Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



Patricia Putt MDC Test: Protocol Failure? PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Alison Smith   

puttsubjectPatricia Putt, a woman from the United Kingdom who believes she is psychic, was recently tested for the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge by Professor Richard Wiseman and Professor Christopher French at Goldsmiths University.

For the test, Putt was presented with ten volunteers - all Caucasian females aged 18-30 - and asked to write page-long psychic readings about each of them.  The volunteers were asked, after all the readings were completed, to identify the one that applied best to them. The concept for the protocol was sent to Putt on 18 July 2008.On 6 May 2009, the test was conducted.

As previously agreed upon by the JREF and Putt, a successful demonstration would contstitute a minimum of five of the ten volunteers choosing their own profiles. After the test, though, none of the volunteers picked their own reading. Putt’s score was zero out of ten.

I contacted Putt to find out why she believed she had failed the preliminary test, and what she had thought of the Challenge in practice.

"I'm not in the least disappointed that the results did not go my way.  I was stunned at first but when normal thought re-entered my head I realised that I was never going to win the barriers presented in the protocol were too much even for me to surmount," Putt said in an e-mail on 8 May 2009.

Putt continued, ""With them [the volunteers] being bound from head to foot like black mummies, they themselves felt tied so were not really free to link with Spirit making my work a great deal more difficult," Putt said.

During the test, the volunteers were safeguarded from potentially giving information away with subconscious cues by donning a graduation gown and ski mask for the duration of their reading. They also faced away from Putt, and Putt was not permitted to see them enter the testing room.

On 11 August 2008, during protocol negotiations, Putt agreed to the body and face coverings, and said, "I have no objection to the sitter being anonymous as those for whom I do phone Readings are never seen by me the only difference being that I do have voice contact.  For me it has been the sound of people's voices that bring Spirit in - and no I am not asking them to give me hints.  In fact if I think my client is talking too much I will tell them in a tactful manner to be quiet."

On 12 August 2008, I proposed to Putt a setup wherein the volunteers would be able to speak - only they would all have to say the same thing: an excerpt of William Blake's ‘Auguries of Innocence.' This was approved and added to the protocol.

Putt also said in the 8 May e-mail, "I would have preferred the age group and sexes to be mixed, ages from 18 to 80 would have been perfect.  An even amount of boys, girls, men and women would have been better.  Unfortunately, as all the volunteers were of an age and from the College unless they had had a really bad childhood (in which case ethically my hands would have been tied) there really wasn't too much to say."

The volunteers within the test were identified by laminated numbers hanging on lanyards around their necks. On 28 August 2008, Putt and I discussed whether or not she would be able to call the identifying numbers for the volunteers in any order she chose. We allowed this concession in the protocol. When I warned her that once she had chosen a number and been in the same room with the volunteer she could not take it back, Putt said, "Once I pick a person I go all the way if I muck it up that's my fault, I will know from the onset if I can work with them."

Putt never chose to bring in the five replacement volunteers we provided in case she did come across someone she couldn't read. If she knows from the outset whether or not she can work with an individual, and we had alternates on-hand to bring in should she not be able to, then the fact that only the ten were used would seem to indicate that Putt believed, at least at the time, that she could read the individuals correctly.

Additionally, the first draft of the protocol, which was sent on 10 August 2008, specified that all volunteers would be of the same gender. On 27 August 2008, the wording was changed to specify that all volunteers would be of the same gender and the same race.

Putt responded to the addition to the protocol by saying, "Sounds perfect to me."

In Putt's final negotiations with Professor Wiseman and Professor French, the age restriction was added with Putt's approval.

All of this took place in advance of the preliminary test.

Putt participated fully in every step of the creation of this protocol. She presented a claim, filled out her application properly, provided all necessary documentation, and patiently waited her turn for a test. She actually showed up, which is more than many others before her have managed. She took her full test with nary a tantrum.

The thing I'm noticing, though, is the tendency of claimants to come up with a reason why the test wasn't valid - even when they sign a statement like the following one which Putt signed before her test:

I, the undersigned, agree to all terms and conditions listed in this document outlining the protocol for my preliminary test in the James Randi Educational Foundation's One Million Dollar Challenge. I agree that the protocol outline describes a fair test of my claimed ability.

