Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

[Uncayimmy]

That's true, and I'm not a salesman. My personal opinion is that you reduce the chance for a cold read by decreasing the amount of time the claimant has to make comparative evaluations. If that means increasing the occurrences for which the claimant can make accusations about cheating so be it. I say it's easier to deal with those claims than explaining why they were able to make a cold read and get a "hit".

What you eliminate in your scenario is what I call the Fidget Factor. According to the IIG the target didn't actually know he was a target. Maybe he found out. I figure that at any given time she could have noticed fidgeting in about half the people. Of course, one could also argue that the Fidget Factor might be intensified when the person is the only person on stage rather than just being one of six.

I think you are dismissing the ramifications of protocol violations too lightly. They can put the IIG at financial risk. Remember, this is a contract. If they don't uphold their end of the contract, they may have to refund the money Anita gave them and possibly pay some damages. If she got really lucky and they also screwed up, the entire $50K could be at risk.

It's not like a "mea culpa" relieves them of liability.

With regards to this recent success, I think the IIG should be considering what kind of preliminary odds they need to give in order to encourage more challenge participants. Perhaps halving the prize to $25K and increasing the odds to 200 to 1 may be in order.

I'd never go that low. We clearly had a delusional claimant in this case, but you have to be very wary of, well, let's just say "people who may have developed a real skill that they are trying to pass off as paranormal to make some cash."

You also have the very real risk of collusion. The lower the odds requirement, the easier it is to pull off. It's not just the financial issue, since that requires a second act of collusion. Just passing the preliminary would be viewed as a major accomplishment for the woos and make a bunch of fence sitters take notice. Plenty of True Believers have faked things because that's the only way to get the attention of the unenlightened. By that I mean some followers in cults have excused shenanigans because it was for the greater good, which in the case of the IIG would be trying to get the government to fund "real" paranormal research.

And, of course, why risk somebody exploiting a minor information leak and getting lucky? Talk about giving ammunition to the other side!

 

[Furcifer]

I think you are dismissing the ramifications of protocol violations too lightly. They can put the IIG at financial risk.

Perhaps. I'm inclined to believe you're saying this is because of the Connie Sumners incident? I don't know the full details here, and I'm new to the whole "challenge" aspect. There's certainly more research to do on my part.

You also have the very real risk of collusion. The lower the odds requirement, the easier it is to pull off.

Again, true. But honestly, hasn't the whole challenge arena become stagnant? The MDC is great, but I think it may have stifled progress. It's presence is looming. As insane as these paranormal claims are, the claimants aren't. They know better than to tangle with Randi.

That's the whole platform under which bodies like the IIG operate. They serve as an intermediary to entice claimants to come forward. It's a way to work your way up the ranks so to speak.

Even then the contestants are few and far apart. At least I think so. How many have made a claim and stood their grounds under scrutiny? Not enough in my opinion.

Granted, it's not my money on the line. It's not my reputation either. I'm just an observer here and I fully appreciate that. I'm just saying that the big fat carrot has been pulled so far away these jackasses aren't reaching for it any more.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Perhaps. I'm inclined to believe you're saying this is because of the Connie Sumners incident? I don't know the full details here, and I'm new to the whole "challenge" aspect. There's certainly more research to do on my part.

Since it's a contract, the liability is there. Honestly, if this were some local skeptics group testing some crackpot just to prove a point, it wouldn't concern me in the least. But we're talking about somebody traveling across the country and sinking $1,000 into her own public humiliation. It's a real risk.

Granted, it's not my money on the line. It's not my reputation either. I'm just an observer here and I fully appreciate that. I'm just saying that the big fat carrot has been pulled so far away these jackasses aren't reaching for it any more.

That's a sign of progress. Or at least I hope it is. We can always help by baiting these people.

 

[ynot]

That's not the main reason in my book. The main reason is the one you're not addressing, which is that if there is a problem in a trial that does not affect the other trials, then it's much more difficult for the claimant to demand a retest. In the worst case scenario she fails the first trial and upon reviewing the video she finds a protocol violation that worked against her. She then demands a retest or a refund.

Please address that concern.

If I understand you correctly you are saying if she completes three tests and there was a protocol violation in one test, as long as she failed in one of the other tests, you could say “But you wouldn’t have won overall anyway because you failed in another test that wasn’t effected by a protocol violation. So no retest”. Is this correct?

 

[Uncayimmy]

If I understand you correctly you are saying if she completes three tests and there was a protocol violation in one test, as long as she failed in one of the other tests, you could say “But you wouldn’t have won overall anyway because you failed in another test that wasn’t effected by a protocol violation. So no retest”. Is this correct?

Essentially, yes. But the more important way of looking at it is if she fails and you stop the test, and it turns out there was a protocol violation that invalidated the failed test, there is *nothing* you can say except, "Okay, we'll give you a retest at our expense or refund you the money."

 

[ynot]

Essentially, yes. But the more important way of looking at it is if she fails and you stop the test, and it turns out there was a protocol violation that invalidated the failed test, there is *nothing* you can say except, "Okay, we'll give you a retest at our expense or refund you the money."

So if you bought a ticket in a lottery that didn’t win then you found out the prize never existed you couldn’t ask for your money back because you didn’t win the prize anyway. Wanna buy a ticket in my lottery?

The three tests are effectively subtests of a single overall test that has to be completed with 100% success. Obviously this means each of the subtests have to be completed in turn with 100% success. A failure of any subtest is a failure of the overall test. Any protocol violation that may cause a failure of any subtest would obviously also cause a failure of the overall test.

Any protocol violation in any subtest is a protocol violation in the overall test and would be grounds for a retest as it would mean she didn’t have a fair chance of successfully completing the overall test. Regardless of how she did in subtests the overall test has to have given her a fair chance of winning. Even if she had failed in all three tests any protocol violation in any test would be grounds for a retest as the overall test wasn‘t fair. It doesn’t matter if the overall test is one part or split into 3 or a hundred parts, if it contains a protocol violation there are grounds for a retest.

Please explain this statement - “if there is a problem in a trial that does not affect the other trials, then it's much more difficult for the claimant to demand a retest”.

Why does a problem (protocol violation) in one test but not the others make it “much more difficult for the claimant to demand a retest”?

Is a protocol violation any less a protocol violation because it only happened in one test?

Does a protocol violation in one test that causes an overall failure cause an overall failure any less than if the protocol violation had been in all tests?

 

[Uncayimmy]

So if you bought a ticket in a lottery that didn’t win then you found out the prize never existed you couldn’t ask for your money back because you didn’t win the prize anyway. Wanna buy a ticket in my lottery?

That's called fraud, and there are other factors that don't match up. We don't need analogies to lotteries to analyze this.

It's basic contract law because, well, the protocol is a contract. Both sides must execute their side of the agreement. If they don't, it's called a breach. The remedy for a breach depends almost entirely upon how "material" the breach was. Essentially, the judge asks, "In what way did a breach by Party A prevent Party B from properly executing the contract."

In this case Party B must pass all three trials to fully execute the contract. Technically speaking, when Party B fails a trial, that's a breach, so she doesn't continue forward to the next set of trials. If Party A breaches the contract and invalidates the first trial *and* prevents Party B from attempting the other two tests, it's a material breach. Party B stood no chance of executing the contract.

If, however, Party B is permitted to take the other two tests and fails at least one, then what remedy is required? Party B still failed to execute her side of the contract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract

 

[GeeMack]

So if you bought a ticket in a lottery that didn’t win then you found out the prize never existed you couldn’t ask for your money back because you didn’t win the prize anyway. Wanna buy a ticket in my lottery?

You're grasping at some kind of straws here, but it's hard to tell exactly what sort because your comparison makes no sense in the real world where the rest of us live.

The three tests are effectively subtests of a single overall test that has to be completed with 100% success. Obviously this means each of the subtests have to be completed in turn with 100% success. A failure of any subtest is a failure of the overall test. Any protocol violation that may cause a failure of any subtest would obviously also cause a failure of the overall test.

Any protocol violation in any subtest is a protocol violation in the overall test and would be grounds for a retest as it would mean she didn’t have a fair chance of successfully completing the overall test. Regardless of how she did in subtests the overall test has to have given her a fair chance of winning. Even if she had failed in all three tests any protocol violation in any test would be grounds for a retest as the overall test wasn‘t fair. It doesn’t matter if the overall test is one part or split into 3 or a hundred parts, if it contains a protocol violation there are grounds for a retest.

The protocol is designed so the claimant has way more than a fair chance of succeeding if she can actually do what she claims. (Actually if any of these claimants could perform their paranormal feats for real, the IIG and the JREF would just set up a time, date, and protocol, do the demonstration, and hand over the dough.) Nobody is trying to screw the claimant out of anything. The claimant, Anita in the case of the IIG demonstration under discussion, was trying to screw the IIG out of their $50,000.

You see, the IIG doesn't come into this test with any notion whatsoever that the claimant actually has x-ray vision. They don't take the position that it's their job to prevent her from passing. They only work to protect against loss in the case of the claimant cheating or succeeding by some means other than their declared supernatural powers. (And as UncaYimmy already explained, she could use some other magical powers to succeed, and in most cases it would be difficult to know that. She could win by cheating in a variety of ways and still take home the 50 grand.)

Please explain this statement - “if there is a problem in a trial that does not affect the other trials, then it's much more difficult for the claimant to demand a retest”.

Why does a problem (protocol violation) in one test but not the others make it “much more difficult for the claimant to demand a retest”?

Is a protocol violation any less a protocol violation because it only happened in one test?

Does a protocol violation in one test that causes an overall failure cause an overall failure any less than if the protocol violation had been in all tests?

The claimant has the burden of proof, exclusively. When you understand that the IIG is a neutral party, not an adversary, you'll understand that your questions above makes no sense in the context of reality (ETA: or at least the answers will be self evident).

 

[AvalonXQ]

That's called fraud, and there are other factors that don't match up. We don't need analogies to lotteries to analyze this.

It's basic contract law because, well, the protocol is a contract. Both sides must execute their side of the agreement. If they don't, it's called a breach. The remedy for a breach depends almost entirely upon how "material" the breach was. Essentially, the judge asks, "In what way did a breach by Party A prevent Party B from properly executing the contract."

In this case Party B must pass all three trials to fully execute the contract. Technically speaking, when Party B fails a trial, that's a breach, so she doesn't continue forward to the next set of trials. If Party A breaches the contract and invalidates the first trial *and* prevents Party B from attempting the other two tests, it's a material breach. Party B stood no chance of executing the contract.

If, however, Party B is permitted to take the other two tests and fails at least one, then what remedy is required? Party B still failed to execute her side of the contract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract

I disagree with your characterization of the "contract" between the two parties.
I think the proper characterization of the contract, here, is that Party A's consideration is administration of the test, and a conditional $50k if the test is successful (that's what was at stake, correct?). Party B's consideration is the expenses of the test and attempting to succeed on the test.
If the test occurs and Party B fails, I don't think Party B has breached the agreement; the outcome of that is just that Party B remits the expenses and goes home empty handed, with the contract fully executed on both sides.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I disagree with your characterization of the "contract" between the two parties.
I think the proper characterization of the contract, here, is that Party A's consideration is administration of the test, and a conditional $50k if the test is successful (that's what was at stake, correct?). Party B's consideration is the expenses of the test and attempting to succeed on the test.
If the test occurs and Party B fails, I don't think Party B has breached the agreement; the outcome of that is just that Party B remits the expenses and goes home empty handed, with the contract fully executed on both sides.

I disagree. At it's core it's a basic contract for performance. Party A requests a specific performance - detect locations where a kidney should be. The consideration is $50K (technically speaking, the consideration is Party A will provide a second contract where the consideration is $50K). The contract spells out certain conditions - chairs, time limits, no electronic devices, location, etc., with Party A being responsible for some and Party B being responsible for others.

This is essentially no different than the agreement with the sonogram lady or any of countless contracts executed every day. The contract is not fully executed unless the consideration is paid.

Suppose I contract with the kid down the street to mow my lawn. I require that he do it next Saturday between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. I require that he wear shoes that fully cover his feet, socks, long pants, a shirt and protective glasses. I agree to provide the glasses, the lawn mower and the gasoline. For consideration I pay him $25.

If he shows up and mows half my lawn, I don't pay him. Would you argue that this is a fully executed contract? Was my "consideration" to him providing the mower and glasses? Was his "consideration" to me pushing the mower around the front yard twice and never touching the back yard? Of course not.

The IIG challenge was at its core an agreement that if the claimant does something under certain conditions the IIG will provide consideration. It was an all or nothing deal.

 

[ynot]

That's called fraud, and there are other factors that don't match up. We don't need analogies to lotteries to analyze this.

It's basic contract law because, well, the protocol is a contract. Both sides must execute their side of the agreement. If they don't, it's called a breach. The remedy for a breach depends almost entirely upon how "material" the breach was. Essentially, the judge asks, "In what way did a breach by Party A prevent Party B from properly executing the contract."

Yes, and if the IIG committed a protocol violation in any subtest that adversely effected the chance of overall success then it has materially breached the contract. This is so regardless of how successful or not the other subtests were. Obviously there has to be some material evidence of a breach to credibly claim a breach. “My spirit guide told me they cheated“ isn’t going to work.

In this case Party B must pass all three trials to fully execute the contract.

Party B must pass all three trials to successfully execute the contract. Party B must complete all three trials to fully execute the contract only if the protocol says so (did it?). Obviously it didn’t need to for the purposes of establishing 100% success or not.

Technically speaking, when Party B fails a trial, that's a breach, so she doesn't continue forward to the next set of trials.

So why did the IIG test continue when Party B(londie) failed the first trial? Party B’s breach/failure has stopped the overall test because the required 100% success hasn’t been achieved. Party A therefore doesn’t commit a breach by not conducting further trials. The game's already over.

If Party A breaches the contract and invalidates the first trial *and* prevents Party B from attempting the other two tests, it's a material breach. Party B stood no chance of executing the contract.

If Party A breaches the contract and invalidates the first trial then Party B stood no chance of successfully executing the contract regardless of whether the chance of successfully attempting the other two tests existed or not.

If, however, Party B is permitted to take the other two tests and fails at least one, then what remedy is required? Party B still failed to execute her side of the contract.

The requirement and purpose of the overall test is to successfully complete it not fully complete it. Any breach by A (in any trail) completely removes any chance of B being able to successfully complete the overall test. That's pretty material.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The IIG challenge was at its core an agreement that if the claimant does something under certain conditions the IIG will provide consideration. It was an all or nothing deal.

No. Because if Anita had made all the arrangements and showed up, and the IIG had refused to conduct the examination (just flat-out said, "never mind, thanks for the money, go away"), then Anita should sue -- there's a breach there. But if Anita takes the test and fails it, IIG should not sue -- Anita hasn't breached anything.
Again, the contract terms include conditional consideration if certain conditions are met. It's no different than if we contract for you to mow my lawn, and for me to pay you $5 a week plus an additional $500 if my lawn wins the community lawn contest next month. As long as you mow my lawn, you've performed your part of the contract -- and as long I pay you what I promised according to which set of conditions prevail, I've performed mine.
So, Anita didn't breach the contract here. The terms of the contract are such that IIG's performance was fulfilled at the end of the test.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And as UncaYimmy already explained, she could use some other magical powers to succeed, and in most cases it would be difficult to know that. She could win by cheating in a variety of ways and still take home the 50 grand.

