• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Changes To The Challenge

So.. Is there any news/rumors/whatever about the original topic of this thread? Any chance of an announcement within the next week? ;)
I take it that's a "no" then, as another week has gone by with no comment.
 
For Those that came in late...
There has been an announcement that there will be changes to the challenge. However these changes have not yet been announced. They were scheduled to be announced several weeks ago. So please do not hold your breath waiting for the announcement.
 
I wish something would happen. I just got interested in Mr. Randi and the foundation and I'd love to read more recent details about how Mr. Randi proves people wrong, especially on how Mr. Randi can EXPLAIN exactly how they did it. =D
 
I like the idea of having an open challenge available for anyone to take, but I can understand that JREF would want to make the process more manageable.

I would suggest that EVERYONE be required to include notarized affidavits with their application.

Also, where ever possible, form letters should be used until someone successfully comes through with both an application AND notarized affidavits. Three seems to be overkill -- I think two would be enough as long as the applicant not only had no relationship with the people supplying the affidavits (as already mentioned in the FAQ), and each person supplying an affidavit also had no relationship with each other.

Also, putting PDF pages on line with samples of applications that made it as far as the negotiating stage would probably help make the form letters easier to write. The form letter could just say what section of the application needs to be clarified and supply the web page of sample applications that had been accepted in the past.

I haven't read most of this 8 page thread -- if someone already made these suggestions -- my apologies!
 
Last edited:
I wish something would happen. I just got interested in Mr. Randi and the foundation and I'd love to read more recent details about how Mr. Randi proves people wrong, especially on how Mr. Randi can EXPLAIN exactly how they did it. =D

Please be clear on this. It is not the point of the Challenge for Randi to prove someone wrong. The point is for a claimant to prove what they say they can do, under proper observing conditions. Randi is not even interested in explanations. He just says "Do it and you get a million bucks!"
 
I wish something would happen. I just got interested in Mr. Randi and the foundation and I'd love to read more recent details about how Mr. Randi proves people wrong, especially on how Mr. Randi can EXPLAIN exactly how they did it. =D

As alfaniner pointed out, the only "proving people wrong" that Randi does is giving people a chance to do what they claim, and then documenting their failure. If I say that I can tell you what a card is inside a sealed, opaque envelope, then either I can or I can't -- and Randi will gladly videotape me trying.

The other part, of course, is that a lot of the really public paranormalists are doing the same sort of thing that stage magicians have been doing for years. Uri Geller's "paranormal" ability to bend spoons, for example, looks a lot like what people have been doing on stage for a century. (I think that Robert-Houdin had a spoon-bending trick in the 1870s.) Randi, being a professional magician, knows many of these tricks and can take simple countermeasures against them -- for example, he uses videotapes precisely because they aren't subject to misdirection and he can go through them frame by frame looking for sleight of hand moves. He knows how to tie a blindfold so that you can see through it and how you can't. He knows about trick knots. &c.

That doesn't mean that he can "explain" how someone else did a trick; just because Randi could do an effect using a trick knot doesn't mean that someone else's effect uses the same trick knot. But if Randi can show how to do it with trick knots -- and then if the effect doesn't work when the claimant is constrained to use real knots -- you can draw your own conclusion about whether the effect is genuine or not.

More importantly, though, is that he understands simple psychology like self-deception and selective memory. Most of the claimants he tests are not actually frauds. They've simply never formalized what they can do and done it in a controlled test. So more often, he simply lets people try to do what they've actually done once or twice (by chance) but they claim to be able to do at will.
 
I like the idea of having an open challenge available for anyone to take, but I can understand that JREF would want to make the process more manageable.

I would suggest that EVERYONE be required to include notarized affidavits with their application.

Also, where ever possible, form letters should be used until someone successfully comes through with both an application AND notarized affidavits. Three seems to be overkill -- I think two would be enough as long as the applicant not only had no relationship with the people supplying the affidavits (as already mentioned in the FAQ), and each person supplying an affidavit also had no relationship with each other.

Also, putting PDF pages on line with samples of applications that made it as far as the negotiating stage would probably help make the form letters easier to write. The form letter could just say what section of the application needs to be clarified and supply the web page of sample applications that had been accepted in the past.

I haven't read most of this 8 page thread -- if someone already made these suggestions -- my apologies!

