The media requirement

[Southwind17]

But what is the admin cost? Some applications can be dealt with in seconds, others can take months of communication that takes time, computer resources and costs for postage. This is why I suggest a nominal fee - something small enough that it can't possibly imply that the JREF are trying to make money, but large enough that it could put off some of the sillier applicants. $1, $5, whatever.

I reckon this could work. Afterall, anybody who seriously believes they can succeed surely is prepared to stump up a small stake to prove so.

Doesn't a fee conflict with the not-for-profit status of the JREF?

Not if it's only covering costs, and not, therefore, constituting profit.

Also, I always greatly admired the free access to the JREF Challenge, which I found to give it an unestimable value: "You have a special power? Prove it and get a million bucks. No strings attached."

I agree. It does add to the value of the challenge, but one has to be realistic.

Where else can you do that?

Precisely, which only helps to justify a nominal 'administration' fee.

 

[RemieV]

That was one of my questions, has it actually reduced the applications? That sort of person was previously applying without bothering to read or understand the application rules anyway, do they actually read them now and decide not to apply, or do they apply anyway and have to be told to go and get a media presence? If the latter, it seems you would be spending just as much time dealing with the applications as before.

It takes a lot longer to develop a protocol than it takes to write a letter that says "Your application is being held pending proof of media presence."

 

[Cuddles]

It takes a lot longer to develop a protocol than it takes to write a letter that says "Your application is being held pending proof of media presence."

How long does it take to write a letter saying "Your application is being held pending proof of three affidavits"?

 

[RemieV]

Isn't this exactly what the "three affadavits" was supposed to do? I'm afraid I agree....I don't see what replacing one with the other will do towards reducing the workload.

Yes, it is what the three affidavits were supposed to do. However, there was no way to ensure that the affidavits were really from an academic with a background in critical thinking without running some kind of background check on every single one. Not only that, but the three affidavits were not a requirement for every applicant. They were supplied by request.

OK, so just charge enough to cover the actual admin cost, including 'processing' the fee. What's wrong with that?

You guys obviously don't hold 'commercial' positions in life, I guess. What's wrong with that?

As others have said, the amount of time it takes to deal with an application varies greatly. It can be seconds (your claim is rejected) or months (perhaps browse the edge thread).

A one dollar per application fee just would not offset the cost of hiring another employee, and goes against the nature of the challenge. And honestly, I do not see the reason for it. Asking individuals for proof of a media presence has not so far worked as an advertisement for the applicant. If it wound up being that way, I could see cause for concern. But so far, with the exception of Rosemary Hunter (and so far as I know) applicants with a media presence had one prior to their interest in the challenge.

Doesn't a fee conflict with the not-for-profit status of the JREF?

Also, I always greatly admired the free access to the JREF Challenge, which I found to give it an unestimable value: "You have a special power? Prove it and get a million bucks. No strings attached."

Where else can you do that?

Not-for-profit does not mean that the foundation is strictly volunteers. A non-profit organization means that there is no profit outside what it takes to pay the employees and fund the goals as stated in the 501c3 application submitted when the group is incorporated.

 

[Georg]

Yes, it is what the three affidavits were supposed to do. However, there was no way to ensure that the affidavits were really from an academic with a background in critical thinking without running some kind of background check on every single one.

That may be true. But my guess would be that the chance to find critical thinkers among journalists is even lower. Even when they are critical thinkers, that´s mostly not what they are paid for. They are paid to write stories that sell. And woo does sell, as we all know.

Not only that, but the three affidavits were not a requirement for every applicant. They were supplied by request.

That could easily have been changed.

 

[RemieV]

That may be true. But my guess would be that the chance to find critical thinkers among journalists is even lower. Even when they are critical thinkers, that´s mostly not what they are paid for. They are paid to write stories that sell. And woo does sell, as we all know.



That could easily have been changed.

It is true that journalists don't necessarily have a background in critical thinking. However, they are unbiased parties. Again, so far with the exception of Rosemary Hunter, I am not aware of anyone having a news article published after they had queried to apply. You seem to believe that journalists are, in fact, biased. However, the applicants that were the most time-consuming with the least amount of progress were ones who appeared to be severely mentally ill. I doubt, highly, that a journalist would agree to run an article on one of these particular people.

And sure, it could have been changed so that affidavits were required from everyone. There is still no way to chase every single person down who signed one, or to prove that they actually are unbiased, or to prove that they have a background in critical thinking.

I have absolutely no power to change the rules, and I have yet to see here a reason to bring it to anyone's attention. So far, the only argument is a 'what if' that hasn't actually happened. If there was evidence that the challenge was advertising woo any more than it already is (and it is to some extent - just look up the number of people who claim to have passed the challenge or been cheated out of the prize) then I would think it was a legitimate concern. But as of right now, there is no such evidence.

 

[Southwind17]

I think the entire matter of how the MDC should be administered 'efficiently' probably needs a radical re-think in the context of what it set out to be and what it is now, and please don't get me wrong, that's not a criticism. The MDC is, afterall, simply the result of Randi's reaction to being flippantly challenged to put his money where his mouth is over a decade ago, and I am certain that he never expected it to develop into what it has become.

The most important thing to realize, or remember, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXPECTATION within JREF that anybody will ever win the prize! As such, to my mind, the whole thing has become somewhat of a nonsense, because, to the rational sceptics amongst us (which includes the vast majority of JREF members and staff), the $1 million is a 'prize' that can never be won, and look at us; we're all spending time debating how this 'nonsense' should be administered! Actually, the more one thinks about it the more nonsensical the whole thing seems. Can you imagine how the concept of the current MDC would be received if it was sought to out-source it to a commercial operator, like national lotteries are?! I'd like to bet that if Randi was challenged to put $1 million where his mouth is now and devise a structure for administering the Challenge, knowing what he now knows he would find a cunningly subtle way to decline. And rightly so.

