Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[fls]

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.

Where did you get the idea that he would be offered a success rate of 16 out of 20?

Also, the degree of the effect that this power has is relevant. That someone fails to get every letter correct on an eye chart does not mean that they have no vision.

Linda

 

[GzuzKryzt]

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..

I think you are quite wrong here.

The odds and requirements were the same in the Carina Landin test protocol. It is that exact protocol which I referred to, because it has basically the same premise:

1. 20 trials of a 50/50 proposition (photo/no photo, correct gender/incorrect gender).
2. 16 correct or better to succeed.

In addition to the links provided above, a final test design in English can be found here:

Final test design

And of course there's this.

Then this...

...and Pavel's response.

...

...

And from almost one year ago:

Folks, I'm going to step in here.

This protocol has been going on forever. It seems like Pavel keeps trying things and then failing, and people are trying to modify the test so that he has a chance of winning. This is NOT what the challenge is about. The claimant should have a clear claim and confidence that he can accomplish what he claims before he applies.

RemieV recently went over a protocol with me that looked like it might be workable, and then I see here that ANOTHER one has been proposed and Pavel likes it. Now we're essentially back to square one.

It is now incumbent upon Pavel, who I admit seems sincere, to state what he can do and allow us to test it. It seems that he applied way before he was ready, and now the JREF is expending too many resources to try to make something work.

There are other applicants waiting.

The JREF will accept one more full protocol from Pavel (with Startz's kind help, if he's willing) and then we will move on to another candidate.

Pavel, it's not like you weren't given a chance by the JREF.

It seems evident your lack of concise planning - paired with a possible language barrier - got the better of you.

 

[fls]

Where did you get the idea that he would be offered a success rate of 16 out of 20?

Oh, I see now. You got it from GzuzKryzt. I doubt that a much easier test than usual would be offered to Pavel. The probability for that result is 0.006, rather than the 0.0005 or 0.001 which has been discussed so far.

Linda

 

[fls]

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.

Note, it was 200 photographs for 100 trials (not 200 trials).

Linda

 

[fls]

I think you are quite wrong here.

The odds and requirements were the same in the Carina Landin test protocol. It is that exact protocol which I referred to, because it has basically the same premise:

1. 20 trials of a 50/50 proposition (photo/no photo, correct gender/incorrect gender).
2. 16 correct or better to succeed.

I'd forgotten about that one. And the odds on that were even lower, because it would be like making selections without replacement (although I can't remember whether it was specified beforehand that there be equal numbers of male and female diaries). That would improve his chances to about 16%. I don't know that I would go for something less than 50%, but it's a bit better than 2%.

Linda

 

[pavel_do]

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?

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.

With all my respect... Trust me I did more than enough from my side.. at least that what I think, and answered each and every question from JREF ( and they cant say the same about my question and letters) and accepted and considered each and every suggestion from JREF to my protocol.

You said what is the JREF's issue...? Good question.. I don't know what it is.. maybe just one.. I seemed like to propose protocol that would fairly allow me to show my ability if its true what I am claiming to do.. that is the issue..

And when you say.. about my lack of progress on my part..?? What you mean?? I never made JREF wait for my replies month and always answered each and every question and took their suggestions to consideration.. you can ask Startz.. and in the end of the day, why they didn't tell me they not happy with it? why did we discussed small details about water and presence from my side etc? Why?? Seems like only Linda and Rodney so far.. see this point... and talking about it. Not just jumping at me that I didn't do this or that and JREF gave me all chances..

Well if you really look it to it properly maybe at least 1 strike of a thought will come to your mind.. Maybe JREF was not completely fair to me and the negotiation protocol..?? Maybe its is only about failing each and every applicant..??

What was the problem with last protocol that we seemed like to agree about and discussed only small details??

What? Time?? Its was the JREF 8 hours limit.. I agreed to that!

Costs?? I pay for it No?

The protocol were reviewed by the independent statistician who worked with JREF before.. and for him it was good enough!

What the problem?? If they really seek the truth to find real example of paranormal?
What?? the answer is easy.. they have only one interest to make sure that each and every applicant fail.. until they decide other wise for their own reasons.!


I can be blamed for everything now, its all only my fault etc.. but just face it.. its not as JREF present it from there side... And i just happen to be a bit different from previous applicants.. not self centered , self diluted applicant claiming 100% success rate etc..

The last thing.. when some one said that I was given sort of a choice..? if you reread Randis letter.. he give me no choice! And Alison in the end says.. if you not simplified to THAT level. ( 20 ) I will do as Mr. Randi suggested and close your file...

who ever willing really see the truth will see it..and who's not, will continue blaming me and looking for mistakes from my side like lack of my English knowledge ( though I think even with spelling mistakes that I try to avoid and my way putting words, no one on the forum has difficulties to understand me..) and that I wasn't really willing to agree to the protocol and to be tested I am agreeing to be tested as long as its fair..

