Changes To The Challenge

[GzuzKryzt]

How reliable is JREF's one sided information about paranormal claims? If the JREF chooses to 'go after' only famous people then it is no longer conducting research, but is instead becoming a tool of persecution.

That's certainly a unique interpretation.

If people make coherent claims, JREF takes them up on exactly that.

And what would my claim be? Maybe, "I can influence events when I really need and want to." And how am I to demonstrate such a wild ass claim? Maybe, "Most of the time I can cause quarters to land heads or tails according to what I call before the flip." Then we get down to the details of proving it. There is no way I can influence hundreds of coin tosses. It would be like bowling hundreds of games. So then proving the claim of influencing events deteriorates into trying to beat the odds of coin flipping and we loose sight of the original claim.

Reager, I'm sorry. I get tired of you skeptics being so rude and elitist. That you would call someone’s abilities "banal" and "inconsistent" and likely to be "self-deception" says a lot about you. And then you say... The tough part is setting up a test. If you're so smart how would you go about proving the ability to influence events once a feeling of complete confidence is felt which can only be achieved a few times in a row before exhausting the ability? How would you prove such a wild ass claim? You seem to think that if someone really has such abilities all they need do is snap their fingers and 'poof' things should happen. The more unbelievable the event the harder it is to believe strong enough to influence the event. Remember that before an event can be influenced one must believe that it can be influenced. Skeptics will never have such abilities and so they may never witness such events.

Jim_Mich

Evading my question, you still have one million reasons to at least apply with a claim and a simple protocol proposal, Jim_Mich.

For quite a while now you have derailed this thread and kept talking about instances where you allegedly did "influence events once a feeling of complete confidence is felt".

Either you have this ability, or you don't. Only a demonstration will give a satisfactory answer. Proper observing conditions will insure you do not only "count the hits" and prevent any other common self-deception.

A protocol regarding prediction of coin tosses can be worked out in a jiffy, right here, right now.

Would you apply in such an instance, Jim_Mich?

 

[Reager]

Jim_Mich, How quickly you turn from submitting your claim for a possible Challenge application to attacking the JREF and anyone on this board who offer the tiniest bit of criticism and different POV.

How reliable is JREF's one sided information about paranormal claims?

You seem to believe that because the JREF is skeptical of paranormal claims, it means that the information it provides regarding them is not reliable. That is an unfounded assumption, and incorrect to boot.

If the JREF chooses to 'go after' only famous people then it is no longer conducting research, but is instead becoming a tool of persecution.

This claim is hyperbolic to the extreme, and ignorant of the JREF's purpose in "going after" famous psychic frauds like Sylvia Browne.

And what would my claim be? Maybe, "I can influence events when I really need and want to." And how am I to demonstrate such a wild ass claim? Maybe, "Most of the time I can cause quarters to land heads or tails according to what I call before the flip." Then we get down to the details of proving it. There is no way I can influence hundreds of coin tosses. It would be like bowling hundreds of games. So then proving the claim of influencing events deteriorates into trying to beat the odds of coin flipping and we loose sight of the original claim.

If your abilities cannot be tested to the extent necessary to definitively prove them, I'm sorry but you are SOL. Just please don't pretend that's the JREF's fault. However, your abilities CAN be tested, relatively easily. Several people have already suggested how this can be done.

Reager, I'm sorry. I get tired of you skeptics being so rude and elitist. That you would call someone’s abilities "banal" and "inconsistent" and likely to be "self-deception" says a lot about you.

I don't believe it's "rude" to point our that your abilities ARE inconsistent: you said yourself that sometimes they work, sometimes they don't depending on your "mood." Nor do I believe it's "elitist" to say that your abilities are banal (in my opinion) because they can easily be explained without resorting to paranormal powers. That self-deception is a likely explanation for your claims (until further testing is performed) doesn't say anything about ME, but it does say something about your claims.

And then you say... The tough part is setting up a test. If you're so smart how would you go about proving the ability to influence events once a feeling of complete confidence is felt which can only be achieved a few times in a row before exhausting the ability? How would you prove such a wild ass claim? You seem to think that if someone really has such abilities all they need do is snap their fingers and 'poof' things should happen. The more unbelievable the event the harder it is to believe strong enough to influence the event. Remember that before an event can be influenced one must believe that it can be influenced. Skeptics will never have such abilities and so they may never witness such events.

