Challenge Questions

[oddball]

Originally Posted by oddball
I'm not too keen on the idea of asking anyone @ randi.org any questions.

Uh-Oh. This is a bad harbinger of how oddball intends to approach things.
No application has been formulated yet, and already he's providing the best possible "out"----- Randi's brusque style (AKA: rudeness).

Why is it the "best possible 'out'"? Out of where?

It should be plentifully obvious that I have been investing a lot of time in trying to formulate an acceptable challenge proposal. Instead of dissing me for "wasting" time, why don't you make some sort of positive contribution to the effort I am making?

I've asked for help with the proposal in the first message of the new thread. Read it and you will see that it contains a number of questions that no one so far has said anything about.

Your reply certainly hasn't contributed to my effort in any way. In fact I would say that you are the one wasting everyone's time.

This indicates that oddball has failed to read

I got here less than a week ago, and I'm expected to know the contents of every post?

If you can't be helpful, at least be civil, or go away!

 

[Gr8wight]

Strangely, every time I try to quote anyone's post in a reply in this thread, only the Rasmus' #17 appears on the next page.

Try purging your internet cache.

 

[Gr8wight]

I'm fairly sure I read somewhere on the website or forum that only the preliminary tests were done at the claimant's location, and the final test requires travel to Florida. If I'm mistaken I wish someone would set me straight on that point.

There has never been a final test, so we're not sure about that point, but such a stipulation does not appear in the challenge rules or FAQ

 

[Gr8wight]

I'm not too keen on the idea of asking anyone @ randi.org any questions. Maybe things have changed since the first time I tried to communicate directly with JREF but my initial contact was met with such extreme rudeness that I wanted to exhaust other options for getting questions answered before contacting JREF. I sure hope they now have a different person handling email correspondence with applicants.

Here's the problem. There is not one poster on this forum who can speak with authority about the challenge. Everything we are telling you is based upon our observations of previous claim applications, but none of us are officially a part of the JREF. The only way to get some of your questions answered authoritatively is to ask the JREF. No way around it.

 

[nathan]

I've asked for help with the proposal in the first message of the new thread. Read it and you will see that it contains a number of questions that no one so far has said anything about.

Yes, and AFAICT you have ignored the specific advice about how to modify the protocol for Claim A to avoid the judging of the referree.

I once again advise you to

a) modify the protocol so that the subjects do the determination of which reading applies to them.

b) submit an application to the JREF.

 

[oddball]

Yes, and AFAICT you have ignored the specific advice about how to modify the protocol for Claim A to avoid the judging of the referree.

What do you mean by "the judging of the referee"?

I once again advise you to modify the protocol so that the subjects do the determination of which reading applies to them.

I don't recall seeing you say that before. I do recall at least one other poster suggesting that I propose doing it the way it is now stated.

 

[oddball]

The only way to get some of your questions answered authoritatively is to ask the JREF. No way around it.

Well as webfusion so "brusquely" pointed out in his(?) recent post, a Jeff Wagg is now in charge of challenge applications, and since he's a different person than I corresponded with in the past, I feel somewhat relieved. From what little I've read of Wagg's forum posts, he sounds like he knows how to be civil.

 

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by oddball
Why is it the "best possible 'out'"? Out of where?

Out of actually applying, or going forward with the protocol negotiations or even testing. You complain that you aren't being treated nicely enough and it disrupts your 'sensitivity' and ruins your abilities to go ahead because the JREF is treating you 'rudely' and you won't stand for it.

Boo-Hoo.

It should be plentifully obvious that I have been investing a lot of time in trying to formulate an acceptable challenge proposal.

You surely meant "painfully obvious" right?

This thread is one of three you've started --- in this specific thread you allude to your claims, starting with "I do routinely detect cancer cases in crowds."
Claim A.

Then you move onto ----
"Claim B" and "Claim C" etc...

Now you're up to Claim "D" -- correct? (clairvoyance using photographs)
And that's being covered in a new thread....

Instead of dissing me for "wasting" time, why don't you make some sort of positive contribution to the effort I am making?

This is completely ridiculous. I was the first one to answer each and every one of your OP questions, and provided you with the link to answer your specific complaint/question in Post #38 --- them's the facts, bub.

Your reply certainly hasn't contributed to my effort in any way. In fact I would say that you are the one wasting everyone's time.

Hey, oddball, my postings are contributing to your 'effort' directly. You can say what you want but the members of this forum are not going to fall for your insults and your false insinuations.

I got here less than a week ago, and I'm expected to know the contents of every post?

Uh, back in Post #10 of this thread, you were offered some sage advice.
You read it, and agreed that you need to follow it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1921044&postcount=10

Now, you're mad at me for calling your attention to a very important thread that you completely failed to research? How is that MY fault? I did you a favor and answered your question, and you perceive it as "brusque" ?

Oddball, do me a huge favor and put me on 'ignore' status, and that way I can continue posting things that tear you apart, and everyone else can see them, but I won't have any fear of 'hurting your sensitivities'.

No, being civil to woos is not a requirement around here -- get used to it.
You, odd, are a woo, of the first order.

 

[oddball]

Out of actually applying, or going forward with the protocol negotiations or even testing. You complain that you aren't being treated nicely enough and it disrupts your 'sensitivity' and ruins your abilities to go ahead because the JREF is treating you 'rudely' and you won't stand for it.

Boo-Hoo.

This makes no sense to me. I haven't complained. I've stated facts and opinions, and related experiences. Nothing emotional at all. I haven't said that anything has ruined my abilities either. I said I don't care to deal with people who are rude for no reason. The impression I have from some of the people here - you included - is that being rude might be a requirement to get extra points or something.

You surely meant "painfully obvious" right?

Whatever.

This thread is one of three you've started --- in this specific thread you allude to your claims, starting with "I do routinely detect cancer cases in crowds."
Claim A.
Then you move onto ----
"Claim B" and "Claim C" etc...

In the context of responding to others' questions and in the course of discussing which claim is the one to use in an application. How is that bad?

Now you're up to Claim "D" -- correct? (clairvoyance using photographs)
And that's being covered in a new thread....

No, not D. Others advised to focus on one claim and suggested ways to revise it. So that's what I did. The thread where I originally posted about that claim was filling up with digressive discussions so I started a fresh one. If that was the wrong way to handle it, I didn't hear about it soon enough. Sorry.

This is completely ridiculous. I was the first one to answer each and every one of your OP questions, and provided you with the link to answer your specific complaint/question in Post #38 --- them's the facts, bub.

I don't know what "OP" means. I do know that every post you've made in my threads has had a hostile tone. Don't you know how to be civil?

Hey, oddball, my postings are contributing to your 'effort' directly. You can say what you want but the members of this forum are not going to fall for your insults and your false insinuations.

Uh, back in Post #10 of this thread, you were offered some sage advice.
You read it, and agreed that you need to follow it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1921044&postcount=10

Now, you're mad at me for calling your attention to a very important thread that you completely failed to research? How is that MY fault? I did you a favor and answered your question, and you perceive it as "brusque" ?

The overall tone of everything you post is what I call brusque. Expecting me to read everything in the whole board in such a short time is also unreasonable. I'm not "mad" at you. Exasperated is more like it.

Oddball, do me a huge favor and put me on 'ignore' status, and that way I can continue posting things that tear you apart, and everyone else can see them, but I won't have any fear of 'hurting your sensitivities'.

What have I done to earn so much hatred from you, that you want to tear me apart? Why don't you ignore my posts, if they move you to such strong feelings as wanting to tear me apart. You've been minimally helpful and your nastiness so far has more than negated any help you've offered.

You, odd, are a woo, of the first order.

I'd have to say that you're a boor in the same degree. If that's how you treat everyone you know, then I'm glad we haven't met.

I'm really sorry to be feeling pushed into saying these kind of things to anyone. I've managed to live 53 years without ever finding it necessary to be half as rude to anyone I've ever known as you are being to a stranger on the internet. Feels like I'm starting to come down with a new disease called ROOC---Rudeness Out Of Control.

 

[nathan]

I don't recall seeing you say that before. I do recall at least one other poster suggesting that I propose doing it the way it is now stated.

Well, then you missed what I wrote, and what at least one other person referred to.

I may have misunderstood your new protocol, could you clarify some things for me?

1) Your claim is 'by looking at someone's face I can tell you something about their parents & grandparents'.

Is that correct?

2) Your original protocol had the subjects write out some stuff about themselves. You would write some stuff about them. A referree would determine if what you wrote was 'the same as' what the subjects wrote.

Is that correct? The problem here is that it calls for a subjective judging.

3) Your new protocol (which is where I think I misunderstood), had the subjects write out some stuff about themselves. You would see their photos and what they had written. You would match up the photos with the writings.

Is that correct?

Question: How does doing #3 actually prove your claim that you can tell some stuff about them? All it seems to be doing is showing you can match mug shots to some personal details.

Hence my suggestion. You write the details you determine by looking at the mug shots. That bit appears to exactly match your claim. Then the subjects individually determin which of your readings actually refers to them. That bit deals with ensuring your readings are both (a) specific enough and (b) accurate enough. Although each subject is subjectively judging, they are judging something about themselves to generate some statistical data. We can use some statisical analysis to ensure any results are significant.

