Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

I know it is out of topic.. but still would like to post it..
There is a web site offering a phone readings to there clients.. and there is a top pay “psychic” that charges 20$ per MINUTE… I am shocked.. Nevertheless.. here is one of the comments.. from the client.. that made me laugh so I would like to share it with you.

“He started by saying things were really good for me & he was going to tell me why they were. He repeated that statement 3 times and then it sounded like he turned on the water and stepped into the shower--while still trying to talk to me. When I told him I could no longer hear him he said he would speak louder. Louder wasn't the problem--he sounded all garbled like he was drowning. Total waste of $$$$. If you don't have the time to do a proper reading don't be available for calls.”
 
pavel_do said:
I know it is out of topic.. but still would like to post it..
There is a web site offering a phone readings to there clients.. and there is a top pay “psychic” that charges 20$ per MINUTE… I am shocked.. Nevertheless.. here is one of the comments.. from the client.. that made me laugh so I would like to share it with you.

“He started by saying things were really good for me & he was going to tell me why they were. He repeated that statement 3 times and then it sounded like he turned on the water and stepped into the shower--while still trying to talk to me. When I told him I could no longer hear him he said he would speak louder. Louder wasn't the problem--he sounded all garbled like he was drowning. Total waste of $$$$. If you don't have the time to do a proper reading don't be available for calls.”
Click to expand...


Good one :)

Reminds me of those sex lines which are staffed by all kinds of people -- grannies, guys with feminine sounding voices, and so on. I guess it's a living.


M.
 
At this point, I'm going to need to have some discussions with other JREF staff members.

They are trickling back from the Galapagos trip. I'll update soon.
 
The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

The result of each trial is revealed immediately after each trial.

The image(s) can be the same for all the trials, or different for each trial, whatever Pavel thinks would be most helpful. He may be shown a copy of the trial's image or told in words what the image depicts at the start of each trial if that would be helpful.

18 hits in the 27 trials (2/3 or better correct) is a successful test. The probability of success by chance is well under 1 in 1000 (.000407). The probability of 17 hits or better by chance is .00154.

The success rate needed for success corresponds to getting 27 or more hits out of 40, something that appears to be more comfortably within Pavel's claimed success rate than 30 out of 40.

Note that the total number of envelopes involved is only one more than in the 40-trials protocol currently under consideration.

(If I'm interpreting Pavel's comments correctly, he suggests failures occur when he is unable to perceive the future opening of an envelope showing a target picture when the envelope does in fact contain the target picture -- in other words, false negatives. If that's the case, then the presence of the two blanks instead of one in each trial set should not decrease the probability of success per trial, given that the examination time he would have available per envelope would be the same.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

>snip
Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I rather like this. It greatly reduces the probability of a false negative, down to about 40 percent. I think this is better than the revised protocol that Pavel (with a minor assist from me) submitted.

Pavel:

If you like this, perhaps you should send it in to Remie.
-Dick
 
Rodney said:
So, under your proposal, would 17 out of 27 be a failure or would the preliminary test be extended?
Click to expand...

The applicant may submit the protocol design. The JREF will decide if 17 out of 27, or 18 out of 27, or some other result will satisfy their statistical requirements. In any case, there are two possible outcomes: a) the applicant is successful, or: b) the applicant is unsuccessful. Giving the applicant a do-over for being kinda close is not provided for in the rules.

But why am I wasting my time writing this all out, Rodney? You already know this. You're just being deliberately obtuse for trolling purposes.
 
Rodney said:
So, under your proposal, would 17 out of 27 be a failure or would the preliminary test be extended?
Click to expand...

Please note that my proposal is a suggestion from a third party, not an offer from JREF.

Pavel (with Startz's continued help) must negotiate these things. I would suggest -- still as a bystander -- that he choose ONE of the following possiblities, whichever he feels is most important to him, to negotiate for:

1. Explicit provision for a guaranteed extension of the test, within a set range of future dates, should a certain number of hits short of the requirement be made.

2. Allowance for a chance probability value for success somewhat over .001, such as allowing 17 of 27 to be counted as a success.

3. Slightly increased number of trials. With the trials as I suggested them, if there were 30 trials instead of 27 (that's ten more envelopes total than the 40-trial protocol, but fewer steps for the testers to go through during the test than the 40-trial protocol), 19 hits would be sufficient for p < .001 (.000737). That's essentially three more chances to make one more hit. (That seems surprising, but it's how the math works out.) Overall 19 out of 30 is approximately the same hit expectation per trial as 25 out of 40.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

The result of each trial is revealed immediately after each trial.

The image(s) can be the same for all the trials, or different for each trial, whatever Pavel thinks would be most helpful. He may be shown a copy of the trial's image or told in words what the image depicts at the start of each trial if that would be helpful.

18 hits in the 27 trials (2/3 or better correct) is a successful test. The probability of success by chance is well under 1 in 1000 (.000407). The probability of 17 hits or better by chance is .00154.

The success rate needed for success corresponds to getting 27 or more hits out of 40, something that appears to be more comfortably within Pavel's claimed success rate than 30 out of 40.

Note that the total number of envelopes involved is only one more than in the 40-trials protocol currently under consideration.

(If I'm interpreting Pavel's comments correctly, he suggests failures occur when he is unable to perceive the future opening of an envelope showing a target picture when the envelope does in fact contain the target picture -- in other words, false negatives. If that's the case, then the presence of the two blanks instead of one in each trial set should not decrease the probability of success per trial, given that the examination time he would have available per envelope would be the same.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Thank you very much!
Sounds good.. as even the results would be more evident than 50/50 chance in pairs... For that reason before I was offering also 1 out of 3.. and even 2 out of 5.. I can try this one tomorrow or Saturday.. and It still might be better for me if there will be 3 photos.. not 2 blank.. But sound “easy” and I done things like this before.. just that there was 3 photos.. not 2 blank and 1 photo.. But I think it does not matter at all for the odds..:)
So we could prepare with Startz a new proposal for JREF and see what they would say..
 
Hi, Pavel --

Play around with different combinations of regular photos and blank photos and see what works best. In the end, it doesn't really matter, as long as there's some kind of target image (or non-image) that you can identify out of two other images or non-images (which need not necessarily be the same as each other).

I love the idea of three photos. This thread has inspired me to take a stats & probabilities class this next term. What a cool collaborative effort!
 
pavel_do said:
Thank you very much!
Sounds good.. as even the results would be more evident than 50/50 chance in pairs... For that reason before I was offering also 1 out of 3.. and even 2 out of 5.. I can try this one tomorrow or Saturday.. and It still might be better for me if there will be 3 photos.. not 2 blank.. But sound “easy” and I done things like this before.. just that there was 3 photos.. not 2 blank and 1 photo.. But I think it does not matter at all for the odds..:)
So we could prepare with Startz a new proposal for JREF and see what they would say..
Click to expand...

Pavel:

This sounds good. I think that to keep the negotiations on track you should put some weight on keeping things simple. You might do well to stick exactly to Myriad's suggestion, perhaps using 3 photos if that is really important.
 
Im not sure if I am the only person who noticied this or if it is something that has been covered before, or if im wong on this, but the statistics most of you have been posting seem faulty...

10 sets of two envelopes: probability of getting them in two distinct piles... 50%. Every time you start a new pair the probability of getting it right goes back to one out of two... (i.e. 1 out of 2, 2, out of 4, 3 out of 6), it's a constant 50% probability. It would be different if a stack of 20 was handed to them and they picked the correct one of 20 each time, but 1 of 2 each time stays at 50%.

Same goes for the three envelopes at a time method only its a 33.3% chance of getting them correct.

Each time a new one is done the number correct or incorrect goes up, but so does the total number of envelopes taken in to consideration.

EDIT:

PS: I would suggest making it so the envelopes cannot be picked up, ie, they are taped to the table or are fastened down, allowing them to be tuched but not held.
 
Last edited:
gibsonbaud said:
Im not sure if I am the only person who noticied this or if it is something that has been covered before, or if im wong on this, but the statistics most of you have been posting seem faulty...

10 sets of two envelopes: probability of getting them in two distinct piles... 50%. Every time you start a new pair the probability of getting it right goes back to one out of two... (i.e. 1 out of 2, 2, out of 4, 3 out of 6), it's a constant 50% probability. It would be different if a stack of 20 was handed to them and they picked the correct one of 20 each time, but 1 of 2 each time stays at 50%.

Same goes for the three envelopes at a time method only its a 33.3% chance of getting them correct.

Each time a new one is done the number correct or incorrect goes up, but so does the total number of envelopes taken in to consideration.
Click to expand...

Yes, but...

My chances of success in the first pair is 50%. My chances of success in the second pair is 50%. However, my chances of getting both right are only 25%.
 
Not true, you have a 50% chance on envelopes 1 and 2, and a 50% chance on envelopes 3 and 4. No matter how many times you do it, if you are choosing between a correct and an incorrect it will always be 50%.

You could do it 500 times. The chance of getting them all correct is always 50%. It would be different if you had 4 cards, chose a correct one from the 4, then chose a correct one from the remaining 3... Then the overall probability would change, but as long as the total number of envelopes increases at a rate of 2 for each one attempt, the probability does not change.

Like I said... I could be wrong... Just how it appears to me...
 
Last edited:
gibsonbaud said:
Not true, you have a 50% chance on envelopes 1 and 2, and a 50% chance on envelopes 3 and 4. No matter how many times you do it, if you are choosing between a correct and an incorrect it will always be 50%.

You could do it 500 times. The chance of getting them all correct is always 50%. It would be different if you had 4 cards, chose a correct one from the 4, then chose a correct one from the remaining 3... Then the overall probability would change, but as long as the total number of envelopes increases at a rate of 2 for each one attempt, the probability does not change.

Like I said... I could be wrong... Just how it appears to me...
Click to expand...

What Gr8wight said is right. This very easy for you to check. Take a coin, guess heads or tails. Do it again. If you're right both times, score it as a success. Now run this two-toss experiment a few dozen times. You'll see that you get both tosses right about one time in four.

More formally, the joint probability of a sequence of independent events is the product of the individual probabilities.
 
Folks, I'm going to step in here.

This protocol has been going on forever. It seems like Pavel keeps trying things and then failing, and people are trying to modify the test so that he has a chance of winning. This is NOT what the challenge is about. The claimant should have a clear claim and confidence that he can accomplish what he claims before he applies.

RemieV recently went over a protocol with me that looked like it might be workable, and then I see here that ANOTHER one has been proposed and Pavel likes it. Now we're essentially back to square one.

It is now incumbent upon Pavel, who I admit seems sincere, to state what he can do and allow us to test it. It seems that he applied way before he was ready, and now the JREF is expending too many resources to try to make something work.

There are other applicants waiting.

The JREF will accept one more full protocol from Pavel (with Startz's kind help, if he's willing) and then we will move on to another candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom