Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[The Man]

A quote from SkepticBlog, by Mark Edward, posted July 13, 2009...



So by her own admission, it was not the JREF's fault that she failed. Why is she now claiming otherwise?

It's not her it's the voices telling her that the JREF cheated, at least that is what has been reported on this thread.

 

[Fnord]

It's not her it's the voices telling her that the JREF cheated, at least that is what has been reported on this thread.

The voices in her head? Has she never heard of 'Aluminum Foil'? She should check out the contents of her shopping cart ('Trolley' for you U.K. folks).

 

[not daSkeptic]

It's sad that you can't approach the JREF with the same level of skepticism that you approach a woo organization.

I do believe I suggested that they be asked for the information in question. Were I blindly accepting of their word, I would make no such recommendation.

The JREF is making claims about the applicants, so they should be expected to back up those claims.

They have. You just seem to dislike how they did it.

You can wring your hands all you want and coo about how they must have a reason because they are good and wonderful.

I never claimed they must have a reason. I said that I assume they do, and as with any assumption it may be wrong. In other words, it's entirely possible they have no reason.

I have done no such thing ...

How do we know that the JREF just didn't pick some gullible and mentally ill woman willing to pay her own way for some public humiliation?

What I am suggesting is that Connie Sonne could have been a plant or at least someone they would not engage under ordinary circumstances (she lacked the proper credentials, for example).

The point is nobody should have to ask. Claims should be supported without requiring people to come after the fact and privately ask for supporting documentation. That's just stupid and the antithesis of skepticism.

You seem to be assuming the JREF desires to withhold the information in question. Do you have any evidence to support this? Might they be willing but unable for some reason? Do you have any evidence to refute that?

If the JREF doesn't read this forum or the blog comments, then I'm not going to waste my time sending them e-mails.

Perhaps reading this forum is a waste of their time. Did you ever consider that? They have a business to run, and they know far more than you or I what is important in that regard. Perhaps email or some non-online form of communication is the best way to get their attention.

 

[Uncayimmy]

They have. You just seem to dislike how they did it.

Bzzzt! Wrong again! I specifically directed my comment at all of the challenge applications, not just this one. Learning that some information was provided for one at TAM doesn't answer my question.

Keep trying! I'm sure you'll actually make a point sometime.

I never claimed they must have a reason. I said that I assume they do, and as with any assumption it may be wrong. In other words, it's entirely possible they have no reason.

Next time, save us all the effort and keep such a worthless comment bottled up inside.

You seem to be assuming the JREF desires to withhold the information in question. Do you have any evidence to support this? Might they be willing but unable for some reason? Do you have any evidence to refute that?

Stop projecting. I am making no such assumptions. I have my theories as to why they haven't posted the information, but I haven't shared them. You'd do well to keep your speculation about my theories bottled up with the rest of your drivel.

Perhaps reading this forum is a waste of their time. Did you ever consider that? They have a business to run, and they know far more than you or I what is important in that regard. Perhaps email or some non-online form of communication is the best way to get their attention.

It speaks volumes about you that you would suggest that they would spend donations to run a forum that they don't feel is worth reading. I can smell the sweat of desperation as you cling to your sacred cow. Just because you believe in many of the same things that skeptics do doesn't make you a skeptic. There are mindless followers in the Randi camp just as there are in the Browne camp.

 

[SkepticScott]

As for some of the other points, I don't know why the JREF doesn't reveal the applications, evidence of media presence or academic affidavits.

I have a packet that was handed out to some of the audience at Ms. Sonne's preliminary test. It has copies of the protocol, the test agreement, her application, the academic affidavit and an article. I can understand not posting it online because of not wanting to embarrass people and not wanting to violate the magazine/newspaper's copyright. I'll bet that you could examine the originals in the files at the JREF.

 

[Mongrel]

My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

You'll have to point me to the rule that the applicant MUST interact with the forums. Whilst it may be recommended, to help clarify the protocols, it is by no means a necessity.

 

[Fnord]

My biggest objection is to the JREF encouraging its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

Evidence, please?

Provide a link to this 'encouragement' if you can.

 

[not daSkeptic]

It speaks volumes about you that you would suggest that they would spend donations to run a forum that they don't feel is worth reading.

It also speaks volumes that you would form such opinions about a person whom you do not know and whose position on the matter has not been stated. For all you know, I might actually agree with your ideas. I might think the JREF is in the wrong and suffering from broken management and violating some of the principles upon which they were supposedly founded. But you don't seem to care about finding out where I stand. No, you would rather accuse me of being wrong than take the time to ask.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have a packet that was handed out to some of the audience at Ms. Sonne's preliminary test. It has copies of the protocol, the test agreement, her application, the academic affidavit and an article. I can understand not posting it online because of not wanting to embarrass people and not wanting to violate the magazine/newspaper's copyright. I'll bet that you could examine the originals in the files at the JREF.

Whatever risk is incurred by posting it on-line is incurred by handing it out at TAM. Actually, the risk is greater if they copied the article and reprinted it without permission rather than just posting a link to it (links are not copyright violations).

I don't get the embarrassment thing. If an academic says they witnessed something, then so be it. Why would that be embarrassing?

 

[Uncayimmy]

It also speaks volumes that you would form such opinions about a person whom you do not know and whose position on the matter has not been stated. For all you know, I might actually agree with your ideas. I might think the JREF is in the wrong and suffering from broken management and violating some of the principles upon which they were supposedly founded. But you don't seem to care about finding out where I stand. No, you would rather accuse me of being wrong than take the time to ask.

True.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Bzzzt! Wrong!

* It doesn't need to be "fair" at all. It just has to be agreeable to both sides.

Bzzzt! Wrong! (Seriously, how childish are you?!?)
If both sides agree then the test is by definition fair unless you're implying there was some form of duress involved to pressure someone to agreeing to something they don't think is fair?

* The challenge is not designed in any way, shape or form to see if there is something supernatural. It's a publicity stunt aimed at reinforcing the premise that the paranormal is bunk.

Oh thank you so much for enlightening us on matter you know nothing about.
If you'll pardon me, I'll take the word of people actually involved in the challenge over you:

From the JREF's perspective, someone winning the challenge isn't the end of the world. In fact, it's the beginning. If these things are real, WE WANT TO KNOW. In the meantime, all available evidence points to them NOT being real, and that will be our assumption until we're shown differently.

Emphasis mine.

* There is no goal for educating the claimant. The claimant is just a pawn.

Who said anything about educating the CLAIMANT?!? I said educate delusional people or those who are mentally ill. Please pay more attention.
By the very nature of the challenge existence many people raise the question of "why hasn't sylvia browne taken the test?". Now imagine her taking the test and fail. Some of her followers may or may not get a waking call, but it could very well be worth the effort.

Some cases actually do educate the applicant itself though. Perhaps you should read some of the reports from those applicants who bothered doing a dry run and dropped their claims...

That theory doesn't wash. Apparently they did give out some info at TAM regarding Connie. They have mentioned in passing the institutions where academic affidavits were offered.

The theory washes very well.
There is a difference between giving out a flier with some information then having a permanent post in the wall of shame for all eternity on the world wide web.

Members of the academia are not gods. They can make mistakes and they can be fooled or follow their own delusions. If a person makes an honest mistake there is no reason to brand them for life. Especially since they have nothing to gain either (the applicant gets a shot at $1,000,000 - the academics get squat).

The question isn't why doesn't the JREF publish the applicant's media and academic requirements on the web, the question is does the JREF intentionally hide them from any inquiry?

And to know this, there's a simple thing you can do - as everyone else said, just ask them. Send them a message and ask if you can receive a copy of it.
If you do that and get a response (positive or negative) then we could continue this debate further...

<snipped>
I hope you undrstand my point.

I perfectly understand your point, however, I completely disagree.
I don't recall your exact claim so I'm not sure how simple or complex your demonstration would be.

Even if you demonstrate your ability to a simple crowed of people you know, they can get the buzz going. They tell people who tell people and sooner or later you end up on tv. If frauds like Geller, Browne and Edwards can do it, surely you can as well?

If the JREF risks $1,000,000 and the applicant risks nothing, at the very least they should make *SOME* effort on their part, wouldn't you agree?

Also Pavel if you don't mind if I ask (I never actually talked to an applicant before so this is a first for me) - Have you considered making an offer? Like say, for example, talk to a professor and make an offer to split the money with him somehow if you win?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Bzzzt! Wrong! (Seriously, how childish are you?!?)

You want to drop the personal attacks, please?

If both sides agree then the test is by definition fair unless you're implying there was some form of duress involved to pressure someone to agreeing to something they don't think is fair?

In what world does "we agree" mean things are automatically fair? If you can get a 10 year old on crutches to agree to a footrace, is that fair?

Oh thank you so much for enlightening us on matter you know nothing about.
If you'll pardon me, I'll take the word of people actually involved in the challenge over you:

Sorry, chum, but passing the challenge proves nothing about the claim. This has been discussed numerous times before, and I don't feel like rehashing it. Go do some research instead of cherry-picking quotes to bolster your argument from authority.

Who said anything about educating the CLAIMANT?!? I said educate delusional people or those who are mentally ill. Please pay more attention.

Beyond the claimant, I didn't realize there was any evidence that such people are in the audience. I look forward to your evidence in this regard.

There is a difference between giving out a flier with some information then having a permanent post in the wall of shame for all eternity on the world wide web.

Wall of shame? What are you babbling about?

Members of the academia are not gods. They can make mistakes and they can be fooled or follow their own delusions. If a person makes an honest mistake there is no reason to brand them for life. Especially since they have nothing to gain either (the applicant gets a shot at $1,000,000 - the academics get squat).

Branding them for life? Oh, the drama!! If they are willing to put their names to an affidavit, then they should be willing to stand behind it. If you have evidence that the JREF is somehow protecting reputations, produce it.

The question isn't why doesn't the JREF publish the applicant's media and academic requirements on the web, the question is does the JREF intentionally hide them from any inquiry?

Sorry, but the question is why they don't produce the documentation to back up their claims. It's critical thinking 101 - back up your claims.

And to know this, there's a simple thing you can do - as everyone else said, just ask them. Send them a message and ask if you can receive a copy of it.
If you do that and get a response (positive or negative) then we could continue this debate further...

The bigger question in my mind is why so many self-proclaimed skeptics, myself included, have not bothered to question the JREF in this regard. Now that I have questioned it, I'm being attacked. Instead of hand-waving and excuse making, fellow skeptics should be wondering the same things I am. Instead of putting the onus on me to ask, you should ask yourself, especially since you're spouting off an unsupported theory about the answer.

Is that the kind of critical thinking that makes you proud of yourself? Not asking the right questions, coming up with possible answers when forced to look at the questions, then demanding that others research your answers for you?

 

[not daSkeptic]

In what world does "we agree" mean things are automatically fair? If you can get a 10 year old on crutches to agree to a footrace, is that fair?

I would say no, but only because the ability of a 10-year-old to enter into an agreement is questionable. A child is generally thought to be incapable of comprehending such matters, and the capacity for understanding is a requirement. Were it an adult on crutches, however, I would have to say that's a different story so long as they were of sound mind. If they voluntarily elect to participate in something with full knowledge of their disadvantage available to them, that's their choice.

This brings up an interesting question about the MDC, which may actually be your point. Do the applicants have the ability to comprehend what they're getting into? I'm not aware of the JREF requiring any form of certification on this, so I suppose it's entirely possible some people are being tested that should not be. Whether that's by design, an oversight, or simply not of significant concern I cannot say.

