Paranormal detection

[chillzero]

I think these claims involve a serious amount of confirmation bias. I mean, people are going to wake at some point, and ikely more quickly if there's another person in the room (breathing, making movements and noises, etc).

You have no way to tell if someone was really staring at you while your back is turned - your back is turned, after all.

 

[L The Detective]

Reason, have you tried testing this ability out for yourself? It may be a good idea to do a few informal tests first before going through the official stuff.

If I were you, here's how I would do a quick test: I'd get a blindfold and a few friends to help me out. I'd wear the blindfold and face away from my friends, towards the wall. I'd have one friend be the "starer" and the other prompt me for responses. Every 10 seconds or so, I'd have the starer change the direction he's looking, either towards me or to the side, and the prompter would prompt me to make a guess as to which one it was. I would then guess, and would not be told right away if I am correct, but rather the prompter would make a note if I am right or wrong.

Of course, there's a 50% chance of success, so you'd have to do lots of tests.

An even better way, if you have a videotape, is to just have the person behind you randomly look towards you and look away, and you try to announce out loud when they have stopped staring and when they have started again. Then you can just watch the videotape and see if you are right. Well, your friends could tell you if you were close, but it would be more satisfying for you if you could see it yourself on tape.

 

[reason1]

Why do you need "many people"? Would it not work if you just had one person, who in any given period would either stare at you or not stare at you, on the result of a coin flip?

How's this:

You sit in a chair. Another person sits or stands behind you. There is a light in front of you, which both of you can see.

When the light comes on, the person behind you flips a coin. If it comes up heads, he stares at you. If tails, he stares at something else. You write down whether you think he is staring at you or not. The person behind you writes down whether he actually stared at you.

Repeat many times. Start with ten and work up from there.

At the end of the test, compare notes.

Hi all,
regarding arthwollipot protocol:
i didn't mean that i want many people around me for the test ,i meant the public place will have many people that are passing by in all directions and i will identify the ones who stare at me among the crowd passing around me.

I mean what are the chances that I'll identify for example 5 people who stare out of 100 random people ?
Also your protocol will not allow me to tell the exact location of the staring person
what do you say ?

I've sent my question to the Challenge email and I'm waiting for their answer
more to come....

 

[petre]

I've also noticed this phenomena, yet it is impossible to tell how many people were staring at you from behind that you didn't notice.

I can wake sleeping people by staring at them, but I quit doing it, because it seems rude.
I never considered it paranormal. I figured everyone could do this.

I believe this would qualify for the MDC if properly controlled. Not an easy test to design though I'd think, what with having to decide exactly what constitues awake/sleeping and preparing a sleeping target for each trial. Controlling for sound could require a bit of work as well, perhaps a sound-proofed box with a window?

Speaking of sound, and getting back to the OP, I could see a concern with a protocol of "stare/not stare" in that a person devoted to "staring" could make all sorts of (involuntary) noise that could distinguish it from a period of non-staring (low grunting when staring "strenuously", etc). Perhaps a protocol with additional volunteers sitting near the applicant as additional stare targets (each recording whether or not they feel stared at in a particular trial to make them indistinguishable from the applicant) and a "stare-er" (unaware which is the real applicant) will stare at a random target dictated by a die roll? I expect relatively small changes in angle of gaze would be unlikely to produce a discernable audio difference and may be enough to satisfy JREF for a protocol.

Note this ability comes with an added protocol difficulty that any test observer will be unable to ever actually look at the applicant during the trials, as such observation would be expected to interfere with the ability. A camera (or several cameras) will have to be entrusted to the task of monitoring the applicant to later demonstrate no cheating occured during the trials (e.g. a mirror concealed in the hand used during "coughing" to peek back at the stare-er). I picture a setup with a camera at the very front of the room, with the stare targets further back facing the camera at all times. Behind them will be the stare-er and next to him/her a rear-facing observer to record die rolls and (along with the camera/cameras) confirming the stare-er is directing gaze in the appropriate direction.

Self-test any of our suggestions as always, applicants are offten surprised to find seemingly innocuous controls appear to nullify an observed phenomenon.

 

[Pixel42]

i didn't mean that i want many people around me for the test ,i meant the public place will have many people that are passing by in all directions and i will identify the ones who stare at me among the crowd passing around me.

How on earth would you keep track of which people stared, and whether or not you correctly identified the ones who did? How would you set success criteria in advance for such a test? Such an experiment would be a nightmare to design, set up and execute. And it's all completely unnecessary; a much simpler test would be more than adequate to prove you have the ability you claim to have.

Also your protocol will not allow me to tell the exact location of the staring person

Why is that important? The ability to tell whether someone behind you is staring at you or not is enough to win the million by itself. But if you really want to tell location as well, it would be easy enough to modify arthwollipot's protocol to incorporate that. Say have two people sitting behind you and a couple of feet apart, and a random indicator only they could see to tell them which should toss the coin and stare/not stare each time.

 

[Olowkow]

I saw a guy the other day with a very nice red mohawk hairdo, sporting about 25 piercings, and a purple robe. I'm guessing 99% of the passersby were staring at him.

 

[yairhol]

How about instead of one person behind you, you'll have 10 people standing behind you and one of them stares at you by a random method (a die with 10 sides for example) while the others are not. You'll need to tell which of the 10 people (all standing in a fixed place behind you in an arch like form) is staring at you.
Does that sound better?

 

[Denver]

One thing that I'll mention here is that when Rupert Sheldrake did this experiment, part of the protocol was immediate feedback on whether a given guess was wrong or right. I never saw the point of this, but apparently he didn't get positive results unless this happened. My protocol does not include this feedback-per-guess, not because I want to skew the results, but because the immediate feedback seems to serve no purpose in the test. However, I am open to discussion on this subject.

I suppose one danger of immediate feedback, especially when testing this alone with a friend, is that some information could be gleaned from the sound of the voice:

Claimant: "Ready?"
Assistant (head pointed at claimant): "Yes!"

And when the head is pointed away, the "Yes" might sound different.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Hi all,
regarding arthwollipot protocol:
i didn't mean that i want many people around me for the test ,i meant the public place will have many people that are passing by in all directions and i will identify the ones who stare at me among the crowd passing around me.

I have this ability, also! It's amazing. When I look at a crowd of people and see a pair of eyes looking back at me, I know for a fact those eyes are staring at me.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Do cameras count as staring? I can't envision a protocol where cameras would not be used. If the testers want to make sure the testee is not cheating, they will have to stare at him the entire time. I'm guessing this might throw off the testee's sensations. The only option would be to set up cameras around him and stare at monitors. Otherwise he's always being stared at.

Ward

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Hi all,
regarding arthwollipot protocol:
i didn't mean that i want many people around me for the test ,i meant the public place will have many people that are passing by in all directions and i will identify the ones who stare at me among the crowd passing around me.

I mean what are the chances that I'll identify for example 5 people who stare out of 100 random people ?
Also your protocol will not allow me to tell the exact location of the staring person
what do you say ?

I've sent my question to the Challenge email and I'm waiting for their answer
more to come....

Reason1, should your application be accepted - and there still is a long way to go for that to happen - you can be absolutely sure that the tests will not be designed to take place in a public setting, especially not with

...100 random people...

because it would be virtually impossible to allow for proper controls.
Hence: A controlled test in a controlled setting.

Another reason for a test of your claim not to happen in a public place is given in the link from post #5.

Have you made up your mind yet how to get the required media profile and academic support?

 

[IMST]

Do cameras count as staring? I can't envision a protocol where cameras would not be used. If the testers want to make sure the testee is not cheating, they will have to stare at him the entire time. I'm guessing this might throw off the testee's sensations. The only option would be to set up cameras around him and stare at monitors. Otherwise he's always being stared at.

Ward

You could always have the cameras passively record and then check for cheating after the fact. That would avoid the problem of whether someone watching the monitors at the time was somehow able to interfere.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Right, but that's why I asked if cameras themselves are considered to be "staring." If they do "stare" then it seems like this is untestable.

Ward

 

[IMST]

Ah, misread that bit. Carry on...

 

[reason1]

Yes there will be hidden cameras to record everything.
Your are right, there shouldn't be any tester staring, as this will interfere with other people's . and i don't think i can detect when someone stares at my picture.

to Pixel42:
Also there are some flaws in arthwollipot's protocol that will not make it suitable. I'll post them later and also answer your other questions

 

[quarky]

I saw a guy the other day with a very nice red mohawk hairdo, sporting about 25 piercings, and a purple robe. I'm guessing 99% of the passersby were staring at him.

exactly.
though I was going to use the hot blond in a tight skirt example.
She may as well assume people behind her are checking out her butt; even church-ladies, for the disgust factor.

The thing about waking a sleeper by looking at them is a doomed test, yet, when a restless baby finally falls asleep, things more subtle than looking at them will wake the little darlings.

(Shhhhh!)

 

[reason1]

to GzuzKryzt :
I'm sure that my protocol is scientifically acceptable but I'll discuss it with you further later
thanks everyone

 

[Miss_Kitt]

reason1 -- I am looking forward to your explanation as to what is wrong with arthwollipot's protocol. It seems to provide a much simpler test than the one you have suggested, and less subject to interpretation/misinterpretation.

I find MDC protocols fascinating, and look forward to watching your progress.

Regards, Miss Kitt

PS to quarky : Some nights if we even realized the Peanut was asleep, the thought would waken her. I swear!! (Plus, all babies seem to have the ability to awaken and scream loudly if the parents have moved any closer to sex than a light kiss on the cheek...but this is not paranormal, since it appears to be a natural human ability, perhaps an innate trait selected for by guaranteeing no competition for Mother's Best Dairy until later in life.)

 

[GzuzKryzt]

to GzuzKryzt :
I'm sure that my protocol is scientifically acceptable but I'll discuss it with you further later
thanks everyone

There is no need for discussion with me. It does not matter if your protocol is scientifically acceptable, it matters if the JREF and you can can agree upon it. Semantics perhaps, but still.

There is the need, however, to clear up if your application would be accepted.



Arthwollipot's protocol is simple. Do a couple of trials and see what the results say. Self-testing is encouraged by the JREF. I did ten trials with my buddy - no hits. It took us less than 20 minutes.

 

[jojonete]

reason1: while I still don't represent the JREF, I'm pretty sure they'll never agree to a protocol in a public place with a crowd walking by. There are good reasons for that, and Pixel42 and GzuzKryzt expressed them quite plainly.

It looks to me like you haven't given up the idea about the public place so I need to ask: are you willing to agree to some protocol in a closed room, or is the public place an indispensable, essential, necessary requirement?

• If you're willing to accept some protocol in a closed room, I suggest you completely discard the idea about the public place.
• If the public place is an indispensable, essential, necessary requirement, I suggest you completely discard the idea about applying for the million dollar challenge.

I know this sounds blunt, but that's the situation you'll be facing sooner or later (and I think the sooner the better).

On the other side, I appreciate your effort in answering all questions asked to you instead of just skipping them or creating strawmen. I know it's quite tiring to read ten new posts every day and answering all of them, especially when all the posts seem to come from people who think you're wrong.