Whilst I was intrigued and impressed with the MDC when I discovered it not so long ago, I actually believe it has out-grown its purpose and should be abandoned under a banner of flashing lights and fireworks proclaiming its success in achieving what it set out to do. If the perception, however, is that that would be seen by critics as either defeat or backing off (which can largely be controlled by how one announces and 'markets' the winding up), then it should be radically restructured such that only the more 'seemingly credible' applications are entertained, and I strongly believe that credibility, in the eye of the applicant, should be measured by their willingness to 'invest' a modest amount of hard cash to demonstrate it.

Assuming the MDC does remain essentially in its current form, however, I still believe that given that it arose from Randi rising to the simple challenge of putting his money where is mouth is then it is only fair that applicants should be expected to do the same, albeit on a much smaller but significant scale, especially when applications lead to tangible processing and administration costs.

 

[Georg]

It is true that journalists don't necessarily have a background in critical thinking. However, they are unbiased parties. Again, so far with the exception of Rosemary Hunter, I am not aware of anyone having a news article published after they had queried to apply. You seem to believe that journalists are, in fact, biased. However, the applicants that were the most time-consuming with the least amount of progress were ones who appeared to be severely mentally ill. I doubt, highly, that a journalist would agree to run an article on one of these particular people.

And sure, it could have been changed so that affidavits were required from everyone. There is still no way to chase every single person down who signed one, or to prove that they actually are unbiased, or to prove that they have a background in critical thinking.

I have absolutely no power to change the rules, and I have yet to see here a reason to bring it to anyone's attention. So far, the only argument is a 'what if' that hasn't actually happened. If there was evidence that the challenge was advertising woo any more than it already is (and it is to some extent - just look up the number of people who claim to have passed the challenge or been cheated out of the prize) then I would think it was a legitimate concern. But as of right now, there is no such evidence.

Don´t get me wrong. I do not share the angst that more woo will be published because of the new challenge rules. I did not say so. My point is, that I would see the affidavit requirement for every applicant as a more useful tool to keep away the mentally ill than the media thing. I believe it is difficult to chase down the people who signed the affidavits, but that it is even more difficult to find out if a journalist just wrote the story about a woo because he/she believes in/has seen the claimed abilities or just because it sells.
If a professional signs an affidavit, he maybe has a good reputation to lose.
The average journalist probably doesn´t care that much.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Don´t get me wrong. I do not share the angst that more woo will be published because of the new challenge rules. I did not say so. My point is, that I would see the affidavit requirement for every applicant as a more useful tool to keep away the mentally ill than the media thing. I believe it is difficult to chase down the people who signed the affidavits, but that it is even more difficult to find out if a journalist just wrote the story about a woo because he/she believes in/has seen the claimed abilities or just because it sells.
If a professional signs an affidavit, he maybe has a good reputation to lose.
The average journalist probably doesn´t care that much.

But again, if someone can get a media presence, they're more dangerous than those who can't. If someone's running shouting their psychic and no one is paying attention, they're not having much effect.

If they say, "I'm psychic!" and the media pays attention to them, they're capable of doing some harm.

Also, consider that if we challenge someone with a media presence, that increases the JREF's media presence.

It's not perfect, and things will probably change over time, but for now the system is manageable.

 

[Senex]

But again, if someone can get a media presence, they're more dangerous than those who can't. If someone's running shouting their psychic and no one is paying attention, they're not having much effect.

If they say, "I'm psychic!" and the media pays attention to them, they're capable of doing some harm.

Also, consider that if we challenge someone with a media presence, that increases the JREF's media presence.

It's not perfect, and things will probably change over time, but for now the system is manageable.

Bravely spoken, for a man who will soon pee his pants in public

 

[Georg]

But again, if someone can get a media presence, they're more dangerous than those who can't. If someone's running shouting their psychic and no one is paying attention, they're not having much effect.

If they say, "I'm psychic!" and the media pays attention to them, they're capable of doing some harm.

Also, consider that if we challenge someone with a media presence, that increases the JREF's media presence.

It's not perfect, and things will probably change over time, but for now the system is manageable.

Point taken, and thanks for the answer.

 

[Georg]

Bravely spoken, for a man who will soon pee his pants in public

Nominated for pith. A good laugh at the end of a bad working day.

 

[athon]

If you have limited resources, it's best to spent them on those who are doing the most harm. Those who are doing the most harm.. have a media presence.

However, the point has been raised that we're encouraging people who have no media presence to actually get one, and that's is problematic.

I don't see a solution though. We can't handle everyone unless we get a substantial donation that allows us to hire more staff. If we have to limit people, we have to do it in the most effective way. And though it's imperfect, I think what we have now is the best system yet.

I'm open to knew suggestions of a better system.

The question is now 'what does the evaluation show?' If there has been an appreciable change in applicant demographic, then couldn't you say it's successful in the face of what you set out to do?

As for whether there is an increased media presence, I see no problem with that, personally. One more psychic out there is going to make less of an impact than having the challenge gain public awareness in the long run.

Athon

 

[T'ai Chi]

Before April 1st, the JREF was spending a lot of time and resources on individuals who were mentally ill. The media presence requirement is a way of urging applicants to have unbiased individuals witness their 'powers'.

Um, but why does that require a media presence?

Can't you be mentally fit and not have a media presence?

And can't you have a media presence and be mentally ill?

 

[Southwind17]

Um, but why does that require a media presence?

Can't you be mentally fit and not have a media presence?

And can't you have a media presence and be mentally ill?

Do you know many TV and newspaper editors?!