Carina Landin in test at this moment

[Pipirr]

Thank you, Triper and Chateaubriand.

I note that her saying "some of the diaries were rather old..." isn't such an emphatic excuse as saying they were 'too old' might be. Good to clarify that point.

The results didn't show how old the diaries were. Did she guess the oldest diaries correctly? If so that should remove that excuse.

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by Pipirr

I note that her saying "some of the diaries were rather old..." isn't such an emphatic excuse as saying they were 'too old' might be. Good to clarify that point.

Well, I am far from able to judge Landin's emphasis -- I think it's enough that the protocol makes such an excuse possible and that it allowes her to explain away her result accordingly. The design text reads something like:

"Furthermore, (on Landin's request) dairies that are no older than late 19th century will be obtained if possible."

Where it should state explicitly the period from which the books might be. Then Landin would have had the opportunity to object and the protocol could have been revised. If it is discovered that diaries are hard to come by, choose other types of objects. The aim of the test is not to satisfy the comfort or convenience of the experimenters, but to provide an unquestionable answer about the performance of the claimant.

[definitely]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

I would like to add something that was omitted in the translation above:

"Before we parted, Landin gave as an explanation for her lack of success that some of the diaries were too old (the earliest was from 1794 and the next eldest from 1855)"

It may otherwise be understood as if Landin has launched her excuse in the discussions after the test, when she in fact brought it up before leaving the Royal Institute of Technology.

Chateaubriand, I'm not sure I see what point you are trying to make here. However, I would like to add something too: the testing did not at all take place at the Royal Institute of Technology, it was at the Nordic Museum in Stockholm...

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by definitely

Chateaubriand, I'm not sure I see what point you are trying to make here. However, I would like to add something too: the testing did not at all take place at the Royal Institute of Technology, it was at the Nordic Museum in Stockholm...

Yep, I've been sloppy too... Someone already messaged me about it. I'll change it -- thanks!

The point I'm trying to make is that a protocol of a JREF supervised preliminary test should not make allowance for excuses of the kind that Landin has made in this case. More to the point, the protocol should explicitly eliminate possibilities of such excuses being made -- especially since the Challenge attract people that are very keen on making excuses. We can not continue to pick on different parapsychologist's methodologies if we allow for flawes -- even if they are just semantic -- in "our own" testing just because we like the experimenters and have a hunch that the claimants will fail anyhow. The Challenge tests needs to be flawless in the public eye, not only in the eyes of the experiments. After having whatched several documentaries on Randi's different tests, it is evident that Randi will go to extremes just to make this aspect clear. You may argue about Randi's bias but the test itself must be conducted in a way that eliminates controversies regarding the results. Landin's excuses should be "I had a bad day," "from my own experience I know what I can do so the test don't matter," or any of the other standard arguments -- but not something that can be derived from the test itself.

[Alkatran]

Originally Posted by definitely

Chateaubriand, I'm not sure I see what point you are trying to make here. However, I would like to add something too: the testing did not at all take place at the Royal Institute of Technology, it was at the Nordic Museum in Stockholm...

One of the goals of the test is to minimize the excuses for failure. Randi always talks about dry runs where the claimant knows what they should get, to let them confirm their power is not affected by anything except the lack of information.

[Flange Desire]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Why is 16 out of 20 successful and 15 out of 20 isn't? Is it just because that's what was agreed to, more or less arbitrarily, or is there a statistical, mathematical reason?

Yes, it is because that was what is agreed to.
You develope your test protocol wherin you clearly specify what constitutes a 'success'.

You then either pass or fail.
Without the endless arguments about 'almost passed' and 'just barely failed'.

[NiallM]

Let us be fair to the applicant here.

No-one can ask any more than that she take the test.

She did.

She found something about the test that was at odds with the protocol.

She appears to be willing to do a retest.

At least she's stepping up to the plate. I don't believe a word of her claim, but she seems to be prepared to put it up for examination.

Of course, this is contingent upon her actually agreeing to a retest.

If I were her, I would demand a "null" result for the prelimnary and demand that the next test be a full test, with a correspondingly higher success rate demanded. It would give her a chance at the million - one which she could win by chance.

[rjh01]

One way to maybe have avoided this issue would have been to have had one person do the test with the same diaries a few days beforehand. He would have failed and then he would need to come up with an excuse why. If he came up with this excuse the loophole could have been shut.

This should be done before any test, maybe several times. The person would have orders to try to pass the test anyway he can. If not come up with every possible excuse.

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

Well, I am far from able to judge Landin's emphasis -- I think it's enough that the protocol makes such an excuse possible and that it allowes her to explain away her result accordingly. The design text reads something like:

"Furthermore, (on Landin's request) dairies that are no older than late 19th century will be obtained if possible."

Where it should state explicitly the period from which the books might be. Then Landin would have had the opportunity to object and the protocol could have been revised. If it is discovered that diaries are hard to come by, choose other types of objects. The aim of the test is not to satisfy the comfort or convenience of the experimenters, but to provide an unquestionable answer about the performance of the claimant.

You're quite right, the dates should be speficic, and also the phrase 'if possible' should not be there. The diaries either have to be from that time period or they don't. The 'if possible' gives a second opportunity for problems.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

I would like to add something that was omitted in the translation above:

"Before we parted, Landin gave as an explanation for her lack of success that some of the diaries were too old (the earliest was from 1794 and the next eldest from 1855)"

It may otherwise be understood as if Landin has launched her excuse in the discussions after the test, when she in fact brought it up before leaving the archives of the Nordic Museum.

(Edit: corrected where the test took place.)

But it was a post-hoc complaint? She knew during the test that the diaries were that old?

[Blue Bubble]

I'd like to know if she got that darned one single diary from 1794 correct or not.

If she got it correct, then what does she have to complain about ?

If she got it wrong, we could be magnanimous and award it a hit instead. So she might have got 13 out of 20.

She still failed.

She will fail any re-test.

[MRC_Hans]

I think it is important to note that Ms. Landin did approve the protocol in advance. While the testers should certainly have made a better protocol (as the presumed professionals, this is primarily their responsibility), she can't say she was cheated or anything. She went for the protocol as it was, and she failed. Period.

Now, if she wants to be re-tested, I quite personally find that the only allowance the JREF should make due to the fault in the protocol is to start negotiating a new protocol immidiately, instead of imposing the usual one year waiting period stipulated in the rules. No more.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Blue Bubble

I'd like to know if she got that darned one single diary from 1794 correct or not.

If she got it correct, then what does she have to complain about ?

If she got it wrong, we could be magnanimous and award it a hit instead. So she might have got 13 out of 20.

She still failed.

She will fail any re-test.

It would not be reasonable to count it as a hit. You could exclude it from the data and recalculate the result from the remaining 19.

Hans

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

I think it is important to note that Ms. Landin did approve the protocol in advance.

She approved the protocol, but not the dataset, which can be reasonably seen to have violated the agreed-upon protocol.

[Jeff Wagg]

What's happening right now is that the JREF is collecting data from the Swedish group and we're determining the best course of action.

Carina is being very cooperative through this process.

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

But it was a post-hoc complaint? She knew during the test that the diaries were that old?

No, she found that out after the test and used it as an excuse for her failure. She just knew that the protocol stated that the diaries should not be older than the late 19th century if possible. Paraphrasing Randi, the claimants have to state under what circumstances the can do what they claim. Landin's request, as stated in the protocol, can be interpreted as such a circumstance, which the experimenters left "flexible". Although Landin sanctioned the protocol, the text should not have made such excuses possible. In all fairness, Landin has no experience of sound methodology, but the experimenters do. They should have made that particular aspect more clear and exact.

[Speed of Light]

Hi
There is something that no-one has mentioned.
It has often been said on the forum that for the preliminary test, the probability of succeeding by chance alone, must be smaller than 1 in 1000, and for the final test, 1 in a million.

By my calculations, for this test, the probability of getting 16 or more correct out of 20, purely by chance alone, works out as (approx) 1 in 169.234.

[ChristineR]

Hi Speed of Light.

The rule is generally that both the preliminary and final tests have odds of 1 to 1000, giving a total chance of 1 to 1,000,000.

We don't know why they gave Landin more favorable odds, but I suspect that it was as much the hassle of getting all those diaries as anything else. Even if Landin can do what she claims she wouldn't be expected to get 100%. For example, she might get an image of a husband who cherished his dead wife's diary for years and label the diary male.

If she could in fact get 80% right then it would take more than 20 diaries to get a good test. If the final test ever happens they'll have to come up with more than 20 diaries. This is all allowed for in the rules.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Speed of Light

There is something that no-one has mentioned.
It has often been said on the forum that for the preliminary test, the probability of succeeding by chance alone, must be smaller than 1 in 1000, and for the final test, 1 in a million.

By my calculations, for this test, the probability of getting 16 or more correct out of 20, purely by chance alone, works out as (approx) 1 in 169.234.

I cannot do these calculations myself, but others have performed them in this thread, notably here and here, and they disagree with you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

No, she found that out after the test and used it as an excuse for her failure. She just knew that the protocol stated that the diaries should not be older than the late 19th century if possible. Paraphrasing Randi, the claimants have to state under what circumstances the can do what they claim. Landin's request, as stated in the protocol, can be interpreted as such a circumstance, which the experimenters left "flexible". Although Landin sanctioned the protocol, the text should not have made such excuses possible. In all fairness, Landin has no experience of sound methodology, but the experimenters do. They should have made that particular aspect more clear and exact.

