Changes To The Challenge

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe,

all right, I think the misunderstanding has been cleared.

Okay, it took mew a while to get the wording right to convey my meaning, so thanks for saying so.

 

[BillyJoe]

No way

First post. Two words.

 

[BillyJoe]

By continuing an open ended experiment until the results are in your favor is simply taking a random walk.

I mistook you before, so I may be again but, to me, "continuing an open ended experiment until the results are in your favor" is the opposite of "taking a random walk".

Eventually the results will always be in your favor.

JM went from 100% for the first 10 tosses, before the protocol, to 70%, after the protocol. He never did accept the full protocol of going for all heads and I 'm willing to bet that his success would have been even less again if he did. But JM admits this - he says he cannot make it turn out all heads, he even had trouble alternating four heads with four tails, so now he's back to determining each toss individually according to how he feels at the time. So he has had less success as he has gone along, not more and he has admitted as much.

The complete test must be specified in advanced before a statistical probability can be assigned to the results.

That's right. That is why he is discarding the results where he was forced to go for alternating heads and tails. He is narrowing down what exactly he can do with the coins. He may eventually decide that he cannot do it reliably with coins at all. On the other hand....
He did make a mistake by joining his original 10 tosses - done before the protcol - with his more recent tosses. Can't do that.

Testing yourself by flipping a coin was a pour suggestion because it leaves open too many other variables. The biggest of these is self deception. Being able to fool yourself is not a paranormal power. In order to prove that you have this power, even to yourself, you must first accept the premiss that you might be fooling yourself and devise a valid scientific test that will exclude that possibility. Otherwise, all anybody else will see is that a fool is being fooled and all you will see are the results that you expect to see.

Again, I don't get it. You're saying no progress is being made, yet here it is for all to see. My purpose was that he go for all heads with the agreed protocol. If he had succeeded with that, in my opinion, there would have been only two explanations: He has the power or he lied about the results.
In any case he is now experimenting to see if he can achieve anything with the coins under stressful conditions so that he can actually do a public demonstration in preparation for a MDC. So he is proceeding with what you want him to do. No progress?
(On the other hand I would have preferred that he continue experimenting on his own for a while longer (throwing the coins after he determines individually how they should land. He has conducted only 14 throws under the protocol)).

 

[The Atheist]

It's okay. I love it. Really.
As I do responding.

Each to their own. I've done a fair bit of your sort of thing in the past. Maybe you've tried in the past what I'm trying now. But, you never know unless you try. In any case, at this point in time I'm interested in the individual rather than the cause.
Hope you don't mind.

Any way, if you're through with that soap box thing, will you kindly just p!$$ @ff now.

Tell you what, give it six months and we'll swap over.

This one's yours though - he's a bit sensitive for me, I think.

Buzzlightyear's more my go - and he's a Victorian!

 

[Thabiguy]

That is why he is discarding the results where he was forced to go for alternating heads and tails.

Actually, he must discard ALL data collected up to the point where he decided to switch the protocol. This was the point of my earlier post. It might seem sufficient to just discard the data gather via the unsuccessful "all heads" protocol, but, contrary to this intuitive expectation, it's still an error!

Let's see if I can explain it in simple terms.

1. Subject is using protocol A. He produces results 1, 2, 3, 4. The results are fine.
2. Advisor: "You know, you should be using protocol B instead." Subject: "Okay, if you say so."
(Note: at this point, results 1, 2, 3, 4 should have been discarded. Including them in evaluating protocol B would be an error. But this is not my point.)
3. Subject is using protocol B. He produces results 5, 6, 7, 8. The results are not so good.
4. Subject: "Hey, this protocol B sucks. I'm going back to my original protocol A." Advisor: "Okay."
5. Subject is using protocol A. He produces results 9, 10, 11, 12.

So if we throw away results 5, 6, 7, 8, obtained with protocol B, the results 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9, 10, 11, 12 are still valid data for protocol A, right?

BZZZZZZT! Wrong!

What you overlooked is that in step 4, subject used the previous results to make the decision to go back to protocol A! If results 5, 6, 7, 8 were fine or even better than 1, 2, 3, 4, he would have stayed with protocol B. Even though protocol A was defined before step 1, the decision to go back to it was based on evaluating results 1-8.

In step 4, subject is picking the better protocol, A, because it worked better. Therefore, for correct test of this refined protocol, all of data 1-8, used to make this choice, must be discarded. Putting together 1, 2, 3, 4 with 9, 10, 11, 12 is a statistical error of data dredging, erroneously increasing the apparent success rate - because step 4 allowed subject to pick the more successful of the two sets (1, 2, 3, 4) and (5, 6, 7, 8) to be included with (9, 10, 11, 12).

Hope it is clearer now.

 

[Jim_Mich]

Data mining deals with trying to produce a hypothesis from a small set of a larger data population. In my case there were two distinct and separate populations produced by using two distinct and separate procedures. I dealt with statistics for 20 years as a quality control manager. I could reject almost any lot by picking and choosing which parts to inspect. Many times when one part was found defective there would be a small group of defect clustered together. If you only look at a small group of the parts they might look horrible. Choosing another group might look very good.

Finding that the gizzmo's data shows defects does mean you throw out the whatsit's data.

Jim_Mich

 

[Dan O.]

Again, I don't get it. You're saying no progress is being made, yet here it is for all to see.

That's exactly what I am saying. No progress is being made because nobody else can see the experiment. We only have what Jim is telling us to base an opinion on. When Jim establishes the conditions for his ability to succeed is he affecting the outcome of the coin that is tossed or is he affecting his perception of wether the coin lands heads or tails? How can any of us (including Jim) separate these two possibilities?

My purpose was that he go for all heads with the agreed protocol. If he had succeeded with that, in my opinion, there would have been only two explanations: He has the power or he lied about the results.

You are forgetting the other explanations that I have already referred to.

Sitting alone flipping a coin will only reinforce Jim's ability. Wether that is a paranormal control of events or self deception or fabricating stories on message boards we cannot tell. It serves no purpose and may actually cause harm.

 

[BillyJoe]

Tell you what, give it six months and we'll swap over.

This one's yours though - he's a bit sensitive for me, I think.

Buzzlightyear's more my go - and he's a Victorian!

Hey, this is serious for me.

I don't think it helps anyone to be judgemental, dismissive, or presumptive about people who come in good faith to communicate what they believe to be true. I have more regard for people than causes, and that includes the sceptical cause.

regards though,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Actually, he must discard ALL data collected up to the point where he decided to switch the protocol.....Hope it is clearer now.

Yes I agree. Seems we're on the same page.
Good summary and explanation of that point though.

(I covered this point fleetingly in my reply to Dan above.)

 

[BillyJoe]

No progress is being made because nobody else can see the experiment. We only have what Jim is telling us to base an opinion on.

I will assume JM is being straight with us until I have evidence to the contrary. He seems genuine enough and he has admitted things he cannot do when the results are against him. He could have covered up, if he was that way inclined, to make it look like he was continuing with his original success. He didn't. This doesn't mean that he doesn't have a paranormal ability, but he is learning to define exactly what it is he can do (or not do). I see this as progress.

When Jim establishes the conditions for his ability to succeed is he affecting the outcome of the coin that is tossed or is he affecting his perception of wether the coin lands heads or tails? How can any of us (including Jim) separate these two possibilities?

I think I need a "for instance" here. At present, he is deciding heads or tails, tossing the coin, and recording the result. With the protocol in place, and his assurance that he will record ALL coin tosses, the only thing that can go wrong is that he is lying to us.

Sitting alone flipping a coin will only reinforce Jim's ability. Wether that is a paranormal control of events or self deception or fabricating stories on message boards we cannot tell. It serves no purpose and may actually cause harm.

If there is self-deception (as opposed to fabricating or lying) going on, can you suggest where exactly you feel this may be entering into the existing protocol and we will see if JM can adjust the protocol to account for it.

If he is "fabricating stories on an internet forum", he will be aware that he is doing so. Presently he is only trying to confirm his abilities for himself (or perhaps testing to see if he can confirm in an objective way what he knows himself (subjectively) he can do), so what would be the purpose of fabricating stories. Anyway he has had to reasses twice now, so something is hitting home and he is responding appropriately to it.

Remember that this self test is preliminary to a public test of his abilities.

 

[Jim_Mich]

I tossed 12/1 at beginning. (odds 1 : 315)
I tossed 28/9 after changing to the group toss protocol. (odds 1 : 23)
I tossed 94/33 after changing back. (odds 1 : 394)
I tossed 106/34 excluding group tosses. (odds 1 : 7029)
I tossed 134/43 Total. (odds 1 : 48646)

Full data at http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Misc/Coin%20Flipping%20Results.txt

Jim_Mich

 

[Cuddles]

I don't get it. What has JM got to do with previous tests by previous contestants? He is not making excuses. He has clearly stated right from the start that he cannot make heads come up every time. Now he has clearly stated that he cannot do it with alternate runs of four heads and four tails. So he is already finding out that the power he thought he had is very much more constrained than he previously thought. He can force coin tosses without a recognisable pattern but he cannot force coin tosses with a recognisable pattern.

Exactly, he is making excuses. He has thought he has had this ability for decades and yet as soon as he has tossed a coin ten times he has to start changing how he claims it can work because it is obviously not working as he expected. What JM has to do with previous tests is that they all did exactly the same thing. I know we can't judge individuals based on past experience of others, and in fact Jim seems much nicer and saner than most, but the fact remains that he has used exactly the same pattern seeking to see an ability that doesn't exist and exactly the same reasoning to explain why it doesn't work when he tries to demonsrate it. Pointing this out is simply constructive criticism and is the whole point of this part of the forum existing.

You don't know that, you are just extrapolating. You are extrapolating that he does not have a special power and you are extrapolating that he cannot be convinced otherwise if it is shown he doesn't have it.

Extrapolating was not the correct word. Possibly you meant assuming. Yes, I am assuming that he does not have a special power because of all the past evidence of people not having special powers and the complete lack of evidence to suggest he has. I am assuming he cannot be convinced otherwise because very few people seem to be, and we have already seen the reasoning that will allow him to continue reinforcing his beliefs if he only tests himself and does not apply for a real test. Of course, I hope to be proven wrong on both these points, but I do not think it very likely.

Just look at the reaction he has got from members of this forum - even while he is in the process of trying to come up with a test of his powers - and you wil understand why he has hidden away. You and others have judged, convicted, and sentenced him to solitary confinement whilst the trial is still being conducted. You think you are sceptics but you're just a bunch of...oops, I'd better stop now

Yes, I think of myself as a sceptic. Someone came here with a claim, so we asked him to prove it. So far he has not done so. Since this is a fairly common claim and the reasons for it are fairly well known I want more evidence than someone tossing coins by himself and reporting the results, especially when the results do not even back up the claim. I have not judged him, but I am fairly sure I know what he is, and until he provides evidence to the contrary I will carry on assuming that he is simply yet another self-deluded person who has fallen victim to human patter-seeking tendancies.

I tossed 12/1 at beginning. (odds 1 : 315)
I tossed 28/9 after changing to the group toss protocol. (odds 1 : 23)
I tossed 94/33 after changing back. (odds 1 : 394)
I tossed 106/34 excluding group tosses. (odds 1 : 7029)
I tossed 134/43 Total. (odds 1 : 48646)

Full data at http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Misc/Coin%20Flipping%20Results.txt

Jim_Mich

Jim, what do you actually claim to be able to do now? You originally claimed 90% accuracy, but it is clear that in all the trials you have reported so far you have only achieved about 70%, at best. This would probably also be considered paranormal, but would require a much larger number of tosses for statistical significance. It is important to make clear what you are actually expecting to happen. No matter how amazing it may be to get 70% of coin tosses correct, if you go to the JREF claiming 90% and get 70%, you will fail, even if the odds are one in a million.

In addition, as I and others have said before, self-testing in a case like this is basically pointless. You have convinced yourself you can do this over the past however many decades. No matter how much you sit alone tossing coins, you will never convince anyone else. There must be other people you can try to show this ability to, a wife, friends, even just a local skeptics organisation. The only way to show other people that you can do this is in fact to show other people.

 

[Jim_Mich]

Cuddles,
I said... [quote="Jim_Mich]I would expect very accurate results of 90 percent or better. Under pressure this might fall lower.[/quote]Flipping coin after coin is a lot of pressure. And gee, I must be psychic because the accuracy is falling lower!

I don't normally use my power (I hate that term, it sounds so hokey!) to control coins. I usually reserve it for controlling much bigger events where I have minutes, hours or days to cause the affect. Controlling coins requires the 'power' to take affect during about one or two seconds while the coin is falling and tumbling. If I pause or flinch during that very short split second of time then the coin just falls randomly. What I've been attempting to do here is to modify and adjust the 'power' to handle coin flipping so that it can be measured, tested and maybe proven. I say "maybe" because my original thoughts were that it would be too difficult to prove.

Let's get a few things straight right now. I'm way above average intelligence. I'm not crazy. I'm not poor and in desperate need of winning the MDC. I'm the chief financial officer of a small corporation and I own substantial stock in the company. I don't lie. And I have a real strong dislike for bullies and people that get their jollies by ridiculing people.

Cuddles, since I'm an intelligent person I will claim the odds that the JREF expects. Jeff Wagg said that they expect odds of 1000:1. If I take all my coin tosses (so I'm not accused of data-mining) then so far I've beaten those odd by more than 48 times over. This gives me wiggle room for pressure during the challenge test.

Jim_Mich

 

[Dan O.]

I think I need a "for instance" here. At present, he is deciding heads or tails, tossing the coin, and recording the result.

The human visual perception is not a camera that faithfully records the photons entering the lens. Much of what we see has to do with what we expect to see. If Jim has convinced himself that the coin will land heads up his mind could see the coin heads up. Jim would not be lying to say he saw the coin was heads up if that is what he perceived.

Check out the movie "A Beautiful Mind" or the bio on Nash at abeautifulmind dot com (sorry for having to obfuscate the URL).
__________________
Do not try to bend the spoon; that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.

 

[BillyJoe]

The human visual perception is not a camera that faithfully records the photons entering the lens. Much of what we see has to do with what we expect to see. If Jim has convinced himself that the coin will land heads up his mind could see the coin heads up. Jim would not be lying to say he saw the coin was heads up if that is what he perceived.

I don't buy it. You'd have to be pretty out there to mistake a head for a tail. If JM pictures heads in his mind in attempting to will the coin to land heads and he walks over and it's tails, I think he will see tails like the rest of us. I have yet to see any evidence of mental illness in JM's posts.

 

[BillyJoe]

Exactly, he is making excuses.

Each to his own. But when JM says he cannot do it if he keeps tossing heads or if he alternates groups of heads and tails, I sort of go along with that. He can't. Move on. He says he can do it if he selects heads or tails going by what feels right. Well now, why not test that.

He has thought he has had this ability for decades and yet as soon as he has tossed a coin ten times he has to start changing how he claims it can work because it is obviously not working as he expected.

He has not been tossing coins for decades. It's only recently, at the suggestion of other posters, that he has wondered whether his ability could extend to a formal test with coins. Also, he did initially have some success - with the first 10 tosses where he got 10/10 - but his success dropped when he adopted the suggested protocol. He accepted that. But, would you really expect him to suddenly recant what he has believed to be true for decades (that he can affect events occuring around him), just because a series of coin tosses done over a few days didn't come out as expected (though 70% is pretty good). I'd be pretty worried for him if he was so suddenly and easily convinced.

I know we can't judge individuals based on past experience of others, and in fact Jim seems much nicer and saner than most, but the fact remains that he has used exactly the same pattern seeking to see an ability that doesn't exist and exactly the same reasoning to explain why it doesn't work when he tries to demonsrate it. Pointing this out is simply constructive criticism and is the whole point of this part of the forum existing.

Fair enough. But you've already judged him before he's barely started (see bolded bit above). And he hasn't yet tried to explain why the alternate tosses didn't work (better than 70% that is). He has only said that he can't do it.

Extrapolating was not the correct word. Possibly you meant assuming. Yes, I am assuming that he does not have a special power because of all the past evidence of people not having special powers and the complete lack of evidence to suggest he has. I am assuming he cannot be convinced otherwise because very few people seem to be....

No, extrapolating was the correct word. You are extrapolating from past experience of people who have claimed to have special powers to the person who appears before us now with his individual and, at least for him, very special claim. He should not have to carry the burden of your past history.

...and we have already seen the reasoning that will allow him to continue reinforcing his beliefs if he only tests himself and does not apply for a real test. Of course, I hope to be proven wrong on both these points, but I do not think it very likely.

Aw, don't be shy, you know he won't.
In fact, the self-testing has, from the very beginning, been intended only as a preliminary to a public test. Ask him.

Yes, I think of myself as a sceptic. Someone came here with a claim, so we asked him to prove it. So far he has not done so. Since this is a fairly common claim and the reasons for it are fairly well known I want more evidence than someone tossing coins by himself and reporting the results, especially when the results do not even back up the claim. I have not judged him, but I am fairly sure I know what he is, and until he provides evidence to the contrary I will carry on assuming that he is simply yet another self-deluded person who has fallen victim to human patter-seeking tendancies.

First of all, that was not his original claim. He claimed only to affect events occuring around him. Someone else suggesting testing it with a coin toss. He obligingly accepted the challenge. He found he couldn't do the alternating thing, said so, and moved on to what seemed to him more closely resembled what he does in real life. Seems fair enough to me. And I was the one hoping he would go for all heads. Think about it yourself for a moment, and you'll see he is actually right. His original claim was that, in real life, he decides what he wants to change and he changes it. Similarly, he now is deciding whether he wants heads or tails and then he tries to make it come out that way.

 

[BillyJoe]

Jim_Mich,

While I look at your results, I wonder if you could clarify what your protocol is now. Could you detail what you do with each coin toss. A point by point thing like what we did before.
It will be important to get that right before you consider any formal test.

BJ

 

[Jim_Mich]

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics

The first extensive analysis of the term pseudoskepticism was conducted by Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who in 1987 claimed that pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:
- The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
- Double standards in the application of criticism.
- The making of judgements without full inquiry.
- Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
- Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks.
- Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
- Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
- Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
- Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
- Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
- Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
- Tendency to dismiss all evidence.



Truzzi was skeptical of investigators and debunkers who determined the validity of a claim prior to investigation. He accused CSICOP of increasingly unscientific behavior, for which he coined the term pseudoskepticism. Truzzi stated,
"They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly."

All the above was taken from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi


It seems many of the 'skeptics' here are not true skeptics, but are instead 'pseudoskeptics.'

BillyJoe, I commend you for being a true skeptic. I've always considered myself a optimistic skeptic. I don't dismiss something just because it cannot be proven since the proof might be just around the corner.


Jim_Mich

 

[Thabiguy]

Jim, results such as these are impressive. If you were able to achieve the same level of success under controlled conditions, it looks like you would have a good shot at the JREF prize.

Some notes that might be of help to you: while the level of stress is certainly something that should be considered, should you apply for the prize, this can be addressed later in your informal tests. At this point, the biggest obstacle preventing you from applying is the lack of controls. You suggest some ways to control the power with which you flip the coin (at least that's how I understood it), but it seems very likely that JREF won't accept a protocol in which you toss the coin yourself. - Now, you said you had difficulties when your wife tossed the coin, so it seems that the outcome if the tosses were done by someone whom you don't know at all (as in JREF preliminary test) would be unpredictable at best.

Coin tossing is a good way of doing a preliminary self-test and it seems to have served that purpose well. For further experiments, it might be a good idea to move to something that you actually can use during the JREF test. Something that will generate random output (like, heads-or-tails) that you should, as per your claim, be able to influence, but are not involved in the generation process itself. If it's a simple off-the-shelf product that could be purchased by JREF to dismiss worries about potential tampering, then this would allow for a very neat claim and greatly simplify the negotiation process. Can you think of something like that that could be used?

And another note: in your reported results, the coin tosses themselves do not show any remarkable statistical properties. It's the correlation between the calls and the tosses that show them. Therefore, if you get as far as applying, it would seem logical that you should formulate your claim along the lines of being able to predict the outcome of random events, rather than being able to influence the outcome of random events.

 

[Jim_Mich]

This is a very detailed description of the method I currently use to toss coins...

- I never toss a coin at any time other than when I do trials.
- The trials may at times consist of doing a control batch of tosses.
- A control batch is a series of flips without trying to influence the outcome.
- A control batch is recorded as just toss results and no call results.
- The control batch is clearly indicated before any flipping begins. (I've only done it once with 20 flips)
- I always toss the coin in a same environment with no distractions. (In my office/study/computer room)
- The office floor is a hard laminate flooring material.
- On the floor are two carpet-like rugs which more or less abut together.
- One rug is 22 x 62 inch and the other is 51 x 32.
- The carpet thickness is about 0.6 inches and compresses to about 0.2 inches
- I sit in my comfortable office chair (which is on the larger rug) while tossing the coin onto the smaller rug.
- I write on a piece of paper the letter H or T to indicate my call choice.
- or the call choice is assumed to be the same as the previous call if I fail to write a letter.
- My eyes are closed and kept closed each time until the coin has landed and stopped moving.
- I sometimes turn the coin over in my hand to loose track of which side is which.
- I position the coin on thumb and finger ready to flip.
- I concentrate for as long as need be to calm my thoughts and relax, usually about 5 to 15 seconds.
- I then I concentrate on which coin side I want and simultaneously force a particular emotion like feeling.
- I hold the thought and feeling steady and flip the coin into the air with my thumb.
- I continue to hold the thought and feeling until the coin comes to a rest, then I let go of the feeling.
- If I feel I cannot achieve the desired state of mind and feeling then I quit and don't flip.
- The coin rises about 2 to 5 inches from my hand and drops about 30 inches onto the rug on the floor.
- The coin toss result is recorded by writing the letter H or T under the choice letter.
- Maybe 10 to 20 percent of the time I fail to hold the thought and/or the feeling until the coin stops.
- When I fail to hold the thought and/or the feeling I use the results anyway.
- Every coin toss is recorded.
- After a group of tosses the results are tallied
- The result is tallied by placing a dot under each miss.
- The results are then copied into a computer text file.

Jim_Mich