• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The media requirement

Cuddles

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
18,840
Thor76's recent posts made me wonder if this is actually a good thing. The reason this requirement exists is so that the JREF is slightly less overwhelmed by random people claiming to have powers, but with absolutely nothing to back up their claims. There are two problems with this. The first is that it might not actually achieve anything. The majority of applicants seem to either not understand the application rules or just don't care about them. The media requirement is just one more rule that they ignore. Where the JREF used to say "Go away and come back with 3 affidavits", they now say "Go away and come back with a newspaper article". Does this actually make any difference to either the number of applicants or the work needed to deal with them?

The problem that thor76's posts actually made me think about is: does the media requirement actually encourage the spread of woo? Most applicants are random people who think they have powers and hear of the challenge. They are usually not at all famous and often claim that they have never told anyone, let alone the general public, about their beliefs. When these people were asked to provide affidavits, they usually disappeared, apparently through being either unable or unwilling to get them. Now, however, they are not told to prove their abilities to someone, the first thing they are encouraged to do is go to the media, however minor, and shout their beliefs out to the world.

As thor76 said, he had never even thought of doing this, or of going somewhere like an old people's home to demonstrate his abilities. The problem is, this is exactly the sort of thing the media laps up. Instead of having someone claiming to heal people that no-one has ever heard of, we have someone getting publicity. A newspaper won't report this as "Local nut tries to heal people but fails when tested.", they will report it as "Local psychic tests powers in preparation for million dollar challenge. Area woman (68) says joints feel much better now."

The JREF is effectively encouraging woos to spread their beliefs among the credulous public, when most of those woos would never even have thought of doing so themselves. This is especially bad since it is obvious that most of them will never be tested anyway, so they are essentially providing free publicity advice with no negative side for the applicant.

Now, this is obviously a worst case scenario. It seems more likely that nothing will ever come of the attempts to publicise themselves and that most woos will remain exactly as they were, but with a local newspaper article mentioning them. However, I was wondering if anyone else has actually thought about this. Is it possible that the improvements to the challenge could actually harm the overall goals of the JREF while not really helping the challenge work any better?
 
It works both ways though. Credulous people will lap it up and the media might take advantage of it and run some non-critical articles.
But people who are interested will hopefully go and look into the nature of the claims and if the newspaper talks about the MDC, they might go and investigate. They will become educated and the fact that no-one has won the challenge could spur them to become passionate about being skeptical. They might take an increased interest in critical, objective thinking.

"The JREF is effectively encouraging woos to spread their beliefs among the credulous public..."

This is a good thing. Because the truth will be made clear sooner or later. Let them hang themselves. Inevitably an increasing number of people will twig on and see that these peoples claims are hollow.

I can see what you're saying. But in the long run, if all these people go out and put their claims to the test and fail, the message will be incontestable to more and more people.
In the short term, yes, there will be biased news coverage, anecdotal evidence put forward in lieu of objective proof etc...but let's think long-term here!
 
I can see what you're saying. But in the long run, if all these people go out and put their claims to the test and fail, the message will be incontestable to more and more people.
In the short term, yes, there will be biased news coverage, anecdotal evidence put forward in lieu of objective proof etc...but let's think long-term here!

Looking back over the last 6,000 years I can't see any evidence that people having their beliefs popularised does anything to encourage the public to look at them critically. Just how long term are we supposed to be looking?
 
Looking back over the last 6,000 years I can't see any evidence that people having their beliefs popularised does anything to encourage the public to look at them critically. Just how long term are we supposed to be looking?

I think the difference in the number of people who are at least reasonably rational and logical in their outlook between the present day and ancient cultures pretty much puts paid to that idea.
Having their belief put out there doesn't necessarily popularise it. This is being a bit pessimistic on your end. But putting it out there certainly exposes it to scrutiny. People will learn that their claims don't hold up.

And yes I realise there will be a small, vocal contingent who will never see reason. There's no way around this. Look at those who have the potential to be steered away from falsehood though.

People are becoming more and more rational. The exodus away from organized religion proves that. Psychics are increasingly the target of scorn and ridicule and the same goes for faith healers and alternative medicine.
 
Before April 1st, the JREF was spending a lot of time and resources on individuals who were mentally ill. The media presence requirement is a way of urging applicants to have unbiased individuals witness their 'powers'. Does it spread woo? I don't know. Do you think a lot of people read the Rosemary Hunter article and became convinced that there was someone with the power to make individuals urinate themselves?

The alternative is to be so swamped with claims from hundreds of people that the JREF is unable to do anything else.

Is that preferable?
 
People are becoming more and more rational.

Got anything to back that up? Cause I do not believe it just because you say so.


The exodus away from organized religion proves that.

No, it doesn´t. It could just indicate that there is more woo diversity now.

Psychics are increasingly the target of scorn and ridicule and the same goes for faith healers and alternative medicine.

So what? Would you have any statistics that psychics, faith healers and alt.meds are now earning less money than some years ago? That less people are looking for their services?
 
I think the difference in the number of people who are at least reasonably rational and logical in their outlook between the present day and ancient cultures pretty much puts paid to that idea.
Having their belief put out there doesn't necessarily popularise it. This is being a bit pessimistic on your end. But putting it out there certainly exposes it to scrutiny. People will learn that their claims don't hold up.

I agree with Cuddles, and I think that the media will only entertain those claimants who appear to have a case and can help sell copy, even if the media knows it's fakery. To my mind that does encourage the spreading of woo, and I still agree with Mark Twain (I think it was) when he asserted that if you can get all the idiots in town on your side you'll have the majority.

And yes I realise there will be a small, vocal contingent who will never see reason. There's no way around this. Look at those who have the potential to be steered away from falsehood though.

Yeah, try 'converting' the religious!

People are becoming more and more rational. The exodus away from organized religion proves that.

I don't believe rationale has anything to do with this. Where's the causal link?

Psychics are increasingly the target of scorn and ridicule and the same goes for faith healers and alternative medicine.

I doubt this is even close to true. Do you have stats?
 
If you have limited resources, it's best to spent them on those who are doing the most harm. Those who are doing the most harm.. have a media presence.

However, the point has been raised that we're encouraging people who have no media presence to actually get one, and that's is problematic.

I don't see a solution though. We can't handle everyone unless we get a substantial donation that allows us to hire more staff. If we have to limit people, we have to do it in the most effective way. And though it's imperfect, I think what we have now is the best system yet.

I'm open to knew suggestions of a better system.
 
Is it possible to simply stop taking unsolicited applications?

Linda
 
Is it possible to simply stop taking unsolicited applications?

Linda

You mean cancel the challenge? Yes, that would reduce the admin input ;).

What do you mean by 'unsolicited'? The very existence of a 'challenge' means that every application, by definition, is 'solicited'.
 
One question though. Has this requirement actually reduced the number of applications that JREF has received?

Just checked the rules and FAQ. It is rather vague as to what the media presence means. Suggest that wording to the effect of

Media presence means that you have demonstrated to a journalist or author what you claim to be able to do and the journalist or author has written and published when they have witnessed and claimed that you, the applicant, has supernatural powers. An interview by a journalist is not good enough.
 
You mean cancel the challenge? Yes, that would reduce the admin input ;).

What do you mean by 'unsolicited'? The very existence of a 'challenge' means that every application, by definition, is 'solicited'.

I mean issue the challenge to specific people. With all the build-up, I thought that was the change Randi was talking about come April 1. It turns out instead to be just the addition of one more rule.

Linda
 
Before April 1st, the JREF was spending a lot of time and resources on individuals who were mentally ill. The media presence requirement is a way of urging applicants to have unbiased individuals witness their 'powers'. Does it spread woo? I don't know. Do you think a lot of people read the Rosemary Hunter article and became convinced that there was someone with the power to make individuals urinate themselves?

The alternative is to be so swamped with claims from hundreds of people that the JREF is unable to do anything else.

Is that preferable?

That was one of my questions, has it actually reduced the applications? That sort of person was previously applying without bothering to read or understand the application rules anyway, do they actually read them now and decide not to apply, or do they apply anyway and have to be told to go and get a media presence? If the latter, it seems you would be spending just as much time dealing with the applications as before.

If you have limited resources, it's best to spent them on those who are doing the most harm. Those who are doing the most harm.. have a media presence.

However, the point has been raised that we're encouraging people who have no media presence to actually get one, and that's is problematic.

I don't see a solution though. We can't handle everyone unless we get a substantial donation that allows us to hire more staff. If we have to limit people, we have to do it in the most effective way. And though it's imperfect, I think what we have now is the best system yet.

I'm open to knew suggestions of a better system.

I'm afraid I don't really have any answers, I was just wondering if it was something that had been considered. The only thing I can think of would be to simply ignore any applications that don't follow the rules rather than trying to respond to everyone. It might lead to more accusations that the JREF is ignoring people really have genuine powers, honest, but I don't see that you have any obligation to talk to people who aren't capable of following a very simple application process.
 
How about charging a nominal application fee (by nominal, I mean sufficient to cover the cost of processing the application). This approach is justifiably used by many organizations both as a means to cover costs incurred (plus a reasonable margin!) and to discourage spurious applications/entries.

The application fee could be refunded if, say, the applicant was successful ($1 million then some!), or better still, if the application was accepted and a preliminary test protocol agreed upon (or similar). This latter suggestion is less likely to be construed as back-pedalling by critics of the MDC.

This will have three possible effects:

1. Significantly fewer 'valid' applications will be received (applications without fees can simply be 'filed', either in the circular receptacle, or otherwise); or
2. JREF will actually make money from the MDC; or
3. A combination of 1. and 2. above

It's a win-win for all sane people concerned!
 
How about charging a nominal application fee (by nominal, I mean sufficient to cover the cost of processing the application). This approach is justifiably used by many organizations both as a means to cover costs incurred (plus a reasonable margin!) and to discourage spurious applications/entries.

As Georg says, actually making a profit is a surefire way to get accusations about being a money-making scam. I think there may be some merit in charging a small nominal fee, say $1. No-one could accuse them of trying to make money that way, but it could have the effect of putting off the more obviously frivolous applications. However, I suspect that the extra administration required for processing money would cancel out any benefits gained from doing so.
 
The media presence requirement is a way of urging applicants to have unbiased individuals witness their 'powers'.


Isn't this exactly what the "three affadavits" was supposed to do? I'm afraid I agree....I don't see what replacing one with the other will do towards reducing the workload.
 
I guess that´s not a good idea. It gives ammunition to the woos.
"Randi´s challenge is a joke. He is only doing it to earn money."

As Georg says, actually making a profit is a surefire way to get accusations about being a money-making scam. I think there may be some merit in charging a small nominal fee, say $1. No-one could accuse them of trying to make money that way, but it could have the effect of putting off the more obviously frivolous applications. However, I suspect that the extra administration required for processing money would cancel out any benefits gained from doing so.

OK, so just charge enough to cover the actual admin cost, including 'processing' the fee. What's wrong with that?

You guys obviously don't hold 'commercial' positions in life, I guess. What's wrong with that?
 
OK, so just charge enough to cover the actual admin cost, including 'processing' the fee. What's wrong with that?

But what is the admin cost? Some applications can be dealt with in seconds, others can take months of communication that takes time, computer resources and costs for postage. This is why I suggest a nominal fee - something small enough that it can't possibly imply that the JREF are trying to make money, but large enough that it could put off some of the sillier applicants. $1, $5, whatever.
 
But what is the admin cost? Some applications can be dealt with in seconds, others can take months of communication that takes time, computer resources and costs for postage. This is why I suggest a nominal fee - something small enough that it can't possibly imply that the JREF are trying to make money, but large enough that it could put off some of the sillier applicants. $1, $5, whatever.

Doesn't a fee conflict with the not-for-profit status of the JREF?

Also, I always greatly admired the free access to the JREF Challenge, which I found to give it an unestimable value: "You have a special power? Prove it and get a million bucks. No strings attached."

Where else can you do that?
 

Back
Top Bottom