"If possible" is an invitation for excuses. I still think she doesn't have a case, though. She saw it, and ran with it.

[Mr. Stick]

Originally Posted by Triper

The scanned test protocols and a preliminary report in Swedish can be found on
VoF's homepage now, but I'm not allowed to submit urls here.
The address is: www dot vof dot se slash landin slash index dot html.

http://www.vof.se/landin/index.html

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

"If possible" is an invitation for excuses. I still think she doesn't have a case, though. She saw it, and ran with it.

I fully agree. But my point is that a JREF test protocol should not invite such excuses, and I think that James Randi stresses this point over and over again whenever he can.

[ChristineR]

I also get 1 in 169.234, assuming "by chance" means coin-flipping.

2^20 ways to label the diaries "right" or "wrong" = 1048576

20!/(20! * 0!) ways to get 20 right = 1
20!/(19! * 1!) ways to get 19 right = 20
20!/(18! * 2!) ways to get 18 right = 190
20!/(17! * 3!) ways to get 17 right = 1140
20!/(16! * 4!) ways to get 20 right = 4845

1048576 / (1+20+190+1140+4845) = 169.2

If Carina takes into account the fact that there are at least 5 male and at least 5 female diaries her odds are even better.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

I fully agree. But my point is that a JREF test protocol should not invite such excuses, and I think that James Randi stresses this point over and over again whenever he can.

There's always room for improvement, that's true.

[triad]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

I fully agree. But my point is that a JREF test protocol should not invite such excuses, and I think that James Randi stresses this point over and over again whenever he can.

But now we are aware of the fact! Just for the future :?

[macgyver]

Originally Posted by logical muse

About the same as getting 12 heads (or 12 tails) in 20 coin tosses.

I just did this, and I got 15 heads and 5 tails....I still would have lost.

Interesting (but not unusual) was the long run (10) of heads in a row.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by ChristineR

I also get 1 in 169.234, assuming "by chance" means coin-flipping.

2^20 ways to label the diaries "right" or "wrong" = 1048576

20!/(20! * 0!) ways to get 20 right = 1
20!/(19! * 1!) ways to get 19 right = 20
20!/(18! * 2!) ways to get 18 right = 190
20!/(17! * 3!) ways to get 17 right = 1140
20!/(16! * 4!) ways to get 20 right = 4845

1048576 / (1+20+190+1140+4845) = 169.2

You've got it upside down. It should be (1+20+190+1140+4845) / 1048576 = .0059

Or you can do it like I did in Excel: =1-BINOMDIST(15, 20, 0.5, 1) will give the probability of getting 16 or more correct which also gives .0059

ETA: I did make a computational error in my earlier post. I had the .0059 as the probability of getting 15 or more correct. It's not, it's 16 or more correct and 0.0013 is the probability of getting 17 or more correct [Excel formula 1-BINOMDIST(16, 20, 0.5, 1)]. Since JREF tests typically ask for p-values of .001, I suspect the person who arrived at 16 as the necessary number to succeed may have made the same computation error I did in my earlier post.

Quote:

If Carina takes into account the fact that there are at least 5 male and at least 5 female diaries her odds are even better.

True.

[Garvarn]

Landin has made a comment on her website. This is en excerpt:

"After the test:

The test leader (SOH) came in and opened every envelope, marked the protocol and produced the correct answers. When it was done, my answers were compared to the correct ones and the result was 12 out of 20.

I requested to look at the eight books I missed. Unfortunately, I didn't check them that carefully and didn't personally take note of the years when they were written, who wrote them or their content.

In my view, a diary is a book in which someone has made daily notes regarding that someone's life. From a quick read-through of the eight books I missed, I remember that

1 book was a collection of recipes
1 book was a documentation regarding the mating of animals

I don't call that diaries! Afterwards, I have been given access to the archive registration numbers of the used diaries, which gives me an opportunity to check both the content and age if I want, but at the moment, I don't have the opportunity to go through them. Just before I write this, I have learned that I'm going to get the age of all the books.

I have on several occasions, verbally and by e-mail, notified SOH (I have kept the correspondence) that I don't want diaries that are older than 100 years. In spite of me explicitly expressing this, I authorized the protocol with the following text:
"Furthermore (in accordance with Landin’s wish) diaries older than the late 19th century are avoided as far as possible."
In retrospect, I shouldn't have authorized the protocol with that fuzzy writing, but since I am unsuspecting by nature, I thought that the late 19th century is only some yeras older than 100 years. A book written in 1906 is 100 years. A book written in 1896 is 110 years. The reason why I didn't want older book is that the traces disappears. An older book, that may have been handled by many, can, in my view, loose its origin.

A checking of the years of the eight books I missed showed that 5 of them were written in the following years:

1794, 1855, 1857, 1879, and 1888

In a conversation with SOH a couple of weeks ago, I asked via e-mail if SOH had found diaries from the 20th century. SOH replied:

"Yes, but some (singular in Swedish, C:s note) is from the end of the 19th century."

Question: 12th October 2005 -- Carina (Landin, C:s note) wrote

"I would appreciate if the diaries were primarily from the 20th century."

Reply from SOH 16th October 2005:

"I have spoken to the archive official. They don't want really old diaries to be unnecessary handled. A first guess is that it's easiest to get hold of books from the 19th and 20th century. I'll get back to you when I know more."

/... /

(Some paragraphs accounting for the communication between Landin, Randi and the experimenters. I have omitted them pending the result of the JREF review.)

/... /

All this is new to me and most of all strange and something that I never pursued or believed in my wildest imagination would happen, in spite of being warned by my mentor. (Sorry, this is a bit messy even in Swedish -- C)"

I would appreciate any proof reading by Swedish forum members.

[Beth]

Thanks for the info. if possible, I'd aslo like to know the ages of all the diaries, both those missed and those correct.

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by Beth

Thanks for the info. if possible, I'd aslo like to know the ages of all the diaries, both those missed and those correct.

Of course, Beth, I'll keep you posted as the info comes along.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, the protocol should be a yes/no sort of thing. It doesn't matter whether the ones she missed were among the older diaries. Nor does it matter that she didn't complain during the test (whether or not she knew they were too old).

What matters is that the older diaries should not have been used if it was possible to run the test with newer ones. So the only question is, was it possible? If so, the protocol was not followed, the test should be re-run (if it's possible to find a new set of acceptable diaries to use).

If these were the only ones that would otherwise work (similar outsides, no scent, no handwriting evident, etc.), then the protocol was in fact followed and she failed the test.

I think her complaint is not a post-hoc explanation of her failure, because the issue is in the protocol. The only question that needs to be answered is, "Was the protocol followed?" If the answer is no, the next question is, is a re-test even possible?

I am still amazed that you were able to find a supply of diaries that fit the other requirements.

[GzuzKryzt]

Thanks to all you guys who keep us posted with translations. Nice work.




Chateaubriand, your nick always gives me a craving for a big steak - even when I just ate. I wonder why that is. Could you change your avatar to some kind of potato product? Alternatively: Red wine or herb butter? Teek, are you reading this?

[Pipirr]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

In a conversation with SOH a couple of weeks ago, I asked via e-mail if SOH had found diaries from the 20th century. SOH replied:

In fact she asked if he had diaries from the 1900's (1900-talet). Had she confused the 19th century with the years beginning 19xx?

Just a question about the subtleties of the swedish language...

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt

Chateaubriand, your nick always gives me a craving for a big steak - even when I just ate. I wonder why that is. Could you change your avatar to some kind of potato product? Alternatively: Red wine or herb butter? Teek, are you reading this?

Na, it should prompt you to endulge in French Romanticism! ;o) But the avatar has nothing to do with my nickname here. I use it with another nick on a Swedish forum and kind of like the grin... It's "me"... ;o)

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by Pipirr

In fact she asked if he had diaries from the 1900's (1900-talet). Had she confused the 19th century with the years beginning 19xx?

Just a question about the subtleties of the swedish language...

I would be amazed if Landin and SOH corresponded in English... I don't see how the Swedish equivalents are confusing, since we don't use the anglo-american 19th, 20th, etc. system...

[Pipirr]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

I would be amazed if Landin and SOH corresponded in English... I don't see how the Swedish equivalents are confusing, since we don't use the anglo-american 19th, 20th, etc. system...

Thanks, clarified.

[case sensitive]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

I would be amazed if Landin and SOH corresponded in English... I don't see how the Swedish equivalents are confusing, since we don't use the anglo-american 19th, 20th, etc. system...

I am not sure they speak the same "language". Remember they are very different people, one male, one female, one with a lot of education and one with very little. And add to that very different belief systems.

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by case sensitive

I am not sure they speak the same "language". Remember they are very different people, one male, one female, one with a lot of education and one with very little. And add to that very different belief systems.

I'm not sure either -- but I am sure that they share the same understanding of the concept, definition and meaning of "century" and "100 years old".

[f97tosc]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

I would appreciate any proof reading by Swedish forum members.

I have gone through your translation and I think it is OK.

[PBTree]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Was she told of the age of the diaries before or after the test? If before, did she raise the objection before the test, or only afterwards?

My question as well. Did she realise somehow during the test that "this diary doesn't feel right", or looking for excuses after?

And another thing. She can either do it or she can't. 20 out of 20 sounds fine to me otherwise whenever she advises her "clients", she should be made to tell them up front that she is only x'ty percent right at any given time and that may or may not be your dead auntie we are talking to.