 

[gnome]

If an adult with crutches agreed to a footrace, it would be a perfectly fair test of his claim of being able to win a footrace while using crutches.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm sorry that you didn't grasp the nuance of what I meant. What I am suggesting is that Connie Sonne could have been a plant or at least someone they would not engage under ordinary circumstances (she lacked the proper credentials, for example). However, since she was willing to travel and perform on a public stage, they decided to work with her because it meant extra profits in TAM attendance.

Since the JREF isn't particularly forthcoming with evidence, sort of like the woos they criticize so heartily, they leave themselves open to speculation.

That's a nice conspiracy theory you have there. Perhaps discussion of it should be taken to the Conspiracy Theories section until you are able to supply some actual evidence to support it.

 

[pavel_do]

Even if you demonstrate your ability to a simple crowed of people you know, they can get the buzz going. They tell people who tell people and sooner or later you end up on tv. If frauds like Geller, Browne and Edwards can do it, surely you can as well?

If only it would be SO easy... I'd be there already.

If the JREF risks $1,000,000 and the applicant risks nothing, at the very least they should make *SOME* effort on their part, wouldn't you agree?

They NOT forced to risk money that is not even JREF's, they has been given to them in order to grant them to a real deal so to say.. They have all rights to protect it, but it has to be fair! You cant offer challenge and make sure NO ONE ever passes it! From the other hand.. having 1.000.000$ for as long as possible is greatest advertising and bait! plus % money give interest as well, and "challenge" and 1.000.000$ bait, helps sale souvenirs, tickets for lectures TAM's etc.. and what would they do if money has to be awarded? sale T-shirt " We were wrong! Its real!!" !???

Applicant lose nothing?? Well..I dont know about other cases but I spent 2 years wit MDC.. for me its allot of time, I put allot of effort, I been to U.S.A 3 times, every time done my best to approach them and be tested in US to make it all easier for them and me same time! It wasn't easy to find academics wiling to spare time with you and them make statements on paper, I spent $ for over 100 different photos, envelopes etc for self testing and finding the best picture that I could use for test etc.. You say.. well 1.000.000$ worth it.. it definitely does.. but what JREF done? replied a few my emails? and made last action by making sure I dont take test on their conditions, without bothering to explain why the latest protocol is not suitable any more.. and we discussed it for over 1 YEAR latest protocol and there is no signs of chance or me to cheat.. and latest arguments was, bottle of water on table and me bringing observer from my side.. Their last statement on Applicant log in false and present me in false light that fact! and I cant post there any of my letters that is unfair.. in a way.. NO? its my page so to say about me and my applicationwith JREF why they can post anything and I don't have any voice there?? I tell you why, cause there my voice could be herd by public in some way and that could make them answersome unpleasant questions.. though they are great at ignoring them and just blame others...

Also Pavel if you don't mind if I ask (I never actually talked to an applicant before so this is a first for me) - Have you considered making an offer? Like say, for example, talk to a professor and make an offer to split the money with him somehow if you win?

Great idea.. I don't really see how it could help with JREF, as its JREF's challenge .. not any of professors.. Maybe I should make offer to JREF

Though in my plans for MDC was to donate part of money for charity and research I said it before.

 

[fls]

If both sides agree then the test is by definition fair unless you're implying there was some form of duress involved to pressure someone to agreeing to something they don't think is fair?

I disagree. I have previously gone into detail on how 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'.

Linda

 

[Rasmus]

They NOT forced to risk money that is not even JREF's, they has been given to them in order to grant them to a real deal so to say.. They have all rights to protect it, but it has to be fair! You cant offer challenge and make sure NO ONE ever passes it!

But they don't! They only make sure that the test cannot be passed by people without paranormal abilities.

It should be dead simple for anyone with the abilities they claim they have to pass the tests. THAT is how they are designed, after all.

From the other hand.. having 1.000.000$ for as long as possible is greatest advertising and bait! plus % money give interest as well, and "challenge" and 1.000.000$ bait, helps sale souvenirs, tickets for lectures TAM's etc.. and what would they do if money has to be awarded? sale T-shirt " We were wrong! Its real!!" !???

They don't think they will ever have to give away the money. That's not a secret at all. But it's also not the point.

