Carina Landin in test at this moment

[Pipirr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

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

 

[Blue Bubble]

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.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 and here, and they disagree with you.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.