• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The JREF on ABC's Primetime Nightline!

Brian Thompson

Student
Brian Thompson
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
49
Be sure to watch psychics put to the JREF test on ABC's Primetime Nightline Wednesday, 8/17 at 10pm EST!

The JREF is a big part of this "Beyond Belief" special on psychic abilities. Will someone win our Million Dollar Challenge?

http://bit.ly/mXh7Hz
 
The problem I'm seeing so far is that there was no mention as to whether the "applicants" agreed that the protocols would be reasonable tests of their abilities. Currently, the "out" I see them all having was "this isn't what I said I could do".

Except for van Praagh. They chewed him up pretty good for the length of the segment.
 
I just finished watching part two (testing the palm reader and tarot card reader, and the living and dead test). I'm afraid that segment is going to leave lots of room for believers to cry foul. With the living and dead test, I don't remember them showing the guy claiming to be able to do such a thing. I think they should show the claimant making a very specific claim, and like the MDC, then have them agree to a protocol. With the palm reader, she was working with crude looking photo copies of hands--of course believers are going to say that's not the same as looking at a live hand, as the reader claimed.

Still, glad to see Randi and Banacek on TV doing their best (I'm guessing the producers didn't make it easy for them to make their case).

eta: the consultant to Psychic Kids (or whatever that TV show is called):

(paraphrasing)
interviewer: were any of those kids traumatized (by their experiencing demons etc, and possibly encouraged by their parents)?
consultant: the children I worked with were beautiful kids with high IQs

wtf, didn't answer question
 
Last edited:
Azrael 5 said:
Anyone record this to disc and send across the pond?? ;)
Click to expand...

I second this. I can only watch segments, but they're not complete and stop quite abruptly. If I click on the video for the complete episode, it says I can't watch because I'm not in the US.
The first part about Van Praagh is also on youtube and complete, but not the other parts.

I liked what I've seen so far though, not the usual "wow it's amazing what he can do" type of show.
 
wardenclyffe said:
Someone applied and was tested for the MDC on this TV show? Really?

Ward
Click to expand...

I think they bypassed the normal application and screening process for the sake of getting three spectacular failures on national television back to back.
 
Thought that they didn't make it clear that it was Banacheck that "saw" the yellow school bus toy over his head .. If you didn't get that, you'd think it was a psychic with "powers." Also, the last interviewer was pathetic. When they talked about his dead mom, he melted, and wanted to believe... not much in the way of skeptical reporting. Thought Banacheck and Randi were fabulous. Just wish they were given more time to talk. (check the floor of the editing room) Overall, left an impression that it could be real .. not as definitive as I'd have liked.
 
jimtron said:
I just finished watching part two (testing the palm reader and tarot card reader, and the living and dead test). I'm afraid that segment is going to leave lots of room for believers to cry foul. With the living and dead test, I don't remember them showing the guy claiming to be able to do such a thing. I think they should show the claimant making a very specific claim, and like the MDC, then have them agree to a protocol. With the palm reader, she was working with crude looking photo copies of hands--of course believers are going to say that's not the same as looking at a live hand, as the reader claimed.
Click to expand...
I would be astonished if there wasn't some sort of positive recititation by the participants that the test they were about to take was fair (or perhaps even suggested by themselves!). A positive recitiation is more than them taking the test without an objection.

In the past, test subjects have been asked: Can you do this? If we give you pictures of hands rather than the hands themselves, and cover the targets' hands with mittens, can you still do it? Can you to find a picture of one deceased person from among a random collection of a dozen pictures in folders and envelopes?

It is not necessary to say to the participants anything like, "You will not be allowed to complain after the test that the test is unfair." Rather, it is more important to get them on the record that the test appears to be fair and they feel they CAN succeed at it. Afterwards, they can cry foul all they want, but JREF can point out that before and during the exam, there were no cries of foul.
 
rwerdja said:
Thought that they didn't make it clear that it was Banacheck that "saw" the yellow school bus toy over his head .. If you didn't get that, you'd think it was a psychic with "powers."
Click to expand...
I take exception to shows that juxtapose a "real" psychic with a magician doing the same trick, but fail to explain how the magician did it. This means, to a typical audience, that while the magician might be performing using mundane powers, and the psychic might be using supernormal ones, the opposite might be true, and we are given insufficient knowledge to distinguish.

I think it hurts the skeptic cause, and this show, while not the worst, was far from what it could have been. Too many stones were unturned.
 
It was great to see Randi and Banacheck on prime time TV. I just wish they would have put the skeptical segment on last - that ending part with Alison Dubois was just atrocious.

I thought it was hilarious that one of the "testees" was wearing a Power Balance bracelet. :D
 
Sherman Bay said:
I take exception to shows that juxtapose a "real" psychic with a magician doing the same trick, but fail to explain how the magician did it. This means, to a typical audience, that while the magician might be performing using mundane powers, and the psychic might be using supernormal ones, the opposite might be true, and we are given insufficient knowledge to distinguish.

