Paranormal detection

[Rodibidably]

It's all about the chances that this could happen at the same moment more than certain number of times.

But you claim to have the ability to know what type of staring is going on (or react or not react to them), so how would you know to NOT count my example as a "hit"?

You've also never explained how you would know how to count the "misses" (somebody "stares" by your made-up definition, and yet to fail to react to it).

You've also seem to have no comprehension of confirmation bias (all those tens, hundreds, thousands of times you've "reacted" and yet nobody was "staring").

You've shown an amazing unwillingness to listen to constructive criticism, advice of how to create a scientifically control protocol, and what the potential problems are with your "experiment".

I don't speak for the JREF, but I can say, the odds of them agreeing to a protocol that is is public as you've described, is so infinitesimally small that it is more likely that Richard Dawkins will show up on my doorstep this afternoon trying to convert me to the LDS church.

 

[Czarcasm]

Give me an example of a situation in which you looked at something intensively for 10 seconds while you didn't have any interest in looking at that thing.

Staring contest with an ugly guy.

 

[Kariboo]

It's all about the chances that this could happen at the same moment more than certain number of times.

You know what;
I propose that anyone who would suddenly jerk around will see someone else look away every time. So in answer to your question: 100%

Now, if you disagree with this: please explain why this DOES NOT happen in a 100% of cases with anyone and why you think that in your case it happens more often that you would expect.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Same question : give me an example of a situation in which you looked at something intensively for 10 seconds while you didn't have any interest in looking at that thing.

People being told to stare at a MDC applicant, as part of a MDC test

 

[Czarcasm]

People being told to stare at a MDC applicant, as part of a MDC test

Studying for a Biology test.

 

[steenkh]

Give me an example of a situation in which you looked at something intensively for 10 seconds while you didn't have any interest in looking at that thing.

You just push the problem to another word: "intensively". If you pass the test, you will assume that the people looked at you "intensively", if you fail the test, you will claim that they did not look at you "intensively".

 

[reason1]

Well, I just saw it, here in Hong Kong. Just a few minutes ago.

What? You can't see it. Well, it's perfectly obvious to me that the person was staring with complete disinterest.

See how stupid this argument would be? "
You: No, that wasn't staring. They were only looking because they were told to.
Us: Nuh huh! Looking fixedly for more than X seconds is staring by all definitions.
You: Not by my definition.
Us: You're not qualified to define words.
You: (placing fingers in ears) La la la la caaaaant heaaaaar youuuuu!

Why are you so pedantic man !!!!???....would you open your mind a little for the sake of the discussion !!.
OK...i will solve it specially for you:
I don't detect when people stare at me, but when they cacakoka at me.
you may say what the hell does"cacakoka" mean , i say "it means when someone who is unaware of my detection ability looks at me intensively for a while because he/she is interested in doing so".
OK man ???!!!!!! no offense OK ????

And this is different from when they stare because they are interested in the testing ... how, exactly?

You *were* the one trying to claim "Looking at something intensively for the sake of demonstrating a test is NOT staring (acting/passive), and that involves only the conscious level, you don't have any desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity to do so,it's boring and doesn't happen in normal every day life," right?

So, how do you determine this "desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity" is present in one case, but in another it only involves "the conscious level," whatever you mean by that?

It's not a matter of how we determine that, but how we can assure that :
We are sure that random unaware people will stare because of some motivation/desire ,but in case of staring actors , we can't be certain of that, in fact there is little chance of active staring in this situation.

The problem is, how do we determine whether the person whom you detect was doing one or the other? Because you're talking about intent, which can't be objectively verified. The best you can do is ask and hope that the person is being truthful with his or her answer, but there's no real objective way to test that.

Also, there's no real objective way to test whether or not you have "missed". For example, if you say "that person was staring at me and I detected him" and we ask the person "were you looking at reason1?" and the person says "no, I was gazing at the potted rhodadendron (sp?) on the other side of reason1, thinking about current politics". Would you accept that answer, if you were SURE he was staring at you, or would you claim that he is lying and claim it as a hit? How could we confirm, objectively, that he is lying (or not)?

Hi Jackalgirl,
If you missed my previous post :
It's all about the chances that two reflexes which are opposite in direction could happen at the same moment more than certain number of times. testers/observers can easily calculate that , mathematics are objective.

Also, I still don't recall seeing anything from you that describes the nitty gritty of what would be required to objectively verify your claim. The closest that I can get, imagination-wise, would be next to impossible to pull off because of the complexity involved in trying to take objective measurements in a public space.

UncaYimmy's protocol -- the one involving hats -- is a LOT simpler and would be a LOT more practical. It's actually doable. Do you have any particular objections to his protocol?

Because if you still insist on a public setting with no independent, objective means of verification, then you might as well give up now.

Another question, and this isn't meant in a mocking way -- are you familiar with the Invisible Dragon analogy (as written by Carl Sagan in his book "Demon-Haunted World")?

i'm still thinking about UncaYimmy's protocol , i'm not rejecting it. and no.. i don't know about the Dragon.

But you claim to have the ability to know what type of staring is going on (or react or not react to them), so how would you know to NOT count my example as a "hit"?

the chances/odds are only for the observers/tester, i can feel when someone stares at me ,i'm sure of my ability.

You've also never explained how you would know how to count the "misses" (somebody "stares" by your made-up definition, and yet to fail to react to it).

You've also seem to have no comprehension of confirmation bias (all those tens, hundreds, thousands of times you've "reacted" and yet nobody was "staring").

You've shown an amazing unwillingness to listen to constructive criticism, advice of how to create a scientifically control protocol, and what the potential problems are with your "experiment".

I don't speak for the JREF, but I can say, the odds of them agreeing to a protocol that is is public as you've described, is so infinitesimally small that it is more likely that Richard Dawkins will show up on my doorstep this afternoon trying to convert me to the LDS church.

man/lady....I did say that it's impossible for the observers to count any misses because it's not self-evident but irrelevant to success in regard to the test because the hits are actually self-evident .

Staring contest with an ugly guy.

get out right now

 

[fromdownunder]

man/lady....I did say that it's impossible for the observers to count any misses because it's not self-evident but irrelevant to success in regard to the test because the hits are actually self-evident .

Onxe again. we do the test (somehow) and 50 people stare at you over the course of say thirty minutes. You only "detect" 10.

Fail!

You saying that the other 40 were not staring properly is a nonsense.

Norm

 

[TSR]

It's not a matter of how we determine that, but how we can assure that :
We are sure that random unaware people will stare because of some motivation/desire ,but in case of staring actors , we can't be certain of that, in fact there is little chance of active staring in this situation.

Absolutely, it is a matter of determining that -- which you repeat above: how do you make the distinction between the motivation to see the test proceed and any other motivation?

And what about all those random unaware people who actively stare who you *don't* sense?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Onxe again. we do the test (somehow) and 50 people stare at you over the course of say thirty minutes. You only "detect" 10.

Fail!

You saying that the other 40 were not staring properly is a nonsense.

Norm

May I remind you good people that reason1 exhibits many patterns of a True Believer?

1. No submission of his claims to proper testing.
2. Invention of own nomenclature.
3. Strawmen, staggering ignorance, absurdity, infallibility, etc. etc.

One can't have an intellectually honest discussion with a True Believer.

 

[H3LL]

I get it.

When reason1 thinks he's got a hit, he has a hit and when he thinks he hasn't, it doesn't count as a miss.

100% strike rate in any environment you care to mention.

And he thinks he has a protocol for a test?!?



.

 

[Lrrr]

I did say that it's impossible for the observers to count any misses because it's not self-evident but irrelevant to success in regard to the test because the hits are actually self-evident .

Help me out here, experienced protocol folks. Don't the hits AND misses have to be self-evident?

Also, misses are "irrelevant to success"???? That will not be acceptable in any test. In your protocol, 50 people walk by you and you only react to 10. In your protocol, this is a success because you correctly identified 10 people staring at you (never mind how you can prove that they are "staring" at you by your own definition).

Now let's change the test a little. Say you are taking a multiple choice college exam. You answer 10 out of 50 questions with a letter other than what what is on the examiner's marking sheet. By your definition, you did not get a mark of 20% on the exam, but 100% - a perfect score of 10/10 because the other 40 questions are irrelevant. Do you see where the problem with this scenario?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

For example, how *do* you determine the starer's state of mind, such that you know whether their subconscious is engaged or not?

When people stare at something , they are doing this because they have a subconscious desire to do so, as when you look at something weird, unusual, new, beautiful or of special interest to you

Anyone looking at you without "desire to do so" can be dismissed as not staring. So you eliminate all misses in that category with the wave of a hand. And what scientific body is going to decide that?

You *were* the one trying to claim "Looking at something intensively for the sake of demonstrating a test is NOT staring (acting/passive), and that involves only the conscious level, you don't have any desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity to do so,it's boring and doesn't happen in normal every day life," right?

So, how do you determine this "desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity" is present in one case, but in another it only involves "the conscious level," whatever you mean by that?

I see only one solution. To ensure the quality and reasons they have for staring. reason1 gets undressed in a crowd full of ladies. Or performs something funny for an audience. Or perhaps in some combination. Now that would be cacakoka*.
"Patent pending".

*"it means when someone who is unaware of my detection ability looks at me intensively for a while because he/she is interested in doing so".

Please don't censor this. It is a sincere suggestion based on claimant's descriptions and requirements for a test.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I get it.

When reason1 thinks he's got a hit, he has a hit and when he thinks he hasn't, it doesn't count as a miss.

100% strike rate in any environment you care to mention.

And he thinks he has a protocol for a test?!?



.

Sadly.... yes. I think he does think that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Now let's change the test a little. Say you are taking a multiple choice college exam. You answer 10 out of 50 questions with a letter other than what what is on the examiner's marking sheet. By your definition, you did not get a mark of 20% on the exam, but 100% - a perfect score of 10/10 because the other 40 questions are irrelevant. Do you see where the problem with this scenario?

You guys keep getting hung up on this "not counting the misses" thing when, as I've explained more than once, it's not even a consideration at this point. There are plenty of scenarios where a failure to detect is not particularly relevant.