I think enough said.. NO?

 

[Marcus]

Oh, I see now. You got it from GzuzKryzt. I doubt that a much easier test than usual would be offered to Pavel. The probability for that result is 0.006, rather than the 0.0005 or 0.001 which has been discussed so far.

Linda

Okay, so would he need 17 hits to reach .001? I do have laws of chance tables here that appear to say that 18 out of 20 would satisfy 1 in 10,000 odds, so I know it can't be that much.

 

[Marcus]

What the problem??

I think you have a point here, actually, even though I don't see your problem with Randi's proposal. I think the problem was that Randi hasn't really been involved with this long, drawn out process, he just made a spur of the moment decision that the process should be simplified, nothing sinister.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Pavel, could you get 16 or more right in this (sketch of a) test:

1. There are two photographs. One shows something (e.g. Statue of Liberty on a bright sunny day), the other shows nothing (e.g. picture of black canvas).
During an open test, when you are allowed to see the photos, you calibrate and see if the conditions are ok.

2. 20 trials, ten minutes per trial, a break for you when needed.

3. You are handed one of the photos in an envelope. It could contain either one. What photo is inside the envelope is decided by the roll of a die beforehand.

4. You try to come with an answer in less than ten minutes per trial. Break whenever you want.

5. Repeat 19 times.



Please simply answer "No" or "Yes".

 

[fls]

Okay, so would he need 17 hits to reach .001? I do have laws of chance tables here that appear to say that 18 out of 20 would satisfy 1 in 10,000 odds, so I know it can't be that much.

Here we go:

Number right out of 20|p for guessing|p for Pavel
14|0.06|0.6
15|0.02|0.4
16|0.006|0.24
17|0.001|0.11
18|0.0002|0.035

Which value do think represents both JREF's and Pavel's interests - that is, which value gives Pavel a good chance of passing, but is so unlikely to happen due to chance that you'd bet a million dollars against it happening?

Linda

 

[fls]

I think you have a point here, actually, even though I don't see your problem with Randi's proposal. I think the problem was that Randi hasn't really been involved with this long, drawn out process, he just made a spur of the moment decision that the process should be simplified, nothing sinister.

I agree that it probably wasn't sinister. And I doubt that Randi really gave any consideration as to what effect his stipulation would have on Pavel's chances of passing. I wish he'd specified the number that he'd have to get right, but I'd counsel against him letting Pavel aim for 14/20, since it sets the bar low enough that someone will pass due to chance during the next 10 preliminary tests. Which means that the bar would be set higher and that Pavel is more likely to fail than pass, even if he performs as he claimed.

I just think that it is unreasonable to state that the reason the application was rejected was because Pavel wouldn't simplify the procedure, when Pavel quite clearly stated that it was because he would fail. It makes it look like Pavel was being unreasonable, when it is actually a quite reasonable response to being asked to accept a failure rate of (at best guess) 75 to 95%.

Linda

 

[pavel_do]

I think you have a point here, actually, even though I don't see your problem with Randi's proposal. I think the problem was that Randi hasn't really been involved with this long, drawn out process, he just made a spur of the moment decision that the process should be simplified, nothing sinister.

Ok... than it appears to be.. that All the negotiations of protocol with other members of JREF team so to say.. its just waist of time, as in the end of the day Randi not even bothered to read it and all the reasons for it, he just look at let say 2 pages protocol and say.. Too long i dont like it.. tell him 20 or he refusing to be tested..?? Great! Isn't it??

 

[fromdownunder]

Is there actually a copy of the final proposed protocol in the public domain?

Norm

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Is there actually a copy of the final proposed protocol in the public domain?

Norm

This seems to be the last one, which you probably already saw.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I just sent Pavel this PM:

"

Pavel, could you get 16 or more right in this (sketch of a) test:

1. There are two photographs. One shows something (e.g. Statue of Liberty on a bright sunny day), the other shows nothing (e.g. picture of black canvas).
During an open test, when you are allowed to see the photos, you calibrate and see if the conditions are ok.

2. 20 trials, ten minutes per trial, a break for you when needed.

3. You are handed one of the photos in an envelope. It could contain either one. What photo is inside the envelope is decided by the roll of a die beforehand.

4. You try to come with an answer in less than ten minutes per trial. Break whenever you want.

5. Repeat 19 times.



Please simply answer "No" or "Yes".

Hi Pavel,

you were online at least two more times after your last post. I want to make sure you read this. Please respond in the thread. Thanks.

