Actually, Czarcasm, I will reveal my name to them without any promises. I always use my name in Real Life exchanges, and since part of any real test will include personal contacts among various people, that will happen quite ordinarily.
I have responded again to the HRVG, and also on the one other site that I could find with an open forum. If anyone else finds an open forum that they think would be willing to accept my offer, let me know.
I am still considering this offer opened, and pending acceptance. I will continue to post at HRVG, and try to overcome their reluctance. My desire is not to prove anything to them, about RV, or about their own group. I wish only to get cooperation.
My qualifications have been questioned. I am at a loss to provide them, since interest in RV, and scrupulous Double Blind examination are the extent of my qualifications, and those are the qualities that elicited the demand for qualifications. Perhaps someone here has a degree, and is willing to let me wave it around. (I doubt my high school diploma is gonna impress anyone. It certainly never impressed me.)
Tris
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung ~
Well, I have posted a few general forum messages, referencing the thread, sent a few emails, and made my willingness to be an intermediary for anyone who finds the SDMB . . . unfelicitous.
I have only recieved two responses indicating any level of interest in the project at all, and one of those is pretty much not interested other than as an observer.
I would like to let a bit of time pass before exploring the methods by which an examination can be made without any voluntary participation by proponents. Let’s say, a week from today, unless someone steps up.
This is my first posting, so please let me know if I violate any etiquette.
In the spirit of the JREF (and of DaveW’s posts which mention knowing the odds in advance), any test should be designed so that no judges are required (I think this is a requirement for the big JREF million dollar prize). I think someone mentioned on the original thread that it could be done as a matching problem. One person views 10 different targets (each associated with a unique random number) and then tries to match the numbers to the pictures afterwards. Rich_rv mentioned that each viewing might be a LOT of work, so maybe it could instead be 10 people viewing 10 images (with each person assigned one particular image), and then they try to match them up afterwards (i.e., afterwards, each person would see all 10 pictures, w/out knowing the random numbers, and would have to choose the one they think they viewed - each picture would have to be assigned to one person). They can even be given the 10 pictures (without the numbers attached, of course) and debate about them together and help each other as long as they want. But in the end, each person must pick one of the pictures. The chance of one person guessing correctly is 1/10; two people is 1/100, etc. So the odds of getting all 10 matched correctly is 1/10,000,000,000 (actually, it’s 1/10! (that’s 10 “factorial”, not 10 “enthusiastically” ) if you take into account that each picture must be assigned to exactly one person).
The beauty of it is that the RVers can be in control of just about everything, and set up conditions any way they want. They can even choose the targets… in fact, I think they could even know what the 10 targets are ahead of time, so they can pick some of their favorites. The chances of getting the match correct are still VERY low. The only requirement is that no participant can know the number-to-picture correspondance until it is completely over and the viewers have ALL selected which picture they think they viewed.
Then, as is the JREF requirement, the results will be obvious to all. No judging is required.
I think any test that has everyone viewing one picture, then “judging” the hits afterwards will degenerate into a big shouting match. With the above protocol, there is no room for this.
Does this make sense? Does it seem like something that might fly? I can work out the math (or maybe someone who is better at this can help out) to see how many correct hits would be expected by chance.
I’m curious what any RVers might think, and to get their input to change this protocol in any way that they see as necessary - I just threw this out as a first attempt at it. As DaveW said, the RVers must be very happy with the protocol, and agree that the protocol itself will not hamper their abilities. The only “monitoring” will be to make sure that no one cheats and gets advance knowledge of the number-to-picture mapping.
The problem so far is that the Remote Viewers don’t wish to be part of any test that might cause them to doubt the very existence of RV. They have devised a test that tells them what they want to believe, and seem to be hostile to any suggestion that someone other than a “true believer” test them. The term used on one of the boards for one is, if I remember correctly, “Competent Authority”.
Again, unless people who believe they might have this ability are willing to take part in the experiment, it cannot work. The only people left would be the “control” group, and the people who don’t believe but take the test anyway. The second group will automatically be accused of fudging the data to make RV look bad, guaranteed.
It makes plenty of sense, but I’m afraid it probably won’t fly. That appears, as Czarcasm points out, to be the nature of this beast (at least where HRVG is concerned - I don’t have a lot of experience with other RV groups).
Especially the part about the viewers getting to see the targets beforehand. The HRVG crowd calls this “frontloading,” and it’s very bad. They won’t touch a “frontloaded” test with a ten-foot pole. I would have thought it would make it easier, but apparently that’s vehemently not the case.
Oh, and thanks for bringing up the calculations again, because I’d forgotten about wevets’ question about a control group. If things work out right, no control group should be needed, since the probabilities should be calculatable. Control groups are necessary in experiments for which you cannot calculate (beforehand) the chance of success. With a test of RV, the claim is basically “we can do better than guessing,” and we should be able to calculate what results “guessing” would get without actually measuring it. By analogy, we can calculate the long-term odds of rolling snake-eyes without actually performing a bazillion rolls of the dice, so if someone claims to be able to telekinetically change the odds, no “control group” is needed to verify that the claimant should roll a two something other than 1 time in every 36.
Another thing about this methodology (the “matching problem,” which is, in RV lingo, a “target pool”) is that according to what I read in Jessica Utts’ report, the folks at either SRI or SAIC determined that a pool with 100 targets was optimally-sized. If more or fewer targets were in the pool, the viewers didn’t do as well. So, if a pool of targets is the methodology eventually adopted, remember “100”.
And welcome to the SDMB! As long as you keep putting my name in the same sentence with JREF you’ll get along great here! (Actually, I’m not affiliated with JREF in any way, I’m just hoping to gain some prestige through proximity. )
More bad news, Tris.
Mr. Glenn Wheaton of the HRVG is now telling his flock not to participate in your experiment. It seems that we don’t have the proper attitude, and we won’t all reveal our true names to him. He had other not-so-nice comments, but they were the same tired “Gather up, True Believers!, Circle the wagons and insert the Holy Earplugs of Truth” missives that we’ve seen before.
Perhaps one of the other websites I’ve found will pan out. If not, I’ll find more.
Rich_rv–if you’re still with us–I’d like to commend you for your extremely civilized and intelligent participation in this entire discussion, and I’d also like to let you know that I detect, under your RV posts, maybe just a tiny spark of the Light of Skepticism. Anybody who actually goes out and looks on the Web for information on RV methodology, instead of merely taking someone’s word for it, would fit right in here at the SDMB. I’m saying that I think you have the makings of a Doper, Rich, (and that’s a compliment, in case you didn’t know ) and I think we’d all be pleased if you spent more time here at the SDMB. We do have other forums, you know, and there are so many other things to talk about under the sun, besides remote viewing.
We promise not to tell Glenn.
And, if you’re seriously worried about him checking up on you and finding out that you’re posting here at the Evil Straight Dope, you could come in through the back door, in disguise. You could e-mail an administrator, like TubaDiva, and ask her to de-register your user name of Rich_rv and then re-register under a different name. If you just ask for a name change, your “Rich_RV” posts would still be here but with the new user name on them, and he would know who you are. :eek:
Anyway, Glenn never needs to know that you’re posting here, and maybe asking some–dangerous–questions.
But note–do not do this “name change” by yourself. In other words, don’t simply re-register with a second user name, because that’s against the rules. E-mail Tuba and talk to her about it, she’s a nice lady.
tubadiva@aol.com
[sub]ah, another brand pulled from the burning
[exits singing]
rescue the perishing, care for the dying,
snatch them in pity from sin and the grave…[/sub]
Hmmm…okay I read the link. I was expecting some totally delusional response considering DDG called it “the saddest thing I have ever read.” Instead I find a list of seemingly valid issues:
a) Those conducting the study will not reveal their identities beforehand.
b) The only organizational affiliation the conductors have is that they post on the same message board.
c) The discussions prior to the study have not always been respectful and open-minded.
d) The results of the study would carry no weight in the broader scientific community.