I do not believe the James Randi Educational Foundation, nor the individuals chosen by the James Randi Educational Foundation to conduct this test, will intentionally cause my failure through either intended or unintended means.

In the event that I do not pass this test, I will hold neither the James Randi Educational Foundation nor the individuals testing my ability responsible, and understand that in the event of failure I am permitted to re-submit my claim and application one year from the date of the test.

Let's imagine a test of Putt's ability where the protocol was altered in the ways she specified (agreeing, though, that those issues were raised too late, and that they were, in fact, non-issues before she failed the test).

In her ideal test, Putt would have had four male volunteers, of whom two would have been adults and two would have been younger, four female volunteers, of whom two would have been adults and two would have been younger, and then two remaining volunteers, one male and one female of ages not specified since ten is not divisible by four.

The individuals in Putt's ideal test would not have been disguised in any way, either.

In order to pass the test, five or more of the volunteers had to choose their own readings from the packet of ten. Imagine that Putt's ideal test was run.

In this imagined test, one reading refers to problems with a boyfriend. One refers to problems with a husband. One refers to problems with a girlfriend. One refers to problems with a wife.

Even though those sentences say exactly the same thing with only gender and relationship status altered, readings that contain those would more than likely suit, respectively, the younger female, the older female, the younger male, and the older male. And since there are two of each, she has a shot at getting a hit for either one.

Four out of ten (and possibly more) with only those sentences.

Obviously, running a test like Putt’s ideal test would not have provided definitive proof of anything - too much information can be given away by things so simple as gender and age - Still, with all the things above, does it always come down to "Oh, the test wasn't fair after all!"?

Patricia Putt checked out the protocol, agreed in writing that it was satisfactory, and even during the test, made no complaints. Those conducting the tests did so with great care, attention to detail, and accuracy. The test stands.

Trackback(0)
Comments (66)Add Comment
...
written by Michael K Gray, May 08, 2009
I predicted that she would move eventually the blame for her stunning failure away form herself.
Much as with Randi and Dick Smith's water diviners!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +16
...
written by Kuroyume, May 08, 2009
Yep. It's that ole' 'negative energy' in another guise. This time as 'bound' and 'tied' thus not able to 'link with Spirit'. The only differences are that 1) the 'negative energy' was not eminating from the curmudgeonly testers but inflicted upon the subjects themselves and 2) she agreed to these conditions.

Suffice it to say that the appropriate conditions removed much of the intuitive 'reading' of the subjects. Note that even over the phone (which is not in proximity but only the voice condition) much can be ascertained quickly just from a few sentences spoken with intent (to gain information from the psychic). Note how easy it is to be taken out of context on forums and such with only text - all of the context and intent is removed that can be conveyed by the voice (and then further amplified by direct facial and gestural cues).

Self-reinforced, mutual wishful thinking propagated by these cues is what makes deluded psychics so sure of their abilities.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +19
How predictable.
written by Morrigan, May 08, 2009
Putt continued, ""With them [the volunteers] being bound from head to foot like black mummies, they themselves felt tied so were not really free to link with Spirit making my work a great deal more difficult," Putt said.


Hahahahaha, suuuure. What a pitiful, yet predictable excuse. You agreed to the protocol in the first place, honey!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by Otara, May 08, 2009
Why would the same gender and age be a problem? You can still be a different region, class, race, education, marital status, job, traumatic and good events can vary, etc. This is a silly claim unless the differences found are superficial at best.

As far as the masks etc go, why didnt she request it to be done by phone if thats her normal practise? Presumably at the time she thought it would give her an advantage rather than a disadvantage by being closer to thier aura's or whatever.

Otara
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
...
written by gretemike, May 08, 2009
New to the site, hello.

Regarding the spamming by Robertrash - Do you folks at JREF deal with this sort of thing a lot? Such drivel must get very tiresome. But you're fighting the good fight, and I hope you keep it up. I enjoy your site a great deal, thank you very much for your time and your efforts, especially to J. Randi.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
...
written by Skemono, May 08, 2009
I was stunned at first but when normal thought re-entered my head I realised that I was never going to win the barriers presented in the protocol were too much even for me to surmount

Indeed. Funny how barriers that prevent cheating usually are too much for alleged psychics to surmount.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +21
...
written by yarro, May 08, 2009
My guess is that even Darren Brown would have a hard time getting a result under the given test conditions.
But that's the whole point of the protocol, to eliminate all the conscious and unconsious clues the volunteers could give. If you've ever seen Darren Brown at work you'll know that there is no other way to do it.
My suggestion would be to ask mr Brown to assist in setting up the test.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
Disclaimer
written by philandstuff, May 09, 2009
"will intentionally cause my failure through either intended or unintended means." -- how do you intentionally cause something through unintended means? I think you ought to reword this slightly...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
...
written by Food, May 09, 2009
In order to give someone a negative vote, you have to actually read their post.
Nah, you only have to see the name, the title, and that it's the same shit all over again.

I can't believe people are actually doing that.
That's just because you're such a skeptic smilies/wink.gif

I'm not sure whether the blog software has the option, but at this point I would have tried to set it up that at least posts linking to that persons site would be subject to moderator review before showing up. And when you get a hit, you can automatically apply it to other posts with the same name/ip even if they don't contain that link.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
Their Own Medicine?
written by Silver, May 09, 2009
Skeptics know that words alone do not alter reality, but the nostradamus fans who are spamming us take this seriously. I have just recited the Lords Prayer backwards over their website and emailed a backwards Lords Prayer to them. Okay I realize the Lords Prayer is meaningless drive foreward or backward, but I just want to annoy them back a little on terms they understand.

amen, evil from us deliver ...................blah blah blah
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by bosshog, May 09, 2009
Assuming that being bound like a black mummy could in fact block the Spirit, how is it that she was nonetheless able to get a full reading on every individual but that every reading was WRONG?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +17
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by Silver, May 09, 2009
correction: it should read "the Lords Prayer is meaningless drivel foreward or backward..."

(never post before your first cup of coffee)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Funny
written by Silver, May 09, 2009
http://wtfwjdbitch.blogspot.com/
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
...
written by MadScientist, May 09, 2009
The nostradamus moron even stole Antonio Prohias' Black Spy - what a loser. He can't even tell the difference between a long-dead loon and one of the funniest comic characters of the last century. I think it's funny how they talk about burning in hell too - if there were a hell you could bet nostradamus would be in it. Oh well, Dan Brown obviously has an assured audience with the Cartland-ish drivel he churns out - you know what they say: if you can't beat them, fleece them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by Rustylizard, May 09, 2009
Since Putt felt the volunteers were inhibited by being bound, but claims she has no problems with phone readings, perhaps she can try again next year, communicating by telephone with her subjects sequestered in another room. One can only speculate what sort of creative excuse might be generated for a failure under those circumstances. It would be interesting to read an accounting of the most entertaining excuses for failing the million dollar failures over the years. Do you have a list of them, Alison?

As for the big black bird that keeps posting, I think it’s just feeling a bit peckish and needs something to crow about. You’ve got to admit, it’s a great Halloween costume.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by JeffWagg, May 09, 2009
RobertTrash was Markuze again. I'm just going to delete his posts from now on without explanation.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
...
written by Steel Rat, May 09, 2009
This test, even if it's flawed, should show that Putt is a Putz, and not just deluded into thinking she has magical powers. She's a con artist, nothing more. The excuses she made make that more than obvious.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
IT'S WORTH A MILLION DOLLARS.............
written by jasonhenle, May 09, 2009
It's worth a million dollars, if she didn't like the terms of the test, why didn't she speak up prior? I'm sure that it has nothing to do with her abilities as a psychic.......
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by CryoTank, May 09, 2009
What, did Putt think nobody would remember that she'd had no objections and agreed to the protocol?
Please, you couldn't prove you have psychic powers. At least have the decency to admit that and show a litte dignity.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by LovleAnjel, May 09, 2009
Now now, she may not have known ahead of time how badly the lack of visible clues would have affected her readings! Had she thought about it ahead of time, she would have demanded those changes to the protocol. And probably not gone through with it.

No wonder I never feel like I can link with the spirit, I always wear black!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by CryoTank, May 09, 2009
@LovleAnjel
So careless of her Spirit not to tell her that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by manny, May 09, 2009
"If she knows from the outset whether or not she can work with an individual, and we had alternates on-hand to bring in should she not be able to, then the fact that only the ten were used would seem to indicate that Putt believed, at least at the time, that she was reading the individuals correctly."

It does "seem to indicate" that. That said, in future tests of this nature (where there's a break between the alleged paranormal feat and the evaluation of it), right after she was done would have been an excellent time to ask some questions that might forestall post-test objections to the protocol (or at least make such objections more ridiculous). "Do you feel you did well, Ms. Putt?" "Were you able to get a good read off of the subjects?" "Remember, we've got five people in reserve. Are you sure you got enough good reads, because we can bring in a new subject and cancel anyone you felt was blocking."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
...
written by MikeHutch, May 09, 2009
yarro suggested that Derren Brown should be asked to assist in setting up the test.

As far as I am aware Derren Brown does not have a track record in setting up such tests so there would be no point. The JREF already has a sufficient number of people to call on. Having both Chris French and Richard Wiseman on board for this test was more than enough. Either of them would have done an excellent job alone.

Now, if the suggestion had been that Patrica Putt should have asked for Derren Brown's assistance I could see the point; and smile at it. But Chris and Richard are not stupid and would not approve an inferior protocol.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Further correspondence?
written by beowulff, May 09, 2009
I was just wondering, is there or will there be further correspondence with Putt? I am curious how she would respond to the two main criticisms of this post:
1) If the protocol was too restrictive, why did she agree to it?
2) If she couldn't connect well with the subjects, why did she never try one of the backup subjects?

And I'd like to second Manny: I'd very much like it if in all these preliminary tests there was a moment where the candidate should assert on record during the test that the conditions were adequate. It would indeed make these sort of dodges a lot more difficult.

Maybe as a rule, an unblinded test should be done first, similar to what they did at one of the dowsing tests I read about, where the dowsers could test their dowsing while they still knew where the water was flowing, so they could not claim "geological interferences" or something later.

For instance, in Putt's case, an extra volunteer (same gender and age group) could have been used, who Putt was allowed to read in her usual manner, so without the ski mask and the gown, facing forward and without using a book. Then the volunteer could put on the gown and mask in front of Putt and sit down facing away and start reading from the book, exactly like under the test conditions, and have Putt repeat the reading. Putt can now assert for herself that she's getting the same (or very similar) reading twice. Then you could have given Putt the option to either back out of the test, or declare on record that she can indeed operate under the test conditions. That should make it a whole lot more difficult to later make the kind of excuses Putt is making now.

Another advantage: if it is intended to release the video of the test, as was done with Derek Ogilvie for instance, it also gives a much more powerful visual confirmation to the viewers of the fairness of the test than stating the mere fact that a contract was signed. After all, the claimant actually got to try it first, and confirmed it was fair.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +12
What's a Markuze?
written by GusGus, May 09, 2009
@JeffWagg:

What is a Markuze?

.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Read the readings
written by bigjohn756, May 09, 2009
Could you post the readings for everyone to read. I, for one, would like to see exactly what we are dealing with here. Who knows maybe she was getting some interference and accidentally read somebody else by mistake smilies/cheesy.gif Maybe if hundreds were to read these things she would get a hit.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by Steel Rat, May 09, 2009
I think she was getting "That 70s Show" instead.

Seems that ALL of these losers complain after, but not before or even during. Only after the results are known do they call foul.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by BillyJoe, May 09, 2009
What is a Markuze?

