Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[fls]

Well, we wouldn't "assume that it's important to protect those who are exploited by psychics when we aren't interested in protecting those who are exploited by the JREF". At least I hope we wouldn't. That's why I suggested we assume the opposite of that, namely "that it is equally important to protect" both.

Your arguement in stating the first assumption is, perhaps, that JREF isn't interested in the welfare of applicants, but that wasn't my question.

My question, then, was taking that assumption (again, I'm talking about "that the welfare of either is equally important"), what changes could be made at the JREF to improve protection of the applicants without sacrificing the service they do for the victims of psychics?

Getting rid of the attitude that this:

"the test is usually set up to make it unlikely that a claimant can pass even if they have the claimed ability. In most cases, it does not appear that the claimant has the knowledge of statistics necessary to recognize this, and the JREF does not mention this, focussing instead on the odds against passing. If the claimant does recognize this and protests, such as the case with Pavel, they are given a choice of doing the unfair test or being kicked out. In neither case is agreeing to the test 'fair'."

is fair.

You see, if we are able to determine some positive change for applicants, we could suggest such change. If such a change appears sound and the JREF declines it without reason, then one would have grounds for suggesting JREF was uninterested in the welfare of applicants.

Are you willing place a bet on this? Seriously. I'm willing to shoot off an e-mail to Randi making my case, but I'm pretty certain what the response will be and I wouldn't mind getting something out of it for the effort (like a sooper dooper avatar or forum title).

You've made one suggestion already in the intervening discussion:

If I'm not mistaken JREF already points applicants to the forum as a resource, it may seem reasonable to suggest more specifically that they seek assistance on establishing a success rate favorable to the applicant's chances via self-testing. Would you care to send it via e-mail, or shall I? (unless a moderator comments in the meantime, noting that JREF has been made aware of such suggestion I suppose).

The JREF points to the forum in the FAQ. But I don't think that most applicants perceive the need to make a concerted effort. Pavel's effort was atypical. I think a statement which gives them reason to suspect that they really need to give this aspect greater attention, would get more applicants to come our (those of us who have participated in the MDC forum) way and for them to be more co-operative (like actually doing the tests we suggest).

Anyway, I'm willing to send an e-mail.

Linda

 

[fls]

All you really need is the last sentence.

The last sentence is already in the FAQ. I am looking at finding a way to give applicants a nudge - something that gets their attention and makes them think, "oh, maybe I better look into this a bit more."

Again you really don’t want to be making explicit statements that could be construed as going to intent. Sure it may be an unwritten rule of contract negotiation, but no one wants to put it in writing or see it in writing on the contract or the paper work outlining the negotiation process.

“In negotiating this contract we will seek any possible advantage such that the resulting agreement will screw the ever-loving ******* **** out of you.”

Intent is difficult to infer, but if you make explicit statements (in the documentation) going to your intent that do not indicate a fair intent (or you acting in good faith) you’re much better off not including those statements. Unfortunate though it may be, if that leaves a somewhat naive person to figure out the potential ramifications of the agreed success rate on their own, but again this is not an ideal world.

Indeed if it reaches just one it is easy to say it is worth it, but there may be other factors to consider (particularly as I mentioned before legal ramifications) when entering into a contract. Rightfully so, those matters are up to the attorneys and the administrator of the MDC.

Again rough ground legally, fair is what both parties agree is fair, unless of course one party specifically makes assertions that go to intent and that intent being to deliberately deceive the other party. Nothing makes the understanding of the success rate by one party the responsibility of the other party, but once you start inferring an intent, or just the potential, to obfuscate a potential lack of fairness by the agreed success rate you leave your self open (I think) to matters of legal redress. As long as you don’t make that assertion explicit in writing, its caveat emptor when it comes to the success rate (for both parties). Once you do start claiming not only a potential lack of understanding by the applicant of the implications of the success rate, but also explicitly remark to a potential, or intent, to use that lack of understanding in a way that you also explicitly state goes to the fairness of the agreement, you’ve just opened up a very big nasty can of worms and dumped them all over yourself (again I think, since I’m no lawyer).

Then simply add a modifier which makes it clear that this is unintentional.

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, due to the nature of normal variation and the biases that creep into informal experiments you may inadvertently be at a disadvantage if the test is set near the success rate you think you have. It is to your advantage to perform controlled tests to help you choose identify a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."

Otherwise, I hope you are not suggesting that it is better to hide that you intend to be unfair.

Not really sure what you are asking here, but the one they really should not be trusting is themselves and that is whom they need to be given cause to mistrust. Again it is most likely that lack of mistrust in themselves that has brought them to this juncture in the first place.

Yes, that's who they should be given cause to mistrust.

Linda

 

[not daSkeptic]

... I NEVER designed the parameters myself, JREF did but I agreed.

Why did you agree? I'm genuinely curious. If it was not the test you wanted, why did you not refuse?

 

[jsfisher]

Why? Are you arguing that critical thinking, skepticism and scientific approach only apply sometimes?

No, not at all. I am merely observing that some people seem to be getting themselves wrapped around the axle over an issue of no demonstrated significance.

 

[fls]

No, not at all. I am merely observing that some people seem to be getting themselves wrapped around the axle over an issue of no demonstrated significance.

So what?

Who gives a **** what other people feel like getting wrapped up about?

Linda

 

[Dumb All Over]

IF JREF allowed people who really could do something to convince the rest of the population ,for example through the Challenge, that the paranormal excists, THEY would loose their control, and they will NOT do that.

Connie, why do you feel you need the JREF to convince the rest of the population? If you truly have paranornal powers, couldn't you just convince the rest of the population all by yourself? Think about it. You really don't need the JREF at all to demonstrate your abilities. Go on and demonstrate all you want. No one is stopping you.

 

[The Man]

The last sentence is already in the FAQ. I am looking at finding a way to give applicants a nudge - something that gets their attention and makes them think, "oh, maybe I better look into this a bit more."

Sorry, my mistake it should have said the last two sentences. Giving the nudge is the big problem. One would think that when entering into a negotiation to win one million dollars from one of the leading organizations of skeptics and critical thinkers in the world, that in itself should give you reason to pause. Just like if you were going to negotiate a real-estate deal from Donald Trump or license your new software development to Microsoft. You will likely and quickly find yourself outclassed and out gunned.

Case in point.

IF JREF allowed people who really could do something to convince the rest of the population ,for example through the Challenge, that the paranormal excists, THEY would loose their control, and they will NOT do that.

And that it was it all is about : CONTROL.

But no matter what people do, think or talk about.... it will NOT change the way the truth will come out.

But I`m sorry to say that a lot of people still will die before someone are going to listen to me. And I`m also sorry to say, that I can`t do anything about that. I can only do what I`m doing.

The kind of nudging required in this instance might take a bulldozer and still get nowhere.

Then simply add a modifier which makes it clear that this is unintentional.

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, due to the nature of normal variation and the biases that creep into informal experiments you may inadvertently be at a disadvantage if the test is set near the success rate you think you have. It is to your advantage to perform controlled tests to help you choose identify a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."

A lot better, but I would still replace “be at a disadvantage” with “place yourself at a disadvantage”, again clearly and specifically identifying that it is the claimant’s responsibility to make their claim appropriately.

Otherwise, I hope you are not suggesting that it is better to hide that you intend to be unfair.

Not something I would even have to suggest. If your intent is to be unfair then you would have to be a blithering idiot to announce such intent in the documentation. If your intent is not to be unfair then you would have to be absolutely inconceivably ignorant to make assertions that such could even possibly be your intent in the documentation. Again what anyone else may consider it is irrelevant as long as those administering the challenge and negotiating the agreement consider it to be fair then their intent is to be fair.

Yes, that's who they should be given cause to mistrust.

Linda

Well that is the rub of it, Linda. Clearly, as in the case in point above, mistrusting the JREF is not a problem (at least anymore), but how do we get the one person who really needs to be mistrusted placed in an equivalent standing?

 

[jsfisher]

So what?

Who gives a **** what other people feel like getting wrapped up about

Me, for one. It can be the source of great amusement.

 

[weirdl]

@Connie Sonne

Ms. Sonne! It is my honor to be addressed by you.
I apologize for repeatedly making it clear that I think you are not of sound mind. It is an important part of my argument.
I think that way about everyone who has voices like yours. Even Joan of Arc.
When I first heard about you I thought you were a fraud. The MDC is supposed to be for frauds. Then I read your website.
I found you to be extremely honest. You are a remarkable person, a better person than I will ever be. I admire you.
I will stop commenting if you say so.

 

[weirdl]

@MRC_Hans

You are right. I apologize.
I never meant to imply that Danes spoke English badly. It was a stupid thing to say. I was only trying to poke fun of my own bad writing. It came out all wrong and I'm sorry. (Bad writing.) I have nothing but admiration for the scholarship and language skills of the Danish People.

 

[weirdl]

No Conspiracy

I want to make clear I suspect no conspiracy, not even a cover-up.
I don't think today's JREF could manage a conspiracy. The days of Project Alpha are long past.
It all looks like ordinary everyday human bias to me. It's so easy to forget to mention facts that make us look bad and exaggerate facts that make us look good. We all do it. That's why checks like peer review are so important. That's why it's so important to post the source materials so readers can fact check.

 

[TheDoLittle]

it is NOT what you think at all. I will return.

When come back, bring explanation, 'k?

Also, if and when you return, would you mind revealing the location of Madeleine McCann?



ETA: I see you did came back and still no Maddie. <sigh>

 

[connie sonne]

Weirdl: Thank you for your comment. Of course I don`t want you to stop commenting. All people have their rights to tell and discuss their oppinions. Thank "god" for that ! But sometimes I wonder: How can people judge other people without knowing them at all ? This is not for you - I only ask generally. People can be very rud. But again....it`s their problems .

People ask me to reveal the place where Maddie is. I don`t know now, if she is moved again, but I have told it all. I wrote it all at my website, and if people are`nt interested in that, they must be without.

Normally I don`t write so much here. I don`t want to spent the time with it, I have much more important things to do I must say. But sometimes I do, therefore I will explain some of it here. But you must understand, that most of your questions about me can`t be answered before I tell the HOLE story. Therefore my website

 

[connie sonne]

Things has to be done in the right way. Things are not as you all see it. Eventhough you try to compare me with others who claims they have abillities, it will not work.

It is NOT how it works.

And Weirdl: No you are right, JREF can`t mannage a conspiracy themself - but they are NOT alone. As I said before, they are a part of something much bigger. And also about that I will write it at my website.

Dumb All Over : Yes I have the powers, but it don`t work as you and many others have described. It works like this: One step at time, this one step leads to another step. Strange for you - but not for me, I`m used to it now . and yes of course I will demonstrate it all - again, when the right time comes. You ask why I believe JREF will try to convince the rest of the population? As I told before, it takes a lot of time to write it and I can`t make it shortly because it is not enough that I have it all in my head - you all want evidences, right?? And you will get it !!

 

[connie sonne]

Da Skeptic : No, it was NOT the test I wanted. But I did agree because of one thing : Eventhough I knew on beforehand that JREF wasn`t what they looked like - I knew that something would happen. The next step on my way. I had a feeling before the Challenge that I did not get the money. But I did not care.

It was NOT my point at all.

And yes, I was rigth, something happend. The next step. The cheating. If I didn`t go to Vegas, I would not have known about it, would I ?
About my abillities you must know : Dowsing and the voices are only a part of it !!

Connie

 

[Pixel42]

Eventhough you try to compare me with others who claims they have abillities, it will not work.

1. X claims to have paranormal ability and applies for MDC

2. Upon questioning on this forum it becomes clear that X's belief that they have a paranormal ability is based on anecdotal evidence and they have never done any rigorous self-testing

3. It is patiently explained to X by several posters how easy it is to inadvertantly fool yourself into believing you have a paranormal ability using anecdotal evidence alone. Concepts like confirmation bias and cold reading are simply and clearly explained. X either ignores this information or insists that it doesn't apply to them

4. It is patiently explained to X by several posters that a JREF test protocol is designed to eliminate these mundane explanations and that it is essential they do a dry run of the agreed test protocol before undergoing the formal test. If they do so they will almost certainly discover that their supposed ability does not exist. X ignores this advice and assures us that they are 100% confident that they will pass the formal test even though they have never tried it or anything remotely like it.

5. X takes the JREF test and fails it completely and utterly

6. X desperately tries to find some excuse for why they failed, never once considering that the reason is that they have indeed inadvertantly been fooling themselves all along and a rigorous test protocol revealed that fact, exactly as JREF forum posters had predicted

7. X never ever repeats the JREF test protocol but continues to convince themselves of their ability using the same flawed anecdotal evidence that led them to wrongly believe they had it in the first place

I have seen this sequence of events unfold several times since I started reading this forum, and sadly watched you follow it exactly. So that comparison does indeed work.

 

[Cuddles]

Yes, of cause I will write about the cheating, as I have told you all the time, but NOT in a brief manner, and NOT on this forum. I will be writing about it on my own website.

Hmm, that sounds familiar.

I will get a website where I will put it ALL

7 months later you're still merely claiming that you will write about it at some point. Given that you're claiming not only to have been cheated out of a million dollars, but also that this cheating is somehow going to result in a lot of people dying, one might have thought you'd be a little quicker at giving everyone the "facts".

 

[fls]

Sorry, my mistake it should have said the last two sentences. Giving the nudge is the big problem. One would think that when entering into a negotiation to win one million dollars from one of the leading organizations of skeptics and critical thinkers in the world, that in itself should give you reason to pause. Just like if you were going to negotiate a real-estate deal from Donald Trump or license your new software development to Microsoft. You will likely and quickly find yourself outclassed and out gunned.

I suspect that the claimant is thinking more of putting that blow-hard Randi in his place. And that they expect any trickery to come from Randi. They don't expect the trickery to come from the ordinary behaviour of experiments. We need to point out that the trickery (I know, I know. That's not the word I'll use ) is going to come from an unexpected direction.

Case in point.

The kind of nudging required in this instance might take a bulldozer and still get nowhere.

I agree. I was thinking that this would mostly be directed at the subset of applicants (which may be small) who are educable.

A lot better, but I would still replace “be at a disadvantage” with “place yourself at a disadvantage”, again clearly and specifically identifying that it is the claimant’s responsibility to make their claim appropriately.

That's a good change. I am thinking of e-mailing Randi with a proposed wording, so any tweaks are appreciated.

Well that is the rub of it, Linda. Clearly, as in the case in point above, mistrusting the JREF is not a problem (at least anymore), but how do we get the one person who really needs to be mistrusted placed in an equivalent standing?

Bulldozer?

I'm thinking that saying something unexpected, that making it explicit that it is the applicants that usually place themselves at a disadvantage, might get them to start to doubt (as long as it doesn't look like an excuse).

Linda

 

[fls]

Me, for one. It can be the source of great amusement.

Shouldn't you be egging it on, then?

Linda

 

[not daSkeptic]

Da Skeptic : No, it was NOT the test I wanted. But I did agree because of one thing : Eventhough I knew on beforehand that JREF wasn`t what they looked like - I knew that something would happen. The next step on my way. I had a feeling before the Challenge that I did not get the money. But I did not care.

It was NOT my point at all.

This explanation would be much more credible had you documented your objective prior to the test. As it stands, there is no way to tell whether you're being honest and this truly was your goal, or whether you're just changing the goal to fit the results. You may in fact be telling the truth, but now there's no way to know.