The objections all seem valid to me. Are they just obstructionist tactics? Perhaps. But trying to tar-and-feather someone for stating those objections is a bit much.
Well, if you still plan to try this, even if the RV groups won’t participate, I’ll play. I know next to nothing about remote viewing, so if I’m assigned the role of “viewer” you should keep that in mind. I promise to maintain a neutral position - I have no investment (emotional or otherwise) in the success or failure of the experiment.
Given the lack of pro-RV participants so far, I don’t expect a universally acceptable definitive answer, but the test proposed would be both fun and interesting. I don’t see the harm in trying.
Maybe I can finally see the famous Moderator Underoos.
The study would be conducted in such a way that the identities of those involved don’t matter. An offer of identity revealation has already been made. Not that it matters, since Glenn cannot prove to us that his name is actually Glenn. What’s the difference between an obvious alias and an alias that sounds like a real name? Is one more trustworthy than another? But this is irrelevant to whether or not proper science can be done.
Also irrelevant to whether or not proper science can be conducted.
Also irrelevant, but at least I can understand an objection based on bitterness. Note, however, that the disrespect has gone both ways.
When an 11-year-old can do a science project that is now widely cited by the scientific community as disproof of Therapeutic Touch, this last objection is shown to be the silliest of them all.
Glenn’s objections are all based on an Appeal to Authority: we aren’t, in his words, a “competent authority,” so therefore it is impossible for us to do proper or meaningful science. That is not valid logic.
Agreed. But I think it is still useful to debate a test protocol, to make it as simple and obvious as possible. Maybe it will give pause to would-be remote viewers if even the most straightforward protocol is not acceptable to the RV establishment. The RVers can work out most of the protocol to their liking (it should be as close as possible to a “normal” remote viewing session), and no authority is needed as a judge. The only requirement is that one or more people have to assign the target ID to the image and make sure that the viewers don’t see this (at least not physically ) until it is all over. This could be done, for instance, in a room with both “skeptics” and RVer representitives present, as long as no one can communicate the ID/Image mapping to the viewers. Otherwise, almost anything goes.
It is important to devise a protocol where no data judging/fudging is possible. I think the one I put forward is in this category. Everyone must agree that the protocol is fair BEFORE it starts, then the results are obvious to all once it is over, with NO JUDGING required, and no fudging possible.
You’re right. It is important the the RVers themselves shape the protocol to their liking. There is no requirement that they look at the pictures, but they can if they want to. There is a lot of flexibility here. They can choose the pictures, others can choose the pictures; there can be 10 of them, or 100, or 1000. 1 person can do the viewing, or 10, or 100… you get the point. The only task is to match the target IDs with the pictures afterwards. Almost anything else is up for debate.
I couldn’t agree more. The RVers would be the authority with this protocol. It would only require a neutral observer to make sure the ID/Image mapping is kept secret until the viewing is over. NO JUDGING REQUIRED!! I think what he is probably trying to say is that he wants a more prestigious organization to “validate” remote viewing. We can’t do that. But if they can do well with whatever protocol this humble group comes up with, then that could generate interest from others.
But as Czarcasm points out, maybe they are just happy to do their remote-viewing in private, for their own enjoyment, and not trying to convince anyone else that there is anything to it.
Thanks! It’s a fun place to be. I got drawn into this whole remote viewing thing when looking at a completely unrealted thread. I hope I can contribute something useful here.
I did suggest near the beginning of the thread that you involve a known person or organisation e.g. a newspaper as a neutral judge.
The big weakness of the test under discussion is the selection of the images. If a ‘fraudulent skeptic’* or a ‘cheating viewer’* is in charge, they can bias the results, or communicate to their fellows.
*this description is for illustrative purposes only.
Since Randi has been mentioned, has anyone asked Glenn why his group don’t collect the $1,000,000?
Only after the study has been conducted and reviewed can it be known how meaningful the science is. The current effort is to locate remote viewers volunteers. They can not be expected to participate just because others would like them to. Part of their decision making process is to consider who is doing the asking.
