Commentary about 2/23 commentary

[T'ai Chi]

Some thoughts about the 2/23 commentary

1)

Interestingly, Uri Geller has done this stunt many times, always choosing the star symbol, as far back as 1997 when he appeared on “Beyond Belief” in the UK.


Can anybody find Geller doing this without choosing the star symbol?

2)
Where are the studies that show people mostly pick the star, mostly pick 7, or 35, or 37, or don't pick repeated digits like 22 or 99, and that odd numbers are favored over even numbers?

3)

First, the dowsers themselves – not we – insisted that the results of all their attempts should be combined;


It is not up to the subjects to willynilly decide how the results are combined. It is up to the science and the specifics of the experimental design parameters. Was the choice to combine based on sound statistics, or to combine just because the dowsers wanted to?

4)

- insisted that the results of all their attempts should be combined;


and


They failed spectacularly, obtaining results that almost exactly mirrored the Sydney tests in reverse, so that the overall testing procedures showed null results.


Both excerpts seem to indicate that some type of meta-analysis was done, that they were similar enough to combine based on some inclusion criteria. Can such a thing be done for all the dowsing tests, or the other statistically-based preliminary tests? The results would certainly be interesting.

5)

Also, I see no reference here to the “sensible professor of engineering” who performed “a successful investigative test” of dowsing, nor are his results quoted. We’d very much like to contact him, so that his tests could be repeated and confirmed.


See point 2) on lack of references.

6)

BULL****! And you know it! You're either an idiot or a madman – that's not yet decided.


and


And get a load of the expression on the swami’s face. Obviously not a man to be trifled with. He could fry an egg just by looking at it...


and


But it appears that Master-of-Science Joan Ocean is probably genuinely deluded, judging from this note.


From these few excerpts from this commentary alone, if one was a potential applicant, you can see why they might not take the challenge seriously.

I don't think he 'gets' it. I believe even if his stance is 100% scientifically correct, he still won't get his point across to people who are not critical thinkers by the 'mean' act. It will probably turn them off instantly, as it probably turns off already critical thinkers who find the mean act worthless.

[Reno]

It will probably turn them off instantly, as it probably turns off already critical thinkers who find the mean act worthless.


Woo: Randi is an old meanie. I'll teach him a lesson, I won't take his million dollars. Ha! That'll show 'im.

[Darat]

Some thoughts about the 2/23 commentary


...snip....

Questions about details are best addressed to the author - his email address is randi@randi.org.

[T'ai Chi]

(snip)

Yeah, that's true. But I know how much the readers of this forum are interested in discussing things.

[Darat]

Yeah, that's true. But I know how much the readers of this forum are interested in discussing things.

True - let us know if you get a response from Randi, I suspect that would be interesting for many Members here.

[T'ai Chi]

True - let us know if you get a response from Randi,

I'm not interesting in letting "us" know who I get responses from. I am interested in discussing the commentary, as stated.

[Darat]

I'm not interesting in letting "us" know who I get responses from. I am interested in discussing the commentary, as stated.

("us" = "readers of this forum")

If you aren't interested in obtaining answers to your various questions fair enough.

[Lonewulf]

Darat, my mom has a cat that looks JUST like that. With the "Go away" expression and everything.

And T'ai Chi:

From these few excerpts from this commentary alone, if one was a potential applicant, you can see why they might not take the challenge seriously.

I find it difficult to take the e-mail that was sent to Randi seriously myself.

Personally, if a moron came up to me and started spouting moron at me, I see no reason why I must automatically treat that person with respect.

But then, I don't work with those stupid "customer service" rules, where you treat everyone with respect, even those that truly and fully never deserve it (which results in health problems for those that work customer service, I might add!)

[Horatius]

I'm not interesting in letting "us" know who I get responses from. I am interested in discussing the commentary, as stated.

Wouldn't that be part of discussing the commentary?

[H3LL]

Out of interest, I would be interested if TC can formulate a post without something being 'interesting' or 'interested'.

Personally, I've failed to be interested in anything TC has posted despite how interesting TC may find it. Interestingly enough.

If you're interested and you should see that I have made several interesting errors and directly contradicted some of my more interesting comments.

One day I'll try some interesting posts myself and beat TC's post count...With interest.

Interesting ETA: TC's fondness for 'interesting' things seems to be directly opposite to how much interest he has in finding anything out about them. Hmmm...Interesting.

Steve Davis...Eat your heart out.


.

[T'ai Chi]

If you aren't interested in obtaining answers to your various questions fair enough.

Not emailing Randi and not reporting to "us" does not mean one is not interested.

[T'ai Chi]

I find it difficult to take the e-mail that was sent to Randi seriously myself.


I personally do too, however, if you're in charge of an organization that attempts to get people to take your challenge, and you claim to be rational, and unbiased and fair, it is somewhat odd IMO. It is quite different from a random moron spouting at you on the street.

I believe Girl6 offered to help out with 'image' stuff a while ago if my memory isn't failing me.

[Darat]

Not emailing Randi and not reporting to "us" [readers of this forum] does not mean one is not interested.

Yes it does when you ask questions that only Randi can provide the answer to.

[T'ai Chi]

Questions were not asked that "only", as you claim, Randi can answer. It is possible other people who are familar with such things can answer them, hence the appropriateness of posting.

The questions asked were:

-Can anybody find Geller doing this without choosing the star symbol?

-Where are the studies that show people mostly pick the star, mostly pick 7, or 35, or 37, or don't pick repeated digits like 22 or 99, and that odd numbers are favored over even numbers?

-Was the choice to combine based on sound statistics, or to combine just because the dowsers wanted to?

-Can such a thing (meta-analysis) be done for all the dowsing tests, or the other statistically-based preliminary tests?

[Darat]

Questions were not asked that "only", as you claim, Randi can answer. It is possible other people who are familar with such things can answer them, hence the appropriateness of posting.

...snip...


Interesting - you don't seem to understand the questions you asked, so it probably would be a waste of time you contacting Randi.

[T'ai Chi]

I asked the questions so I understand them just fine. So far, you've claimed that "only", Randi can provide the answers, which indicates that you don't understand them.

I guess only peoples' gurus can know all the answers.

[Darat]

I asked the questions so I understand them just fine.

Your subseqeunt responses in this thread show that you don't understand your own questions.


So far, you've claimed that "only", Randi can provide the answers, ...snip..


I have not made such a claim.


I guess only peoples' gurus can know all the answers.

I seriously doubt your (or anyone's) guru can know "all" the answers.

[Mercutio]

When I taught statistics, I had an informal questionnaire for students to fill out on the first day of class, just to generate data that we could then analyze over the next weeks of the course. Because I had so often heard the "people will choose 35 or 37" bit, I included one item that asked simply "pick an odd number between 0 and 100". It has been many years since I have taught stats, so it would take some effort to dig up the data, but for any given semester that would be as many as 120 stats students--conservatively, over 500 data points over the years, probably double that.

It was *not* my recollection that 35 or 37 were the modal numbers, but I am not near that computer now (it has not been turned on in years) to check. There were definite trends, though. (one was that, in every class but one, at least one student chose an even number.)

In previous discussions about this, I have been told that the patter that Randi describes is not the full bit that is done. People remember it as "choose an odd number between 1 and 100", but in fact more is given, such as "don't make it both the same number, because that is too easy--so, don't choose something like 99 or 77..." I actually remember being in the audience once when a performer did this trick (long before I had heard of Randi, or taught statistics), and I absolutely cannot recall what the precise instructions were--only that there was a half-minute or so of patter for a "pick a number" instruction that could have taken 3 seconds.

Whether Randi is intentionally simplifying the instructions (or representing the task as it is remembered by the audience instead of how it is presented by the performer), whether he is wrong, or whether my memory about the data points is wrong, it has not been my recollection that people choose 35 or 37 significantly more than some other numbers (although the distributions, if memory serves, were almost always skewed, with many more choices below 50 than above it, so 35 and 37 are much more likely than 65 or 67).

I offer to dig through my old data...for a reasonable fee.

[Darat]

...snip..

I offer to dig through my old data...for a reasonable fee.

Is a "please" a large enough fee? I think it would of interest to readers of this forum.

[fls]

Where are the studies that show people mostly pick the star, mostly pick 7, or 35, or 37, or don't pick repeated digits like 22 or 99, and that odd numbers are favored over even numbers?

I emailed Randi and asked for that information, but he did not include it in his reply (he replied to another question I asked in the same post). I am also curious about these studies - not because I doubt it; it does make sense - but I'd like to know the details and be able to provide it as a reference when discussing these things with others. I'm hoping maybe someone on the forum is familiar with the research and is able to provide citations, although I may have another go at with with google.

I don't think he 'gets' it. I believe even if his stance is 100% scientifically correct, he still won't get his point across to people who are not critical thinkers by the 'mean' act. It will probably turn them off instantly, as it probably turns off already critical thinkers who find the mean act worthless.

Perhaps Randi is like Ann Coulter - his role is not to convert the opposition and the undecided, but to strengthen the sense of community that comes from occasionally letting your hair down and unreservedly bashing "them".

Linda

[Darat]

...snip...

Perhaps Randi is like Ann Coulter - his role is not to convert the opposition and the undecided, but to strengthen the sense of community that comes from occasionally letting your hair down and unreservedly bashing "them".

Linda

Or perhaps he has learnt from long experience (after all he's been doing this for more years than many Members here have been alive) that a 100% "softly softly" approach is not a more effective approach than a mixture of brusqueness and politeness.

[Lonewulf]

Perhaps Randi is like Ann Coulter - his role is not to convert the opposition and the undecided, but to strengthen the sense of community that comes from occasionally letting your hair down and unreservedly bashing "them".

Linda

I'm sorry, did you just compare Randi to Ann Coulter?

I must go wash my eyeballs with scolding hot water. BRB.

[fls]

Or perhaps he has learnt from long experience (after all he's been doing this for more years than many Members here have been alive) that a 100% "softly softly" approach is not a more effective approach than a mixture of brusqueness and politeness.

Yes. Even though Randi takes an approach that I would not tolerate in myself, I have always been of the opinion that it's likely that he knows what he's doing, and I've been willing to wholeheartedly back his efforts. However, I am sensitive to the fact that there may be evidence to the contrary, and that the main benefit is something other than "education". That it may instead be commraderie and a boost of confidence to its informal foot soldiers. This is probably a topic derail, but how does the JREF assess whether or not the JREF meets its aims (http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html)?

Linda

[fls]

I'm sorry, did you just compare Randi to Ann Coulter?

I must go wash my eyeballs with scolding hot water. BRB.

I chose her for comparison because I'd hate for people to ignore me. :)

It's more about looking at the results of their actions.

Linda

[Slimething]

1) Can anybody find Geller doing this without choosing the star symbol?

Have you been reading "A Lazy Man's Guide to Research"?


2) Where are the studies that show people mostly pick the star, mostly pick 7, or 35, or 37, or don't pick repeated digits like 22 or 99, and that odd numbers are favored over even numbers?


Randi didn't mention studies. I'm with Darat. Contact Randi.

3) It is not up to the subjects to willynilly decide how the results are combined. It is up to the science and the specifics of the experimental design parameters. Was the choice to combine based on sound statistics, or to combine just because the dowsers wanted to?

This topic was addressed in the commentary. Reread it.

4) Both excerpts seem to indicate that some type of meta-analysis was done, that they were similar enough to combine based on some inclusion criteria. Can such a thing be done for all the dowsing tests, or the other statistically-based preliminary tests? The results would certainly be interesting.

See replies to 1) and 2)


5)
See point 2) on lack of references.


Contact Randi directly.


6) From these few excerpts from this commentary alone, if one was a potential applicant, you can see why they might not take the challenge seriously.


Disagree. Randi has treated the majority of applicants with civility and has frankly protected them. Most of the applicants seem to be self-deluded, not of the fraudulent variety. My observation is that Randi takes after only those woo artists who abuse other's credibility for money.

I don't think he 'gets' it. I believe even if his stance is 100% scientifically correct, he still won't get his point across to people who are not critical thinkers by the 'mean' act. It will probably turn them off instantly, as it probably turns off already critical thinkers who find the mean act worthless.

I don't agree Randi is mean. If you think so, do the forthright act and contact him directly instead of triangulating with us. I have found that you, on the other hand, are evasive based on previous threads. Address that.

[CFLarsen]

First, the dowsers themselves – not we – insisted that the results of all their attempts should be combined;

Was the choice to combine based on sound statistics, or to combine just because the dowsers wanted to?

How on Earth can anyone else than Randi answer that question?

[fls]

Randi didn't mention studies. I'm with Darat. Contact Randi.

Randi did say "studies have shown" with reference to the drawings. And then he goes on to say "we find that" when talking about number choices. I think it's reasonable to infer that there may be studies looking at these issues.

And even though it wasn't fruitful, I agree that contacting Randi was the obvious place to start.

Disagree. Randi has treated the majority of applicants with civility and has frankly protected them. Most of the applicants seem to be self-deluded, not of the fraudulent variety. My observation is that Randi takes after only those woo artists who abuse other's credibility for money.

I don't agree Randi is mean. If you think so, do the forthright act and contact him directly instead of triangulating with us. I have found that you, on the other hand, are evasive based on previous threads. Address that.

But you seemed to agree that Randi is occasionally mean to some people when you said that Randi takes after those who abuse others' credibility for money. Although, "mean" is the wrong word (and maybe that is what you are getting at). "Brusque" (per Darat) seems more fitting. And, as far as I can tell (although my experience is quite limited), the brusqueness isn't usually misdirected (the recent plagarism thread is arguably an example of misdirected brusqueness). But even though you may be suspicious of T'ai Chi's motives, it's not unreasonable to ask what the overall effect may be, and whether the negative outweighs the positive.

The issue of the "mean skeptics" comes up fairly regularly. It would be nice to be able to counteract it with something more substantial than "they deserve it" or by denying the negative effects (which often seem unpersuasive). The power of having someone occasionally yell "BULL****!!!" may be substantial, but what of other benefits? I suggested the possibility that it adds to the sense of "in group" (and yes, the idea did partly come about from wondering what possible use anyone could find in listening to Ann Coulter :)). And data from the JREF (if available) assessing the effectiveness of the JREF in reaching their goals would also be useful. Or has this already been discussed in detail and I haven't been here long enough (or I read the wrong threads)?

Linda

[Slimething]

Randi did say "studies have shown" with reference to the drawings. And then he goes on to say "we find that" when talking about number choices. I think it's reasonable to infer that there may be studies looking at these issues.

And even though it wasn't fruitful, I agree that contacting Randi was the obvious place to start.

Had to go back and reread it and you are right. It is a fair demand that the studies be cited. :o And we are also in agreement that the best possible source for this information is Randi.


But even though you may be suspicious of T'ai Chi's motives, it's not unreasonable to ask what the overall effect may be, and whether the negative outweighs the positive.


That's a value judgement. I belong to some groups where I sometimes feel that the spokespersons are taking the wrong tac. Sometimes I voice my opinion; sometimes, not because I realize that even though I feel it was the wrong approach, I would have been even more "inappropriate". This is a stylistic argument and I hate those. I think Randi is doing just fine although sometimes I don't agree with his tone. I like to stick to the central issue.

The issue of the "mean skeptics" comes up fairly regularly. It would be nice to be able to counteract it with something more substantial than "they deserve it" or by denying the negative effects (which often seem unpersuasive).

When this comes up, you have to consider the circumstances. To whom was the skeptic mean? Was it unprovoked? Skeptics are not machines. In the instance where Randi yelled ******** at a fraudster, I considered it tame. Here was a known swindler (see the stocklemon link) fabricating a contact with JREF. I believe Randi is of high moral character and there is little worse than filth like that putting fabricated words in one's mouth.

And data from the JREF (if available) assessing the effectiveness of the JREF in reaching their goals would also be useful. Or has this already been discussed in detail and I haven't been here long enough (or I read the wrong threads)?

I'm not sure that type of data would be obtainable. You're considering a cultural effect and there are many outlets for skepticism so:
1. how would you identify an effect and degrees thereof?
2. how would you trace the source of that effect?

