Remote viewing (conditions)

[rulef]

Hello,

I was wondering at which point the following application would be accepted for the 1M challange.
I´ll explain what i mean by this later on.

Lets assume 2 people claim to feel when the otherone stares or glances at them.
They claim to get it right with a 55% precision. So 5% more than we would expect be chance.

Lets assume furthermore that the conditions for applying are met and also the preliminary test was succesful.

The test condition under which the final tests will be done are accepted by the claiments and the JREF.

Lets assume for example:
- coin flipping to decide if the one person "stares" or "doesn´t stare"
- the other person must after some time decide if he was stared at or not.

How many trails would be needed to claim the 1M$.

As far as I have calulated the chance for getting over 550 right in 1000 trails is less than 1 % (by just guessing).

Would this be enough?
Getting more than 55% right, over 1000 trails, to claim the 1M$ ?
Is there a standard probability which you want instead of 1%? 0,1% 0,01% 0,001%?


with kind regards
Rolf

 

[Gr8wight]

Hello,

I was wondering at which point the following application would be accepted for the 1M challange.
I´ll explain what i mean by this later on.

Lets assume 2 people claim to feel when the otherone stares or glances at them.
They claim to get it right with a 55% precision. So 5% more than we would expect be chance.

Lets assume furthermore that the conditions for applying are met and also the preliminary test was succesful.

The test condition under which the final tests will be done are accepted by the claiments and the JREF.

Lets assume for example:
- coin flipping to decide if the one person "stares" or "doesn´t stare"
- the other person must after some time decide if he was stared at or not.

How many trails would be needed to claim the 1M$.

As far as I have calulated the chance for getting over 550 right in 1000 trails is less than 1 % (by just guessing).

Would this be enough?
Getting more than 55% right, over 1000 trails, to claim the 1M$ ?
Is there a standard probability which you want instead of 1%? 0,1% 0,01% 0,001%?


with kind regards
Rolf

Standard disclaimer #1: Nobody on the JREF forums speaks officially for the JREF. There may be JREF staff reading and/or replying, but official communications from the JREF will not be made at this venue. The JREF is the only entity that can answer that question. As such, inquiries should be made directly to them. There is an email address on the challenge page of the website.

That being said, I'm sure there are many forum members willing to chip in with ideas and opinions on this matter. Not me, though, because it involves math.

 

[Pixel42]

There are no fixed rules because every claim is different, but JREF seem to typically require applicants to beat odds of chance success of 1:1000 to pass the preliminary test. What odds they would require to be beaten for the final test would be negotiated if anyone ever got that far.

 

[JJM 777]

require applicants to beat odds of chance success of 1:1000

The obvious problem here is that with 1000 applicants, someone would pass the test with sheer luck, without any supernatural forces involved. But the challenge is not intended as a lottery, which a million people try and a lucky one wins it with sheer statistical odds. For this reason, small statistical oddities like 1:100 or 1:1000 are not of interest, actually the requirement should be as solid performace as any known force of nature has. The apple _always_ falls with gravity, the force exists and never fails.

In the setting proposed in the OP, 550 correct guesses out of 1000 does not sound of any interest to science. If you let me use my looking force, called the eyes, I can tell 1000 times out of 1000 trials whether another person in front of me is staring at me or not. The force is there, and it functions with 100,0% accuracy. There is no reason to give a discount to a claimed paranormal force to fail 450 times out of 1000, if the human eyes don´t fail even once out of 1000 trials.

If the claimant had a force, or if he at least sincerely believed to have it, there would be no reason to talk about "550 out of 1000", the talk would be about 999 or 1000 out of 1000. To me, talking about 550 out of 1000 is a confession that the person does not believe even himself that he has the claimed ability.

I do not represent the JREF, but if I did, my answer would be: succeed 999 times out of 1000, and you pass the preliminary test.

 

[Pixel42]

The obvious problem here is that with 1000 applicants, someone would pass the test with sheer luck, without any supernatural forces involved.

Which is why there are two tests. Repeatability is a key requirement for scientific evidence, because of the possibility of fluke results.

Most people seem to expect that the odds would be set higher than 1:1000 for the final test, but I've never seen the need. Anyone who beat odds of 1:1000 twice would have beaten combined odds of 1 in a million.

 

[wardenclyffe]

1% is one in one hundred. It seems the threshold for these preliminary tests (based on JREF and non-JREF examples) is ususally between 1000-3000 to one.

One thousand trials is a lot of trials. How long would each "stare" last? How much recovery time between each one? At what point would the stare-ee become tired? How far away can the stare-er be? Could it be through glass? Through a telescope? I think a lot of people would be willing to give up an afternoon for a paranormal challenge, but if they have to give days or weeks, they might expect to be paid. Is that in your budget?

These are the types of questions you can expect to encounter. And of course for the MDC, you will be required to have a media presence and academic affidavits saying you are worth testing.

Nothing wrong with the OP, but it's a very embryonic start. Lots of work to do before it's even close.

Ward

 

[Olowkow]

One problem is, how does the OP wish to define "stare". What if the starer averts his gaze momentarily or blinks or was merely looking (mind is wandering), not staring, etc. I don't see how one can ever quantify a stare without extensive equipment monitoring the pupils and brain waves.

The belief that a person can sense a stare of another human is purely fictional, but I was surprised to read in the book "Seal Team Six", that snipers actually believe something of the sort. The claim is that if you hold the sights too long on a target, he will sense being watched.

 

[Cuddles]

Lets assume 2 people claim to feel when the otherone stares or glances at them.
They claim to get it right with a 55% precision. So 5% more than we would expect be chance.

Why do you think 50% would be expected by chance? Just because there are two options does not mean both are equally likely. I have 9 black balls and 1 white ball in a bag and pull one out at random. Do I have a 50% chance of pulling out a black ball? Obviously not.

For guessing if someone is staring at you, the chance depends entirely on how the test is set up. It would be possible to come up with a test that does have a 50% chance of guessing correctly, but it's also possible to come up with tests that have much higher or lower chances. Given that higher chances of guessing mean longer tests to be able to distinguish any real ability from chance, you'd be much better off using a test with a lower chance of guessing correctly.

Is there a standard probability which you want instead of 1%? 0,1% 0,01% 0,001%?

No, there isn't. Odds of 1/1000 and 1/1,000,000 are often quoted, but these are not a fixed standard from the JREF. Some tests have had lower odds, some higher, and some don't even have statistics involved at all (see here, for example).

There also tends to be plenty of argument whether the 1:million odds actually mean 1:million for the final test on its own, or simply a repetition of the 1:1000 odds from the preliminary test giving the combined chance of passing both as 1:million. I don't think the JREF has confirmed this either way, and obviously there's no evidence to go by since no-one has ever passed the first test.

However, none of this is really relevant. Firstly, you appear a bit confused. You say to assume that the preliminary test has already been passed, but that would mean that your application has already been accepted and a protocol agreed on, so all this would have been sorted out already. Secondly, the exact odds really don't matter at this point. An application won't be rejected just because your first attempt at coming up with a test didn't exactly meet a set standard that doesn't even exist. The application is the starting point of negotiations, not the end. Just say what you think you can do and how you think it can be tested. You and the JREF will then discuss exactly how a test would take place and what will count as a pass. The odds are agreed on during that discussion, they're not something you have to accept up front before the discussion can take place.

 

[Gr8wight]

Why do you think 50% would be expected by chance? Just because there are two options does not mean both are equally likely. I have 9 black balls and 1 white ball in a bag and pull one out at random. Do I have a 50% chance of pulling out a black ball? Obviously not.

For guessing if someone is staring at you, the chance depends entirely on how the test is set up. It would be possible to come up with a test that does have a 50% chance of guessing correctly, but it's also possible to come up with tests that have much higher or lower chances.

Top be fair to the OP, he did suggest a coin toss to determine 'stare or not stare' in his proposed test...

 

[Beerina]

Which is why there are two tests. Repeatability is a key requirement for scientific evidence, because of the possibility of fluke results.

Two tests (the first of which nobody has passed) also allows them to do a re-examination of where they may have missed something on the first test.

Imagine a particularly clever spoonbender who's pretending psychic powers but is actually just a really good prestidigitator, who manages to sneak one by.

 

[Brian-M]

If the subject knows at that he has a 50% chance of being stared at, he has a 50% chance of guessing correctly. A better test would be one where the odds of guessing correctly are a lot lower.

What about a situation where there is a 100% chance of being stared at... at an unknown time?

One subject is placed in a room with multiple hidden peepholes in the walls for a few hours with a button to press when they sense being stared at. At randomly selected times, maybe averaging four times an hour, the other subject stares at them for a full minute through a randomly selected peephole.

Then you compare the times when the button was pressed to the times when staring occurred.

(Just a starting idea. This plan would have to be refined a lot before it'd be acceptable for a MDC claim.)

Most people seem to expect that the odds would be set higher than 1:1000 for the final test, but I've never seen the need. Anyone who beat odds of 1:1000 twice would have beaten combined odds of 1 in a million.

The combined odds are irrelevant. Where preliminaries with a 1 chance in 1000 of passing by chance are given on an ongoing basis, eventually someone is going to pass it purely by chance. It's a mathematical certainty (assuming that the challenge remains open long enough for enough people to apply).

Sure, on an individual basis there may be a 1 chance in 1000 of that particular person passing purely by chance, but there's 1000 chances in 1000 that one of the first thousand applicants will pass by fluke. And if nobody in the first thousand makes it, there is always the next thousand, and the next, and so on.

You have a 1 chance in 1 of somebody making it to the main challenge sooner or later.

The fact that that specific person only had a 1 chance in 1000 of getting through the preliminary by doesn't affect the odds of them also making it through the main challenge in the slightest. So we would want the final challenge to have extremely low odds of someone passing by chance, enough that we can be reasonably confident that a small number of applicants taking it wouldn't pass by chance.

 

[learner]

This proposal would be rejected on the grounds that it is rude to stare (My Mum told me that) there is a rule in the challenge but I can't remember the number.

 

[Lanzy]

Wasn't this discussed a long time ago here? I remember some discussion of staring.

 

[rulef]

As such, inquiries should be made directly to them. There is an email address on the challenge page of the website.

Thanks,
I send an Email to challenge@randi.org (from the FAQ-page) last year and got no answer. Thats why I tried the forum.

But taking your advice, I send an second Email just now.

----------------------

@ all:
the test and my proposal/example don´t matter. I could rephrase it:

The preliminary test is passed. And the claiment and the JREF agree to the final test conditions.
The only remaining question is, how many trails are needed.
To calculate that, we would need a (low) probability from the JREF, under which the 1M$ would be payed even if it was just luck on the claiments side.

I was/am interessted in this probability!

----------------------

This proposal would be rejected on the grounds that it is rude to stare (My Mum told me that) there is a rule in the challenge but I can't remember the number.

As stated before, there are 2 people claiming that they feel the otherones stare. Nobody else would be involved. They are both ok with being starred at.
Do you think the rule would still apply? (btw I could not find it on the FAQ)

 

[wardenclyffe]

It has been discussed here (more than once, I think), but the problem ended up being that the stare-er had to have a certain thought or intention in his or her mind when the staring occured. There is no way for the JREF to ensure that anyone in the trial would be thinking "correctly." Usually, that means that the applicant would bring a trusted friend to do the staring. Unfortunately, most people who believe they can sense when people are staring at them do not have many friends, so they cannot do the test.

Ward

 

[wardenclyffe]

Thanks,
I send an Email to challenge@randi.org (from the FAQ-page) last year and got no answer. Thats why I tried the forum.

But taking your advice, I send an second Email just now.

----------------------

@ all:
the test and my proposal/example don´t matter. I could rephrase it:

The preliminary test is passed. And the claiment and the JREF agree to the final test conditions.
The only remaining question is, how many trails are needed.
To calculate that, we would need a (low) probability from the JREF, under which the 1M$ would be payed even if it was just luck on the claiments side.

I was/am interessted in this probability!

----------------------


As stated before, there are 2 people claiming that they feel the otherones stare. Nobody else would be involved. They are both ok with being starred at.
Do you think the rule would still apply? (btw I could not find it on the FAQ)

Of all the specific advice you've received in this thread, you respond only to the advice that was clearly offered as a joke?

The JREF will likely not respond if you do not meet all the requirements of the challenge. You say you've read the FAQ. So do you meet all the requirements?

Ward

 

[AvalonXQ]

According to this binomial distribution calculator, the chances of getting 550 or more right out of a 1000 trials when randomly guessing "yes" or "no" would be .00087, or less than 1 in 1000.

However, assuming the person really is 55% accurate, the chances of getting fewer than 550 correct is still 48.7%. So even if the person is right, they will fail to pass this test almost half the time.

We'd need to get to a point where the number of trials is enough that the success condition is very likely if the person is correct but very unlikely if the person is not. For such a small margin of probability difference, I'd expect we'd need an order of magnitude more trials.

 

[Beerina]

According to this binomial distribution calculator, the chances of getting 550 or more right out of a 1000 trials when randomly guessing "yes" or "no" would be .00087, or less than 1 in 1000.

However, assuming the person really is 55% accurate, the chances of getting fewer than 550 correct is still 48.7%. So even if the person is right, they will fail to pass this test almost half the time.

We'd need to get to a point where the number of trials is enough that the success condition is very likely if the person is correct but very unlikely if the person is not. For such a small margin of probability difference, I'd expect we'd need an order of magnitude more trials.

Hehe, that suggests the person should use his psychic power, then say the opposite of what it told him

 

[AvalonXQ]

Hehe, that suggests the person should use his psychic power, then say the opposite of what it told him

How do you figure?

 

[ddt]

According to this binomial distribution calculator, the chances of getting 550 or more right out of a 1000 trials when randomly guessing "yes" or "no" would be .00087, or less than 1 in 1000.

You're misreading that: that's still a probability of 8.7 in 1000. (easy mistake, I counted the number of zeros twice just to be sure).

However, assuming the person really is 55% accurate, the chances of getting fewer than 550 correct is still 48.7%. So even if the person is right, they will fail to pass this test almost half the time.

We'd need to get to a point where the number of trials is enough that the success condition is very likely if the person is correct but very unlikely if the person is not. For such a small margin of probability difference, I'd expect we'd need an order of magnitude more trials.

Very good points.

While it's refreshing a prospective candidate doesn't start out with "my powers are absolute", a 55% success rate is just too low to organize a practical test.