I know it sounds silly to point that out, but it's actually an important point. Suppose Anita passed both tests and went home with the $50K. Suppose further that we hired the best investigators and con artists to help us find out if she cheated, but we came up empty. Would this prove she could detect a missing kidney they way she claims? Absolutely not.

Suppose further that Anita disappeared, never to be heard from again. My best theory would be that she committed the perfect crime. My second theory would be that she combined astute observations of human behavior with a detailed analysis of demographics to better her odds, then got lucky. My third theory would be that she was ridiculously and incredibly lucky. And being a good skeptic, I wouldn't rule out that perhaps something like a genetic mutation enabled her to smell the concentration of kidney cells emanating from a person. Hell, dogs can allegedly smell cancer cells that we cannot detect with our best instruments, so why not?

People like Rodney, however, will continue to make the same mistakes they always make. They will assume she can actually detect kidneys like she claims without thinking about it critically. This is silly considering the wide variety of paranormal claims these people believe in. For them it is entirely possible that:

* A ghost hung around during test preparations and told her the answers.
* She spoke to the unconscious "spirit self" in each person
* The aura was different for the mono-kidney subject.
* She used astral projection to watch the preparations herself.
* She used ESP to read their minds or the mind of the person who knew the targets.
* She used mind control to force the target to give a subtle signal.
* Being an alien from Arcturus, the Mother Ship used their iTimeTravel 3000^TM to give her a Most Excellent Adventure.
* God told her the answers.
* God just wanted it to happen that way.

In other words, passing proves nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Scientists may choose to do some further research, and that would start with duplicating the results reliably. If by some miracle that would happen, scientists would then seek ways to make her fail so that can hone in on what's actually happening. In this fantasy world it would take a heaping buttload of research to actually figure out the mechanism involved, and I'm pretty confident it won't be any of those in the list above.

To tie this back to the subject at hand, there's no need to design a protocol that "proves" her ability because it cannot prove anything. The protocol need only permit her to do what she claims while eliminating known means. After all, how do you control for the iTimeTravel 3000^TM?

 

[Uncayimmy]

No. Because if Anita had made all the arrangements and showed up, and the IIG had refused to conduct the examination (just flat-out said, "never mind, thanks for the money, go away"), then Anita should sue -- there's a breach there.

Yes, that's a breach.

But if Anita takes the test and fails it, IIG should not sue -- Anita hasn't breached anything.

Actually, they could sue for damages. They just have no damages to show. Look at the sonogram lady. Suppose her machine busted, and the IIG could not verify the results. Anita could sue the IIG for failing to provide the proper conditions (damages being her out of pocket expenses, for example). The IIG could in turn sue the lady for failure to execute her contract. If Anita doesn't sue, then the IIG has no damages. With no damages, they have nothing to sue the sonogram lady for.

Again, the contract terms include conditional consideration

A contract is conditional consideration at its core. I give you money, and you give me a car. That's the whole point. Otherwise, I could just give you money out of the goodness of my heart. The former is a contract (implied at the very least) and the latter is just a gift.

if certain conditions are met. It's no different than if we contract for you to mow my lawn, and for me to pay you $5 a week plus an additional $500 if my lawn wins the community lawn contest next month. As long as you mow my lawn, you've performed your part of the contract -- and as long I pay you what I promised according to which set of conditions prevail, I've performed mine.

Bad example because you are taking the same performance (mowing the lawn) and giving two levels of consideration, one of which is based on an outside party. The kid mowing the lawn has no direct control over whether the home wins. He only has control over whether he mows the lawn or not, subject to you providing access to the yard, blah blah blah.

So, Anita didn't breach the contract here. The terms of the contract are such that IIG's performance was fulfilled at the end of the test.

I think I understand where you are going wrong. You don't understand what a breach is because you don't understand what consideration is. In legal terms consideration is "something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances."

You seem to think that the IIG setting up the test was "consideration" for Anita. That's like saying it's "consideration" to provide a baby to a babysitter or a car to a mechanic. Those things are performance just as watching the kid and fixing the car are performance.

I don't see how you can take what seems to be a straightforward performance and consideration contract with conditions and argue that some of the conditions are actually consideration, which I assume also means that the $50K (the only traditional consideration) was a bonus for reaching certain goals.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Visual clues?

To my recollection, which I understand is by default not reliable to base credible conclusions on alone when it comes to a paranormal claim and investigation because I am the claimant in it, I never noticed a leg brace or arm scar on subject 24 in trial 2 in the IIG Preliminary. I was watching all the subjects very closely, and did notice plenty of visual details, such as body size and shape, gender, age, long hair, tattoos, etc, which I then referred to as "distractions" when someone in the audience after the test asked me if I noticed any visual information.

Officially, bookitty having talked about subject 24 in internet Forums before the test took place, disqualifies or at least discredits my correct answer in trial 2. However, when this was first brought to my attention after the test and by bookitty here in this Forum, I could not consciously recall having noticed a leg brace or arm scar and knew that if I had, I would not have consciously known to connect this to it being the target.

And after more careful thought, I would like to ask any of you if you think the leg brace or arm scar are even visible on subject 24 during the trial? Because I think not.

Of course trial 2 still remains questionable. And I am not bothered by that. It only adds to the several other reasons I have for arranging another test. I maintain that I was unable to identify target 24 based on any prior information or visible clues that would have been made available before the test. All this means, is that it gives further incentive for me to arrange another test.

 

[ynot]

I’m happy to accept that you correctly identified #24 completely by lucky guess.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I’m happy to accept that you correctly identified #24 completely by lucky guess.

Unfortunately, I chose my answer in trial 2 absolutely not due to a lucky guess. The reason being because I was basing that desicion on my notes on where I feel a kidney and where I feel that I confirm a kidney missing, and those notes were overwhelmingly saying that it is either 24-left or one of the kidneys in 22 can't remember which (and much stronger indicating subject 24 than subject 22).

I was attempting to practice, ie. demonstrate, a skill, and was basing my answer on the outcome of that. A guess would be if I was not having any clear impressions and had to guess. Do you see the difference?

*Luck could still have to do with it. But my choice was not based on a guess. My choice was based on an attempted and experienced performance.

 

[Maia]

And after more careful thought, I would like to ask any of you if you think the leg brace or arm scar are even visible on subject 24 during the trial? Because I think not.

[qimg]http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/img/subject24trial2.jpg[/qimg]

Of course nobody can tell anything from a picture that was of such poor quality to begin with and was then reproduced on a website. But more to the point, I just don't see how any kind of revised protocol is ever going to be sufficient to please Anita. That in itself is enough to make it pointless to arrange another test.

 

[ynot]

Unfortunately, I chose my answer in trial 2 absolutely not due to a lucky guess. The reason being because I was basing that desicion on my notes on where I feel a kidney and where I feel that I confirm a kidney missing, and those notes were overwhelmingly saying that it is either 24-left or one of the kidneys in 22 can't remember which (and much stronger indicating subject 24 than subject 22).

I was attempting to practice, ie. demonstrate, a skill, and was basing my answer on the outcome of that. A guess would be if I was not having any clear impressions and had to guess. Do you see the difference?

*Luck could still have to do with it. But my choice was not based on a guess. My choice was based on an attempted and experienced performance.

No amount of you believing or impressions, feelings, efforts, experiences, attempts, provide any credible evidence that your abilities are genuine. That you believe it wasn’t completely by lucky guess doesn’t mean it wasn’t. I saw no credible evidence of genuine ability or that you used non-paranormal means. The only thing left is luck guess.

 

[ynot]

Let’s get this thread back on topic. UncaYimmy, you gonna respond to post 231?