Changes To The Challenge

[Dan O.]

... Or maybe the probabilities of the universe need to be maintained?

The universe does appear to keep a tight grip on maintaining probabilities. I found this quote by Kramer in the challenge applications forum interesting [Bold highlight mine]:

The applicant would need to perform significantly above CHANCE results in order to pass the preliminary testing phase of the Challenge. To date, no applicant has passed preliminary testing, and most often, results far below CHANCE are what we actually see."

Classical probability theory would have the results clustered around CHANCE with nearly equal numbers of results above and below CHANCE. If Kramer's observation is correct, this would show evidence for what I believe is termed "retro-correlation" (the universe is evening out the probabilities for what the applicant has proven to themselves before taking the challenge).

If it is acceptable to the JREF challenge, what I propose to do is analyze the results of prior applicants that have completed the preliminary testing. If my analysis (to be confirmed by JREF's own statisticians) shows that there is less than a 1 in 1000 chance that the applicants would have done so badly due to chance alone this will be confirmation of the effect of "retro-correlation" and count as my passing the preliminary test.

This does however present a problem for taking the final test. The analysis cannot just be repeated on the same data set and it will not be easy to collect new data once this effect has been conclusively demonstrated because new applicants would then devise means to counter the effect when taking the challenge. I for instance intend to defeat this effect by not making any effort to confirm the effect before taking the preliminary test and will simply believe that I will be successful on the first try.

 

[AgingYoung]

Tim,

Probably not. I'm sure everyone wants to get to the bottom of a matter. No one wants to be fooled. In order for that to happen everyone should be entitled to express any opinion they have.

I don't disagree with the idea of selective memory with the pawns. I do think we don't understand the limits of human ability.

Gene

 

[timokay]

"Doing better than chance" has always been a sticking point for me with the applicants who claim to have some sort of paranormal power.

If you claim you can do something extraordinary, then you should be able to do it every time. It should not be an issue of odds or probabilities. You should be able to walk up to anyone, anytime, and demonstrate your ability.

Why is it that these "powers" seem to fade and falter for any number of reasons, and yet the excuses do not negate the claim right away? Why is that someone can claim to see through a blindfold, dowse for gold, pick a card etc, and yet when put to the test, all of the sudden these abilites only work "sometimes" and only under certain conditions, and then it is the conditions that are debated and not the validity of the claim itself?

If someone makes a claim, or states that they can do something beyond known science, then I call them on it. The bar should be 100% success, and nothing less if you wish to change the universe as we know it.

 

[timokay]

Tim,

Probably not. I'm sure everyone wants to get to the bottom of a matter. No one wants to be fooled. In order for that to happen everyone should be entitled to express any opinion they have.

I don't disagree with the idea of selective memory with the pawns. I do think we don't understand the limits of human ability.

Gene

Thanks Gene, I appreciate that.

 

[AgingYoung]

Tim,

If someone is claiming to talk to the dead the standard should be 100%. We know that dead people lie but they should realize the seriousness of it and stand up and tell the truth 100%.

If a person is claiming ability above normal the standard should be beyond the normal but maybe not 100%; somewhere in between.
Gene

 

[Rasmus]

This issue has come up many times before. My stance is that most people who are extraordinarily good at something are still not anywhere 100% perfection. I don't see why paranormal abilities should be any different?

It is still a paranormal claim if I believe I can predict 60% of coin tosses. And it is still a paranormal claim if it only works one of every 10 sundays.

Even if in the real world an extraordinary ability would achieve 100% hit rates it doesn't seem to follow that the rules on woo woo land would have to conform. Their rules don't seem to conform to anything else we know of, after all...

 

[timokay]

This issue has come up many times before. My stance is that most people who are extraordinarily good at something are still not anywhere 100% perfection. I don't see why paranormal abilities should be any different?

It is still a paranormal claim if I believe I can predict 60% of coin tosses. And it is still a paranormal claim if it only works one of every 10 sundays.

Even if in the real world an extraordinary ability would achieve 100% hit rates it doesn't seem to follow that the rules on woo woo land would have to conform. Their rules don't seem to conform to anything else we know of, after all...

If I claim I can hit 9/10 free throws, because I have a paranormal ability to do so, then I should be able to hit that 9/10 all of the time.

If I claim I can only do it on the winter solstice, or under a full. moon, then I should be able to do it on that day every time.

I am not saying that your ability can't be able to beat the odds, or beat probability. What bugs me is that people claim they have such and such powers, then can't demonstrate it reliably, and the debate becomes about what is hindering the ability, instead of cutting right to the chase and asking why the heck they think they can do it, if they can't demonstrate it at all?

If your feelings get hurt because I start the conversation with "That sounds unbelievable, so you must convince me.", then that's too bad, I have no reason to give anyone the benefit of the doubt without any evidence at all.

 

[steenkh]

I think Jim's ability is a sense. Some people have a sense beyond what is normal. When I used to play chess a lot I could sense which pawn was white (when someone would hide black and white pawns in their hands). I've never tested it but it seemed more often than not I would get the first move.