As an extreme example suppose I said I could detect when the number six was about to be rolled on a die. Out of 100 trials, there were 20 sixes rolled. I predicted 10 of them. Those were my only predictions - no false positives. Would you think that was dumb luck? Would you care that I only got 50% of the sixes? Of course not.

Reason1 seems to be operating under the idea that his ability could be considered in a similar manner. I am in no way convinced of this. What Reason1 needs to do is actually answer the specific questions several of us have asked including evaluating my suggested protocol and the suggestions others have added to it.

There is no sense arguing about "counting the misses" until such time is there an actual protocol under consideration. Then we can define misses and evaluate their importance.

 

[Akhenaten]

I see only one solution. To ensure the quality and reasons they have for staring. reason1 gets undressed in a crowd full of ladies. Or performs something funny for an audience. Now that would be cacakoka*.
"Patent pending".

*"it means when someone who is unaware of my detection ability looks at me intensively for a while because he/she is interested in doing so".

Please don't censor this. It is a sincere suggestion based on claimant's descriptions and requirements for a test.

I've always wanted to like you, Anita. I look forward to a time when you're completely in from the cold. Go you

 

[fromdownunder]

There is no sense arguing about "counting the misses" until such time is there an actual protocol under consideration. Then we can define misses and evaluate their importance.

UncaYimmy, the reason I and others keep raising this is that reason1 does not even consider the possibility that he has misses, and appears to be claiming, if I understand what he has posted correctly in context, that he does not have misses.

If we can overcome this, and he can even understand what we are saying, he will realise that he has not got a claim, and the whole thing may go away. (Wishful thinking, I know - but this thread is like a train accident - you just can't look away, even though you want to).

And do you seriously think that he can develop a protocol - he will simply define staring (and any other word he chooses) to fit in with his perceived power, and hope that the misses, or any other issues will simply go away. Look at his latest effort on "staring". Now he has added that only people who do not know he has the power can stare at him in the right way.

Norm

 

[H3LL]

You guys keep getting hung up on this "not counting the misses" thing when, as I've explained more than once, it's not even a consideration at this point. There are plenty of scenarios where a failure to detect is not particularly relevant.

As an extreme example suppose I said I could detect when the number six was about to be rolled on a die. Out of 100 trials, there were 20 sixes rolled. I predicted 10 of them. Those were my only predictions - no false positives. Would you think that was dumb luck? Would you care that I only got 50% of the sixes? Of course not.

Reason1 seems to be operating under the idea that his ability could be considered in a similar manner. I am in no way convinced of this. What Reason1 needs to do is actually answer the specific questions several of us have asked including evaluating my suggested protocol and the suggestions others have added to it.

There is no sense arguing about "counting the misses" until such time is there an actual protocol under consideration. Then we can define misses and evaluate their importance.

I hear what you are saying but the problem seems to be that, using your analogy, reason1 would claim there were only 10 sixes rolled and not 20 as perceived by others. The missing 10 were not the right kind of sixes.

He doesn't seem to see this and I think you might have missed it too.

What do you think?

ETA: fromdownunder posted above while I was writing and he seems to think the same thing.

 

[Akhenaten]

I get it.

When reason1 thinks he's got a hit, he has a hit and when he thinks he hasn't, it doesn't count as a miss.

100% strike rate in any environment you care to mention.

And he thinks he has a protocol for a test?!?



.

Sadly.... yes. I think he does think that.

My take is that he believes if he can make up an untestable ability then the JREF will have to pay the million because they can't disprove said claim.

Thus the claimant sees everything up to and including protocol discussions as being off-topic, the thinking being that if we can't create a protocol, he gets the money.

Or something. I foresee a more likely outcome being published in Public Announcements, at the present rate of invective.

 

[Rodibidably]

You guys keep getting hung up on this "not counting the misses" thing when, as I've explained more than once, it's not even a consideration at this point. There are plenty of scenarios where a failure to detect is not particularly relevant.

As an extreme example suppose I said I could detect when the number six was about to be rolled on a die. Out of 100 trials, there were 20 sixes rolled. I predicted 10 of them. Those were my only predictions - no false positives. Would you think that was dumb luck? Would you care that I only got 50% of the sixes? Of course not.

Reason1 seems to be operating under the idea that his ability could be considered in a similar manner. I am in no way convinced of this. What Reason1 needs to do is actually answer the specific questions several of us have asked including evaluating my suggested protocol and the suggestions others have added to it.

There is no sense arguing about "counting the misses" until such time is there an actual protocol under consideration. Then we can define misses and evaluate their importance.

Imagine yourself in a crowd.
If you see somebody suddenly turn, even out of the corner of your eye, you might be tempted to look at that person to see what they are looking at.
Now if they happen to look at you, your natural reaction will be to look away.

The problem is more analogus to the following situation:

The dice will be rolled by him
Reason1 will call not that is it going to be a six or not, but IF it will in fact "roll" where he is the only person who seems to have any comprehension of his definition of "rolling".
In this way and he has an impact on the "rolling" and the defintion of what a "roll" is, AND there is no definition of "not rolling" allowed, so he can never have anything BUT a 100% hit rate.