Carina Landin in test at this moment

[PBTree]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

As suspected, Carina Landin's followers in the Swedish "believer" community are exploiting the discussed loophole to the fullest. One poster on the www.soultravel.nu forum sums it up:

"As we said before, if the test is properly designed you will pass. But the test wasn't conducted according to the protocol (the age of the books), so if you are able and allowed to, Carina... Do it again!"

Landin is also getting credit for having performed "way over chance". Go figure...

Once again this is where allowing anything less than 100% is wrong.

To all of her believers out there who are possibly reading this.

Do you realise that if she gets even 18 out of 20, for every 20 people she 'reads' or whatever it is she does, 2 of you are getting completely wrong, wrong, wrong information. Which of you is it???

[Jeff Wagg]

Just to let you know.. we're still reviewing this. It's going to take a bit of time to sort out as we're dealing with translations and such. If a final determination is made, I'll post it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Thinktoomuch

Finally! This is the real point, not all the legalistic nitpicking. Let her pick those that she can "sense" and ask for 100% accuracy!

Except that that's not the agreed-upon protocol.

C'mon--if the woo had broken protocol (people in the room who shouldn't be there, cell phones in the room, etc.), we'd consider the test void.

[macgyver]

Originally Posted by PBTree

Which of you is it???

Obviously the answer is: All of them.

[Thinktoomuch]

Originally Posted by Thinktoomuch
Finally! This is the real point, not all the legalistic nitpicking. Let her pick those that she can "sense" and ask for 100% accuracy!

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Except that that's not the agreed-upon protocol.

C'mon--if the woo had broken protocol (people in the room who shouldn't be there, cell phones in the room, etc.), we'd consider the test void.

Of course. My point was that the "professionals" dug their own grave from the beginning.

[ChristineR]

There is no reason why a paranormal ability needs to be 100% accurate, and there's no reason to suspect that Landin's power, even if it exists and is 100% accurate all of the time would be 100% accurate at determining the sex of someone who wrote a diary.

I think she would have preferred her normal techniques, which appears to be warm reading and relies heavily on plausible but unverifiable scenarios ("I see a woman walking by a farmhouse"). Sex was chosen because it's binary (except in a few extraordinary cases).

[Anacoluthon64]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

I'm not good with statistics so what are the odds that she could get 12 out of 20 right?

Oddly enough, a whole lot better than her getting 120 correct out of 200, or 1200 correct out of 2000, provided she's operating, as sceptics expect, at chance levels.

The probability of getting exactly 12 correct out of 20 is 12.0%, while that of getting 12 or more correct out of 20 is 25.2%, i.e. one in four tests will by pure chance show a result of 12 or more correct out of 20. Not very convincing, that. Compare this to a probability of 0.18% of her getting 120 or more correct out of 200. Such a result would occur by pure chance about once in 550 tests.

The pass criterion of 16 or more correct out of 20 occurring by pure chance has a probability of 0.59%, i.e. about once in 169 tests.

'Luthon64

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Gr8wight

The test did not follow the protocol exactly. In the original protocol, Carina specified an upper limit on the age of the diaries to be used. The testers included several diaries that violated this limit. Therefore, the test results are invalid. Randi is not "being nice." He is doing what is correct and necessary in this situation.

Yeah. What he said. Sorry I'm out of date, but I apparently missed this thread the first time around.

[Garvarn]

Anyone heard anything about the progress of the JREF review of this test?

[Garvarn]

The experiment leader has published an account of Landin's full result. Here are the ages of the 20 diaries and Landin's guesses (R=right, W=wrong):

1787 - R
1794 - W
1800 - R
1825 - R
1828 - R
1831 - R
1879 - W
1859 - W
1860 - W
1867 - R
1881 - R
1889 - W
1896 - R
1895 - R
1932 - W
1935 - R
1943 - W
1953 - W
1963 - R
1961 - R

Her argument that "too old diaries" are the cause of her poor results is thus complete BS.

[Mr. Stick]

That was very informative.

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

Her argument that "too old diaries" are the cause of her poor results is thus complete BS.

She gets 6 right both on the 10 oldest and on the 10 newest diaries! In fact 5 of her right answers are among the 6 oldest. It's hilarious!

BTW can you provide a link to the published account?

[thomps1d]

Originally Posted by Mr. Stick

She gets 6 right both on the 10 oldest and on the 10 newest diaries! In fact 5 of her right answers are among the 6 oldest. It's hilarious!

Ahh, but you see, the very presence of the old diaries screwed her up because...well...the quantum...thingamajigs interfered with the chi energy flowing from...the...flux capacitor of her spirit guide.

Something like that, I'm sure.

[NiallM]

To be fair to her, she shows a 100% record with diaries written in the early 60's.

Before I'd seen these results, the suggested compromise for me would have been along the lines of: let us work out a percentage required to define success. In this case it would be 75%. Now let us remove the earlier diaries and recalculate the result based on her guesses from among the remaining diaries. Let's eliminate all diaries before 1850, based on the fuzzy insertion in the protocol.

This leaves 14 diaries, and a result of 50-50. An exact split which rather conveniently matches chance outcome.

[Mr. Stick]

Originally Posted by NiallM

To be fair to her, she shows a 100% record with diaries written in the early 60's.

Yes, and she also gets 100% correct of the diaries written in 1935.

[Beth]

Chateaubriand

Thanks for posting the information. It does appear that age of the diary had no bearing on her success rate.

[NiallM]

Originally Posted by Beth

Chateaubriand

Thanks for posting the information. It does appear that age of the diary had no bearing on her success rate.

Au contraire, it appears that the oldest diaries actually inflated her success rate.

Of course, she'll probably claim that her abilities are confounded by the taint of residues of Victorian protoplasm or some such garbage.

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by Mr. Stick

BTW can you provide a link to the published account?

Sure. The columns are, from the left:

# in test / Right gender / Gender according to Carina Landin / Right or wrong (+ / -) / Archive file / Description / Year

M = Male (Swedish "Man")
K = Female (Swedish "Kvinna")

Link: The Diaries in the Test With Carina Landin, 24th Oct. 2006

[monoman]

Is there any word from Landin regarding this new information?

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by monoman

Is there any word from Landin regarding this new information?

I just looked through her website. No comment as of yet. I also listened to a radio interview done on the morning after the test. It gave me a hunch of what Landin will be emphasizing -- that this was a psychometric test that has nothing to do with contacting the dead. So, for Landin it will be business as usual as far as her mediumship goes.

[Blake Rieger]

If she's talking about a fading 'smell', that's not even necessarily supernatural.

Humans often handle their diaries a great deal- and cover them in pheromones.

A dog could easily pick out which diaries are male and female after a hundred years if trained to do so, and while a large part of human pheromone detection has become subconscious, if she's actually smelling the diaries, it's perfectly within the bounds of olfactory science that she could get a slight statistical lead on the sex of the diary owners.

I do believe it has been shown experimentally that people of different sexual orientations can smell and almost always prefer certain pheromone combinations from other humans of compatible orientations. Women can also smell fear pheromones.

Granted, if she did manage to pick that up with perfect accuracy after a hundred years that would be a rather impressive sniffer- but nothing supernatural.

Even 20 for 20, consistently, this lady would not be demonstrating something supernatural.

However, put the things in a plastic bag, and then you might have something.

[GzuzKryzt]

Thanks for the update, Chateaubriand.



I am looking forward to the comments of Ms. Landin.

[Pipirr]

She did pretty good on the oldest diaries. With the guessing.

Is there really any need for a retest here? Diary age didn't hold her back, so it's an odd complaint for her to make.

Looking forward to the updates and her comments; thanks to the Swedes and the Chateaubriands for keeping us appraised.

[Gr8wight]

Originally Posted by Pipirr

She did pretty good on the oldest diaries. With the guessing.

Is there really any need for a retest here? Diary age didn't hold her back, so it's an odd complaint for her to make.

Looking forward to the updates and her comments; thanks to the Swedes and the Chateaubriands for keeping us appraised.

It is clear from the distribution that she was simply grasping at an available straw, but that her excuses are obviously unjustified. I don't see that a retest should be necessary. However, she did attempt to place a limit on the ages of the diaries, and diaries that were too old were used. If she insists, a retest may be unavoidable.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

The experiment leader has published an account of Landin's full result. Here are the ages of the 20 diaries and Landin's guesses (R=right, W=wrong):

1787 - R
1794 - W
1800 - R
1825 - R
1828 - R
1831 - R
1879 - W
1859 - W
1860 - W
1867 - R
1881 - R
1889 - W
1896 - R
1895 - R
1932 - W
1935 - R
1943 - W
1953 - W
1963 - R
1961 - R

Her argument that "too old diaries" are the cause of her poor results is thus complete BS.

Considering this result, IMHO there is no need for a retest. While you could accuse the testers of a protocol flaw, it obviously did not impact her results negatively, and anyway, she has approved of the protocol.

Let her make another application in a year, if she will, as the rules stipulate. End of story.

Hans

[rjh01]

But in a year's time
1. The general public may not be able to apply.
2. She would need three people to say she can do amazing things
3. She needs to be still of the belief that she can do it.

The R and Ws appear to be random. The test I applied. About 50% of Rs follow a W and 50% of Ws follow a R.

[f97tosc]

A linear regression of the test result shows that for 1=right, 0=wrong, the best fit line (in the least square sense) is

0.8 - [# of years after 1700]*0.0013

Indeed, if the trend continues she should be focusing on older books!

[Startz]

Originally Posted by f97tosc

A linear regression of the test result shows that for 1=right, 0=wrong, the best fit line (in the least square sense) is

0.8 - [# of years after 1700]*0.0013

Indeed, if the trend continues she should be focusing on older books!

Not fair, the trend coefficient isn't statistically significant

[scratchy]

Just in: according to the swedish skeptics Randi is ok with a retest. Of course a new protocol has to be approved by him.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by scratchy

Just in: according to the swedish skeptics Randi is ok with a retest. Of course a new protocol has to be approved by him.

Why a new protocol? Why not simply use the same one with newer diaries?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Beth

Why a new protocol? Why not simply use the same one with newer diaries?

Because "with newer diaries" is a new protocol. You need to set a hard cutoff for how "new" the new diaries need to be, which means another round of signatures to make sure everyone agrees that 1925 (or whatever) is acceptable.

[CynicalSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Beth

Why a new protocol? Why not simply use the same one with newer diaries?

The wording was "diaries older than the late 19th century are avoided as far as possible"

The two bolded phrases need to be replaced with something a bit more specific.

[RSLancastr]

Originally Posted by Pipirr

thanks to the Swedes and the Chateaubriands for keeping us appraised.

How much did they say we were worth?

(And yes, thanks!)

[Pipirr]

Oh yeah... appraised/apprised. D'oh.

So to clarify, Swedes and Chateaubriand: how much are we worth?

[Thinktoomuch]

For "Swedes Chateaubriand" I would not pay much. If it were a proper fillet steak, however....

[AgingYoung]

Dead people lie...

Gene

[Garvarn]

This morning, Landin wrote this on a Swedish woo woo forum:

Quote:

Right after the test, I got a mail from Randi, stating that it would be redone. On his forum, Jeff Wagg has written that it is under review and that he would come back in this matter. Therefore, I wrote a new letter, and got this reply from the humble Randi:

YES.

YES.

YES.

WE WILL DO THE TEST AGAIN.

I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED YOU OF THIS, AND WE ARE PREPARED TO DO IT AGAIN.

IS THAT CLEAR?

James Randi.

When I initialy applied, I stated that I wanted regular sittings but that couldn't be done, according to SOH. After that, I tried wedding rings but that couldn't be arranged either, according to SOH. It's a bit of a shame that what I can do is not testable. I understand that it's difficult to arrange ordinary sittings, too many people would have to be involved.
What do you think? Is it hard to get hold of wedding rings of the same size from dead people? I prefer dead people since I work better with that than psychometry on the living. Suggestions are appreciated. Does it have to be 20? Are 10 too few? If you have 10, can't the test be done in two rounds?

Carina

[monoman]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

This morning, Landin wrote this on a Swedish woo woo forum:

Hi,

Have you made a post on the site to inform the readers that Landin actually scored well on the, disputed, older diarys?

[Garvarn]

Originally Posted by monoman

Have you made a post on the site to inform the readers that Landin actually scored well on the, disputed, older diarys?

The owner of that forum is known to be after my real name and has a record of making personal data of skeptics under pseudonym public. The skeptics that do post on his forum are subject to his editing whims and rather blunt censorship.

I have no reason to post on his forum and I question the judgment of the skeptics that do sanction his forum by being active on it.

[Garvarn]

Here is Landin's answer to why she was right both on older and newer books:

Originally Posted by Carina Landin on Swedish woo woo forum "Soultravel"

Your second question about why I was right on some of the older diaries is an explanation, not an excuse.

If you take your wife's used sweater, her scent will still be on it, but after a year it might be gone. If you let someone else use the sweater, that person's scent will be sensed on the sweater. Strange explanation, but it's the best I can come up with. If a man has written in a book for a year and then dies, his daughter keeps the book for 60 years there might be more traces of her than him.

The more an object has been personal, the longer the traces will stay, I believe. That was the reason I OK'd diaries, that SOH and I have different opinions on what constitutes a diary was a mistake. I stressed that it had to be a personal and important thing for the dead. Recipes don't qualify.

I have no experience with experimental protocols like this, I thought my requests would be met with. Now when there will be a new one, I will be more thorough. The sad thing is that what I do best can't be tested. It felt vague and viscous during the test.

Chateaubriand: Sorry that the answer is long, much for you to translate for the Randi forum.

Ignorance, inexperience, post hoc and ad hoc -- Landin is obviously making the most of a protocol that unfortunately make allowance for such excuses. Having previously sanctioned my translating for this forum, she has now turned to sarcasm. Why am I not surprised.

[GzuzKryzt]

Originally Posted by Chateaubriand

Here is Landin's answer to why she was right both on older and newer books:



Ignorance, inexperience, post hoc and ad hoc -- Landin is obviously making the most of a protocol that unfortunately make allowance for such excuses. Having previously sanctioned my translating for this forum, she has now turned to sarcasm. Why am I not surprised.

Always assuming your translations to be correct, I thank you again, Chateaubriand, for providing your services to the JREF Forum.

Not surprised? Me neither.

Ms. Landin had a lot of time to prepare for the test. Based on the protocol, any independent viewer must regard this test as a failure, because Ms. Landin agreed to the protocol. Her mentor seemingly failed to prepare her. No paranormal powers proved. However, kudos to Ms. Landin for stepping up to the plate.

Therefore: Tighter protocol, stricter execution, retest asap.



Ms. Landin, if you (or some of your followers) are reading this:
You had the chance to collect a lot of information during your test. Use it.
You are now more familiar with the process of proving your abilities under careful scrutiny.
The experience of your mentors, your belief in your ability and the collective support of your loyal followers should enable you to prepare for the retest as perfect as possible, shouldn't it?

Should you fail again to demonstrate your claimed ability in the retest, with a protocol hand-tailored to your needs, will you conclude and admit publicly that you were wrong in claiming paranormal powers?