Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[Cuddles]

I'm sure thaw absence of these documents is simple negligence.

Why are you sure of that? As far as I am aware, the JREF has not published these documents for any applicant, although they have been made available to some people such as those that actually attend tests. Why do you think it should have been done differently in this case?

However, I suspect they contain information that contradicts the JREF's narrative

Why do you suspect that? The documents you want are nothing more than the evidence Connie Sonne was eligible to take the challenge under the new requirements. Are you seriously suggesting that the JREF went out of their way to fraudulently allow this particular person to take the challenge, while excluding many other people for no apparent reason? That's a rather odd conspiracy theory.

Connie Sonnie included a complete test in her application.

Yeah, not a good start really. From the challenge rules:

16. This notarized form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.

So not only was her "complete test" a completely useless protocol with nothing in the way of controls and consisting almost entirely of gaping holes to allow her to gain information, it didn't even manage to follow a few very simple rules.

My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

Do you have any evidence of this?

However, the preliminary test is just to see the applicant can do what they say they can.

Well yes. The whole point of the MDC is to see if the applicant can do what they say they can. However, if you are suggesting that the preliminary test should be less strict and less well controlled than the final one, perhaps you should spend some time reading up on how the challenge actually works. The protocol for the two tests is identical.

Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

No. Rooting out cheating is what the whole thing is for, and both the preliminary and final test use the same protocol to do so.

She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

You are not qualified to make that judgement. Unless you can take her to court and have them judge that she is incapable of making decisions for herself, and presumably have her forcibly put into care, it seems rather silly to be making this sort of claim.

How do we know it wasn't all a publicity stunt?

Huh? The entire MDC is a publicity stunt. If you expect something else from it, you're going to be sadly disappointed.

 

[arthwollipot]

UncaYimmy, meet arthwollipot.

Yes, we've met. Thanks.

 

[Pixel42]

Any stage performer knows the value of a good rehersal. Seriously, she could have just asked a friend of hers to do the exact same thing suggested by the protocol and make a dry run at home. It always amazes me how many of those people don't bother to do it before the test.

It amazes me too. I suspect it's because the test is seen only as a way to convince us sceptics of what the applicant already "knows" - they are already completely convinced they have the paranormal ability they claim to have, so see no need to test themselves again using the specific protocol they've agreed to.

Unfortunately any self-tests they've done previously are invariably totally inadequate, with no attempt to exclude the mundane explanations (confirmation bias, unconscious cold reading etc etc) which are usually what have misled them into thinking they have an ability in the first place. They can see that the JREF test is perfectly fair, which is why they agree to it so readily, but they don't understand that it is specifically designed to eliminate the cognitive biases they don't even realise they have. So they are genuinely mystified by their failure and can only conclude that, despite the apparent fairness, JREF must have cheated. The alternative explanation - that they don't actually have a power, and their perception that they do is indeed due to those unconscious cognitive biases - is of course unthinkable.

 

[The Man]

Thank you for addresses the substance of my comments.
I agree almost everything you say.
Yes, calling the JREF sad is 100% the subjective opinion of this troll. Everyone should ignore it and make up their own minds.
Yes, I can see where all the changes the JREF suggested made it harder to cheat. My theory is that all the changes had that goal.

However, the preliminary test is just to see the applicant can do what they say they can. It has to be weighted in favor of the applicant in that stage to make it seem fair. This test didn't show if Connie Sonne could repeat her claim. Superman can see through walls, but he'd fail a test where the walls were made of lead.
The idea the Ms. Sonne would cheat is ridiculous. Read her website. She's never convinced anyone she had powers. The only witnesses she names are her parents in the old peeps home. Lots of her site is about how she's repeatedly amazed when people don't believe her. It was bad faith to treat her like a cheater. Rooting out cheating is what the final test is for.

“She's never convinced anyone she had powers”? Obviously she has convinced herself and in doing so is essentially just cheating herself, even if she does not realize it. The tests are structured to eliminate or greatly reduce possible conscious or unconscious transfer of information other than by the supernatural methods claimed by the applicant (as noted by others, Superman has never claimed to be able to see through lead). That structure also helps to restrict the possibility of cheating by anyone (including the JREF).

Also. I know Connie Sonne signed a contract. She is not of sound mind. The contract is not valid.

That being the case, how does allowing her delusion to persist and potentially reinforcing it help her in any way?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

And the idea that they 'wave" the affidavit and media presence requirement's on their discretion..make it a bit unfair.. in a way SOME applicant dont have media presence.. or chance to obtain Affidavit not cause they fake.. just cause some of them cant aproach any Phd professors or some one. cause they would not be taken seriously.. so they cant participate in MDC cause JREF says You cant apply without it.. So same time. JREF has one more way to protect them selves from possible threat of a claim that could drow public attention...

You do realize that's a contradiction? Right?
If you can't convince a professor or the media on your ability how the heck would you get public attention?!?

 

[not daSkeptic]

well than theree should be no problems in publishing it on JREF site..

How do you know what is and isn't a problem for the JREF? Do you have some inside knowledge of their operations you'd like to share with the rest of us? Maybe there's a reason these materials are not published on the web. Maybe there isn't. Rather than supporting completely unfounded conspiracy theories, why don't you go ask them?

 

[pavel_do]

You do realize that's a contradiction? Right?
If you can't convince a professor or the media on your ability how the heck would you get public attention?!?

Well I meant that some people is not able to find people willing to serve as academic witnesses.. Like some one live in small city that has no university for example.. beside that..even having one does not guaranty that some one listen to you..
Me for example being in US.. I went to to UNCC (Charlotte. N.C.) very big University with HUGE psychology department and trust me, knocked in "every door" I could of 4 store's building of the psychology department.. and out of at least 20 people I asked and spoken to.. only 1 agreed to spare some time with me.. all the others said.. they too busy for this thing, some said.. good luck, some said.. they don't believe in this nonsense...

I believe if I would have to try obtain same affidavits from local College of my hometown city in Siberia (less then 100.000 inhabitants) I doubt it would be good enough for JREF, the letter from college and we don't have University there.. beside I could be always accused in forgery affidavit or that they not good enough as from unknown college etc... Well JREF would for example say that they would be satisfied with affidavits from Krasnoyarsk University that is 400 miles a way.. or Moscow that is 3 days by train.. I doubt some provincial psychic would made it...So my point was, not about convincing academics but about finding one wiling to spend some time with you at first place..
I hope you undrstand my point.

 

[pavel_do]

Rather than supporting completely unfounded conspiracy theories, why don't you go ask them?

well I would BUT.. sadly JREF has habit NOT REPLY to questions and inquires..

 

[not daSkeptic]

well .. JREF has habit NOT REPLY to questions and inquires..

Have you actually asked them or are you just assuming they won't answer?

 

[Fnord]

Weirdl,

What is the purpose behind your posts?

- Are you trying for a re-match on Ms. Sonne's behalf?

- Are you trying to discredit JREF?

- Are you trying to make excuses for Ms. Sonne's failure?

- Are you trying to impress someone?

Is Pavel_Do your sock-puppet?

Thank you,

Fnord

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, meet arthwollipot.

That's one, and the JREF charged for it. People didn't get to see it until the deal was set in stone. Sounds like a wonderful policy. What about the rest?

It's funny how much skeptics sound like woos when asked to approach their own ideas skeptically.

 

[Uncayimmy]

No, it doesn't need to "seem" fair it has to "be" fair...

Remember the point the test is carried out:
1)To find out if there is something supernatural
2)To discredit frauds and charlatns
3)To rationalize and educate those who are deluded or mentaly ill

Bzzzt! Wrong!

* It doesn't need to be "fair" at all. It just has to be agreeable to both sides.

* The challenge is not designed in any way, shape or form to see if there is something supernatural. It's a publicity stunt aimed at reinforcing the premise that the paranormal is bunk.

* There is no goal for educating the claimant. The claimant is just a pawn.

I can only take a guess as I don't know Randi personally or anyone else who was involved in the test.

In another video on Swift, Randi mentioned how Uri Geller has ruined the people he fooled for years. So it's likely that if any applicant brings support from an academic person, that person could very well recieve the treatment that Connie herself reveals now. It is some form of damage control.

It also gives out an outing for the frauds:
"I wanted to apply for the challenge, but I couldn't get any acadmeic to sign up for me after all the mocking the JREF and co did to 'that guy'".

That theory doesn't wash. Apparently they did give out some info at TAM regarding Connie. They have mentioned in passing the institutions where academic affidavits were offered.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Huh? The entire MDC is a publicity stunt. If you expect something else from it, you're going to be sadly disappointed.

I'm sorry that you didn't grasp the nuance of what I meant. What I am suggesting is that Connie Sonne could have been a plant or at least someone they would not engage under ordinary circumstances (she lacked the proper credentials, for example). However, since she was willing to travel and perform on a public stage, they decided to work with her because it meant extra profits in TAM attendance.

Since the JREF isn't particularly forthcoming with evidence, sort of like the woos they criticize so heartily, they leave themselves open to speculation.

