Ganzfeld million dollar challange?

Status
Not open for further replies.

andy2001

Student
A
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
39
Could Ganzfeld be used for the Randi challenge? If so would it be acceptable for the test to last up to a few years if needed? What would be the minimum level of statistical significance that would be needed to pass for the two stages of the test? And would it be ok for a large number of people to be tested instead of one?
 
Andy,

There are quite a few threads on the JREF Forums in which the Ganzfeld "experiments" have been discussed. I suggest you do a search of the forum and read those discussions, then come back here.
 
Click on the tag I created for you. That contains a few threads on the subject.

Looks like the person has been around for a few years. If he had any ability he would have been able to make a fortune by now.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
After you read those threads and still have the same question with the need for a definite and official answer, you could ask challenge@randi.org/email][/QUOTE]
You suggested the same thing to me last May. So I sent the following e-mail to challenge@randi.org on May 10, 2008:

"I recently initiated the following thread on the Million Dollar
Challenge Forum -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3692318#post3692318

"What I argue on that thread is that: (a) In tests where the odds of
success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard
must be met; and (b) It is unclear whether time-consuming protocols,
such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the Challenge.
Therefore, I recommend that something along the lines of the following
be added to the Challenge Rules:

"(1) An applicant must pass a preliminary test, in which the general
criterion for success will be that the applicant must perform at
significantly above the chance level. In tests where the odds of
success can be readily calculated -- such as numbers guessing -- the
applicant must perform at least at the P=.001 level; that is, the odds
must be only one in one thousand that the applicant could have
achieved that performance level by random chance. (However, if the
applicant achieves a lesser, but above chance, performance level in a
limited number of tests -- for example, if the applicant performs at
the P=.05 level in 20 trials -- the preliminary test may be extended
on a different day or days to include more trials.) If the applicant
passes the preliminary test, a final test will be administered, in
which the performance level must meet a significantly more stringent
criterion for the million dollar prize to be awarded. In tests where
the odds of success can be readily calculated, the applicant must
perform at least at the P=.000001 level; that is, for the prize to be
awarded, the odds must be only one in one million that the applicant
could have achieved that performance level by random chance.

"(2) All protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld
experiments, are eligible for the Challenge; or

"(2a) Some time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are
not eligible for the Challenge due to the impact on JREF resources."

"If you wish, you may respond to these questions on the above thread."

More than eight months later, still no response.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
You suggested the same thing to me last May. So I sent the following e-mail to challenge@randi.org on May 10, 2008:

"I recently initiated the following thread on the Million Dollar
Challenge Forum -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3692318#post3692318

"What I argue on that thread is that: (a) In tests where the odds of
success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard
must be met; and (b) It is unclear whether time-consuming protocols,
such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the Challenge.
Therefore, I recommend that something along the lines of the following
be added to the Challenge Rules:
...
More than eight months later, still no response.
Click to expand...

The first thing I would suggest: Send it again. If the matter is really serious to you, send a registered letter.

But the highlighted part of your quote poses a problem: [...]All applicants must agree to the rules set forth herein before any formal agreement can be entered into. Completing this form is mandatory; there are no exceptions to this rule.[...] (Second paragraph, line 3.)

And: Please scroll down to 2.6,



You want a rule to be changed and demand for an odds standard without even making a specific claim.

At the very least, it implies you have not understood the rules. Therefore, I can very well understand why the JREF does not respond to your inquiry.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
The first thing I would suggest: Send it again. If the matter is really serious to you, send a registered letter.

But the highlighted part of your quote poses a problem: [...]All applicants must agree to the rules set forth herein before any formal agreement can be entered into. Completing this form is mandatory; there are no exceptions to this rule.[...] (Second paragraph, line 3.)

And: Please scroll down to 2.6,



You want a rule to be changed and demand for an odds standard without even making a specific claim.

At the very least, it implies you have not understood the rules. Therefore, I can very well understand why the JREF does not respond to your inquiry.
Click to expand...
I guess even a brief response would be too much of an effort on the JREF's part. Better to create the impression that the fact that no one has passed the preliminary challenge means that there is no such thing as the paranormal.
 
Rodney said:
I guess even a brief response would be too much of an effort on the JREF's part. Better to create the impression that the fact that no one has passed the preliminary challenge means that there is no such thing as the paranormal.
Click to expand...

It might seem to you that way.

To me - and likely to a majority of forumites here - it seems that:

1. You made no specific claim
2. You wanted to have the rules changes for you.

That's a double no-no. It seems your actions have disqualified yourself.

Obviously, you could easily solve this problem by making a specific claim, proposing a protocol, applying properly and of course not insisting on a rule change.
 
Rodney said:
I guess even a brief response would be too much of an effort on the JREF's part. Better to create the impression that the fact that no one has passed the preliminary challenge means that there is no such thing as the paranormal.
Click to expand...

:cheerleader4 BRAVO! Couldn't be said better!
:rolleyes:
 
Czarcasm said:
Moderators, if they hand it to you gift-wrapped on a silver platter, do you still have to play nice?
Click to expand...

YES, every person has to be respected for what ever his way of thinking and opinion he might have, as long as He/she respect the others and not harming any one. Some time all the argument is as simple as.. People misunderstanding each other and one part trying to he it clear and th other one not bothered to cler it up, thinking the it always right and cant be wrong:)
 
GzuzKryzt said:
It might seem to you that way.

To me - and likely to a majority of forumites here - it seems that:

1. You made no specific claim
2. You wanted to have the rules changes for you.

That's a double no-no. It seems your actions have disqualified yourself.

Obviously, you could easily solve this problem by making a specific claim, proposing a protocol, applying properly and of course not insisting on a rule change.
Click to expand...

I see both sides here. As you point out, the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal. On the other hand it can be frustrating not to get a direct answer to a written inquiry. But back on the first hand how important is it to answer something you already answered in the FAQ? Then again, it's not very educational to ignore someone, so surely someone could have found 10 minutes to address the question in writing. But who knows how busy they are or if something just slipped through the cracks?

Maybe the question is really a "why" question as in why won't the JREF put acceptable odds in the MDC? I'll take a crack at answering that, but my answer would be why *I* would not do it.

In every negotiation, and the MDC process is a negotiation starting with the offer by the JREF, you don't pin yourself down to anything you don't have to. There is no advantage to the JREF defining an accuracy level without also defining everything else around it. Doing so could easily put them in a corner and force them into an unfair protocol.

If the JREF were to take the extraordinary step of defining accuracy along with a protocol to ensure they are not being taken advantage of, it ceases to be an open challenge and becomes at least in part a specific challenge. That's really not the goal.

It would also force a take it or leave it approach. That is the antithesis of the rest of the rules, which demand an open and fair negotiation of both the protocol and the accuracy level. If the JREF were to then allow negotiation of their prescribed protocol, then negotiation about the accuracy must follow in kind.

And that, of course, would bring us right back to where we are now, so why waste the effort?
 
UncaYimmy said:
I see both sides here. As you point out, the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal.
Click to expand...
Then please enlighten me, at least as to the second issue: Are all protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld experiments, eligible for the Challenge?
 
Rodney said:
Then please enlighten me, at least as to the second issue: Are all protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld experiments, eligible for the Challenge?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you would apply with a specific claim - or at least direct one more polite inquiry the JREFs way - you might get an official (read: valid) answer.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I see both sides here. As you point out, the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal. On the other hand it can be frustrating not to get a direct answer to a written inquiry. But back on the first hand how important is it to answer something you already answered in the FAQ? Then again, it's not very educational to ignore someone, so surely someone could have found 10 minutes to address the question in writing. But who knows how busy they are or if something just slipped through the cracks?

Maybe the question is really a "why" question as in why won't the JREF put acceptable odds in the MDC? I'll take a crack at answering that, but my answer would be why *I* would not do it.

In every negotiation, and the MDC process is a negotiation starting with the offer by the JREF, you don't pin yourself down to anything you don't have to. There is no advantage to the JREF defining an accuracy level without also defining everything else around it. Doing so could easily put them in a corner and force them into an unfair protocol.

If the JREF were to take the extraordinary step of defining accuracy along with a protocol to ensure they are not being taken advantage of, it ceases to be an open challenge and becomes at least in part a specific challenge. That's really not the goal.

It would also force a take it or leave it approach. That is the antithesis of the rest of the rules, which demand an open and fair negotiation of both the protocol and the accuracy level. If the JREF were to then allow negotiation of their prescribed protocol, then negotiation about the accuracy must follow in kind.

And that, of course, would bring us right back to where we are now, so why waste the effort?
Click to expand...

It boils down to this - and this has been said dozens of times before in this subforum: Doing what you claim to be able to do requires no odds.

It.
Requires.
You.
To.
Do.
What.
You.
Claim.
To.
Be.
Able.
To.
Do.
 
Rodney said:
I guess even a brief response would be too much of an effort on the JREF's part. Better to create the impression that the fact that no one has passed the preliminary challenge means that there is no such thing as the paranormal.
Click to expand...

Rodney, do you understand that it is useless for a would-be applicant to ask for a rule to be changed?

Do you understand that wanting a rule to be changed demonstrates a firm - and very likely deliberate - misunderstanding of the Challenge Rules, and hence provokes an inquiry to be ignored?
 
GzuzKryzt said:
Perhaps if you would apply with a specific claim - or at least direct one more polite inquiry the JREFs way - you might get an official (read: valid) answer.
Click to expand...
Why would the second time be more productive than the first? And why can't you or Unca Yimmy answer my very simple question about a Ganzfeld protocol? He claims that "the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal." Somehow, though, I can't seem to discern this "pretty clear" answer from either the rules or FAQ, which is why I asked the question.
 
Rodney said:
Why would the second time be more productive than the first? And why can't you or Unca Yimmy answer my very simple question about a Ganzfeld protocol? He claims that "the rules and the FAQ make it pretty clear what the answer is to his question/proposal." Somehow, though, I can't seem to discern this "pretty clear" answer from either the rules or FAQ, which is why I asked the question.
Click to expand...

Only JREF Staff can give official answers.
 
Would it be possible to at least clarify if the preliminary test odds of say one in a thousand are carried over to the main test or does the main test start from scratch?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom