Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
So what power or ability are you claiming you can do, again?
Last edited:
What standards can one expect as an applicant?
- Thread starter saizai
- Start date
*shrug* Either way is hedging one's bets really, just in different directions. I have no particular reason to believe it to work one way or the other, so absent that it's essentially a random choice.
Read the document, where I clearly said what I am and am not claiming. I am not claiming any particular "power or ability" of my own. The challenge does not require that I do, only that I demonstrate something paranormal.
Folks, I don't think this thread is about Saizai's claim, as such, or the protocol. That's up to the JREF to determine. Not to say it can't be discussed here, but Saizai is referring to the nature of the exchanges between himself, Jeff and Randi (and earlier Kramer).
This very debate topic comes up routinely. As far as the forum itself goes, you can't NOT get hotheads, individuals with little tact or decent communication skills, and hence there'll always be the attacks and abuse from certain members. This is to be expected.
But how should representatives of the JREF speak to applicants? It was admitted that Kramer often responded in less than polite ways, and it's no secret that Randi's responses are often quite abrupt and somewhat rude. I've never seen evidence that Jeff has responded in such a manner, but then I'm happy to admit that as I count Jeff as something of a mate, I'd be biased in that regard.
We can always use the rationale that working with people who are potentially mentally affected, or have unconventional views (often indicating certain personality quirks and delusional perceptions) can make one short-tempered and quick to snap. However, this doesn't wash with me. There are plenty of professions which must consistently endure the delusional, the arrogant, the naive and the mentally affected. Try working with adolescents for a living.
Suggestions in the past have been to use form responses when discussion reaches a certain impasse. Whatever the way, I feel that the only way to act is to take the higher moral ground and always be courteous while being clear and straight forward.
Athon
This very debate topic comes up routinely. As far as the forum itself goes, you can't NOT get hotheads, individuals with little tact or decent communication skills, and hence there'll always be the attacks and abuse from certain members. This is to be expected.
But how should representatives of the JREF speak to applicants? It was admitted that Kramer often responded in less than polite ways, and it's no secret that Randi's responses are often quite abrupt and somewhat rude. I've never seen evidence that Jeff has responded in such a manner, but then I'm happy to admit that as I count Jeff as something of a mate, I'd be biased in that regard.
We can always use the rationale that working with people who are potentially mentally affected, or have unconventional views (often indicating certain personality quirks and delusional perceptions) can make one short-tempered and quick to snap. However, this doesn't wash with me. There are plenty of professions which must consistently endure the delusional, the arrogant, the naive and the mentally affected. Try working with adolescents for a living.
Suggestions in the past have been to use form responses when discussion reaches a certain impasse. Whatever the way, I feel that the only way to act is to take the higher moral ground and always be courteous while being clear and straight forward.
Athon
Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
I love it when people presume to lecture me on what the Challenge is and isn't about. Perhaps you think my title is unearned.
However, since you and Jeff have obviously had much discussion about it, I will leave it in Jeff's capable hands.
So why both with the learning stage if you don't think it will work?
Why not apply for the challenge with the immediate claim that prayer works best on people who's name begins with an F and earn more than $70k a year?
So Saizai, what you want is for the JREF to use its limited resources to help you with a long term health study where you make no paranormal claim? You’re 
just testing for the possibility of one?
I do see that as a nightmare for a small group like the JREF, particularly in light of the recent changes in the challenge that should have the challenge focusing more on the frauds that are always in the media fleecing the public. It seems to me that you should be looking for funding from other sources and if your study gets a positive outcome then apply under the new rules. That’s if you have time with all the media attention you’ll be getting!
Anyhow, whatever they decide to do, good luck! It should be interesting!
just testing for the possibility of one? I do see that as a nightmare for a small group like the JREF, particularly in light of the recent changes in the challenge that should have the challenge focusing more on the frauds that are always in the media fleecing the public. It seems to me that you should be looking for funding from other sources and if your study gets a positive outcome then apply under the new rules. That’s if you have time with all the media attention you’ll be getting!
Anyhow, whatever they decide to do, good luck! It should be interesting!
Athon has good insight, as always.
I can only speak for myself when it comes to communicating with applicants. My goal is to be professional, but terse. I'm not interested in getting into a long discussion, because it just muddies the waters. I do NOT want to be friendly with applicants when we're discussing the challenge.
At times, this comes across as being rude, but I'm not worried about that at all. We're the ones putting up the million dollars. We're the ones with all the risk.
However, getting to the applications in a timely fashion HAS been a problem. I'm severely over worked, and we currently have nearly 100 open challenge applications. But I will work through them.
I can only speak for myself when it comes to communicating with applicants. My goal is to be professional, but terse. I'm not interested in getting into a long discussion, because it just muddies the waters. I do NOT want to be friendly with applicants when we're discussing the challenge.
At times, this comes across as being rude, but I'm not worried about that at all. We're the ones putting up the million dollars. We're the ones with all the risk.
However, getting to the applications in a timely fashion HAS been a problem. I'm severely over worked, and we currently have nearly 100 open challenge applications. But I will work through them.
Folks, I don't think this thread is about Saizai's claim, as such, or the protocol. That's up to the JREF to determine. Not to say it can't be discussed here, but Saizai is referring to the nature of the exchanges between himself, Jeff and Randi (and earlier Kramer).
This very debate topic comes up routinely. As far as the forum itself goes, you can't NOT get hotheads, individuals with little tact or decent communication skills, and hence there'll always be the attacks and abuse from certain members. This is to be expected.
But how should representatives of the JREF speak to applicants? It was admitted that Kramer often responded in less than polite ways, and it's no secret that Randi's responses are often quite abrupt and somewhat rude. I've never seen evidence that Jeff has responded in such a manner, but then I'm happy to admit that as I count Jeff as something of a mate, I'd be biased in that regard.
We can always use the rationale that working with people who are potentially mentally affected, or have unconventional views (often indicating certain personality quirks and delusional perceptions) can make one short-tempered and quick to snap. However, this doesn't wash with me. There are plenty of professions which must consistently endure the delusional, the arrogant, the naive and the mentally affected. Try working with adolescents for a living.
Suggestions in the past have been to use form responses when discussion reaches a certain impasse. Whatever the way, I feel that the only way to act is to take the higher moral ground and always be courteous while being clear and straight forward.
Athon
saizai, I've read your posts and looked at some of your YouTube output. You appear to use tons of verbiage as a means of beating your viewers/listeners/readers into submission.
Wrong way to proceed, Amigo.
At the present time, you appear a prize crackpot to this reader/viewer. Dang, and you appear to have had a humor bypass.
M.
Wrong way to proceed, Amigo.
At the present time, you appear a prize crackpot to this reader/viewer. Dang, and you appear to have had a humor bypass.
M.
Is, by chance, English not your first language? I ask because if this is your only case, siting, example existing of a threat, you do not follow the structure of English well. The Atheist is not stating that he is going to commit violence against you. Quite clearly he is stating that if the things you had posted HAD BEEN ADDRESSED TO HIM - WHICH THEY WERE NOT he would be more than rude, he would be violent. That is not a threat since the materials were not addressed to, at the Atheist. That would also be why action would not be taken against that response to your wild challenges and meanderings. It would help your case if you would take the effort to learn the structures of English and be sure of your understanding/interpretation before making allegations against others.
latent aaaack
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 926
What would seem to help then is if an estimated wait time were given to applicants. I've been waiting a month and don't know if mine has been rejected or if it's just taking a long time.
That’s a good suggestion! Although as near as I can tell, there’s only one person in charge of applications, so the estimate may be off at times if there’s an unusually large amount in the inbox or there’s a hurricane.
Also, I wonder if there’s a deluge of applications at the moment because of the rules change. Based on the ones I’ve read, that pile could be very tough to plow though (some are incoherent, make no claim, are dangerous, etc).
latent aaaack, I did a quick search to see what your application is about and came up dry. Will you point me in the right direction or start a new thread on it, please? I’d hate to derail this thread any more. I think I already screwed it up by talking about Saizai’s application/protocol and not the topic of “What standards can one expect as an applicant”. (Sorry about that.)
That’s a good suggestion! Although as near as I can tell, there’s only one person in charge of applications, so the estimate may be off at times if there’s an unusually large amount in the inbox or there’s a hurricane.
Also, I wonder if there’s a deluge of applications at the moment because of the rules change. Based on the ones I’ve read, that pile could be very tough to plow though (some are incoherent, make no claim, are dangerous, etc). ...snip...
Perhaps Jeff should get a standard email and letter together just stating "There is a back log of applications at the moment, doing out best to get through them, but do expect a long wait"
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Well, since this post (and thread) are about the treatment you have received from JREF (and vice versa), I'll go ahead and bow out since I can't see the actual correspondence. I've already said my piece about what standards I think applicants should expect, anyhow. Good luck!
I was not lecturing you, just responding to the question you asked and the probable followup behind it. If I misgauged your reason for asking - and therefore my preemption of the followup was not relevant - then you could always just respond with what your actual followup question was going to be.
Huh? I don't understand what you're referring to by "both with the learning stage".
Because that would be stupid and statistically useless. It would have if anything worse chance of getting a positive result (within the necessary constraints of statistical significance) because of a dearth of sample size.
So Saizai, what you want is for the JREF to use its limited resources to help you with a long term health study where you make no paranormal claim? You’re
The JREF challenges all comers to try to prove something paranormal. That is what I am doing. Just because I am doing so in a somewhat unusual way, and am not claiming e.g. that I can walk on water and hear Jesus talk to me directly or read people's minds from their diaries, does not mean I don't qualify. Just that I'm not quite as flashy.
Sorry to disappoint if what you want is a show.I indeed do not fall under the recent revision of the challenge, as I have nothing to do with fleecing the public or attempting any kind of fraud... and indeed would rather not be particularly famous as a result of this, as it is a very minor aspect of what I do and am interested in, and I would not like to be pigeonholed as 'the prayer guy'.I do see that as a nightmare for a small group like the JREF, particularly in light of the recent changes in the challenge that should have the challenge focusing more on the frauds that are always in the media fleecing the public. It seems to me that you should be looking for funding from other sources and if your study gets a positive outcome then apply under the new rules. That’s if you have time with all the media attention you’ll be getting!
Thanks.Anyhow, whatever they decide to do, good luck! It should be interesting!
I can understand not wanting to get into long discussions of the sort some applicants have shown a ... tendency to do. I have not done so; in fact my app clearly states that I have no desire to get into any discussion of theory, philosophy, etc; only to discuss the practicalities of negotiating a protocol.
However, I would prefer to do that in a polite manner; like I would do so with my opposition in a good debate or a courtroom.
As I said earlier, adversarial does not mean impolite. It seems to me to be an unfortunate thing that the distinction seems to have been lost in contemporary society.
These are different things, no? You seem to be saying that because you're putting up the challenge, it's okay for you to be rude (but not for me). That seems simply impolite to me, as well as unnecessary and against the interests of your challenge, if you want to encourage participation in it rather than it being just for show.
What I would appreciate, as I have mentioned by email previously, is some ETA. I think the second one you gave was February, and I have not yet heard a revised estimate.
I don't think this is overly demanding of me to ask...
If you want to discuss the details of my protocol, you are welcome to do so in its thread. It just got bumped so should be easy to find.
Last edited:
I mean to say bother, sorry.
A two tailed test means that you're 'learning' the data distribution, and then betting both for and against this estimate.
It doesn't make sense as a strategy, and if you intend to distrust the learning mechanism in this way there is no point bothering with it.
We should probably take this over to the other thread.
Jekyll - In fact, I did decide not to bother with the three-stage process.
Two tailed test vs one tailed... there's no reason to pick one over the other unless you have a belief that one outcome is more likely than the other; if you do, then it's a good idea to pick one-tailed 'cause it'll be twice the sensitivity. *shrug* It's largely arbitrary, and honestly I haven't yet decided which I would prefer.
Two tailed test vs one tailed... there's no reason to pick one over the other unless you have a belief that one outcome is more likely than the other; if you do, then it's a good idea to pick one-tailed 'cause it'll be twice the sensitivity. *shrug* It's largely arbitrary, and honestly I haven't yet decided which I would prefer.
Klaymore
Critical Thinker
Last edited:
Klaymore
Critical Thinker
Perhaps you still misunderstand what the challenge is about. It is about testing people who claim to have paranormal abilities. It is not about conducting lengthy research in areas that have already had better trials. The JREF wants tests, as is stated in the FAQs, where the results are obvious. Either you can levitate or you can't. Either you can find water or you can't. Randomised trials that take years and end with a dubious statistical analysis that, even if positive, will not prove anything are not what the JREF wants and can be very well described as a nightmare.
A dearth of sample size? This coming from someone who wanted to run a trial with 25 people? And who is still looking at 50 as a reasonable size? As has been explained before, for a good test you need thousands of people, especially when the effect here will be very small if it exists at all. The fact that you can't get that many doesn't make it acceptable to to a test with less people, it just means you are not capable of running the test at all. This is especially relevant since you keep criticising past tests of prayer even though they had more participants and better protocols. It is incredibly hypocritical of you to do so when you are proposing a study that has very little chance of being accepeted for a paranormal challenge, let alone a peer-reviewed journal.
The JREF challenges all comers to try to prove something paranormal. That is what I am doing. Just because I am doing so in a somewhat unusual way, and am not claiming e.g. that I can walk on water and hear Jesus talk to me directly or read people's minds from their diaries, does not mean I don't qualify. Just that I'm not quite as flashy.
No, this is not what you are doing. One trial does not prove anything. Even if you get a positive result you will not have proved anything. All science requires many repeated studies by different people before it can be accepted. Even a very well run, powerful trial cannot prove anything on its own. A badly run trial with orders of magnitude too few particpants and statistical analysis specifically desgined to cherry pick positive outcomes would probably not even be considered worth repeating, let alone viewed as proof of anything.
Even normal JREF challenges are not proof, but they come close enough that Randi is willing to bet a million on them. As I said above, if you claim you can levitate then it is fairly obvious if you can. It might not be conclusive proof and would still require verification and further study, but it is good enough for the challenge. I strongly suspect that your application was accepted with the hope that it could be worked out as an actual challenge. As it stands yuor protocol will never be accepted because even if you manage to make a decent trial, you will never have any proof and will therefore never be elligible for the million.
It is you that should be disappointed. The challenge is a show. If you want to carry out academic research you are in the wrong place. The challenge is simply a PR tool to help put across the JREF's message that all paranormal claims are either fraudulent or based on dellusion or misinformation. That is all. If you don't want to be part of a show, you should go elsewhere.