 

[not daSkeptic]

That's one, and the JREF charged for it. People didn't get to see it until the deal was set in stone. Sounds like a wonderful policy. What about the rest?

What about them? Is the JREF under some obligation to give the information, free-of-charge, to anyone who asks? I agree it would be nice if the data were more readily available, but I assume the JREF has a reason for not making it so.

It's funny how much skeptics sound like woos when asked to approach their own ideas skeptically.

Yes, it is. Rather than tossing around unfounded and extraordinary ideas, why not just ask them?

 

[Uncayimmy]

What about them? Is the JREF under some obligation to give the information, free-of-charge, to anyone who asks? I agree it would be nice if the data were more readily available, but I assume the JREF has a reason for not making it so.

It's sad that you can't approach the JREF with the same level of skepticism that you approach a woo organization. The JREF is making claims about the applicants, so they should be expected to back up those claims. It's really that simple. You can wring your hands all you want and coo about how they must have a reason because they are good and wonderful.

Yes, it is. Rather than tossing around unfounded and extraordinary ideas, why not just ask them?

I have done no such thing, but thanks for making it a personal issue. What a stunning example of skepticism! It's cute when skeptics get all defensive instead of dispassionately evaluating the evidence at hand.

The point is nobody should have to ask. Claims should be supported without requiring people to come after the fact and privately ask for supporting documentation. That's just stupid and the antithesis of skepticism. There are a couple of recent threads in GS&P that touch on this subject, which is skeptics not treating their own beliefs skeptically.

If the JREF doesn't read this forum or the blog comments, then I'm not going to waste my time sending them e-mails. Besides, the larger point is the attitude you exhibit rather than the data itself.

 

[pavel_do]

How do you know what is and isn't a problem for the JREF? Do you have some inside knowledge of their operations you'd like to share with the rest of us? Maybe there's a reason these materials are not published on the web. Maybe there isn't. Rather than supporting completely unfounded conspiracy theories, why don't you go ask them?

Have you actually asked them or are you just assuming they won't answer?

waiting for any reply since September.. and re-sent letter a few times to different recipeants! I know for fact my letters was recaived and read! BUT NO reaction.. just ignored.. beside that.. if I recall correct, I am not the only one who's questions was NEVER answered and letters not replied.. for example in my case.. One of the forum members also send letters and PMs with specific questions.. and as far as I know its been a few month now too and No reply.. unless hedidn't say anything. There are more cases when JREF just ignores people for NO reason, without ANY reply from their side! Even out of courtesy..! And limited funding and that they don't have enough people etc its not an excuse!!

 

[pavel_do]

Weirdl,

Is Pavel_Do your sock-puppet?

Thank you,

Fnord

If you would bother to read thread about my case you would understand where I am coming from..
Though I think you know it perfectly but instead trying to see point in it.. its easier blindly defend JREF and through insults!

 

[Fnord]

... where DID I breached rules and requirements?? and IF I DID.. they why JREF would not point it out.. where I was wrong.. what is the reason for THEM REFUSING TO TEST ME ON FAIR CONDITIONS.. ALL OF A SUDDEN where I had NOTHING against latest protocol and I could be tested any time THEY ready! All of a sudden. I was offered test that guaranties my faller.. YOU expect me to accept it ?? Would you accept it?? I doubt it! ... I negotiated in good faith! I am willing to be tested! But with fair test! The protocol that we negotiated for almost 1 YEAR was suitable for testing.. and JREF NEVER wrote anything against it beside forbidding me have my representatives and water on table ( that we managed to come to agreement later about). They never explained their reasons about WHY i could not be tested by the protocol that we negotiated before.. any way.. who followed the story, knows what I am talking about...

So, if you are not Weirdl's sock-puppet, then are you Ms. Sonne?

And is English not your first language?

If you answer 'yes' to both, then perhaps you could claim 'miscommunication' as your excuse as to why you failed.

Good luck.

 

[pavel_do]

So, if you are not Weirdl's sock-puppet, then are you Ms. Sonne?

And is English not your first language?

If you answer 'yes' to both, then perhaps you could claim 'miscommunication' as your excuse as to why you failed.

Good luck.

I should have ignore your RUDE comments..

well NOT EVERY ONE BORN AND RAISED IN US OR UK and not every ones first language is English.. Or you think English is the only and the best language in the world??
NO its not my first language THANK GOD,

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for Rule 12

 

[Fnord]

A quote from SkepticBlog, by Mark Edward, posted July 13, 2009...

She insisted that she lost merely because, “…it wasn’t time yet for my powers to be revealed.”

So by her own admission, it was not the JREF's fault that she failed. Why is she now claiming otherwise?