IIG Paranormal $50,000 Preliminary Challenge 4:00 pm

Susan Gerbic · 8th June 2012, 09:10 PM

http://www.facebook.com/events/443989468954275/

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-envelope-please

The IIG will undergo a preliminary test by "seeing" into sealed envelopes. The protocol has been designed with months of discussions between the IIG and the claimant. Before the test can begin the claimant must sign off on the protocol and feel capable of success.

The entire test will be video taped and will appear on the IIG website along with a formal report by the lead investigators at a later date. The webstream is designed for people not in the area to watch the test in real time. There will be chat enabled where you can discuss the test and be able to ask questions of the team as well as the claimant.

The IIG will see a demonstration from a man from Laughlin Nevada who claims he can tell us exactly which pictures are in doubly-sealed, opaque envelopes.

He has already chosen the pictures and the IIG will seal them inside the envelopes.

NO ONE in the room will know which pictures are in which envelope as our claimant makes his predictions.

This is clearly a paranormal claim, and if he passes this demonstration, he will qualify for our $50,000 dollar challenge at a later date.

Calculon · 9th June 2012, 01:08 AM

Just to add, the time is 4pm (PST) as IIG L.A. is in...L.A.

So that would be a 7pm Sunday June 10 start time on the East Coast of the U.S. and approx 9am Monday June 11 start time Sydney Australia time for example.

The claimant lived in Laughlin, Nevada when negotiations first began, but has since relocated to the Bay Area of Northern California and will be coming from there for the demonstration.

Please create a free Ustream account to chat if don't already have one. Always a fun part of the demos

wardenclyffe · 9th June 2012, 09:30 AM

I'll be watching.

Ward

Czarcasm · 9th June 2012, 08:40 PM

So where can I find out what happened?

Calculon · 9th June 2012, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

So where can I find out what happened?

There will be an initial link here to the page by Monday evening with a few pics and a basic rundown, with a full report and videos to follow later.

The Ustream link will be saved for viewing as well.

DevilsAdvocate · 11th June 2012, 12:05 AM

He failed the test.

The test consisted of 4 pictures sealed in envelopes. The applicant then guesses which picture is in which envelope. This was done for 3 trials. The same 4 pictures, selected by the applicant, were used for each trial (Matt Hume, Lincoln Memorial, Ayla, A10 jets). He had to get all 12 pictures right to pass the preliminary test.

The results were:

Trial	Envelope	Guess	Actual	Hit
1	1	Hume	Ayla
1	2	A10s	A10s	Yes
1	3	Lincoln	Lincoln	Yes
1	4	Ayla	Hume
2	1	Ayla	A10s
2	2	Hume	Ayla
2	3	Lincoln	Lincoln	Yes
2	4	A10s	Hume
3	1	Hume	Hume	Yes
3	2	A10s	Ayla
3	3	Ayla	A10s
3	4	Lincoln	Lincoln	Yes

(For trial 2, the test administrator mixed around envelopes 1 & 2 when he was gathering them. Not that it makes any difference.)

The odds for this test are:

Correct	Exactly	At Least	Percent	1 Out Of
0	729	13824	100.0000%	1.00
1	1944	13095	94.7266%	1.06
2	3186	11151	80.6641%	1.24
3	3104	7965	57.6172%	1.74
4	2367	4861	35.1635%	2.84
5	1296	2494	18.0411%	5.54
6	732	1198	8.6661%	11.54
7	288	466	3.3709%	29.67
8	135	178	1.2876%	77.66
9	24	43	0.3111%	321.49
10	18	19	0.1374%	727.58
11	0	1	0.0072%	13824.00
12	1	1	0.0072%	13824.00

He got 5 of 12 correct. That is better than chance, but not by a lot. The odds to get at least 5 right would be about 18%, which means it would happen in about 1 out of every 5.5 tests. Although it appears that is at least outside 1 standard deviation from the norm, it is not nearly statistically significant.

Someone in the video commented that he got all the Lincoln pictures right. Just for fun, here are the odds of getting all Lincolns right.

Correct	Exactly	At Least	Percent	1 Out Of
0	5832	13824	100.0000%	1.00
1	5832	7992	57.8125%	1.73
2	1944	2160	15.6250%	6.40
3	216	216	1.5625%	64.00

Of course the same could happen for any picture. The chances of getting at least any one picture right in all 3 trials is 819 out of 13824, which is 5.92% or 1 in 16.88.

JSNuttall · 11th June 2012, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

Although it appears that is at least outside 1 standard deviation from the norm, it is not nearly statistically significant.