[fls]

That's a value judgement. I belong to some groups where I sometimes feel that the spokespersons are taking the wrong tac. Sometimes I voice my opinion; sometimes, not because I realize that even though I feel it was the wrong approach, I would have been even more "inappropriate". This is a stylistic argument and I hate those. I think Randi is doing just fine although sometimes I don't agree with his tone. I like to stick to the central issue.

Yeah, I realize that style or tone are-not/should-not-be of interest. Yet some claim that hearts and minds may be won or lost over style or tone. I wonder if this is true, and would prefer not to assume it isn't just because I don't want it to be true.

When this comes up, you have to consider the circumstances. To whom was the skeptic mean? Was it unprovoked? Skeptics are not machines. In the instance where Randi yelled ******** at a fraudster, I considered it tame. Here was a known swindler (see the stocklemon link) fabricating a contact with JREF. I believe Randi is of high moral character and there is little worse than filth like that putting fabricated words in one's mouth.

I know how it looks to me. I don't know how it looks to a third party who is undecided.

I'm not sure that type of data would be obtainable. You're considering a cultural effect and there are many outlets for skepticism so:
1. how would you identify an effect and degrees thereof?
2. how would you trace the source of that effect?

Examples would be pre and post-lecture surveys demonstrating a change in attitude, keeping track of what books are loaned out of the JREF library and who uses them, what kinds of groups book lectures from Randi, what patterns do we see when it comes to repeat customers, survey of the attitudes of a random selection of website visitors, keeping track of sites that link to the JREF....

Linda

[Slimething]

Examples would be pre and post-lecture surveys demonstrating a change in attitude, keeping track of what books are loaned out of the JREF library and who uses them, what kinds of groups book lectures from Randi, what patterns do we see when it comes to repeat customers, survey of the attitudes of a random selection of website visitors, keeping track of sites that link to the JREF....

Those didn't occur to me as I was thinking of more rugged indicators but they may be the best that are available. Perhaps you could contact JREF and propose these things? I have seen some of these metrics run by organizations but I am not knowledgeable on how useful they really are. I do think you should propose this, though.

[fls]

Those didn't occur to me as I was thinking of more rugged indicators but they may be the best that are available. Perhaps you could contact JREF and propose these things? I have seen some of these metrics run by organizations but I am not knowledgeable on how useful they really are. I do think you should propose this, though.

Well, I'm used to public health and other medical research where "rugged" is in short supply. You have to figure out ways to get useful information even when you can't control all the variables.

But, ummmm.....you know what happens to people who propose things.....

Linda

[Slimething]

Well, I'm used to public health and other medical research where "rugged" is in short supply. You have to figure out ways to get useful information even when you can't control all the variables.

I'm a chemist so I am used to more tangible and rugged metrics so I can't help you. I have seen the polling practices you are proposing, though, especially on the net, as irritating pop-ups asking for my opinion. I admit that the data generated would be useful although I would not know how to even begin interpreting the database.


But, ummmm.....you know what happens to people who propose things.....


Yes, one of two things:

Case I The Central Committee dislikes your idea: you disappear under unusual circumstances, never to be heard from again.

Case II The Central Committee likes your idea: you get a slap on the back, a commemorative certificate handwritten on the back of a burger wrapper and the task of doing all the legwork.

[treble_head]

2)
Where are the studies that show people mostly pick the star, mostly pick 7, or 35, or 37, or don't pick repeated digits like 22 or 99, and that odd numbers are favored over even numbers?



google the term "psychologically random number". Between 1 and 20, 7 is popular and 17 is 2 to 3x more likely to be picked. 37 is picked far more often than other numbers in cases of being asked between 1-100.

As far as 35 goes, Mr Randi may not be showing all his cards. there is a trick that I won't repeat in which, through wording and patter significantly reduces the numbers between 1 and 100 without the person guessing the number perceiving this. Out of those numbers, 35 and 37 are picked in almost the majority. This trick is best used as a form of mentalism in a large group in which the mentalist "projects" the number to the audience.

[BillyJoe]

A similar thing can be done with colors and tools.

Someone posted it once on the forum and I selected the exact colour and tool as was predicted.
Can't remember it though.