 

[oddball]

Well, then you missed what I wrote, and what at least one other person referred to.

I may have misunderstood your new protocol, could you clarify some things for me?

1) Your claim is 'by looking at someone's face I can tell you something about their parents & grandparents'.

Is that correct?

Yes.

2) Your original protocol had the subjects write out some stuff about themselves. You would write some stuff about them. A referree would determine if what you wrote was 'the same as' what the subjects wrote.

Is that correct? The problem here is that it calls for a subjective judging.

Not quite what I said.... I said the subjects themselves would determine how accurate I was. But that would probably not fit what JREF wants either.

3) Your new protocol (which is where I think I misunderstood), had the subjects write out some stuff about themselves. You would see their photos and what they had written. You would match up the photos with the writings.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Question: How does doing #3 actually prove your claim that you can tell some stuff about them? All it seems to be doing is showing you can match mug shots to some personal details.

I understand what you mean but I'm not sure I agree with you.

Doing it that way was suggested (I forget by who) as a way to avoid the problem in your #2 above. So I incorporated that suggestion when I wrote the new protocol.

I'm not sure that your idea (below) would solve the issue of subjectivity in the results. Are you saying that they'd choose which of my descriptions best fits them, and then give it an "accuracy rating"? If so, that might also be too subjective. I can see it also making designing the protocol more complex, since some kind of "accuracy grading system" would have to be devised.

Hence my suggestion. You write the details you determine by looking at the mug shots. That bit appears to exactly match your claim. Then the subjects individually determin which of your readings actually refers to them. That bit deals with ensuring your readings are both (a) specific enough and (b) accurate enough. Although each subject is subjectively judging, they are judging something about themselves to generate some statistical data. We can use some statisical analysis to ensure any results are significant.

I don't completely understand what you mean by "judging something about themselves to generate some statistical data".

The way I did this when I was learning it, I would sit with the subject and make notes, then ask the subject if I was correct about each item in my notes. If I missed something I would make note of it, and that was how I knew which areas I needed to work on to improve my accuracy.

Working from facial photos shouldn't be too much more difficult than using a live subject if the photos are good enough. Matching photos to descriptions also seems straightforward and simple, with no room for subjective distortion.

Maybe others will give opinions on this part. But I think this kind of discussion, which is specific to this claim proposal, really belongs in the new thread.

 

[timokay]

By all means. I think this thread should be locked, and we should deal with this in only one thread. I just asked the same questiosn nathan asked, and was answered by you in this thread.

 

[oddball]

Maybe the other thread "Formulating Challenge Proposal" should also be locked.

 

[nathan]

Not quite what I said.... I said the subjects themselves would determine how accurate I was. But that would probably not fit what JREF wants either.

ah, yes I remember. You would give the subject *only* the reading you made of them, and ask them 'is this you'. The problem is that in such a scenario, the subject has no baseline of a reading by you that does not correspond to them. Also they have no scale in which to rate accuracy.

I'm not sure that your idea (below) would solve the issue of subjectivity in the results. Are you saying that they'd choose which of my descriptions best fits them, and then give it an "accuracy rating"? If so, that might also be too subjective. I can see it also making designing the protocol more complex, since some kind of "accuracy grading system" would have to be devised.

I'm fairly certain it would solve the primary problem, because it is a protocol James Randi recommends for astrological reading accuracy. Your problem is isomorphic to that (as I understand your claim).

In my protocol the subject would simply have to determine which of the N readings they are given matches them. They don't have to rate how good it is. The reading merely has to be sufficiently precise that they can distinguish it from the other readings. The result will be M subjects selected the reading that matched them.

The reason this works is that if you consider the case when the readings have *no* distinguishing features, the probability of a subject picking the right reading is what chance predicts. Thus each subject has a 1/N chance of picking the right one so at random one would expect M to be 1. Probability theory will tell you the chances of 2, 3, 4 etc subjects select the right reading.

The way I did this when I was learning it, I would sit with the subject and make notes, then ask the subject if I was correct about each item in my notes. If I missed something I would make note of it, and that was how I knew which areas I needed to work on to improve my accuracy.

This sounds like cold reading. You're not specific enough for me to tell if it IS cold reading or not.

Maybe others will give opinions on this part. But I think this kind of discussion, which is specific to this claim proposal, really belongs in the new thread.

Nooooo! Stop creating new threads at the drop of a hat. You're showing a very good ability to NOT STICK TO THE POINT. That's a classic sign of someone who ends up not applying for the challenge but just mutters on about things. A pity, because your first post was remarkably clear - but then that's happened before -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57001 for instance.

 

[oddball]

I'm fairly certain it would solve the primary problem

Which is??

because it is a protocol James Randi recommends for astrological reading accuracy. Your problem is isomorphic to that (as I understand your claim).

It would seem so but the more I think about it, the less I agree.

In my protocol the subject would simply have to determine which of the N readings they are given matches them. They don't have to rate how good it is. The reading merely has to be sufficiently precise that they can distinguish it from the other readings. The result will be M subjects selected the reading that matched them.

This sounds like putting the odds too heavily in my favor, because I would only need to hit one correct thing on each subject, so I would make fewer notes on each subject and only submit the one I felt most certain was correct. And of course I'd choose the easiest item to detect, and feel as if I was cheating even thought I was following the rules that had been set up.

The reason this works is that if you consider the case when the readings have *no* distinguishing features, the probability of a subject picking the right reading is what chance predicts. Thus each subject has a 1/N chance of picking the right one so at random one would expect M to be 1. Probability theory will tell you the chances of 2, 3, 4 etc subjects select the right reading.

In this kind of test, what would constitute a distinguishing feature?

This sounds like cold reading. You're not specific enough for me to tell if it IS cold reading or not.

Then feel free to ask whatever clarification you need. If I knew what you mean by "cold reading" I would tell you right now.

Nooooo! Stop creating new threads at the drop of a hat. You're showing a very good ability to NOT STICK TO THE POINT. That's a classic sign of someone who ends up not applying for the challenge but just mutters on about things. A pity, because your first post was remarkably clear - but then that's happened before -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57001 for instance.

I'll read that other thread as soon as I can but I'll tell you now that I am just trying to keep it organized. Continuous flipping between three different threads is confusing.

 

[nathan]

Which is??

Subjectivity of scoring how well you're doing.

This sounds like putting the odds too heavily in my favor, because I would only need to hit one correct thing on each subject, so I would make fewer notes on each subject and only submit the one I felt most certain was correct. And of course I'd choose the easiest item to detect, and feel as if I was cheating even thought I was following the rules that had been set up.

Incorrect. You would need (for example) one correct thing and *no* incorrect things on each subject. That's a higher barrier than you think it is.

In this kind of test, what would constitute a distinguishing feature?

I have no idea -- it's your claim. You claim to be able to give readings. Such readings, if they are any good, must contain correct features that distinguish one reading from another. Furthermore, with my suggested protocol we don't have to define what these are in advance.

Then feel free to ask whatever clarification you need. If I knew what you mean by "cold reading" I would tell you right now.

I suggest you do a search for cold reading on wikipedia or google or something. For instance, do your subjects give you feedback in any way (conciously or unconciously) during the reading?

Continuous flipping between three different threads is confusing.

yeah, you brought that on yourself

 

[oddball]

Opening a new thread was my effort to make this process *less* confusing

On the subject feedback question, the subjects didn't say anything and I didn't say anything until the reading was finished. At the end, I read from my notes, and they said whether each item is correct or incorrect.

You would need (for example) one correct thing and *no* incorrect things on each subject. That's a higher barrier than you think it is.

But if I only gave one thing - the one I was most certain was correct - I wouldn't be giving any additional things to be incorrect about. The only thing I could miss on would be the "one thing" that I did give.

I wish I could think of something to compare this with but like I said a few hours ago I am getting overwrought. I'll keep it on the back burner and post later if something does occur to me.

Subjectivity of scoring would also be solved by what timokay suggested in [what is now] the main thread for this topic.

I still don't know what you mean about distinguishing features.

 

[nathan]

But if I only gave one thing - the one I was most certain was correct - I wouldn't be giving any additional things to be incorrect about. The only thing I could miss on would be the "one thing" that I did give.

Yes. Though note that the one thing you're most certain of would have to be unique for that particular subject. Is that always true, regardless of how many different subjects there are?

I still don't know what you mean about distinguishing features.

Ok, if your reading consists of one thing, then that's the distinguishing feature.

 

[oddball]

Nathan I am falling asleep sitting up and simply cannot keep up this conversation with any degree of intelligence right now. I'll be back later on. This brief message is just a "placeholder" for my reply. Hope I can still add to it when I return.

 

[webfusion]

OP refers to your Opening Post.

You still insist: "I haven't complained."

Sure you have.

Right here: Post #38 == you complain of rudeness from the Challenge Administrator being so off-putting that you cannot bring yourself to write another email, and now feel the need to come here into the forum and blather on in three different threads that are barely coherent.

and I simply cannot keep up this conversation with any degree of intelligence...

You said it.