That would be a big deal and even though I am skeptical of paranormal abilities I would actually love to see that happen. The whole reason I became skeptical is because I was interested in the claims that some people make but when under intense scrutiny it's never what they claim to be able to do. It just goes to show that the whole point of the MDC is to get retribution from the people who lie to us. At least that's what it means to me. Votes: +10

Maybe it's just me, but why on Earth would anyone with real psychic powers even bother with the JREF award? One million would be chicken feed compared to what a genuine psychic could make on Wall Street or in Las Vegas. JREF's money is probably pretty safe. Votes: +9

Don't you think beating the JREF challenge would be a HUGE thing for any psychic's career? Also, why wouldn't the donate the money to charity? Burned kids could sure use the money. It's not like it would take a lot of time to get it. Votes: +12

I agree with the original comment, i am a skeptic because i want to know the truth, and i would love to see someone win the million, and prove that the world isn't as black and white as it seems.

We would have large companies funding research into these now proven powers. And all people who have legitimate powers could step forward without fear of ridicule, and start putting their powers, which up until now have been dismissed unfairly, to good use.

In short, we would be living in a comic book. Which as a nerd of the highest caliber i would whole heartedly support.

But unlike the millions who believe in these things without any sort of real testing, i cannot simply live as how i would like the world to be, and believe whatever i want to believe. Living in the real world, though a bit more boring, is a more satisfying existence. And one that does not lead to wasting time and money lining the pockets and ratings of charlatans.

Votes: +13

written by MandySmith24, September 26, 2009

Someone could win the prize without tricking/fooling you or having paranormal powers.

How? The only way to win the prize is by demonstrating paranormal abilities (very unlikely), or somehow fooling the JREF's seasoned committee of investigators (even less likely). There is no third option. Votes: +5

Why would the world change? It would simply mean that we are genuinely aware of something else in the world. Other genuine psychics can be tested (though no more $1M prize) and as a certified psychic they can sue all the frauds because the frauds are bad for their genuine business.

It would not necessarily be possible to learn more about an individual's special abilities using the tools currently at our disposal; for example, what makes some people really smart or what makes some people criminals? There are many ideas out there and most of them seem to make some sense, yet how many of them are actually properly tested? In the case of smart people the one thing that is indisputable is that they need to work hard at something; no one knows anything or becomes good at anything without a huge effort to learn or to perfect an art.
Votes: +2

MandySmith24 is correct. There is a third option. Luck. It might be incredibly unlikely but it could happen. Someone could (say a dowser for example) could just be incredibly lucky one day and meet the challenges expectations by accident. Votes: +7

The applicant would need to be lucky twice! Once in the preliminary trials and again in the actual trial. How many people do you know who have won the lottery for millions more than once? Yes, it may have happened a couple times but the chances are 1 in trillions. And don't discredit fraud in such cases - lotteries have been known (and proven) to be rigged in the past. Votes: +3

I don't know where you were, Jeff, but I was at TAM 7

If you really were at TAM 8, perhaps you could claim the million dollars.
(unless JREF has a standard clause against employees or family members being eligible.) Votes: +2

while you are of course right they would have to get lucky twice which is incredibly unlikely, you cant deny that it "could" happen. so there is a third option just an very very very unlikely one. Votes: +5

Show me where I'm incorrect in my assertion. Jeff, any applicant must take a preliminary challenge and then the final challenge, correct? That would mean that the person would need to pass both challenges. If they passed the preliminary, you think the JREF is just going to jump to the final without any consideration of the entire process involved in the preliminary?

Jeff:

Everything would have been reviewed to see if there was something done incorrectly, or if there was any cheating

So the person would have to have been lucky to get past the preliminary. To win the final challenge, they'd need to be lucky twice.

I rest my case...

Bye Votes: +3

while you are of course right they would have to get lucky twice which is incredibly unlikely, you cant deny that it "could" happen. so there is a third option just an very very very unlikely one.

