Greeting MD Claimants

[Uncayimmy]

Once the professor had revealed what sort of person he was the MDC was irrelevant. Anyone reading the thread would know he could not even say what paranormal thing he could do. I think he was well treated by people. See post 76 for what I mean.

I will disagree that posts in the MDC forum directly concerning a MDC claimant are irrelevant to the MDC simply because somebody is exposed as being insincere.

If a person cannot handle a fact no matter how unpleasant that is their problem not ours.

I used to say that, too. Then my voice changed, and I grew hair in new places. Suddenly I realized how childish it was.

I do not see such isolated posts as being a problem. They can be ignored by all.

It's funny. Someone in this thread called Chillzero an idealist.

But, still, not one person has actually answered the question of what good these "isolated" posts do. Nor have you actually addressed whether you think the goals I outlined are important or not.

See also post 75. He is right in that anyone who has any ability need not come to the forum or even to JREF. They can earn heaps of money by using their ability. Yet the people who do come here mostly do not state that they earn such money from their abilities.

I don't disagree with what you say - I just don't see how it relates. The best possible outcome in the MDC is a test. The proof is, as Darat pointed out, is elagant. It speaks louder than 10,000 posts by skeptics explaining why failure is imminent.

I don't see the MDC as a lure to bring in people so we can tell them they are delusional or that they have no abilities. MDC applicants, to put it bluntly, are a means to an end - the test and subsequently, elegant proof.

 

[dann]

"elegant proof" sounds very worthwhile, the pinnacle of the search for solutions to problems in mathematics, for instance, but ...
Many people in this thread have mentioned a larger context, and I tend to agree with that, so ... What exactly is supposed to be the point of your alleged "elegant proof", unless you consider elegance in itself to be the point? Let's say that you already have 25 tests of dowsers, what is the point of the 26th? Isn't it merely, yet again, the proof of the same old thing, to be put on top of the pile?
If only the tests served to convince the individual dowsers of their lack of dowsing powers, well, then they would be useful to that extent, but according to James Randi, they very rarely do, Miss Kitt apparently being one of the exceptions:

“Each dowser goes away from any trial of their powers, dismayed by their failure, puzzled at the reasons for the failure, but always capable of coming up with a reasonable to them excuse. That excuse may be any one of many. It may be an unfortunate arrangement of the planets, improper temperature or humidity, a problem of indigestion, too much ambient noise or too much silence or a poor attitude on the part of the observers. These are not invented excuses; they are all drawn from my personal experience in testing these folks.
I must say that of all those who have ever tried to win the Pigasus Prize, and of those who I have otherwise tested in every part of the world, no claimants even approach the dowsers for honesty. These are persons who are genuinely, thoroughly, self-deceived. In only two instances one in Australia and the other in the U.K. did I ever encounter any cheating being tried by dowsers. And those cases were easily solved and immediately terminated.
I ask all those who wish to claim the prize based upon their dowsing skills to first try a double-blind test of their abilities. We at the JREF can advise you how to design such a test protocol. You will find, I assure you, that the description above of the ideomotor effect will be proven valid. And I know full well that you, as a dowser, will refuse this advice and believe that, for you, such a procedure is not necessary. I base this conclusion on my many years of handling dowsing claimants.“
Sådan virker ønskekvisten / The Matter of Dowsing

So why not simply replace the MDC with a catalogue of designs for self-test protocols? (Which, I guess, is probably what will happen anyway when it is terminated.)
In the meantime I don’t think that people applying for the test should be abused. Telling them that they are either frauds or self-deceived, however, is not abuse. If they are at all willing to be undeceived, it is usually quite easy for them to come up with a way of testing themselves. If they aren’t, it is their problem.

 

[rjh01]

There is something more important than a test. It is exposing to the world what sort of person they are. This includes to themselves as well. That can only be done via this forum. A test only shows that the person could not perform on the day.

I found a few references to goals on this thread, but no one has made a list. Or have I missed it?

If a person can earn money from their powers then the only people who would accept the challenge are
1. People who already have made their money and just want the recognition. They will not need our help on the forum. Nor do they need the money.
2. People who do not have powers.

So far the only people we have seen are in the 2nd group. Some of the tests they claim to want to do would never have been done before by them so how would they know they can pass?

 

[Uncayimmy]

What exactly is supposed to be the point of your alleged "elegant proof", unless you consider elegance in itself to be the point? Let's say that you already have 25 tests of dowsers, what is the point of the 26th? Isn't it merely, yet again, the proof of the same old thing, to be put on top of the pile?

Why bother to point out that someone is deluded or a fraud? Isn't it merely, yet again, the same old thing to be put on top of the pile? Why bother to have these forums at all? There's rarely anything being said that hasn't been said before.

This is an age-old war. It started before either of was born and will continue long after our deaths. There are fresh battles being fought every day. I don't blame anyone for growing tired of it, but that's no reason to treat a battle any differently.

So why not simply replace the MDC with a catalogue of designs for self-test protocols? (Which, I guess, is probably what will happen anyway when it is terminated.)

I think that's an excellent idea.

In the meantime I don’t think that people applying for the test should be abused. Telling them that they are either frauds or self-deceived, however, is not abuse. If they are at all willing to be undeceived, it is usually quite easy for them to come up with a way of testing themselves. If they aren’t, it is their problem.

Anybody who's ever tried to pick up a gal/guy in a bar or maintain a happy marriage knows that how you say something is often the determining factor in how things go. It's about diplomacy.

"A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age."

In terms of dealing with applicants, I like these quotes:

“A real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbor's throat without having his neighbor notice it.”

"Diplomacy is to do and say the nastiest things in the nicest way. "

As for it being "their" problem, then why say anything at all?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Why bother to point out that someone is deluded or a fraud? Isn't it merely, yet again, the same old thing to be put on top of the pile? Why bother to have these forums at all? There's rarely anything being said that hasn't been said before.
...

Why bother to tell the guy you're tripping with that he can't fly, that he's just high? Isn't it merely, yet again, another body to be put on top of the pile? Why bother to have these conversations at all? There's rarely anything being said that hasn't been said before.

 

[dann]

Why bother to tell the guy you're tripping with that he can't fly, that he's just high?

Well, you have to be very careful about the way you tell him to self-test!

 

[dann]

If a person can earn money from their powers then the only people who would accept the challenge are
1. People who already have made their money and just want the recognition. They will not need our help on the forum. Nor do they need the money.
2. People who do not have powers.

You seem to equate supernatural powers with the ability to make money. I don't think this assumption is correct. If a person claims to be able to feel colours, i.e. to determine the colour of a thing without using vision, I cannot think of a way to use this ability to make an awful lot of money fast, so MDC should still appeal to this imaginary person. And one million US dollars for a couple of tests would still appeal to people who were able to earn, say, two or three hundred thousand dollars a year using their (alleged) supernatural powers, so the premise is false: It isn't very likely (well, actually, it's impossible) that somebody is hiding supernatural powers merely because they have so much money that it would be a waste of time to take the MDC. Bill Gates?!

So far the only people we have seen are in the 2nd group. Some of the tests they claim to want to do would never have been done before by them so how would they know they can pass?

They wouldn't. But it would be stupid to claim to be able to do something and not try it out yourself. And the latest applicant, Connie Sonne, claims that she just doesn't need to test her alleged powers because she just knows that she has them, so she isn't even one of the overwhelming majority dowsers who have been 'seduced' by the very compelling ideomotor effect. She does not even appear to have bothered trying!

Like I said before, I'm not one of the guys who tend to think that trying to offend the self-deceived serves a purpose - other than making the idiots who do so feel smug or superior.
However, I also don't think that it serves a purpose to help them deceive themselves. We are all capable of deceiving ourselves (but not necessarily about supernatural powers), which is why we should not be offended if somebody tries to point it out to us.

 

[dann]

Why bother to point out that someone is deluded or a fraud? Isn't it merely, yet again, the same old thing to be put on top of the pile?

To them it isn't necessarily so. To them it may be a new thing if they are new to the JREF forum, which would be the point of offering them a self-test protocol. Or maybe even a self-test kit - there might even be a little money in this - as an alternative to the how-to-convince-yourself-that-you-have-paranormal-powers offers.

 

[Cavemonster]

Why bother to tell the guy you're tripping with that he can't fly, that he's just high? Isn't it merely, yet again, another body to be put on top of the pile? Why bother to have these conversations at all? There's rarely anything being said that hasn't been said before.

If the language you use is "You're a fraud, you can''t really fly, you're deluded!"

Do you really think that'll convince him not to jump off of something?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

If the language you use is "You're a fraud, you can''t really fly, you're deluded!"

Do you really think that'll convince him not to jump off of something?

That and some gentle but firm enough holding.

 

[rjh01]

The gentle but firm enough holding will do the trick. The
"You're a fraud, you can''t really fly, you're deluded!" will add nothing.

 

[dann]

However, the sentence you got from Cavemonster is a strawman. Nobody's suggested that "fraud" or (not and!!!) "deluded" replace a proper argument. I don't see the problem with any of the words in the right context - even when addressing an applicant for the MDC. If they are frauds, call them frauds. If they are self-deceived, call them self-deceived:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4374020#post4374020
But without the explanation of, for instance, relevant concepts such as the ideomotor effect (or in the case of flyboy: gravity and aerodynamics), the words are useless.

 

[Uncayimmy]

However, the sentence you got from Cavemonster is a strawman. Nobody's suggested that "fraud" or (not and!!!) "deluded" replace a proper argument. I don't see the problem with any of the words in the right context - even when addressing an applicant for the MDC. If they are frauds, call them frauds. If they are self-deceived, call them self-deceived:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4374020#post4374020
But without the explanation of, for instance, relevant concepts such as the ideomotor effect (or in the case of flyboy: gravity and aerodynamics), the words are useless.

The reason I am hesitant to call someone a fraud in this forum is that it helps the Other Guy (OG) more than it helps you. OG accuses you of libel or slander. OG makes a big deal about how you resort to name calling and won't address the issues at hand. We call him a liar and accuse him of evasion. We've all seen it.

I'd rather just say, "Statements A and B appear to be in direct contradiction. Please resolve that contradiction." Lather, rinse and repeat. That keeps OG on the defensive. TP was a fantastic example of a claimant who took control of just about every exchange.

Accusing someone of self-deception is likely to evoke an emotional response. Nobody wants to hear it, especially those who deep down suspect it. I'd rather say, "This is what we have learned from similar claims. We know this to be true because <whatever>. How do you differentiate what you do from what these other people have done?"

Of course, we'll likely end up with OG not really being able to explain himself in a way that makes sense. Eventually (or pretty quickly) it will be come obvious that no amount of words will change OG's mine. That's when you stop because beyond that point you have nothing more to gain and something to lose. That something? OG taking the test.

Have you ever worked in sales? One thing you learn is that once you're ready to close the deal, shut up and close the deal. Don't keep talking because you just might screw it up. It's the same thing the interventionists advise on that show, Intervention.

Along those lines, I'm sure there are times when the harsh words are just the ticket. But as I have said before, once you go there, there's no turning back. As much as people think that the OG should just "ignore" it, that just doesn't happen in the real world. I recommend holding back until the last possible moment, and when you do let loose, do it in a way that doesn't make the JREF look like a bunch of jerks. Like it or not, people will lump us all together.

 

[tsig]

The reason I am hesitant to call someone a fraud in this forum is that it helps the Other Guy (OG) more than it helps you. OG accuses you of libel or slander. OG makes a big deal about how you resort to name calling and won't address the issues at hand. We call him a liar and accuse him of evasion. We've all seen it.

I'd rather just say, "Statements A and B appear to be in direct contradiction. Please resolve that contradiction." Lather, rinse and repeat. That keeps OG on the defensive. TP was a fantastic example of a claimant who took control of just about every exchange.

Accusing someone of self-deception is likely to evoke an emotional response. Nobody wants to hear it, especially those who deep down suspect it. I'd rather say, "This is what we have learned from similar claims. We know this to be true because <whatever>. How do you differentiate what you do from what these other people have done?"

Of course, we'll likely end up with OG not really being able to explain himself in a way that makes sense. Eventually (or pretty quickly) it will be come obvious that no amount of words will change OG's mine. That's when you stop because beyond that point you have nothing more to gain and something to lose. That something? OG taking the test.

Have you ever worked in sales? One thing you learn is that once you're ready to close the deal, shut up and close the deal. Don't keep talking because you just might screw it up. It's the same thing the interventionists advise on that show, Intervention.

Along those lines, I'm sure there are times when the harsh words are just the ticket. But as I have said before, once you go there, there's no turning back. As much as people think that the OG should just "ignore" it, that just doesn't happen in the real world. I recommend holding back until the last possible moment, and when you do let loose, do it in a way that doesn't make the JREF look like a bunch of jerks. Like it or not, people will lump us all together.

How about you do it your way and leave others to theirs. If you don't like being lumped in with a bunch of jerks there is a simple solution.

Funny we've been told time and again that our opinions do not represent JREF. Now you say they do.

 

[Darat]

If the language you use is "You're a fraud, you can''t really fly, you're deluded!"

Do you really think that'll convince him not to jump off of something?

(To carry to the analogy to splat point.)

No but it may convince someone else who was about to follow their lead to have second thoughts.

 

[rjh01]

That warning does not apply to me. I can fly. I am not a fraud. See me fly off this tall building.

(No I am not going to do this. Not until I am deluded and not know it.)

 

[dann]

See me fly off this tall building.

That had better be the title of a YouTube clip!

 

[Czarcasm]

The reason I am hesitant to call someone a fraud in this forum is that it helps the Other Guy (OG) more than it helps you. OG accuses you of libel or slander. OG makes a big deal about how you resort to name calling and won't address the issues at hand. We call him a liar and accuse him of evasion. We've all seen it.

What I see far too often are frauds using their posts in this forum to show off and say, "See? If I were a fraud, would they be taking me seriously? They obviously think I might have paranormal abilities!"

 

[Uncayimmy]

How about you do it your way and leave others to theirs. If you don't like being lumped in with a bunch of jerks there is a simple solution.

I never called anyone a jerk. You're either delusional or a fraud for saying that.

Funny we've been told time and again that our opinions do not represent JREF. Now you say they do.

If by now you can't understand the difference between official representation of the foundation and the casual association people will make with the members here posting in-line with the JREF, then I find it sad that you won't open your eyes and see the truth in front of you. Or maybe you do understand, and you're just a fraud.

 

[Moochie]

If you want to discuss moderation of this section, as previously mentioned that should be done in the Forum Mgt section.

I would also suggest that if you think the JREF are wrong to make such simple requests, and that members on their forum should not have to comply with their wishes, you take that up with Jeff.

Are you referring to "simple requests" to treat MDC applicants deferentially beyond mere compliance with the MA? Then I disagree. If such special treatment is required, then it should be mandated in the MA, in my opinion. Other than that, moderating those particular threads in the MDC Challenge subforum seems like a good idea.


M.