To be more explicit, the mean is 3 and one standard deviation is about 1.7. His results differed from the mean by 2. So, yes, his results were outside one standard deviation, but just barely; they were well within two standard deviations, and, as you say, not statistically significant.

I posted my own analysis of the probabilities involved on the IIG West Facebook group yesterday (I tried to include a link, but apparently I can't do that until I've made at least 15 posts on this forum -- but apparently I can at least state the URL: facebook.com/groups/34311672208/permalink/10151037000137209/ ). It's similar to what you posted here, though I listed the probability of getting each number of matches correct out of 12 instead explicitly listing the probability of that number or greater (except for the case of 5 out of 12).

In case anyone's interested in how the probabilities were calculated, I also put up a PDF file with the details of the math involved. (Again, I can't include a link directly, so: jsnuttall.com/misc/June10Challenge.pdf .) Of course, the way I calculated the probabilities isn't the only way to get them; it's also possible, for instance, to brute force it by listing every possibility in a spreadsheet and counting up the ones with a given number of successes.

The Central Scrutinizer · 11th June 2012, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

He failed the test.

No way.

Calculon · 11th June 2012, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

No way.

I know. I was shocked as well.

Also, here are JSNuttall's links:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3431...1037000137209/
http://jsnuttall.com/misc/June10Challenge.pdf

DevilsAdvocate · 11th June 2012, 07:07 PM

That’s true for a normal distribution. I didn’t give exact numbers because things get wonky with the way the trials were set up because for each trial it is not possible to get exactly 3 correct. For each trial, you can only get 0, 1, 2 or 4 correct. That should result in a lower mean and a wider standard deviation. See the chart above where it is actually more likely to get exactly 2 correct out of 12 rather than 3 (although they are about the same). You can see the similar spread in the “1 Out Of” column. Up to 5 right you have a arrange of 1:1 to 1:5.5. After that, it starts escalating up to 10. Then it takes a big jump from 1:727 to 1:13824.

With the way it is set up: The better you do, the better you do. The worse you do, the worse you do.

Think about it. You take the first picture and match it to an envelope. You have a 25% chance to get it right and a 75% chance to get it wrong. If you get it wrong, that means that you have that one wrong, plus you have the envelope with you picture in it wrong as well—so you have two wrong. The best you can do is 2 right, but the only way you can get that is if you match the picture from the envelope that you just got wrong with the other envelope that is also wrong. Then you have 2 pictures left that match the 2 envelopes left and you have a 50% chance of getting either 2 or 0.

Let’s say we have envelopes:

1=A
2=B
3=C
4=D

I take picture A and match it to envelope 2. I get envelope 2 wrong because it has picture B. Plus, I’ve already used picture A, so now I can’t get envelope 1 right either. By getting 1 wrong I automatically get 2 wrong.

Then I take picture B. I’ve already matched the correct envelope 2, so I’m going to get this one wrong no matter what I do. If I match B to envelope 3, I have 3 wrong and have a 50% chance of getting 1 right by matching D to 4. Same if I match B to envelope 4. If I match B to 1, then I ma left with pictures C and D and envelopes 3 and 4—I either get them in the right order for 2 correct or the wrong order for 0 correct.

Every wrong choice make more wrong choices more probable. On the flip side, if I get 3 right, I automatically get 4 right. If I match 1A, 2B, 3C, then there is nothing left but 4 and D which are a match. This means the psychic doesn’t actually have to be able to see the pictures inside of all 4 envelopes. There can be one envelope that he just can’t read—but as long as he can get a positive read on the other 3 he gets all 4 right.

So he only has to get 3 right out of each trial to pass the test!

Susan Gerbic · 12th June 2012, 08:32 AM

Quote:

So he only has to get 3 right out of each trial to pass the test!

That makes a lot of sense.

The next question that I would like answered because we now have a room full of intelligent people is. How should we have designed the test (following the same format) so that the odds could be easily calculated and understood?

10 folders with one trial? 5 folders with 2 trials? Or something much different?

Lanzy · 12th June 2012, 10:53 AM

Did he give the standard excuses or (no way) admit he might not have an ability?

Weak Kitten · 12th June 2012, 11:35 AM

I look forward to hearing any reaction the claimant might have to this result. I hope he isn't too hard on the testers themselves. It's really frustrating when the claimants blame the test givers for somehow effecting the results just by being there.

Calculon · 12th June 2012, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Susan Gerbic

That makes a lot of sense.

The next question that I would like answered because we now have a room full of intelligent people is. How should we have designed the test (following the same format) so that the odds could be easily calculated and understood?

10 folders with one trial? 5 folders with 2 trials? Or something much different?

I wanted way more images (over 20, but shooting for 40+). All other elements could remain. But he would have no idea which of the 20 or more images were in front of him within the 4 envelopes (and no images would be repeated). As no envelopes would be opened until the demo was over, he could not use info from earlier trials to make guesses for the remaining trials.

This demo had good enough odds for a demo, but allowed some hits more easily than needed, IMO.

Also, the initial report is up.
http://iigwest.org/investigations/ro...and/index.html

LashL · 14th June 2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Calculon

Also, the initial report is up.
http://iigwest.org/investigations/ro...and/index.html

Excellent. Thanks for the link.

8th June 2012, 09:10 PM	#1
Susan Gerbic Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Salinas Posts: 1,521	IIG Paranormal $50,000 Preliminary Challenge 4:00 pm http://www.facebook.com/events/443989468954275/ http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-envelope-please The IIG will undergo a preliminary test by "seeing" into sealed envelopes. The protocol has been designed with months of discussions between the IIG and the claimant. Before the test can begin the claimant must sign off on the protocol and feel capable of success. The entire test will be video taped and will appear on the IIG website along with a formal report by the lead investigators at a later date. The webstream is designed for people not in the area to watch the test in real time. There will be chat enabled where you can discuss the test and be able to ask questions of the team as well as the claimant. The IIG will see a demonstration from a man from Laughlin Nevada who claims he can tell us exactly which pictures are in doubly-sealed, opaque envelopes. He has already chosen the pictures and the IIG will seal them inside the envelopes. NO ONE in the room will know which pictures are in which envelope as our claimant makes his predictions. This is clearly a paranormal claim, and if he passes this demonstration, he will qualify for our $50,000 dollar challenge at a later date.
	__________________ Quit Complaining and Get Active! formerly known as sgf8

9th June 2012, 01:08 AM	#2
Calculon Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Hollywood-ish Posts: 294	Just to add, the time is 4pm (PST) as IIG L.A. is in...L.A. So that would be a 7pm Sunday June 10 start time on the East Coast of the U.S. and approx 9am Monday June 11 start time Sydney Australia time for example. The claimant lived in Laughlin, Nevada when negotiations first began, but has since relocated to the Bay Area of Northern California and will be coming from there for the demonstration. Please create a free Ustream account to chat if don't already have one. Always a fun part of the demos
	__________________ “If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting” Jack Handy Robbie Thomas is a stupid conman

9th June 2012, 09:30 AM	#3
wardenclyffe Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,483	I'll be watching. Ward
	__________________ ~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~ - Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347

9th June 2012, 08:40 PM	#4
Czarcasm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 976	So where can I find out what happened?
Czarcasm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 976	__________________ The sun is out, the birds are singing and all is right with the world. I loooove my meds!

9th June 2012, 10:20 PM	#5
Calculon Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Hollywood-ish Posts: 294	Originally Posted by Czarcasm So where can I find out what happened? There will be an initial link here to the page by Monday evening with a few pics and a basic rundown, with a full report and videos to follow later. The Ustream link will be saved for viewing as well.
	__________________ “If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting” Jack Handy Robbie Thomas is a stupid conman Last edited by Calculon; 9th June 2012 at 10:21 PM.

11th June 2012, 04:20 PM	#7
JSNuttall New Blood Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate Although it appears that is at least outside 1 standard deviation from the norm, it is not nearly statistically significant. To be more explicit, the mean is 3 and one standard deviation is about 1.7. His results differed from the mean by 2. So, yes, his results were outside one standard deviation, but just barely; they were well within two standard deviations, and, as you say, not statistically significant. I posted my own analysis of the probabilities involved on the IIG West Facebook group yesterday (I tried to include a link, but apparently I can't do that until I've made at least 15 posts on this forum -- but apparently I can at least state the URL: facebook.com/groups/34311672208/permalink/10151037000137209/ ). It's similar to what you posted here, though I listed the probability of getting each number of matches correct out of 12 instead explicitly listing the probability of that number or greater (except for the case of 5 out of 12). In case anyone's interested in how the probabilities were calculated, I also put up a PDF file with the details of the math involved. (Again, I can't include a link directly, so: jsnuttall.com/misc/June10Challenge.pdf .) Of course, the way I calculated the probabilities isn't the only way to get them; it's also possible, for instance, to brute force it by listing every possibility in a spreadsheet and counting up the ones with a given number of successes.
JSNuttall New Blood Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1

11th June 2012, 05:53 PM	#8
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,264	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate He failed the test. No way.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

11th June 2012, 07:07 PM	#9
Calculon Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Hollywood-ish Posts: 294	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer No way. I know. I was shocked as well. Also, here are JSNuttall's links: https://www.facebook.com/groups/3431...1037000137209/ http://jsnuttall.com/misc/June10Challenge.pdf
	__________________ “If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting” Jack Handy Robbie Thomas is a stupid conman Last edited by Calculon; 11th June 2012 at 07:14 PM. Reason: added links

11th June 2012, 07:07 PM	#10
DevilsAdvocate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,633	That’s true for a normal distribution. I didn’t give exact numbers because things get wonky with the way the trials were set up because for each trial it is not possible to get exactly 3 correct. For each trial, you can only get 0, 1, 2 or 4 correct. That should result in a lower mean and a wider standard deviation. See the chart above where it is actually more likely to get exactly 2 correct out of 12 rather than 3 (although they are about the same). You can see the similar spread in the “1 Out Of” column. Up to 5 right you have a arrange of 1:1 to 1:5.5. After that, it starts escalating up to 10. Then it takes a big jump from 1:727 to 1:13824. With the way it is set up: The better you do, the better you do. The worse you do, the worse you do. Think about it. You take the first picture and match it to an envelope. You have a 25% chance to get it right and a 75% chance to get it wrong. If you get it wrong, that means that you have that one wrong, plus you have the envelope with you picture in it wrong as well—so you have two wrong. The best you can do is 2 right, but the only way you can get that is if you match the picture from the envelope that you just got wrong with the other envelope that is also wrong. Then you have 2 pictures left that match the 2 envelopes left and you have a 50% chance of getting either 2 or 0. Let’s say we have envelopes: 1=A 2=B 3=C 4=D I take picture A and match it to envelope 2. I get envelope 2 wrong because it has picture B. Plus, I’ve already used picture A, so now I can’t get envelope 1 right either. By getting 1 wrong I automatically get 2 wrong. Then I take picture B. I’ve already matched the correct envelope 2, so I’m going to get this one wrong no matter what I do. If I match B to envelope 3, I have 3 wrong and have a 50% chance of getting 1 right by matching D to 4. Same if I match B to envelope 4. If I match B to 1, then I ma left with pictures C and D and envelopes 3 and 4—I either get them in the right order for 2 correct or the wrong order for 0 correct. Every wrong choice make more wrong choices more probable. On the flip side, if I get 3 right, I automatically get 4 right. If I match 1A, 2B, 3C, then there is nothing left but 4 and D which are a match. This means the psychic doesn’t actually have to be able to see the pictures inside of all 4 envelopes. There can be one envelope that he just can’t read—but as long as he can get a positive read on the other 3 he gets all 4 right. So he only has to get 3 right out of each trial to pass the test!
	__________________ Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

12th June 2012, 08:32 AM	#11
Susan Gerbic Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Salinas Posts: 1,521	Quote: So he only has to get 3 right out of each trial to pass the test! That makes a lot of sense. The next question that I would like answered because we now have a room full of intelligent people is. How should we have designed the test (following the same format) so that the odds could be easily calculated and understood? 10 folders with one trial? 5 folders with 2 trials? Or something much different?
	__________________ Quit Complaining and Get Active! formerly known as sgf8

12th June 2012, 10:53 AM	#12
Lanzy Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 880	Did he give the standard excuses or (no way) admit he might not have an ability?
Lanzy Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 880

12th June 2012, 11:35 AM	#13
Weak Kitten Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lost and lonely...will you be my friend? Posts: 1,717	I look forward to hearing any reaction the claimant might have to this result. I hope he isn't too hard on the testers themselves. It's really frustrating when the claimants blame the test givers for somehow effecting the results just by being there.
	__________________ A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot

12th June 2012, 07:27 PM	#14
Calculon Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Hollywood-ish Posts: 294	Originally Posted by Susan Gerbic That makes a lot of sense. The next question that I would like answered because we now have a room full of intelligent people is. How should we have designed the test (following the same format) so that the odds could be easily calculated and understood? 10 folders with one trial? 5 folders with 2 trials? Or something much different? I wanted way more images (over 20, but shooting for 40+). All other elements could remain. But he would have no idea which of the 20 or more images were in front of him within the 4 envelopes (and no images would be repeated). As no envelopes would be opened until the demo was over, he could not use info from earlier trials to make guesses for the remaining trials. This demo had good enough odds for a demo, but allowed some hits more easily than needed, IMO. Also, the initial report is up. http://iigwest.org/investigations/ro...and/index.html
	__________________ “If God dwells inside us like some people say, I sure hope He likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting” Jack Handy Robbie Thomas is a stupid conman Last edited by Calculon; 12th June 2012 at 07:28 PM.

14th June 2012, 05:50 PM	#15
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,174	Originally Posted by Calculon Also, the initial report is up. http://iigwest.org/investigations/ro...and/index.html Excellent. Thanks for the link.