Which of the following studies would you more likely participate in?
a) A study where the scientists told you who they were up front.
b) A study where the scientists would be identified after you agreed to volunteer.
a) A study conducted by scientists trained in the field who work at the same research institute.
b) A study conducted by various people who discuss things on a message board.
a) A study destined to be published in a scientific journal after peer review.
b) A study destined to be published on a message board.
It’s one thing to trust yourself. It’s quite another thing to get others to trust you.
One of the simpler protocols mentioned earlier is to RV a target via the reference number then display a set of photos, four is typical.
The viewer and anyone else looking at his data can then rank the photos according to what they think is the best match, or just pick out the one they think matches.
Everyone can judge. The photos should be substantially different from each other so that an arguement can’t develop whether the data refers to “Boat #1 or Boat #2”. I wouldn’t even put a boat and a plane or a car in the same set. This is a common experiment and was tried at the 2001 RV Conference as suggested by Russel Targ.
Chance calculations are also straightforeward. The more pictures in the set the fewer experiments would be required to get a warm fuzzy feeling one way or the other.
Some people do not like this because they have an issue on whether to try to RV the actual photo, describing what it depicts or RV the actual site where the photo was taken.
I will try to get some comments from some of the former Stargate folk.
Another simple method is to just have a target viewed and present the data. It may be the most ambiguous method but its possible for everyone to go away feeling their particular viewpoint was confirmed.
DaveW
said:
“Especially the part about the viewers getting to see the targets beforehand. The HRVG crowd calls this frontloading,” and it’s very bad. They won’t touch a “frontloaded” test with a ten-foot pole. I would have thought it would make it easier, but apparently that’s vehemently not the case"
Front loading is strongly avoided, especially by beginners.
Some claim that it can be used by those with lots of experience and ability, but it still causes a problem.
It only taskes a few key words to set your mind to thinking you know which photo is the target.
One way you may understand it is to select a batch of photos, then have someone else give you a few words that match two or more of the photos. Use adjectives not nouns.
Is “tall, circular, hard” the center of focus water tower in photo #1 or is it the telephone pole in the distant background of photo #2? Your conscious mind will try to tell you.
There is another form of “acceptable” front loading. The viewer can be told that the taget is an “object”, or an “event”, or a “person”, or a “location”, etc. I don’t particularly like that either.
Any experiment for the purposes such as discussed here inherently requiires a blind target.
DDG:
Well, I have been almost banished from more than one RV discussion board and once banished from one, but that was more of an honor. I could have made a fortune selling “Banned From…” T-Shirts.
I would have used my regular handle of Rich, but it was already taken.
I am also a member of the Triad Area Skeptic Club (now known as Carolina Skeptics) out of Greensboro. They have done some tests from time to time with people who have made extroardinary claims.
On the other hand, I did take an in-person RV course from Paul Smith and some on-line lessons from hrvg and attended two RV conferences.
I also confess to visiting the Rhine Research Center and the A.R.E in Virginia Beach.
I’ve met Glenn, Dick, Valtra and others from hrvg and have been haunting their BB since it was formed. I’ve met and talked to and e-mailed & BBed with most of the people listed at the RV Conference website since the Hale-Bopp days.
Heck…I’ve even gotten through to Art Bell once. http://www.rvconference.org/cgi-bin/os.cgi?set=osp&page=Items.shtml&cart_id=
My main “sparks of skepticism” lie in two facets of RV, and I am defining RV as remote viewing done by a formal methodology such as hrvg or CRV, not some free form psychic data gathering or altered state on consciousness such as ERV. One can use a crystal ball I suppose to “remote view”.
Personally, I focus on the formal written methodologies and at this time prefer CRV to hrvg.
Spark #1: The claims made for “formal” RV far surpass any publicly available documentation. Most of the public WOW stories from Stargate were not done using formal CRV type methodologies. There is even less documentation on usefull information derived from RV. The Alexandria Project (archeology) which is very interesting rv/psi wise did not employ hrvg or CRV. The many experiments run using procedures such as the target pool discussed above did not use CRV or hrvg. Someone at hrvg suggested that you-all may be interested in RV no matter how it is produced, but as I say, my interest lies in the formally structured methods.
Spark #2: RV is unequivically and inseparatively intertwined with the UFO/ET phenomenon. Certain RVers and RV groups downplay it or have very little or no association with it but allmost all…
have played with it. The most outrageous are Ed Dames and Courtney Brown. Others claim to have been abducted, physically seen or been regularly tasked to RV UFO/ETs.
All military RVers have “been to the mountain”… the Galactic Federation. All this stuff is unique to the RV section of psi. Prior to RV/Stargate no other psychics or psychic groups focused on UFOs and ETs. The otherworldly happenings were always spiritual entities, the dead and the reincarnated.
FortMarcy;
I can relate to those arguements from Glenn but this topic came up on the Stargete e-group some time ago. My view was that RV/psi is always on the defensive and ought to go offense for a change. Set up a protocol and open the door to those interested and create an ongoing data base of knowledge, open to the public, good, bad or ugly.
Unfortunately, those who apparently have the most talent are the least likely to participate. And that aspect alone IMHO gives a cultish undertone to the whole field.
The tasker selects the target set, but selects the actual target out of that set randomly. It could even be better to select several target sets, then randomly select both the final target set and then the actual target within it. This removes the tasker even further from being able in
anyway to prejudice the results.
I am not a scientist. I don’t even play one on TV.
I have a high school education. While in high school, all those many years ago, I was taught the concept of double blind testing. The most interesting thing about it to me was that it did not require any authority to be valid. You design a test that eliminates all the variables, and ways of cheating, and you have only people who don’t know the right answers examine the results.
Now dishonesty is a possible problem, in any test.
I am not a crook. But, hey, we have heard that one before.
But, whatever the qualification that I might have, or lack, it was never my intention to be the authority, in this test. You see, I am a professional at one thing. I teach people how to do things. Not difficult things, but very simple things. And there is one thing I do know for sure about doing things. It starts with stand up. Amazingly enough, that is the single biggest problem with most human effort. You see, you can’t even take the first step, until you stand up. So, I stood up.
Now, some things take more than one person. So, I asked if anyone else wanted to stand up. A few have. Thanks. Unfortunately, everyone seems to standing on one side, so far.
We can proceed without the cooperation, or even permission of RV groups, using their published data, and random scrambling a control group of their trials, to see if that changes the rates of hits for the entire sample. If it does consistently change it, there is a data exchange between viewer and object. Unfortunately, that test does not eliminate the possibility of deliberate fraud. Since I did not intend to leave unproved suspicion as a possible result, I asked if anyone wanted to participate in a test that could eliminate fraud.
I am not sure why that is perceived as a threat. The use of cyber handles seems a silly thing to be concerned about, especially from someone who purports to be able to observe me directly from half a world away! I did think of one thing that makes me a bigger threat, though. (OK, so not really, but someone at work pointed it out.) You see, having a University, with dozens of PhD’s and Professors find out your hobby is based on wishful thinking is one thing. But being debunked by a high school graduate from his living room? Now that’s embarrassing!
So, let’s see if we can line up a few big guns, to cut down on the risk factor, OK? I will just sit back in the background and sort buttons.
Tris
“The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards.” ~ Alexander Jablokov ~
That’s true, which is what makes Glenn’s objections even more ridiculous when stated beforehand. I’d have more respect for Glenn if he had simply said, “I don’t want to be tested by you” instead of making those silly objections.
A decent reader ought to be able to figure out that the people doing the asking are a group of random people who share an ideal of eliminating ignorance, who’ve been fair, overall, in the discussion to date, and who are bending over backwards trying to come up with a test protocol acceptable to the RVers (whoever they may be). No, they can’t be expected to participate just because they’re asked. However, a certain few have made claims that RV is a scientifically testable ability, and have proposed tests themselves. When someone actually made the suggestion that the test be carried out, we hear balking based on “competent authority” nonsense.