Jim_Mich

This is an old excuse used by many who claim paranormal abilities. Again, instead of complaining and coming up with excuses why you can't prove your claims to skeptics, why dont you at least TRY to prove them. Work with some on this forum who are suggesting proper protocols, and apply for the challenge.

 

[petre]

And what would my claim be? Maybe, "I can influence events when I really need and want to." And how am I to demonstrate such a wild ass claim? Maybe, "Most of the time I can cause quarters to land heads or tails according to what I call before the flip." Then we get down to the details of proving it. There is no way I can influence hundreds of coin tosses. It would be like bowling hundreds of games. So then proving the claim of influencing events deteriorates into trying to beat the odds of coin flipping and we loose sight of the original claim.

It is true that there could exist powers that are so trivial such that their effect is not measurable within a reasonable period of time. However, what you currently claim is not yet beyond that scope.

If your ability can only be used a few times per week, that is testable by adding a break between trials (say, 5 flips, then you come back the following week). In around 5 months (20 weeks), you could get in 100 trials. If you only influence even one of those flips a week that would have fallen against you, that would show up around 70 correct to 30 incorrect. Such an outcome would have a 0.004% chance of occurring by chance alone. The odds are a little better if the flipper knows some tricks, but I've never heard of one that could have that much effect.

Few people actually want to test their claim though. It's far more fun to simply believe it is true. Usually, they'll just do a few informal tests, and when the results are less than amazing they'll invent limitations afterwards (it only works a few times, I need to concentrate, I have to be wearing a red shirt, it only works on a hill, etc).

If the person does continue to test it, and refuses to ever consider abandoning the belief in the face of failure, the inevitable conclusion becomes that the power is too complex, too unpredictable, or has some other aspect such that it is simply not testable in any reasonable fashion. If you can admit that no test would convince you that your ability does not work, then it's just as well that you decide now that its effect is untestable. Spending 20 weeks doing nothing but revising the conditions in which it manifests ("gee, guess it just doesn't work on coins...") isn't really going to do anyone any good.

 

[Jim_Mich]

BillyJoe,

I propose to try the following and see what my results are...

[1] I never toss a coin at any time other than when I do a trial.
[2] I always toss the coin in a same environment with no distractions. (in my office/study/computer room)
[3] I toss the coin 4 times on each occasion.
[4] For simplicity, I will make each group of 4 tosses alternate so I try for four tosses for heads then four for tails, etc.
[5] I sit in my comfortable office chair while tossing the coin.
[6] My eyes will be closed and kept closed each time until the coin has landed and stopped moving.
[7] I turn the coin over in my hand to loose track of which side is which.
(This is only so I don't know the position of the coin and may be skipped)
[8] I position the coin on thumb and finger ready to flip.
[9] I concentrate for as long as need be (maybe up to two minutes) before flipping the coin, but usually 15 to 30 seconds.
[10] If I feel I cannot achieve the desired state of mind within about two minutes I will abort the group of four.
[11] I flip the coin into the air with my thumb.
[12] The coin will rise about 2 to 5 inches from my hand and drop about 30 inches onto a carpet on the floor.
[13] If I fail to hold my concentration I will say, "No" before or just as the coin lands and before it stops moving.
[14] Every coin toss will be recorded.
[15] I will wait a period of time between each four flips.

I must determine the period of time needed between flips to restore the power. I would expect somewhere between 1/2 hour to 2 hours.

Some of the above is not necessary but is only to help me concentrate and/or to make sure I'm being consistent with the tests; for instance sitting in a particular chair is only for comfort and to show how I flip the coins. Closing my eyes just helps me to concentrate. If the challenge seems doable I might decide to try.

I would expect very accurate results of 90 percent or better. Under pressure this might fall lower.

What level would need to be achieved as proof to win the million dollars? I'm sure there are charts and data somewhere? I'm well verse in probabilities but a little rusty from lack of use.

Jim_Mich

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Jim_Mich, a 90% success rate would be amazing, given no cheating.

If we use the Carina Landin Protocol as a theoretical guide, 16 or more correct predictions out of 20 trials would most likely be enough to pass the preliminary test. 15 or less would mean a failure. I take the strict and proper administered controls as a given.

How do you feel about 16+ out of 20, Jim_Mich?

 

[Pinocchio]

Their mandate is not to "study" the paranormal. It is to promote the spread of critical thinking in our society.

Now stop! Before you click the reply button, go back and read this post again. Read it more slowly this time. Actually think about what it is I have said. Comprehension, that's what I'm looking for. Please try.

I read your post. Critical thinking? You don't know what 'critical thinking' means. That's my conclusion based on your last two replies. Also, you confuse the word indoctrinate with educate.

Comprehension, that's what I'm looking for. Please try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability [read this one more slowly]

 

[Jim_Mich]

16 or more out of 20 flips. That's 80 percent of a minimum of 20 flips. That sounds doable. I would think the percent would go down with more flips?

I started my test using the above protocol. I began by trying to flip four heads. I flipped H H T H. The tail coin I found wedged under the wheel of my chair. I might have rolled over it before locating it. Remember, I don't watch where the coin goes when I flip it. I'll need to be careful about rolling my chair before locating the coin.

Jim_Mich

 

[GzuzKryzt]

16 or more out of 20 flips. That's 80 percent of a minimum of 20 flips. That sounds doable. I would think the percent would go down with more flips?

I started my test using the above protocol. I began by trying to flip four heads. I flipped H H T H. The tail coin I found wedged under the wheel of my chair. I might have rolled over it before locating it. Remember, I don't watch where the coin goes when I flip it. I'll need to be careful about rolling my chair before locating the coin.

Jim_Mich

If you seriously consider applying, Jim_Mich, I recommend asking Jeff Wagg about what would be acceptable to JREF in a protocol, e.g. number of tosses, success rate, test duration, coin used, etc.: challenge@randi.org

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe,

I propose to try the following and see what my results are...

[1] I never toss a coin at any time other than when I do a trial.
[2] I always toss the coin in a same environment with no distractions. (in my office/study/computer room)
[3] I toss the coin 4 times on each occasion.
[4] For simplicity, I will make each group of 4 tosses alternate so I try for four tosses for heads then four for tails, etc.
[5] I sit in my comfortable office chair while tossing the coin.
[6] My eyes will be closed and kept closed each time until the coin has landed and stopped moving.
[7] I turn the coin over in my hand to loose track of which side is which.
(This is only so I don't know the position of the coin and may be skipped)
[8] I position the coin on thumb and finger ready to flip.
[9] I concentrate for as long as need be (maybe up to two minutes) before flipping the coin, but usually 15 to 30 seconds.
[10] If I feel I cannot achieve the desired state of mind within about two minutes I will abort the group of four.
[11] I flip the coin into the air with my thumb.
[12] The coin will rise about 2 to 5 inches from my hand and drop about 30 inches onto a carpet on the floor.
[13] If I fail to hold my concentration I will say, "No" before or just as the coin lands and before it stops moving.
[14] Every coin toss will be recorded.
[15] I will wait a period of time between each four flips.

[4] Okay, I would prefer all heads, but alternate if you feel you need to balance the odds or something. Just don't forget each time whether you are going for heads or tails. Getting HHTH when tails are due and then stating that you mistakenly were going for heads, complicates the assessment of the results. We want something foolproof here. Consider again whether you should go for heads every time. It is much simpler and less prone to error.

[13]I do not think this is acceptable for a number of reasons (I will elaborate if you wish). Once the coin is tossed you must go through with the test and record the result. It can't be too hard to hold your concentration for another few seconds until the coin hits the floor and stops (I've measured it - it takes less than 2 seconds if dropped onto close pile carpet).

 

[BillyJoe]

I started my test using the above protocol. I began by trying to flip four heads. I flipped H H T H. The tail coin I found wedged under the wheel of my chair. I might have rolled over it before locating it. Remember, I don't watch where the coin goes when I flip it. I'll need to be careful about rolling my chair before locating the coin.