This is called "confirmation bias" and it means that subconsciously you register more of the hits than the misses.

 

[BillyJoe]

Is it only me or does anyone else find this post incomprehensible?

"I will force this coin to flip to ... [Rasmus secretly predicts it's going to be heads no matter what] .. HEADS!"

And with my amazing powers of influencing the coin, it indeed shows heads.

Or says so, at any rate. Why should I believe that a "free choice" wasn't due to some unconscious prediction?

Not that it really matters, of course. As regards the challenge, a mere prediction would suffice, after all.

So?

ETA: I missed something: Nowhere does it say that the "influencing" does have to happen with individual tosses. If a decision along the lines of "I predict with my own free will, that the next 100 tosses will all show heads" will also allow to influence the tosses, then I would be satisfied and believe that it is the influence of the challenger and not just a mere prediction.

I guess you just haven't bothered to read the thread.

 

[Cuddles]

If you begin with the premise that I don't have this power then buzz off since your just a pseudoskeptic. If you begin with an honest open yet skeptical mind and are willing to accept that what I say might be truth then explore away.

You clearly do not understand what skepticism is. If someone claims to have an extraordinary power that has never before been demonstrated to exist we would have to completely insane to simply accept your word for it and assume it exists. The only sensible view is for us to assume that your power does not exist until you demonstrate otherwise. Skepticism is not about believing everything that anyone tells you, it is about evaluating claims based on the evidence, and accepting what the evidence tells you, whether you like it or not. Most people here would be perfectly happy to accept that you can influsnce coin tosses with your mind, just as soon as you provide actual evidence that you can do so. You orginally said that you coud predict the outcome of a coin toss 90% of the time. You have not done so. To expect us to accept your claim having failed to demonstrate is under completely uncontrolled conditions is just plain weird.

You also do not appear to understand the reason for many of the posts here. People are not attacking you, they are trying to point out flaws in your testing and help you get a real protocol. For all we know you could just as easily be a con artist out for easy money as genuine person who thinks they can do what they say. Any test must control for all possibilities. If you attack or ignore people who suggest changes to elliminate any normal phenomena you will never get to a real test. No matter how sincere you are, the fact remains that it is possible for people to choose the outcome of coins by fixing the toss, so any test that does not elliminate this possibility is worthless. You may think we are being hard on you and overly sceptical, but the JREF is putting a lot of money on this and you can bet they will be a lot harder.

 

[BillyJoe]

Okay, BillyJoe, I see what you mean. One of the reasons why we see it differently is that the experiment in question is random and unpredictable; in such a setup, it's impossible to tell whether the outcome has been guessed or forced.

Yes, I was hoping he would be able claim that he could force all heads.
That would produce a nice non-random result.

However, to tell the difference between guessing and forcing, you could simply alternate series where JM guesses the outcome with series where JM forces the outcome. When he guesses, he simply chooses either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time . When he forces, he chooses either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time AND concentrates on that outcome before and while tossing the coin.

In the former case, choosing either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time, would constitute a prediction. In the latter case, choosing either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time would form part of the forcing. (It must be both because he has already stated that he cannot force an event unless he also chooses what he forces).

If he achieves success in the former and the latter, he is predicting the outcome. If he achieves success with the latter but not the former, he is forcing the outcome.

If the outcome was predictable but unknown to the subject, the difference could be told. (This would, however, mean influencing a purely mechanical process, which Jim doesn't claim to be able to influence. What an unfortunate coincidence.)

Coincidence? In any case, neither can we use, nor do we need, a mechanical process.

 

[BillyJoe]

Gene,
If someone thought that instead of a paranormal power, these events that happened to you were just coincidences, and that perhaps you put more emphasis on the positive and discounted the negative, leaving you with the impression that you influenced the events in your favor....

Would that be insulting to you?

If that is meant as a side-swipe, I must tell you that the situation you are describing here is a different situation to the one you described previously.

 

[Cuddles]

In the former case, choosing either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time, would constitute a prediction. In the latter case, choosing either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time would form part of the forcing. (It must be both because he has already stated that he cannot force an event unless he also chooses what he forces).

If he achieves success in the former and the latter, he is predicting the outcome. If he achieves success with the latter but not the former, he is forcing the outcome.

Nope, all it would prove is that he can tell when he can predict it accurately. The only way to differentiate between forcing and prediction is for him to force a very unlikely outcome.

 

[BillyJoe]

If you claim you can do something extraordinary, then you should be able to do it every time. It should not be an issue of odds or probabilities. You should be able to walk up to anyone, anytime, and demonstrate your ability.

Why? Can an artist produce an exceptional painting every time he puts paint to canvas? Why should a paranormal ability be any different from any other ability in this regard?

Why is it that these "powers" seem to fade and falter for any number of reasons, and yet the excuses do not negate the claim right away? Why is that someone can claim to see through a blindfold, dowse for gold, pick a card etc, and yet when put to the test, all of the sudden these abilites only work "sometimes" and only under certain conditions, and then it is the conditions that are debated and not the validity of the claim itself?

You might be able to succesfully solve maths problems for homework in the confort of your own home. You might not be able to achieve the same level of success in the austere evironment of an end-of-the-year examination. Why should paranormal abilities be any different?

If someone makes a claim, or states that they can do something beyond known science, then I call them on it. The bar should be 100% success, and nothing less if you wish to change the universe as we know it.

Carl Lewis might hold the record for the 100 meters, but he hasn't won every race that he has ever entered.

 

[BillyJoe]

Thanks Gene, I appreciate that.

Come off it tim, okay?

 

[Rasmus]

Is it only me or does anyone else find this post incomprehensible?

Why, I thought it was perfectly clear ...

It is impossible for an outside observer to tell if a coin-toss has been influenced rather than merely predicted. It is impossible to control what is going on in the head of the challenger.

The challenger might be mistaken about his actual ability, if his awareness of the immediate future manifests subconciously.

So?

So it doesn't matter if a challenger can force or just predict a coin toss. A protocol for "predicting" will yield a positive result if the actual ability of the challenger is "forcing".

Still, I consider the debate interesting.

I guess you just haven't bothered to read the thread.

Like I said - I missed a point, and see that it has been adressed elsewhere, too.

 

[BillyJoe]

If I claim I can hit 9/10 free throws, because I have a paranormal ability to do so, then I should be able to hit that 9/10 all of the time.

I can run a marathon in 3 hours. Sorry, I can't do it again tomorrow.

If I claim I can only do it on the winter solstice, or under a full. moon, then I should be able to do it on that day every time.

I can run a marathon in 3 hours. Sorry, I can't do it when I haven't slept for 48 hours.

I am not saying that your ability can't be able to beat the odds, or beat probability. What bugs me is that people claim they have such and such powers, then can't demonstrate it reliably, and the debate becomes about what is hindering the ability, instead of cutting right to the chase and asking why the heck they think they can do it, if they can't demonstrate it at all?

Sorry, I could have sworn I ran that marathon in 3 hours. I'm sorry I can't repeat right here, right now.

If your feelings get hurt because I start the conversation with "That sounds unbelievable, so you must convince me.", then that's too bad, I have no reason to give anyone the benefit of the doubt without any evidence at all.

In case you still don't get the point....aw, no, you'll just have to read that other post again...
(Have you stopped beating your wife, timokay?)

 

[Thabiguy]

However, to tell the difference between guessing and forcing, you could simply alternate series where JM guesses the outcome with series where JM forces the outcome. When he guesses, he simply chooses either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time . When he forces, he chooses either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time AND concentrates on that outcome before and while tossing the coin.

In the former case, choosing either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time, would constitute a prediction. In the latter case, choosing either "heads" or "tails" according to what feels right to him at the time would form part of the forcing. (It must be both because he has already stated that he cannot force an event unless he also chooses what he forces).

If he achieves success in the former and the latter, he is predicting the outcome. If he achieves success with the latter but not the former, he is forcing the outcome.

Good heavens, BillyJoe, what kind of test is that? How do you propose to control whether the subject is really doing the former or the latter?

Imagine subject S that is able to predict, but not influence, a seemingly random event. Real-world example: the tester uses a pseudo-random generator to simulate a coin toss, but S knows the state of the generator and has a little computer of his own that allows him to predict the outcome.

You do your test. "S, please try and guess the outcomes." S guesses away. His guesses show no correlation to the actual outcomes. "S, please try and force the outcomes now." S puts on a strained expression and feeds you the output of his concealed generator. Lo and behold, he can force the outcomes with 100% success rate.

Your conclusion: the subject is forcing the outcomes, rather than predicting them.
My conclusion: this test is worthless.

 

[BillyJoe]

Why, I thought it was perfectly clear ...

Well, perhaps my powers of comprehension weren't up to it.

It is impossible for an outside observer to tell if a coin-toss has been influenced rather than merely predicted. It is impossible to control what is going on in the head of the challenger.

Observe: JM simply chooses heads of tails according to what feels right. A sufficiently large trial produces results no better than chance
Observe: JM chooses heads of tails according to what feels right. He then closes his eyes and concentrates on forcing that outcome just before and during the coin toss. A sufficently large trial shows he is successful 90% of the time.

I suppose, in the former case, he could be faking it and be actually picking heads or tails randomly and then do it properly in the latter case so that it all comes down to predicting instead of forcing. But then it wouldn't be an unconscious prediction that he misinterprets as a forcing, it would be deliberate faking. But, if that is the case, why wouldn't he just say he can predict it? It'll win him the prize all the same.

The challenger might be mistaken about his actual ability, if his awareness of the immediate future manifests subconciously.

If that is the case, he wouldn't be in a position to fake what he does, and the above test would distinguish between predicting and forcing.

 

[BillyJoe]

Nope, all it would prove is that he can tell when he can predict it accurately. The only way to differentiate between forcing and prediction is for him to force a very unlikely outcome.

Yes, I tried the all heads thing. But see the above post.