The point is, anyone with a paranormal ability could simply take the money off the JREF in a heartbeat. The tests are all easy to pass assuming the claimant really has the paranormal power they claim to have.

Applicant lose nothing?? Well..I dont know about other cases but I spent 2 years wit MDC.. for me its allot of time, I put allot of effort, I been to U.S.A 3 times, every time done my best to approach them and be tested in US to make it all easier for them and me same time!

I am not familiar with your case, so I can only make very general comments here. Please take them as such.

It wasn't easy to find academics wiling to spare time with you and them make statements on paper, I spent $ for over 100 different photos, envelopes etc for self testing and finding the best picture that I could use for test etc..

Why?

You already knew you had an ability before you applied to the JREF or thought about it, right? And if you already knew what you could do, why should there have been much need to fine tune your ability?

Instead, you could have just explained what precisely you could do with the photos you had and to what degree of accuracy you could do it. From there, one could easily conclude if those results would have been possible by chance alone or - if true - they would realy be indicative of a supernatural ability.

"I can predict the result of a coinflip with a fair coin with an accuracy of 65%" is a simple claim. Just add what kind of coin you are able to work with, and you'll be told just how many coinflips out of how many you'd need to get right in a test. Easy.

Assuming you knew what worked beforehand, there would be no need to try out all sorts of different coins anymore, even if it would have turned out that a Canadian Silver dollar would bring you up to 67%.

You say.. well 1.000.000$ worth it.. it definitely does.. but what JREF done? replied a few my emails? and made last action by making sure I dont take test on their conditions, without bothering to explain why the latest protocol is not suitable any more.. and we discussed it for over 1 YEAR latest protocol and there is no signs of chance or me to cheat.. and latest arguments was, bottle of water on table and me bringing observer from my side.. Their last statement on Applicant log in false and present me in false light that fact! and I cant post there any of my letters that is unfair.. in a way.. NO? its my page so to say about me and my applicationwith JREF why they can post anything and I don't have any voice there?? I tell you why, cause there my voice could be herd by public in some way and that could make them answersome unpleasant questions.. though they are great at ignoring them and just blame others...

I cannot parse any of that.

Again, a very, very general comment: Based on reading the MDC subforum it seems to me that a lot of the applicants simply do not understand what is expected of them. They do not understand what the purpose of a protocol is and they do not understand the position of the JREF in it, which I would summarise as

"We do not think you can do that all, we do not think you have this ability. However, if you could really do it, if oyu really had that ability, you should be able to do X without cheating and without allowing for any other way to do it other than using your ability."

From that arises the need to pretend that the applicant would be cheating or would be using other methods. Once you get over it, building a protocol should be dead simple.

Great idea.. I don't really see how it could help with JREF, as its JREF's challenge .. not any of professors.. Maybe I should make offer to JREF

Though in my plans for MDC was to donate part of money for charity and research I said it before.

If you find it hard to work out a protocol or get academic affidavits, offering a chunk of the money to an academic for their help might be a great incentive. (Of ocurse, you would need to convince them they stood a chance of ever seeing the money.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

You cant offer challenge and make sure NO ONE ever passes it!

Of course you can! The challenge is: Do something supernatural.

Since nobody can do that, nobody can pass the challenge.

It is as simple as that.

Hans

 

[Rasmus]

I disagree. I have previously gone into detail on how 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,

Do you have a link for that discussion?

It sounds interesting - right now I cannot see how this could even be determined.

How can the statistics be against me, if we assume that my claimed ability is not real and therefore cannot have any actual chances of success or any actual failure rate?

You'll find I agree that it should not be assumed that the abilities ought to be perfect and flawless. Most people are far from being flawless with the abilities we all accept are real, after all.

and the JREF does not mention this, focussing instead on the odds against passing.

But the odds are only relevant if the claimant has no paranormal ability.

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'.

I'd be interested to read this.

I agree that the JREF seems to have fairly little patience with many a claimant - but I was under the impression that this had nothing to do with how fair or unfair the tests might be.