This calls for fine-tuning of your protocol.
I suggest the following (after tossing the coin):

Don't move your feet.
Get out of the chair without moving the chair.
Stand upright on the spot where your feet are resting on the carpet.
Don't move your feet or the chair until you see where the coin has landed.
(It should always be possible to find it from where you stand)
Then, and only then, walk over to the coin and record the result.

 

[Jim_Mich]

Finding the coin under the chair wheel took me by surprise. It should not be too hard to find the coin before moving the chair or my feet.

[13] is for my own reference since [14] states that every coin toss will be recorded. I'm not trying to exclude any tosses.

I did the second flip about an hour ago...

Set 02 on 02/13/2007 at 10:12 pm to 10:18 pm
Want Tails
Results: T H T T

At this point I'm 75 percent right.

Jim_Mich

 

[Gr8wight]

I read your post. Critical thinking? You don't know what 'critical thinking' means. That's my conclusion based on your last two replies. Also, you confuse the word indoctrinate with educate.

Why, because you believe in something that I don't?

 

[chillzero]

How reliable is JREF's one sided information about paranormal claims? If the JREF chooses to 'go after' only famous people then it is no longer conducting research, but is instead becoming a tool of persecution.

This irritates me. Can someone please explain how it is persecution to insist that somebody can actually do what they claim they can do? I am not persecuting my doctors by reassuring myself of their qualifications before they get near me. I am not persecuting my electrician by checking they are qualified and not likely to leave live wires lying about. I am not persecuting a psychic by trying to obtain proof that they can do what they claim.

I would like to see you submit a claim and prove that you can do what you claim you can.

Reager, I'm sorry. I get tired of you skeptics being so rude and elitist. That you would call someone’s abilities "banal" and "inconsistent" and likely to be "self-deception" says a lot about you.

Elitist is when you claim an ability that sets you apart from the rest.
Rude is when you blatently threaten harm to another forum member from your use of that ability.

 

[BillyJoe]

...hmmm, let's not get too precious here.

 

[Jim_Mich]

chillzero, prosecution is "the institution and conduct of legal proceedings against a defendant." JREF has decided it may seek prosecution...
From http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-01/011207challenge.html ...

That will be changed as of April 1, when we will begin actively pursuing the possibility of legal actions being brought against prominent figures in the field to investigate whether or not any laws are being broken by false promises to clients, incorrect attributions, accepting fees for services not met, or other deceptive procedures whereby the public has been misinformed and/or taken advantage of. This will include both civil and criminal actions.

Persecute mean "cause to suffer." Is this not what the JREF would be doing if it takes civil and criminal action? Checking out qualifications is much different than taking criminal action.

No chillzero, elitist is "someone who believes in rule by an elite group" and here on the forum the skeptics act like they are ellite, that is "a group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status"


chillzero, you must learn to read more accurately.

would you like me to think some bad thoughts toward you? Maybe you could be a test subject target? Would that change your attitude? No, you would just attribute your misfortune to bad luck or chance. How can the probability of your single bad incident ever be determined?

No forum member was ever threatened with any harm. A "single bad incident" could be something as simple as getting stuck in a traffic jamb. And there was never any threat made; just a question as to whether the member would like something to happen to show proof. Of course if such paranormal powers are absolutely impossible then there's absolutely no way that the member could be in any way affected, right? You need to chill a little more.


Jeff Wagg replied to my email saying, "the odds we're looking for are 1000:1."
Hmmm... I wonder how many correct flips out of 20 need to be made? I used to know how to calculate probabilities but over the years I've forgotten. I'll need to look it up.

Jim_Mich

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Jeff Wagg replied to my email saying, "the odds we're looking for are 1000:1."
Hmmm... I wonder how many correct flips out of 20 need to be made? I used to know how to calculate probabilities but over the years I've forgotten. I'll need to look it up.

Jim_Mich

There are quite a number of capable statisticians on this forum, Jim_Mich. We should have an accurate calculation in no time. I will PM some of them right now.

Before, I have to ask this question again, Jim_Mich:
Do odds of 1000:1 (for a preliminary test) and a reward of USD 1,000,000 (for a successful Formal/final test, again with odds at 1000:1) provide enough incentive for you to apply for the JREF Challenge and put your claimed ability on the line?

 

[chillzero]

chillzero, prosecution is "the institution and conduct of legal proceedings against a defendant." JREF has decided it may seek prosecution...
From http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-01/011207challenge.html ...
Persecute mean "cause to suffer." Is this not what the JREF would be doing if it takes civil and criminal action? Checking out qualifications is much different than taking criminal action.

No. If I claim I have psychic abilities, it is not persecution for someone to expect me to prove it. If there are grounds for prosecution, it is also not persecution, it is a responsibility.

No chillzero, elitist is "someone who believes in rule by an elite group" and here on the forum the skeptics act like they are ellite, that is "a group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status"

No. Elitist as you used it - an adjective - means "consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitist
I stand by my post.

chillzero, you must learn to read more accurately.
No forum member was ever threatened with any harm. A "single bad incident" could be something as simple as getting stuck in a traffic jamb. And there was never any threat made; just a question as to whether the member would like something to happen to show proof.

Again, I stand by my post. The point I was making was that you were being rude. Calling someone's abilities 'inconsistent' when they are repeatedly consist only in their inconsistency was not rude - it was stating a fact. You were not as specific as this about the nature of the threat. A single bad incident could also be a death, and I would suggest the use of the word 'single' would suggest something that stands out from the norm more than a mere traffic jam. You specified a 'bad' incident - why not a good one?

Of course if such paranormal powers are absolutely impossible then there's absolutely no way that the member could be in any way affected, right? You need to chill a little more.

Well, I agree that it is unlikely your threat would come to anything because of this, but then, you profess to believe in this ability, therefore it would follow that you believe you could harm someone in this manner. That makes it a threat in my book.

 

[Jim_Mich]

GzuzKryzt, since the change to the MDC seems to be caused in part by applicants wasting a lot of the foundations precious time, I think it only right and proper that I first evaluate my abilities so that I can know ahead of time the percentage of coins I can affect. If the statistic show that I can beat 1000:1 odds then I would most likely take up the challenge. Take note that using this power is not something that comes easy. If it were every Tom, Dick and Harry would be doing it.

Jim_Mich

 

[GzuzKryzt]

GzuzKryzt, since the change to the MDC seems to be caused in part by applicants wasting a lot of the foundations precious time, I think it only right and proper that I first evaluate my abilities so that I can know ahead of time the percentage of coins I can affect. If the statistic show that I can beat 1000:1 odds then I would most likely take up the challenge. Take note that using this power is not something that comes easy. If it were every Tom, Dick and Harry would be doing it.

Jim_Mich

Fair enough, Jim_Mich.
Please remember that you need success (beating a theoretical 1000:1) on two trials. The more, the merrier. Also keep in mind, the Changes to the Challenge will occur on April 01, 2007.



I hope the evaluation of your claim will help you finding what you need. This is my way of saying: Good luck.

 

[Dan O.]

I've just finished reading through all the longer threads in the challenges forum. There are some common themes that come through from the test protocol. One is that the applicants are queried on their belief that they were able to successfully complete the test before anybody knows the results of the test. Even a self test should attempt to follow the same protocol. Before you reveal the results of each trial you should record your level of confidence that you were successful.

Another common theme is to change the test at the last minute. Some may assume that this is an attempt to throw the applicant off balance. But these changes are often necessary to eliminate problems in the test. For instance, in flipping a coin you have the problem of lost coins, coins landing on edge, being able to feel the coin before flipping it, and then each coin has to be viewed and recorded before the next trial. A change that might be requested would be to roll dice in an opaque cup instead. This would have the advantage that with multiple cups and dies you could complete a set of trials before revealing any of the results. You could then record if you will be counting the set or not before lifting any of the cups.

And one last thing to think about: When you are concentrating on controlling the outcome of the coin flip and in you mind deciding on which side the coin will land, is it your mind controlling the actions of the coin or is the coin controlling the thoughts in your mind?