A Lucid Proposal For A Preliminary Test

[Mental Professor]

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.

How about this- No 'received' signal has to be sent! I'm given a set time of 3-4 minutes to receive her thoughts. At that point, they start my wife on the next symbol whether I'm ready or not. The need for communication from my room is obviated and there's no risk of counting. This solution should satisfy everyone's concerns! TAAA DAAA!

__________________

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

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

How about this- No 'received' signal has to be sent! I'm given a set time of 3-4 minutes to receive her thoughts. At that point, they start my wife on the next symbol whether I'm ready or not. The need for communication from my room is obviated and there's no risk of counting. This solution should satisfy everyone's concerns! TAAA DAAA!

I assume that by "start my wife on the next symbol" you mean that "your wife starts preparing".

This doesn't reduce the risk of a counting scheme. As I said, as long as the "sending" signal goes out BEFORE the card is revealed to the sender, the only information the sender could transmit is information about previously revealed cards. For example if the sender waits a one minute delay to before giving the "sending" nod to signal that the last card was a Circle, it doesn't matter whether the one minute delay starts after the "received" nod is given or after a predetermined time because in both cases both the sender and receiver know when any 'signal' delay would start.

In any event, it would be good to add to your protocol simply because it reduces the amount of communication necessary to conduct the test.

 

[Flange Desire]

....
Otherwise, it could be used as an excuse for so-called psychics to reject the challenge.

Just add it to the ever growing list.

I suspect that this will actually be the stopping point.
Randi is unlikely to modify the challenge terms for one particular applicant
- such an action would set a bad precedent IMHO.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I think you're right, Flange Desire.
If Drew is willing to concede that point, however, I have some suggestions as to the test.

There shouldn't be 'sending', 'sent', 'receiving' or 'received' signals at all.

Otherwise, the sender can count from a 'sending' signal made by the observer(not just her own signal) to her own 'sent' signal, as an example.
Another example might be that she could count from the 'received' signal to her own 'sent' signal.

Unless a separate observer sends the 'sent' signal.

But that might add other complications. A million dollars would be handy to bribe 'observer/s', and is probably nothing compared to the amount of publicity opportunities winning it would generate.

Wouldn't it be simpler and better to allow 5 minutes for each transmission, timed synchronously by timers with alarms in each room, with a random period of between 0 and 1.5 minutes before showing the sender the symbol? No communication would be required between each room, except perhaps before the test to check the accuracy of the alarms.

 

[Rasmus]

I really don't see the problem? All signals would be given *before* the next relevant card is reveiled, so it is not possible to relay any information about that card.

I haven't done the numbers, but with 50 cards in the test to begin with, even outright telling the receiver about past cards wouldn't increase his odds by much.

To make things even more secure, can we have totally random cards?

Select one card out of the 50, writre down the symbol, return the card to the stack, shuffle, repeat? Mind you, I *like* the idea of having one person making the envelopes and the next person selecting an envelope.

Regarding the change of the contract: I do hope this won't be a show-stopper, but I tend to agree with MP's lawyer here: It is a bit unfair; even though I think there is a good reason the clause is worded as it is, considering who the JREF is usually up against. (i.e. chances are much bigger that an applicant damages his reputation after losing a test. I think the JREF would still be very reputableeven if they had todish out the money; in fact, they, too, would probably benefit financially in the long run.)

Rasmus.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I just think it's better either without signals, or with signals not made at the moment the challenge participants indicate.

 

[Admiral]

I don't see what the fuss is about signals- MP has agreed just to use fixed time periods. This way, no information except psychic information, of course) has the chance to pass between the two rooms. None.

However, this clause is still worrying me. I'm on Mental Professor's side on this one- the JREF shouldn't be able to sue the applicant, except for things like breach of contract... I'd be very interested to hear the challenge coordinator's opinion on this.

 

[nathan]

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?

I think that senario is unlikely. It would be like 'I'm suing you because you made a bet with me and I lost, so now I look stupid -- you shouldn't have let me make the bet'. I think that would be a contender for 'stupidest lawsuit in the world'. I suspect the plaintiff of such a suit would lose (probably in summary judgement). And that would make them look even stupider.

Hasn't the JREF had to take out restraining orders before? Although I suspect in those cases it never got to the signed contract stage, so the contract would be moot.

Anyway, MP is right in that contracts are generally fairer if they are bidirectional

 

[Dorman]

One possibility:

If the "sending" message is to be transmitted instantaneously to the receiver, the following possibility still is not ruled out:

The transmitter and receiver have synchronized watches. If the "sending" message is sent between 0 and 10 sec after the minute, it's a star. If sent between 10 and 20 sec, it's a square, and so on (just a variation on the counting scheme, but does not need any communication between the participants since they are using an external reference point).

-Dorman

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Yes, this is the counting possibility that we are discussing. It is removed if the "sending" message is sent before the symbol is revealed to the sender.

 

[NiallM]

If the "sending" message is to be transmitted instantaneously to the receiver, the following possibility still is not ruled out:

The transmitter and receiver have synchronized watches. If the "sending" message is sent between 0 and 10 sec after the minute, it's a star. If sent between 10 and 20 sec, it's a square, and so on (just a variation on the counting scheme, but does not need any communication between the participants since they are using an external reference point).

-Dorman

Exactly. So the best that thing is that an independent person turns the next card simultaneously with a sign to the receiver that transmission has started. The signalling of the start of transmission must be completely out of the hands of the applicants.

I think he *did* mention that they wouldn't be wearing watches, though.

 

[Gr8wight]

If the "sending" message is to be transmitted instantaneously to the receiver, the following possibility still is not ruled out:

The transmitter and receiver have synchronized watches. If the "sending" message is sent between 0 and 10 sec after the minute, it's a star. If sent between 10 and 20 sec, it's a square, and so on (just a variation on the counting scheme, but does not need any communication between the participants since they are using an external reference point).

-Dorman

I think it has been made clear that the next symbol will not be revealed to the sender until *after* she has signaled her readiness to transmit. I believe that Mental Professor has also allowed for the protocol to be changed to where the sender will only signal readiness to begin the test, and cards will be revealed at fixed intervals after that.

 

[ChristineR]

A three minute set period would solve the counting problem. (Hooray!) You might want to consider some sort break provision, otherwise you'll be locked in a room for thirty minutes, or more, if they do more than ten trials. I don't know if this sort of thing is hard to maintain for thirty minutes or not.

 

[Mental Professor]

The transmitter and receiver have synchronized watches. If the "sending" message is sent between 0 and 10 sec after the minute, it's a star. If sent between 10 and 20 sec, it's a square, and so on (just a variation on the counting scheme, but does not need any communication between the participants since they are using an external reference point).

No watches and no clocks in the room. We would have been scanned and examined.

BTW, Has anyone tried to estimate time intervals on their own? I can't even guess 15 seconds correctly, much less a minute. And trying to coordinate that with someone else? I'd like to hear from somebody that's tried that.

__________________

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

 

[petre]

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..."

I would strongly advise either checking with JREF before modifying the application ([email protected]) or specifically calling attention to the matter in a note sent with it.

Since it does not alter any other rule (only adds one) I don't think it is likely to become an unsurmountable hurdle, but they may wish to add specific exceptions to the added limitation.

 

[Admiral]

I'm sorry, but I have to repeat myself- can someone tell me why the protocol can't just have set five minute intervals? That way, there is no chance of a counting scheme. None. Mental Professor agreed to this:

How about this- No 'received' signal has to be sent! I'm given a set time of 3-4 minutes to receive her thoughts. At that point, they start my wife on the next symbol whether I'm ready or not. The need for communication from my room is obviated and there's no risk of counting. This solution should satisfy everyone's concerns! TAAA DAAA!

Drew, is it possible for the sender not to send a signal either? Just give your wife exactly five minutes, after which both the observer in the sending room and the receiving room start the next card. The observers can have stopwatches, even if the applicants can't.

This would solve every single issue- why are we still talking about the need for a "sending" signal?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

BTW, Has anyone tried to estimate time intervals on their own? I can't even guess 15 seconds correctly, much less a minute. And trying to coordinate that with someone else? I'd like to hear from somebody that's tried that.

Yes, it's not difficult. I just did a minute to within a second. And all you would need to do is distinguish 10 seconds from 20, from 30, etc.

 

[Mental Professor]

Yes, it's not difficult. I just did a minute to within a second. And all you would need to do is distinguish 10 seconds from 20, from 30, etc.

I still don't think it can be done in the testing methods we're discussing. Anyway, I'm sure that Randi will come up with a way to insure that doesn't happen.

I've sent an e-mail about the legal change so they'll be aware of it when my application arrives next week. Let's see how things go!

Drew

__________________

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

 

[Mr. Scott]

Why doesn't your wife send you the "sending" signal telepathically? Seems like that would simplify things. You could likewise send her your "received" signal the same way.

Is there some reason ESP will only work if the receiver is informed, through conventional communication channels, that a message is being sent? If you can't demonstrate ESP without a redundant channel of conventional communication, what good is it to anyone?

This contradiction detonates a majority of psychic bunk. The supernatural powers are shown to be so weak they prove no use but to suggest supernatural powers may exist.

KING: Why do you care about your late grandfather?

VAN PRAAGH: Well, number one, if we can listen to them, number one it proves life after death.

 

[Admiral]

I don't think we should criticize these applicants and say "If you can do symbols, why not words?" or "Why do you have to know whether you're sending or receiving?"

If they make a claim, and that claim is paranormal, then it's applicable. As Randi says, if a woman claims she can play the violin, don't sit her down in front of a piano and ask her to prove it.

And I ask again- why can't there just be fixed time intervals? Five minutes for each card. That way, there's NO COMMUNICATION between the rooms besides telepathic communication. None.

If anyone can think of a flaw in having no communication between the rooms, please point it out to me. I think it's the easiest and clearest protocol, and saves us discussions about adding time intervals and other such nonsense.

So, I ask again- why not just have five minutes per card? The observers in both rooms have stopwatches, and start at a predetermined time. This takes care of every consideration, as far as I can tell.