Changes To The Challenge

[Jim_Mich]

I've been trying to ignore timokay's insults but he just keeps coming back.


Jim_Mich

 

[BillyJoe]

You won't even entertain the idea that you are mistaken about this ability you think you have.

I do not believe that you have any power. I have no reason at all to think that you do.

Anyone else see a problem here?

 

[timokay]

Anyone else see a problem here?

I sure don't. And I am not going to argue whether or not doubting someone's claim is the same as insulting them. But I could have predicted that rather than address my issues, Jim and BillyJoe would decide to get defensive and act like it is a personal attack, and then to focus on that rather than my questions. It's a classic defense.

I have been down this road before, as many of us have. I tried at least.

This will end exactly as they always do. I guess it is the best argument as to why the MDC had to change.

I am sorry that Jim refuses to examine his own belief system.

The rest of you, have fun poking him with a stick. An application will never arise from this claim.

 

[Dan O.]

I will deal with anyone that doesn't make judgements without a full inquiry (which is called prejudice) and who will investigate rather than just discredit.

It would be so easy to just pump you up and push you forward to take the Million Dollar Challenge. But I only give you the same 1:1000000 chance of succeeding that I would give myself. The other 99.9999% of the time you will walk away thinking only that the test was rigged and that the skeptics are against you. I would rather that you go into the challenge with an open mind. You might have a power that will let you win the $1,000,000. Or you might be deluding yourself. If you go in with an open mind, win or loose you'll be much better off after the challenge.

 

[BillyJoe]

...I am not going to argue whether or not doubting someone's claim is the same as insulting them...

I think you missed the point.

Asking someone: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is an insult because you are asking him to answer a question that implies he beats his wife before you have actually established that he does, in fact, beat his wife.
Similarly, asking JM: "What it is about you that compells you to think that random, everyday events have a special significance for you?" is an insult because you are asking him to answer a question that implies he does not have the ability (that he believes he has), before you have actually established that fact.

Can you see the insult now - from the point of view of JM?

But I could have predicted that rather than address my issues, Jim and BillyJoe would decide to get defensive and act like it is a personal attack, and then to focus on that rather than my questions. It's a classic defense.

I would not characterise it as a personal attack because I don't think you intended it as an insult, but it is an insult all the same. JM is expected to answer a question that takes for granted a conclusion that has not yet been established and with which he disagrees. No wonder he refuses to "address your issues" (meaning "answer your illegitimate questions") and becomes defensive. I could have predicted that as well.

 

[temporalillusion]

If it's not telekinesis but an actual effect on probability itself, what about duplicating the coin flip with a computer? Since it's not a physical effect there should be no difference between this and a coin flip. This has the benefit of removing all physical aspects of the situation.

Have a program cycle through a set of numbers randomly, you press a key and it stops at one of the set of numbers.

If the set just uses the numbers zero and one, this replicates the coin toss.

Maybe someone better at the stats part of it can comment, but if the set were a set of 4 numbers say, wouldn't it take fewer trials to produce a statistically significant result? So this would be less trying on Jim as well if so. Or is that just my non-statistical incorrect gut feeling?

Even if it was still only replicating heads/tails tests, would this be something that could be done Jim_Mich? I could even write the program.

 

[BillyJoe]

I have been down this road before, as many of us have. I tried at least.

You may need to examine what it is you have tried again to do and why you have again failed. Maybe there is a better way to approach this than to start off with.....

This will end exactly as they always do.

...forgone conclusions.

I am sorry that Jim refuses to examine his own belief system.

By attempting to put his subjective belief to an objective test, JM has come at least half way. I'm not sure that you have allowed yourself to meet him there.

The rest of you, have fun poking him with a stick.

I can see your motivation is genuine but I don't know why you need to question mine just because my method is different from yours.

 

[BillyJoe]

...99.9999% of the time you will walk away thinking only that the test was rigged and that the skeptics are against you.

What purpose does it serve to assume the outcome of a test and JM's reaction to it, except to suggest to him that sceptics are against him?

 

[Dan O.]

If it's not telekinesis but an actual effect on probability itself, what about duplicating the coin flip with a computer? Since it's not a physical effect there should be no difference between this and a coin flip. This has the benefit of removing all physical aspects of the situation.

Have a program cycle through a set of numbers randomly, you press a key and it stops at one of the set of numbers.

If someone could just write down the input and wish really hard that a certain algorithm will generate a specific desired output I could show them how to cash in for $10,000 with each success and unlimited retries. [at least until RSA or the CIA catch on]. The success of this ability would be self evident so there would be no need for witnesses or protocol. I'm sure that it would impress a lot of people and would save a lot of electricity currently being waisted by computers all over the planet trying to do the same thing. (remember the unlimited retries, computers are really fast at retrying and everybody is hoping their computer will get lucky first)

__________________
The magic words are squeamish ossifrage

 

[Dan O.]

What purpose does it serve to assume the outcome of a test and JM's reaction to it, except to suggest to him that skeptics are against him?

Sorry, I didn't intend it to come out that way, I had trimmed some earlier text and forgot to keep the conditional. That statement applies only if Jim enters the challenge with his mind closed to alternate explanations. The assumption of the outcome is based only on my belief in the probability of beating the 1 in a million odds and has nothing to do with Jim.

[Jim must have been thinking that I was prejudging him and that caused me to make the slip.]

 

[Thabiguy]

This series of 60 tosses contains runs of 6 heads, 7 heads, and 9 tails.
Can anyone calculate the chances of that happening?
I did my own 60 tosses and all I got was two runs of 4 tails.

This is an interesting question. The exact probability of a run of given length in a given number of trials is more difficult to compute than might be expected. There appears to be an ugly explicit formula, but it is so ugly that I decided to write a simple Monte Carlo simulation, and (unless I wrote it wrong) the probabilities are as follows:

Run of 6 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 1:1.6
Run of 7 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 1:2.7
Run of 9 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 1:9.8

In other words, it isn't particularly unlikely.

But to get back to the gist of your remark: I admit that I was only talking about the heads-to-tails ratio. In such a short sequence, it's very difficult, if not meaningless, to look for more complex statistical irregularities. To illustrate, the DIEHARD series of tests, a popular tool for testing randomness, woud require input of 80 million tosses.

TM does not claim to predict the outcome, he claims to be able to influence them.
You must test the claimant on what he says he can do, not what you think he should be able to do based on what he says he can do.
Why is that so hard to understand?

Oh, I understand that. What I'm saying is that "influencing" implies "predicting". If you can influence, then you can predict (simply by predicting the outcome that you will force). But if you can predict, it doesn't mean that you can influence. In order to differentiate between "influencing, therefore predicting" and "predicting only", you can ask the subject to force a particular outcome. Being able to do that proves the former, being unable to do that, but still being able to predict the outcome, suggests the latter.

Jim has claimed to be able to "influence" the outcome of a coin toss, but only if he is free to choose what it should be, not if someone else tells him what it should be. On this basis, and with the previous paragraph in mind, I'm saying that his claim is more accurately described as "predicting", rather than "influencing", which misleadingly suggests a stronger ability which Jim hasn't claimed to have. Do you disagree?

 

[Thabiguy]

In general reply to some suggestions here:
I can't speak for others, but as for me, I may be skeptical, but I'm not cynical. I don't get my jollies by watching people fail tests and then laughing in their face. I hold sincere disdain for such schadenfreude and I choose not to participate in it, thank you.

I believe in promoting critical thinking. When an incredible phenomenon appears to occur, I believe the best way to investigate it is to conduct a proper experiment. When I see an unidentified object, I want to stay and identify it, and I don't consider it a waste of time. Even if the explanation is likely not to be mysterious at all, it is still of interest to me. I am inquisitive by nature and I find pleasure in pursuing knowledge.

These are my personal beliefs and others are free not to adopt them. I will continue to stand behind them.

 

[andyandy]

Anyone else see a problem here?

yep. In particular....

Timokay

I am sorry to say that it is my opinion that even the people "helping" you to create a protocol are just setting you up to see you fail. That is the reality of this forum.

....I take issue with this. I'd love to see someone pass the $million challenge. I don't think it's likely - but it would be great if someone did. Your opinion is incorrect.

 

[Kimpatsu]

. A "single bad incident" could be something as simple as getting stuck in a traffic jamb.

I don't see many vehicles in door frames. Or did you mean "traffic jam"...?

 

[AgingYoung]

A "single bad incident" could be something as simple as getting stuck in a traffic jamb.

When there are enough people living closely anything is possible. I have seen video where someone runs a vehicle through someones front door. They usually don't even knock!

Gene

 

[BillyJoe]

....the probabilities are as follows:

Run of 6 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 1:1.6
Run of 7 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 1:2.7
Run of 9 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 1:9.8

In other words, it isn't particularly unlikely.

Those ratios are surprising. I wouldn't have thought they would be that high.

I did 9 series of 60 coin tosses using this site:
http://shazam.econ.ubc.ca/flip/
The results were as follows:
8, 6, 6, 8, -, 9+6, 6, 6, -

Summary:
Run of 6 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 7/9
Run of 7 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 3/9
Run of 8 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 3/9
Run of 9 or more heads/tails in 60 tosses: 1/9

Remarkably similar to your ratios - but I was probably lucky to get that because, I'd imagine, the ratio would vary quite a bit with only 9 series of 60 tosses each time

was only talking about the heads-to-tails ratio. In such a short sequence, it's very difficult, if not meaningless, to look for more complex statistical irregularities. To illustrate, the DIEHARD series of tests, a popular tool for testing randomness, woud require input of 80 million tosses.

Again, I'm amazed it would take so many tosses - though a little less so after the above experience.

What I'm saying is that "influencing" implies "predicting". If you can influence, then you can predict (simply by predicting the outcome that you will force). But if you can predict, it doesn't mean that you can influence.

With you so far.

In order to differentiate between "influencing, therefore predicting" and "predicting only", you can ask the subject to force a particular outcome. Being able to do that proves the former, being unable to do that, but still being able to predict the outcome, suggests the latter.

In order to differentiate between "influencing, therefore predicting" and "predicting only", you could also ask the subject to force an outcome of his choice (rather than a particular one suggested to him). To me that would work just as well.

Jim has claimed to be able to "influence" the outcome of a coin toss, but only if he is free to choose what it should be, not if someone else tells him what it should be.

Yes, that is my understanding of what he is claiming.

On this basis, and with the previous paragraph in mind, I'm saying that his claim is more accurately described as "predicting", rather than "influencing", which misleadingly suggests a stronger ability which Jim hasn't claimed to have. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. It seems to me his claim is accurately described as "influencing therefore predicting", rather than just "predicting". He is forcing his choice to come about.

 

[AgingYoung]

I think Jim's ability is a sense. Some people have a sense beyond what is normal. When I used to play chess a lot I could sense which pawn was white (when someone would hide black and white pawns in their hands). I've never tested it but it seemed more often than not I would get the first move.

I also played with telling what color a card was by dragging my finger over the color. I haven't done it in a while but it seemed I could sense the difference between black and red by sensing the difference in friction.

If it is anything I think Jim is getting a sense of what is going to happen then thinks it is what he wants to happen.

Gene

 

[Rasmus]

In order to differentiate between "influencing, therefore predicting" and "predicting only", you could also ask the subject to force an outcome of his choice (rather than a particular one suggested to him). To me that would work just as well.

"I will force this coin to flip to ... [Rasmus secretly predicts it's going to be heads no matter what] .. HEADS!"

And with my amazing powers of influencing the coin, it indeed shows heads.

I do disagree. It seems to me his claim is accurately described as "influencing therefore predicting", rather than just "predicting". He is forcing his choice to come about.

Or says so, at any rate. Why should I believe that a "free choice" wasn't due to some unconscious prediction?

Not that it really matters, of course. As regards the challenge, a mere prediction would suffice, after all.

ETA: I missed something: Nowhere does it say that the "influencing" does have to happen with individual tosses. If a decision along the lines of "I predict with my own free will, that the next 100 tosses will all show heads" will also allow to influence the tosses, then I would be satisfied and believe that it is the influence of the challenger and not just a mere prediction.

 

[Thabiguy]

Okay, BillyJoe, I see what you mean. One of the reasons why we see it differently is that the experiment in question is random and unpredictable; in such a setup, it's impossible to tell whether the outcome has been guessed or forced. If the outcome was predictable but unknown to the subject, the difference could be told. (This would, however, mean influencing a purely mechanical process, which Jim doesn't claim to be able to influence. What an unfortunate coincidence.)

Having said that, let's put this semantic issue to rest. Jim faces much bigger problems, such as coming up with a JREF-acceptable test in which his claimed powers could be demonstrated. We can get back to this if it ever becomes relevant, okay?

 

[timokay]

I think Jim's ability is a sense. Some people have a sense beyond what is normal. When I used to play chess a lot I could sense which pawn was white (when someone would hide black and white pawns in their hands). I've never tested it but it seemed more often than not I would get the first move.

I also played with telling what color a card was by dragging my finger over the color. I haven't done it in a while but it seemed I could sense the difference between black and red by sensing the difference in friction.

If it is anything I think Jim is getting a sense of what is going to happen then thinks it is what he wants to happen.

Gene

Gene,
If someone thought that instead of a paranormal power, these events that happened to you were just coincidences, and that perhaps you put more emphasis on the positive and discounted the negative, leaving you with the impression that you influenced the events in your favor....

Would that be insulting to you?