:35 AM

Just in: according to the swedish skeptics Randi is ok with a retest. Of course a new protocol has to be approved by him.

Beth

3rd November 2006, 09:48 AM

Just in: according to the swedish skeptics Randi is ok with a retest. Of course a new protocol has to be approved by him.

Why a new protocol? Why not simply use the same one with newer diaries?

drkitten

3rd November 2006, 09:59 AM

Why a new protocol? Why not simply use the same one with newer diaries?

Because "with newer diaries" is a new protocol. You need to set a hard cutoff for how "new" the new diaries need to be, which means another round of signatures to make sure everyone agrees that 1925 (or whatever) is acceptable.

CynicalSkeptic

3rd November 2006, 12:20 PM

Why a new protocol? Why not simply use the same one with newer diaries?

The wording was "diaries older than the late 19th century are avoided as far as possible"

The two bolded phrases need to be replaced with something a bit more specific.

RSLancastr

3rd November 2006, 01:04 PM

thanks to the Swedes and the Chateaubriands for keeping us appraised.How much did they say we were worth? :D

(And yes, thanks!)

Pipirr

3rd November 2006, 03:32 PM

Oh yeah... appraised/apprised. D'oh.

So to clarify, Swedes and Chateaubriand: how much are we worth?

Thinktoomuch

3rd November 2006, 08:32 PM

For "Swedes Chateaubriand" I would not pay much. If it were a proper fillet steak, however....:D

AgingYoung

4th November 2006, 12:22 AM

Dead people lie...

Gene

Garvarn

4th November 2006, 03:19 AM

This morning, Landin wrote this on a Swedish woo woo forum:

Right after the test, I got a mail from Randi, stating that it would be redone. On his forum, Jeff Wagg has written that it is under review and that he would come back in this matter. Therefore, I wrote a new letter, and got this reply from the humble Randi:

YES.

YES.

YES.

WE WILL DO THE TEST AGAIN.

I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED YOU OF THIS, AND WE ARE PREPARED TO DO IT AGAIN.

IS THAT CLEAR?

James Randi.

When I initialy applied, I stated that I wanted regular sittings but that couldn't be done, according to SOH. After that, I tried wedding rings but that couldn't be arranged either, according to SOH. It's a bit of a shame that what I can do is not testable. I understand that it's difficult to arrange ordinary sittings, too many people would have to be involved.
What do you think? Is it hard to get hold of wedding rings of the same size from dead people? I prefer dead people since I work better with that than psychometry on the living. Suggestions are appreciated. Does it have to be 20? Are 10 too few? If you have 10, can't the test be done in two rounds?

Carina

monoman

4th November 2006, 04:20 AM

This morning, Landin wrote this on a Swedish woo woo forum:

Hi,

Have you made a post on the site to inform the readers that Landin actually scored well on the, disputed, older diarys?

Garvarn

4th November 2006, 04:28 AM

Have you made a post on the site to inform the readers that Landin actually scored well on the, disputed, older diarys?

The owner of that forum is known to be after my real name and has a record of making personal data of skeptics under pseudonym public. The skeptics that do post on his forum are subject to his editing whims and rather blunt censorship.

I have no reason to post on his forum and I question the judgment of the skeptics that do sanction his forum by being active on it.

Garvarn

5th November 2006, 04:38 AM

Here is Landin's answer to why she was right both on older and newer books:

Your second question about why I was right on some of the older diaries is an explanation, not an excuse.

If you take your wife's used sweater, her scent will still be on it, but after a year it might be gone. If you let someone else use the sweater, that person's scent will be sensed on the sweater. Strange explanation, but it's the best I can come up with. If a man has written in a book for a year and then dies, his daughter keeps the book for 60 years there might be more traces of her than him.

The more an object has been personal, the longer the traces will stay, I believe. That was the reason I OK'd diaries, that SOH and I have different opinions on what constitutes a diary was a mistake. I stressed that it had to be a personal and important thing for the dead. Recipes don't qualify.

I have no experience with experimental protocols like this, I thought my requests would be met with. Now when there will be a new one, I will be more thorough. The sad thing is that what I do best can't be tested. It felt vague and viscous during the test.

Chateaubriand: Sorry that the answer is long, much for you to translate for the Randi forum.

Ignorance, inexperience, post hoc and ad hoc -- Landin is obviously making the most of a protocol that unfortunately make allowance for such excuses. Having previously sanctioned my translating for this forum, she has now turned to sarcasm. Why am I not surprised.

William Smith

5th November 2006, 05:51 AM

Here is Landin's answer to why she was right both on older and newer books:

Ignorance, inexperience, post hoc and ad hoc -- Landin is obviously making the most of a protocol that unfortunately make allowance for such excuses. Having previously sanctioned my translating for this forum, she has now turned to sarcasm. Why am I not surprised.

Always assuming your translations to be correct, I thank you again, Chateaubriand, for providing your services to the JREF Forum.

Not surprised? Me neither.

Ms. Landin had a lot of time to prepare for the test. Based on the protocol, any independent viewer must regard this test as a failure, because Ms. Landin agreed to the protocol. Her mentor seemingly failed to prepare her. No paranormal powers proved. However, kudos to Ms. Landin for stepping up to the plate.

Therefore: Tighter protocol, stricter execution, retest asap.

Ms. Landin, if you (or some of your followers) are reading this:
You had the chance to collect a lot of information during your test. Use it.
You are now more familiar with the process of proving your abilities under careful scrutiny.
The experience of your mentors, your belief in your ability and the collective support of your loyal followers should enable you to prepare for the retest as perfect as possible, shouldn't it?

Should you fail again to demonstrate your claimed ability in the retest, with a protocol hand-tailored to your needs, will you conclude and admit publicly that you were wrong in claiming paranormal powers?

Cuddles

6th November 2006, 03:15 AM

Considering this result, IMHO there is no need for a retest. While you could accuse the testers of a protocol flaw, it obviously did not impact her results negatively, and anyway, she has approved of the protocol.

Let her make another application in a year, if she will, as the rules stipulate. End of story.

Hans

While, obviously, everyone sane agrees that this was a complete failiure and a retest is uneccessary, since the protocol was so vague as to leave a loophole it would be impossible not to allow a retest without leaving Randi forever open to accusations of unfairness. And for the first time they would actually be justified, however pedantic.

bduddy

6th November 2006, 07:46 PM

Back to the issue of why 16 is a "magic number":

Remember, she's the one making an extraordinary claim. IMHO it would be entirely appropriate to insist on 100% accuracy. (Many of these claimants start out by saying just that, by the way.) This was just a preliminary test to see if more rigorous testing is even warranted.

15 of 20 (if the protocol were followed) means no further testing is called for.

It means her claim of being able to detect the sex of a diarist in a supernatural manner is not proven.
If someone can predict the tosses of a fair coin 51% of the time consistently, that's paranormal and that's a million dollars. If someone claims to be able to do something 100%, sure, test them on that, but there's no reason someone needs to be paranormal to a certain degree. Unless that's part of the new "rule change"?

MRC_Hans

7th November 2006, 02:35 AM

While, obviously, everyone sane agrees that this was a complete failiure and a retest is uneccessary, since the protocol was so vague as to leave a loophole it would be impossible not to allow a retest without leaving Randi forever open to accusations of unfairness. And for the first time they would actually be justified, however pedantic.Perhaps. Granted, the protocol was imprecise, but my point is that the vagueness cannot be shown to have impacted the result. As somebody noted, if you deem the oldest diaries to be invalid and remove them from the result, it remains negative.

As for pedantic accusations, I am not sure this is the only example. If you want to be quite pedantic, I think more of the protocols could be challenged, if nothing else then for deviating from the normal practice of the claimant (something Ms. Landin also points out).

Hans

chran

7th November 2006, 03:07 AM

Perhaps. Granted, the protocol was imprecise, but my point is that the vagueness cannot be shown to have impacted the result. As somebody noted, if you deem the oldest diaries to be invalid and remove them from the result, it remains negative. Well, as Landin herself has written on her webpage, there will be a re-test, so ...

But I agree - the test as it stands shows no paranormal ability, as expected.

Cuddles

7th November 2006, 07:13 AM

If someone can predict the tosses of a fair coin 51% of the time consistently, that's paranormal and that's a million dollars. If someone claims to be able to do something 100%, sure, test them on that, but there's no reason someone needs to be paranormal to a certain degree. Unless that's part of the new "rule change"?

She claims to be talking to the dead. If she can't be 100% accurate with their sex, how can she possibly claim to get anything else from them? Of course predicting 51% of coin tosses would be paranormal, and presumably would be tested, but no-one has ever claimed this. Bear in mind the challenge doesn't exist for scientific research, it exists to test what people claim. Since they almost always claim 100% success, testing 80% is actually being unfair to the JREF since it makes it much easier for the claimant.

Also bear in mind that a test designed to measure 100% success at coin tosses would not be able to detect a 51% success rate. To test for 100% success you would only need 10 or 20 tosses. To test 51% you would need hundreds, or preferably thousands. And even if you do enough to test 51%, what about 50.5%? At some point you need to draw a line, and the JREF does this at a lower percentage than the applicants themselves, so it can hardly be considerd unfair.

drkitten

7th November 2006, 07:47 AM

She claims to be talking to the dead. If she can't be 100% accurate with their sex, how can she possibly claim to get anything else from them?

Wow.

I can only assume that you've never been to New York City.

I claim to be able to talk to the living, but I can't be 100% accurate with their sex. ([The Kinks]"Lola, Ell oh ell ay, Lola. Lo lo lo lo Lola" [/The Kinks].) So far, this hasn't gotten me into any serious trouble, since it doesn't really matter to me if the person who's giving me directions to get the hell out of Greenwich Village is an innie or an outie. Or a small blue furry creature from Krypton IV, which in the Village is always a possibility.

Ms. Landin claimed 100%, which I assume means she's never been to NYC, either. Randi has, and so was willing to cut her a break, demanding only 80% accuracy to pass. If Ms. Landin had claimed 80% accuracy, Randi would probably have suggested a 70% cutoff, and then raised the number of diaries appropriately.

robinson

7th November 2006, 07:54 AM

I claim to be able to talk to the living, but I can't be 100% accurate with their sex.

I have the same problem sometimes.
:wackylaugh:

Fredrik

7th November 2006, 04:23 PM

Ms. Landin claimed 100%, which I assume means she's never been to NYC, either. Randi has, and so was willing to cut her a break, demanding only 80% accuracy to pass. If Ms. Landin had claimed 80% accuracy, Randi would probably have suggested a 70% cutoff, and then raised the number of diaries appropriately.
I don't think that's correct. I don't think she ever told anyone what she thinks her accuracy is, and I don't think anyone associated with the JREF ever asked her.

The only person I know who asked her about her accuracy is me, and I don't think I ever got her to understand the question, even though I repeated it and explained it to her. I told her e.g. that if her accuracy is 80%, she only has a 63% chance of passing the test. (This was like a year ago, in a Swedish forum).

Her anwers contained comments like these:

"I have said that I expect to get at least 80% correct answers".

"80%=63% is that good or bad? (Excuse my poor math skills)"

"Maybe it sounds like I'm bragging, but if I make 10 statements about a certain dead person, most of the time 8 or 9 of those statments are correct. So yes, I think I should be able to get 80% right and I don't think less than that would be considered a success."

As you can see, she answered questions about her accuracy with predictions about what result she expected to get on this test with only 20 diaries. I never got her to say what she thought her accuracy was. However, I suppose her answers can be interpreted as meaning that she thinks it's "way more than 80%".

IMO it was a mistake to ignore this issue the first time around. I think that before they have another go at it, the JREF should get a statement from Carina about what she thinks her accuracy is. The number of diaries and the number of correct answers required to pass the test should be chosen so that a) the probability that she will succed by chance is ~1/1000, and b) the probability that a person with that accuracy will pass the test is >95%.

steenkh

7th November 2006, 11:32 PM

"Maybe it sounds like I'm bragging, but if I make 10 statements about a certain dead person, most of the time 8 or 9 of those statments are correct. So yes, I think I should be able to get 80% right and I don't think less than that would be considered a success."
This certainly is fuzzy! Most of the time she gets 8 or 9 right, and the rest of the time she gets 1-7 or 10 right? Whatever that means.

But if she is happy with 80%, why should we complain?

Welcome to the forum, Fredrik! I am sure you will get lots of questions about the test!

Fredrik

8th November 2006, 06:01 AM

Welcome to the forum, Fredrik! I am sure you will get lots of questions about the test!
Thanks for the welcome. I should perhaps mention that I don't have any inside knowledge about the test. I don't know Carina or the people who tested her personally. I have just been spending a lot of time at the same Swedish forums as Chateaubriand.

robinson

8th November 2006, 08:37 AM

An observation. Two and a half years ago she applies claiming to be able to contact and speak to dead relatives, using an object the departed was close to, with a relative there. And only if the relative confirmed the departed was indeed a relative. And if the object wasn't too old, or handled by other people a lot, since the death of the owner of the object.

Correct?

Steven Howard

8th November 2006, 08:52 AM

robinson

8th November 2006, 08:55 AM

Gr8wight

8th November 2006, 09:01 AM

I know, that is what I tried to sum up here. She claimed "that", and now she is being tested on "this". The progress of how the test protocol was determined is interesting, as well as some of the commentary about her, early on.

She couldn't be tested on her actual, original claim, as what she was asking to do was to be allowed to engage in cold reading. It was her decision that she could not pass that test if she were not allowed to ask questions of the subjects.

robinson

8th November 2006, 09:05 AM

I understood that. I think it would have been interesting to test her doing her original claim, but have the live relative ask the dead relative obvious questions, that only the dead could know, and see if she could answer them correctly.

An easy test. I have used it before. If the dead spirit doesn't know the name of their own kids, or some other simple question, then the channeling/woo crap is obviously crap.

Gr8wight

8th November 2006, 09:11 AM

steenkh

8th November 2006, 09:24 AM

An easy test. I have used it before. If the dead spirit doesn't know the name of their own kids, or some other simple question, then the channeling/woo crap is obviously crap.
But you know, the dead spirits have a great deal of trouble getting names and spelling straight: "I am getting an 'E'! ... No? An 'L'? Something that sounds like an 'S'?" and so on. It would take ages for them before they have spelled their way through their five kids or told the code of their bank account! Because of these troubles, the dead tend to limit themselves to vague messages of love and concern for their surviving relatives.

Not much to test for, I am afraid.

robinson

8th November 2006, 09:35 AM

Yeah, which sucks, cause I really need someone to channel dear old Grandad, so he can tell me where he buried all that gold.

CynicalSkeptic

8th November 2006, 11:58 AM

Yeah, which sucks, cause I really need someone to channel dear old Grandad, so he can tell me where he buried all that gold.
Hmm... I'm seeing a large field near a barn... did he have a farm? No... maybe a friend with a farm? Or a farm that he visited in his youth? Yes, that's definetly it. It's in a state that starts with an 'M' or an 'N', or maybe that's an upside-down 'M', so it's really a 'W'....

Pup

8th November 2006, 04:03 PM

Yeah, which sucks, cause I really need someone to channel dear old Grandad, so he can tell me where he buried all that gold.

Clearly a job for Edge.

Fredrik

8th November 2006, 04:42 PM

She claimed "that", and now she is being tested on "this".

Her claim has always been that she can connect to a dead person using an object that belonged to him or her, and receive information from that person.

I understood that. I think it would have been interesting to test her doing her original claim, but have the live relative ask the dead relative obvious questions, that only the dead could know, and see if she could answer them correctly.

An easy test. I have used it before. If the dead spirit doesn't know the name of their own kids, or some other simple question, then the channeling/woo crap is obviously crap.
You can't test her claim this way, because she doesn't claim to be able to get the dead to answer questions (or even to be able to ask them questions, as far as I know).

She couldn't be tested on her actual, original claim, as what she was asking to do was to be allowed to engage in cold reading. It was her decision that she could not pass that test if she were not allowed to ask questions of the subjects.
The problem isn't that Carina is refusing to do a test of her claim where she wouldn't be able to use cold reading. I'm pretty sure she would do a test where she gets to meet the sitters, but not ask them any questions or even say out loud what she's thinking. This would eliminate the possibility of cold reading, but we still wouldn't be able to evaluate her performance, and that's the real problem.

The only way I know to make sure that her performance can be evaluated objectively is to do a test where her task is to answer some kind of multiple-choice questions, such that the probability of getting the answers right by chance is well known. The simplest test of this kind is a test where she gets a number of objects, and for each object gets a simple yes/no question about the dead person who owned the object. We could e.g. use dead people's diaries and have her determine the sex of the owners.

Many people here seem to think that the diary thing is a completely new claim she came up with after a while. For example, Kramer wrote "It's not simply a new protocol. It's an entirely new claim having whatsoever nothing to do with her Challenge application". (He wrote this in a PM to me, so don't bother searching for it). But the fact is that the diary test really is a test of her original claim.

The way I see it, there are only two problems with the protocol that was used. One of the problems is that it didn't define exactly what a diary is. This seems trivial, but Carina has complained that some of the books were not what she would call diaries. The other problem is that no consideration was made of what she thought her accuracy was. She had hinted that it's way more than 80%, but she had also hinted that her accuracy would depend on the age of the diaries. If her accuracy is 90%, regardless of the age of the diaries, then she had a 95% chance of passing the test, but if her accuracy depends on the age of the books in the way she suggested, then her chance of passing the test was a lot less. It seems to me that her chances of passing the test were less than 50%, even with the super powers she claims to have, if we interpret her request that older books be excluded as a statement about her accuracy.

ChristineR

8th November 2006, 05:26 PM

The problem isn't that Carina is refusing to do a test of her claim where she wouldn't be able to use cold reading. I'm pretty sure she would do a test where she gets to meet the sitters, but not ask them any questions or even say out loud what she's thinking. This would eliminate the possibility of cold reading, but we still wouldn't be able to evaluate her performance, and that's the real problem.

This situation would not eliminate cold reading--ask any poker player.

The usual way to evaluate performance of this sort of thing is to mix up the readings and ask the sitter to evaluate all the readings. You would have to find comparable items, such as wedding rings from the same period, otherwise the reading would likely have some sort clues. An example might be "this person liked showy, expensive things" or "this person liked simple things for their symbolic value." The test is successful if the sitter picks their own reading more often than is warrented by chance. The math can get pretty hairy and has to be worked out depending on the protocol.

All in all, the diary test was preferable, but there turned out to be way to many outs that none of us thought of.

Fredrik

8th November 2006, 07:33 PM

This situation would not eliminate cold reading

You're right of course. I was thinking about the part of cold reading where the cold reader tells the sitter what he's got so far, and the sitter tells him if he's on the right track or not. (I'm using the word "he" because the most obvious examples of cold reading I've seen have been performed by men). That part is eliminated, but there's of course a lot left.

It just occurred to me that the reader can vastly improve his chances of getting a lot of statements right simply by making what he believes is a reasonably accurate description of the sitter. If the dead person is a parent or a sibling, chances are they will have something in common, especially physical characteristics.

The usual way to evaluate performance of this sort of thing is to mix up the readings and ask the sitter to evaluate all the readings. You would have to find comparable items, such as wedding rings from the same period, otherwise the reading would likely have some sort clues. An example might be "this person liked showy, expensive things" or "this person liked simple things for their symbolic value." The test is successful if the sitter picks their own reading more often than is warrented by chance. The math can get pretty hairy and has to be worked out depending on the protocol.

I am familiar with that method. I even worked out that hairy math once, so I don't know why I said the other method is the only one I know.

Thinktoomuch

11th November 2006, 10:58 AM

As an intellectual exercise, whatever the actual situation with Carina, my preference for testing this type of claim would be something along these lines (accepting that the devil will always be in the detail, of course):

get access to a vast number (say 200) of recent common objects, e.g trial exibits, prisoner's personal items, public trustee auctions of deceased assets, like bunches of keys, wallets, watches etc. unequivocally belonging 50% to dead people and 50% to people still alive.
ask the claimant to pick any of them (minimum 20) that give out a strong feeling that the owner of the object is now dead. Maybe allow for the odd eventuality of a mixed signal (it is not an exact science...) but ask for 19/20 accuracy.The duality is dead/alive instead of male/female and there is hardly any way out because the claimant has absolute freedom to pick only those objects that give out the strongest "vibes". For the same reason it would also appear to be harder to refuse the protocol a priori. How can anyhone claim to see dead people if they can't even tell if what they see are really dead people?

William Smith

11th November 2006, 12:18 PM

I like the direction of your idea, thinktoomuch.

Of course, psychics will always have very specific claims, so it remains to be seen if your idea can be applied to their respective claims.

Plus, the logistics may get a bit messy. But managable.

Testing Ms. Browne this way would be great. If she would agree, which she most likely will not.

NiallM

11th November 2006, 02:01 PM

Aye, the idea sounds good, but it doesn't tally completely with teh claim.

I have to say that I'm reasonably impressed so far with this applicant.

Of course, she has no abilities, but she seems prepared to sit a test - which is rare and very honest. Brave, too.

At the very least, it shows a degree of conviction on her part.

I strongly hope that a definitive test - within the strictest conditions - will take place soon.

rjh01

11th November 2006, 03:39 PM

I think you are dreaming. She now knows that she has no ability. Anyone who looks at the facts can see that. However the only way to keep her myth alive is to find an excuse to refuse to do the test again and to blame JREF for it.

Fredrik

12th November 2006, 12:23 AM

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this one rjh01. She really believes that she has these powers, and she would like to prove it. I would be very surprised if she refuses to do the test.

Thinktoomuch, the protocol you suggested is very good. However, Carina has been saying that the the dead person needs to have a strong emotional connection to the object (or something to that effect). This means that diaries are ok, and wedding rings might be even better, but e.g. keys will not work. This makes it difficult to test her.

I suggested a similar test to her last week, but at the time I didn't realize that she claims to need an object to connect to the dead. The protocol I suggested (short version) is that she meet a bunch of people and for each person answer the questions "is his/her mother alive?" and "is his/her father alive?". Her answer (translated from Swedish): "I think I would like to do something that I'm better at than the things you're suggesting. It's foolish to take a chance on something I don't know completetly".

I will ask her what she thinks about a dead/alive test with objects that belonged to the dead.

Fredrik

12th November 2006, 10:50 AM

She says that she has written to "SOH" (those are the initials of the guy who did the last test), and suggested a new protocol. I asked her about the new protocol, and the possibility of doing a dead/alive test instead of a male/female test. This is what she said:

I don't want to post the protocol until I've heard from SOH.

When you're doing psychometry, you get a lot of information about the person, regardless of whether the person is alive or dead. I haven't tried to hold an object without knowing if the person is dead or not, so I don't know if I feel the difference

Thinktoomuch

12th November 2006, 08:34 PM

Thanks, Fredrick, this puts new light on the matter. If Carina says:

"When you're doing psychometry, you get a lot of information about the person, regardless of whether the person is alive or dead. I haven't tried to hold an object without knowing if the person is dead or not, so I don't know if I feel the difference"

her claim is not that she can see the dead, is that she can see a person who has/had a strong emotional attachment to a physical object (logically, this does not even need to be the "owner" of the object, does it?) And she said before that the "imprint" fades with time. Even if it is an excuse after the fact, this is certainly a reason why the original protocol could never be an effective test of her alleged ability.

It is imperative, therefore, that she has access to a large number of objects and can pick any of them that elicit her alleged paranormal feeling, because there is no way to establish a priori which ones would have been "strongly emotionally attached" to somebody.

The objects need to be clearly documented: one way to find a sufficient number could be to put an advertisement in some suitable media (woo magazine?) asking recently bereaved families to lend some small objects, either belonging to the deceased or to them, and documenting from photographs and live observation the physical characteristics of the people involved. No vague descriptions: eg not short/tall but height in 10-15cm intervals, age in 10-15 years iontervals etc.

Having done that, the claimant should identify as many specific details as possible about the "emotionally attached" persons she can "see" by ticking boxes in blank copies of the questionnaire previously used to document the objects.

The interpretation would be more laborious, but I am certain that an ethical researcher would be able to establish quite clearly whether there is something there or not. Conceptually, once fraud is excluded, even only one extremely detailed verifiable identification would prove that some kind of "seeing" has occurred, but I am sure JREF will require more stringent parameters, if nothing else because it is preferable to err on the side of caution ...:D .

Well, I had my fun. You have fun too!

joller

12th November 2006, 08:43 PM

The interpretation would be more laborious, but I am certain that an ethical researcher would be able to establish quite clearly whether there is something there or not.

I think we've already eastablished that there's nothing there. Further testing of her claims = waste of resources.
Her performence did not suggest that further research is validated.

Pipirr

13th November 2006, 06:32 AM

Her performence did not suggest that further research is validated.

Agreed, but so long as there's doubt about the protocols and the tests, her supporters can claim partial success or at least absence of failure. The JREF would do well to conclude this challenge satisfactorily, as its been reported in the Swedish media and is therefore getting a rare chance of public exposure.

From what I understand, the MDC preliminaries have defeated a large number of applicants but rarely in the public eye. I don't think its a waste of resources to expose a cold reader when the chance arises.

rwguinn

13th November 2006, 10:07 AM

Thanks, Fredrick, this puts new light on the matter. If Carina says:

Snip...
The interpretation would be more laborious, but I am certain that an ethical researcher would be able to establish quite clearly whether there is something there or not. Conceptually, once fraud is excluded, even only one extremely detailed verifiable identification would prove that some kind of "seeing" has occurred, but I am sure JREF will require more stringent parameters, if nothing else because it is preferable to err on the side of caution ...:D .

Well, I had my fun. You have fun too!

The entire purpose of the protocol is to eliminate interpretation
The results must be immediately evident, not subject to interpretation.
That's why the "binary" requirements on te original--M/F?

Thinktoomuch

13th November 2006, 12:53 PM

The entire purpose of the protocol is to eliminate interpretation
The results must be immediately evident, not subject to interpretation.
That's why the "binary" requirements on te original--M/F?

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant 'elaboration of the data collected'. Should have been clear because of the emphasis on objectively defined multiple details. M/F has been proven useless by itself (was the person most "emotionally attached" the owner or somebody else, etc) but "a male under 5'6" with brown eyes" would be pretty hard to misinterpret if the brother of the owner fits that description, wouldn't it?

personable

13th November 2006, 03:00 PM

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant 'elaboration of the data collected'. Should have been clear because of the emphasis on objectively defined multiple details. M/F has been proven useless by itself (was the person most "emotionally attached" the owner or somebody else, etc) but "a male under 5'6" with brown eyes" would be pretty hard to misinterpret if the brother of the owner fits that description, wouldn't it?

Their brother, or cousin, uncle, ex-boyfriend, or guy who did their gardening, maybe even their favourite pop singer could fit that description and if you open it up like that it increases her chances of a hit immeasurably.....it seems like that would be open to rationalization by the True Believers and therefore wouldn't form a suitable test, I'm afraid.

Bear in mind she did actually claim she could tell the gender of the owner of an item; excuses about third parties of an opposite gender being 'more emotionally attached' to the item and skewing the results are coming out after the event to explain away the failure.

Thinktoomuch

13th November 2006, 07:27 PM

Their brother, or cousin, uncle, ex-boyfriend, or guy who did their gardening, maybe even their favourite pop singer could fit that description and if you open it up like that it increases her chances of a hit immeasurably.....it seems like that would be open to rationalization by the True Believers and therefore wouldn't form a suitable test, I'm afraid.

Bear in mind she did actually claim she could tell the gender of the owner of an item; excuses about third parties of an opposite gender being 'more emotionally attached' to the item and skewing the results are coming out after the event to explain away the failure.

Of course. I agree with everything you say, but it appears to me that your statements amount to a realisation that trying to apply a scientific method to woo claims in the context of the challenge is so close to completely futile that quibbling about the finer detail is useless. The premise of my approach (put by others, not me) was that the claimant is honestly trying to prove to herself and others that she is not deluded and therefore she is owed an assessment not marred by bias. I am convinced that in these circumstances the large amount of money involved hinders proper research. It implies an adversarial approach inappropriate in the rare cases where a cooperative one would be required. Some other poster mentioned or implied, if I remember correctly, that the useful part of the challenge is to force the claimant to a critical thinking process that almost inevitably results in backing away from the real test. I concur.

ETA: I forgot to premise my comments by explaining that if the gardener you mention is one of the people involved in providing the object and having a description of his physical characteristics included in the database, it would be a bona fide hit. If there is no record in the database, it is a miss. Too bad. There could always be excuses (hence the need for a statistically reliable number of hits as defined), but I believe that a sufficiently robust protocol could be agreed that would be convincing for all but the unconvinceable.

steenkh

14th November 2006, 01:32 AM

The premise of my approach (put by others, not me) was that the claimant is honestly trying to prove to herself and others that she is not deluded and therefore she is owed an assessment not marred by bias.
There is no doubt that the Challenge involves an adversarial approach, and nobody has claimed that it is science, even if scientific methods are used.

But even in real science, you open up a can of worms if you want to be so cooperative that you allow standard techniques of cold reading to be part of your study. The cooperative approach is slippery, as you will realise when you start by accepting vague descriptions like so-and-so tall, with brown hair, and the test subject will throw a wide net to find anybody who has handled the object and who might in any way fit the description.

Thinktoomuch

14th November 2006, 02:55 AM

There is no doubt that the Challenge involves an adversarial approach, and nobody has claimed that it is science, even if scientific methods are used.

But even in real science, you open up a can of worms if you want to be so cooperative that you allow standard techniques of cold reading to be part of your study. The cooperative approach is slippery, as you will realise when you start by accepting vague descriptions like so-and-so tall, with brown hair, and the test subject will throw a wide net to find anybody who has handled the object and who might in any way fit the description.
Again, all you say is uncontroversial. Unless I have explained myself in a really inadequate manner, you appear not to have fully considered what I was suggesting. I believe that all your concerns would be adequately addressed, assuming that the claimant accepts the protocol as suggested (which is in no way guaranteed).

personable

14th November 2006, 10:03 AM

I think the test one must apply to any proposed protocol is "could the applicant reasonably be successful by any other means except paranormal?" If the answer is in the positive then it is not suitable.

The one caveat is clearly pure chance will always be a likely possibility, but that can be reduced as to make it's influence almost negligible.

If I have read you correctly you are proposing someone else's suggestion that she could be allowed to supply her own description of any one of multiple persons predetermined to have held an emotional 'bond' with the item to secure a 'hit'.

The obvious one question is, what if she simply says 'a male less than six feet tall with thinning hair'? Now, since items which would be submitted would most likely be from family members, there is a chance of 'hitting' either the owner of the item itself or the husband of the owner. And since almost all males have thinning hair at some stage in their lives (especially those who have grown old enough to marry and have children) this would be an effective hit for a rather large number I imagine.

The other proposal about making her define height in increments of 15cm is easily excused by her and her believers by saying the spirit world has no tape measure. What if she says 170cm and the person is actually 140cm? She could say she saw them at a distance, or sitting down or floating round with angels etc.

If she says black hair and the owner had brown, she could postulate that it was dark where they 'were'.

Those are the reasons I don't think such a protocol would work.

I'm not sure where you are founding your other comments about a hostile bias affecting the test; I would like you to elaborate if you would.

As far as I have read, she claims, after all, to be able to communicate with the dead person who once owned an item she holds in her hand. It would be reasonable surely to expect that she can tell us the most basic information on that person ie gender, and do it with a better rate of success than chance would allow.

She cannot, after all, explain away getting the gender wrong by claiming they are in an odd position, or in poor light.

Gord_in_Toronto

14th November 2006, 10:14 AM

. . . and the test subject will throw a wide net to find anybody who has handled the object and who might in any way fit the description.

Ah, the answer then is to use the knobs from the radios in SUVs. See: http://www.moderncarcare.com/hotnews/6bh134201577078.html
:D

Thinktoomuch

14th November 2006, 03:52 PM

I think the test one must apply to any proposed protocol is "could the applicant reasonably be successful by any other means except paranormal?" If the answer is in the positive then it is not suitable.

The one caveat is clearly pure chance will always be a likely possibility, but that can be reduced as to make it's influence almost negligible.

All obvious and agreed (except the apostrophe:) )

If I have read you correctly you are proposing someone else's suggestion that she could be allowed to supply her own description of any one of multiple persons predetermined to have held an emotional 'bond' with the item to secure a 'hit'.

I have difficulty understanding from this sentence what understanding you have of the various parts of my description, therefore I can sympathise with your position. It is not fun anymore but, being conscious of the limitations of my English expression, I will try to explain again myself better.

The obvious one question is, what if she simply says 'a male less than six feet tall with thinning hair'? Now, since items which would be submitted would most likely be from family members, there is a chance of 'hitting' either the owner of the item itself or the husband of the owner. And since almost all males have thinning hair at some stage in their lives (especially those who have grown old enough to marry and have children) this would be an effective hit for a rather large number I imagine.

By having a large number of objects of various background and a specific questionnaire with agreed allowed descriptions (thinning hairs, dark hair, less than 6' are not acceptable descriptions, bald, "color" hair, 5'6" to 6' tall are) the probability of a fluke hit can be made irrelevant.

The other proposal about making her define height in increments of 15cm is easily excused by her and her believers by saying the spirit world has no tape measure. What if she says 170cm and the person is actually 140cm? She could say she saw them at a distance, or sitting down or floating round with angels etc.

If she says black hair and the owner had brown, she could postulate that it was dark where they 'were'.

Those are the reasons I don't think such a protocol would work.

See above. The protocol would work, the difficulty would be to achieve an agreement that if the claimant ticks "black" instead of "brown" or "5' to 5' 6" " instead of 5' 6" to 6' " in the questionnaire it is a miss, and what number/proportion of hits to misses is a success. The value of the exercise would then most likely be the usual "get to think critically".

I'm not sure where you are founding your other comments about a hostile bias affecting the test; I would like you to elaborate if you would.

Again, I find difficult to understand from your sentence what you want me to elaborate. I did not use the word "hostile'. I used "bias" to indicate that when a lot of money is at stake one might tend to be cautious to the point of being unrealistically strict in the definition of what constitutes success. Hardly a new or extreme comment.

personable

15th November 2006, 08:14 AM

I have difficulty understanding from this sentence what understanding you have of the various parts of my description, therefore I can sympathise with your position. It is not fun anymore but, being conscious of the limitations of my English expression, I will try to explain again myself better.

Well in that case, allow me to assure you that I understand it perfectly well, if you were unable to comprehend that from my reply, as I believe the others on the thread have. What you have not yet properly addressed is the issues questioned on the basis of it.

By having a large number of objects of various background and a specific questionnaire with agreed allowed descriptions (thinning hairs, dark hair, less than 6' are not acceptable descriptions, bald, "color" hair, 5'6" to 6' tall are) the probability of a fluke hit can be made irrelevant.

So let's examine the differences and similarities between your suggestion and the protocol used. Both work on the presupposition that she really can 'see' the person who had an emotional attachment to the item. Your protocol proposes asking her to give a detailed description of the person she 'sees'. The old protocol operates on the reasoning that if she can do that, she can also plainly give just the gender.

Now, since she failed on that test and is producing a post hoc excuse to justify her failure and thereby attempting to maintain the True Believers' faith, you are attempting to answer her excuse that others of an opposite gender may have handled the item and caused her to 'see' them, by asking her to describe 'them'. However, the very mechanics of opening the hit up to more than one person (anyone other than the owner) makes the chance of a hit more likely, and most importantly, removes the binary aspect of the gender only hit. (an expansion on the importance of this below)

I believe to counter this, you propose she should be set a specific criterion for a 'hit', and also that she should be made to perform several to ensure that reaching the success threshold cannot be realistically done by chance or guessing. The issue arises though, of the woo interpretation of her failures. If she says the person had black hair and he had brown, the woos would likely find this somewhat easy to rationalize. It is nowhere near as profound an error as getting the gender wrong; and the problem is that your proposed protocol removes the gender guessing. And it is easier to rationalize that the woman with dark hair really was your blonde mother, because say her natural colour was dark, than it would be to rationalize that the psychic held your Mother's diary and somehow saw a man.

I think the latter is more likely to prompt people to think critically than the former would.

The other thing that comes to mind is the actual administration of the test. We would be relying on testimony from the person submitting the item, for the facts of who indeed held an emotional bond with it. Since an emotional bond is something that comes down to interpretation, that could be a disservice to the applicant as well as the JREF. Malevolent readers could simply buy items out of a shop and send them in, or they could give false details of the person whom they consider held an 'emotional bond' with the item, or they might misinterpret what an 'emotional bond' is. On the other face of that, if you intend on harvesting these from woo magazine readership, what could be done to prevent stooges from sending things in? Or even in all innocence, a woo might see an opportunity to get a free reading from their favourite psychic and inform her via email to 'look out from my uncle's red diary please, and if you receive any message from him could you let me know'. Then all it would take could be for the psychic to enter into a dialogue with this person, and you suddenly have cold reading in your protocol.

Again, I find difficult to understand from your sentence what you want me to elaborate. I did not use the word "hostile'. I used "bias" to indicate that when a lot of money is at stake one might tend to be cautious to the point of being unrealistically strict in the definition of what constitutes success. Hardly a new or extreme comment.

I do apologise if you are having some difficulties, but I would like you to elaborate on what you consider to be unrealistically strict about asking one who claims to see the dead owner of an item she holds to declare that person's gender.

You seem to be taking a cooperative approach to her claim that people of the opposite sex handling the item in the interm period has skewed her results. It should be held in mind that if she had claimed this before the test, then the test would not have went ahead as it would have served no purpose. And while I agree wholeheartedly that any test protocol should endeavour to reduce as far as possible the number of post hoc excuses the applicant may have available to them, any concessions given in the protocol should not introduce a greater likelyhood of fraud being a factor without addressing it one way or another.

thomps1d

15th November 2006, 08:53 AM

When you're doing psychometry, you get a lot of information about the person, regardless of whether the person is alive or dead. I haven't tried to hold an object without knowing if the person is dead or not, so I don't know if I feel the difference

It seems like there's a lot of back-and-forth over a possible new protocol for Carina, and this quote from her give me an idea.

1) Carina originally claimed to be able to use psychometry to determine the gender of the owner of a possession.

2) She also now claims to be able to get that information whether the owner is alive or dead.

3) An object which is too old poses some sort of a problem for her, and an object too readily identifiable as owned by a man or woman is a problem for testers.

So...with all the above in mind, why not repeat the original test, but instead of using diaries, use house keys?