But the odds are astronomical against unless Randi had begun drinking heavily and became sloppy. From my decades of watching him, he is always ruthlessly methodical just to disallow even luck to play much of a part in the process. Even statistical probabilities come into play so as to rule out chance. Votes: +1

Because of a simple problem of definition, it would seem impossible to win the prize. Suppose it became the law of the land that to burn an American flag was a punishable felony. How would one define "an American Flag"? I could draw one on a sheet of paper and then set it on fire. The only way to enforce such a law would be to give authority to an arbitrarily chosen "Official Maker of Flags" thus setting into motion an avalanche of fallacies. Using the same logic, if Connie Sonne had won at TAM8, that would indeed mean one of two things. 1. The JREF was taken for a ride by a grifter of amazing ability. Or, 2. Connie Sonne has psychic powers. If the first is correct, fraud has taken place. If the second is correct, Ms. Sonne would have proved psychic powers to be natural - not supernatural, or paranormal. In the first case, no prize is awarded. (The prize IS stolen, however). In the second case, no prize is awarded on the basis that nothing supernatural occurred. Votes: -7

Not sure if I follow your logic here. The statement of the JREF is to test claims of supposed supernatural/paranormal abilities, those which have no known natural explanation. If someone were to exhibit an ability not covered by natural explanation and succeed in the test, yes, well, of course, it would now be 'tentatively' considered natural. But that doesn't mean that the JREF can then retroactively claim that it was a natural process involved and disqualify the participant from the prize. I think that you are making the JREF out to be holding onto the million dollars with some sort of death-grip no matter what the outcome. That would be a false statement. In essense, what the JREF challenge is truly about is an attempt to see if so-called supernatural/paranormal phenomena can be evidenced and then studied as natural phenomena. Psst. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. If it exists in this universe, then it is natural. Anything else is fantasy, pure and simple. In terms that a five year old can understand, if "Heroes" actually existed, we could study them to find out how they work within the framework of the universe. Otherwise, we'd have to wake up from that dream we were having. Votes: +6

Kuroyume,
You said it better than I. If it exists in this universe it IS natural. It is simply void of meaning to award a prize on the basis of an inability to explain how a trick is done. The problem is one of tautology. I don't want the JREF to get swindled. On the other hand, if psychic abilities do occur in nature are they to be considered paranormal, or normal? What is normal? Natural is a product of nature. Normal is a statistical term much like mean, median, mode. Votes: -1

Once the protocol is agreed to, whether it's "supernatural" or not is irrelevant. A contract is made. The $1,000,000 will be awarded if the claimant does what they say they can do. Votes: +9

You said it better than I. If it exists in this universe it IS natural. It is simply void of meaning to award a prize on the basis of an inability to explain how a trick is done. The problem is one of tautology. I don't want the JREF to get swindled. On the other hand, if psychic abilities do occur in nature are they to be considered paranormal, or normal? What is normal? Natural is a product of nature. Normal is a statistical term much like mean, median, mode. smilies/smiley.gif

Thanks! Well, to those who 'believe' in this stuff, it would confirm the supernatural for them (unfortunately, I think). The premise of psychic abilities is that one is 'in contact' with forces or souls of deceased individuals 'beyond this world' which intimates an extra-universal connection as far as we can surmise. But, at this stage of human development, I'd say that we're pretty certain that such connections don't exist. Not saying it is 100% certain - just that scientific, evidential, and other sources say 'not likely' (to throw in my Magic 8-ball phrase of the day). And, logically, objectively, anything that occurs in this universe has a 'trace' - even if supposedly initiated extra-universally. This is why miracles are becoming rare these days. The old standard is to say that god doesn't leave fingerprints so that his authority cannot be challenged. This is a convenient way of saying that "god doesn't play sherlock" (to completely screw up Einstein's quote). In other words, god can suspend the laws of the universe for any amount of time needed and noone but the devout believers can provide anecdotal testimony. Doesn't fly. A universe where god can interact freely with the universe to suspend its laws but the suspension cannot be objective verified is the same universe where god doesn't exist and people are fools. Votes: +4

Once the protocol is agreed to, whether it's "supernatural" or not is irrelevant. A contract is made. The $1,000,000 will be awarded if the claimant does what they say they can do.

Thank you! Votes: +2

One thing about the odds. It would be a one in a million shot that Connie Sonne would win the prize by pure luck. However if the test is run 100 times that alters the odds to something like one in ten thousand that one of them will win it. So even if someone did win the prize that would not mean paranormal powers exist. It would need to be duplicated, probably several times, before it is confirmed.

But then that is how science works. Element 113 had to be produced twice before it was accepted that it had been created. Votes: +3

Jeff--i can run a 1 minute mile. Just make sure the train's aisle is free of obstacles and i'll prove it to you! Votes: +3

Jeff--i can run a 1 minute mile. Just make sure the train's aisle is free of obstacles and i'll prove it to you!

Is it OK if the train is stationary? Votes: +3

This is where the JREF is both properly cautious and practical. I can get from New York to London in under 3 hours. That is, if I can get a supersonic Concorde flight (not anymore, by the way). That is not an unknown natural phenomenon. Physics exactly explains the relationships of relative motions (see why you can throw a ball between two moving vehicles and Einstein's special relativity train gedanken).

I'm sure that if I claim to type 5000 words per minute on my computer, there might be some investigation into my methodologies to see if they are 'natural' (as in, I'm using some enhancement technology or maybe a very good speech-to-text software) versus my fingers moving at ridiculous speeds. Votes: +1

To all those who think that the $1m challenge is seriously flawed in some way,
all you have to do is to establish your own $1m challenge without the perceived flaws.
What is stopping you? Votes: +3

If it was ever 'won' my starting assumption would be that it is far more likely the committee has been fooled or suborned than actual psychic ability exists.

No one is beyond fooling. And no institution is beyond being able to be corrupted Votes: +3

@Find The Others: At the moment psychic abilities are considered "supernatural" because there is absolutely no evidence that anyone has such powers. If someone does demonstrate such abilities then of course we'll call it 'natural' although unusual, and it would also demonstrate that we have an awful lot more to learn about how things interact in the universe. The mere knowledge that there is something demonstrable which we don't understand and would consider supernatural is well worth $1M. Imagine you were on the planet 200 years ago; wouldn't you gladly pay out $1M to someone who could reliably demonstrate that they could fly faster and with more control than a balloon?
Votes: +1

I would like to point out that, contrary to what some people here seem to believe, the odds of winning a second test by pure luck in two events that involve simple guessing of binary outcomes (the typical dowsing test) are exactly the same as the odds of winning one event by pure chance, everything else being equal. If you flip a coin and guess right 10 times in a row, then you have the exact same chance of doing it again by pure coincidence the next time you try.

And people do win multiple times at a lottery. Just because something has a tiny chance of happening doesn't mean it's impossible.

The only way to get around this success by beating the odds is by designing tests that actually measure a physical result. After all, if someone claims the ability to levitiate, they actually have show something happening. Since physical proof of paranormal claims such as producing ghostly ectoplasm or bending spoons with the mind can be tested using hard physics and direct observation and always fails, that leaves the fuzzy world of mathematical statistics as the final frontier of the woo woo crowd.

Unfortunately, a lot of psychic claims fall into the strict statistical proof catagory of guessing the future, in one form or another. In fact, most of the various paranormal psychic powers that people now claim are essentially the same: the ability to beat the statistical probability of chance result. But as hard as JREF tries to design the test to eliminate chance alone, it can't be done. A one in a million chance of guessing right? Someone could guess right next time. And the next time after that, even. There is no universal law preventing unlikely events from happening.