I agree that form letters would be a good idea, although I wouldn't even go that far. The application rules are straightforward and easy to follow. If someone submits an application that is not compliant, they get a form letter stating something like, "Your application is rejected as it does not meet the requirements set forth in the Challenge application guidlines. We encourage you to reapply in six months." End of story. If you want to be generous, you can have a check-off box with reasons why the application was rejected "application illegible" "not notarized" "not a paranormal ability" etc. But why the JREF should handhold any applicant WRT the Challenge is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
I agree that form letters would be a good idea, although I wouldn't even go that far. The application rules are straightforward and easy to follow. If someone submits an application that is not compliant, they get a form letter stating something like, "Your application is rejected as it does not meet the requirements set forth in the Challenge application guidlines. We encourage you to reapply in six months." End of story. If you want to be generous, you can have a check-off box with reasons why the application was rejected "application illegible" "not notarized" "not a paranormal ability" etc. But why the JREF should handhold any applicant WRT the Challenge is beyond me.

The check-off box is a great idea! I've often used that at work for common things that came up instead of handcrafting individual memos. It saves a heck of a lot of time and makes dealing with stupid issues less annoying. I don't think that applicants should be hand held, but a little feedback might avoid big PR problems.

I also like the idea of limiting how often people can apply for the MDC, especially given the maturity/emotional/intellectual level of many of the applicants in the application thread.
 
Please be clear on this. It is not the point of the Challenge for Randi to prove someone wrong. The point is for a claimant to prove what they say they can do, under proper observing conditions. Randi is not even interested in explanations. He just says "Do it and you get a million bucks!"

You guys need to stop being so literal. I know exactly what the challenge is, sorry for organizing my words so poorly.
 
Oh, that's dissapointing news. I hope that the date the changes are going to be made is annouced before the changes are actually made. I was hoping to apply. I guess I'd better hurry.
 
Oh, that's dissapointing news. I hope that the date the changes are going to be made is annouced before the changes are actually made. I was hoping to apply. I guess I'd better hurry.

Hi Aurora, welcome to the Forum.

To receive a definite answer about whether it still makes sense to apply for the JREF Challenge, I recommend you inquire at Mr. Jeff Wagg directly: challenge@randi.org

Mr. Wagg currently handles all matters related to the JREF Challenge.
 
You guys need to stop being so literal. I know exactly what the challenge is, sorry for organizing my words so poorly.

Unfortunately, if you stick around here a while you may find out that it pays to be literal. Members of the woo brigade love taking examples of poorly chosen words and using them to cry foul about the challenge. Look how much trouble Randi caused when he said "I always have an out".

It doesn't matter what your intention was, these people love to read false meaning into everything. It's how they live their lives, after all.
 
My big hope is, the day the changes become official, the webpage detailing things gets changed to reflect the new info.

Otherwise, there'll be a lot of Carlos-ing about inconsistency...
 
Managing of the challenge is becoming too much for JREF we hear, yet there hasn't been one piece of info on anyone being tested, other than Carina Landin this whole year? Wow, paranormal gifts are getting less common by the minute.:D

I already have a feeling the new challenge is gonna stink. The current challenge is not perfect, but is still pretty good, in my opinion, because anyone can apply and is, okay was, 100% transparent and public. I just wish more people actually got to the preliminary test.

If it becomes expensive and time consuming to run the challenge the following could be done:

  1. as before let anyone apply - in writing! Everyone should still be REQUIRED to apply using their LEGAL NAME. No exceptions.
  2. require EVERYONE to submit three notarized affidavits and make them aware their claim could still be rejected - everyone, no exceptions, no Sylvia Browne clause, nothing. By submitting three affidavits by competent professionals who are also personally contacted, just to make sure no one is pulling a fast one on JREF, the applicant is already demonstrating there might be something to their claim that warrants a closer look. This would eliminate 50% of losers, frauds, attention/publicity seekers and 100% of patients.
  3. applicants should be REQUIRED to have a draft of the testing protocol ready when applying so that JREF only need to look at it, correct a few things etc, eliminating the three month back and forth nonsense that usually follows without getting an inch closer to an agreement. A tutorial on how to write a test protocol or a few examples could be posted on the JREF website.
  4. all applicants should be REQUIRED to get an email address, which would be used for communication purposes, so that everything could easily be pasted in the forum in a matter of seconds rather than forcing the challenge administrator to retype 10 pages of crap every other day, on top of all the other work, week in week out. Exceptions could be made for people who live in remote areas, or villages without internet, but certainly not for anyone else.
  5. since one million is not as much money as it once was, a special regularly updated donation area could be established on the JREF website, where ordinary folks like you and me could donate money through paypal towards raising this prize further, in turn contributing to the amount of interest the JREF collects annually to run itself. I'm confident the money needed to have a dedicated challenge administrator would not be a problem, but if it turns out ot be, some of the forum members could also help as volunteers.

This should take care of most of the problems I think.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom