Beth Clarkson's application

[roger]

1. Obviously her plea to remain anonymous received a "no"


2. I don't understand why JREF feels that a success rate of <50% constitutes performance less than or equal to chance.

For example, suppose the test is to guess a number in the range 1...1000. I get it right 20% of the time. That is fantastically better than chance, and I should win the million. On the other hand, if the range is 1..2, and I get it right 51% of the time, I wouldn't win the challenge. The % success rate by itself tells us nothing.

It is not clear from her letter exactly what the criteria are for success and failure, but if she can perform even slightly better than a control (no psychic attempt to bend the flame), then she is doing what she claims, even if she does it only 1% of the time, if the control exhibits 'success' 0.5% of the time.

I acknowledge that probably there is more correspondance, and perhaps it makes clear why a success rate of 20-30% would be no better than chance, but based on the information in thread I would say she may have a legitimate test protocol.

edited to add link to the thread I am discussing.

 

[drkitten]

2. I don't understand why JREF feels that a success rate of <50% constitutes performance less than or equal to chance.

For example, suppose the test is to guess a number in the range 1...1000. I get it right 20% of the time. That is fantastically better than chance, and I should win the million. On the other hand, if the range is 1..2, and I get it right 51% of the time, I wouldn't win the challenge. The % success rate by itself tells us nothing.

What he said. As I read her application, she claims to be able to make a flame point at a given target. If there are three targets, and she can make a flame point at one of the three 45% of the time, that's a substantial improvement.

The real question to discuss : how many targets will she have, and how will it be determined which one the flame is "pointing" at?

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Well, that's the real trick isn't it? </Han Solo>

A flame will naturally point slightly in all different directions over time in a random fashion. Hence if you're doing nothing to a flame it will sooner or later point to a given target, either slightly or directly.

The real question is how long will it point at the target, and what angular window will be acceptable to consider it having pointed 'at' the target? Obviously pointing for a minute directly at the target would require a smaller rate of success that pointing slightly at the target for a second or two.

Kramer was probably using a lower limit on the success rate because no protocol along the lines of the above had been agreed upon.

 

[KRAMER]

So many problems...

Can someone advise me how we can even test this claim?

We're talking about a cnadle flame, folks. How do we insure the total lack of air currents at the test location? How do we insure that ONLY the paranormal force is at work?

I would think that, unless the participants were in a totally controlled location (some sort of "deadroom" at a reserach facility, for example), the flame will move, and it will move randomly. So, chance itself will offer the applicant more than adequate "hits" for even a 20-30% success rate to be realized.

That said, I don't really have enough knowledge of physics to know that, even in a "deadroom", the flame wouldn't appear to "dance" anyway. Can a flame draw oxygen without moving?
And if it does move, wouldn't the direction of said movement be rather severly subject to interpretation?

Is there really a secure way in which this claim can be scientifically verified? I would strive to find a way, but I do have some serious doubts...can't be sure without professional advice, though, which I'm hoping will be forthcoming from within the forum.

 

[KRAMER]

Clarification from Ms. Clarkson

I just received an email from this applicant clarifying some of what was confusing in her previous email, which I will now post in her claim thread. The woman does seem to know her statistics, and I certainly have little expertise (if any) in this field of study.

 

[nbenami]

This actually doesn't sound that hard:

1. A table, on the center of the table is a candle. Above the candle is a camera.

2. The candle is recorded for 5 minutes and its motion observed. Imagine the candle dead center of the screen with a line running through the middle of the screen so that the center of the line intersects the candle's wick.

3. Do a few runs, how long does the candle flame spend in each quadrant? Is there a statistically stable spread?

4. Do a few runs with the person attempting to move the candle (the person should be present when filming the candle so that the effect of their breath is accounted for) - at this time add the small object, lets say a little marble.

5. Do a few more runs. Does the spread change in any meaningful way? Does the flame tend to spend more time on the side with the marble?

Obviously, this is difficult to test and would require someone with an understanding of statistics to analyze the number of runs required and what would constitute a meaningful effect.

Frankly, this all sounds rather painful and is just the sort of thing designed to bring out confirmation bias in any rational person.

 

[Ashles]

Here's how to calculate flame currents and movements
Admittedly it means nothing to me.

Could you set up a constantly moving sheet of paper (like earthquake seismic monitors) that feeds over the flame at the right height that it will leave a soot trail.

Then (with a sheet of perspex between the claimant and the flame) have her move the flame one way for a certain period of time then the other etc. and you would have a soot readout of the results?



The more I think about it the more "What a stupid claim!".

Is it just fire she can move? Or is it the air currents? If it is the air currents then there may be better ways of measuring it. If it is just the flame then ask her to part the flame or something.

Actually I'm fed up thinking about this now, it's mildly irritating me.

Once again Kramer, I am in great respect of your patience with your work, and I start to see why Randi sometimes responds as he does.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

My suggestion would be to minimize air currents as much as possible, though as you say, you cannot remove the 'dance' of the flame completely. Even if there's no wind in the room, the molecules in the air are moving around constantly, so the flame will still be moving.

Of course, you can't put the flame in a vacuum (!), I suppose you could place it into a vessel in which the temperature was drastically reduced. This would help minimize the peturbations from the air. The source of the flame will also play a role - a gas flame will be less constant than a candle flame, for example.

I'd also suggest placing a camera directly above the flame and filming the motion. It's going to come down to a statistical assessment involving the direction the flame points, it's amplitude, and the time it points for. Not easy to do, but you need an accurate photographic record of the behaviour.

 

[apoger]

Measuring minute differences in a flame is going to be a difficulty.

She claims to be telekinetic.
We must assume that she feels that the power is very weak, hence the flame pushing.

No problem. There are plenty of instruments that can measure very small amounts of force. Have her try to register a push on such a device.

 

[KRAMER]

Protocol

What we really need is a test protocol that leaves nothing open to interpretation.

I really don't know if such a protocol is possible with this claim.
I hope that something can be worked out.

I am bewildered by this intelligent woman's inability to see that the flame is behaving no differently when she attempts to influence it as it does when she is not doing anything at all.

Much like the music of THE SHAGGS, it brings my mind to a complete and utter halt.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm struck by what she wrote about her marriage and her fears for her career.

Her "ability", however "subtle" is giving her something (possibilities: self-esteem, sense of importance or specialness or competence, reassurance that there is a higher power, a glimpse at leaving an important legacy, ???) that she needs so badly she is willing to risk two central domains of her life. Perhaps it speaks to her emptiness despite the marriage and seemingly successful career. Not sure. But there is something sad, on the human level, about this application.

 

[roger]

Re: Protocol

I am bewildered by this intelligent woman's inability to see that the flame is behaving no differently when she attempts to influence it as it does when she is not doing anything at all.

Well, it may be behaving differently. Candle flames are very sensitive to air currents, and we are very good at learning unconsiously through biofeedback. She may have learned how to affect the flame through normal means. I guess we need to see what her test apparatus is.

 

[nbenami]

Yep, for example, breathing out through her nose right as she is about to try to make the flame leap.

I remember this girl who was convinced should could use her mind to move a pin suspended by a string. Catch was, she always held the string while doing this. She was "98%" certain she could still do it if she was not holding the string. .

 

[drkitten]

Re: Clarification from Ms. Clarkson

I just received an email from this applicant clarifying some of what was confusing in her previous email, which I will now post in her claim thread. The woman does seem to know her statistics, and I certainly have little expertise (if any) in this field of study.

If I can help, I will (PM me if necessary). From her letter, it
does sound like she knows her stats, and although I didn't go
through the numbers to confirm her arithmetic, they are of the
right approximate value.

The big question : how does she determine which target something is pointing at? This is where the blinding would have to come in.

Can she do it if she's on the other side of a piece of glass from the
flame? If you put her on one side of a window and then put the
candle inside a hurricane lamp, that will do a pretty good job of
protecting it from air currents.....

 

[IXP]

From the original post by KRAMER about this aplicant, here is what she claims to do:

"The applicants will demonstrate control of a candle flame by directing the heat of flame towards a specified target. The direction of the flame will be ascertained by placing a ring of wax centered above the flame and noting where the first significant melting occurs (i.e. a drop large enough to fall). The angle between the first melt and the target will be measured."

I believe this is an easily testable claim.

I would propose the following experimental appartus:

The candle would stand on a disk divided into equally sized radial slices like a pie. Each slice is uniquely numbered. The ring of wax would be suspended over the candle. The candle would be lit. When the first drop of wax from the ring above falls, note the slice into which it falls. The apparatus would have to be calibrated to make sure the drops fall with near equal probability into the slices when the claimant is not influencing the result.

The claimant would have to be physically isolated from the candle to make sure she could not influence the flame by breath, hand motion etc. Two rooms connected by a window should work if she needs to see the flame to influence it. She would then be given a sequence of randomly selected targets by number. If the drips fall into the targetted slices with statisical signifcance, she passes.

 

[roger]

Re: Re: Clarification from Ms. Clarkson

If I can help, I will (PM me if necessary). From her letter, it
does sound like she knows her stats, and although I didn't go
through the numbers to confirm her arithmetic, they are of the
right approximate value.

Well, I do question her stats. In her latest letter, she states "Random chance will lead to a positive result 50% of the time and a negative result 50% of time". That just isn't true.

Consider the experiment of throwing a basketball from center court. A random throw is going to be successful rather less than 50% of the time.

 

[Ashles]

Incidentally, I don't feel that my partners are capable of doing this. We are working together to provide moral and emotional support to one another, but I am the only scientifically trained person in the group

I wonder what the role of these 'partners' actually is? My suspicions are that she has fallen in with a couple of believers who combine 'reading' with moral supprt and end up dropping the IQ levels of everyone they get their claws into.
A lot of encouragement from them of the "You have a gift" sort and Beth will be getting positive feedback no matter what results she is achieving at the moment.

I would be very interested in knowing when she met these partners, how her ability has developed (or how she perceives it has developed) since then and what the state of her marriage has been before, during and after.

As Truthseeker mentions above this burgeoning ability could be a way of making herself feel special to raise her self-esteem, or distracting her from other issues such as relationship problems.

Maybe she suspects that she isn't geting good advice from her 'partners' and wants to be done with this one way or the other so she can face up to the real problems. I think these 'partners' are actually causing more problems with their involvement.

This puzzles me:

I understand. I mailed in the application form for myself last Saturday. You should receive it sometime this week. My partners may mail in similar claims in the near future, but I've told them it's not a rush. We'll need time to work out the details of the testing protocol first.

Why would the partners mail in seperate applications?
Is she not in contact with them to inform them she has already done this?
How much are they pushing her belief in her abilities?
What, in a nutshell, is any of this to do with them?
They sound like readers who Beth contacted in desperation about personal issues who have now encouraged her to think of every coincidence and experience in her life has special meaning (i.e. when she says "Because, after decades of ignoring certain personal experiences, I have come to a point in my life where I feel compelled to find out for certain") and they are encouraging her to believe she has a gift. Readers often do things like this because they are untrained in actually being able to sort out emotional problems so they invent happy abilities that you never knew you had to distract you.

I realise I am guessing a lot here, but something about this whole situation seems a little desperate, and a way of avoiding more pressing and important issues.

 

[KRAMER]

Ms. Clarkson's "partners"

At this point, I have only corresponded with Ms. Clarkson.
I have had no contact with her "partners". I will address this when I am contacted, should that occur. I have not requested any data on these "partners' or their involvement in the procedure, as Ms. Clarkson's protocol proposal does not even mention them. They were referred to in her claim letter, but have not been mentioned since.

So, until they materialize, they don't really exist.

I've half-assumed that they've dropped out, or are only feigning interest in the Challenge for Ms. Clarkson's sake. Some friends.

And I agree completely; there IS something terribly sad about this applicatant and everything surrounding this claim.

 

[IXP]

Re: Ms. Clarkson's "partners"

At this point, I have only corresponded with Ms. Clarkson.
I have had no contact with her "partners". I will address this when I am contacted, should that occur. I have not requested any data on these "partners' or their involvement in the procedure, as Ms. Clarkson's protocol proposal does not even mention them. They were referred to in her claim letter, but have not been mentioned since.

So, until they materialize, they don't really exist.

I've half-assumed that they've dropped out, or are only feigning interest in the Challenge for Ms. Clarkson's sake. Some friends.

And I agree completely; there IS something terribly sad about this applicatant and everything surrounding this claim.

Then offer her a test. If she is being deceived by her partners, she could use JREF's help in proving them wrong and removing their influence from her life.

 

[jackmott]

Re: Ms. Clarkson's "partners"

Kramer,

If the candle sat on top of a disc divided into sections (like a pie) say, 4 of them. Give it a black background with bright white lines dividing the section.

have a camera directly above the candle with it centered on the middle of the candle.

I could write software that would interpret the video and spit out the % of flame area in each quandrant for each frame of video, and spit out the sum.

it could also report the sum total of flame area for each frame of video in the sum.

Let me know if you this would be helpful to you. I am best reached at jack.mott@gmail.com


as for making sure she has no effect on the air currents herself. Encase the flame in a plexiglass container with a "intake" and "exauhst" that exit in a separate room.

In lieu of a software setup that does the judging, I would have a set of people do the judging, and of course keep them ignorant of which video frames are influenced by Ms Clarkson and which are not.

At this point, I have only corresponded with Ms. Clarkson.
I have had no contact with her "partners". I will address this when I am contacted, should that occur. I have not requested any data on these "partners' or their involvement in the procedure, as Ms. Clarkson's protocol proposal does not even mention them. They were referred to in her claim letter, but have not been mentioned since.

So, until they materialize, they don't really exist.

I've half-assumed that they've dropped out, or are only feigning interest in the Challenge for Ms. Clarkson's sake. Some friends.

And I agree completely; there IS something terribly sad about this applicatant and everything surrounding this claim.