Only given millions of tries does the statistical probability have to approach the calculated one. That doesn't mean JREF is in danger of losing the prize to sheer luck. Only that it's a definite possibility. Votes: +2

Forgive me, but I cannot understand why so many people prefer not to have a "black and white" world. Is this a reluctance to face facts, reality, rationality? As for color, I have no difficulty adding pink, yellow, or green to my palette...
Votes: +2

Maybe it's just me, but why on Earth would anyone with real psychic powers even bother with the JREF award? One million would be chicken feed compared to what a genuine psychic could make on Wall Street or in Las Vegas. JREF's money is probably pretty safe.

Not necessarily. Id does not have to be skill which would allow that. For example making people loose their fluids would be much better turned into money with the Challenge, than in the Casino.
Votes: +1

The claimant's protocols are reviewed by magicians and statisticians before approval

I recall at least one protocol that gave about a chance of 1 in 170 of winning a trial. That seems like rather good odds, even if you do need to do it twice. If you tested everyone on earth, there would be around 200000 winners (in the final round). That's a lot better than the odds of winning the lottery.
So given examples like that (even though it's probably not the rule), if someone won the million dollar challenge, my first guess would be "pure luck". The fact that nobody wins the challenges says a lot more than if anyone did win it. They could win by chance, but they couldn't lose with an ability.

@Michael K Gray

To all those who think that the $1m challenge is seriously flawed in some way,
all you have to do is to establish your own $1m challenge without the perceived flaws.
What is stopping you?

I think that not having a million dollars might be one of the hurdles to those people. Votes: +5

There seems to be some misunderstandings about my statement which need clearing up. Firstly, I never said the prize is flawed. I am beyond skeptical with regards to "psychic powers". "Psychic powers" are total bunk. They have been tested ad nauseam under countless scientific conditions. They have been tested more than enough to place them squarely in the file labeled "debunked". If the prize continues to keep the minor league hucksters at bay this is a good thing. Secondly, I never claimed the million dollar prize is without value. The Connie Sonne's of the world not withstanding though, there are more dangerous, even treacherous, hucksters out there - John Edward, Sylvia Browne, Kevin Trudeau, Oprah, van Praagh, etc. who cause tremendous amounts of harm. These folks,however,already have millions and can rationalize this fact among their reasons for refusing the test. The value of the prize is found in the fact that the only people who offer to be tested are those who have something to gain, namely the prize. If Sylvia Browne (who isn't short of cash last I heard) tried for the prize, she would have something to lose, namely, her credibility (what's left of it) her career (and possibly incur litigation) because her so-called powers are bunk.

This is why the prize works. It proves something about the lengths some people will go who are desperate for the money. The Major league millionaire scam artists who have nothing to gain monetarily would gladly be tested if there were any truth to their claims - which there is not, and they know it. Because of the prize, we know it too. Votes: +7

I would like to point out that, contrary to what some people here seem to believe, the odds of winning a second test by pure luck in two events that involve simple guessing of binary outcomes (the typical dowsing test) are exactly the same as the odds of winning one event by pure chance, everything else being equal. If you flip a coin and guess right 10 times in a row, then you have the exact same chance of doing it again by pure coincidence the next time you try.

So, if I stand in the middle of a highway for ten minutes and don't get hit by a vehicle (luck, let's say) and then proceed to do it again, the probability is still the same? Seems that 'in reality', the longer or more times that I test this little luck situation, the better the probability that I get hit by a vehicle. We're not talking about 'ideal' coin tosses. I don't believe anything - I apply reason to real situations; not juggle mathematics.

And people do win multiple times at a lottery. Just because something has a tiny chance of happening doesn't mean it's impossible.

For millions each time? Did you read what I wrote? Yes, I think that this has happened a couple times (out of the quadrillions of times people played any of the lotteries out there). Anyway, odds are different aren't they? The first time, the person more than likely didn't have the finances to buy thousands of tickets but after winning, well, unless you buy several yachts and islands... Not identical situations, thank you very much. Votes: -5

So, if I stand in the middle of a highway for ten minutes and don't get hit by a vehicle (luck, let's say) and then proceed to do it again, the probability is still the same?

Huh?? Of course it's the same! Why wouldnt it be? The odds of being hit in the 20 minutes are obviously twice as high, but all else being equal of course the odds are the same both times. And you are making assumptions with your lottery example. I don't play Lotto, but if I did and won, I think I would be more inclined to buy less tickets afterwards, not more...just as a token of my appreciation Votes: +1

Oh, Ok, I see what you are thinking--you are saying you would immediately proceed to stand back in the road, for a 20 minute interval instead of 10 minutes. Well, of course, that is not the scenario being referred to by Jerry. The million dollar challenge may not be a pure coin toss, but in some cases I think the same statistical idea referred to by Jerry still applies. Votes: +2

I think that some people like to feel that there is still something out there to explore...something unknown. For most, the depths of the ocean and the vastness of space are inaccessible, thus they turn to superstition and the "paranormal" as things they could "conceivably" chance upon; unknowns that could be accessed by them as it were...

For me, science has answered many mysteries in my short tenure on this rock...and I do admit that sometimes I do wish for a little mystery when I look around...

I, however, in these moments simply Google "interesting space phenomenon" and a small smile plays across my face as I realize that the more we know as human beings, the more there is to know...
Votes: +3

I see I wsn't totally clear on my point from the response. My bad. In my defense, it's not like statistics is a confusing subject or something, right? Problem is, statistics are also antituitive. Skeptics should all study the mathematics behind it just a little bit, because it's one of the favorite refuges of the woo woo crowd, starting with creationists and ending with BigFoot.

My several points are that:

Just because a particular outcome has a small statistical probability of happening by chance doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. Events beat the long odds all the time. Saying something has a one in a million chance doesn't mean it has to take a million chances to happen. It's no harder for the first person to beat the odds than the one millionth person. So "luck" should definitely be the coequal possibility of someone passing the JREF Challenge, along with cheating and actually having the paranormal talent. Of course, repeated testing would eventually eventually expose this.

But the fact that there are two tests and yet someone passed them both is what is going to impress people, when in fact that's not a factor at all. What's important is the number of individual right guesses combined. You could have someone guess 20 coin tosses, and win, and people would say, OK he won one test. Impressive, but can he do it again? But split it into two tests of 10 tosses each and it's no harder to beat the odds but people are now impressed that "He beat the test twice, so he can't just be lucky!" Do you see the point? You could just as easily split the tosses into 4 tests spread out over a year of 5 each, and it would seem that the impossible feat of winning 4 tests in a row would mean luck is impossible. But if some psychic manages to guess right, you can know that the headlines will ready, "Was tested twice, so can't be luck!" In the same way, a short search on the internet shows you that people have acquired big lottery wins multiple times, by chance alone. Intuitively, it seems those people have some psychic ability to pick numbers because it must be harder to win the lottery again after you've just won it, right? Nope, it is the exact same odds if you've never won a lottery in your life.

Of course, having two shorter instead of one longer test is the best design because it allows JREF to step back and examine the first test for hidden flaws.





Votes: +3

> We also urge others to replicate our findings.
>
> And then the entire world changes.
>
> At this point, psychic powers have become something known to exist.
> Unless the JREF made some massive error

At this point, it's still 99.9999% likely there were issues, and that psychic powers still don't exist.

I often wondered if "social engineering" might claim this prize, with some kind of bribery to officials, especially after Randi regretfully passes away. Is the prize/test system set up to be iron-clad going into the future, against corruption? Votes: +0

Several people have written about statistics and odds of things happening.

Statistics can be scary enough for the math-phobic, or adverse, though with current computer programs a lot of number-crunching is comparatively easy (I'm old enough to remember computing variance & standard deviation with an adding machine, a pile of tablet paper, and a slide rule -- it wasn't fun).

The really hard part is Probability, and it is largely counterintuitive.
For example, consider a coin toss with a fair coin. The odds of getting "heads" is 1/2. What are the odds of doing a second toss getting "heads?" It's still 1/2. Although the odds of getting 2 "heads" in a row is (1/2)^2 or 1/4, since each event is random and independent, the prior toss does not influence the second toss. Each event is free, random, and independent. So at that point in time, the odds of "heads" is still 1/2 for the second toss.

It gets even more complicated when the events are related or dependent. For example, imagine a standard deck of playing cards: 52 cards, 13 denominations, in 4 suits. The cards are shuffled (randomized). What are the odds of drawing an Ace of any suit? 4/52 or 1/13. What are the odds that the second card drawn will be an Ace of any suit? Most people would think (1/13)^2 or 1/169. They would be wrong. The first trial removed one card and one Ace from the deck. Other than that, the deck is still shuffled (randomized) and the prior draw does not influence the second draw. So the odds the second card will also be an Ace of one of the 3 remaining suits is 3/51 or 1/17. Again, the odds of drawing 2 aces in a row are 1/13 x 1/17 or 1/221, after the first Ace has been drawn, the Second draw is a free and random though partially dependent event, and the odds at that point of time is only 1/17.

This is why people hate statistics: it isn't just the massive crunching of numbers for analysis, it's determing what the probabilities really are, and how prior events do or do not influence subsequent events. Votes: +3

Long Shot:
"...I think that not having a million dollars might be one of the hurdles to those people."

This was my exact, but elliptic point.
It is the JREF's $1m, and it is up to them to determine the exact conditions of any and all awards.
Folk who merely complain and whine, as opposed to offering constructive alternatives, should STFU, in my opinion. Votes: +1

Thanks for burying my earlier comment. I expected that. Votes: +0

The really hard part is Probability, and it is largely counterintuitive.
For example, consider a coin toss with a fair coin. The odds of getting "heads" is 1/2. What are the odds of doing a second toss getting "heads?" It's still 1/2. Although the odds of getting 2 "heads" in a row is (1/2)^2 or 1/4, since each event is random and independent, the prior toss does not influence the second toss. Each event is free, random, and independent. So at that point in time, the odds of "heads" is still 1/2 for the second toss.

But longer for a consecutive third, longer still for a consecutive fourth, etc.
Votes: +0

I agree with some of the other comments here. No one with genuine paranormal powers is really going to be interested in this prize anyway. The only way that this is going to get won is if their is an allaborate scam with plenty of people bought in, and frankly speaking the award isn't big enough to warrant that. Votes: +0

Well what if there is someone out there who has "supernatural powers"... What if JREF just didn't want to give them the money? Why wouldn't somebody who has paranormal powers want the prize money? Plus people wouldn't want to believe what they can't prove so they have to THINK of all these tests, why can't people just accept it? Oh and question how old do you have to be to enter the The Challenge? Votes: +0

Well, to those who 'believe' in this stuff, it would confirm the supernatural for them (unfortunately, I think). The premise of psychic abilities is that one is 'in contact' with forces or souls of deceased individuals 'beyond this world' which intimates an extra-universal connection as far as we can surmise. But, at this stage of human development, I'd say that we're pretty certain that such connections don't exist. Not saying it is 100% certain - just that scientific, evidential, and other sources say 'not likely' (to throw in my Magic 8-ball phrase of the day).

And so then if this was won wouldn't that provide some evidence that maybe yeah, it does exist, and the "unlikely" happened? And if so how would that be so bad? It would be an advance. You say "at this stage of human development" it looks pretty likely they don't exist... yet if we got some real evidence, then that would beo verturned, so could that help bring about a NEW stage of development? Wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?
Votes: -1

...are a tax for the math-impaired. Votes: +0

This versatile styling tool has an ergonomic design and curved edge plates to create any style from straight to curly and everything in between. With a flash heating element and fixed temperature setting, the power to create the style of your dreams is your hands.
GHD Hair Straighteners
CHI Hair Straighteners Votes: +0