Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[kmortis]

Evidence, please?

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

It's on page 3125 of the JREF Indoctrination Packet that you should have got shortly after drinking the Skeptic Kool-Aid and Mind Control Drink. It clearly states

[Redacted]

 

[MRC_Hans]

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,

This is basically correct. The requirement is that the claimant must pass under such conditions that the odds against a random positive are overwhelming. The obvious corollary of this is that weak positives stand little chance of passing.

So the person who claims an ability that only rises a few % over random will be faced with a protocol that is either impossible to pass or will require an extraordinary amount of attempts.

However, I can see no way of avoiding this. The stake is, after all, not just a million $, it is also the basic truth. It is not in the true interest of anybody to risk a paranormal ability being falsely vindicated (except for some deliberate frauds, of course).Thus, tests must be designed to err on the side of caution.

Hans

 

[fls]

Do you have a link for that discussion?

The discussion took place in the Information on Protocol for Pavel thread, starting about here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5032589#post5032589

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?

Well that's the approach the JREF and most participants here seem to take - let's assume the claimed ability is not real (which also goes to show that the claim the MDC is about discovering paranormal abilities is untrue) and is a nice example of confirmation bias. However, from the perspective of scientific inquiry, and from the perspective of the claimant, it is also important to look at what results you might expect if the claimed ability is real. This involves performing a calculation of Power. "What is the chance that I will be able to detect an ability that is present?"

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.

Exactly. Yet this assumption seems to be denied to the claimant - they aren't always asked to perform at 100%, but they are asked to perform at the specified level 100% of the time.

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

Exactly my point.

I'd be interested to read this.

Same link as above.

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.

Most people do not seem to realize that this is not the case. It requires some knowledge of statistics that the average person and the average claimant does not have.

Linda

 

[fls]

It is not in the true interest of anybody to risk a paranormal ability being falsely vindicated (except for some deliberate frauds, of course).Thus, tests must be designed to err on the side of caution.

Hans

Increasing the number of trials does not increase the probability that the claimant will pass due to chance.

If the requirement for passing was set at a particular alpha level (i.e. the probability of a particular result due to chance), then increasing the number of trials would make it easier for them to pass. But it's not. The requirement for passing is set at a particular effect size (i.e. x correct results out of y attempts) instead.

Linda

 

[Rasmus]

The discussion took place in the Information on Protocol for Pavel thread, starting about here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5032589#post5032589

Thanks.

tjhe maths goes over my head - but like I said, it seems that the demands on the applicants are too high sometimes for their stated abilities, I agree with that.

Well that's the approach the JREF and most participants here seem to take - let's assume the claimed ability is not real (which also goes to show that the claim the MDC is about discovering paranormal abilities is untrue) and is a nice example of confirmation bias.

I don't see that they take that approach when designing protocols. I see what you mean, though. I think.

However, from the perspective of scientific inquiry, and from the perspective of the claimant, it is also important to look at what results you might expect if the claimed ability is real. This involves performing a calculation of Power. "What is the chance that I will be able to detect an ability that is present?"

Exactly. Yet this assumption seems to be denied to the claimant - they aren't always asked to perform at 100%, but they are asked to perform at the specified level 100% of the time.

Yes. It's a challenge. And I agree that it is not at all a scientific examination. You did say that somewhere near here, right? This is about someone demonstrating, clearly, that they can do something.

If I want to demonstrate that I know how to do something then it just sucks to be me if I end up with a bad hair day.

 

[not daSkeptic]

It requires some knowledge of statistics that the average person and the average claimant does not have.

This alone doesn't make things unfair. People execute legal agreements all the time without any understanding of what they're signing (many times without even reading the thing). It's considered fair so long as they have the opportunity to read it, understand it, and reject it.

 

[fls]

This alone doesn't make things unfair. People execute legal agreements all the time without any understanding of what they're signing (many times without even reading the thing). It's considered fair so long as they have the opportunity to read it, understand it, and reject it.

I just happen to disagree with the idea that it's fair if someone doesn't realize they're being hoodwinked. I know that not everyone shares this opinion.

Linda

 

[not daSkeptic]

I just happen to disagree with the idea that it's fair if someone doesn't realize they're being hoodwinked. I know that not everyone shares this opinion.

I think this discussion might benefit from a clarification of context. What is fair in a legal sense is not necessarily the same as what is fair in a colloquial sense. If we are discussing what is legal, then it doesn't matter whether or not someone understands what they're getting into so long as they are capable of doing so. However, if we are discussing, in general, the legal exploitation of a person's weaknesses (e.g. not reading contracts before signing) and whether such behavior is compatible with the supposed ideals of an organization like the JREF, then that's a different matter.

 

[weirdl]

da skeptic

QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Thank you!
People who are not of sound mind, like people who blindly obey voices in their head, cannot enter into valid contracts.

This is from the MDC FAQ.

The JREF has spent valuable time and resources investigating claims that were submitted by people who were obviously suffering from a mental ailment. These people need medical help, not encouragement. By requiring media presence, the JREF ensures that only those people who make an impact on society will be tested, and the individuals who are mentally ill receive no encouragement to continue their delusions.

Well Connie Sonne had press. They have yet to post it. I read one article. It pretty much presented Ms. Sonne as a nice crazy lady who no one believed. She needed medical help not encouragement.

JREF said this as well

4.2 What should I do before I apply?
See a physician for a physical and mental workup to ensure you are up to the task of taking the Challenge. Some of the people who apply for the Challenge are mentally ill, and this is a point that has the potential to be examined during the application process. Tell your physician about your paranormal ability and get their feedback as well.
Test your power at home, in a controlled setting like the one described in your protocol. Bring along skeptics, too. It is best to be able to demonstrate your ability reliably before you apply.

Also I did e-mail JREF president DJ Grothe last week about the documents not being posted. I haven't heard back.

 

[weirdl]

@arthwollipot

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis. You had access to the elusive press packet. From your description, it contains ample proof of Ms. Sonne's mental state. Since you didn't correct me about Ms. Sonne submitting a very different protocol to the one she is now credited with "choosing", I figure that's right too.

 

[weirdl]

@Cavemonster

If you've spent time on the forums, you know that applications typically go through revisions based on input from the forums and the JREF directly. There would likely be several versions of this, with the final one having the test as administered whether Connie designed it herself, with the help of the forum or JREF, or if the final test was suggested to her completely by the organization.

Thanks. I have been looking for something like that. Could you point the way?
All I could find in the forum was a statement that Ms. Sonne had been presented with the new protocol. I could not find Ms. Sonne's original protocol. I could not find discussions of the changes made. I could easily be wrong.

 

[weirdl]

@MCR_Hans

Until such time as Ms Sonne (and any other applicant) has been officially declared unable to take care of herself, we must all treat her as as any other person. She applied for the challenge, negotiated, signed, and followed through with a protocol. To stop her at any point in that process and tell her she was not sane would be the real wrong-doing.

But they didn't treat her like any other person. The preliminary test is supposed to be given by a third party - not the JREF staff. It's supposed to be close to where the applicant lives, not at the location the JREF can sell the most tickets.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But they didn't treat her like any other person. The preliminary test is supposed to be given by a third party - not the JREF staff. It's supposed to be close to where the applicant lives, not at the location the JREF can sell the most tickets.

I think you're falling a bit off the beam on this one. The challenge clearly states that it is "administered by the JREF." This is not in contradiction to their claim that the "JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure" though I can see how you might look at it that way. The direct actions of the JREF in regards to the test should have no bearing on the outcome of the test. You *might* have a point on this (more on that in a moment).

The rules also state, "In all cases, applicant will be required to perform a preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member or representative of the JREF staff can attend."

You are referring to the JREF's blurb about the MDC where they say, "Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives." This is a descriptive rather than prescriptive sentence. It simply tells you what has "usually" happened, not what they are obligated to do.

But back to the JREF being involved in the test. Banachek is not part of the JREF, so that doesn't count. That JREF staff members prepared the cards (as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong, folks) seems in contradiction to the JREF's claim of not being involved.

And then there is the Rosemary Hunter test where Jeff Wagg, an employee of the JREF, was directly involved in the test. She had 15 minutes to make him urinate by using the power of her mind. Quite clearly the JREF was directly involved in that test.

So, that blurb on the MDC page should be tweaked. The rules, however, seem to have been honored.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis. You had access to the elusive press packet. From your description, it contains ample proof of Ms. Sonne's mental state. Since you didn't correct me about Ms. Sonne submitting a very different protocol to the one she is now credited with "choosing", I figure that's right too.

No, there was no evidence of Ms. Sonne's mental state in the packet. There was her initial letter (monograph) of submission, an affidavit from an academic, and a newspaper clipping, but there were no medical or psychiatric reports that I recall. Those of us who read her letter were free to speculate about her mental state, but we had abolutely no proof of anything.

 

[Uncayimmy]

No, there was no evidence of Ms. Sonne's mental state in the packet. There was her initial letter (monograph) of submission, an affidavit from an academic, and a newspaper clipping, but there were no medical or psychiatric reports that I recall. Those of us who read her letter were free to speculate about her mental state, but we had abolutely no proof of anything.

What did the academic affidavit say she did? How about the clipping?

 

[arthwollipot]

What did the academic affidavit say she did? How about the clipping?

I don't recall specifically - it was six months ago. They basically affirmed that she had demonstrated an ability (described as "dowsing" although I believe that to be innacurate) that defied scientific explanation. The clipping briefly mentioned her efforts to find the missing Madeliene McCann, which is a story that Ms. Sonne went into GREAT detail about in her submission.

 

[fls]

I think this discussion might benefit from a clarification of context. What is fair in a legal sense is not necessarily the same as what is fair in a colloquial sense. If we are discussing what is legal, then it doesn't matter whether or not someone understands what they're getting into so long as they are capable of doing so. However, if we are discussing, in general, the legal exploitation of a person's weaknesses (e.g. not reading contracts before signing) and whether such behavior is compatible with the supposed ideals of an organization like the JREF, then that's a different matter.

What do you think? For the most part, what psychics do isn't illegal. If that's all this is about, why not simply let them use the same excuse you've made available to the JREF and have done with it?

Linda

 

[petre]

What do you think? For the most part, what psychics do isn't illegal. If that's all this is about, why not simply let them use the same excuse you've made available to the JREF and have done with it?

Linda

They do use the same excuse, with libral use of the phrase "for entertainment only". Psychics that make use of that disclaimer clearly understand legal matters quite a bit better. Any ideas how we can get those people to apply to the challenge rather than people that aren't as legal-savy? That would seem ideal for both the JREF and those concerned about the exploitation of the deranged.

 

[fls]

They do use the same excuse, with libral use of the phrase "for entertainment only". Psychics that make use of that disclaimer clearly understand legal matters quite a bit better. Any ideas how we can get those people to apply to the challenge rather than people that aren't as legal-savy? That would seem ideal for both the JREF and those concerned about the exploitation of the deranged.

I realize that they use the same excuse. What I'm wondering is why the JREF can't just roll up shop and leave them alone? If the actions of the JREF are characterized by "it doesn't matter whether we take advantage of people as long as what we do is legal", why doesn't that same characterization make the actions of psychics acceptable as well?

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Deleted.