A Lucid Proposal For A Preliminary Test

[Rasmus]

I think we should grant him the benfit of the doubt!

Right now, I get the impression that we are all a bit over-sensitive. The protocol as suggested turns out to not allow for counting, since the card will only be opened after the sending-signal is relayed ot the receiver.

I think joking is not an entirely susoicious way of dealing with accusations of cheating. What choice does the guy have?

We accuse him of cheating - we're hardly going ot bleie that he won't cheat just on his say-so, right? If he gives a reason for his requirements - if that's what they are - then he's on the defensive.

He's still the most reasonable applicant I have ever seen, and so far he hasn't really done anything bad, either. Granted, the track record of applicants is pretty bad, but let's not let it out on him too much just yet.

The suggested protocl might still need some more provisions, safeguards and changes - but it's a good start, isn't it?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I’d be surprised if someone with the apparent intelligence of Mental Professor thinks he can pull off a simple parlor trick on James Randi. I mean, he must know who Randi is. (Although I guess there’s no penalty for trying. And it is a million bucks. Still -- always nice to give a little benefit of the doubt.)

In any event, it would be nice if you, Mental Professor, could convince your wife to join us here. That would:
1. Give you a little back-up
2. Give us another perspective on the phenomenon
3. Embiggen this hip party of a thread

I promise, she won't be accused of cheating... much.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I have no problem with Lothain's suggestion.

Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes.

No information leakage, but flexible to the sender's needs.

Would that be OK with you, Mental Professor?

I think this is a good idea.

I still don't like the symbols being known to the test subjects before the test. It would be much harder to prearrange a cheating method of sending data to your partner if you don't know what type of data you will be sending.

This is an interesting challenge!

LLH

 

[NiallM]

I think we should grant him the benfit of the doubt!

Right now, I get the impression that we are all a bit over-sensitive. The protocol as suggested turns out to not allow for counting, since the card will only be opened after the sending-signal is relayed ot the receiver.

I think joking is not an entirely susoicious way of dealing with accusations of cheating. What choice does the guy have?

We accuse him of cheating - we're hardly going ot bleie that he won't cheat just on his say-so, right? If he gives a reason for his requirements - if that's what they are - then he's on the defensive.

He's still the most reasonable applicant I have ever seen, and so far he hasn't really done anything bad, either. Granted, the track record of applicants is pretty bad, but let's not let it out on him too much just yet.

The suggested protocl might still need some more provisions, safeguards and changes - but it's a good start, isn't it?

I couldn't possibly agree more with anyone right now.

I strongly feel that there is a possibility of a test here - and that the details can be worked out to ensure that it can be done in a transparent way.

I've said - and I must repeat - that this is the best opening shot a protocol that I've seen here. I really hope that it can be followed up and turned into an actual test. On the evidence so far, I don't think that we should assume a cheat in any way; if someone is up for a test, we should welcome it, help it, and make suggestions for the protocol. Clearly, we are all interested in pointing out possible gaps in the test, but we're - I hope - not implying any cheating.

I'm not, for one. I'm just suggesting ways to avoid any possible accusation of gaps in the protocol.

 

[Mental Professor]

"The MP says he needs his wife's signal to indicate just when she feels she is transmitting the best. Thus they want control over exactly when the "sent" signal is transferred. This opens the possibility for the counting scheme. However, it is not too difficult to foil that: The "received" signal from the MP to his wife can simply be delayed by the supervisors by a random interval. That would disrupt a counting scheme.

So, we have:
1) Card displayed to wife.
2) At her on discretion, wife indicates "sent" signal (through supervisor).
3) Supervisor immediately transmits "sent" signal.
4) At his own discretion, MP indicates "received" signal.
5) Supervisor waits for a random interval (a random timer can easily be constructed, to indicate a time between 0 and, say, 60 seconds).
6) Supervisor sends "received" signal.

What do you say, Mental Professor? Is something like that acceptable to you? After all, you wouldn't want people to suspect you of cheating ."

That sounds fine! I hadn't considered the possibility of counting. (Is that really possible? Even with practice, I don't think it could be maintained.) The observer would have the option of replying 'received' at any time after I had written down the symbol.

"Alternatively, find out what the longest time period is that the wife has needed to reach the "sending" state."

She can usually reach that state in a minute or two with slow breathing.

"If the cards come in random order, and you have no knowledge of which cards come up (that is your ability does not exist), this will not change your statistical chances of getting hits."

Out of all the possible outcomes in the number of tries, there will only be 5 chances where all of the symbols are the same. For example, if the first card selected for the group of 50 is a 'star', then there will be only nine (9) stars left but there will still be ten (10) of all the other symbols.

It will not affect this test, per se, but it does affect the probabilities of certain outcomes. If I were truly guessing, then I would avoid making guesses of the same symbol more than the statistical average.

We can avoid this issue by either having the first observer write down the list of symbols instead of using cards. Or we could allow the observer to 'stack' the symbols in his/her own preference, making the "all one symbol" scenario just as likely as any other.

"Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes."

"Right now, I get the impression that we are all a bit over-sensitive. The protocol as suggested turns out to not allow for counting, since the card will only be opened after the sending-signal is relayed to the receiver."

Yes, that was my proposal.

Sidebar:

I consider myself one of 'you' more than I consider myself one of 'them'. Everyone has made rational, logical points and it’s my job is to respond to them. I take no offense and expect to be challenged. These postings should be composed in a spirit of fun.

I don't like the work 'skeptic'. It has such a negative connotation. Like atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, etc. I have a mental picture of some old geezer that hasn't smiled in years. Someone who throws rocks at the kids who cross his yard and complains about everything. Can't we come up with a positive term that would reflect our searching for the truth? Let's leave the negative monikers to the angry zealots who view any question as a threat. What is a good synonym for "Open-Minded"?

Unlike all of Mr. Randi's detractors, he is truly the open-minded one. He says, "Sure, I'll believe you, just show me the proof." His nay-sayers have made up their minds beforehand and refuse to choose logic over emotion.

Did I cover everything? Let's have some fun! If anyone knows a member of the Capitol Skeptics, have them send me an e-mail. I'd be happy to give a preliminary preliminary demonstration.

Drew

 

[Ririon]

1. You didn't just start using colored text, did you? Look at the thread next door... Try to use the quote function instead.

2. Apply. Please. Now.

 

[gruk]

That sounds fine! I hadn't considered the possibility of counting. (Is that really possible? Even with practice, I don't think it could be maintained.)

It is, with a bit of training and refreshing. My "count seconds" seems to be quite out (two rtries to measure 50s, first was 25s, second was 35s), though it used to be quite good, some years back.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Why that particular skeptic group? I would be weary of using any group requested by the testee. One million dollars can buy all sorts of things. All we know about this group is that they have "skeptics" in the name.

Just passing the preliminary has significant value even if he goes no further. Get a reading from the first psychic to pass the Randi challenge only 4.99 per minute! Maybe he has a book ready to send to the printers only waiting for a quote to put on the cover.

Achu had to cross the ocean to meet a approved tester how far are you willing to travel?

 

[Gr8wight]

Achu had to cross the ocean to meet a approved tester how far are you willing to travel?

Achau had to travel to California only because a skeptical group willing to participate could not be found by the JREF on Hawaii. Still, he did that willingly, and by his own suggestion. If he had been unable to do so, nobody would have blamed him.

It is up to the JREF to decide if a skeptical organisation meets with their approval to conduct a test. Simply disqualifying the D.C. group for no reason other than Mental Professor suggested them does sound somewhat alarmist.

 

[NiallM]

This becomes more promising.

You seem open to the tweaks to the protocol. JREF will have more suggestions (remember, we're only forum members here, and we don't speak for them).

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a test at some stage here.

By the way, the word "sceptic" (yes, I'm from the far side of the pond) isn't as attached to negative connotations as you seem to tthink. Yes, we demand some proof, but that's about all.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, MP!

I just want to jump in and add my voice to the requests that you go ahead and apply. You're way WAY ahead of where most other people are when they apply (in that you've actually thought of a protocol and, goodness! your claim, as you've described it, actually is specific and makes sense and is testable -- whee!). Go for it!

-- Kat

 

[Gr8wight]

This becomes more promising.

You seem open to the tweaks to the protocol. JREF will have more suggestions (remember, we're only forum members here, and we don't speak for them).

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a test at some stage here.

That would certainly depend upon whether Mental Professor ever actually...you know...submits an application.

 

[Mental Professor]

1. You didn't just start using colored text, did you? Look at the thread next door... Try to use the quote function instead.

Thanks for the heads up! I don't want to be grouped with those other guys!

2. Apply. Please. Now.

The application has been notarized and it’s ready to go. I did make the following change to Paragraph 7 on the advice of my attorney:

When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal 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 statutes. Mr. Randi, any persons peripherally involved and the James Randi Educational Foundation surrender any and all rights to legal action against the applicant, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

In this litigious society, if one party gives up rights, then BOTH parties should give up the same rights. I'll finish my description and my protocol proposals and have it in the mail by Monday.

Why that particular skeptic group? I would be weary of using any group requested by the testee. One million dollars can buy all sorts of things. All we know about this group is that they have "skeptics" in the name.

I assumed that they would be an acceptable group. I got their info from Achu's test. I tried to contact the Washington Area Sylvia Browne Fan Club but they kept picking up the phone before it rang and it creeped me out.

Just passing the preliminary has significant value even if he goes no further. Get a reading from the first psychic to pass the Randi challenge only 4.99 per minute! Maybe he has a book ready to send to the printers only waiting for a quote to put on the cover.

I'm just doin' it for the CHICKS! Oh yea, and the 500,000 bucks. (The wife gets half.)

How far are you willing to travel?

I know there seems to be a dearth of B.S. detectors in the DC area, but I'm sure that JREF could find a local group that they trust.

 

[Forty-Two]

Best of luck. This is one of the most aptly-named threads I've ever seen in the Million Dollar Challenge forum.

 

[Admiral]

Post deleted- weird formatting issues.

 

[Admiral]

The application has been notarized and it’s ready to go. I did make the following change to Paragraph 7 on the advice of my attorney:


In this litigious society, if one party gives up rights, then BOTH parties should give up the same rights.

Now, this could end up being an issue. The FAQ Rule 2.7. reads:

2.7. I disagree with a rule, or if I strongly feel that a rule shouldn't apply in my case, how do I go about changing it or getting it waived?

You don't. The Challenge rules will not be changed for you.

You can ask to get a rule changed, but you should expect to have your request rejected, and you should not expect the JREF to engage you in a debate over such matters.

Now, it's their challenge, so its their right to use whatever contract they want. However, I think Drew has a very good point- with the contract as it currently stands, would the JREF be able to sue a prize claimant for damages to its reputation? Admittedly, this would be a very underhanded trick, but it seems to me to be legally possible.

The JREF has taken great care to make the Challenge as honest as possible- they've made sure that there is no question that the money is there and that they can't get out of paying it if a challenger wins. However, here's a serious question for any lawyers on the forum- could the JREF then have grounds to sue the claimant?

Drew, feel free to do what you want, but my advice would be not to send in the application until this issue is resolved.

 

[Flange Desire]

... I tried to contact the Washington Area Sylvia Browne Fan Club but they kept picking up the phone before it rang and it creeped me out.

Very funny MP!

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

So, we have:
1) Card displayed to wife.
2) At her on discretion, wife indicates "sent" signal (through supervisor).
3) Supervisor immidiately transmits "sent" signal.
4) At his own discretion, MP indicates "received" signal.
5) Supervisor waits for a random interval (a random timer can easily be constructed, to indicate a time between 0 and, say, 60 seconds).
6) Supervisor sends "received" signal.

Although that would disrupt a counting-scheme parlor trick, it wouldn't eliminate the benefit. There would need to be some kind of time limits. For example, let’s say the sender has 4 minutes after a card is turned over to indicate “sent”. After that, the receiver has 4 minutes to indicate “received”. Then the testers throw in a random delay of up to 4 minutes—say they draw a number out of a hat from 0 to 4 and delay that many minutes.

So let’s say that the trick is that the sending waits the following number of minutes before giving the “send” signal. We assume the parlor tricksters can keep perfect time in their head.

Star = 0 minutes, Circle = 1 minute, Square = 2 minutes, Wavy lines = 3 minutes, Cross = 4 minutes.

If the receiver gives the “received” signal and the next “sent” signal comes back 8 minutes later, there can only be one possibility: the random delay was 4 minutes and the sender delay was 4 minutes. Sender delay of 4 minutes = Cross! Works the other way around: delay of 0 minutes can only mean Star. Similarly, a delay of 1 minute would mean either Star or Circle, so the receiver has a 50% chance of guessing right, which is far more than the expected probabilities. Even if the delay is broken down into a variable number of seconds, the delay between the “received” signal and the next “sent” signal can eliminate some possibilities. So the parlor tricksters would have at least the predetermined probably of guessing, plus the counting-scheme advantage, which could be anywhere up to a 100% give-away depending on how the delays and cards play out. A certain advantage, and certainly not blind or double-blind.

 

[Mental Professor]

Drew, feel free to do what you want, but my advice would be not to send in the application until this issue is resolved.

I'll send it in and let them review the clause. They seem like reasonable folk and I'm sure they'll work with me on that issue. It doesn't change any of the terms of the test. It only provides protection. Otherwise, it could be used as an excuse for so-called psychics to reject the challenge.

I can hear Sylvia on Larry King now- "Of course I agreed to take part in Randi's silly challenge. But he wanted to reserve his right to take legal action against me and I had to waive mine..."

__________________

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. - Brian Fantana in Anchorman

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I hadn't considered the possibility of counting. (Is that really possible? Even with practice, I don't think it could be maintained.)

It's not that hard.

"Have the wife get into her mental state. When she is ready, transmit "sending". THEN reveal the card to the wife and away she goes."

"Right now, I get the impression that we are all a bit over-sensitive. The protocol as suggested turns out to not allow for counting, since the card will only be opened after the sending-signal is relayed to the receiver."

Yes, that was my proposal.

I see. Looks good then. A counting scheme could only reveal what the previous card was to eliminate possibilities, but combined with a random delay, the amount of information that could be transmitted seems negligible (although I haven't crunched the numbers).

I don't like the work 'skeptic'...Can't we come up with a positive term that would reflect our searching for the truth?

The word you are looking for is "bright", which isn't too popular. If you’ve got better ideas feel free to post them in the Paranormal section.