Paranormal detection

[steenkh]

I imagine reason1 will say that he can't detect people who are staring at the piece of paper rather than at him. Whilst once again failing to explain how he managed to eliminate the possibility that those he claims to have caught staring in the past weren't doing likewise (e.g. staring at his clothes rather than at him).

So in the originally proposed test where he wanted to be stared at in a public mall, he could not attract staring by wearing a funny hat, for instance?

I have heard about people complaining that they are invisible, i.e. that nobody ever notices them. I wonder if they would have a malfunctioning woo stare-detector?

 

[reason1]

Please stop making this ridiculous claim. Every time you ask people to provide logical evidence that makes your protocol uncontrolled, you are given multiple answers by multiple posters - all of them highlighting serious problems with your protocol.

You then wait several posts and make the same above claim.

To name just four pieces of logical evidence that make your protocol uncontrolled (and that have been raised many times in this thread):

...Man !...I've already addressed these issues !.

1. Your protocol allows for cheating through the use of confederates;

Nope !, I will not be aware of the place or time of the day . And I won't have any mean of communication with anyone.

2. Your protocol allows for confirmation bias;

Can't happen. There will be instructed simulated reflexes of which the hits will be compared to the actual ones.

3. Your protocol involves subjective judging;

Nope!, easily counted synchronous reflexes !.

4. Your protocol involves far too many people - a number that would be impossible to keep track of.

Remember, surveillance cameras easily do it all the time. No need to zoom in at everyone, the reflexes will be obvious !. Also there could be many cameras with three levels of zooming.

I imagine reason1 will say that he can't detect people who are staring at the piece of paper rather than at him. Whilst once again failing to explain how he managed to eliminate the possibility that those he claims to have caught staring in the past weren't doing likewise (e.g. staring at his clothes rather than at him).

This is a very good point that I've addressed indirectly and also affects protocols:
As I can detect people who stare at my hair which can be considered as covering as clothes, I think I can detect people who stare at anything that I possess which is not away from me by more than 1/3 meter, as long as I'm in sight of those people and they know that I'm the owner.

 

[nathan]

...Man !...I've already addressed these issues !.

Nope !, I will not be aware of the place or time of the day . And I won't have any mean of communication with anyone.

Can't happen. There will be instructed simulated reflexes of which the hits will be compared to the actual ones.

Nope!, easily counted synchronous reflexes !.

Remember, surveillance cameras easily do it all the time. No need to zoom in at everyone, the reflexes will be obvious !. Also there could be many cameras with three levels of zooming.


This is a very good point that I've addressed indirectly and also affects protocols:
As I can detect people who stare at my hair which can be considered as covering as clothes, I think I can detect people who stare at anything that I possess which is not away from me by more than 1/3 meter, as long as I'm in sight of those people and they know that I'm the owner.

I look forward to the JREF receiving your application, as that appears to be the next step in your claim.

 

[Robert Oz]

...Man !...I've already addressed these issues !.

Nope !, I will not be aware of the place or time of the day . And I won't have any mean of communication with anyone.

Can't happen. There will be instructed simulated reflexes of which the hits will be compared to the actual ones.

Nope!, easily counted synchronous reflexes !.

Remember, surveillance cameras easily do it all the time. No need to zoom in at everyone, the reflexes will be obvious !. Also there could be many cameras with three levels of zooming.


This is a very good point that I've addressed indirectly and also affects protocols:
As I can detect people who stare at my hair which can be considered as covering as clothes, I think I can detect people who stare at anything that I possess which is not away from me by more than 1/3 meter, as long as I'm in sight of those people and they know that I'm the owner.

Good luck selling this protocol to the JREF, reason1. I'm not psychic, but I confidently predict it will go nowhere.

You have repeatedly demonstrated how very little you understand terms such as "confirmation bias", "self-evident results" and "subjective judging". You have many people here who are only to eager to help develop a suitable protocol that the JREF would most likely find acceptable, but you aren't interested in them, because they would only highlight how normal you actually are.

So your next step is to submit your application to the JREF. After the JREF rejects your protocol, you can remain stubborn and refuse to entertain other protocols suggested by the JREF and your application will then be closed.

Good luck.

 

[reason1]

Or perhaps the shooter could be a friend of *yours*. That way you can guarantee that the sniper is not cheating.

Protocols don't have to eliminate acquaintances of the person being tested, they just have to eliminate the possibility that such acquaintances do not create a successful test through non-paranormal means.

Yea, but you know your friend could cheat on you. That's the sad fact of our conscious life.

 

[eirik]

Yes. Go for it, submit your application. I think we are done here.

 

[Cuddles]

Nope !, I will not be aware of the place or time of the day . And I won't have any mean of communication with anyone.

Yes you will. The time and place will be agreed upon in advance. Of course, if that were not the case you would find it a little difficult to get tested, since you would not know where to be or when you should be there.

Can't happen.

The JREF will disagree. If you refuse to address this point, you will not be tested.

Nope!, easily counted synchronous reflexes !.

The JREF will disagree. If you refuse to address this point, you will not be tested.

Remember, surveillance cameras easily do it all the time. No need to zoom in at everyone, the reflexes will be obvious !. Also there could be many cameras with three levels of zooming.

The JREF will not agree. If you refuse to address this point, you will not be tested.

I think I can

Not good enough. If you want to be tested, you have to state what you can, not just what you think you can do without ever having tested it.


See how this works? You have to agree on a protocol with the JREF. The JREF will raise exactly the same issues as people have here, and probably others as well. If your reply to that is simply to say "Nuh-uh" and refuse to alter your protocol appropriately, or even agree that there is a potential problem, you will never be tested. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, the test protocol must be mutually agreed, and your attempt at a protocol never will be.

 

[H3LL]

I see you seem to have chosen to ignore most of the sound advice you have been given here.

So be it. You had better submit your protocol to the JREF.

Meanwhile:

How are you progressing with meeting the other requirements (media profile and an academic affidavit)?

Have Google replied yet?

Has Rupert Sheldrake got back to you?

What were the responses like from ABC, CBS, CNN, BBC, Discover, Nature, Scientific American and Science News Magazines that you claimed to be contacting?


Next post perhaps?


.

 

[reason1]

Yes you will. The time and place will be agreed upon in advance. Of course, if that were not the case you would find it a little difficult to get tested, since you would not know where to be or when you should be there.

No, the JREF will be taking me to the place that they choose.

The JREF will disagree. If you refuse to address this point, you will not be tested.

But I did address this point many times ?.

The JREF will disagree. If you refuse to address this point, you will not be tested.

Also this one many times ?.

The JREF will not agree. If you refuse to address this point, you will not be tested.

I did address all the of these issues!?. I hope you clarify what exactly you mean!.

Not good enough. If you want to be tested, you have to state what you can, not just what you think you can do without ever having tested it.

"I think" doesn't affect my original claim/protocol. I said it because of the "1/3 meter" part.

See how this works? You have to agree on a protocol with the JREF. The JREF will raise exactly the same issues as people have here, and probably others as well. If your reply to that is simply to say "Nuh-uh" and refuse to alter your protocol appropriately, or even agree that there is a potential problem, you will never be tested.

"Nuh-uh"!, I'm sorry, where did ever refuse to address any issue regarding my protocol?, please quote me.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, the test protocol must be mutually agreed, and your attempt at a protocol never will be.

I know.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Perhaps Cuddles should have said "refuse to understand objections to issues with your protocols brought up by other posters".

What you essentially are doing is dismissing all objections with "but I won't do that" or "but I won't know" or "but it will be obvious" when it has clearly been explained to you that a protocol has to rule all of that out and be self-evident.

I honestly do not believe that you understand what "self-evident" means.

But we've been going for 19 pages, with numbers of people patiently trying to explain all of this to you, in a myriad of different ways. So there's really no point in continuing. I'll add my voice to what others have said and say: go ahead and submit your application (once you meet the media / academic affidavit requirements).

I predict that you will fail to understand the need for a self-evident test with JREF just as you have with us, that you will brush off any objections to the points in your protocol, that you will not consider alternate (and far, far superior) protocols, and that ultimately, your case will be closed because of an inability between yourself and JREF to arrive at a mutually-agreed upon protocol.

(Actually, I predict that none of the news agencies will be even slightly interested in your claim, and that you will have real trouble fulfilling the media notoriety requirement, if you're ever able to at all.)

 

[Robert Oz]

Okay, here we go again.

1. Your protocol allows for cheating through the use of confederates;

Nope !, I will not be aware of the place or time of the day . And I won't have any mean of communication with anyone.

reason1, I could easily cheat using confederates with your protocol!

I can, in fact, think of several ways to do this, which shows your protocol is unsuitable. For example, I could ask a confederate to hide in a parked car a few hundred metres from my planned JREF pick-up spot. The confederate follows the JREF pick-up to the location of the test. I keep an eye out for the confederate while the test is being set up (or the confederate walks in front of me before setting up in a planned position behind me). The confederate uses a cell phone to call other confederates to reveal the location of the test. Each confederate is asked to stare from certain positions relative to you (e.g. eight metres away at four o'clock, fifteen metres away at seven o-clock, etc.).

I will say it again, YOUR PROTOCOL ALLOWS FOR CHEATING THROUGH THE USE OF CONFEDERATES!

2. Your protocol allows for confirmation bias;

Can't happen. There will be instructed simulated reflexes of which the hits will be compared to the actual ones.

Your simulated reflex nonsense does not eliminate the possibility of confirmation bias. When you turn around to catch someone staring, you may be subconsciously (and very quickly) searching the crowd for a starer, whereas when you simulate a reflex you will not be expecting to catch anyone, so you will trully focus on a random person.

If you are actually trying to catch someone staring you may be using periphery vision as you turn around and catch a starer after it has become clear he or she is staring. You may consciously avoid this when simulating reflexes.

I will say it again, YOUR PROTOCOL ALLOWS FOR CONFIRMATION BIAS!

3. Your protocol involves subjective judging;

Nope!, easily counted synchronous reflexes !.

Rubbish! Counting synchronous reflexes is subjective judging.

If it is at all possible for one person to conclude a person in the crowd was staring based on the movement of a head and for another person to conclude the movement of the head was not related to you turning around it involves subjective judging.

If a person needs to decide whether the starer was looking at you prior to you turning around or as you turn around, it involves subjective judging.

I'll say it again, YOUR PROTOCOL INVOLVES SUBJECTIVE JUDGING!

4. Your protocol involves far too many people - a number that would be impossible to keep track of.

Remember, surveillance cameras easily do it all the time. No need to zoom in at everyone, the reflexes will be obvious !. Also there could be many cameras with three levels of zooming.

Surveillance cameras don't have to watch a person eyes. Like I said, a movement of the head may be related to something other than you catching the person. The test needs to be able to show that the person was staring at you since your claim is that you can catch people staring at you.

There could be many reasons for people to turn their heads suddenly. In a crowd of possibly hundreds many of these movement could easily seem to be synchronised with your own when they are not.

What if a person you believe you have caught is in a bad spot for the cameras. For example a short person in amongst several tall people, someone whose head is behind a street lamp, etc.

I'll say it again, YOUR PROTOCOL INVOLVES FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE TO KEEP TRACK OF!


But as I said, apply for the challenge, have it rejected and begin the obligatory whinging and whining that the JREF Million Dollar Challenge is unfair.

 

[Cuddles]

No, the JREF will be taking me to the place that they choose.

No, they won't.

But I did address this point many times ?.

Also this one many times ?.

I did address all the of these issues!?. I hope you clarify what exactly you mean!.

No, you haven't. You simply keep repeating over and over again that these points don't apply to you, and then that you have addressed them. As I said, your opinion on that is irrelevant. The JREF will make those same points, and if you fail to respond to them as you have done here, you will not be tested. Simple as that.

"I think" doesn't affect my original claim/protocol. I said it because of the "1/3 meter" part.

Actually, that part is very important. It makes it clear that, despite your constant changes to what counts as "staring", you don't actually know yourself what it is you claim to detect.

"Nuh-uh"!, I'm sorry, where did ever refuse to address any issue regarding my protocol?, please quote me.

How can I quote you doing something that you haven't done? You have made 181 posts on this forum so far. Not a single one has actually addressed any of the suggestions people have made for a protocol, other than to claim that they don't apply to you and that you won't accept them.

I know.

Obviously not. If you did know, then you would not have made the rest of the post above. It really is very simple. Your protocol will not be accepted. Suggestions have been made to improve it. You refuse to accept them. Therefore you will not be tested. End of story. You are the only one that can do anything to change that. Merely repeating over and over again that you have addressed points when it is painfully obvious to anyone reading that you haven't is not going to help.

 

[H3LL]

reason1, I think it can be accepted that you are not going to listen to good advice or are incapable of understanding what has been said. There is no way to know which.

You have, what you believe to be an acceptable protocol - Yes?

We can now leave those issues and concentrate of the other aspect of your application.

• How are you progressing with meeting the other requirements (media profile and an academic affidavit)?
• Have Google replied yet?
• Has Rupert Sheldrake got back to you?
• What were the responses like from ABC, CBS, CNN, BBC, Discover, Nature, Scientific American and Science News Magazines that you claimed to be contacting?
• Which academic organisation have you contacted? (I might have missed this one).

Have you had any replies?

Even if it's just a form letter stating they will be in touch later - What has been the response?

Would you like to share with us the letter you sent to these organisations?




There has been little progress developing your protocol - we have what we started with - and it's unlikely from your responses that we will get any further.

Perhaps it's best we leave that as it is.

When the JREF challenge the validity of your protocol you at least have a useful resource here to respond sensibly and we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Let's see how far we get with the other aspects of your application.




PS - I know you do not have me on ignore as you have commented on my posts in another thread where you were showing us your expertise in a quantum physics discussion.


.

 

[reason1]

I honestly do not believe that you understand what "self-evident" means.

The reason that I said that the hits are self-evident is:
When I sense staring I make a sudden, unexpected and fast turn of my face in a certain direction at which the starers also make a sudden and fast turn of their faces away from my direction to avoid being caught staring.
My behavior is because of the detection of staring, and the starers behavior is for the avoidance of being caught staring. My behavior doesn't happen normally without a reason. And even if it does, there will be significant false positives.

 

[TSR]

The reason that I said that the hits are self-evident is:
When I sense staring I make a sudden, unexpected and fast turn of my face in a certain direction at which the starers also make a sudden and fast turn of their faces away from my direction to avoid being caught staring.
My behavior is because of the detection of staring,

.
And this is immediately apparent to anyone not you .... how?
.

and the starers behavior is for the avoidance of being caught staring.

.
Given that you have never asked them why, how do you know this?
.

My behavior doesn't happen normally

.
This one, I will grant you
.

without a reason. And even if it does, there will be significant false positives.

.
Which will be identified ... how?
.

 

[reason1]

And this is immediately apparent to anyone not you .... how?

What do you mean?. This will be my signal to the testers, that I sensed staring: a sudden and fast turn in a certain direction.

Given that you have never asked them why, how do you know this?

You know that people don't like to be caught staring. And those who are not in front of you will be comfortably staring at you knowing that you can't see them. But if you suddenly look in their direction, they will be caught off guard, and in a lame attempt to avoid being caught staring, they will suddenly look away to hide the intention, and that actually proves the opposite. There no need for questionnaire because there is no other explanation for their behavior. Moreover I do sense their staring.

This one, I will grant you

Which will be identified ... how?

False positives happen when there is no caught off guard reaction after my sudden action. And this shouldn't happen significantly.

The problem with my claim is that it happens under certain conditions. The starers must have an internal motivation which also has a certain intensity. And any suggested protocol must account for that...

 

[desertgal]

You know that people don't like to be caught staring. And those who are not in front of you will be comfortably staring at you knowing that you can't see them. But if you suddenly look in their direction, they will be caught off guard, and in a lame attempt to avoid being caught staring, they will suddenly look away to hide the intention, and that actually proves the opposite. There no need for questionnaire because there is no other explanation for their behavior. Moreover I do sense their staring.

Huh? Of course there are other explanations.

If someone in front of me makes a sudden movement, such as jerking his head around, it's going to draw my eye, and if they do it to look at me, I will look back. That could be interpreted, by the person, that I was staring at him when I actually wasn't.

Sounds like a fairly flimsy experiment that wouldn't conclusively prove anything, other than you believe you can sense someone staring at you.

 

[TSR]

What do you mean?. This will be my signal to the testers, that I sensed staring: a sudden and fast turn in a certain direction.

.
My comment was in reference to your assertion that...
.

the starers also make a sudden and fast turn of their faces away from my direction to avoid being caught staring.

.
... and was meant to question how you know the turn is to avoid being caught.
.

You know that people don't like to be caught staring.

.
I do? How have you made a determination on a topic about which I have never expressed an opinion?
.

And those who are not in front of you will be comfortably staring at you knowing that you can't see them. But if you suddenly look in their direction, they will be caught off guard, and in a lame attempt to avoid being caught staring, they will suddenly look away to hide the intention, and that actually proves the opposite. There no need for questionnaire because there is no other explanation for their behavior.

.
There certainly are. The eye is attracted to motion. This is instinct, and the "starer" is not even necessarily aware of it. Your turning your head is one such motion. After realizing that there is no need to continue to track that motion, people will tend to look away.
.

Moreover I do sense their staring.

.
Proof?
.

False positives happen when there is no caught off guard reaction after my sudden action.

.
No, a false positive occurs when you identify a "starer" who was merely glancing in your direction, attracted by your sudden move, or when that person did not have the proper intent.
.

And this shouldn't happen significantly.

.
Because ... ?
.

The problem with my claim is that it happens under certain conditions. The starers must have an internal motivation which also has a certain intensity.

.
And how, exactly, do you determine the "starer's" intent, as well as those who you do not detect staring?
.

And any suggested protocol must account for that...

.
Which your "protocol" does not do.

Nor can any protocol do so, since your conditions include a determination of a "motivation" of which you have yet to offer a clear definition.
.

 

[reason1]

Huh? Of course there are other explanations.

If someone in front of me makes a sudden movement, such as jerking his head around, it's going to draw my eye, and if they do it to look at me, I will look back. That could be interpreted, by the person, that I was staring at him when I actually wasn't.

Exactly!, thanks you. The normal behavior for someone whom you suddenly gaze at, is to gaze back at you, wondering why you are staring. In my case, the opposite happens: When I sense staring I suddenly look in a certain direction in which I find someone who is already looking at me, suddenly look away from my direction. And this shouldn't happen unless that person had the intention of staring.

... and was meant to question how you know the turn is to avoid being caught.

Do you have any other explanation for this after it happened thousands of times?.

I do? How have you made a determination on a topic about which I have never expressed an opinion?

OK, sorry. Staring at strangers is considered inappropriate, right?.

There certainly are. The eye is attracted to motion. This is instinct, and the "starer" is not even necessarily aware of it. Your turning your head is one such motion. After realizing that there is no need to continue to track that motion, people will tend to look away.

Exactly!, thank you. But, as I said before, the opposite happens with me: My sudden turn repels those people's eyes, which were already focused on me, Instead of attracting them. And all of that happens as sudden action followed by a sudden reaction.

Proof?

The proof will be passing the MDC test. I'm not here to prove my ability.

No, a false positive occurs when you identify a "starer" who was merely glancing in your direction, attracted by your sudden move, or when that person did not have the proper intent.

But this is actually what I said.

Because ... ?

Because, significant false positives versus true positives, means I failed to pass the MDC test (no paranormal ability).

And how, exactly, do you determine the "starer's" intent, as well as those who you do not detect staring?

Which your "protocol" does not do.

Nor can any protocol do so, since your conditions include a determination of a "motivation" of which you have yet to offer a clear definition.

No, I didn't say that. What I meant is: in normal every day life, no one will stare at something without having an internal motivation to do so. Motivations can be good or bad, and there is no need to determine them. It can be curiosity, hatred or whatever. It's just the condition under which my ability works.

All I want for the test is to be blind:

The blind method is a part of the scientific method, used to prevent research outcomes from being influenced by either the placebo effect or the observer bias. To blind a person involved in research (whether a researcher, subject, funder, or other person) is to prevent them from knowing certain information about the process. The terms 'blind' (adj) or 'to blind' (vt) when used in this sense are figurative extensions of the literal idea of blindfolding someone. Blinded research is an important tool in many fields of research, from medicine, to psychology and the social sciences, to forensics.

 

[Robert Oz]

The reason that I said that the hits are self-evident is:
When I sense staring I make a sudden, unexpected and fast turn of my face in a certain direction at which the starers also make a sudden and fast turn of their faces away from my direction to avoid being caught staring.
My behavior is because of the detection of staring, and the starers behavior is for the avoidance of being caught staring. My behavior doesn't happen normally without a reason. And even if it does, there will be significant false positives.

It's been two months since your previous post. Why have you not applied for the Million Dollar Challenge? You've come back after all this time to regurgitate the same mess we have repeatedly pointed out as a useless protocol.

What has the media thought of your paranormal powers? Last we heard, you were in contact with just about everyone.

If you are unwilling to change your protocol to something that is simpler and where the results would be self-evident (and Jackalgirl was correct, you don't know the meaning of the term) then submit your application and best of luck. I don't understand why you haven't done so already.