You dead wrong my friend.. I do know what my ability is, and better then any one else here I suppose.. I do know under what condition it can be performed and what is the best protocol to have taking to consideration all the limits and pressure weather you like it or not.. I do know, and I DID proposed REASONABLE protocol and if not that JREF should have state clearly why and what exactly they don't like?? They need to make sure cheating cant happen, where is the protocol allow me to cheat?? Expanses and complicating is not en excuse it is reasonable protocol full stop! I have explaned my point MANY Times in previouse posts..
I think again I am trying to explain what rainbow is to a person who never saw it and not even bothered to look at it ..
Calm down, Pavel. Despite what it may seem like, very few, if any, posters are actually attacking you. I certainly am not.
You may, conceivably, have this ability, but your claim to do so is insufficient for me to set aside the knowledge that tells me you are mistaken. For that to happen, you need to demonstrate it.
Your belief that you have an ability, even if it turns out to be wrong as I believe it will, says nothing about you as a person. You appear to be sincere in your belief, and your postings here indicate that you are intelligent enough.
But we are intelligent, too, and also experienced in this sort of claim. I used to hold beliefs in abilities that would be considered paranormal. Then I learned more and dropped those beliefs. I'm no smarter now than I was then; just vastly more informed and more attuned to when my ego is influencing my decision-making.
You might begin to see where we are/I am coming from if you answer this simple question:
How did you determine that you had an ability?
As you're writing your answer, look to see if it includes any controls for confirmation bias and if it includes a real statistical analysis.
You dead wrong my friend.. I do know what my ability is, and better then any one else here I suppose.. I do know under what condition it can be performed and what is the best protocol to have taking to consideration all the limits and pressure weather you like it or not.. I do know, and I DID proposed REASONABLE protocol and if not that JREF should have state clearly why and what exactly they don't like?? They need to make sure cheating cant happen, where is the protocol allow me to cheat?? Expanses and complicating is not en excuse it is reasonable protocol full stop! I have explaned my point MANY Times in previouse posts..
I think again I am trying to explain what rainbow is to a person who never saw it and not even bothered to look at it ..
I composed my previous response before seeing this one.
When I say you do not know what your ability is I am primarily referring to you not knowing what percentage of hits you will get, i.e., the "with what accuracy" part of the Challenge Rules.
Am I mistaken? Do you actually know what accuracy you have?
I used to believe that at least some UFOs were alien spaceships; I used to believe in telepathy and clairvoyance; I used to believe that the expansion of the universe was slowing down.
I have modified my beliefs on all sorts of things because I was prepared to consider possibilities which contradicted what I had previously believed. Can you say the same? Are you prepared to consider the possibility that the information on which you originally based your conclusion that you have a paranormal ability was inadequate, and that therefore that conclusion may have been erroneous?
I composed my previous response before seeing this one.
When I say you do not know what your ability is I am primarily referring to you not knowing what percentage of hits you will get, i.e., the "with what accuracy" part of the Challenge Rules.
Am I mistaken? Do you actually know what accuracy you have?
As I've tried to explain many times, when it comes to human performance there is a great deal of variability, but Pavel set forth a 67% accuracy rate in his proposed protocol for a 100-trial test. Can anyone here explain why the JREF rejected that proposed 100-trial protocol, which would defy odds of better than 1000 to 1 if Pavel were to achieve 67 or more hits; in favor of a 20-trial protocol, in which Pavel would have to achieve at least 18 hits* to meet a better than 1000 to 1 odds standard?
*The way Pavel says that the 20-trial protocol was presented to him, it appears that even 18 hits would have been insufficient to pass. Rather, he would have needed a perfect 20 hits.
You dead wrong my friend.. I do know what my ability is, and better then any one else here I suppose.. I do know under what condition it can be performed and what is the best protocol to have taking to consideration all the limits and pressure weather you like it or not.. I do know, and I DID proposed REASONABLE protocol and if not that JREF should have state clearly why and what exactly they don't like?? They need to make sure cheating cant happen, where is the protocol allow me to cheat?? Expanses and complicating is not en excuse it is reasonable protocol full stop! I have explaned my point MANY Times in previouse posts..
I think again I am trying to explain what rainbow is to a person who never saw it and not even bothered to look at it ..
Pavel, all you have done so far is telling us there is a rainbow without demonstrating that it exists outside of your head.
It's been more than two weeks since the JREF closed your file. Have you asked them to reopen it yet?
And please do tell us where you think you were treated fraudulently on part of the JREF.
If you can't tell us that I think you need to retract the statement immediately and apologize to the JREF, also immediately.
No, Rodney, I can't. I haven't followed the entire thread and do not feel disposed to read it all. From the bit I have read here at the end, I am not impressed with how JREF handled it (mpre specifically, Randi). As I think you said a few posts ago, I am inclined to attribute it not to malice but to "incompetence," but I'm not sure incompetence is the right word. Exasperation may be better.
The problem is, as I tried to say before, the exasperation would have been avoided entirely by not accepting the claim until the accuracy had been presented.
Finally, let me point you to what others here have said, even Startz: the 67% was "back-figured." Pavel didn't come here with it.
Which gets back to my question to Pavel, which I will expand on:
Given that prior to applying, you did not know your accuracy, how did you conclude you actually had an ability?
Yes, Rodney, you have tried to "explain" several times that human performance is greatly variable. But it isn't an "explanation" for what you imply it explains.
Despite great variability, averages are collected all the time. Pavel did not know his average and made no efforts--except as prodded by JREF--to discover it. Even now he does not know.
Which means, despite knowing the great variability of human performance, Pavel has conscientiously decided not to discover his accuracy.
As has been mentioned in other threads at other times, this is not representative of the nature of such claims nor of Pavel's initial claim.
Pavel did not come here because he had an ability that was hard to parse from mundane guessing. He came here because--without doing any controlled tests on his own to verify it--he was convinced he had a spectacular ability. Not spectacular in the "stage show" sense, but spectacular in the sense it was obvious.
I agree with this part. When he first showed up, he directed us to a video where it looked like he felt that he could do this pretty much all of the time. However, he did subsequently take the suggestions that people made to him and perform some tests under more controlled conditions in order to gain a better understanding of what he could hope to achieve. And he recognized that his success rate dropped under these circumstances, but it was still better than expected.
Yet again we are left picking at the margins because 67% is apparently too difficult. Since that is the case, how on earth did Pavel conclude he had this ability at all?
No 67% is not too difficult. It is the success rate that Pavel thinks he is able to achieve and the one specified on the last protocol that he submitted.
You second point is excellent. The difference between 50% and 67% represents an effect size of 0.35. This is a small to moderate effect size, which is a size which is not likely to be noticed on informal observation.
The MDC is not an investigative mechanism for claimants to discover if they have a claim or what the nature of their alleged abilities are.
It is a challenge for people who know their abilities to demonstrate it.
Pavel doesn't know what his ability is nor how it can be demonstrated. Why on earth, then, did he even apply?
Actually, Pavel did pretty much what we ask of applicants. I think it would be useful (maybe even good PR for the JREF) if he was recognized for his efforts. Starz also served as an role model for what we should be doing in response to these claims. It would be useful to read her/his post here:
JREF set itself up for a PR nightmare with this by accepting the undefined claim. If they had simply turned it down until Pavel had defined his claim, there would be no issue, but much like anyone who tries to go the extra mile, they got the black eye when they slammed into the brick wall at the end of it.
The JREF did not go the extra mile for this applicant. In the end, they couldn't be bothered to cross the street for this applicant. If the JREF is worried about PR, I suspect that they would be a lot better off if they were more upfront about what goes into the decision-making process. I don't see a problem with the JREF admitting to selecting or rejecting protocols for reasons other than feasibility. It's the pretending that they don't that gets them into trouble.
I'm not getting this part, Pavel. You could have composed half a dozen letters, and had Startz edit them for clarity, in the time you have spent posting here in the last 2 weeks.
Yeah. Careless wording on my part. I meant that when dug into the success rate is never as glorioiusly spectacular as was initially claimed, and this is still probably poorly said.
fls said:
It is the success rate that Pavel thinks he is able to achieve and the one specified on the last protocol that he submitted.
I'd have no problem with that. As I said, Pavel seems sincere and intelligent, and while I think he did not do what was required, I think the effort was there and he is far above most other claimants, even other sincere ones like Edge.
Starz also served as an role model for what we should be doing in response to these claims.
Already did. Even before Pavel I thought JREF's long response times were poor business. With Pavel they were abominable and, were I King of JREF for a day, inexcusable.
fls said:
The JREF did not go the extra mile for this applicant.
Pavel did not come with the requirements of (1) Ability (2) Accuracy (3) Conditions, specifically accuracy. Even now he cannot say what his accuracy is, only one that he will accept.
The extra mile was accepting the application without the accuracy specified, and that is what led to the ultimate disagreement (that and Randi's apparent sudden exasperation).
fls said:
In the end, they couldn't be bothered to cross the street for this applicant.
I don't see a problem with the JREF admitting to selecting or rejecting protocols for reasons other than feasibility. It's the pretending that they don't that gets them into trouble.
Yes. But that's what should have been done. It doesn't make sense to suggest your average success rate, because that limits you to an approximately 50% chance of passing the test. It makes sense to suggest the lowest number that you think the JREF will accept and one that is lower than your success rate. Then you might have more like a 90% chance of passing the test, assuming you are right about your success rate. That is how Starz came up with 67% (i.e. the lowest number that you think the JREF will accept - actually, I think he could have gotten away with suggesting a lower number, as the probability for 67/100 is much lower than the cut-off used for the woman who read the diaries (Patricia something?)). And I think Pavel agreed to it because he had achieved higher than that on some of his tests.
I'm not ready to agree. He came with a claim which changed and with no accuracy which was added for him.
I know. He came here the same way that everyone comes here - a claim which was wholy inadequate for testing and which clearly was based on the sort of circumstances under which most people allow themselves to feel that they have magical powers. A claim which starts out at 100% and then drifts down depending upon the extent to which they "try this at home".
I meant more that he did move on from there and try to gather the kind of information we need in order to develop a protocol - a success rate he thinks he can achieve, the type of photographs he can distinguish or even whether it has to be photographs, the time it takes for each trial, whether he needs feedback, etc. Many applicants fail to gather that information or lose patience with it.
The extra mile was accepting the application without the accuracy specified, and that is what led to the ultimate disagreement (that and Randi's apparent sudden exasperation).
Was that going the extra mile? Do applications usually come with the accuracy specified?
I just spent a few minutes browsing the Challenge Applications. I used to read that section all the time, but for some reason I stopped. I'll have to pick it up again. There looks to be some interesting challenges in the works. Anyway, I can't tell from them whether or not people usually hand in an application with an accuracy rating.
But this brings up a point which should be clarified, I think. Realistically, most people who show up here thinking they have magical powers need our help. The idea of formal testing, controls, statistics, etc. is unfamiliar to them. And our first inclination is to jump in and suggest ways for them to introduce controls, provide them with probability calculations, tease out a straightforward test, etc. This involves a lot more effort than most, if not all, applicants will have previously put into the process. Crossing that barrier may seem to them like they have already put a substantial investment into the Challenge. We can do this to help them prepare a proper application, but it will appear to be for naught if the protocol negotiations take a different turn (which they often do). We often recommend that people apply first, so that the involvement of the JREF from the get go means that we are all working towards the same end, don't we? Given that it's pretty much a given that they are going to show up and require substantial assistance to form a testable claim, should we be suggesting they apply whenever someone shows up with a claim, or should we tell them to wait and follow our instructions first?
It's only the street at the end of the mile they didn't cross, not the one at the start.
To Mr. James Randi,
201 S.E.
12th Street Ft Lauderdale
Florida 33316
USA
I am writing to you in regards to JREF's decision to close my fail, with th reason - “ In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.”
The JREF stuff is misrepresented the facts in favor of the JREF and presenting me in false light.
This is unexceptionably as it is. I was given NO chance but to refuse the protocol, that is absolutely UNFAIR and guarantees that I will not be able to perform claimed by me abilities, the conditions offered to me is making it impossible to. As claimed by me ability and success rate CANNOT be reliably tested with 20 trials that has been offered with no other options. The JREF imposed a limit on the number of trials which is too low to test the ability as stated in the application. The JREF's proposed test would only give me a 25% chance of passing it, even if I indeed have the ability I claime. A protocol for 100 trials test that was refused is not unreasonable, and the fact that it is refused seems unreasonable and unfair due to the facts:
1. The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.
2. It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked with JREF) and according to his opinion it was good enough for testing. He did not pointed any of options where the protocol seemed unfair and would give me at any point the advantage to win by chance and not by the claimed ability.
3. From your response one of the reasons to refuse it and limit it to a 20 trials, was the cost of it. According the JREF's rules I have to pay all the expanses related to test, so I see no reason why is JREF concerned about costs.
The designed and discussed protocol of 100 pairs test, meets the generally understood requirements. The probability of winning by chance is less than 1 in 1,000. The time taken is within the bounds of previous challenges. I bear the expenses. I believe there are adequate guards against cheating. The protocol has been checked by an independent statistician (who was kind enough to volunteer his time) who is familiar with the challenge process. The protocol seems to have met with enough approval by the JREF staff that it was deemed suitable for final presentation to you.
The fact that the latest protocol was discussed with JREF for ONE year period, and not even once the JREF expressed it concerns about it as being unreasonable and unacceptable. So the sudden letter limiting the test and offering me no choice but to refuse it and my file to be closed, I consider as unfair!
I strongly believe that I was treated unfairly, unjustly and even fraudulently in some way. As I am presented on the JREF's applicants page in a false light, as a person who was given fair chances, time and conditions for testing the claimed ability but I have refused it. That is absolute false and lie!
There for, I would appreciate the JREF reopening my file and hold fair test or if JREF find the proposed protocol unacceptable and giving me chance to cheat or win in a fraudulent way, officially explain your point and reasons for refusing protocol and limiting me to a conditions that is unfair! I ask of you, to amend the record on the JREFS applicant log, as it misrepresent the fact and as I have said before presents me in false light to a people who were not involved in any way in to protocol negotiation and are not familiar to any other threads on the JREF forums that related to the matter.
Sincerely yours,
Pavel Ziborov
FYI: I have merged the To Mr. James Randi thread into this one.
I apologize for not reading all of the available information, so please excuse me if this has been addressed before:
What does it have to be a binary test? As I understand the protocol, which could be wrong, he gets pairs of pictures from a pool of 20 possible photos. He cannot see the pictures. He is told what the two pictures are (boat/dog, cheesburger/toaster, etc). He then chooses one picture to identify and states which one it is of the pair. Lather, rinse, repeat.
So why not start with all 20 photos in a set? Pick one to identify. Lather, rinse, repeat a whole lot fewer times. Is there something about the way the ability works that makes this unworkable?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