Who is Markuze?
Markuze and Robertrash are the same person and he has at least two other aliases.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
@ Steel Rat
written by BillyJoe, May 09, 2009
She's a con artist, nothing more. The excuses she made make that more than obvious

A con artist would not even have taken the test.
They know they can't win.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
Can't win
written by Steel Rat, May 09, 2009
I disagree. They think they're smarter than everyone else, and can fool the "scientists".
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Food, May 09, 2009
I think beowulff makes a good point. Testing the protocol by first trying a 'normal' and a 'test' situation side by side, will help 'protect' a challenger from accepting a 'faulty' protocol as a result of overestimating their (claimed) abilities. Or as it may be claiming that that's what happened after the fact.
Seeing as she was part of the protocol negotiations, she really can't complain that it was used. It's not JREF's task to make it easy on her; quite the contrary, they have to see to it that the test is as rigorous as possible. If she passes the test, then it has to be convincing that the ability is real. It's her task in the negotiation to see to it that the test is (to her mind) feasable, and that failure would be convincing to her. Unfortunately she did not do well enough in that respect, because if she had she wouldn't have this 'escape route'. It's a shame she didn't try out the protocol at home first, so she could have negotiated a better one if she felt it was needed.
Maybe the protocol did fail. But if so, it was her own fault. And as has been pointed out, it is odd that she didn't notice the problem during the readings. But maybe JREF can help challengers a bit in this respect (although I can't say I know what effort they might not already put into it). A small protocol test before the actual preliminary challenge, as suggested by beowulff, might be a good idea.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by kenhamer, May 09, 2009
If nothing else, all these 'complaints' and observations should be compelling evidence that skeptics (at least those who frequent these parts) do indeed possess a healthy and objective skepticism.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by MadScientist, May 09, 2009
@Steel Rat: Unfortunately people can be that deluded. Rather than admit that what they've believed for ages is wrong, they'll make up excuses to convince themselves that they're right. After all, the professional scamsters like Sylvia Browne would never dare apply for the JREF prize.

@GusGus: Markuze is a sad loser who is not getting requisite psychiatric attention; he habitually spams and raves about all atheists burning in hell.

@Jeff: post the details of where he's sending email from and file a complaint with his ISP. If you just delete the trash he posts, he'll just keep posting - face it, he's got nothing better to do with his sorry existence.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by MadScientist, May 09, 2009
@Beowulff: I don't agree with that 'control' in the test because the psychic will just use stock cold reading techniques then claim that they made a successful reading but that all others were harmed by the protocol - and as proof she'll show the blind reading vs. the cold reading. It's better for the claimant to provide us with a sensible explanation of what this 'spirit' is and how it can transcend space and yet be imprisoned by a mere graduation gown and ski mask. Rather than a control, I would ask for volunteers who would sit naked in the dark so that nothing binds their spirit. Hmm... then again the naked part would be largely for my own amusement; since the claimant can make readings on the phone, sitting clothed in the dark should do. Then again maybe the people on the phone *are* naked, so perhaps naked in the dark is the best thing. Then again not really; the psychic will only try to come up with yet another excuse for their failure.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by kenhamer, May 09, 2009
Markuze is a sad loser who is not getting requisite psychiatric attention; he habitually spams and raves about all atheists burning in hell.


So he's a Christian?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by BillyJoe, May 09, 2009
Will someone please put that cat back in the bag and drop it into the nearest river.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by CryoTank, May 09, 2009
What an insane moron...duh
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Why didn't Patricia "...But" forsee her failure?
written by garyg, May 09, 2009
After all, isn't she a psychic?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Skemono, May 09, 2009
mad scientist...you are little liar and you think you are safe lying behind your computer...


you are DEADLY WRONG

So Markuze has taken to threatening people directly now?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Wow...
written by Josh111485, May 09, 2009
It's amazing the lame-ass BS excuses these people come up with. That's the only thing interesting about "psychics". Their ability to come up with dumb-ass excuses on the spot after they've failed miserably.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Kuroyume, May 09, 2009
It's called 'rationalization' (rationalize, verb intransitive, definition 2.: To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior.) which seems to have nothing to do with being rational. smilies/smiley.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by MadScientist, May 09, 2009
@Skemono: Yes, I believe that loser Markuze threatened PZ numerous times. I wish he'd come after me - he'd never bother anyone again. He's not getting adequate psychiatric treatment so he may be a threat to people in his neighborhood.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
The cat is dead.
written by BillyJoe, May 09, 2009
I've just send my friend Maxwell over to silence him.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
...
written by kaivulagi, May 09, 2009
I don't know what his problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Welllll...
written by Brookston John, May 10, 2009
Just another variation on "The Magic won't come out and play if non-believers are watching"...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
felixkrull66 et al
written by bosshog, May 10, 2009
Did I accidently log onto a BDSM web site???
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by bosshog, May 10, 2009
This incident points out the error committed by those who counsel trying to "engage in substantive dialogue" with irrational persons in hopes of pointing out in objective evidential ways the fallacies in their reasoning. They believe what they wish to be true and will broach no disconfirmation.
Apologetics is not confined to Christian theology.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Felix Krull 666
written by Silver, May 10, 2009
Did nostradamus predict an atheist purge? This krull dude remindeds me of a question I have about the christianoids. I recently heard that among the three stooges (a.k.a. the holy trinity) that the one known as the holy spirit seems to out rank jebus and his dad. Apparently mocking the "holy" spirit is considered by some to be the one unforgivable sin. What's that all about? I guess there is no rational explaination since this involves a deity with a multiple personality disorder, but it does leave this atheist scratching his head.
Have any of my fellow atheists felt purged since yesterday? Maybe it is a typo and what krull really means is that there is an atheist urge. Maybe he has the sudden urge to become an atheist himself. If you can't beat 'em then join 'em.
If it is a purge it may take longer than he thought http://www.alternet.org/rights/139788/
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
:3
written by Quakeulf, May 10, 2009
Yeah, who needs a degree anymore when you can have an online calculator do the same task much quicker and for free.


...and also with better results.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
Normal thought?
written by gabriel, May 10, 2009
So wearing a graduation gown and a ski mask, conditions she agreed to ahead of time, is the same as being bound? My graduation gown was quite loose and flowing. I didn't feel at all constrained in it. Perhapes a cloth screen or curtain would have been better. Oh, never mind. So few of the testees realize that they don't have actual powers.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Steel Rat, May 10, 2009
Have any of my fellow atheists felt purged since yesterday?


Well, kinda when I went #2 this morning...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Steel Rat, May 10, 2009
Unfortunately people can be that deluded. Rather than admit that what they've believed for ages is wrong, they'll make up excuses to convince themselves that they're right. After all, the professional scamsters like Sylvia Browne would never dare apply for the JREF prize


They can be, but that doesn't mean Putz is. I'd say Sylvia is just more cunning than the average con-artist, and knows better.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Silver, May 10, 2009
felixkrull66 said: "your entire organization will burn in hell without exception..."


"You go to heaven for the climate and to hell for the company"
Mark Twain
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
...
written by beowulff, May 11, 2009
@Madscientist:
"I don't agree with that 'control' in the test because the psychic will just use stock cold reading techniques then claim that they made a successful reading but that all others were harmed by the protocol - and as proof she'll show the blind reading vs. the cold reading.


I don't think you understood what I was suggesting. Before the real trial starts, she reads the same person twice: once open (when she can cold read all she wants), and once under the test controls (ski mask, reading from a book, etc, which should prohibit cold reading). She should get the same or similar reading twice. It's not a control, and no score is attached to it. It's only so Putt can check for herself that the test conditions (like the special clothing and reading from a book, or the darkness in your alternate protocol) don't interfere with her abilities. If she feels she can't do the second reading, for whatever reason (or excuse) she gives, she can forfeit. She can always re-apply and negotiate a new protocol for next year. If she's convinced the test conditions don't interfere, because she got the same reading twice, then she continues. In that case she can't blame the failure on the clothing or other test circumstances anymore.

I think I understand your concern for giving the psychic a "hit", I hadn't yet really thought of that. At the very least, she won't be able to claim the second reading as a "score", since she already knew the "correct answers" from her first, uncontrolled reading.

