Can we get a Challenge historical wrapup/tally?

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

Then you'll have to find something else to complain about.

Only seeing recollections and etc. and not actual data is a valid complaint, I would say. If you prefer recollections and a piece of data here, a piece of data there, that may work for you.

Several challenge results have been posted in various media over the years.

Actual data is appreciated. "various media" doesn't really cut it, nor make it easily accessible to interested parties, wouldn't you say?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

Only seeing recollections and etc. and not actual data is a valid complaint, I would say. If you prefer recollections and a piece of data here, a piece of data there, that may work for you.
[/B]

For example, kookbreaker, when KRAMER says

"However, my understanding is that most applicants fail rather gloriously, performing far below CHANCE."

What does "performing far below CHANCE" mean specifically? How far below? What are the probabilites and the sample sizes? Is the event of most applicants falling far below chance itself going against what chance would expect?

We have no idea from such statements. I'm curious, however, and I suspect many people, skeptics and "woo's" alike.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

Instead of "understandings" and things you've "been told", hopefully some day we'll see actual prelim statistics (without having to fly down and sort through files) made freely available for interested parties to examine.

Instead of making snide remarks on an Internet board, hopefully some day you'll get your head out of your ass and fly down to JREF to actually do some work of your own.

You are not the boss of JREF. Or anybody else.

 

[kookbreaker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

For example, kookbreaker, when KRAMER says

"However, my understanding is that most applicants fail rather gloriously, performing far below CHANCE."

What does "performing far below CHANCE" mean specifically? How far below? What are the probabilites and the sample sizes? Is the event of most applicants falling far below chance itself going against what chance would expect?

We have no idea from such statements. I'm curious, however, and I suspect many people, skeptics and "woo's" alike.

Then I suggest you start reading the material you can get ahold of. There are several accounts of tests in Randi's weekly, a few more online, a few more described on USENET, and several in Flim-Flam. The base material is in FLA. If you want a more thorough answer.

Get working.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

Instead of making snide remarks on an Internet board, hopefully some day you'll get your head out of your ass and fly down to JREF to actually do some work of your own.

My comments are valid. What does "performing far below CHANCE" mean specifically? How far below? What are the probabilites and the sample sizes? Is the event of most applicants falling far below chance itself going against what chance would expect?

Can you answer me, Claus?

You are not the boss of JREF. Or anybody else.

That is why I am asking, Claus. See the pretty question marks above?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

Then I suggest you start reading the material you can get ahold of. There are several accounts of tests in Randi's weekly, a few more online, a few more described on USENET, and several in Flim-Flam. The base material is in FLA. If you want a more thorough answer.

Get working.

More general appeals to 'go look' for the data.

The challenge has been in some form since the 60's, but no records or summaries of the prelims that are easily available (not taking time off from the job, paying for planes, a hotel room, and spending many, many full days there searching archives, etc.) to interested parties? That seems pretty important to me.

 

[kookbreaker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

My comments are valid. What does "performing far below CHANCE" mean specifically? How far below? What are the probabilites and the sample sizes? Is the event of most applicants falling far below chance itself going against what chance would expect?

Can you answer me, Claus?

That is why I am asking, Claus. See the pretty question marks above? [/B]

You'd better get to work if you want specific answers to your question.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

You'd better get to work if you want specific answers to your question.

The point is that if a JREF employee can't provide those details, how could I be expected to?

 

[kookbreaker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

The point is that if a JREF employee can't provide those details, how could I be expected to?

By going and doing the work that yields the results that you, exlcusively, are interested in.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

By going and doing the work that yields the results that you, exlcusively, are interested in.

Tons of Skeptics and non-skeptics are interested in those results, kookbreaker, not just me exclusively, as you claim. This thread, for example, was started because someone was interested in them. Right?

JREF's bread and butter is the challenge, yet no one seems to know much of the statistics on them, and a JREF employee believes it would take too much time to do.

That confuses me somewhat, as it seems a very important and desirable thing that would have been thought of. Oh well. Like I said, "hopefully someday".

 

[kookbreaker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

Tons of Skeptics and non-skeptics are interested in those results, kookbreaker, not just me exclusively, as you claim. This thread, for example, was started because someone was interested in them. Right?

No. The closest you get is:


"What would you say is the "best" test, and by that, I mean the one with the highest result tally, where the applicant came closest to his goal? And was this still within the bell curve of chance?"

JREF's bread and butter is the challenge, yet no one seems to know much of the statistics on them, and a JREF employee believes it would take too much time to do.

As does Randi.

That confuses me somewhat, as it seems a very important and desirable thing that would have been thought of. Oh well. Like I said, "hopefully someday".

Its funny how you expect everyone to do your work for you, and how you set the priorities for the JREF.

It might be of interest, but it really isn't that important. If you want to see it, you'll have to do it yourself. Whining like a spoiled child is not going to do much.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

No. The closest you get is:

The details and results of a test can be expressed through statistics, kookbreaker.

Additionally, Sherman added "statistical analysis". You left that out, kookbreaker.

Its funny how you expect everyone to do your work for you, and how you set the priorities for the JREF.

I haven't set any priorities. I do think it would be a good idea, however. If you believe differently, that is fine. People ask about the statistics of the challenge, so it seems important.

Whining like a spoiled child is not going to do much.

Making a sensible suggestion is not "whining", kookbreaker. Considering the tests are gauged by statistics, the suggestion is sensible, kookbreaker.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

It might be of interest, but it really isn't that important. If you want to see it, you'll have to do it yourself. Whining like a spoiled child is not going to do much.

What he said.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

What he said.

If you want to ignore the actual data, be my un-skeptical guest.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

If you want to ignore the actual data, be my un-skeptical guest.

I don't find it particularly interesting, so why should I bother?

It's this "Justin Likes To Order The World Around" symptom we see again and again. You are a one trick pony.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

I don't find it particularly interesting, so why should I bother?

You do know you just admitted to not finding the actual data interesting, right?

Definitely saved for posterity.

It's this "Justin Likes To Order The World Around" symptom we see again and again. You are a one trick pony.

Am I a pony or fly excrement? You keep changing your mind.

In regards to the actual topic you desparetly wish to avoid by getting into personal attacks, Randi responded, and it sure is interesting. I'm emailing him now for permission to fwd the email or post it here.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

You do know you just admitted to not finding the actual data interesting, right?

No. I don't find it particularly interesting. There's a difference. Of course, you had to leave that out.

Definitely saved for posterity.

Please do. Just be sure to save it all.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry...

No. I don't find it particularly interesting. There's a difference. Of course, you had to leave that out.

Oh, "particularly", as if that changes the content or meaning of what you said in any way. So you admitted to not finding the actual data particularly interesting. It seems to me, that that is probably *the* most interesting thing, because that is the only way to judge success or failure and other important things, and put them in an objective numerical form.

Apparently one can get more data from the GCP than from the JREF challenge.