Patricia Putt, Psychic

So has this application ever gone anywhere?

A number of posters have raised the possibility of one or more test-subjects collaborating with Ms. Putt. I forsee a different but related problem: After the test is over (and she fails), Ms. Putt will opine that the "random volunteers" are really JREF stooges. So accurate were her readings, she will assert, that all of the subjects were instantly able to recognize their own, and intentionally picked incorrect ones in order to protect the (apocryphal) $1M.

I think it makes more sense to put the subjects behind a screen for the readings, and then, after the readings are over, allow Ms. Putt to view the participants, and match each one with her respective reading. The participants could tuck their numbers down their shirts, and then pull them out simultaneously while holding the numbered readings.

She might still assert some kind of trickery (e.g., that the participants switched numbers subsequent to the original reading), but keeping all of the participants--as well as Ms. Putt--constantly on camera from start to finish should alleviate that hassle.
 
Last edited:
The protocol is already complete, has been agreed upon by all parties, and the volunteer tester is working on setup. I will let you know when there is a set date for the test.
 
Bump. She has just failed her test. Getting 0 out of 10.

Congratulations to Patricia for even trying. Most applicants do not get that far.
 
Yes, congratulations to Ms. Putt for stepping up to the plate.

Another notch in reality's belt.
 
I'll certainly throw in with the "congratulations on taking the test" crowd. I believe we've reached the point where we cannot suggest retaking the test after 1 year has passed though (or can applicants still reapply?).
 
Congratulations to Patricia Putt, and all involved, for coming up with a clear and workable test for the stated ability. Good job!

Robert
 
Pope130 said:
Congratulations to Patricia Putt, and all involved, for coming up with a clear and workable test for the stated ability. Good job!

Robert
Click to expand...

I congratulate Ms. Putt too. Let us hope her example is taken up by others who might be chary of submitting themselves to this sort of scrutiny. Clearly, the sky didn't fall and Ms. Putt leaves, unsuccessful but with her dignity intact. Well done everyone!


M.
 
I agree with all the congratulations. Others that haunt this forum could learn a thing or two about how to create a workable protocol from Ms. Putt.
 
"I'm not in the least disappointed that the results did not go my way. I was stunned at first but when normal thought re-entered my head I realised that I was never going to win the barriers presented in the protocol were too much even for me to surmount," Putt said in an e-mail on 8 May 2009.

Putt continued, ""With them [the volunteers] being bound from head to foot like black mummies, they themselves felt tied so were not really free to link with Spirit making my work a great deal more difficult," Putt said.
Click to expand...

In other words she had not practiced beforehand to find out if she could pass the test. If she had found out that the clothing would be an issue then that could have been changed to something more suitable. The barriers she mentioned are only ones she agreed to.

Unless she knew beforehand that there was no way she could pass a fair test.

Edit. After reading the comments, most of them say similar things.
 
Last edited:
More evidence that it really is just natural empathy/cold reading and The Forer Effect that convinces people they have this kind of paranormal power.

It astonishes me that people can be so convinced that, asked to demonstrate their power using a protocol that eliminates those factors, they readily agree without even doing a dry run beforehand to check that their "powers" really do still "work" under such conditions. And that, faced with the proof that they don't - not even one correct identification! - they still look for explanations other than the obvious one.
 
I would be very interested in know what Ms. Putt had put down on paper as her readings. Did she get specific with a person such as "You are married with 2 children. Your mother has passed away and your father lives in Chicago." Or were the readings more like "You are considered honest and intelligent. You are shy around strangers but the room just glows when you are around friends?"
I guess my question really is should the volunteers have been able to easily pick out the readings about themselves? One could get a reading and hear things such as how nice and honest of a person they am, and truthfully think so, but in reality they may be dishonest and mean.
 
Profwag said:
I would be very interested in know what Ms. Putt had put down on paper as her readings. Did she get specific with a person such as "You are married with 2 children. Your mother has passed away and your father lives in Chicago." Or were the readings more like "You are considered honest and intelligent. You are shy around strangers but the room just glows when you are around friends?"
I guess my question really is should the volunteers have been able to easily pick out the readings about themselves? One could get a reading and hear things such as how nice and honest of a person they am, and truthfully think so, but in reality they may be dishonest and mean.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do not really like these kinds of protocols.

I know the human element of the test persons is not technically "judging" - and I hope the statistics decrease the probability of a false positive enough - but I'd still prefer a more clear-cut test, e.g. like the dowsing of a cup of water under a bucket or the sending of a playing card to someone else.

Obviously, the test has to refer to the individual claim and I am willing to defer to competent personnel.
 
The applicant has said that a) she does readings over the phone, and b) she failed because the test subjects were bound. I'm quite surprised that in developing the protocol, the JREF and Ms. Putt didn't agree to do the readings via speakerphone, thus obviating the possibility of visual cues altogether.
 
I willing to bet that the JREF proposed a protocol in which the readings were done over the phone or through an opaque screen. I'm also willing to bet that Putt rejected that protocol.

Ward
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom