A Lucid Proposal For A Preliminary Test

Mental Professor said:
I’d welcome any control on the test that would disprove the counting method. What do you suggest?
Click to expand...
It's been proposed already. When your wife is in an agreeable mental state, you receive a "ready" signal, preferably electronic in nature (say, a light is turned on). She is then, and only then, showed the card, and you have 5 minutes to write down your guess.

Second, pick the card from a fresh set of a 5 card set each time, so there is no influence from card counting (yes, we can statistically account for that issue, but why not just keep things simple). This eliminates the effect of her providing you information about what the last card was by how long it takes her to reach the correct mental state for the next card.

--------

You stated you have tested this quite a bit. Have you done it with truly strict controls, i.e. you have no way to see, hear, etc., your wife while the trial is underway? You also make blithe statements about how you don't think information could be passed unconsciously, which suggests to me that

1) you underestimate this method of information transferral

2) there was in fact a way for this information to be passed in the way you ran the tests, thus the trials were not at all strict.

Of course your statements were made in different paragraphs and I might be entirely wrong in my assumptions.

But that's the problem we have in communicating with potential applicants. Again and again, they don't say what happened, they sort of summarize it, and then think that they have provided useful information. It gets frustrating, because nothing is actually being communicated.

Instead of writing "We’ve done some tightly controlled experiments and the results have been impressive" it would be far more helpful for us all if you wrote:

"Our test consisted of 1)... 2)... 3) ... and the results were ....". Then we could helpfully reply by stating "wow, your results are impressive", or we could identify a problem in the protocol and suggest how you might fix it.
 
MP, I will ask what I usually ask when discussions get this long.

Have you done a proper double-blinded test yet? Of more than just a few guesses, mind you.
 
MP, we now know you will never be tested by JREF so long as you submit applications contrary to the rules. What could your lawyer possibly tell you at this point that would be helpful? There's no need to wait until after Memorial Day. If you plan on being tested, send a proper application. It's that simple. Do you plan to do so?
 
I used the term ‘lucid’ after reading other applications. I couldn’t understand them. My goal is to be tested.
Click to expand...
Your goal is to complete the challenge, with that said, I'm quite surprised you haven't done mock double-blind tests before wanting to have a go at the real thing. You really feel you are ready despite not establishing confidence under similer conditions/controls?

Why not? :confused:
 
Mojo said:
I can't see what possible grounds Randi could have for legal action against an applicant, unless of course the applicant were to do something like making defamatory statements about Randi after having failed.
Click to expand...
I think even if the modification to the protocol was accepted by JREF, which it was not, it still wouldn't protect an applicant who would decide do defame Randi, or for example, stab him in the chest during or after the test (I know, Randi wouldn't be present during the test).
 
I think even if the modification to the protocol was accepted by JREF, which it was not, it still wouldn't protect an applicant who would decide do defame Randi, or for example, stab him in the chest during or after the test (I know, Randi wouldn't be present during the test).
Click to expand...
The application wouldn't protect Randi if he stabbed me. (He wouldn't need to- I've seen him pull the guts out of people without cutting anyone.) That's not the point. It's about civil issues, not criminal.

If my lawyer says it's no big deal, then I will continue with JREF. Otherwise, I'll start with one of the other groups where no money changes hands and therefore no agreements need to be signed.

Your goal is to complete the challenge, with that said, I'm quite surprised you haven't done mock double-blind tests before wanting to have a go at the real thing. You really feel you are ready despite not establishing confidence under similer conditions/controls?
Click to expand...
As I stated in the thread, I'm just beginning with this. I wanted to start with the PRELIMINARY TEST. The results have been very encouraging, but I don't work at a lab and don't know people that do. The goal of the thread is to come up with a scientific protocol for testing and then to find a group that will assist me with it.

Why not start with you guys instead of the cold readers working at the local psychic fair? I'd rather fail with a test before skeptics than astound a bunch of palm readers. Look at all the great feedback I've gotten so far. People have thought about this and given me some great input. That is the goal of this thread.

BTW, Jeff did post my application today.
 
Mental Professor said:
BTW, Jeff did post my application today.
Click to expand...

Congratulations for getting that far MP.
Hopefully you will get some (more) good legal advice, and reapply soon.

Designing a proper test protocol for the JREF challenge makes a lot more sense than doing some clunky ol demo for some local group ...
The results of a JREF challenge test would be unambiguous.
What more could one want?
 
I think that the legal advice that you got was incomplete - or at least, that is the sense that you convey. How can the legal advice be complete if the lawyer you consulted isn't aware of the entire issue?
 
Mental Professor said:
I also found that if I tried to think about it and not go with my gut feeling, then my success rate dropped to around 20% (chance). In other words, when I went with my intuition, I was right most of the time.

If I asked you quickly to name one of the symbols, you would come up with one. Why would you name that particular one? Something in your brain told you to select one. Our brains don’t function as a true random number generator. We make guesses based on our intuition. For example, if I asked a group of people to think of a number between 1 and 10, the largest percentage would guess ‘7’. It just ‘seems like the right one to pick’. Although it doesn’t apply to our scenario, here is a good link on intuition: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2349
Click to expand...

I think you would agree that there is some sort of non-verbal communication happening here, either of a paranormal or a mundane nature.

Although it's not strictly necessary, it might be useful to think about possible mechanisms. Either you are somehow getting the answers from her subconsciously through subtle cues involving the five senses, or you are doing it through some sort of signal that has somehow left the confines of her skull, crossed the room, and penetrated into your brain.

Subtle cues are known to exist, but the sort of mysterious "signal" that would be required for telepathy to work has never been observed or demonstrated.

Regardless, I think you see the necessity to remove ANY possibility of subconscious, non-verbal communication that could be conveyed through sight, sound, touch or smell. Since it is far more likely that a known mechanism is at work then an unknown one, ALL the known mechanisms must be accounted for, no matter how unlikely they are. Unlikely events occur with far greater frequency than impossible ones.
 
Mental Professor said:
The application wouldn't protect Randi if he stabbed me. (He wouldn't need to- I've seen him pull the guts out of people without cutting anyone.) That's not the point. It's about civil issues, not criminal.

If my lawyer says it's no big deal, then I will continue with JREF. ...
Click to expand...
As someone else has pointed out here, I also think that your legal advice is incomplete.

While not a lawyer myself, I think the clause 7 should be read in full:

"When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to leagal action against Mr.Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the james Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statues.

Italics theirs.

The former is essentially to head off nuisance legal action taken in a hissy fit by a disgruntled applicant after failing. The italicised part, leaves the door open for genuine legal measures to be pursued.

If this is a sticking point, I'd suggest that your legal advisor deals directly with JREF to get clarification on the matter.

Yours appears to be a straightforward claim that is simple to demonstrate, it would be a shame to see it fold due to a seemingly, non-existent legal issue.
 
Mental Professor said:
...[re double blind test]As I stated in the thread, I'm just beginning with this. I wanted to start with the PRELIMINARY TEST. The results have been very encouraging, but I don't work at a lab and don't know people that do. The goal of the thread is to come up with a scientific protocol for testing and then to find a group that will assist me with it.
Click to expand...
MP (may I call you MP?), you don't necessarily need a lab to conduct a blinded test.

Try a test with you sitting in one room and your wife in another.

Both of you have a sheet of paper numbered 1 - 10

The idea being that your wife writes down the card she is "sending" and you write down the card you "receive".

To indicate the start of a "send", have your wife ring a small hand bell (or buzzer, whatever - as long as it is not a verbal signal).

Have her signal the start of each try at a regular interval (3-5mins) so as reduce the possibility that you are counting.

Have your wife shuffle the Zenner cards and then turn over the top one and note which it is.

You write what you think it is.

Repeat 10 times.

By my calculations, as score of 8 successes or better from 10 trials (given 5 cards, shuffled each time) gives you a result better that chance at 1:10,000. Enough for the preliminary Challenge.

Blind testing need not be elaborate, but you do need to take care with the method so that you do not end up fooling yourself.
 
Mental Professor said:
If my lawyer says it's no big deal, then I will continue with JREF. Otherwise, I'll start with one of the other groups where no money changes hands and therefore no agreements need to be signed.
Click to expand...
Mental, please don't forget to mention to your lawyer that a million dollars is at stake. I'm sure if your lawyer knew this, he would not only advise you to continue with JREF, he would encourage you to move quickly and to abide by the rules. Lawyers love money.
 
Mental Professor said:
On many of the occasions where I had guessed correctly, my wife stated that she had drifted into a daydream-like (lower alpha or theta) state. She compared it to reading a book and not remembering what was on the page, or driving a car and not remembering the last few miles. Kinda like hypnosis- very similar to relaxing meditation.
Click to expand...

That is where you have deluded yourself.

I suspect that it was after the test, and after you started tallying the hits and misses, that your wife testified in which ones she was in the special state and in which ones she was not. What our minds are too good at doing is revising the memory of what was happening in our minds, in order to satisfy present conditions.

By allowing her to do this, you discount the misses she attributes to being in the non-optimal state, and count the hits because of her after-the-fact testimony that she was in the right state when the hits were made.

That is the next part of your test you need to double-blind.

Have your wife write down, during testing, the state of mind she is in while she is sending each card. Don't let her edit that later after the hits and misses are tallied, in writing or verbally.

The JREF will not allow misses to be excused when your wife says that she was not in the right state of mind when those particular cards were being sent. This is, Drew, what you are in effect doing and it is not preparing you well for any formal test.
 
Regardless, I think you see the necessity to remove ANY possibility of subconscious, non-verbal communication that could be conveyed through sight, sound, touch or smell.
Click to expand...
We're in separate rooms at different parts of the house. There's no way to communicate.


Try a test with you sitting in one room and your wife in another...Repeat 10 times.
Click to expand...
We've done it 8 times on 8 different days. We're averaging 7 correct guesses out of 10.


May I be the first to thank MP for his continued three-bean salad.
Click to expand...
Just 2 beans from now on. My rabbit died.


So, this weekend is a no-go, then?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm married and don't swing that way.


Yesterday, I e-mailed Jeff and asked him for a referral to a local group that would be willing to run the tests. I received this from him today:
You could try getting in touch with these folks directly: http://www.ncas.org/ They’re very good.

Passing any tests they offer would certainly put you closer to winning the challenge. I’ve asked Randi to reply personally to your request for a rules change.

Jeff Wagg

JREF
Click to expand...

I also received this:
The decision stands...

James Randi.
Click to expand...
Although he didn't change things, he took the time to consider my request and personally send a response. :)

Since this was my original plan (finding a locale for a preliminary test) I will contact NCAS and see if we can arrange a demo with the test controls we've been discussing.

I'll post more as things progress...

Drew
 
EHocking said:
...To indicate the start of a "send", have your wife ring a small hand bell (or buzzer, whatever - as long as it is not a verbal signal).
Click to expand...
Ideally it would be something like the sort of doorbell that always sounds the same, no matter how long or hard the button is pressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom