Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[petre]

I realize that they use the same excuse. What I'm wondering is why the JREF can't just roll up shop and leave them alone? If the actions of the JREF are characterized by "it doesn't matter whether we take advantage of people as long as what we do is legal", why doesn't that same characterization make the actions of psychics acceptable as well?

Linda

Same reason the psychics can't roll up shop, it doesn't further their purpose.

In the case of psychics the purpose is to provide entertainment in exchange for monetary reward, where the reward is greater if they are able to dupe more people into believing their services are more than just entertainment, and the disclaimer serves to protect them legally as they seek to dupe the greatest number possible.

In the case of the JREF the (stated) purpose is education, where the goal is better met if they interact with rational and savy individuals, and the contract provides legal protection when they are unable to avoid vulnerable people in their pursuit.

If one were to assume it is equally important to continue efforts to protect those exploited by psychics via the education provided by JREF activities, is there anything the JREF isn't doing now, but could be doing, to protect the similarly disadvantaged people that tend to apply to the challenge? In absence of any such suggestion I see little choice but to estimate whether ceased or continued activity results in less harm.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I'm talking about putting in an extraordinary disadvantage without telling anyone, like removing all the 10's from the decks used in 21. Sure, you'll tell them the 10's are gone if someone thinks to asks, but as long as they don't ask, why tell?

But this isn't what's happening. They are being told, they're just either not listening or not understanding. A better analogy would be removing all of the 10's, telling the other party you have done so, and then having them wave their hand at you and say, "Yeah, fine, whatever."

Does the JREF take advantage of this? Probably, most companies do. Could they do more to cover their asses? Sure, they could require more scrutiny rather than just suggesting it. Why don't they? I can speculate about matters of time and cost and lack of necessity, but ultimately I can't answer that without knowing more about them internally.

 

[fls]

Same reason the psychics can't roll up shop, it doesn't further their purpose.

...

If one were to assume it is equally important to continue efforts to protect those exploited by psychics via the education provided by JREF activities...

Well, that's my question. Why would we assume that it's important to protect those who are exploited by psychics when we aren't interested in protecting those who are exploited by the JREF?

Linda

 

[fls]

But this isn't what's happening. They are being told, they're just either not listening or not understanding.

Please point me to some examples of the JREF negotiating a test and then telling claimants that this test has been set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass.

Linda

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, that's my question. Why would we assume that it's important to protect those who are exploited by psychics when we aren't interested in protecting those who are exploited by the JREF?

You ask an excellent question. I hope this recent trend of questioning skeptics and skeptical organizations continues. Far too often in this forum you'll see a claimant's words or actions picked apart, yet when somebody questions the JREF, it gets very quiet except for a few people going after the person who dared asked the questions.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Please point me to some examples of the JREF negotiating a test and then telling claimants that this test has been set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass.

Every single written protocol is such an example. It is the equivalent of the house removing all 10's from the deck and announcing they have done so. Not everybody will necessarily pay attention to this announcement and some of those who do may not comprehend the significance of it, but they were still told nonetheless.

Your analogy, wherein the 10's were removed and nobody was told, would be the equivalent of the JREF performing a different protocol than that to which everyone agreed.

 

[The Man]

Every single written protocol is such an example. It is the equivalent of the house removing all 10's from the deck and announcing they have done so. Not everybody will necessarily pay attention to this announcement and some of those who do may not comprehend the significance of it, but they were still told nonetheless.

Your analogy, wherein the 10's were removed and nobody was told, would be the equivalent of the JREF performing a different protocol than that to which everyone agreed.

Exactly, again it is a challenge and intended to challenge the claimed ability. If one does not think they are up to or understand that challenge (as defined by the agreed protocol) then they should not accept that challenge.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Every single written protocol is such an example. It is the equivalent of the house removing all 10's from the deck and announcing they have done so. Not everybody will necessarily pay attention to this announcement and some of those who do may not comprehend the significance of it, but they were still told nonetheless.

Your analogy, wherein the 10's were removed and nobody was told, would be the equivalent of the JREF performing a different protocol than that to which everyone agreed.

I think you need to re-read what Linda wrote because I don't ever recall the JREF telling claimants "this test has been set up so that even if [you] have the claimed ability, it is unlikely [you] will be able to pass." Truth is, Randi and most skeptics (myself included) like to tell claimants to just shut up and do what they claim they can do, and if they do, we'll believe. That's contradictory to establishing a test where if they did perform like they claimed to be able to perform, the odds were stacked against them winning the challenge.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... I don't ever recall the JREF telling claimants "this test has been set up so that even if [you] have the claimed ability, it is unlikely [you] will be able to pass."

If this message can be derived from the protocol, then yes, it has been delivered. It may require specialized knowledge to decipher, but it's there. In this regard it's no different than a casino with unusual house rules stated in complex gaming speak the average player cannot readily comprehend. Don't misunderstand, I'm not condoning this, just identifying it.

Truth is, Randi and most skeptics (myself included) like to tell claimants to just shut up and do what they claim they can do, and if they do, we'll believe. That's contradictory to establishing a test where if they did perform like they claimed to be able to perform, the odds were stacked against them winning the challenge.

I agree it's a contradiction, and I have certain ideas as to why that is, but they're just that.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I think you need to re-read what Linda wrote because I don't ever recall the JREF telling claimants "this test has been set up so that even if [you] have the claimed ability, it is unlikely [you] will be able to pass." Truth is, Randi and most skeptics (myself included) like to tell claimants to just shut up and do what they claim they can do, and if they do, we'll believe. That's contradictory to establishing a test where if they did perform like they claimed to be able to perform, the odds were stacked against them winning the challenge.

Unca nails it...

The tests should be incredibly easy for anyone who can do what they say. If connie can see cards through envelopes, she can tell us what they are. She should be able to name them without error, just the same as if they were sitting face up on the table. It either works or it doesn't, and the challenge has always been a 'put up or shut up'. Same with Pavel and his similar picture in envelope flailings. Same with VFF and her kidney through back-flab lies. Giving them a percentage of acceptible failure is weighting the challenge in their favor, not the JREF's. It makes it even less plausible when they cry foul, and they ALWAYS cry foul, once they're safely off the record. Yes there's a lot of negotiation and calculation, but what it really comes down to is that the claimant, pavel being an especially notably example, often asks for a high enough percentage of acceptable failure to make it possible to pass the test without any special ability. Having a good day is not a paranormal power.

A

 

[MRC_Hans]

I object to this ongoing pretense that making sure the claim is extraordinary requires us to place the claimant at a disadvantage. It is entirely possible to both place the claimant at an advantage and make sure the claim is extraordinary. If we were truly interested in evaluating these claims, that is what we would do. That we deliberately choose to do otherwise shows that the condemnation of our actions by those people we call "woos" is legitimate.

Linda

I'm afraid I'll have to differ. How would you suggest making a protocol that is well protected against a false positive, and yet places the claimant at an advantage?

I'm not even sure what 'an advantage' would mean, in this context.

Hans

 

[fls]

Every single written protocol is such an example. It is the equivalent of the house removing all 10's from the deck and announcing they have done so. Not everybody will necessarily pay attention to this announcement and some of those who do may not comprehend the significance of it, but they were still told nonetheless.

Your analogy, wherein the 10's were removed and nobody was told, would be the equivalent of the JREF performing a different protocol than that to which everyone agreed.

Exactly, again it is a challenge and intended to challenge the claimed ability. If one does not think they are up to or understand that challenge (as defined by the agreed protocol) then they should not accept that challenge.

If someone says that they will "test" you, does it not imply that if you can do what you say you can do, you will pass the test, and if you can't, you will fail? Isn't that what "test" means? Instead, most Challenge protocols make it unlikely that you will pass regardless of whether you have the ability. Like you, most claimants seem to think that they understand the Challenge, and like you, they fail to notice that it isn't really a 'test' of their ability. If it is reasonable to make this sort of 'test' and expect claimants to be willing to take up the challenge anyway, then there should be no problem with simply making this explicit. If there is nothing to hide, then there is no need to hide behind obfuscatory language.

Linda

 

[MRC_Hans]

Please point me to some examples of the JREF negotiating a test and then telling claimants that this test has been set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass.

Linda

I'm not sure what you are getting at.. Are you claiming that that is what happens? That tests are made so that even if the claimant can do what she claims, she will not pass?

In that case, I'll beg to differ. All trials where I have followed the details, it has been evident that IF the claimant could perform as advertized, then they would have passed the test. Do you have an example of the other?

Hans

 

[fls]

I'm afraid I'll have to differ. How would you suggest making a protocol that is well protected against a false positive, and yet places the claimant at an advantage?

I'm not even sure what 'an advantage' would mean, in this context.

Hans

I'm talking about a test which would be extremely difficult to pass due to chance, but would be very easy to pass if the claimant has the ability they claim to have. Why is this so objectionable that you have to "differ"?

Linda

 

[MRC_Hans]

If someone says that they will "test" you, does it not imply that if you can do what you say you can do, you will pass the test, and if you can't, you will fail? Isn't that what "test" means? Instead, most Challenge protocols make it unlikely that you will pass regardless of whether you have the ability. Like you, most claimants seem to think that they understand the Challenge, and like you, they fail to notice that it isn't really a 'test' of their ability. If it is reasonable to make this sort of 'test' and expect claimants to be willing to take up the challenge anyway, then there should be no problem with simply making this explicit. If there is nothing to hide, then there is no need to hide behind obfuscatory language.

Linda

Then they must have confused me too. If, say, a dowser claims that he can find an object under a tea-mug 80% of the time, and he is asked to do just that, then how is it not a test of his ability?

Hans

 

[pavel_do]

I think you need to re-read what Linda wrote because I don't ever recall the JREF telling claimants "this test has been set up so that even if [you] have the claimed ability, it is unlikely [you] will be able to pass." Truth is, Randi and most skeptics (myself included) like to tell claimants to just shut up and do what they claim they can do, and if they do, we'll believe. That's contradictory to establishing a test where if they did perform like they claimed to be able to perform, the odds were stacked against them winning the challenge.

Could not be nailed better!! Bravo to Both of you! and THANK YOU!

 

[pavel_do]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.. Are you claiming that that is what happens? That tests are made so that even if the claimant can do what she claims, she will not pass?

In that case, I'll beg to differ. All trials where I have followed the details, it has been evident that IF the claimant could perform as advertized, then they would have passed the test. Do you have an example of the other?

Hans

Well I can perform and latest protocol with 100 pairs is suitable enough for that and it has been reviews by independent statistician who previously worked with JREF and he found it good enough.. Still.. I am not given FAIR chance to perform what I claim! The JREF sew that seems like I can be a bit of a pain in the neck so to say..and possible could show the results that make every one wonder.. so they wanted me in the end to accept there protocol that guaranties my failure! And they not bothered to explain why the previous one was not good enough, beside mentioning that its too expansive that is not good enough as I pay for it any way.

If they so sure I am not able to do what I claim, why not give me a fair chance to show it to them and every one?? Why do they have to give me no choice but accept protocol that fails me? From the beginning they kind of tell you.. Tell us what you can do and how and under what conditions and do it.. and we just make sure you cant cheat....Seems like a nice catch just like 1.000.000$ but when it comes to business they tell you.. NO you cant do it your way. forget it... its only our way! You take ot or we tell everyone you looser!If that the case, than they shoul post THEIR test protocols for different claims, and than that is the real challenge.. I come on JREF web site, I read THEIR protocol and I say I challenge you, I can pass it! YOUR TEST!.. that would be fair I guess, till that its just winding and playing around with rules and use and change them as they pleased and even if you sort of beat all therules, they tell you.. sorry Randi's words are final.. good buy looser.. you can reapply in 1 year.. ( but we'll make it double difficult for you .. so you will not be even accepted..)

 

[fls]

Unca nails it...

The tests should be incredibly easy for anyone who can do what they say. If connie can see cards through envelopes, she can tell us what they are. She should be able to name them without error, just the same as if they were sitting face up on the table. It either works or it doesn't, and the challenge has always been a 'put up or shut up'. Same with Pavel and his similar picture in envelope flailings. Same with VFF and her kidney through back-flab lies. Giving them a percentage of acceptible failure is weighting the challenge in their favor, not the JREF's.

You made sense up until that last line. The tests should be incredibly easy for anyone who can do what they say. Giving them a percentage of acceptable failure allows this to happen and at the same time the test can continue to be weighed in the JREF's favour if they cannot do what they say they can do. It's a win-win situation. Why is there so much resistance to this idea?

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm in complete agreement with Linda. It is unfair to expect the average claimant (with or without paranormal abilities) to have sufficient knowledge of statistical hypothesis testing to be able to figure out the power of the test.

If the JREF uses statisticians to help design tests, why can't they also get them to quote the Type I (false positive) and Type II (false negative) rates of a test given the effect size claimed achievable by a claimant for all the interested parties to see?

Apart from making the challenge useless for anything other than PR to those ignorant of statistical hypothesis testing, it also seems dishonourable to set claimants up to fail and not make it explicit that they only have a tiny chance of success even if they can do what they claim.

 

[Darat]

Sorry I'm really not following this, can you try to explain again(!) (in no more than A level maths!) how if I can do what I say I can do the challenge is biased against me demonstrating my ability.