Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[Elvis666]

Statistics might be a long way back for me, but wouldn't getting 10 or more right by chance have less than 1:1000 odds?

 

[fls]

AIUI he's never claimed 100% accuracy, only better than the 50% accuracy expected by chance. So if he has to correctly identify every one of the 20 photographs to pass the test he already knows he won't be able to do so.

But as has been pointed out, to reach the 1:1000 odds usually required to pass the preliminary test he wouldn't need to identify all 20. So there appears to have some miscommunication.

The question isn't "how many photographs would he need to identify to achieve a p of <0.0005?", but "what p-value would be attached to his usual performance?"

Based on his own tests (if I am recalling correctly), he averages about 2/3 correct. If he performs as expected over 100 tests, the p-value for that achievement will be <0.0005. If he performs as expected over 20 tests, the p-value for that achievement will be 0.058. He will have done exactly what he claimed he could do both times, but only one will count as passing the preliminary challenge. Doesn't that strike anyone else as unfair?

It should also be noted that the usual set-up for the Challenge only offers each claimant a 50% chance of passing, even if their claims are true. Usually the claimant specifies a success rate, and the trial number is chosen so that that particular success rate will pass a particular p-value cut-off (0.001 is often thrown around here, but sometimes it is lower and sometimes it is higher). Doing it this way means that the claimant only has a 50% chance of passing. It would be better to take Power into consideration and choose a trial number that gives the claimant a better chance of passing (if they have the claimed ability) - say 80 or 90%. Of course, most claimants are too naive to realize that they are putting themselves at a disadvantage, and it's not to the JREF's advantage to point this out. And realistically, it doesn't matter when it comes to the results we usually see. It's not like claimants' performances are markedly different from the average, but slightly missing the p-value cut-off. They usually have quite ordinary performances - that is, their claimed success rates are effectively ruled-out by their performances anyway.

Let's look at what has happened here. Pavel sent in a protocol which gave him a 50% chance of passing - not ideal, but some people may find it acceptable. Randi suggests cutting the number of trials. Now I doubt that Randi intends to change Pavel's odds of winning to 1:17 instead of 1:1000 by staying with the same success rate, so it is likely that he will be asked to guess at least 18 correctly in order to pass the preliminary. If Pavel's real success rate is 0.67, then the chance that he will achieve a success rate of 0.90 is only about 2%. You can see that Randi has the ability to ensure that claimants will fail based on dictating how long a Challenge test will last. Of course, I cannot speak to his motivations for doing so. I suspect (or rather hope) that it is done out of naivety. But I would hope that he would demonstrate his good faith by changing his stance if this is pointed out to him.

Linda

 

[pavel_do]

Pavel,

Why does Randi's stated protocol guarantee your failure? I don't understand. Are you saying you cannot identify pictures inside envelopes? I thought that was a key platform in your claim. Please explain.

I think Linda, (Thank you) answered to this question even better than I could have.

Reducing the number of tests means that you need a much higher success rate to reach the same level of probability. And this success rate will be higher than the success rate you have actually claimed (through your own testing). It sets you up to fail even if your claim is true and accurate. Which would make the critics of James Randi and the Challenge right. This is very disappointing.

Linda

I know that the JREF supporters will be blindly defend JREF.. that is normal.. same as I will defend myself and to be fairly treated..

I see no reason in treating me like that.. even if we leave a side the time and the way JREF has corresponded by keeping me waiting MONTHS and completely ignoring my questions etc..

1) All latest protocols were written with Stratz help (thanks to him for his help). He speaks English good enough, i guess, to be able to correct when I can't really explain myself and put it in plane English so that JREF could understand all of its parts.

2)The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.

3) It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked with JREF) and accordion his opinion it was good enough.

4) It's too expensive? I'm supposed to pay for all the photos and stuff, NO? so JREF concerned about my money?
Or its too expensive to conduct? Well, I guess there are plenty of volunteers ready to participate... and JREF is going to be full of volunteers anyways...
Even if the test has to be conducted in UK, I am sure JREF has a lot of friends, including professor Richard Wisman.. or others? I am sure they could find free space for a test somewhere at the University or somewhere..? and I am sure many people would volunteer to help for free. NO??
Too expansive.. I think 1.000.000$ not a peanuts either.. and it's worth to spend some money to win it in my case and to spend some in order to make sure it was won fairly and not by mistake (in case JREF is really willing to award that money). Am i wrong?


