Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[Uncayimmy]

No, it's not just for the claimant to worry about. Under what circumstances does a 50% chance of success constitute "proper observing conditions"? If the JREF actually administered tests that even people with superpowers are likely to fail, they would be guilty of exactly the kind of rigging they are so often accused of.

I think you missed Steenkh's point. The MDC is not a test; it's a challenge. It's not a cooperative approach to research the paranormal; it's an adeversarial approach that says, "We are so confident that the paranormal won't be proven that we'll give you a million bucks if you can demonstrate it twice under proper conditions."

The tacit stipulation is that anybody wanting to take the Challenge needs to have their ducks in a row. They need to know what they're talking about (well, believe they do at least) and show us what they've got. The Challenge is not about helping people find out if there's something there. That's their problem. If the claimant is not confident enough to state a powerful ability, then come back some other time.

Pavel is a classic example. Assume his research indicates he can get the right answer 60% of the time when 50% is expected. As I said before, that means his ability is probably only working 5% to 10% of the time. If we take that at face value, it means that Pavel has no idea what he's doing. He has no clue which time his ability gives him the answer and which times it's just a guess, and far more often than not, he's just guessing.

If somebody really can do something like he describes just 10% of the time, then take a pass the other 90% of the time. Why should the JREF waste their time when Pavel, by his own admission, spends most of his time just guessing?

What Pavel needs to do is to learn how to distinguish between his "real" ability and guesses. When he can do that, his accuracy will go through the roof. He then needs to learn how to distinguish this ability quickly. Then, and only then, should he reapply for the Challenge. At that point the protocol will be pretty simple.

The same basic premise applies for anybody wanting to take the Challenge. The MDC isn't here to help you discover what your ability is and risk a million dollars in the process. It's not here to try to filter out ability from guessing. This is not a place to conduct research on your ability - that's your job. The MDC is here because you did your homework and are prepared to demonstrate your ability clearly and self-evidently.

 

[Rodney]

Pavel is a classic example. Assume his research indicates he can get the right answer 60% of the time when 50% is expected. As I said before, that means his ability is probably only working 5% to 10% of the time.

Which is 5% to 10% of the time more than the JREF thinks is possible.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Which is 5% to 10% of the time more than the JREF thinks is possible.

That's not accurate at all, and we've been over all of this before. In fact the JREF probably thinks it's very likely that a person testing himself with a limited number of trials would conclude that he gets 60% right on average.

To recap:

* Such a small effect is not going to be noticed in everyday life.

* In order to be confident that the 5% to %10 is not due to chance, you're going to need to do a lot of trials. Considering the first point, why would you do that?

* Just because something is unlikely not to be due to chance (it still could be chance - rare events are still events) does not mean that it is paranormal.

This last point is one you repeatedly fail to grasp. A small effect that is statistically unlikely is merely something that needs further research. It may be explained by something as simple as a flaw in the randomization process or a failure of the controls to weed out clues or other normal methods of doing whatever "it" is. A small effect is not grounds for a paranormal claim by any stretch of the imagination except for those who desperately want to believe.

Beside, what good is an ability that only works 10% of the time and you never actually know if it's working or not until afterwards? Certainly not $1M.

 

[jsfisher]

Beside, what good is an ability that only works 10% of the time and you never actually know if it's working or not until afterwards? Certainly not $1M.

I think you seriously underestimate the power of compound interest. Me...10% advantage...Vegas...good times!

 

[Pup]

I think you seriously underestimate the power of compound interest. Me...10% advantage...Vegas...good times!

And when the casinos kick you out, Forex!

 

[jsfisher]

And when the casinos kick you out, Forex!

At the risk of continuing a derail too far, if you were to stick to parimutuel wagering and games like poker where the house enjoys a fixed percentage regardless of the outcome, you be unlikely to be barred from the casino.

 

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by EHocking
It would be interesting to see the JREF reaction to this protocol if I was to say, I CANNOT get more than 30 right out of 100 trials.
Mathematically they would have to accept it - but would they be satisfied that this "ability" is paranormal?

But that ability is identical to the one being claimed, not just mathematically but in practice as well.

While I think we're both agreeing that mathematically it is just as significant to be successful as to fail without the expected bounds of random chance, it is not the same as Pavel's application.

His claim is that he can successfully pick photos better than chance.

A statistically significant fail (i.e. fewer successes than the expected lowest score for a set of trials), while possibly interesting, does not constitute THIS application.

If, on the other hand the application was, say, "My Karma is so bad that I fail to pick the correct photo significantly worse than expected by random chance.", at least then you have a paranormal claim. A weak one, but a claim nonetheless.

All you have to do is take the test but look at the picture that is not chosen and you've got more than 70 correct.

I think we're saying the same thing here, but to test the claim, you're looking at a success rate that is LESS than the lower bounds of random chance, so, still looking at the chosen photos, but testing for a success rate lower than 30 correct. In your scoring scheme, you are testing what the applicant DIDN'T do, rather than what they DID do (that is, be less successful than expected by random chance).

Flipside (and perhaps what you're really saying and I'm missing) is if an applicant's score is SO bad that it is worse than the bottom bounds of random chance, perhaps that is worth investigating as much as a success rate better than the top bounds?

But again, while interesting, if that is not the applicant's claim, it is not a win no matter how statistically interesting or improbable.

 

[fls]

While I think we're both agreeing that mathematically it is just as significant to be successful as to fail without the expected bounds of random chance, it is not the same as Pavel's application.

His claim is that he can successfully pick photos better than chance.

A statistically significant fail (i.e. fewer successes than the expected lowest score for a set of trials), while possibly interesting, does not constitute THIS application.

If, on the other hand the application was, say, "My Karma is so bad that I fail to pick the correct photo significantly worse than expected by random chance.", at least then you have a paranormal claim. A weak one, but a claim nonetheless.
I think we're saying the same thing here, but to test the claim, you're looking at a success rate that is LESS than the lower bounds of random chance, so, still looking at the chosen photos, but testing for a success rate lower than 30 correct. In your scoring scheme, you are testing what the applicant DIDN'T do, rather than what they DID do (that is, be less successful than expected by random chance).

Flipside (and perhaps what you're really saying and I'm missing) is if an applicant's score is SO bad that it is worse than the bottom bounds of random chance, perhaps that is worth investigating as much as a success rate better than the top bounds?

But again, while interesting, if that is not the applicant's claim, it is not a win no matter how statistically interesting or improbable.

Parapsychologists 'count' the improbable losses as evidence of paranormal abilities. It's called 'psi-missing'. The idea is that people deliberately miss through shyness or fear. Then you have the 'experimenter effect' whereby the belief or lack of belief of the person running the experiment influences the results. A skeptic will get ordinary results from their subjects, while a non-skeptic will get extraordinary results. Except, of course, when they don't. All of these effects are testable and applicable to the MDC. The problem is that none of them can be specified beforehand, but rather show up in the results a posteriori. That is, if your results fall on the extremes of the normal curve (and remember, parapsychologists use an easier standard than is used in other scientific fields, as they usually use one-tailed testing), psi or psi-missing is present. If your results were ordinary and they can't be made to be extraordinary through sub-group analysis (a fairly easy task with enough heterogeneity), then they were performed in the presence of a skeptic. If after all that, they are still unremarkable, then a meta-analysis which includes poor quality studies (quality refers to the likelihood of producing the appearance of an effect when one is not present) so that a bias can be spread out over very large numbers and return p-values which dazzle you into not noticing effect sizes that represent not guessing one time in a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand, is supposed to persuade you that those people who used confirmation bias and informal observation to discover that they have amazing powers were really on to something.

Linda

 

[Cuddles]

I think you missed Steenkh's point.

No, I understood his point perfectly.

The MDC is not a test; it's a challenge. It's not a cooperative approach to research the paranormal; it's an adeversarial approach that says, "We are so confident that the paranormal won't be proven that we'll give you a million bucks if you can demonstrate it twice under proper conditions."

I know, I've said exactly the same thing many times. But you are certainly missing the point - the challenge does not exist in isolation, it is merely a tool for the JREF to promote skepticism. If you try to promote skepticism by saying "Look, if we test someone in a way such that they'd fail even if they genuinely have the ability the claim they would fail anyway.", all you do is reinforce all the preconceived notions of unfairness and denial that are generally ascribed to skeptics.

Yes, the challenge as a challenge is not cooperative research, but the challenge as a PR must be absolutely fair. An unfair test is far worse PR than no test at all.

While I think we're both agreeing that mathematically it is just as significant to be successful as to fail without the expected bounds of random chance, it is not the same as Pavel's application.

No, my point is that it's not only identical mathematically, it is identical practically as well.

I think we're saying the same thing here, but to test the claim, you're looking at a success rate that is LESS than the lower bounds of random chance, so, still looking at the chosen photos, but testing for a success rate lower than 30 correct. In your scoring scheme, you are testing what the applicant DIDN'T do, rather than what they DID do (that is, be less successful than expected by random chance).

There is no difference between what the applicant didn't do and what they did do. The applicant simply picks one envelope out of two. In one case you open the one he picks, in the other case you open the one he doesn't pick. The result is 70/100 correct both times. It's the same claim.

Of course, you could use a different protocol that would distinguish a low from a high success rate. If you have to pick the correct photo from five envelopes then there is a big difference between getting it correct and knowing it's one of the other four. But that wasn't the original question.

 

[Moochie]

Not necessarily, if from the public's perspective, the ability is unspectacularly above what would be expected by chance. Pavel's proposed protocol calls for him to be correct in selecting one of two envelopes two-thirds of the time, when being correct one-half of the time would be expected by chance. If he can achieve that two-thirds percentage over hundreds of controlled trials, that would be overwhelming proof of the paranormal, but would hardly make for an exciting stage show. So, he would need to be able to translate his ability into something practical, such as correctly predicting two-thirds of the time a roulette wheel landing on red or black. However, it could be that his ability is so specialized that it would be difficult to turn it into a big moneymaker.

Unfortunately, this is also a constant refrain heard from woo-mongers the world over, and is sometimes used as an "excuse" for not taking the challenge. If an ability is "so specialized," perhaps it doesn't exist to begin with.


M.

 

[Moochie]

As has been mentioned in other threads at other times, this is not representative of the nature of such claims nor of Pavel's initial claim.

Pavel did not come here because he had an ability that was hard to parse from mundane guessing. He came here because--without doing any controlled tests on his own to verify it--he was convinced he had a spectacular ability. Not spectacular in the "stage show" sense, but spectacular in the sense it was obvious.

Yet again we are left picking at the margins because 67% is apparently too difficult. Since that is the case, how on earth did Pavel conclude he had this ability at all?

The MDC is not an investigative mechanism for claimants to discover if they have a claim or what the nature of their alleged abilities are.

It is a challenge for people who know their abilities to demonstrate it.

Pavel doesn't know what his ability is nor how it can be demonstrated. Why on earth, then, did he even apply?

JREF set itself up for a PR nightmare with this by accepting the undefined claim. If they had simply turned it down until Pavel had defined his claim, there would be no issue, but much like anyone who tries to go the extra mile, they got the black eye when they slammed into the brick wall at the end of it.

Totally agree. JREF should cease entertaining these types of challenges -- there's no meat on the bones, and there are far more entertaining science-fantasy, science-fiction, and downright weird claimants to swap words with, both here and in other parts of the net.


M.

 

[Moochie]

Well what can I say.. Its easy for you so to say Bla-bla-bla.. and ask me why on earth I think I have it.. I HAVE it and why on earth u DONT I don't know, and why on earth you stating that i dont have it before proving me wrong??? I said that my results some times were lower... What do you want me to LIE?? Why on earth some one decided that it has to be always 100% hits...??
And re to casino and stage offer.. I explained about casino already many times.. reread posts if some one interested!
What can I say.. you don't believe in my ability.. You WOLCOME to test me, I will pay photos envelopes and tea... until you did not proved me wrong did not witnessed anything... STOP “making me guilty” so to say..

You just comfortable not giving a chance to anyone and yourself to think that world can e different from what you used to believe it is.
I don't have anything more to say, but if you don't believe in my gift.. YOU WELCOME TO DO TEST!

Pavel, it's not about us proving you wrong. It's not about the JREF proving you wrong. It's about you showing you have anything to talk about in the first place.

Your credibility quotient is rapidly approaching VfF's at the rate you're traveling.


M.

 

[Uncayimmy]

No, I understood his point perfectly.

No, you didn't. See below.

I know, I've said exactly the same thing many times. But you are certainly missing the point - the challenge does not exist in isolation, it is merely a tool for the JREF to promote skepticism. If you try to promote skepticism by saying "Look, if we test someone in a way such that they'd fail even if they genuinely have the ability the claim they would fail anyway.", all you do is reinforce all the preconceived notions of unfairness and denial that are generally ascribed to skeptics.

See the word in bold? It's not a test. It's a challenge. How can you say you understand the point and then totally ignore it?

The JREF is promoting skepticism by saying, "You psychics, dowsers, clairvoyants and new agers keep telling us that science is wrong and that these beliefs of yours are real and we could see it if we'd only open our eyes. After all, people spend billions of dollars on this stuff. Fine. We'll give you a million bucks. All you have to do is demonstrate under scientific conditions that you can do what you say is so obvious. We're so confident that our eyes are open that we'll risk a million dollars on it."

When the claims shrink to the level of Pavel's claims (like with VFF and countless other woos), the message from the JREF is pretty clear. "You keep telling us that we can't see the elephant in our back yard, but when it comes time to prove this, it turns out we need to look for a striped mouse in a field of tall grass. Sorry, Charlie. Come back to us when you've got something worthy of a challenge. All you have is wishful thinking."

The MDC succeeds in many different ways. The most obvious way is when somebody makes a grand claim and suffers an epic fail. Another obvious way is when the Sylvia Brownes of the world hide from the challenge.

A less obvious form of success, which is what you are missing, is when grand claims wither away to or are exposed to be little or nothing when faced with a strong challenge. This is an important lesson people need to learn. Everything that Pavel has told us (and VFF for that matter), if relayed with 100% truthfulness and accuracy, does not warrant any further investigation. It's not worthy of a challenge.

The message is, "Come back to us when you've got something worthy of a challenge." This is a good thing. Indulging the whims of someone like Pavel is a waste of time and effort once it's been made clear that he's got bupkis. Let him waste the time of paranormal investigators who want to believe there's something there.

 

[Startz]

The message is, "Come back to us when you've got something worthy of a challenge."

UncaYimmy, how do you know what the message is? All I've seen is a cryptic, one-line message from Randi. I have no idea what JREF's objection is.

(I shouldn't be picking on UncaYimmy, I know. he's just stating clearly what a number of others have hinted at. Sorry.)

Pavel submitted a protocol that, over both the preliminary and final test, has a one in a million chance of success absent a paranormal ability. He met the stated requirements for positive evidence of an ability: an academic affidavit and a media presence.

Now I understand that JREF doesn't have a rigid set of rules for what they regard as testable. There are a few things ruled out from the get go--everything else follows the "whatever Randi says" rule. Personally, I think this is the way it should be.

But whatever weaknesses Pavel's claim may have, they haven't changed in a long time. Simple courtesy would suggest that someone at JREF should have told Pavel long ago that his protocol is unlikely to fly because JREF doesn't want to run a test unless the challenger has a likely chance to succeed if the claim is valid, or because they don't want to run a test longer than an hour except for a celebrity, or because JREF finds the claim boring, or whatever...

Under the circumstances, JREF should offer a serious, public explanation of their problem with Pavel's protocol.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, how do you know what the message is? All I've seen is a cryptic, one-line message from Randi. I have no idea what JREF's objection is.

(I shouldn't be picking on UncaYimmy, I know. he's just stating clearly what a number of others have hinted at. Sorry.)

No apology required. I didn't take it personally. I'd say the meta-message comes from the fact that there was a take it or leave suggestion that would only be accepted by somebody who believed they had a powerful ability.

Pavel submitted a protocol that, over both the preliminary and final test, has a one in a million chance of success absent a paranormal ability. He met the stated requirements for positive evidence of an ability: an academic affidavit and a media presence.

That protocol is more complicated than a government procurement contract! Pavel was warned a long time ago that the protocol was becoming too complex. I'm surprised they even entertained it for as long as they did.

Under the circumstances, JREF should offer a serious, public explanation of their problem with Pavel's protocol.

Randi said, "Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it's too expensive."

To me that's a classic "put up or shut up" response to someone who is claiming in effect, "As best as I can tell my ability only works maybe 10% of the time, but 100% of the time I have no idea if it's working or not."

What Pavel needs to do (are you paying attention, Rodney?) is to figure out when he actually knows that he's right. That's how science works. If there's an ability there, I would say there's gotta be something different going on compared to when he's wrong. If he can learn to distinguish this, then he could ace 20 trials without a problem. That's what Pavel should take away from this experience.

I do wish that Pavel would post here what the university said that he demonstrated.

 

[Rodney]

What Pavel needs to do (are you paying attention, Rodney?) is to figure out when he actually knows that he's right. That's how science works. If there's an ability there, I would say there's gotta be something different going on compared to when he's wrong. If he can learn to distinguish this, then he could ace 20 trials without a problem. That's what Pavel should take away from this experience.

What you're saying contradicts everything we know about human performance. A golfer may make a hole-in-one and then spend the rest of his/her life trying to replicate that feat without ever making another.

 

[jsfisher]

What you're saying contradicts everything we know about human performance. A golfer may make a hole-in-one and then spend the rest of his/her life trying to replicate that feat without ever making another.

That you'd equate Pavel's claimed ability to getting a hole in one in golf fascinates me.

 

[Uncayimmy]

What you're saying contradicts everything we know about human performance. A golfer may make a hole-in-one and then spend the rest of his/her life trying to replicate that feat without ever making another.

What a bunch of nonsense. Seriously, that's just ridiculous.

What I described is exactly what humans do from the time they are babies. A baby does something and something else happens. Lather, rinse, repeat. That's how they figure out how the world works. Take a little kid swinging a golf club for the first time. He has little idea of where the ball is going to end up. When it ends up where he wants it to go, he tries to figure out what he did to get it there. When it doesn't go where he wants it to go, he tries to figure out why it did. Lather, rinse, repeat and you're Tiger Woods.

Hell, even rats figure out after a while that the cheese doesn't just magically appear at random. The rat needs to do something specific to make the cheese appear. After a while he knows that if pushes the blue lever he gets fed. Sure, his physical coordination may prevent him from properly pushing the lever 100% of the time, but you can rest assured that the rat is not the least bit surprised that if it only pushes it down halfway, no cheese comes out.

The hole in one analogy is pathetic on so many levels I really don't even want to address it.

 

[Moochie]

What you're saying contradicts everything we know about human performance. A golfer may make a hole-in-one and then spend the rest of his/her life trying to replicate that feat without ever making another.

Is the golfer claiming a paranormal ability?


M.

 

[Rodney]

Lather, rinse, repeat and you're Tiger Woods.

Is Tiger Woods' performance the same from day to day or does it vary?