Assistance required for telepathy proof

[Rodney]

. . . 1 in one thousand, which is the usual MDC standard for a preliminary test.

I've heard several times on these forums about the "1 in one thousand usual MDC standard for a preliminary test." Unfortunately, there is nothing in the rules that mentions any such standard. Rather, there is only:

(1) The vague opening sentence to rule number 3. "We will consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the experimental design, is required"; and

(2) Rule number 6. "In all cases, applicant will be required to perform a preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member or representative of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test, using the agreed-upon protocol. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the completion of the preliminary test."
See http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html

So what, exactly, is required to pass the preliminary test?

 

[alfaniner]

From a list of ten words (wolf, car, house, tree, sky, etc) generated by the JREF I am handed one word, say “Tree”. I am in isolation from the rest of the testers and receiver etc.

The polygraph operator asks the receiver

Did you hear the word “Tree”?
and
Did you lie in your answer?

golfy

Disregarding the obfuscation of the other questions, this is what remains. There are only a few are the possible scenarios (16, I believe) assuming the polygraph is 100% effective.

Each question could be answered yes or no, with a spike or nospike, with the first question on one axis and the second on another, making a 4x4 grid, right?

Unfortunately I tried to make a matrix and didn't do very well at it. Maybe someone else wants to give it a shot, with the conclusions that may be surmised.

 

[Czarcasm]

So we are to understand that you will get a copy of the list, as well as the polygraph operator and the receiver?
I'm curious-would you mind terribly if JREF picked the polygraph operator, or would you insist on picking one?

 

[fromdownunder]

Well, working on the KISS principle, I can reduce the number of questions by half, and eliminate potential emotional "did you lie" responses which may cause unintended false spikes.

Since golfy now is back on the "they really can hear me" track (or appears to be, it's hard to tell at times), a simplified protocol would be 10 questions, where the respondant answers "No" nine times (for all the false words) and "yes" once (for the word golfy was actually projecting. So, golfy is given one word from a list of 10 to send. The respondant is given a list of 10 words, and asked 10 yes/no questions relating to each of the ten words, to answer. If he hears golfy he/she will say "yes" once, and no 9 times.

There should then be no spike whatsoever in any Polygraph reading (the person has told the truth 10 times), and all potential for emotional effects on the reading would be eliminated.

I do still wonder however why every person on this mudball would lie about hearing golfy when they can walk away with $US100,000. I would like that little bit of pocket money. Golfy, can you explain why not one person on planet earth would tell the truth about your abilities?

Norm

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I think there is every chance that a polygraph would be accepted in the test as it does not aid cheating in any way as long as the transmitter is screened from the receiver and others involved in the test and I believe the JREF is an honest and fair organisation that would accept and honest, fair test.

golfy

Perhaps you want to inquire at challenge@randi.org yourself to receive an official answer...no, wait, they already gave it.

This thread provides again a perfect example of either the requirement for affidavits and media profile or for the discontinuation of the MDC altogether.

 

[chillzero]

Do others see a hole?

There's one, and it's a biggie - the JREF have already said the use of a polygraph is not acceptable.

I think there is every chance that a polygraph would be accepted in the test as it does not aid cheating in any way as long as the transmitter is screened from the receiver and others involved in the test and I believe the JREF is an honest and fair organisation that would accept and honest, fair test.

You've already been informed by RemieV that this will not be acceptable. You need to design a new protocol without the use of a polygraph.

Startz - RemieV speaks for the JREF in this section as pertains to the Challenge, so, with all due respect to you, you should heed her words and not just dismiss them as you did.

So what, exactly, is required to pass the preliminary test?

New thread please, Rodney. Or I am almost certain it's already discussed in an existing thread here you could re-visit.

Speed of Light - I think the same goes for your discussion about skepticism and open mindedness.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
So what, exactly, is required to pass the preliminary test?

Experience suggests that in most cases, one in 1000 chances are reflected in the protocols. Since every claim seems to be different, however, the JREF has not set the standard at a certain probability mark.

(Edit: Sorry for the derail, chillzero.)

 

[Rasmus]

Do others see a hole?

As has been pointed out: Yes, the JREF will not allow a test that uses a polygraph.

I still think my suggested protocol should be considered for an exception. Anyone being tested should have a chance to say "I feel not confident here" if it is done in a way that doesn't allow them to say so after any results might be obvious. A dowser looking for gold in three boxes should have the possibility to say "No, sorry, I can't say where it is right now." Of course, if they say so all the time or after looking into any of the boxes .... well!)

All that aside, there are a few big, gaping holes in that protocol:

1. The test subjects will be supplied the list of words in the right order!

Let us assume - strictly for the sake of the argument and entirely hypothetically speaking, of course - that the entirety of humankind is not out to get golfy and that at least some people might not only be genuinly believe that he can do what he claims to do, but that they would also participate in the experiment and be honest and truthful throughout.

A big stretch of the imagination, certainly, but bear with me:

Such a person might conceivable delude themselves into thinking that they are actually receiving the words from the list.

Imagine, I tell you I am going to telepathically send the word "bottle" to you. You will only have to be slightly imaginative or suggestible to actually think you were receiving that word.

A 100% reliable lie-detector would then accurately confirm your claim that you really received the word "Bottle" and that you did not lie about that.

2. It is possible that such a person could manipulate the lie detector. Either to communicate with golfy or to change the results of the chart.

The chart will not be conclusive. It has to be judged in a non-objective way. Either by an independent operator or by golfy.

If the chart was manipulated it would be simple to ensure that the operator would report a successful transmission.

If golfy should judge the chart ... well, that's just insane. We might just not go for the test at all.

Of course, all of this relies on the idea that the polygraph or any other devise would function with a high degree of reliability. It does not.

 

[golfy]

Atheist,

What are you laughing at?

If I were to throw a dice and got and 5, the chances of you throwing your dice and getting a 5 as well would be 6 to one.

If I then threw my dice again and got a 3, the chances of you then throwing your dice again and also getting a 3 also be six to one, but to do it in the sequence we have just done, ie my 5, your 5, my 3, your 3 would be 6 x 6 to one or 36 to one.

As more successive dice throws are made the chance of your dice matching mine in every throw decreases by 6 to one each throw. To get it to happen a third time, mine 2, yours 2 would make the odds 216 to one.

If the protocol is 10 words with me only transmitting one of them then the odds are 10:1. If it is done 3 times then the odds increase every test by a factor of 10 as far as I am aware, so 3 tests would be 1000:1 odds against it happening by chance.

Still laughing Atheist?

golfy

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
If the protocol is 10 words with me only transmitting one of them then the odds are 10:1. If it is done 3 times then the odds increase every test by a factor of 10 as far as I am aware, so 3 tests would be 1000:1 odds against it happening by chance.
...

Wrong.

Do you intend to apply for the JREF Challenge, golfy?

 

[golfy]

So we are to understand that you will get a copy of the list, as well as the polygraph operator and the receiver?
I'm curious-would you mind terribly if JREF picked the polygraph operator, or would you insist on picking one?

How did you deduce your first premise from this "From a list of ten words (wolf, car, house, tree, sky, etc) generated by the JREF I am handed one word, say “Tree”. I am in isolation from the rest of the testers and receiver etc."

I would not mind where the polygraph operator came from but would assume I would be sticking with the operator who I have done previous tests with to get to the preliminaries. A JREF appointed operator would be fine if required as it would be filmed at both ends of the experiment so I don't see any problems with who is operating the polygraph.

golfy

 

[GzuzKryzt]

How did you deduce your first premise from this "From a list of ten words (wolf, car, house, tree, sky, etc) generated by the JREF I am handed one word, say “Tree”. I am in isolation from the rest of the testers and receiver etc."

I would not mind where the polygraph operator came from but would assume I would be sticking with the operator who I have done previous tests with to get to the preliminaries. A JREF appointed operator would be fine if required as it would be filmed at both ends of the experiment so I don't see any problems with who is operating the polygraph.

golfy

Do you understand the JREF has officially rejected the use of a polygraph through RemieV's post?

Do you intend to apply anyway, golfy?

 

[golfy]

Well, working on the KISS principle, I can reduce the number of questions by half, and eliminate potential emotional "did you lie" responses which may cause unintended false spikes.

Since golfy now is back on the "they really can hear me" track (or appears to be, it's hard to tell at times), a simplified protocol would be 10 questions, where the respondant answers "No" nine times (for all the false words) and "yes" once (for the word golfy was actually projecting. So, golfy is given one word from a list of 10 to send. The respondant is given a list of 10 words, and asked 10 yes/no questions relating to each of the ten words, to answer. If he hears golfy he/she will say "yes" once, and no 9 times.

There should then be no spike whatsoever in any Polygraph reading (the person has told the truth 10 times), and all potential for emotional effects on the reading would be eliminated.

I do still wonder however why every person on this mudball would lie about hearing golfy when they can walk away with $US100,000. I would like that little bit of pocket money. Golfy, can you explain why not one person on planet earth would tell the truth about your abilities?

Norm

I have never changed my stance which is – I think, they hear, I ask “Did you hear?, they lie and say “No.”

Other explanations have been put forward by other people which in my view is just a simple cover up for their lies which is if I believe totally I am telepathic and can be heard by others then it may be subconscious on the receivers part so they are in fact not lying, but simply not aware of my telepathy.

Explanation 3 is I am simply not telepathic.

If I were to mention subconscious it does not mean I believe it is, it is just the mentioning of a possibility that rationally must be included in any telepathy test if the possibility of subconscious receiving of telepathic signals is to be addressed during the test phase. Conclusion – to cover all aspects and all possibilities of what could be happening a GSR or polygraph should be used in a telepathy test.

I will state again - I have never changed my stance which is – I think, they hear, I ask “Did you hear?, they lie and say “No.”

golfy

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I have never changed my stance which is – I think, they hear, I ask “Did you hear?, they lie and say “No.”

Other explanations have been put forward by other people which in my view is just a simple cover up for their lies which is if I believe totally I am telepathic and can be heard by others then it may be subconscious on the receivers part so they are in fact not lying, but simply not aware of my telepathy.

Explanation 3 is I am simply not telepathic.

If I were to mention subconscious it does not mean I believe it is, it is just the mentioning of a possibility that rationally must be included in any telepathy test if the possibility of subconscious receiving of telepathic signals is to be addressed during the test phase. Conclusion – to cover all aspects and all possibilities of what could be happening a GSR or polygraph should be used in a telepathy test.

I will state again - I have never changed my stance which is – I think, they hear, I ask “Did you hear?, they lie and say “No.”

golfy

Do you understand the JREF has officially rejected the use of a polygraph through RemieV's post?

Do you intend to apply anyway, golfy?

 

[golfy]

Do you understand the JREF has officially rejected the use of a polygraph through RemieV's post?

Do you intend to apply anyway, golfy?

Please read post 279.

RemieV is a JREF researcher - can she state categorically that the JREF at the highest level would not accept a telepathy test which (before I put it forward to the JREF) has been shown to work with a tamper proof protocol but requires the use of a polygraph, bearing mind I would have media presence etc and the back up of an academic (presumably a University Professor) who would also be able to explain the validity of my claim. Why then would they not allow me entry to the MDC when I have already proven my claim outside of the JREF?

golfy

 

[chillzero]

Please read post 279.

RemieV is a JREF researcher - can she state categorically that the JREF at the highest level would not accept a telepathy test

Read post 286. Yes she can.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Please read post 279.

RemieV is a JREF researcher - can she state categorically that the JREF at the highest level would not accept a telepathy test which (before I put it forward to the JREF) has been shown to work with a tamper proof protocol but requires the use of a polygraph, bearing mind I would have media presence etc and the back up of an academic (presumably a University Professor) who would also be able to explain the validity of my claim. Why then would they not allow me entry to the MDC when I have already proven my claim outside of the JREF?

golfy

As chillzero already said, RemieV represents an official instance as JREF Staff. As written under her custom title (which is the line under her forum nickname): JREF Research Assistant.

If you reread the rules/the Challenge Application, golfy, you will find this: "2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not accepted nor considered."

Do you understand that no previous tests have any bearing on your JREF Challenge Application - save for a test assuring you of written academic support per an affidavit of an achieved academic person?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Please read post 279.
...

I did. You state your misconception that the JREF might allow a polagraph anyway.

In light of the news that you definitely may not use one: Do you intend to apply anyway, golfy?

 

[Czarcasm]

I will state again - I have never changed my stance which is – I think, they hear, I ask “Did you hear?, they lie and say “No.”
golfy

Everyone lies about this? Are there other things everyone lies about to you, or is it just about your ability? Have they been lying to you all your life, or did something happen that started this trend?

 

[golfy]

Do you think that the JREF prize would be relevant once I have proven my telepathic ability and received the backup of a University and had exposure in the Media? I am not saying it would not be relevant, I am just asking your opinion if it would be relevant after proof has been accomplished and has been shown to be valid on international TV stations. What would that do for me? Whatever it accomplished, it is bound to dilute the requirement to win the MDC.

If that happened and the JREF still refused to accept the protocol which has under scientific scrutiny been shown to be valid, there would be a distinct possibility of the JREF being accused of using their “Media Presence Required” stipulation in their screening process for applicants, which could then be seen as being used as a screening process for the JREF to eliminate people from their tests who could actually win the MDC so that they don’t actually ever have to give the MD prize to anyone and in fact this could then open themselves up to being labelled as no better a bunch of charlatans and tricksters than the people they are purporting to oust.

Do you think they would allow this to happen to them? It would definitely remove their credibility as investigators of paranormal claimants and would engineer distrust from others within the community that they have tried so hard to gain the trust of and the perception of honesty that they currently posses would be removed.

Not a good move. I don’t think they would do it in the light of the publicity they would gain by actually associating themselves with a genuinely telepathic person as well a being ousters of the crooked. That to me would be the direction to go in. They could possibly make more than the value of the MDC prize from publicity, sponsorship etc which would have been generated by someone actually winning the challenge anyway so why would they refuse the use of a polygraph – you tell me.

It may be of more value to the JREF for someone to actually win the prize. Have you read and read into the MDC rules?

golfy