The last thing.. to some people who doubt reply from JREF... Do you think I invented it..? I did not.. I am open and honest from day ONE here. I see no point in wasting my time and time of others and play games.

How ever I found some other challenges, most of the requirements the same more or less.. and I am fully ready.. I have affidavit letters, media presence and READY protocol proposal. And if someone genuinely wants to test my powers s/he is welcome to do so. I am open for the test. But the test should be a fair one. That will allow me to really show my ability not holding me in some frames to prevent me from showing what I am capable of.
Like JREF.. they say.. tell us what you can do.. tell us under what condition and show it... and when it comes to the matter.. everything comes to what JREF wants.. But in the end of the day..it's their money, their challenge and their rules. And whoever is willing to find the truth will find it and who is not.. will set too many rules for each and every case...to make sure who ever apply will never "get there" and this thing can go on and on... where applicants ridiculed and JREF is a hero!

 

[Moochie]

I've had misgivings about this test and the various protocols from the beginning. It's always seemed to me less a test of any claimed "paranormal ability" than a kind of lottery, with built-in calculated risk. For me to even consider that the claimant had an ability even slightly out of the ordinary he would need to perform well above chance consistently again and again over a very long period of time -- years rather than hours.


M.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I know that the JREF supporters will be blindly defend JREF.. that is normal.. same as I will defend myself and to be fairly treated..

Can you specifically name JREF supporters who have blindly defended JREF in this case?

I see no reason in treating me like that.. even if we leave a side the time and the way JREF has corresponded by keeping me waiting MONTHS and completely ignoring my questions etc..

If the JREF accepted my application - I have said this before - I'd communicate with them via registered mail only. Perhaps I'd use the JREF Forum to replicate what I sent per registered mail.

If I suspected the JREF would stall I'd ask for a specific timetable. And so on.

I'd basically treat them as I would treat any business partner who would owe me one million dollars if I could do what I claim to be able to do.

...
And whoever is willing to find the truth will find it and who is not.. will set too many rules for each and every case...to make sure who ever apply will never "get there" and this thing can go on and on... where applicants ridiculed and JREF is a hero!

Where do you get that you are being ridiculed by the JREF?

The truth - as you call it, Pavel - should be replicable for you at any institution which does controlled tests in a professional way.

There are even some who pay you money if you do what you claim to be able to do.

Will you take the Pavel Ziborov Express elsewhere?

 

[pavel_do]

Can you specifically name JREF supporters who have blindly defended JREF in this case?

No comment about that..

If the JREF accepted my application - I have said this before - I'd communicate with them via registered mail only. Perhaps I'd use the JREF Forum to replicate what I sent per registered mail.

If I suspected the JREF would stall I'd ask for a specific timetable. And so on.

I'd basically treat them as I would treat any business partner who would owe me one million dollars if I could do what I claim to be able to do.

Well, communication by Email.. took them sometimes months to reply.. can you imagine how much would it take by regular post..?

If you look back to the beginning of my communications with them.. I literally bugged them, bombarded with email when I didn't get any reply from them for some weeks.. and than I ended up calling them and than they got back to me that I am not the only one applicant and they getting back to me as soon as they able or something like that... don't remember exactly.. though I think i can find that letter if its not somewhere at forum...

The truth - as you call it, Pavel - should be replicable for you at any institution which does controlled tests in a professional way.

There are even some who pay you money if you do what you claim to be able to do.

Will you take the Pavel Ziborov Express elsewhere?

I will definitely! And if you know of any genuine researchers who as you say even pay for it, please let me know there contacts. I will gladly contact them.

p.s.

No I am not ridiculed by JREF... I meant previous applicants.. and of course the ridiculing wasn't so to say Open and direct it was done an a smart way.. to show everyone that JREF is happy to test everyone even if they claim to make others Urinate for instance but.. JREF always wins!! and no wonder as the contract that everyone has to sign in order to enter the challenge.. states..Rule number ONE the JREF is always right! Rule number two.. if the JREF is not right.. see rule number one... or we change the rules any ways.. as according to the contract JREF can change it at any time...

 

[Olowkow]

No I am not ridiculed by JREF... I meant previous applicants.. and of course the ridiculing wasn't so to say Open and direct it was done an a smart way.. to show everyone that JREF is happy to test everyone even if they claim to make others Urinate for instance but.. JREF always wins!! and no wonder as the contract that everyone has to sign in order to enter the challenge.. states..Rule number ONE the JREF is always right! Rule number two.. if the JREF is not right.. see rule number one... or we change the rules any ways.. as according to the contract JREF can change it at any time...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html
Rule 1 and 2:

1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.
2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not accepted nor considered.

Not quite what you claim, but stating one's abilities is always a great obstacle.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

No comment about that..

Can you please name JREF supporters who have blindly defended JREF in this case?

Well, communication by Email.. took them sometimes months to reply.. can you imagine how much would it take by regular post..?

If you look back to the beginning of my communications with them.. I literally bugged them, bombarded with email when I didn't get any reply from them for some weeks.. and than I ended up calling them and than they got back to me that I am not the only one applicant and they getting back to me as soon as they able or something like that... don't remember exactly.. though I think i can find that letter if its not somewhere at forum...

My point in using registered mail was to be able to document the JREF's moves. Even in a court of law.

I do not know how you contacted JREF, if you really bombarded them, if you found the right tone or if you pulled a David Koenig. I can't comment on what I do not know.

I will definitely! And if you know of any genuine researchers who as you say even pay for it, please let me know there contacts. I will gladly contact them.
...

Somewhere in this subforum is a list with similar challenges which pay prizes for what you claim to be able to do.

If you are interested, try a search.

 

[Rodney]

Likewise. I can see nothing in the correspondence he quoted that says he'd have to get all 20 right. Pavel seems to have simply assumed it.

So when Randi stated (according to Pavel): "Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times," he really didn't mean getting all 20 correct, but he just couldn't be bothered to state how many correct would be sufficient to pass the preliminary test?

 

[pavel_do]

Thank you.

My point in using registered mail was to be able to document the JREF's moves. Even in a court of law.

I do not know how you contacted JREF, if you really bombarded them, if you found the right tone or if you pulled a David Koenig. I can't comment on what I do not know.

You cant really go to a court with the contract you sign before your application is accepted...
Beside that JREF if I am not mistaken always sued by someone and has plenty of court cases to defend themselves from..

Re to my bombarding them and there reply...just one reminder.. when I applied and they accepted my claim, they told me that will start negotiation as soon as TAM will be over and than I waited over 3 weeks or more..sending them bunch of emails (always being polite) and ended up calling them.. if you look to some of my posts and your lets say here...http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82062&page=14 from post #554 you will see...

I am sure Alison will confirm what a pest I were and than I just given up and waited for the replies as I Been told to...

and also you can ask Startz about correspondence with JREF and there replies..

Somewhere in this subforum is a list with similar challenges which pay prizes for what you claim to be able to do.

If you are interested, try a search.

Thank you I will look in to it.

 

[pavel_do]

My fail has been closed. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115239

"In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.

Pavel will have the opportunity to re-apply for the Challenge in one year, assuming he qualifies under the guidelines governing the Challenge at that time."

"Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol" ???
Did they mean... Pavel was given NO CHOICE in fact....?

 

[fromdownunder]

My fail has been closed. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115239

"In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.

Pavel will have the opportunity to re-apply for the Challenge in one year, assuming he qualifies under the guidelines governing the Challenge at that time."

"Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol" ???
Did they mean... Pavel was given NO CHOICE in fact....?

Is this a complaint? The JREF did exactly what you asked them to do - you reproduced the e-mail you sent them asking to close your file on this thread, so they did.

Norm

 

[Marcus]

Pavel, I know it's over now, but what was exactly the problem with getting 16 out of 20? If you really have this power, it shouldn'r be that big of a deal, you would be expected to get 10 just by chance. I know the odds aren't fixed in stone, but in general, if you beat 1000 to 1 odds in both the preliminary and the final, you have beaten the million to 1 odds, at least that is what a mod opined in one of these challenge threads.

 

[pavel_do]

Pavel, I know it's over now, but what was exactly the problem with getting 16 out of 20? If you really have this power, it shouldn'r be that big of a deal, you would be expected to get 10 just by chance. I know the odds aren't fixed in stone, but in general, if you beat 1000 to 1 odds in both the preliminary and the final, you have beaten the million to 1 odds, at least that is what a mod opined in one of these challenge threads.

well.. the JREF would never agree to 16 out of 20... as Mr. Randi said.."We cannot satisfy each and every whim" at it is not covering 1000 odds requirement..

 

[pavel_do]

Is this a complaint? The JREF did exactly what you asked them to do - you reproduced the e-mail you sent them asking to close your file on this thread, so they did.

Norm

Its not complaint... its fact... I were give choice to agree to the protocol that would guaranteed JREF my fail or they closing my file..
I chose to refuse protocol for doomed for me test..
What would you choose??
I did not refused to be tested, I refused to be tested unfairly and to be forsed in to conditions that make it 100% unfair for me..

 

[Marcus]

The number would be 16 or more correct out of 20 fifty-fifty chances.

However, we cannot be sure to which protocol proposal Pavel and the JREF referred, since there were quite a few tossed around.

Pavel, in this post I believe GzuzKryst was referring to 1000 to 1 odds, most likely JREF would have required you to get 16 out of 20, you don't have to look any farther than recent challenge threads, like Connie Sonnes, to verify this.

 

[Marcus]

Its not complaint... its fact... I were give choice to agree to the protocol that would guaranteed JREF my fail or they closing my file..
I chose to refuse protocol for doomed for me test..
What would you choose??
I did not refused to be tested, I refused to be tested unfairly and to be forsed in to conditions that make it 100% unfair for me..

What exactly did you refuse? You didn't even ask what would constitute a pass.

 

[jsfisher]

Its not complaint... its fact... I were give choice to agree to the protocol that would guaranteed JREF my fail or they closing my file..
I chose to refuse protocol for doomed for me test..
What would you choose??
I did not refused to be tested, I refused to be tested unfairly and to be forsed in to conditions that make it 100% unfair for me..

pavel_do,
I'm getting the impression that maybe you didn't really do a lot to simplify the protocol. Sure, I understand that problems with a claim of 2/3 success rate on a 50-50 proposition, but how flexible were you in trying to get the testing time and effort down to an acceptable level?

With 200 trials, the JREF would probably require 123 successes for a straight-up 50-50 trial. You'd have a 95% chance of success getting at least 123 successes if your ability claim is correct. Seems fair if it could be made workable.

So, was the JREF's issue the time required for 200 trials? Were you open to simple yes/no responses for each trial with just a few minutes at most for each trial, or were you stuck on something more complicated requiring grouping and regrouping of test cases?

Honestly, I think you could have reached a mutually agreed protocol. Instead it looks like you may have incurred Randi's ire because of lack of progress on your part. At least that's the way it looks from my vantage point.

 

[Gr8wight]

I think Linda, (Thank you) answered to this question even better than I could have.

Pavel,

Let me ask the question a different way. Given Randi's proposed protocol:

There are twenty copies of each of two distinct photographs. You have a reference copy of each photograph in front of you to look at. You are given twenty envelopes that each contain one or the other of the photographs. Your task would be to indentify which photograph is in each envelope.

How many times out of twenty do you believe you would choose correctly? What do you predict would your success rate be?

 

[fls]

My fail has been closed. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115239

"In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.

Pavel will have the opportunity to re-apply for the Challenge in one year, assuming he qualifies under the guidelines governing the Challenge at that time."

"Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol" ???
Did they mean... Pavel was given NO CHOICE in fact....?

What Alison said is not true. If Pavel had merely been asked to simplify his protocol, I don't see any reason to doubt that he would have made the attempt. Instead, Pavel was told that he would not be offered the opportunity to demonstrate his claim, but if he wanted, he could demonstrate a different claim. Alison's statement should be corrected to say that.

Also, it would help future applicants if Randi was more upfront about these limitations. We've had endless discussions here with Rodney as to what sort of claims are suitable for testing. I've defended Randi for not wanting to involve himself in tests which would go on for days or weeks. But it now seems that that list includes tests which would go on for hours. This provides a fairly simple formula for whether or not a claim is suitable for testing which would have saved much time for Pavel and Starz and the rest of the people participating in these threads:

n = 60 minutes/time per trial in minutes = number of trials alloted

Critical effect size = 2.88 x SQRT(2/n)

In this case, n = 20 (not per the formula above, but as specified by Randi). This means that the critical effect size is 0.911. This translates into a success rate of 89%. If your average success rate is less than 89%, don't bother going through the process of applying, because no matter how well-designed your protocol, you will not be offered the opportunity to test your claim.

I can make a table translating success rates into effect sizes for several common scenarios in order to make this easier.

Linda