Paranormal detection

[Ron_Tomkins]

Let me restate the definitions for your convenience:
Staring is when you look at something intensively because you desire to do so, and that involves the conscious and the subconscious levels.
Looking at something intensively for the sake of demonstrating a test is NOT staring (acting/passive), and that involves only the conscious level, you don't have any desire, subconscious motivation or curiosty to do so,it's boring and doesn't happen in normal every day life.

Got it ?...is this still insulting to your intelligence Ron_Tomkins ?

Yes, of course it's insulting to my intelligence. Are you kidding me?

I don't care what personal, made-up concept you have of staring: The emotional status of the person staring, or the fact that they're doing it to demonstrate a test has absolutely no relevance. It is still staring.

You must be coming from another planet if you actually believe this and/or you think you can actually convince me of such bunch of baloney.

Look up staring in the dictionary
And put up or shut up

(My guess is, you won't do neither)

 

[Kariboo]

I will not be making any eye contact with anyone, I'll be pretending that I'm reading a book

Until you stop doing that and look at them, right??

I think they will be sure that you are staring if you reflexed your head away by more than 45 degrees.

??? what does that mean?

No... i don't make reflexes at people when i don't sense any staring

How do you know they weren't staring???? Seriously, you never checked that.
You just assume so

Let me restate the definitions for your convenience:
Staring is when you look at something intensively because you desire to do so, and that involves the conscious and the subconscious levels.
Looking at something intensively for the sake of demonstrating a test is NOT staring (acting/passive), and that involves only the conscious level, you don't have any desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity to do so,it's boring and doesn't happen in normal every day life.

How do you know that there is this difference, how have you tested this?

Yea..I can do what you've described,but under the following conditions:
1. Jeniffer is not testing my para-ability

What??

In my argument in page 2 I've proved that the suggested protocols are uncontrolled and allow cheating (although elegant in every other aspect).

What argument?? can you please copy it because I can't find it.
How is your experiment controlled and the other ones aren't ?

I'm sure i'll be getting pretty good media/academic attention for that only .

well, let us know how that works out for you.

So, question is: do you really think you have a paranormal ability?? Because you are acting like you don't believe so yourself at the moment and you are having fun trying to pull our collective leg

Please, have someone help you with you English because you are very difficult to understand and I don't think you can comprehend English very well.

 

[TSR]

I will not be making any eye contact with anyone, I'll be pretending that I'm reading a book

You be pretending to read a book when you turn around and look at them? Will you be pretending that they are holding the book for you?

No... i don't make reflexes at people when i don't sense any staring

... and so you have no way to determine how many people do stare at you that you don't sense.

Remember our little talk about confirmation bias?

Let me restate the definitions for your convenience:
Staring is when you look at something intensively because you desire to do so, and that involves the conscious and the subconscious levels.

... and so you state you do not have a testable claim, since you offer no way to test to be sure that both the conscious and the subconscious are engaged.

Or do you have a way to objectively test this, and are just holding out on us?

 

[Uncayimmy]

reason1,
GzuzKryzt is trying to find a way for you to get beyond an impossible test. What you are saying is that you have a definition for staring that others do not have.
So the first thing is that you have to give a precise and coherent definition of what you think staring is.

He has already defined "staring" as he sees it (pardon the pun) - more than once in my opinion. Please review the selected quotations of posts by Reason1 to see what he means:

Staring is when you look at something for a while because you desire to,
If you are looking at a beautiful girl for a while, it's staring.
If you are looking at a new car for a while, it's staring.
The telepathy happens between the unconscious mind of the staring person and mine and if we get some people to look at me from behind, it will be acting staring that will not involve any unconscious telepathy and I'm not sure that I'll be able to detect anything

the self test will not eliminate staring because acting staring (or if i may say passive staring) can easily become active staring,what if for example the staring person noticed something about my hair

I'm not saying that there are 2 types of staring.
there is one type which is when you look at something for a while because you desire to.
passive/acting staring is when you look at something for the sake of demonstrating a test and that shouldn't happen in a public place of random people that are not aware of any test being done

My argument was that getting someone to look at me intensively from behind is NOT staring.Trusted/promised starers are even less of a choice here, these will be consciously trying so hard to stare at me so i can detect them and this (again) is NOT staring. moreover the trusted starers will have a less reason to stare, they know me very well. When you keep staring at something,you will get bored at some moment and if you see this thing again you will likely not stare at it.

Staring is when you look at something intensively because you desire to do so, and that involves the conscious and the subconscious levels.
Looking at something intensively for the sake of demonstrating a test is NOT staring (acting/passive), and that involves only the conscious level, you don't have any desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity to do so,it's boring and doesn't happen in normal every day life.

well...actually this is very true, i will not accept any uncontrolled protocol that doesn't even demonstrate my claim which is "I can detect when people stare at me" not "i can detect when people look at me from behind".

Honestly, what more do you want from the guy? It seems pretty clear to me that his definition of staring begins with the dictionary definition and adds further constraints:
* The starer must have a selfish desire for staring such as personal interest, attraction, curiosity.
* The starer must not be distracted and begin thinking of something else.
* The starer must not be staring for another reason such as being instructed to do so for the purposes of a test.

I'm not saying this is testable but it does give his definition of staring.

What I have been wondering about his how he knows that the person staring at him is doing so as defined above. It seems that he does not know. He only assumes. I base this conclusion on the quotes below but invite Reason1 to clarify how he knows a person, for example, has a desire to look at him.

I don't catch them returning my gaze, i catch them avoiding my gaze, while in normal situations they shouldn't (as you stated)

I think they will be sure that you are staring if you reflexed your head away by more than 45 degrees.

well...your scenario will take much more time than mine.
in mine,it will be a reflex on my part followed instantly by reflex on part of the staring person.

I don't look when i detect when someone is staring, it's a sudden turn of my head towards that person, it's like a reflex

No... i don't make reflexes at people when i don't sense any staring

My protocol:
I'll be sitting in the chosen public place (maybe pretending that I'm reading a book)
When someone stares at me (whether from behind, above, right or left) I'll detect that and I'll suddenly look back exactly at that person.
The staring one will be caught off guard and will try to avoid being caught staring, by suddenly turning his/her head away which proves that he/she was staring at me.
It will be a sudden move from my side followed instantly by a sudden move form the staring one.
It's self-evident protocol that proves that I have scientifically unexplainable ability to detect people who stare at me.

Also this experience happened with me thousands of times before. I'll give examples later.

Basically, it seems like he doesn't make a conscious decision that someone is "staring" - it's a reflex. His "confirmation" is that the "starer" reflexively looks away. From this he is making the assumption that the "starer" actually had some sort of personal motivation for looking directly at him.

With these constraints he has invented for "staring" and his reliance upon his reflex and that of the starer, I don't believe a "trusted" person staring at him is useful in any way.

Personally, I don't think there's anything paranormal. He said early on, "I mean what are the chances that I'll identify for example 5 people who stare out of 100 random people?"

The real question is, "While in a crowd of people and suddenly turning my head in a particular direction, what are the chances that someone within my ~160 degree field of vision will react by turning their head away at the same time?"

Well, if you're a 6'8" black guy in US Army fatigues on a Japanese subway platform during rush hour, I'd say the chances are 100%. By contrast if you're a 5'8" nondescript guy in a mosh pit, the chances are slim to none. Or, as someone else mentioned, if you're wearing an ugly hat while sitting in a mall eatery, the odds are someone will react.

I do not disagree that if he turns his head suddenly and someone looks away that there's a good chance that person was staring. However, at best his experiences if related and recalled 100% accurately (a BIG if) only demonstrate that he is often stared at when he's in a crowd. There is no way he can draw any conclusions about the conscious or subconscious desires of the starer. This is his own invention.

Apparently he has never tested simulating his reflexive action to see if others react as if they are staring. That would be the only thing I would suggest for a self-test all things considered. Even then he could argue that they were staring at him, but he just hadn't detected it yet.

Reason1's conclusion that there is something paranormal here is unfounded.

 

[Foolmewunz]

He has already defined "staring" as he sees it (pardon the pun) - more than once in my opinion. Please review the selected quotations of posts by Reason1 to see what he means:

<snip>

Yeah, I realize that - I was just trying to dumb it down(do pardon that expression reason1, it's not meant to offend) and get him to state it in a single declarative sentence/paragraph so as to provide a clear starting point.

ETA: I hit something and ended the post inadvertently.

... because....

I think some of his posts are tending towards some sort of emotional involvement of the starer, and that would then lead to another six pages of defining that, and convenient excuses for not getting correct answers, e.g. "Oh, that person wasn't really interested in me, he/she as just looking my way, so I didn't feel it."

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
It's really very simple, reason1

If you can feel someone is staring at you, and say out loud: "Jeniffer (Or whoever), you are staring at the back of my neck right now" before turning around, and then hearing the person behind you say "Wow! How did you do that?" then you have paranormal powers.

Otherwise, you're just deluding yourself.

Yea..I can do what you've described,but under the following conditions:
1. Jeniffer is not testing my para-ability
2. i know she is the only person around me
3. "you are staring at the back of my neck right now" should be "you are staring at me right now"

Baloney. So your superpowers only work if the person staring at you is not testing your ability? So, somehow, your superpowers have managed to know when they're being tested and automatically become useless.

We've heard that one before many times: "I have paranormal powers.... but they only work when no one's watching me"

I have a toad that sings "Hello my darlin' hello my baby" and dances, but as soon as someone sees it, it only says "ribbit"

I believe we won't be seeing any test for the MDC

Thank you. Next!

 

[Uncayimmy]

Even though I don't believe there's anything paranormal involved, I would offer this half-baked idea as a possible starting point for a protocol. Like with my underwear, I'm throwing this against the wall to see if anything sticks.

Unconscious Desire to Stare
Volunteer "starers" are not told about the true nature of the test. They are told to select the subject with the most interesting hat (humor me here) or none at all if they don't find anyone interesting.

In addition to Reason1 there will be 9 other subjects. There will be 10 different hats. Note: I am pulling these numbers out of my rectum. For each trial the hats are randomly assigned to a subject. The subjects will all be male and roughly the same build as Reason1. They will dress similarly - say jeans and the same color t-shirt. For each trial they will sit in identical chairs with their positions randomly assigned. The subjects will have their backs to the starer.

The Stare
The volunteer is given a video camera and told to center the selected subject in the viewfinder. I'm sure others could flesh out this part to ensure that there is no discrepancy about which subject is selected (tripods, lens markings, fixed zoom).

The volunteer is given some maximum amount of time to signal that a subject is selected. This information is relayed to the volunteers. While continuing to look at the subject, the volunteer will narrate why they chose that subject. What is it about the hat or the person that is interesting? Why do they think this person chose the hat? What type of person might choose such a hat? Of course, precautions must be taken so that the subjects cannot hear this.

To me, at least, this would seem to meet the conscious and unconscious requirements of interest that Reason1 has outlined.

The Reflex
After being told that the volunteer has selected a subject, Reason1 will be free to react in a visible way. Turning around will be sufficient as would raising his hand. If Reason1 is the selected subject, it's a hit. Otherwise it's a miss. Likewise, if Reason1 does not react during the time limit (two minutes?), that would also be a miss.

Evaluation
A second video camera unseen by the volunteer will record the entire row of subjects. The volunteers camera will indicate the selected subject. Judging a reaction or lack of one should be self-evident.

Granted, this is not the most practical test in the world, but it might suffice as a good starting point.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have a toad that sings "Hello my darlin' hello my baby" and dances, but as soon as someone sees it, it only says "ribbit"

That reminds me of the old cartoon where a guy says he has a talking dog. He brings it to a talent agent.

Man: What’s on top of a house?
Dog: Roof.
Man: What’s outside a tree?
Dog: Bark.
Man: Who was the greatest baseball player?
Dog: Ruth.
“This is ridiculous. Get out of here,” the agent says.
Outside, the dog turned to the man and asked, “Maybe I should have said DiMaggio.”

In a way I find it heartening that so many of these superpowers are shy and elusive. I don't think it is always a case of someone being outwardly deceptive. I think they are being self-deceptive. The want to believe there is something, but they still have some grasp of reality. Better a fantasy than a delusion, he?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

That reminds me of the old cartoon where a guy says he has a talking dog. He brings it to a talent agent.

Man: What’s on top of a house?
Dog: Roof.
Man: What’s outside a tree?
Dog: Bark.
Man: Who was the greatest baseball player?
Dog: Ruth.
“This is ridiculous. Get out of here,” the agent says.
Outside, the dog turned to the man and asked, “Maybe I should have said DiMaggio.”

 

[Foolmewunz]

Ron,
If I remember my Looney Tunes, the toad was a frog (Michigan J. Frog, to be precise) and he sang Varsity Rag.

Not that I'm a pathetic nerd and pedantic nit-picker or anything.


ETA: Arrrgh
Not only that, but I'm an incorrect pathetic nerd and pedantic nit-picker. It was the Michigan Rag. Duuuh! As in Michigan J. Frog.
Note to self: Google first, not later.

 

[reason1]

hi UncaYimmy, thanks for objectively defending me ,i really appreciate it.

very good news:
as this topic is flooded with posts about the confirmation bias, i think i solved this problem, still thinking it through though, stay tuned and be prepared

 

[reason1]

regarding my definitions:
My definitions are the psychological/scientific ones, not the dictionary definitions, as JREF will not be testing me for English Language !

... and so you state you do not have a testable claim, since you offer no way to test to be sure that both the conscious and the subconscious are engaged.

Or do you have a way to objectively test this, and are just holding out on us?

The starers know they are staring ,hence conscious level
Also they have a desire to do so , hence subconscious level

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

regarding my definitions:
My definitions are the psychological/scientific ones, not the dictionary definitions,

Correction: Your definitions are made up. There is only one universal, raw definition of "Staring" and it can be found in any dictionary. And it doesn't involve any of the conditions you have made up.

as JREF will not be testing me for English Language !

No. JREF will be testing actual Paranormal challenges and as it has been mentioned here before, there is nothing paranormal about the protocol you have defined

And thus, JREF will not be testing you at all

The starers know they staring ,hence conscious level
Also they have a desire , hence subconscious level

Nonsense mumbo jumbo

But thanks for trying

 

[Foolmewunz]

reason1,
We're kind of sciencey and maths-y here. We may seem to be being pedantic, but definitions are necessary in any kind of test scenario.

Now you're crossing over to emotional, e.g. "they have desire". This is beginning to sound like, "I can tell when someone's got the hots for me."

 

[reason1]

Well...jokes from time to time won't hurt, and that is a good one to say that common sense is nonsense
I'm really entertained

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well...jokes from time to time won't hurt, and that is a good one to say that common sense is nonsense
I'm really entertained

I'm glad at least you're having fun, because you will not be having any Million Dollars

 

[reason1]

I'm glad at least you're having fun, because you will not be having any Million Dollars

OK...but i hope you are prepared for the PTSD,cause not only i'll win the money but also the fame and these stuff hurt

 

[Foolmewunz]

From: Sir Isaac Newton
To: Royal Academy of Scientists
Re: Unproven Theory - Gravity

Esteemed Fellow Scientists:
I have a hypothesis I would like to test. It has to do with larger bodies attracting smaller bodies. I'm sure you will agree to the following....

You will bring several objects to a public place and distribute them around the area. I will notice which ones are being effected by gravity, and I will point at them and shout "Ah Ha!".

Yours in science,
Newty

 

[Pixel42]

In my argument in page 2 I've proved that the suggested protocols are uncontrolled and allow cheating (although elegant in every other aspect).
why some people still insisting in accepting these protocols while the suggesters themselves don't disagree with my proof.

No, what happened was that you claimed that you could detect people staring at you, and protocols were suggested that would test that claim in a controlled manner that would not allow cheating (unlike your own suggested protocol).

You then shared with us your unique understanding of the word 'staring' and pointed out that the suggested protocols would not test for detection of it. Which they wouldn't, because no protocol would; your revised claim (revised to include that unique definition of 'staring') is in fact untestable. Even UncaYimmy's excellent attempt to find a workable protocol is no good because it requres you to only turn around when told to do so, and you have already explained that your turning is reflexive.

If you had stated your claim properly in the first place - making your unique definition of 'staring' clear - we could have told you straight away that it was untestable, and hence not suitable for the JREF challenge.

 

[H3LL]

reason1, from the first response you have been told that your claim as it stands is not testable.

200 posts in and you are being told that your claim is not testable in its present form.

In a testable environment your paranormal powers disappear.

You keep saying that your powers only work in an environment and a manner that has other explanations for your imagined power so cannot be reliably tested as paranormal.

Insufficient controls make your claim not testable.

Your claim for 'detecting emotional looking', or whatever you want to call it, is not testable.

Your claim cannot be tested.

A test for your claim cannot be done.

You cannot be tested for the MDC.

You cannot win $million.



Let me know what in any of these statements you don't understand.



Now is the time to say "thank you very much" and leave us and go to your lawyer as you suggested. He might have more patience than I.

I now firmly believe that your intentions here were very different than an honest attempt to prepare for a MDC.


To other members here:
IMHO, further response to reason1 only serves his other purpose which I'm confident has nothing to do with the MDC and only other, more dishonest, plans. If you chose to respond please be mindful of how your responses may be used in the future. Thank you.