Think about it: house keys are generally indistinguishable by gender, and ones from recent times are readily available. If it doesn't matter if the owner is alive or dead, the test could be performed quickly and easily by having her look at an assortment of keys, each marked with a number. That number would correspond with a list of the owner's gender, and the list could be kept sealed away from her sight until after the test. The list could be compiled by someone unconnected to both the testers and Carina, so that the test would be properly double-blinded.

Is there a reason she doesn't just do something this simple?

Silly Green Monkey

15th November 2006, 10:50 AM

Keys were suggested, and rejected because "they don't have a strong emotional connection."

Rasmus

15th November 2006, 11:05 AM

Keys were suggested, and rejected because "they don't have a strong emotional connection."

Teddy bears.

Juist pick teddy bears or other stuffed animals from little kids, then. There certainly is a strong emotional connection there, right?

Or did I miss any of her excuses? Was there a reason given why it should only work with adults?

Cuddles

15th November 2006, 02:24 PM

By having a large number of objects of various background and a specific questionnaire with agreed allowed descriptions (thinning hairs, dark hair, less than 6' are not acceptable descriptions, bald, "color" hair, 5'6" to 6' tall are) the probability of a fluke hit can be made irrelevant.

So if she said male, 5'6-6" tall with brown hair, that would count as a fluke hit? That describes most of the men I know. How many features would she have to identify in order to reduce the probability of fluke hits to even 50-50, let alone irrelevant?

Also bear in mind that hair colour and height could never really be used. Hair colour changes over time. My hair used to be light blond, but is now dark brown, my father's hair is now black and my mother used to be bright red and is now pale brown. And all this without any dye being involved, which I can guarantee would be used as an excuse as well. You could describe pretty much anyone's hair as light brown or dark blond and they would almost certainly have had that colour hair at some point in their life. And how many people either know their height acturately or can judge someone else's? Most men exagerate their height by about 1.5 inches, and I doubt many people can tell someone's height better than that just be looking at them. So whether she guesses the height or the ghost tells her, the accuracy will be just about good enough to tell one half of the population from the other.

And of course this all ignores the question, if she can get height, hair colour and whatever else from them, why can't she tell their gender?

Thinktoomuch

15th November 2006, 03:44 PM

And of course this all ignores the question, if she can get height, hair colour and whatever else from them, why can't she tell their gender?

Cuddles, with the exception of the above sentence, which I believe to be incorrect (she says that she can tell the gender of somebody, not necessarily the owner), I can only address your concerns as I addressed those of Personable. I stand by my original response to him. All I am proposing is to whittle away at all excuses with a "can do" attitude in order to foster the critical thinking process instead of starting with a point of view that "it can not be done because there will be other excuses".

It all boils down to whether you believe she is deluded or she is a fraud. In the first case a "cooperative" approach is fully justified, in the second it is much less so, because its cost/benefit could be severely diminished. I believe that the issue is self-limiting, though, because a fraud would not find benefit in continuing to show her weaknesses and would quickly opt out.

For this reason, Personable, I am not going to address again your points in detail. I assure you that I am aware of them and acknowledge that they pose difficulties. At this point in time I believe that they can be overcome, but even if they could not, the outcome of my proposed approach would be the usual retreat of the applicant when the scientific method becomes too demanding, which is, in my opinion, still a desirable outcome. For this to be useful, though, JREF must not only be just but be clearly seen to be just, which is the main purpose of a "cooperative" approach.

briandunning

15th November 2006, 09:38 PM

Jeez, give me any diary and I'll tell you if a man or a woman wrote it within the first paragraph. I sure as hell would get better than 12 out of 20. Maybe I should apply. ;)

Silly Green Monkey

16th November 2006, 08:40 AM

She doesn't get to READ them.....why would you?

JoeTheJuggler

16th November 2006, 12:14 PM

Anyone know if a re-test is or has happened?

The protocol seemed fine. I disagree that there was a loophole left. The protocol said that the older diaries shouldn't be used if possible. It sounds like it was just overlooked. If it were an issue, the tester could've said, sorry, we couldn't find enough newer diaries (in other words, it's "not possible"), in which case the protocol would've been followed, and the test continued. I don't think that's the case. I think it was just overlooked. Granted, there's no reason to think that this issue would've affected the result, but that's beside the point. If the protocol wasn't followed, you trash the results.

I hope a re-test is possible, and if it happens I predict another failure. (Remember, there are no degrees of failure--that's the reason for having a protocol. You agree ahead of time on what the definition of success is.)

rjh01

16th November 2006, 11:33 PM

Mind you, if enough re-tests are done she will pass one of them by pure chance. It could be the next one.

Jeff Wagg

17th November 2006, 06:52 AM

Randi and I have agreed that a "retest" is warranted, based mostly on the ambiguity of the phrase "as far as is possible." Negotiations are under way, however it's difficult to find old diaries, so we might turn this into and entirely new claim concerning letters.

I fear that there will never be satisfactory results from this one, as it's so difficult to find the matierals necessary. But, work continues...

Anyone know if a re-test is or has happened?

The protocol seemed fine. I disagree that there was a loophole left. The protocol said that the older diaries shouldn't be used if possible. It sounds like it was just overlooked. If it were an issue, the tester could've said, sorry, we couldn't find enough newer diaries (in other words, it's "not possible"), in which case the protocol would've been followed, and the test continued. I don't think that's the case. I think it was just overlooked. Granted, there's no reason to think that this issue would've affected the result, but that's beside the point. If the protocol wasn't followed, you trash the results.

I hope a re-test is possible, and if it happens I predict another failure. (Remember, there are no degrees of failure--that's the reason for having a protocol. You agree ahead of time on what the definition of success is.)

Darat

17th November 2006, 07:14 AM

steenkh

17th November 2006, 07:58 AM

I understand this from your viewpoint but to me if such materials are so difficult to come by it just makes me wonder how on earth she in the first place come to think she can do what she claimed to do.
It is not too difficult to locate private diaries. Any of her woo customers might have one, she handles it, and she immediately "feels" the imprint of its owner. The problem is finding anonymous looking diaries in sufficient numbers. Not too many private diaries are delivered to, or accepted by, the libraries to keep.

personable

17th November 2006, 10:11 AM

For this reason, Personable, I am not going to address again your points in detail. I assure you that I am aware of them and acknowledge that they pose difficulties. At this point in time I believe that they can be overcome, but even if they could not, the outcome of my proposed approach would be the usual retreat of the applicant when the scientific method becomes too demanding, which is, in my opinion, still a desirable outcome. For this to be useful, though, JREF must not only be just but be clearly seen to be just, which is the main purpose of a "cooperative" approach.

I would just like to point out that despite your use of the word 'again', you have not actually addressed the issues I pointed out; you have simply assured me they can be overcome.

And on the second point, I would tend to disagree - I think that it is better for the critical thinking process if the applicant agrees to the test and fails, rather than have them backing out early in negotiations. With the latter they can make up wonderful stories of Randi being 'afraid' to test them, but at least with the former they are reduced to blaming gold lettering on nearby dictionaries, the man on the moon, or illiterate spirits; the failure itself is no longer in dispute you see.

Fredrik

17th November 2006, 08:16 PM

...it just makes me wonder how on earth she in the first place come to think she can do what she claimed to do.
When she feels like she's communicating with a dead person, she will experience more or less random thoughts, emotions and physical sensations. For example, she may feel something in the stomach region, and then say out loud "my stomach hurts". The sitter will then say something like "well he did have an ulcer when he was young", and they both count it as a hit.

Since almost anything she says is a hit, of course she believes. :)

William Smith

28th November 2006, 07:19 AM

Any news from Ms. Landin, guys?

goak69

4th December 2006, 05:42 AM

This was published today on the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet's web page. (Not allowed to post URL:s yet... but soon..... my presssiousssss)

"Jag hade en dålig dag och klarade bara 12. Men böckerna var för gamla. Därför ska jag få göra om testet.
Och om det inte går bättre den gången?
– Då kommer jag tänka att jag haft en dålig dag. Inga forskare i världen ska få mig att överge det jag tror på."

Roughly translated:

"I has a bad day and only managed 12. But the books were too old. So i will be taking the test again.
Q:And if you don't do better this time?
A. Then I will think I had a bad day. No scientist in the world can make me give up what I believe."

So once again the woowoos refuse too accept anything that goes against there "powers" even before the results are in.

Eagerly awaiting the results if there is going to be a new prelimenary test.

Garvarn

4th December 2006, 05:56 AM

Goak69 has published the essentials above -- here is the complete article:

-----

CAN SHE TALK TO THE DEAD?
Test decides if fortunetellers tell truth.

Hoax or astonishing
Now is the time for fortunetellers and psychics to prove themselves. A society is going to put their supernatural abilities to the test.

Contact with the dead, horoscopes and healing -- the number of Swedes claiming to have supernatural powers is increasing. Something that worries the Vetenskap och Folkbildning (Science and Education) Society, which holds a sceptical attidude towards the occult.
- There is no serious research that supports it, says civil engineer Jesper Jerkert, chairman of the society.
That is why he intends to invite people claiming supernatural abilities to be tested by the society.

Dowsing test
Test procedures can be anything from putting control questions to psychics about names of deceased to burying water bottles to test dowsers.
The psychic Carina Landin, 47, from Nykoping is ready to be tested:
- I wish nothing more than to shut the doubters up.

Tested recently
She was recently tested by the American James Randi, who has promised a million dollar reward to anyone able to prove a supernatural phenomena.
The test mainly consisted of deciding whether diaries from deceased had belonged to men or women. To pass, she had to be right on at least 16 of the 20 diaries.
- I had a bad day and scored only 12. But the books were too old, so I'm going to be re-tested.
And if she doesn't succeed this time?
- Then I'll consider it a bad day. No scientist in the world will make me abandon my beliefs.

-----

My question is: What is the point in testing a person with this attitude at all?

Suggested corrections to my translation appreciated.

Ripley Twenty-Nine

4th December 2006, 06:18 AM

My question is: What is the point in testing a person with this attitude at all?
I don't believe that the result of any Million Dollar Challenge Preliminary has ever changed the mind of any applicant. Realistically, if they are so sure of themselves that they are willing to put their dignity on the line like that, they are probably already too far gone to make any difference.

The idea of the challenge is that each result adds more evidence to show the believers, and those who are on the fence. So if someone says, "I really think there is such thing as psychic powers!", we can say, "Then why, in all of the years of the JREF Million Dollar challenge, has no one ever passed the preliminary? Shouldn't this be easy to do?"

I would be shocked if 100 failed tests would make a dent in Carina Landin's beliefs.

Garvarn

4th December 2006, 06:39 AM

I don't believe that the result of any Million Dollar Challenge Preliminary has ever changed the mind of any applicant.

No, but the point is that Landin in advance is announcing that she will consider any failure a result of a bad day. To my knowledge, most claimants don't share that attitude prior to testing.

CFLarsen

4th December 2006, 06:50 AM

She was recently tested by the American James Randi, who has promised a million dollar reward to anyone able to prove a supernatural phenomena.
The test mainly consisted of deciding whether diaries from deceased had belonged to men or women. To pass, she had to be right on at least 16 of the 20 diaries.
- I had a bad day and scored only 12. But the books were too old, so I'm going to be re-tested.
And if she doesn't succeed this time?
- Then I'll consider it a bad day. No scientist in the world will make me abandon my beliefs.

-----

My question is: What is the point in testing a person with this attitude at all?

It isn't about attitude. They can have any attitude they please. Nothing will change their view anyhow.

However - when she in advance states that, if she fails, she is just having a bad day, then she tells people two things:

1) She is a fanatic, who has no interest in being tested. All she wants is to gloat about winning over the skeptics. How nice.

2) She is having bad days when tested. How revealing.

Those are pretty good points against her. People who are not interested in the paranormal will see through such antics.

Garvarn

4th December 2006, 07:50 AM

Those are pretty good points against her. People who are not interested in the paranormal will see through such antics.

I agree. In fact, I don't think I've seen any selfproclaimed miraclemonger so bluntly express him- or herself as being beyond argument or reason. Let's hope that the public eye recognizes it.

William Smith

4th December 2006, 09:11 AM

Thanks for the translation, goak69 and Chateaubriand.

I agree with Ripley Twenty-Nine: Ms. Landin most likely will not abandon her beliefs.
She would have to abandon such a huge part of her entire life. In the process, she would probably realise that she devoted an extraordinary amount of precious lifetime to an illusion. Ms Landin would even discover she encouraged other people in their delusions.
She would most likely come to the conclusion: I wasted my life.

(That'll probably drive her to religion, the ultimate illusion.) :)

What surprises me is that Ms. Landin has the gall to publicly state what makes her indistinguishable from a degenerate gambler:

"I'm just having a bad day."

Her test result:

The experiment leader has published an account of Landin's full result. Here are the ages of the 20 diaries and Landin's guesses (R=right, W=wrong):

1787 - R
1794 - W
1800 - R
1825 - R
1828 - R
1831 - R
1879 - W
1859 - W
1860 - W
1867 - R
1881 - R
1889 - W
1896 - R
1895 - R
1932 - W
1935 - R
1943 - W
1953 - W
1963 - R
1961 - R

Her argument that "too old diaries" are the cause of her poor results is thus complete BS.

To the desperately clutching, clinging, grasping to the only available straw which keeps her claim officially alive, I can only say: "Ms. Landin, lighten up. You just had a bad day."

DeviousB

4th December 2006, 10:44 AM

Merko

4th December 2006, 04:02 PM

Sorry, I don't get this. Did Landin claim that her power diminishes proportionally with the increasing age of the diaries? Why is anyone assuming that her accuracy should be higher for the younger diaries for her excuse to be valid?

It has nothing to do with making sense. But the test protocol agreed to by Landin apparently mentioned that the books should not be older than 100 years, or something. So she is right in claiming that the test didn't test what she claimed she could do. That she performed according to random chance on those 6 books that were within the specified age range can of course be attributed to bad luck, since these are not many enough to be statistically significant, presumably. Well, if she could really talk to the dead I think it should be rather weird if even one dead person forgot their sex, but hey, I've never been dead, maybe they have more important things to worry about.

ChristineR

4th December 2006, 04:20 PM

She claims to pick up images of persons who have touched an object. If the object has not been touched for a long time, the images fade. If the object was passed to an heir who also treasured it, she might get images of the heir instead of the original owner (the diarist). The images are stronger if the owner had an emotional attachment.

She claimed both that some of the diaries were too old and that some were not sufficiently emotional to generate powerful images. Apparently one of the diaries was a collection of recipes. I don't know how you'd decide if a collection of recipes was more or less emotionally meaningful than some other sorts of diaries, but it gave her an out.

Of course her usual technique is to do her reading with a person who knew the owner of the object and was very close to the owner in the room with her. She will always be able to come up with an out for any of these M/F binary kinds of tests, I'm afraid.

DeviousB

5th December 2006, 03:04 AM

It has nothing to do with making sense. But the test protocol agreed to by Landin apparently mentioned that the books should not be older than 100 years, or something.

Wait, so the test was in breach of the agreed protocol?! :boggled:

Okay, now I'm going to have to read the whole damn thing!

rjh01

5th December 2006, 03:22 AM

Wait, so the test was in breach of the agreed protocol?! :boggled:

Okay, now I'm going to have to read the whole damn thing!

Let me help you. This is from post 51.

From what I can see, that's not exactly right. It looks like the protocol was sloppily-worded, in that it stated the diaries should not be older than late 19th century if possible. And so, it was followed.

That means the testers might have thought if it was not possible to get newer diaries, it was OK to use older ones, and their interpretation of 'late' 19th century might have differed from Carina's.

Is 'late' 19th century anything after 1850? Or anything after 1875? If that's not defined up front, then it's going to lead to this sort of issue. Unfortunate, but I would say the fault was in the protocol, not the test.

CFLarsen

5th December 2006, 03:24 AM

The experiment leader has published an account of Landin's full result. Here are the ages of the 20 diaries and Landin's guesses (R=right, W=wrong):

1787 - R
1794 - W
1800 - R
1825 - R
1828 - R
1831 - R
1879 - W
1859 - W
1860 - W
1867 - R
1881 - R
1889 - W
1896 - R
1895 - R
1932 - W
1935 - R
1943 - W
1953 - W
1963 - R
1961 - R

"diaries older than the late 19th century are avoided as far as possible"

"Late 19th century" - vague, but let's draw the line at 1850.

There are 6 diaries before 1850. She got 5 out of 6 right.

There are 14 diaries after 1850. She got 7 out of 14 right.

If anything, she should go for diaries older than 1850!

Her argument that "too old diaries" are the cause of her poor results is thus complete BS.

Verifiably so.

DeviousB

5th December 2006, 03:35 AM

Thanks.

Yes, it looks like there was some wriggle-room in the protocol, enough to get Landin 'off the hook' this time. Still, rather sportingly it looks like Ms. Landin has agreed to be tested again if JREF will let her.

Hopefully, they can nail her up good and proper this time.

MRC_Hans

5th December 2006, 03:44 AM

OK; already said....
Hans

CynicalSkeptic

5th December 2006, 08:01 AM

DeviousB

6th December 2006, 03:31 AM

It's not her power that diminishes, it's the woo emanating from the books that diminishes.

But is that an exponential decay? Or is it some constant efflux of woo that continues until all the woo dries up.

Certainly there does seem to be a constant efflux of woo, but I remain sceptical that anyone spouting it will ever dry up!

;)

Thanks for clearing that up. I had imagined that Landin was complaining about the general age of the diaries. If she had (hypothetically) a lower limit to her 'sensitivity', then we would expect no-better than chance before some arbitrary threshold date. In the case of the above figures, if we pretend that after 50 years the 'impressions' are too weak to detect, then we might expect Ms. Landin to correctly identify the two 1960s diaries, but be no better than chance for the rest. Which is exactly what we see.

Given that she claimed to be able to receive from diaries as old as the 'late 19th century', this interpretation is obviously invalid, as noted. If Landin wanted to change this to late 20th century, that (IMO) would be a new claim.

baron

8th December 2006, 03:15 PM

If this test was completed "successfully", with 16 or more identifications, does that mean that Carina Landin (or whoever) would actually win the $1m, or is it just one of many tests before the dosh is handed over? If it's the former then I have to say I'm amazed by the low level of "proof" being requested.

The odds are (I believe) 1:0.0059, or 1 in 169 against being successful by chance. For $1m, that's not bad. I don't know anybody who would refuse to wager an hour of their time against those odds for a chance to win $1m. It is by far the best investment / return opportunity I have ever heard of. In fact, book me in (pardon the pun), I'll give it a go myself.

Maybe I got it wrong, and that's not the deal, in which case I apologise. Still, there are other things that bother me about this challenge.

First, I'm 100% certain that if I were to make an in-depth study of people's diaries I would find that I could discern traits of commonality in those written by men and those written by women. Perhaps (and forgive me for any sexism here, but it's kind of unavoidable) women take better care of their diaries than men, and they have less scuffed pages and creased spines. Maybe men go for slightly bulkier diaries, or women for embossed covers.

My biggest gripe, however, is that if someone was successful in this test, nothing would be proved. The most generous conclusion possible would be that somethin unusual was occurring. There would be no requirement to invoke the presence of the paranormal (I hate that word). My own conclusion would be that the person had done their diary fondling homework and this, combined with a bit of luck, did the trick (so to speak).

Why not give her 50 diaries, stipulate that she must say "man" or "woman" for at least 25 of them whilst allowing her to pass on the others, and she must be correct for 100% of her answers. That would allow for those irritating dead people who refuse to manifest when their diaries are fondled, and those where the deceased is worryingly transgender, whilst effectively eradicating the chances of her doing this by "normal" means.

This is my first post and I'm sounding like a bullheaded sceptic, which I'm certainly not; I just don't see the point in this particular test.

Merko

8th December 2006, 03:26 PM

It's just a preliminary test. Not only do I agree that the odds are far too good to succeed by pure chance, but if there was really a million dollars at stake for this simple test, there would be other ways. Such as bribing one of the testers, or perhaps using a small camera to take a peek inside the books while appearing to only handle them.

As for the alternative proof of having to give definitive statements, well sure. I agree if this was a real ability, this should be possible. However, the psychics don't make that kind of statement. They will readily admit that they aren't always right. Of course this makes the ability very questionable. Normally we can either detect something, or we can't.. but this '51% success rate' claimed by some parapsychology researchers doesn't really fit.

Still, even a 51% success rate would be paranormal, and so such claims should be challenged. But doing it really properly would take a lot of time, so using a preliminary test like this one seems sound to me.

William Smith

8th December 2006, 03:29 PM

Hi baron, welcome to the Forum.

This test was a so-called "Preliminary Test". Upon success, Ms. Landin would have to do a "Formal Test" with the same protocol. Upon success, she would get the million.

One may speculate indeed, what would be proved by a successful test. With great assurance, however, Ms. Landin might say she simply proved her claim.

The JREF sets the statistical "odds". It's their money, they get to decide. I'm with you, I'd set the goal to 100%.

From what I have learned about him, I'm sure Mr. Randi knows what he's doing. Trust him. ;)

Mr. Stick

8th December 2006, 04:12 PM

Hello Baron, and welcome.
Ms. Landin was not allowed to see the diaries, only to touch them behind a screen. The protocol is here. (http://www.ruter-ess.nu/carina/test.pdf) The test itself is described on page 4 and 5.
BTW, what good is a paranormal power which on a bad day makes you perform no better than chance? Especially when you haven't got a clue as to whether you had a bad day or not! :confused:

baron

9th December 2006, 04:42 AM

Thanks for the clarification everyone, and the welcome.

Mr Stick - sure, I know she wasn't able to see the diaries, I was only suggesting that she could get quite a bit of information about them by touch alone. Providing she'd prepared, of course!

Still, all interesting stuff :)

Macoy

9th December 2006, 10:32 AM

I'll believe it when she can tell the sex of dinosaurs, like my friend.

personable

10th December 2006, 06:30 AM

If you can prove your dinosaur friend is not imaginary, I'm sure you'd have a shot at the challenge yourself.

shell

10th December 2006, 09:44 PM

This is very interesting. I can't wait to see how she does on the retest-if there is one.

William Smith

11th December 2006, 02:38 AM

This is very interesting. I can't wait to see how she does on the retest-if there is one.

From Chateaubriand's post #156 in this thread:

"This morning, Landin wrote this on a Swedish woo woo forum:

Right after the test, I got a mail from Randi, stating that it would be redone. On his forum, Jeff Wagg has written that it is under review and that he would come back in this matter. Therefore, I wrote a new letter, and got this reply from the humble Randi:

YES.

YES.

YES.

WE WILL DO THE TEST AGAIN.

I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED YOU OF THIS, AND WE ARE PREPARED TO DO IT AGAIN.

IS THAT CLEAR?

James Randi.

When I initialy applied, I stated that I wanted regular sittings but that couldn't be done, according to SOH. After that, I tried wedding rings but that couldn't be arranged either, according to SOH. It's a bit of a shame that what I can do is not testable. I understand that it's difficult to arrange ordinary sittings, too many people would have to be involved.
What do you think? Is it hard to get hold of wedding rings of the same size from dead people? I prefer dead people since I work better with that than psychometry on the living. Suggestions are appreciated. Does it have to be 20? Are 10 too few? If you have 10, can't the test be done in two rounds?

Carina"

Remain patient, shell, as these negotiations eat up a lot of time.