GzuzKryzt"



Yeah, I CFLarsened it up a bit.

 

[Marcus]

Ok... than it appears to be.. that All the negotiations of protocol with other members of JREF team so to say.. its just waist of time, as in the end of the day Randi not even bothered to read it and all the reasons for it, he just look at let say 2 pages protocol and say.. Too long i dont like it.. tell him 20 or he refusing to be tested..?? Great! Isn't it??

The thing I am wondering now Pavel, is do you believe you could hit 17 out of 20? Do you believe it would be any different if it was 170 out of 200? If the answer to both of these questions is no, then the entire process was a waste anyway, you should have known from the beginning that you would have to beat 1000 to 1 odds.

 

[Marcus]

Here we go:

Number right out of 20|p for guessing|p for Pavel
14|0.06|0.6
15|0.02|0.4
16|0.006|0.24
17|0.001|0.11
18|0.0002|0.035

Which value do think represents both JREF's and Pavel's interests - that is, which value gives Pavel a good chance of passing, but is so unlikely to happen due to chance that you'd bet a million dollars against it happening?

Linda

Thanks. The question is not what represents Pavel's interest, but can he meet the standard required, which I infer from your post would be 17 out of 20, unless they agree to 16 out of 20, which they apparently have done in the past.

 

[Startz]

As someone who has been involved in Pavel's challenge for some time now, I'd like to comment on what I see to be a sad ending. For those who may not have followed all of the very long saga, let me explain that I'm an academic. I became involved as a neutral party primarily in order to help out with statistical and language issues. My involvement was with the agreement of both JREF and Pavel. To the best of my knowledge, I have seen all the correspondence between JREF and Pavel.

First, I am an admirer of Randi and his work. I also think that he is entitled to the last word on how or whether a challenge is to be conducted.

Second, in everything I have seen Pavel has conducted himself with integrity and rationality. He has shown some frustration, but under circumstances in which frustration is very understandable.

As a factual matter, a large fraction of the time that the protocol has sat without progress it has been sitting in JREF's hands.

Pavel has designed a protocol that meets the generally understood requirements. The probability of winning by chance is less than 1 in 1,000. The time taken is within the bounds of previous challenges. Pavel bears the expenses. I believe there are adequate guards against cheating, although this is outside my area of expertise. The protocol has been checked by an independent statistician (who was kind enough to volunteer his time) who is familiar with the challenge process. The protocol seems to have met with enough approval by the JREF staff that it was deemed suitable for final presentation by Randi.

My reading of Randi's response--and I have not seen anything other than what Pavel had posted publicly--is that (1) Randi has changed the rules of the game by insisting that Pavel identify pictures without error; and (2), that Randi seems to feel that Pavel has been difficult and argumentative. The second is simply an unreasonable view. The first would be unfortunate, but certainly within Randi's privilege.

Pavel has put in a great deal of work in trying to reach agreement. I have no doubt that Randi could suggest a protocol acceptable to both himself and Pavel with five minutes thought and a handful of back and forth emails. On the one hand, that is not Randi's job. He obviously can't be personally handling protocol negotiations. On the other hand, Pavel did what JREF asked and successfully negotiated a protocol with the staff.

Everyone who reads here knows that many challengers are either disingenuous or semi-coherent. That is not the case with Pavel. I think that when an applicant and the staff have brought a protocol this far along, JREF should then try hard to make the test come about, although with Randi always having the last word. Treating the applicant dismissively at this stage is inappropriate.

In summary, Pavel has behaved reasonably in these negotiations. It is sad that we will not be seeing a test.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
On the other hand, Pavel did what JREF asked and successfully negotiated a protocol with the staff.

No, he has not.

Everyone who reads here knows that many challengers are either disingenuous or semi-coherent. That is not the case with Pavel. I think that when an applicant and the staff have brought a protocol this far along, JREF should then try hard to make the test come about, although with Randi always having the last word. Treating the applicant dismissively at this stage is inappropriate.

In summary, Pavel has behaved reasonably in these negotiations. It is sad that we will not be seeing a test.

We only know Pavel's side of this and can't thusly not come to a final verdict.

Pavel's loose handling of protocol issues - trials necessary, the meaning of the numbers two and three, time issues, number of photographs needed, success rate, etc. - cannot be called "behaving reasonably" without at least some doubt.

If I were Pavel, I'd simplify the protocol as far as ziborovly possible and then plead for a re-opening of my file.

 

[fromdownunder]

This seems to be the last one, which you probably already saw.

Thanks GzuzKryzt. I wonder how much different the 11 June proposal was to the earlier January one, and which of Pavel's requests and RemieV's responses to those requests were incorporated.

Norm