Considering my volunteering does not mean I am obligated to see the experiment through to completion, why does it matter? Considering the test should be designed so that it doesn’t matter who suggested it, why should anyone care? What would one of these anonymous people do, whip off their ‘mask’ and go “AHA! It’s me!” So what? What possible harm could it do if the test is fair? If the test is agreed to be fair before it even begins?
Scientists trained in RV? They are few and far-between. They’ve already run some tests, and claimed positive results. Other scientists, not trained in RV, dispute those results, leading to the current state of affairs. More testing, properly done (regardless of who does it), is needed to confirm or deny the claims. In other words, it doesn’t matter, if the test is designed well.
Why wouldn’t the study done here be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? No matter what the result, I, for one, would push for wide publication of the results of a well-designed study. I don’t hide my belief that RV will fail, but if it doesn’t - especially if it doesn’t - I’d want it published. Hard evidence that RV actually works would be fantastic. I might even move to Hawaii if it’s true, and beg Glenn’s forgiveness in order to train at the feet of a master.
A test which is designed in public, here on this message board, to be acceptable to all parties and immune to cheating by all parties, makes trust irrelevant. ChuckieR has brought up JREF and the million-dollar challenge. It’s a good model to follow, but we can’t offer up the big bucks. And the HRVG rejects James Randi (“We’ve dealt with Randi before”), so I’m not surprised they’d reject any test we offered, either. Don’t know why, though.
Freedom asked:
Oh, shoot. Sorry. And my mistake, Emily Rosa was only 9 years old.
glee wrote:
That’s fairly easy to overcome, actually. Say the “target pool” is 100 images.
A group of an equal number of skeptics and believers (none of whom will be involved in later stages of testing) sit down in a room with a stack of National Geographics (an HRVG favorite), and cut out, say, a thousand photos, which would be immediately sealed in envelopes as they’re snipped. As soon as they’re sealed, the envelopes are tossed into a big bag. Once all the photos have been cut out, the group will clean up all trash and magazines, pour the contents of the bad onto a table, and leave the room with nothing but the big bag and the pile in it.
A second group of people come in, again an equal number of skeptics and believers, and bring with them a shredder. 100 envelopes are randomly drawn from the pile and placed in the bag again. The bag will then be sealed. The 900 envelopes still on the table will then be thrown into the shredder immediately. Once all the extra photos are shredded, the confetti and the shredder will get shoved out the door.
This second group of people would then randomly create a target ID (agreed to as acceptable by the entire group), and write that ID on the first envelope, and on a piece of paper. Repeat for the second envelope, third, etc… Once all 100 envelopes have been IDed, and the list of IDs is complete, the group will seal all of the envelopes in the bag again, and deliver it to a safety deposit box or other trusted security together as a group. For the utmost in security, this second group should then not participate in any of the later stages of testing, after they hand over several identical copies of the list of IDs to those who will be participating in those later stages.
Target selection is now complete.
So, even if the first group consists of only two people (one skeptic, one believer), each will be able to remember only 500 photos (yeah, right). But, only 50 or so of those images will be targets. If the test were designed so that “random chance” worked out to also be 10%, then cheating cannot work any better than random guessing.
Actually, it’d be best if the first group of skeptics/believers grabbed a bunch of people off the street to actually snip the photos and stuff them in envelopes. The group would do little but supervise and keep an eye on each other, making sure that the others weren’t looking too closely at issue or page numbers. Oh, and the whole stack of magazines, cut and uncut extras, needs to be destroyed as soon as the original batch of 1,000 photos have been snipped. The first group can take them out and burn them together, along with any other trash from cutting, as soon as they leave the room.
) if you take into account that each picture must be assigned to exactly one person).
)
) and I think we’d all be pleased if you spent more time here at the SDMB. We do have other forums, you know, and there are so many other things to talk about under the sun, besides remote viewing.