If you're uncomfortable with giving her a "success" for the first reading as well, which could possibly have used cold reading, there is a solution for that too. You could make the first reading even more unblinded by providing a bio for the first test subject. That way the psychic can confirm she can get a reading matching that bio twice (both unblinded, once as she'd normally do it, and once with all the special circumstances in place). Now, she can't even point at the successful first reading as a "score" anymore, since all she could do is point out that she could do it when she had all the answers already. Which is kind of the point anyway.

I'm sure that even if checks like this would be added to the test procedure, there would still be excuses, but I'm quite sure they'd be a lot less convincing.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Protocol Failure?
written by KingMerv00, May 11, 2009
To be a success, the protocol only needs to do two things:

1) Exclude trickery.
2) Satisfy the wishes of the claimant before the test. (Insofar as it does not violate #1).

So mission accomplished.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by CryoTank, May 11, 2009
"Have you read this, Sir?"
"No. OH! Yes, yes. Yes."
"Anything to declare?"
"Yes. No, no, no. No, nothing to declare, no. Nothing in my suitcase, no"
...
OK, obviously not quite the same situation. Rather:
"Have you read the protocol? Do you understand it? Do you accept the conditions?"
"Yes. Yes. Yes"
"Any questions?"
"No"
"Alright"
...Testing...Testing...One Two Fail...
"Sorry, zero points. You lose."
"Foul! The conditions were not fair. I thought/I was under the impression that "
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by CryoTank, May 11, 2009
*insert excuse here* missing at the end (used pointed brackets...I failed) smilies/tongue.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Raindoggy, May 12, 2009
I feel sorry for the woman. She is obviously a troubled person with psychological issues, perhaps even delusional (clinicly). She probabally feels as though she is not that special without this "psychic" power. Now she has had that taken away. No wonder she is rationalizing it. I must be terribly depressing. Too bad there isn't anyone who can show her that she doesn't need to be psychic to be valued.

Like a child who has been lied to by their parents and then one day finds out that all their successes were made up or rigged.

Very sad.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@raindoggy
written by Steel Rat, May 12, 2009
I must be terribly depressing.


Now why would you say that? smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Free Sprit?
written by Beez, May 12, 2009
Does Mrs Putts issue with the outfit also mean that women who wear a Burqa are never linked to their sprit? They may disagree, while enjoying the added bonus of being protected from being 'read' by women with her 'powers'.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Unintended means...
written by FirstTimeCaller, May 15, 2009
written by philandstuff, May 09, 2009
"will intentionally cause my failure through either intended or unintended means." -- how do you intentionally cause something through unintended means? I think you ought to reword this slightly...

I think this is meant to address the claim that someone's "bad vibes" adversely affected the outcome. In the past Mr. Randi has been accused of causing failed tests by his mere presence. I believe this why he seldom attends the actual tests -- to avoid this whole angle.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by RobNYNY1957, May 15, 2009
Was there some incentive for the subjects to pick the right profile? If they were biased against the success of the test, they might have made an effort to avoid the one they thought was really their own. It might enhance the test if the subjects are given a substantial bonus for picking the right profile.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by a few dollars more, September 04, 2009
I do wonder about the test itself though. I have looked for more details but can't find much.
Personally I would find anyone dressed like that and silent very off putting anyway, very creepy.
I think it wrong to have the test group one age group and gender, it is possible that the objectivity of the test could be called into question by a possible suggestion that selecting a group more prone to fail? I do wonder if there was a little bit of "creep" into the proposal to, goalposts were altered and despite her acceptance, I think that if she were to have withdrawn at any time cynics would have just called her another "loser" anyhow lol

Without knowing the full in and outs of the test I think it hard to decide what was actually being tested. Isn't empirical science about showing something worthy of further investigation and peer review? I do not mean the alleged Randi million but generally? I do believe that such research is not open minded and looks upon failure as a success....failure is the objective!!

A lot of this psychic joo joo bull seems to have an element of belief to it, we often hear (and laugh at!!) negative energy and lack of "faith" as an excuse of failure. I do believe that a meeting of minds is needed Chris and Richard are well known for cynicism and debunking so for me the test was not set neutral...

There again I am a true sceptic and open minded enough to believe or perhaps know smilies/grin.gif, that we do not know all that is going on around us!!!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy