JREF Challenge Statistics

[EHocking]

JREF Challenge Statistics - a first pass.

Since the OP of this thread doesn't seem to have any interest in his own website content, here's my first pass on the applications that Kramer had worked on and posted at JREF.

The following is a first pass review of the 143 claims listed at the Challenge Applications Forum Some will disagree with my application categorisation and no doubt my interpretation of the result, but I have been as objective as possible in the data gathering process.

Category|No|Male|App'ns|App'n Corr'n|App'n Corr'n|Accepted|Protocols|Protocols|Examiner|Test Date|Tested|Failed
||||/Affidavit (N)|/Affidavit (Y)||Begun|Not Begun|Agreed|Not Agreed|Found|Agreed||
Telepath|24|19|20|||12|8|4|2|3|5|2|2|2
Dowser|17|14|16|||13|4|7|3||8|3|3|3
Telekinetic|16|14|13|2||9|4|3|1|1|3|||
Energy|11|9|11|2||7|2|5|1|4|4|1|1|1
Healer|11|9|10|5|2|6|3|4|1|3|3|1|1|1
Psychic|11|7|7||1|7|3|5|2|3|5|2||
Predictions|9|7|6|3||5|4||||1|||
Gambling|5|4|4|||2||1||1|1|||
Theoreticist|5|5|4|||||||||||
Device|4|4|4|3||2||2|1|1|1|1|1|1
UFO|4|4|2|1||2||3||3|1|1||
Homeopath|3|2|3|5||2||2||1|2|||
Medium|3|1|2||1|2||2|1|1|2|||
Remote Viewer|3|2|2|||||||||||
Clairvoyant|2|1|1|||1|1|||||||
Ghosts|2|2|1|1||1||1||1||||
Humour|2|2||||||||||||
Perpetual Motion|2|2|2|||2|1|||1||||
Astrologer|1|1|1|||1||1||1|1|||
Bible Code|1|1|1|4|1|||||||||
Dowser - Device|1|1||3|1|||||||||
EVP|1|1|1|3||1||||||||
Exorcist|1|1|1|||||||||||
Illusion|1|1|1|7|2|1||1||1||||
Numerology|1|1|1|10|3|||||||||
Painter|1|1||3||||||||||
Suicide|1|1|1||2|||||||||
Totals|143|117|115|52|13|76|30|41|12|25|37|11|8|8
% of Total Claims||82%|80%|36%|9%|53%|21%|29%|8%|17%|26%|8%|6%|6%
% of Application||||45%|11%|66%|26%|36%|10%|22%|32%|10%|7%|7%| |

Some notes on the table above.

1. The App'n Corr'n / Affidavit columns indicate the response to requests to correctly submit an application or to provide affidavits when asked by JREF.2. Protocols discuss whether a discussion was started on test protocols and whether they agreed
3. Table content is listed by number of applications per categoryThe categories are as per the applicants claim, or my determination of it from the subsequent correspondence, so may not be exactly as some others may interpret them. Below is the logic on those categories that some may lump together:



Telepath : Quite literally a mind reader or thought projectionPsychic : Telepath that doesn't deal with mind pictures, more emotional responses, or guessing cards etc.
Medium : Talks to the dead
Clairvoyant : Divination of personal history or future events
Energy : Chi, TT where no healing is boasted

DISCUSSION

45% of the 115 applications did not respond to requests to a. submit the application correctly, b. to exactly define their claim, or c.supply affidavits.

Of the 66% (76/115) of claims that were accepted, 39% (30/76) actually got to the point of negotiating test protocols, but only 16% (12/76) finalised the protocol negotiation. This is despite the fact that JREF found external examiners that were willing to negotiate a test in 48% (37/76) of the claims.

Only 8 of the 12 who agreed a test protocol went on to be tested, even though 11 of the cases agreed a test date.

All 8 who were tested failed.

 

[petre]

Since the OP of this thread doesn't seem to have any interest in his own website content, here's my first pass on the applications that Kramer had worked on and posted at JREF.
[snip]

Wait, how on earth did you compile those statistics without creating a 9-page thread? You mean, you just looked at the data and compiled it without complaining that others wouldn't do that for you? Astounding!

 

[CFLarsen]

Wait, how on earth did you compile those statistics without creating a 9-page thread? You mean, you just looked at the data and compiled it without complaining that others wouldn't do that for you? Astounding!

I don't think someone will start bitching "the analysis is flawed, but I'm not going to do it better myself".

No, no.

 

[Ersby]

Good work, EHocking.

 

[EHocking]

Wait, how on earth did you compile those statistics without creating a 9-page thread? You mean, you just looked at the data and compiled it without complaining that others wouldn't do that for you? Astounding!

I seem to recall a favourite response by a certain poster, "I'm not going to do your homework for you." Pity he won't even do his own.

 

[EHocking]

I don't think someone will start bitching "the analysis is flawed, but I'm not going to do it better myself".

No, no.

Now, Now. Anyone would think you are getting cynical.

 

[EHocking]

Good work, EHocking.

It was quite interesting to look back on the work that Kramer did for JREF and what he had to put up with.

Odd, there seems to be a poster missing from this last part of the discussion.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Nice work, EHocking.

 

[T'ai Chi]

..., here's my first pass on the applications that Kramer had worked on and posted at JREF.

Nice!

..but what part of

The JREF has been making strides in making information on "the claims received, the correspondences exchanged between the JREF and the applicant, and subsequent protocol negotiations and test results" electronic, but not, as far as I can tell, the numerical results of past preliminary tests, which in my opinion are just as, if not more, interesting and relate more to the science.

are you not getting?

You reviewed the 143 claims listed (which I already acknowledged as being available). You did not look at any data besides that forum data, data which is not easily available in the same manner. A major point you're missing here, is that I'm only interested in tests that are statistical in nature, not all tests. This is so that probabilities of outcomes can be talked about.

But I think you have the right idea, and have shown that such statistics in general are useful to aid in understanding.

 

[Mercutio]

But I think you have the right idea, and have shown that such statistics in general are useful to aid in understanding.

What do they help you to understand? Anything in particular, TC?

 

[CFLarsen]

Nice!

..but what part of



are you not getting?

You reviewed the 143 claims listed (which I already acknowledged as being available). You did not look at any data besides that forum data, data which is not easily available in the same manner. A major point you're missing here, is that I'm only interested in tests that are statistical in nature, not all tests. This is so that probabilities of outcomes can be talked about.

But I think you have the right idea, and have shown that such statistics in general are useful to aid in understanding.

I don't think someone will start bitching "the analysis is flawed, but I'm not going to do it better myself".

No, no.

OK, I admit it: I was wrong.

 

[EHocking]

Nice!

..but what part of


The JREF has been making strides in making information on "the claims received, the correspondences exchanged between the JREF and the applicant, and subsequent protocol negotiations and test results" electronic, but not, as far as I can tell, the numerical results of past preliminary tests, which in my opinion are just as, if not more, interesting and relate more to the science.

are you not getting?

You reviewed the 143 claims listed (which I already acknowledged as being available). You did not look at any data besides that forum data, data which is not easily available in the same manner. A major point you're missing here, is that I'm only interested in tests that are statistical in nature, not all tests. This is so that probabilities of outcomes can be talked about.

But I think you have the right idea, and have shown that such statistics in general are useful to aid in understanding.

There are 12 claims where protocols were agreed. 8 of these were tested.

You initiated this thread - which of these 12 preliminary tests are statistical in nature?

Until you actually make an effort to review the subset of the data that you propose would be interesting to analyse, to get an idea of the effort involved and to determine if there *are* any tests that are of a statistical nature, then your snide and condescending criticisms of my effort come across merely as childish and petty.

(ETA: grammar)

 

[Ersby]

your snide and condescending criticisms of my effort come across merely as childish and petty.

Ah, but he used a smiley face. People who are "open minded" are allowed to be patronising and offensive if they use smiley faces.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You initiated this thread - which of these 12 preliminary tests are statistical in nature?

Until you actually make an
(snip)

I did initiate the thread, that is a fact. You believing that therefore that means I must do certain things doesn't make much sense.

, then your snide and condescending criticisms of my effort come across merely as childish and petty.

I pointed out some obvious things about it. I suggest you don't take it so personal.

 

[CFLarsen]

You never change, do you?

 

[T'ai Chi]

People who are "open minded" are allowed to be patronising and offensive if they use smiley faces.

Sweet!

BTW

At the end of my research I find a hit rate of between 28.6% and 28.9% depending on certain choices concerning which scoring methods to use on particular experiments. This doesn't have quite the headline grabbing appeal of 1 in 3 instead of 1 in 4 but the hit rate is still highly significant for 6,700 sessions.

What is your open-minded conclusion from this?

 

[Ersby]

What is your open-minded conclusion from this?

That you took one paragraph out of a larger body of text.

If you can explain to me about funnel graphs and also address the four points I make at the end of the article, then I'm here to learn.

btw, what is your open-minded conclusion?

 

[EHocking]

I did initiate the thread, that is a fact. You believing that therefore that means I must do certain things doesn't make much sense.

Incorrect - this is a discussion forum. We discuss things here. You initiated a discussion, but don't wish to participate. Says a lot more about you than me, my friend.

I pointed out some obvious things about it. I suggest you don't take it so personal.

Rule 8 prevents me from suggesting what you can do.

 

[EHocking]

Ah, but he used a smiley face. People who are "open minded" are allowed to be patronising and offensive if they use smiley faces.

A standard practice by usenet kooks, trolls and cowards. For me it merely indicates the poster is insincere in their post. They *really* want to give a person "the bird" but lack the courage.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you can explain to me about funnel graphs..

I'd hope you already know about funnel graphs if you wrote about funnel graphs.

I'd suggest instead of visually assessing a funnel plot, to do a statistical test to assess the assymetry.

What the funnel plot shows from what I can see from the published studies, is that the effect fluctuates around 0 with a lot of variation and no consistency. But the psi proponents already say as much.