Complaints Dept: Connie Sonne MDC

[Marcus]

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

Connie

Hello Connie,

Would you care to share with us now, in a hopefully brief manner, exactly how you were cheated by JREF?

 

[The Man]

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

Glad to see your needs are being fulfilled.

Looks can be deceiving.

Advice you should take to heart.

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.

“Either you're being deliberately obtuse” or just don’t remember what you wrote.

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.

So when you said “this includes coin-flip odds” you didn’t really mean “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.

Oh by all means please do, but seeing as you’re the one claiming…

…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.

And

Looks can be deceiving.

You might try explaining that to yourself first.

 

[The Man]

The JREF refers to "test".

Ok, a mere issue of semantics anyway.

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.

I certainly never disagreed that the claims are likely based on uncontrolled conditions. As I remarked to myself, but again whose fault is that?

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."

I wouldn’t expect that one needs to make the blatantly obvious any more explicate than it already should be to anyone who applies a little critical thinking. For those who don’t, making the blatantly obvious even more explicate usually doesn’t change anything (at least that has been my experience)

Oh I certainly understand your position and even sympathize with it, but my assertions remain.

1) If you do not fully understand and accept what you are agreeing to, then don’t agree.

2) When the money is yours to administer, you are free to do so as you see fit (within the law of course).

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.

Again whose fault is that? I don’t see how it is incumbent on the JREF to guess what your rate under controlled conditions should be, particularly when you claim a specific rate yourself.

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

Good advice regardless of what the JREF makes clear in its pre-amble.

 

[fls]

I certainly never disagreed that the claims are likely based on uncontrolled conditions. As I remarked to myself, but again whose fault is that?

I wouldn’t expect that one needs to make the blatantly obvious any more explicate than it already should be to anyone who applies a little critical thinking. For those who don’t, making the blatantly obvious even more explicate usually doesn’t change anything (at least that has been my experience)

Oh I certainly understand your position and even sympathize with it, but my assertions remain.

1) If you do not fully understand and accept what you are agreeing to, then don’t agree.

2) When the money is yours to administer, you are free to do so as you see fit (within the law of course).

Again whose fault is that? I don’t see how it is incumbent on the JREF to guess what your rate under controlled conditions should be, particularly when you claim a specific rate yourself.

I understand that you are not interested in using the MDC to get people to examine these claims. I suspect that the JREF is not, either. I simply think that if this is the case, it should be made more explicit. You may claim that this is all blatantly obvious, but the extended discussions I have had on this topic here suggest otherwise. A substantial number of people do seem to have the impression that someone with a claim for which a testable and reasonable protocol can be worked out can apply to the MDC and undergo a test. And that if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do, they will pass the test.

Linda

 

[The Man]

I understand that you are not interested in using the MDC to get people to examine these claims. I suspect that the JREF is not, either. I simply think that if this is the case, it should be made more explicit. You may claim that this is all blatantly obvious, but the extended discussions I have had on this topic here suggest otherwise. A substantial number of people do seem to have the impression that someone with a claim for which a testable and reasonable protocol can be worked out can apply to the MDC and undergo a test. And that if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do, they will pass the test.

Linda

Then you’re understanding would be wrong. The MDC does get people to examine these claims, including the claimed accuracy. You may claim, and you have, that the test is “set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass”, but performing your stated ability at around your stated (and hopefully average) accuracy will be the most likely outcome (that’s what makes it the average), unless you’re just simply wrong about that ability and/or accuracy. Again if you agree to a protocol then that is what you are claiming you will do to pass the test. If you are able to do what was agreed you will pass, that should be blatantly obvious.

Yes I understand and as I said even sympathize with your assertion “it should be made more explicit”, but would differ on how it should be made more explicit.

My additional caveat might go something like this.


“You don’t have a ******* flying hairy rat’s *** chance in hell of winning this challenge, because if you actually had the ability you claimed you would already be famous and rich (heck some are famous and rich even without having the abilities they claim).”


Dan

 

[Uncayimmy]

So when you said “this includes coin-flip odds” you didn’t really mean “coin-flip odds”?

I know what I wrote. The coin flip odds referred specifically to the claimant actually being able to perform as claimed, which, as well all know, the JREF believes is impossible. Therefore, the money was never at risk over coin-flip odds.

The point here is that if the claimant is able to perform as claimed, the odds requirement for the test should allow success to the largest degree possible so long as winning by chance is sufficiently reduced. Why you seem to have trouble with this I don't know and really don't care.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Basic experimental statistics (as I understand them, but I may be wrong):

Two possible realities: 1) The given phenomenon exists, or 2) the phenomenon does not exist.

Two possible experimental outcomes: 1) The given phenomenon is detected, or 2) the phenomenon is not detected.

Thus, a 2x2 matrix of combinations:

| Exists | Does Not Exist Detected |A|B
Not Detected |C|D

In an ideal world, A and D would be the only outcomes that ever occur. But we don't live in an ideal world and thus B and C can also occur. In order to get as close as possible to the ideal, a good experiment is designed to minimize the likelihood of B and C.

The allegation being made about the MDC is that while the protocols minimize the odds of B (a false positive), they do not necessarily minimize the odds of C (a false negative). Thus, while the overall challenge may be fair in the legal sense (the applicants are voluntarily agreeing to the protocols), the design of the protocols is improper.

Do I have all of this right?

 

[jsfisher]

You know, this whole issue of fairness to the applicant would carry a lot more weight if just one of the preliminary tests came close.

As fair as I know, all have come up in the range of chance, no?

 

[fls]

Then you’re understanding would be wrong. The MDC does get people to examine these claims, including the claimed accuracy.

Do you think Connie Sonne examined her claims - specifically, do you think she performed a controlled test of the protocol prior to TAM?

You may claim, and you have, that the test is “set up so that even if they have the claimed ability, it is unlikely they will be able to pass”, but performing your stated ability at around your stated (and hopefully average) accuracy will be the most likely outcome (that’s what makes it the average), unless you’re just simply wrong about that ability and/or accuracy.

As I mentioned previously, what do you think the chance is that any claimant is correct about their accuracy?

Again if you agree to a protocol then that is what you are claiming you will do to pass the test. If you are able to do what was agreed you will pass, that should be blatantly obvious.

See? What is blatantly obvious happens to be untrue. Why not simply make it true instead?

My additional caveat might go something like this.

“You don’t have a ******* flying hairy rat’s *** chance in hell of winning this challenge, because if you actually had the ability you claimed you would already be famous and rich (heck some are famous and rich even without having the abilities they claim).”

Dan

How is this consistent with your claim that we are interested in getting people to examine their claims? Does this statement really seem like the sort of thing that would engage someone who is naive?

Linda

 

[fls]

Do I have all of this right?

Yes.

Linda

 

[The Man]

I know what I wrote. The coin flip odds referred specifically to the claimant actually being able to perform as claimed, which, as well all know, the JREF believes is impossible. Therefore, the money was never at risk over coin-flip odds.

So now you don’t think the test is set up so the claimant is unlikely to pass, even if they have that claimed ability? Again if they do have the claimed ability at the claimed (average) accuracy, then that will be the most likely outcome of the test.

The point here is that if the claimant is able to perform as claimed, the odds requirement for the test should allow success to the largest degree possible so long as winning by chance is sufficiently reduced. Why you seem to have trouble with this I don't know and really don't care.

Again when it’s your million you can agree to whatever protocol you like. “Why you seem to have trouble with this I don't know and really don't care.”

 

[The Man]

Do you think Connie Sonne examined her claims - specifically, do you think she performed a controlled test of the protocol prior to TAM?

Specifically, perhaps. Critically, doubtful. Controlled test of the protocol, unlikely. If she didn’t, again whose fault is that?

As I mentioned previously, what do you think the chance is that any claimant is correct about their accuracy?

As I mentioned previously, whose fault is that.

See? What is blatantly obvious happens to be untrue. Why not simply make it true instead?

Untrue? how? Do what you agreed to do to pass (the protocol) and you pass. Are you claiming someone has successfully completed the agreed protocol and did not pass?

How is this consistent with your claim that we are interested in getting people to examine their claims?

Telling people they are most likely going to fail because they don’t actually have the ability they are claiming is a pretty direct way of telling them they should probably examine their claimed abilities. How is it inconsistent with that goal?

Even without any additional disclaimer, failure at some expense (even if just in time and effort) is often a good way to get people to examine their claims and abilities (particularly those that might not examine them otherwise). Of course there is no guarantee that anyone will actually or critically examine their claims, abilities or the protocol.

Does this statement really seem like the sort of thing that would engage someone who is naive?

Linda

Does yours? Proclaiming that even if you have your claimed ability you will be unlikely to pass, it hardly seems conducive to inspiring someone to actually examine or even submit their claim. Particularly someone naïve, who would most likely just consider it a sham and not bother with the claim anyway (if they bothered to read any of it anyway). Why bother examining your claim or submitting it when you will be unlikely to pass even if you have your claimed ability? If you want to actually proclaim the truth then go all the way and say the mostly likely reason they will be unlikely pass the test (because they don’t have the claimed ability). Your disclaimer only feeds into the delusion that they have the ability, but some people will just do anything to deny that ability. Not to mention the legal ramification of asserting the test protocol was deliberately set up to defraud or mislead (not acting in good faith).

 

[The Man]

Basic experimental statistics (as I understand them, but I may be wrong):

Two possible realities: 1) The given phenomenon exists, or 2) the phenomenon does not exist.

Two possible experimental outcomes: 1) The given phenomenon is detected, or 2) the phenomenon is not detected.

Thus, a 2x2 matrix of combinations:

| Exists | Does Not Exist Detected |A|B
Not Detected |C|D

In an ideal world, A and D would be the only outcomes that ever occur. But we don't live in an ideal world and thus B and C can also occur. In order to get as close as possible to the ideal, a good experiment is designed to minimize the likelihood of B and C.

The allegation being made about the MDC is that while the protocols minimize the odds of B (a false positive), they do not necessarily minimize the odds of C (a false negative). Thus, while the overall challenge may be fair in the legal sense (the applicants are voluntarily agreeing to the protocols), the design of the protocols is improper.

Do I have all of this right?

Indeed not an ideal word, thus it still remains the responsibility of the claimant to do their due diligence.

 

[fls]

Specifically, perhaps. Critically, doubtful. Controlled test of the protocol, unlikely. If she didn’t, again whose fault is that?

As I mentioned previously, whose fault is that.

I'm not trying to lay blame. I'm suggesting that if we are interested in examining and testing these claims (and I understand that that isn't necessarily the case), then we are not doing a very good job of this if we don't stimulate the claimants to perform controlled tests on their own, and if we subject them to a poor test (given that a good test allows them to pass when the ability is present and fail when the ability is absent). If you are unconcerned or you wish to place all the onus for that outcome on the claimant, that is fine. I worry that it puts the lie to the E in JREF, but getting past that aspect, I'm suggesting that at the least it should be made blatantly obvious that all the onus for making sure the test is fair will be on the claimant.

Untrue? how? Do what you agreed to do to pass (the protocol) and you pass. Are you claiming someone has successfully completed the agreed protocol and did not pass?

I think I misunderstood what you were saying, and I wasn't clear about what I meant.

When I said, "and that if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do, they will pass the test", what I meant was that a substantial number of people seen to think a claimant will pass a test where the threshold has been set at the claimed success rate under uncontrolled conditions, if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do (with respect to having some sort of paranormal ability).

Telling people they are most likely going to fail because they don’t actually have the ability they are claiming is a pretty direct way of telling them they should probably examine their claims abilities. How is it inconsistent with that goal?

Even without any additional disclaimer, failure at some expense (even if just in time and effort) is often a good way to get people to examine their claims and abilities (particularly those that might not examine them otherwise). Of course there is no guarantee that anyone will actually or critically examine their claims, abilities or the protocol.

Does yours? Proclaiming that even if you have your claimed ability you will be unlikely to pass, it hardly seems conducive to inspiring someone to actually examine or even submit their claim. Particularly someone naïve, who would most likely just consider it a sham and not bother with the claim anyway (if they bothered to read any of it anyway). Why bother examining your claim or submitting it when you will be unlikely to pass even if you have your claimed ability? If you want to actually proclaim the truth then go all the way and say the mostly likely reason they will be unlikely pass the test (because the don’t have the claimed ability). Your disclaimer only feeds into the delusion that they have the ability, but some people will just do anything to deny that ability.

That's the question, isn't it. What sort of activities lead to the sorts of outcomes we are looking for? I'm not certain about the effects of derision (and I agree that there is a possibility that it is beneficial), so I wouldn't want to necessarily proceed with it unless I had some evidence. But I am pretty sure that misleading someone in the way I have described does not serve any useful purpose.

Not to mention the legal ramification of asserting the test protocol was deliberately set up to defraud or mislead (not acting in good faith).

By bringing this up, do you think my posts may give a former claimant the idea of laying a suit against Randi? Does the signed protocol protect Randi against this claim? (Now you've made me a bit nervous.)

Linda

 

[The Man]

I'm not trying to lay blame. I'm suggesting that if we are interested in examining and testing these claims (and I understand that that isn't necessarily the case), then we are not doing a very good job of this if we don't stimulate the claimants to perform controlled tests on their own, and if we subject them to a poor test (given that a good test allows them to pass when the ability is present and fail when the ability is absent). If you are unconcerned or you wish to place all the onus for that outcome on the claimant, that is fine. I worry that it puts the lie to the E in JREF, but getting past that aspect, I'm suggesting that at the least it should be made blatantly obvious that all the onus for making sure the test is fair will be on the claimant.

Unfortunately that onus is entirely on the claimants, not just in checking the protocol but also assuring they are accurately representing their claims. I have absolutely no idea how we could stimulate such people to do a controlled test on their own. As I said before I certainly agree with forum members trying to help develop protocols. The question would be how do we get the word out and convince people that there is help out there.

I think I misunderstood what you were saying, and I wasn't clear about what I meant.

When I said, "and that if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do, they will pass the test", what I meant was that a substantial number of people seen to think a claimant will pass a test where the threshold has been set at the claimed success rate under uncontrolled conditions, if the claimant can do what they claim to be able to do (with respect to having some sort of paranormal ability).

That’s ok, but why I specifically referred to the protocol.

That's the question, isn't it. What sort of activities lead to the sorts of outcomes we are looking for? I'm not certain about the effects of derision (and I agree that there is a possibility that it is beneficial), so I wouldn't want to necessarily proceed with it unless I had some evidence. But I am pretty sure that misleading someone in the way I have described does not serve any useful purpose.

Unfortunately I simply do not know and can’t imagine what would, particularly considering someone who has convinced themselves they have some paranormal ability. Understandably a lot of people may lack the training, knowledge or experience to understand, conduct or even recognize a controlled test. So even just trying to make that need more explicit, I doubt will do any good. How do you suddenly convince someone to start thinking critically about their abilities and claims when what brought them to this juncture is most likely not thinking critically about their abilities and claims? I seriously doubt a few blurbs on some paper work will suddenly make that light go on.

By bringing this up, do you think my posts may give a former claimant the idea of laying a suit against Randi? Does the signed protocol protect Randi against this claim? (Now you've made me a bit nervous.)

Linda

No it might only be such if it was an explicit assertion in the agreed contract that indicated it was not entered into in good faith. I imagine there are also statements in the protocol agreement asserting that you have read, understand and agree with the protocol. So again the onus is on the claimant and they most likely have specifically attested to reading, understanding and agreeing to the protocol. Again how do you get people to do what they are willing to attest to but may not have done?

 

[Startz]

Unfortunately that onus is entirely on the claimants, not just in checking the protocol but also assuring they are accurately representing their claims. I have absolutely no idea how we could stimulate such people to do a controlled test on their own. As I said before I certainly agree with forum members trying to help develop protocols. The question would be how do we get the word out and convince people that there is help out there.

I agree with a great deal of what you say, but are you assuming that JREF will necessarily agree to a "fair" (however defined) protocol?

What upsets some of us is that there seems to have been at least one case in which a claimant pretty much did what you (and others) have suggested and JREF then declined to accept the protocol.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You know, this whole issue of fairness to the applicant would carry a lot more weight if just one of the preliminary tests came close.

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

 

[fls]

Unfortunately that onus is entirely on the claimants, not just in checking the protocol but also assuring they are accurately representing their claims. I have absolutely no idea how we could stimulate such people to do a controlled test on their own. As I said before I certainly agree with forum members trying to help develop protocols. The question would be how do we get the word out and convince people that there is help out there.

Something like?...

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, you may 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 a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."

Unfortunately I simply do not know and can’t imagine what would, particularly considering someone who has convinced themselves they have some paranormal ability. Understandably a lot of people may lack the training, knowledge or experience to understand, conduct or even recognize a controlled test. So even just trying to make that need more explicit, I doubt will do any good. How do you suddenly convince someone to start thinking critically about their abilities and claims when what brought them to this juncture is most likely not thinking critically about their abilities and claims? I seriously doubt a few blurbs on some paper work will suddenly make that light go on.

I agree that there is a substantial number for whom it will make no difference. And that includes the audience, as well. I am thinking of the few where you can actually make a difference (and I think Pavel is one of them). I have been a teacher, so I know what it's like to keep trying to get through over and over and over again. But those few times that you do are all the reward that you need.

ETA: I have selfish motives as well, as I am interested in pursuing claims of anomalies in a way that would allow for real progress. Identifying skilled individuals is one way to pursue this, so I don't want to miss an opportunity to do so.

I think the points that you raised can serve as an incentive, though. If you make it clear to the claimant that it is their fault if the protocol is not fair, by telling them that they shouldn't assume that it will be fair just because both have agreed to a particular success rate, maybe that will get them to take a step back from defensive mode into active participant mode. I don't know.

No it might only be such if it was an explicit assertion in the agreed contract that indicated it was not entered into in good faith. I imagine there are also statements in the protocol agreement asserting that you have read, understand and agree with the protocol. So again the onus is on the claimant and they most likely have specifically attested to reading, understanding and agreeing to the protocol. Again how do you get people to do what they are willing to attest to but may not have done?

If you give them cause to mistrust what they are attesting to?

Linda

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes. The power (the probability that an ability will be detected when that ability is present) of many tests is about 0.50 and for many tests, it is even lower. This is the result of setting the threshold for passing at or above the level that can reasonably be assumed based on the claims made. The power isn't at a level which would make it easy for the claimant to pass (such as 0.8 or 0.9).



Can you give an example where the power level was greater than 0.60? An example otherwise would be the one I offered at the start of this conversation.

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

I can also go through the Challenge protocols and show you examples where the threshold for passing was set at the same level as was claimed by the challenger.

Linda

I think we are back to agreeing on the facts. If you set up a test to give a high assurance against false positives, you will increase the risk of false negatives. That is a simple mathematic fact. I still fail to see how a claimant would fail if they perform as advertised. So the claimant might be better than random, but not good enough to pass, if they don't quite live up to their own prediction. I don't see that as unfair.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

Excuse me! I'm Danish, and I am not accused of writing poorly. You will find that most of the many Danes here write excellent English.

Hans