I think it hurts the skeptic cause, and this show, while not the worst, was far from what it could have been. Too many stones were unturned.
Click to expand...
Very often, magicians don't do the same trick. They do BETTER tricks: more baffling, under seemingly greater controls, under more difficult conditions, and with fewer miscues. By comparsion, those who try to pass trickery off as supernatural powers are amateurs, and usually not very skilled amateurs at that.

It is important to point out a significant number of self-proclaimed psychics do NOT use trickery at all. Rather, they simply do not have the abilities that they think they have. When put to a test, their claimed abilities just don't show up. They may have deceived themselves, they do not consciously try to deceive anyone.
 
Sherman Bay said:
I take exception to shows that juxtapose a "real" psychic with a magician doing the same trick, but fail to explain how the magician did it. This means, to a typical audience, that while the magician might be performing using mundane powers, and the psychic might be using supernormal ones, the opposite might be true, and we are given insufficient knowledge to distinguish.
Click to expand...
I discuss the metal blindfold here:
Brown said:
The metal blindfold is substantially identical to the Osterlind metal blindfold (I take no stand, however, on who invented the concept). A few of the effects were shown, but the full effect of the trick was not.

The blindfold has no secret holes or mirrors. It is exactly what it appears to be. It cannot be seen through. It does have holes near the upper corners, but those are there to receive an elastic strap to hold the apparatus on the head, and they cannot be seen through. Some smart-alecks out there might say, "Ah, but you can peek underneath the blindfold along your nose," but a performer may actually ask one or more spectators to try on the blindfold and see for themselves whether peeking is possible. They find that the metal sits snugly along the bridge of the nose and does not permit peeking. Sure, the performer can peek if he nudges the blindfold up a bit, but at no time during the performance does the performer ever touch the blindfold with either hand, even to scratch an itch or make an "innocent" adjustment, and the spectator may at any time demand to see whether the blindfold is still snugly in place.

Yet, as Banachek showed, the performer somehow DOES see. There are no stooges, no special effects, no secret optics on the apparatus, no electronics. What seems to be impossible is shown to be quite possible, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that supernatural capabilities are at work.

This trick--and it IS a trick--could easily be more convincing of supernatural capability than any of the other "psychic" feats on the show.
Click to expand...
Those who don't know the secrets might not be enlightened by this explanation, while those who do might think I came perilously close to giving those secrets away.
 
My one complaint is that they never mentioned the fact that MDC applicants agree to the test protocols before the test is performed.
 
Considering all the other news magazine stories of psychic claims, this was probably the best one I've ever seen. ABC should get some kudos for it. Not to mention Sylvia Browne was mentioned in the same sentence with the word "infamous".
 
Banacek's statements on the scumbaggery of psychic detectives are excellent. Hopefully those few moments will help people from being manipulated and having their grief exploited.
 
Regarding that silly last segment with the incredulous reporter, I tried googling "abc news david wright". The very first link that pops up is his ABC News online bio which was last updated in 2008. I'd post the URL but apparently I cannot without having made 15 posts here first, but you can google it like I did.

The last line in that bio is "He and his wife, Victoria, live in Washington, D.C., with their daughter, Deanna."

Isn't it interesting that the psychic mentioned that he had a daughter, and the reporter responded that actually he had 3. If ABC News hadn't been so lax in keeping these bios updated, that poor psychic may have been able to divine the correct number of daughters.
 
zuma said:
Regarding that silly last segment with the incredulous reporter, I tried googling "abc news david wright". The very first link that pops up is his ABC News online bio which was last updated in 2008. I'd post the URL but apparently I cannot without having made 15 posts here first, but you can google it like I did.

The last line in that bio is "He and his wife, Victoria, live in Washington, D.C., with their daughter, Deanna."

Isn't it interesting that the psychic mentioned that he had a daughter, and the reporter responded that actually he had 3. If ABC News hadn't been so lax in keeping these bios updated, that poor psychic may have been able to divine the correct number of daughters.
Click to expand...

Here is the link referred to in this post http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=127805
 
Three questions:

1. Am I right that Jamy Ian Swiss, though plainly present at some of the tests, was not identified in the show by name or by vocation?

2. Was it a coincidence that ABC used its commercial space to promote its own upcoming show, "The Sixth Sense?"

3. Can anyone independently confirm the probabilities? In particular, if you are given twelve independent chances to make a selection of a target from twelve possible selections, what are the chances you will select the target at least nine times? According to ABC, "The odds of winning by luck are about 1 in a billion" (although when I first saw the show, I thought the reporter said "1 in 5 billion"). Basically, if you had one chance to make a guess, you'd be expected to be right one out of twelve times (1/12). If you had to be right two times in a row, you'd be right (on average) one out of 144 times ((1/12)^2). If you had to be right nine times in a row, that would be about 1 out of about 5.16 billion times ((1/12)^9). But the contestant doesn't need to be right nine times in a row. He gets twelve chances, so up to three misses are allowed. Also, the contestant doesn't need to guess right exactly nine times; ten, eleven and twelve correct picks also count as successes.
 
Brown said:
Three questions:

1. Am I right that Jamy Ian Swiss, though plainly present at some of the tests, was not identified in the show by name or by vocation?
Click to expand...

Correct. He was never identified.

I think I caught a brief glimpse of DJ in one shot, although I could be wrong. I was watching in a hotel room, so I couldn't pause it. I can't live without Tivo!
 
Brown said:
3. Can anyone independently confirm the probabilities? In particular, if you are given twelve independent chances to make a selection of a target from twelve possible selections, what are the chances you will select the target at least nine times? According to ABC, "The odds of winning by luck are about 1 in a billion" (although when I first saw the show, I thought the reporter said "1 in 5 billion"). Basically, if you had one chance to make a guess, you'd be expected to be right one out of twelve times (1/12). If you had to be right two times in a row, you'd be right (on average) one out of 144 times ((1/12)^2). If you had to be right nine times in a row, that would be about 1 out of about 5.16 billion times ((1/12)^9). But the contestant doesn't need to be right nine times in a row. He gets twelve chances, so up to three misses are allowed. Also, the contestant doesn't need to guess right exactly nine times; ten, eleven and twelve correct picks also count as successes.
Click to expand...

Yes, the probability is actually much higher, since you're actually looking at 12C9 rather than just (1/12)9. I make it about 1 in 30 million. You can use an online calculator like this one to calculate probabilities for problems like this (which incidentally seems to have a free online textbook attached to it for those who want to learn how it works).

You're right that allowing more than 9 correct picks could in principle increase his chances, but in this case the probabilities for 10, 11 or 12 correct are so low that they actually make very little difference to the overall result - 1 in 30.449 million for exactly 9 compared to 1 in 29.628 million for 9 or more.
 
Cuddles said:
Yes, the probability is actually much higher, since you're actually looking at 12C9 rather than just (1/12)9. I make it about 1 in 30 million. You can use an online calculator like this one to calculate probabilities for problems like this (which incidentally seems to have a free online textbook attached to it for those who want to learn how it works).

You're right that allowing more than 9 correct picks could in principle increase his chances, but in this case the probabilities for 10, 11 or 12 correct are so low that they actually make very little difference to the overall result - 1 in 30.449 million for exactly 9 compared to 1 in 29.628 million for 9 or more.
Click to expand...
I like that calculator! It appears that ABC was quite a bit off in its estimate of the contestants' chances of success by sheer luck... making me think that it did not get its information on this point from JREF.
 
Brown said:
In the past, test subjects have been asked: Can you do this? If we give you pictures of hands rather than the hands themselves, and cover the targets' hands with mittens, can you still do it? Can you to find a picture of one deceased person from among a random collection of a dozen pictures in folders and envelopes?
Click to expand...
Also, in the past, subjects are given a chance to try to perform the feat, already knowing where the target is. It would not surprise me, for example, if the guy who tried to find the photograph of Elvis was, at some time prior to the test, shown a set of envelopes in which he saw or was told the envelope in which Elvis's picture rested. He may then have been asked whether he could detect that picture.

As a general rule, when people know where the target is, they report that their special abilities are working quite well, thank you, and the special abilities can indeed find the object they are looking for, whether it be water, a coin, or a picture of Elvis ... if they already know where it is. But perhaps this does not make for very interesting TV viewing. Practices that don't "count" for the million dollar challenge: who cares about them??

The interesting part, of course, is whether those special abilities can find the McGuffin if the contestant DOESN'T know where it is. So far, no one has been able to do it.
 
Brown said:
The interesting part, of course, is whether those special abilities can find the McGuffin if the contestant DOESN'T know where it is. So far, no one has been able to do it.
Click to expand...


...beyond what you would expect purely by chance. :)
 
AdMan said:
...beyond what you would expect purely by chance. :)
Click to expand...

I could have predicted you'd say that!

News Flash: Huffington Post headline (along with an unflattering photo) says: "James Van Praagh Gets $1 Million Offer To Prove Mental Powers." Unfortunately, the link to the story doesn't work. I wonder who out there has a million bucks to test supposed psychic abilities...?
 
AdMan said:
This also made the Time magazine website:
Click to expand...
The caption of the photo says: "Actress Jennifer Love Hewitt, star of the CBS drama series 'Ghost Whisperer,' listens to famed medium James Van Praagh, whose work inspired the series."

There must be a meaning of the word "work" with which I am unfamiliar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom