Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[weirdl]

JREF encouraged its members to attack Ms. Sonne.

I have been asked to prove this.
I concede upfront that the definitions of "encourage" and "attacks" are the only the opinion of one troll.

The encouragement consists of a Swift post on August 2, 2009 entitled Connie Sonne Preliminary Challenge Test at TAM 7.
This post includes such dewdrops as:

I find Connie Sonne's accusation both amusing and sad. On the same note, I take it very seriously as well. Connie, or anyone else, should think very carefully prior to making such libelous and slanderous statements. I take defamation of my character quite seriously. [...] Also, there were steps put in place by the JREF to make sure there was no way I could have cheated Connie at all. For this to have happened both myself, the JREF, and anyone else involved would have had to be involved in the entire crime - and yes, it would be a crime. So once again, be very careful prior to making libelous or slanderous statements. -Banachek

The article made no mention of the voices in Connie Sonne's head.
The article made it look like Ms. Sonne was an active participant in the procedure, whereas my research indicates she was no more than a gullible dupe. The post declares:

She chose to dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage with the supervision of famous skeptic and mentalist, Banachek.

I don't think she chose that. The playing cards, envelops, and magicians were all the JREF's ideas. Ms. Sonne would have gone along with almost anything. She never even tried the protocol she was supposed to have basically designed.

The attacks from others, which were encouraged by the JREF's example, started immediately afterwards in the comments. I won't quote any of those because I don't think the commenters would have been so mean if they realized Ms. Sonne's vulnerable mental state. they are easy to find

Here's an example of the tone from The Mad Skeptic (post August 15, 2009). He knew about the voices:

A true believer would have gracefully bowed out (as you initially did on the Sunday night after TAM7) and quietly gone back to the fold that embraced their belief in you and your powers. That should have been enough for someone who believes in their “gift” and their “mission.” Instead, you went on the offensive and made an issue against the very protocol you signed off on and chose to get snarky with some of the world’s biggest experts in the field. Sour grapes? A boatload full I’d say.

She doesn't have a "fold", by the way.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You said Ms. Sonne claimed to be able to dowse through envelops.
She never claimed that! The JREF substituted their protocol for her original claim without making that switch clear. This is one of my major complaints.
Ms. Sonne only claimed the ability to dowse for upside-down cardboard peices that had been freshly written on.
I know she agreed to the changes, but Ms. Sonne did that because the voices in her head told her the JREF was helping her save the world and she should trust them completely.
Before anyone goes there, Connie Sonne would not have won if she had been treated fairly. I don't believe in magic.

I think you are making some excellent points. All too often skeptics fall into the trap of thinking that skepticism is a set of a beliefs rather than a process. I confess to not looking at the Connie Sonne demonstration as critically as I should have because in my mind she was just another woo with magical thinking. What you are doing is admirable, which is to remind people to look at everything skeptically, especially our own actions.

Some of what the JREF has written about Connie is sloppy at best and misleading at worst. There seems to be a pervasive attitude of, "Well, she's just another woo who failed a test and claimed to be cheated, so why should we care?" That's ********. If a "woo" organization were to make claims this inaccurately, skeptics would be all over it like stink on ****. They would question their integrity and rightly so. After all, the JREF had a financial interest in having this demonstration take place at TAM.

Your accusations of encouraging attacks I think are weak, but I appreciate that you acknowledge that it's a matter of opinion. If I squint my eyes and look at it the right way, I can see where you're coming from. The JREF does lead by example, and I would say there's no shortage of followers. If I understand you correctly, I believe you're saying a more appropriate response from Banachek might have been:

While I don't appreciate the accusations of cheating Ms. Sonne has made, I will not take them all that seriously. Her beliefs in many aspects of her life seem to hinge on what she believes the spirits (voices in her head, I think) are telling her. It could be that the spirits are telling her that I cheated. It could also be that the spirits told her she would be successful, so faced with failure, her only choices were to believe the spirits were wrong or to assume that I cheated. In a way I'm flattered she thinks I could get away with cheating with all the controls that were in place. The truth is, I did not cheat, and I'm sorry Ms. Sonne feels that I did.

Again, if I'm understanding you correctly, a more "understanding" response like that would "encourage" more understanding whereas the aggressive response that Banachek made, while understandable to a degree, encouraged other aggressive responses.

Am I stating your position correctly?

 

[weirdl]

@UncleYimma

You definitely have the gist of my views.
Here is what Jeff Wagg says:

The actions you take do not occur in a vacuum. Everything you do has an impact on something else. If you do something "good," more "good" things are likely to happen because of it. For example, if you throw your trash in a trashcan, others may see you do this and follow suit. Your action has encouraged similar actions. If you throw something out the window of your car, others might see this and decide to do the same.

This is obviously simple, and yet it can be very powerful. If we think of karma as a real force, we can make the world a better place. People will imitate other people, and this will build on itself. Even if you do something out of sight of others, the act of doing influences your behavior, which can influence the behavior of others. At the very least, it can make you feel better about yourself, which is an effect right there.

 

[weirdl]

@UncleYimma

Also thank you.
You write well and have an open mind.
I write so poorly people think I'm Danish.

 

[The Man]

If you propose such a protocol, that would enormously damage your credibility and be a tacit admission of fear that the ability exists.

Good thing I don’t propose the protocols, ain’t it?

What you are "missing" is that the JREF claims to be so incredibly confident that the paranormal cannot be demonstrated that it advertises a challenge with a $1M enticement to prove them wrong.

Nope, never missed that.

If they even just propose a protocol where someone with a "genuine" ability could easily fail (this includes coin-flip odds), they come across as cowards. It looks like they are "fixing" the test and that their confidence with the $1M is just so much bluster.

Ok, you put up a million, then you can give it away on less than “coin-flip odds”. How would that make you look? I’m sure people will be lining up to take your challenge.

Who gives a **** if the claimant is stupid or arrogant enough to accept the protocol? What's important is the message that the worldwide audience receives. Suppose that message includes, "The JREF proposed and the claimant accepted a protocol where if the claimant actually has the ability claimed, there's only a 50% chance he will win the money." The JREF looks like a bunch of asses in the minds of many of the people they want to reach with the challenge.

Well I guess the claimant should give that “****”. If not, then who else can? Again 50-50 odds to win a million ain’t bad at all. If I thought that playing the bagpipes well ( a certain percentage of people enjoying the music) would count as paranormal, I’d give it a shot (but I’d have to practice more).

 

[Uncayimmy]

Good thing I don’t propose the protocols, ain’t it?

What a terrific rebuttal! That's putting the old "E" back in JREF! It's responses like that keep me coming back!

Nope, never missed that.

Looks can be deceiving.

Ok, you put up a million, then you can give it away on less than “coin-flip odds”. How would that make you look? I’m sure people will be lining up to take your challenge.

Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you are unable to follow what is really a rather simple discussion. Neither I nor Linda said anything about risking the money on coin-flip odds. I was considering explaining it all to you again, but I think that would be a waste of effort. The only thing worse then dealing with woo mentality is when it's coming from someone who considers himself a skeptic.

 

[weirdl]

@UncaYimmy

Social Proof is not the only way the JREF encouraged attacks sayeth this troll.
Every time the JREF nudged the facts it was in a way that made them look better and Connie Sonne look worse. They implied (in my opinion wrongly) that Ms. Sonne was actively involved in her own test design, that she requested playing cards and envelops.
They asserted Connie Sonne had "oodles of press" verifying her powers. They called her "Connie Sonne, dowser" that made me think that she was a practicing dowser or could at least produce a witness. I think they subconsciously hid the fact that Connie Sonne in not in her right mind. My opinion.
The JREF bragged about haw transparent the test was, but the only way I can get the documents that prove that is if I go to Vegas and pay $400 dollars after I built a time machine.
They made Connie Sonne look like a bad sport.

 

[Sean84]

*snip*
They made Connie Sonne look like a bad sport.

That's what you call some one who doesn't get their way and then cries foul despite it being their own fault.

 

[weirdl]

@Sean84

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis that the word on the street that the once courageous Ms. Sonne is a bad sport. Where do you think you got that idea?
JREF's been crying foul for not getting their way too. It was their own fault.
The only evidence the JREF presents that this test was fair is that Connie Sonne agreed to it. That's it. The reputation of the JREF is based on a piece of paper a mad woman signed. She didn't even look at it. Watch the video. She refuses to read it and says "I trust you". Chump.
She was in the midst of a manic episode which the JREF had no doubt greatly heightened with its inappropriate lavish attention. (A press conference!)
I think they're mad at her for blowing the only tiny claim to legitimacy this test had: her trust.
I was a chump too. I thought it was fair without question at first.

 

[Sean84]

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis that the word on the street that the once courageous Ms. Sonne is a bad sport. Where do you think you got that idea?
JREF's been crying foul for not getting their way too. It was their own fault.
The only evidence the JREF presents that this test was fair is that Connie Sonne agreed to it. That's it. The reputation of the JREF is based on a piece of paper a mad woman signed. She didn't even look at it. Watch the video. She refuses to read it and says "I trust you". Chump.
She was in the midst of a manic episode which the JREF had no doubt greatly heightened with its inappropriate lavish attention. (A press conference!)
I think they're mad at her for blowing the only tiny claim to legitimacy this test had: her trust.
I was a chump too. I thought it was fair without question at first.

Please show me where I ever said she was "once courageous".

My opinion is my own and that happens to be that she was a fraud who got caught out. Please don't twist my words to serve your agenda in the future.

 

[weirdl]

Sean84

I meant the JREF used to say she was courageous. Sorry I twisted your words. Forgive me, I'm Danish.
She's no fraud.
What do you base that on?

 

[Sean84]

I meant the JREF used to say she was courageous. Sorry I twisted your words. Forgive me, I'm Danish.

Actually, you twisted my words by making it "the word on the street." It is simply how I viewed the matter. But, that's fine; all forgiven.

She's no fraud.
What do you base that on?

I base it mostly on her lack of super powers.

 

[fls]

Not “test”, challenge.

The JREF refers to "test".

Just what do you think I‘m failing to notice? If I claim I have a way of reading cards inside envelopes with 100% accuracy then I should not fail at all, unless I can’t really read cards inside of envelopes with 100% accuracy. I imagine that you might claim that you can read a card if I show you it’s face. How many cards do you think you will get wrong under those conditions? Now if I propose a protocol where you will only be shown the face of the card for .0000003 seconds, then perhaps you might not want to agree to that protocol.

As I mentioned previously, claims are likely based on uncontrolled conditions, and may not represent the average. So a claim of 100%, or the other claims which are less, likely represent a success rate that is lower than the claim - sometimes much lower. If you want to test the claim, then it makes sense to get a better idea of just what the success rate is under controlled conditions (Pavel as an example) or failing that, to make some sort of informed guess and erring on the side of making it achievable if they have the ability.

A 50-50 chance at 1 million, how is that bad (particularly when you’re not putting up even money if you fail)?

It makes sense that some people would go for a 50/50 chance. There shouldn't be any problem with the JREF simply making that explicit. As it is now, the use of the word "test" can imply that you will pass if you have the ability and you will fail if you do not. And the statement "To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests," can imply that they did not pass the tests because they did not have a paranormal ability. Since neither of those implications are correct, if the JREF doesn't intend to mislead their audience, then it shouldn't be a problem for the JREF to simply make that explicit:

"Protocols are often designed to give you a 50/50 chance or less of success even if you are able to do what you claim you can do."

"Since passing is at best a coin toss if you have the claimed ability, as expected, to date, no one has passed the preliminary tests."

Well there you go. 3 exactly at the claimed rate, 1 at the high end of the claimed rate, 3 unknown claimed rates, 1 higher than the claimed rate and 1 lower. So based on that evidence (excluding the unknowns for now), more are set at the claimed rates than not. How is setting the success rate at what is claimed a test that has been “set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass”?

As I mentioned previously, even setting it at the claimed rate does not provide a reasonable test. And these success rates are likely formed under conditions that grossly over-estimate the effect.

Do not forget that a claimed success rate is part of the claimed ability. As Ivor the Engineer notes above, if it is your average success rate then it is equally likely that you will pass as fail. If you’ve given a higher than average rate, whose fault is that? If you have given an absurdly low rate (approaching or below chance) then it is not surprising that the protocol would require a higher rate for the challenge.

I agree and I think that is where forum participants can be useful, especially if the JREF makes it clear that the claimant is unlikely to pass the test if they have the claimed ability, unless they pay close attention to these factors and manage to negotiate a reasonable test on their behalf. If the JREF made this explicit in their pre-amble, instead of making statements that imply the opposite, I think it would provide incentive for the claimants to pay more attention to the recommendations to perform controlled tests, in order to form a much better estimate of their success rate. I think it would improve the process considerably if the JREF was more straightforward, instead of continuing to use statements which mislead. If there is no intent to mislead, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Linda

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

You said Ms. Sonne claimed to be able to dowse through envelops.
She never claimed that! The JREF substituted their protocol for her original claim without making that switch clear. This is one of my major complaints.
Ms. Sonne only claimed the ability to dowse for upside-down cardboard peices that had been freshly written on.
I know she agreed to the changes, but Ms. Sonne did that because the voices in her head told her the JREF was helping her save the world and she should trust them completely.
Before anyone goes there, Connie Sonne would not have won if she had been treated fairly. I don't believe in magic.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and reread her claim, but the impression I got was that she stated she could determine the cards in the envelopes. I've noticed a lot of claims begin to evolve the instant the claimant realizes that the claim will actually be rigorously tested, so I accept in advance that her original claim might have been different, but at the same time, if a related claim was proposed and she accepted that, that's her right, as only she can state what she can do.

A

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

@ Wierdl:

OK, I'm back from reading, and I call shenanigans. While the original claim was not cards in envelopes, it WAS numbers through cardboard. Cards, which by their nature have printed numbers on them, inside cardstock envelopes is a very reasonable way to implement a claim of being able to determine printed numbers through cardboard and Connie agreed to this format for the test. I don't see how this can be construed as the JREF taking advantage of her in any way.

A

 

[weirdl]

@Andrew Wiggin

Thank you for responding. Thank you very much for checking the source. Thank you for confirming that Conne Sonne never claimed (or even attempted to be able dowse for cards inside envelops inside envelops. She never claimed she could dowse for anything but human handwriting on cardboard. Upside down.
But you thought she did.
And you're the only one who got the wrong idea.

Check it out

The challenger, Connie Sonne, claims to have the ability to be able to find certain playing cards by dowsing for them.
Crispian Jago

She never claimed that.
This is from a blog is called Science, Reason and Critical Thinking

It's no wonder. I call shenanigans too. Here's part of the JREF's official response to Connie Sonne's accusations of cheating.

Connie Sonne had designed the parameters for her own test. She chose to dowse for the contents of double-enveloped playing cards on stage with the supervision of famous skeptic and mentalist, Banachek.

No way she chose that. Agreed? Agreed. Technically. (She seems to have been in the middle of a psychotic break.)
Since the JREF forgot to post Ms. Sonne's application and her own test design, nobody knew they had changed her protocol. A lot.

I don't believe in magic, but I have read comic books. If I know anything about how magic works it's that every power has a lot of specific rules and limits. Superman can't see through lead. Who's to say dowsing for inhuman printed cards is the same as dowsing for cardboard dripping with the hot magic of fresh human writing?

Also cards and envelops are a lot easier to cheat with than handwritten cards. I mean for the JREF to cheat with. They didn't cheat. It was just dumb to make such suspicious changes. And kept it quiet.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

What a bunch of conspiracy theory claptrap. Nothing changes the fact that she agreed to the protocol. That's all that matters here. I can think of several reasons why handwritten numbers on the back of cardboard wouldn't be acceptable. Ink shadowing through the card, and creasing from the writing implement come to mind. I'm not thinking she was trying to cheat by those methods, but at the same time, she obviously had received some positive feedback in the past, and subconscious clues are a good way to do that.

Regardless of the minor details you're pretending mean the JREF pulled a fast one, her claim breaks down to numbers written with ink, cardboard hiding it, and she can still dowse/see through and tell what the numbers are. I don't care who brought up the idea of cards in envelopes as a replacement, for all we know, it could have been either connie or the JREF, since neither one of us was privy to the actual offline negotiations. From the outside, all we see is that it was finalized, connie agreed to it, it was tested, and she had a spectacular failure, completely consistent with her having no powers at all. The protocol she agreed to looks very fair from where I'm standing. If you think cards in envelopes would make it easier to cheat, the burden of proof is on you to prove that cheating was possible, or that cheating occurred. From my end, it looks like the JREF took every possible precaution to make sure that neither they nor connie could cheat.

Still, this all comes down to the fact that she entered into an agreement, by that agreement she failed, then slandered the JREF claiming they'd cheated her. That's what makes the whole thing pathetic, and beyond defense.

A

 

[connie sonne]

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

Connie

 

[Czarcasm]

it is NOT what you think at all.

Well, that cleared everything up, didn't it?

I will return.

No doubt. When come back, bring explanation, 'k?

 

[Marcus]

I spent a considerable amount of time helping Pavel put together a statistically sensible protocol, as did others here. It is certainly true that the details of Pavel's claim evolved a great deal in response to what people here on the forum suggested. But the protocol that was officially submitted was designed precisely to meet the JREF standard of avoiding a false positive while still giving Pavel a reasonable chance of success if his ability was as suggested. And JREF just plain blew him off.

Perhaps there were other reasons than statistical issues for JREF's actions, but there is no evidence to that effect. The only thing we know for a fact is that the response of JREF was to insist on a protocol that did not give Pavel much chance of succeeding if his claim were true.

That was dissapointing when Randi, having not participated in the saga, casually waved off the protocol you guys worked so hard on. You'd think that one of the mods that was participating could make him aware of the details.