Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[RemieV]

Hello, everyone.

The other thread has reached seventeen pages and become so muddied I can't even tell what's going on anymore. So, since the protocol discussion for this particular applicant has become so publicized, I thought we should probably move threads if we plan to discuss it on the forum.

Please keep on topic in here especially. Any information on Pavel or questions for him regarding his ability should be directed to the other thread, located here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=82062

In negotiating this protocol, there have been three major issues.

Firstly, the ability doesn't seem to be that strong: we cannot use a small number of photographs for a single trial, and Pavel has suggested instead that we use a massive number of photographs divided into small groups, and then smaller groups, and then smaller groups until he is identifying pairs of photos out of groups of five (and all groups of five are the same).

The number of photographs needed for the test as Pavel has written it is simply unrealistic. I have run this information by other JREF staff as well as the JREF statistician consultant, and everyone agrees that it will be difficult (if not impossible) to control the test once it reaches those numbers.

If we have 300 photographs in identical envelopes divided into groups of five and the tester drops them, for example, we would have to open them all and start over.

Not only that, but this version of the test would also be expensive for Pavel. He would, of course, have to pay the cost of printing, the cost of all the envelopes, etc.

One of the most important things we're focusing on now is getting the number of photographs required for the test down to something a little more manageable.

There are also some communication problems. There is a language barrier between Pavel and the JREF, and at times, it really shows. Parts of the protocol, for example, were incomprehensible.

If there is a volunteer who would like to rewrite protocols or clarify communications, that would be very helpful.

We also need to keep in mind that no matter what protocol is decided upon here, Randi still has to approve the final copy, and he has the ability to change any aspect of it.

I say again - arguing for the high number of photographs will not move this process forward. JREF staff has already decided that the complexity of such a test would be too high.

We need to find another version of the protocol. Feel free to weigh in.

Pavel, to be clear, must you use photographs? Can we use Zener cards? Can we use photographs *of* Zener cards? Or are those too similar? What is the maximum number of photographs you can identify in a single set? Just pairs, or can we go any higher at all? How long will it take to identify each photo? Will you be identifying both photographs in the pair, or only one? Do the photos have to be inside of envelopes, or can they be inside something resealable, like a box? Will you be asking to see the result of your readings after each individual envelope, or after each pair?

I know you have answered many of these questions before, but at this point we have discussed so many protocols and so much of the information is in that thread, that we just need to have the answers in one place without any additional information.

Thanks,

~Remie

[Startz]

Remie:

I am willing to volunteer to help re-write the protocols, subject to both you and Pavel finding that helpful.

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Pavel, to be clear, must you use photographs? Can we use Zener cards? Can we use photographs *of* Zener cards? Or are those too similar? What is the maximum number of photographs you can identify in a single set? Just pairs, or can we go any higher at all? How long will it take to identify each photo? Will you be identifying both photographs in the pair, or only one? Do the photos have to be inside of envelopes, or can they be inside something resealable, like a box? Will you be asking to see the result of your readings after each individual envelope, or after each pair?

I know you have answered many of these questions before, but at this point we have discussed so many protocols and so much of the information is in that thread, that we just need to have the answers in one place without any additional information.

Thanks,

~Remie

Thank you for the thread and questions
I will reply all this question tomorrow with the details. It seems that process started.. as by asking each other questions and replying to them and explaining each other things.. though it might take time.. still it will get us closer to the point of designing a good test.
Regards,
Pavel

P.s. Startz will helm me with putting some of my lines in to proper understandable English..

[Jackalgirl]

Hi --

I admit that I only scanned through the last two pages of the other thread. But there was a suggestion there that I think would make sense -- some photographs are blank pieces of photo paper and the others are photo paper with something printed on them.

Pavel, you said you'd try this out and see if you can distinguish between them. How did that go?

Hopefully it went well, because you could do something like a set of 20 opaque envelopes containing a piece of photo paper wrapped in black paper, with three having actual photos printed on the photo paper. Pavel, you would pick out the three that have photos on them, and I'll bet JREF will let you provide the photos so that you're working with an image that you're familiar with and/or to which you have an emotional connection.

Being able to identify 3 in 20 -- RemieV, would that satisfy the test? You could repeat the test, too -- I imagine that it wouldn't take more than, say, nine photos out of 60 pieces of paper. It'll take a little bit of effort to set up, but we're not dealing with 300+ photos, either.

Would that work?

Edited to add: I apologize if I'm missing critical or obvious objections to previous protocol suggestions. I'm coming off of 9 hours of watch and I'm pretty tired. I will read the whole thread later, tho, I promise. Just thought something simple might make this easier for everyone involved -- assuming, of course, that Pavel's ability is strong enough to separate out a photo from a non-photo.

[Startz]

Originally Posted by pavel_do

Thank you for the thread and questions
I will reply all this question tomorrow with the details. It seems that process started.. as by asking each other questions and replying to them and explaining each other things.. though it might take time.. still it will get us closer to the point of designing a good test.
Regards,
Pavel

P.s. Startz will helm me with putting some of my lines in to proper understandable English..

Remie:

Would I be acceptable to you as the volunteer?

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Startz

Remie:

Would I be acceptable to you as the volunteer?

It's fine with me. Pavel, if you accept Startz as your volunteer, there will be a stipulation within your protocol that if, later, you decide that the language barrier caused a miscommunication (after the test is complete, I mean) it will not be used as an excuse if you should fail the test.

In other words, you must trust Startz implicitly and fully understand all communications between you. You will have up until the day of the test to decide if you wish to dismiss your volunteer and find a new one.

Startz, since you are now a part of the protocol negotiation process, please e-mail me your real name at alison@randi.org so I can put that information in the Challenge file.

Thanks,

Remie

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl

Hi --

I admit that I only scanned through the last two pages of the other thread. But there was a suggestion there that I think would make sense -- some photographs are blank pieces of photo paper and the others are photo paper with something printed on them.

This is an unbelievably fantastic idea. Pavel, please weigh in as soon as possible.

[Akhenaten]

Thank you for this thread, RemieV. I understand that it's even more work for you to do, so please know that it is truly appreciated.


Cheers,

Dave


ETA: Thanks to Startz as well. You give forumites a good name.

[Gr8wight]

The problem we are running into here is that Pavel's powers are only apparent to him when he complicates the protocol to the point were he loses track of the statistical probabilities involved. Simplifying and better controlling the test results in lower accuracy from Pavel, so he resists that. This is no different than any others of the multitudinous applicants the JREF has dealt with over the years. Pavel needs to ask himself one question, and think very hard about the answer. Given two envelopes, one containing a photograph, and one containing a blank sheet of photographic paper, can he identify the photograph significantly more often than half the time. If not, why not?

I have absolutely no interest in the answer to that question, only in the knowledge that Pavel has asked it of himself, and tried to be honest with himself about the answer.

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by Gr8wight

The problem we are running into here is that Pavel's powers are only apparent to him when he complicates the protocol to the point were he loses track of the statistical probabilities involved. Simplifying and better controlling the test results in lower accuracy from Pavel, so he resists that. This is no different than any others of the multitudinous applicants the JREF has dealt with over the years. Pavel needs to ask himself one question, and think very hard about the answer. Given two envelopes, one containing a photograph, and one containing a blank sheet of photographic paper, can he identify the photograph significantly more often than half the time. If not, why not?

I have absolutely no interest in the answer to that question, only in the knowledge that Pavel has asked it of himself, and tried to be honest with himself about the answer.

1. YES I CAN DO THAT significantly more often than half the time.. It is not complicated at all when there is only 2 envelopes to identify. Cause out of two I will pick one that I am getting image and most sure of.. Though sometimes I don’t see photo as I said still I would be able to hold both and compare my fillings and even slight visions. Just that the black photo has to be black. No colors or shapes or anything.

2. I am absolutely disagree with you in sense that I complicate test etc.. what can be easier than test with pairs? Too complicated? Or one out of 3? Or 2 out of 5? For you 3 out of 20 is easier than 3 out of 5? Ok.. than if 2 out of 5 everyone can do.. good luck to all of them but so far no evidence…

[GzuzKryzt]

Originally Posted by pavel_do

1. YES I CAN DO THAT significantly more often than half the time.. It is not complicated at all when there is only 2 envelopes to identify. Cause out of two I will pick one that I am getting image and most sure of.. Though sometimes I don’t see photo as I said still I would be able to hold both and compare my fillings and even slight visions. Just that the black photo has to be black. No colors or shapes or anything.

2. I am absolutely disagree with you in sense that I complicate test etc.. what can be easier than test with pairs? Too complicated? Or one out of 3? Or 2 out of 5? For you 3 out of 20 is easier than 3 out of 5? Ok.. than if 2 out of 5 everyone can do.. good luck to all of them but so far no evidence…

Have you considered posting responses to Remie's inquiries?

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Pavel, to be clear,
1. must you use photographs?
2. Can we use Zener cards?
3. Can we use photographs *of* Zener cards? Or are those too similar?
4. What is the maximum number of photographs you can identify in a single set?
5. Just pairs, or can we go any higher at all?
6. How long will it take to identify each photo?
7. Will you be identifying both photographs in the pair, or only one?
8. Do the photos have to be inside of envelopes, or can they be inside something resealable, like a box?
9. Will you be asking to see the result of your readings after each individual envelope, or after each pair?

SORRY Remiev I added ur post..just left the questions.

1. Yes I would prefer the photos, as I “see” them better than Zener cards, and also it has to be proper photographs not photocopy’s,
2. 3. First of all they are too similar as all of the symbols there made of “lines” and the photos I see better as I said before. Though I see no difference whether it is 5 different photos or 5 difference Zener signs.. the odds are the same I suppose.. Just that it does make significant difference for me.
4. Depend how big is the set.. I could try to identify all 5 of 5.. just that I cant promise I get many times 5 correct.. but I would say that many times I will get 3 out of 5 exactly.
5. We can go for higher 3..4. or 5.. but I would not prefer for higher as out of all photos I worked with I have 5 that I see better of all and they maximum different from each other as much as I could get.
6.Well it take from 10 second to 2 minutes.. ( if I have to repeat identification.. like sometimes when I hold first time the set.. I don’t see anything or not sure so I usually reshuffle them and trying again before I name them)
7. If it is a pair.. I would need to hold both.. and to name 1 that I am sure the most.. But only that 1 has to be open, first of all that is obvious which is the other one of two when 1 will be named and revealed. Second of all since I am trying to foresee what will I see when it will be revealed.. so I would prefer to see only the ones that I named.
8. I prefer envelopes and maximum 2 cause it is important for me to hold it as close to the photo as I can.. cause when I hold it I am getting sort of sensation of warmth that go through the photo from one my hand to the other.. and I don’t have this sensation when there is too many envelopes or photo wrapped in foil.
9. I would ask to see the result only after I finished identification of the set. If there is 2 photos out of 5.. than they both will be open only after I named them both. Any number of photos shel be open after I named them all. Well first of all I would need to see only the ones I predicted there are… and second of all of course opening each photo after naming it would illuminate them from the other “guesses”

P.S.
Re to Startz's help.
Yes it is fine with me, I have no problems in understanding spoken and written English and speaking myself.. just that not everything I can put in lines in proper way and the grammar is sort of not the best.. So I will ask Dick to review my proposals or correct some of my lines if they not “really in English”
The language barrier that is not excuse for not being able to pass the test..

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by RemieV

This is an unbelievably fantastic idea. Pavel, please weigh in as soon as possible.

Thank you Jackalgirl there was this kind of offer before and I have explained it.

If there would be let say 3 blank and 2 photos. That could work maybe.. ( still have to try) with 20.. I don’t think it is a good idea.. as I have explained before.. if lets say 7-8 in row I will hold will be blank and I will not see anything.. I wills start doubting myself.. whether I missed it already.. as sometimes I don’t see photo.. ( I mean I hold it but see nothing). So my brain would even start to “draw” the picture for me subconsciously .. that would not help so I prefer not to go for this test I am fine if there would be pair where 1 is photo with picture and the other one is blank I am sure it would be fine with me.. but having 17 blank out of 20 would be too confusing for me.. and identifying 20 photos in row would be to tiring for me as I will not be able to split them by 5 or something I will have to see them all and name photos in one go.

[GzuzKryzt]

Originally Posted by pavel_do

...
So my brain would even start to “draw” the picture for me subconsciously .. ...

Pavel, you just made a quantum leap to reality. Perhaps you will even recognise it sometime.

[Startz]

There are infinitely many possible arrangements of how many identifications are needed out of how many trials. Pavel has agreed to a number of them. Let me suggest one. If this is acceptable to Pavel, we will stick to this one subject to JREF agreement and move on to the other important details.

1. Five photos. Pavel selects three and identifies each of them correctly.

2. Step (1) is done 6 times. Getting 3 or more successes counts as a win.

3. Steps (1) and (2) are done three times. Any one win counts as a success at the preliminary MDC.

Pavel:

Please let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Startz

Pavel:

Please let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.

Wait, hang on, the next step of what?

[Startz]

Originally Posted by Startz

There are infinitely many possible arrangements of how many identifications are needed out of how many trials. Pavel has agreed to a number of them. Let me suggest one. If this is acceptable to Pavel, we will stick to this one subject to JREF agreement and move on to the other important details.

1. Five photos. Pavel selects three and identifies each of them correctly.

2. Step (1) is done 6 times. Getting 3 or more successes counts as a win.

3. Steps (1) and (2) are done three times. Any one win counts as a success at the preliminary MDC.

Pavel:

Please let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.

Originally Posted by RemieV

Wait, hang on, the next step of what?

I'm not going to be much help if I can't be clear to all parties, am I?

All I meant was that it would be good to settle on a single statistical design, and then move the discussion to other issues of the design.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by pavel_do

Thank you Jackalgirl there was this kind of offer before and I have explained it.

If there would be let say 3 blank and 2 photos. That could work maybe.. ( still have to try) with 20.. I don’t think it is a good idea.. as I have explained before.. if lets say 7-8 in row I will hold will be blank and I will not see anything.. I wills start doubting myself.. whether I missed it already.. as sometimes I don’t see photo.. ( I mean I hold it but see nothing). So my brain would even start to “draw” the picture for me subconsciously .. that would not help so I prefer not to go for this test I am fine if there would be pair where 1 is photo with picture and the other one is blank I am sure it would be fine with me.. but having 17 blank out of 20 would be too confusing for me.. and identifying 20 photos in row would be to tiring for me as I will not be able to split them by 5 or something I will have to see them all and name photos in one go.

Pavel, it would be six blank out of twenty.

The thing I keep coming back to with this protocol is... well, if someone had this ability, with the number of stipulations you have listed for the test... how would anyone ever FIND OUT that they had it? It would be like saying "I can identify when a giraffe is near, but only when there is no grass in any direction for three miles." When would that situation ever come up? I'd have to think that you were kidnapping giraffes and landing them on the moon, and I don't see how you would've ever had the ability to do that.

The reason this is getting so difficult is that if you were simply picking things out of twenty rather than out of five and then pairs, there would be no repetitions of the same photographs. You would not have feedback to eliminate possibilities. We cannot just do four sets of five and get the twenty that way because it would skew the probability in your favour.

Pavel, if you could, please make a proposal of some kind. Just say "Well, can we try it this way..." and give only one proposal.

Thanks,

Remie

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Startz

I'm not going to be much help if I can't be clear to all parties, am I?

All I meant was that it would be good to settle on a single statistical design, and then move the discussion to other issues of the design.

All protocols have to be approved by JREF staff, though. So designing a test around a specific protocol won't do unless it's already been approved

The biggest issue you'll be having as a volunteer will be making sure Pavel understands, and that we understand him. Beyond that, all the negotiations will still have to go through the JREF.

Thanks for committing to this. It's going to be an interesting ride

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Pavel, if you could, please make a proposal of some kind. Just say "Well, can we try it this way..." and give only one proposal.

Thanks,

Remie

Ok. I need to think and try to come up with new test…

[RemieV]

Pavel,

I am still thinking of ways we could potentially try jackalgirl's idea.

I understand that her suggested protocol would be like a roulette wheel. Red comes up four times in a row, and you start thinking you should bet on black because eventually it will turn. But of course, technically, black would never HAVE to come up.

What if the protocol was designed so the answer didn't have to be a "final" answer at the moment you looked at it?

For instance, what if you were given a stack of twenty envelopes (14 would contain the same photograph, 6 would contain blank photo paper) and you were permitted an hour, or even an hour and a half, to sort through the photos as many times as you wanted and divide them into piles of photographs and piles of photo paper? We could not open the envelopes as you went, but you could hold each one as many times as you wanted to ensure that you were not seeing "photo" just because you had gotten five "blank" in a row.

We could even number the envelopes and give you a piece of paper to make notes - so you could write "I am positive" next to number 5, and "I am not sure" next to number 16 and then later go back to 16 until you *were* sure.

Can you try self-testing this way? Have someone else stuff the envelopes and give it a shot.

-- Remie

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Pavel,

I am still thinking of ways we could potentially try jackalgirl's idea.

I understand that her suggested protocol would be like a roulette wheel. Red comes up four times in a row, and you start thinking you should bet on black because eventually it will turn. But of course, technically, black would never HAVE to come up.

What if the protocol was designed so the answer didn't have to be a "final" answer at the moment you looked at it?

For instance, what if you were given a stack of twenty envelopes (14 would contain the same photograph, 6 would contain blank photo paper) and you were permitted an hour, or even an hour and a half, to sort through the photos as many times as you wanted and divide them into piles of photographs and piles of photo paper? We could not open the envelopes as you went, but you could hold each one as many times as you wanted to ensure that you were not seeing "photo" just because you had gotten five "blank" in a row.

We could even number the envelopes and give you a piece of paper to make notes - so you could write "I am positive" next to number 5, and "I am not sure" next to number 16 and then later go back to 16 until you *were* sure.

Can you try self-testing this way? Have someone else stuff the envelopes and give it a shot.

-- Remie

I understand what you mean.. it some kind of Carina Landing protocol.. ( that was suggested many times by GzuzKryzt)
Maybe if there would be 20 photos with let say for instance.. 10 photos of Planet Earth, and 10 Egyptian pyramids. They will be all mixed up and I will be given time to sort them out in 2 pials, in the way that you described.. still would it work with 16 out of 20 correct?

It is possibly could work.. I mean I can and I will try it, just have to print out new set for test.

[Startz]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Pavel,

I am still thinking of ways we could potentially try jackalgirl's idea.

I understand that her suggested protocol would be like a roulette wheel. Red comes up four times in a row, and you start thinking you should bet on black because eventually it will turn. But of course, technically, black would never HAVE to come up.

What if the protocol was designed so the answer didn't have to be a "final" answer at the moment you looked at it?

For instance, what if you were given a stack of twenty envelopes (14 would contain the same photograph, 6 would contain blank photo paper) and you were permitted an hour, or even an hour and a half, to sort through the photos as many times as you wanted and divide them into piles of photographs and piles of photo paper? We could not open the envelopes as you went, but you could hold each one as many times as you wanted to ensure that you were not seeing "photo" just because you had gotten five "blank" in a row.

We could even number the envelopes and give you a piece of paper to make notes - so you could write "I am positive" next to number 5, and "I am not sure" next to number 16 and then later go back to 16 until you *were* sure.

Can you try self-testing this way? Have someone else stuff the envelopes and give it a shot.

-- Remie

Originally Posted by pavel_do

I understand what you mean.. it some kind of Carina Landing protocol.. ( that was suggested many times by GzuzKryzt)
Maybe if there would be 20 photos with let say for instance.. 10 photos of Planet Earth, and 10 Egyptian pyramids. They will be all mixed up and I will be given time to sort them out in 2 pials, in the way that you described.. still would it work with 16 out of 20 correct?

It is possibly could work.. I mean I can and I will try it, just have to print out new set for test.

Pavel:

I recommend that you first try exactly what Remie suggests. This will be the fastest way to reach an agreement. That's 6 of one kind and 14 of the other, not 10 and 10.

And I think her suggestion let's you spend a long time before making a final decision, but does expect you to correctly separate all the photos into the correct piles.

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by Startz

Pavel:

I recommend that you first try exactly what Remie suggests. This will be the fastest way to reach an agreement. That's 6 of one kind and 14 of the other, not 10 and 10.

And I think her suggestion let's you spend a long time before making a final decision, but does expect you to correctly separate all the photos into the correct piles.

I will try to do so.. need to order prints, will do this all over weekend.

[RemieV]

Pavel,

Sixteen is a little less than what you'd need to pass the 1/1000 odds, but I am willing to write it into the protocol that way and have Randi review it, as it isn't very far off.

Shall we proceed with this protocol?

-- Remie

[Startz]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Pavel,

Sixteen is a little less than what you'd need to pass the 1/1000 odds, but I am willing to write it into the protocol that way and have Randi review it, as it isn't very far off.

Shall we proceed with this protocol?

-- Remie

Pavel:

This looks to be a very generous protocol.

For those into the statistical side, I wrote a quick simulation program in Matlab which gives the chance of success by random guessing as 0.011. I haven't checked the code, so it shouldn't be relied on. But here it is for anyone interested.

function p = remieSuggestion(minNumRight, category1size, nSim)
%{
Dick Startz
July 2008

there are 20 cards, category1size of type 1 and 2-category1size of type 2
How many times can you guess numRight or more right

We'll do this my randomly sorting numbers and seeing how many end up in
each group
%}
rand('twister',5489);
correct = 0;

for iSim=1:nSim
    cardOrder = randperm(20);
    numCorrect = sum(cardOrder(1:category1size)<=category1size)...
        +sum(cardOrder(category1size+1:end)>=category1size+1);
    if numCorrect >= minNumRight
        correct = correct + 1;
    end
end
p = correct/nSim;
end

[Gr8wight]

Originally Posted by Gr8wight

The problem we are running into here is that Pavel's powers are only apparent to him when he complicates the protocol to the point were he loses track of the statistical probabilities involved. Simplifying and better controlling the test results in lower accuracy from Pavel, so he resists that. This is no different than any others of the multitudinous applicants the JREF has dealt with over the years. Pavel needs to ask himself one question, and think very hard about the answer. Given two envelopes, one containing a photograph, and one containing a blank sheet of photographic paper, can he identify the photograph significantly more often than half the time. If not, why not?

I have absolutely no interest in the answer to that question, only in the knowledge that Pavel has asked it of himself, and tried to be honest with himself about the answer.

Originally Posted by pavel_do

1. YES I CAN DO THAT significantly more often than half the time.. It is not complicated at all when there is only 2 envelopes to identify. Cause out of two I will pick one that I am getting image and most sure of.. Though sometimes I don’t see photo as I said still I would be able to hold both and compare my fillings and even slight visions. Just that the black photo has to be black. No colors or shapes or anything.

2. I am absolutely disagree with you in sense that I complicate test etc.. what can be easier than test with pairs? Too complicated? Or one out of 3? Or 2 out of 5? For you 3 out of 20 is easier than 3 out of 5? Ok.. than if 2 out of 5 everyone can do.. good luck to all of them but so far no evidence…

Perfect. This will be easy. All you need is ten identical photographs, and ten completely blank photographs. Each photo is put into an envelope. You will be handed the envelopes two at a time, and each pair of envelopes will consist of one photograph and one blank sheet. You simply need indicate which envelope holds the photograph. Those two envelopes will be marked and put aside. Repeat the process with two new envelopes. After you have chosen the envelope you believe contains the photo from all ten pairs, all of the envelopes will be opened together, and you can see how accurate you were.

What do you think?

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy! I think that Gr8wight has it.

Each attempt consists of one set of 1 piece of blank photo paper and 1 photo. You have a 1:2 chance (50%) of determining the correct one by chance alone.

But you repeat this 10 times. I think that the odds of getting all 10 correct (by chance alone) are 1:1024*. You'd have to be successful on each and every individual attempt.

How does that sound? You wouldn't have to make piles or do any sorting or worry about multiple blanks (or multiple photos) throwing you off. You could even wait in between attempts to "reset" your senses. Doable?

*I am statistically stupid. Could someone tell me if I'm doing this correctly? I'm multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 ... 10 times (1 / 2^10) (I'm not even sure if I'm doing /that/ correctly). Is that right?

Edited to add: Many thanks to Ravenwood, who if I am not mistaken, is the one who originally asked if Pavel can tell between a blank photo and a photo with an image in it.

[cafink]

Your math is correct, Jackalgirl.

[GzuzKryzt]

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl

Howdy! I think that Gr8wight has it.

Each attempt consists of one set of 1 piece of blank photo paper and 1 photo. You have a 1:2 chance (50%) of determining the correct one by chance alone.

But you repeat this 10 times. I think that the odds of getting all 10 correct (by chance alone) are 1:1024*. You'd have to be successful on each and every individual attempt.

How does that sound? You wouldn't have to make piles or do any sorting or worry about multiple blanks (or multiple photos) throwing you off. You could even wait in between attempts to "reset" your senses. Doable?

*I am statistically stupid. Could someone tell me if I'm doing this correctly? I'm multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 ... 10 times (1 / 2^10) (I'm not even sure if I'm doing /that/ correctly). Is that right?

Edited to add: Many thanks to Ravenwood, who if I am not mistaken, is the one who originally asked if Pavel can tell between a blank photo and a photo with an image in it.

Well, this dude also suggested it.

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Pavel,

Sixteen is a little less than what you'd need to pass the 1/1000 odds, but I am willing to write it into the protocol that way and have Randi review it, as it isn't very far off.

Shall we proceed with this protocol?

-- Remie

Thank you Remiev. I will print today a new set of photos. 10 and 10. and will test myself in this way during a weekend to see how will it go. And by the end of the Sunday, I will post my reply.

P.s.
Re to the other posts.. Gr8wight, Jackalgirl, and dude who also suggested it.. thank you to, I will try it all over the weekend.

[Startz]

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl

Howdy! I think that Gr8wight has it.

Each attempt consists of one set of 1 piece of blank photo paper and 1 photo. You have a 1:2 chance (50%) of determining the correct one by chance alone.

But you repeat this 10 times. I think that the odds of getting all 10 correct (by chance alone) are 1:1024*. You'd have to be successful on each and every individual attempt.

How does that sound? You wouldn't have to make piles or do any sorting or worry about multiple blanks (or multiple photos) throwing you off. You could even wait in between attempts to "reset" your senses. Doable?

*I am statistically stupid. Could someone tell me if I'm doing this correctly? I'm multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 ... 10 times (1 / 2^10) (I'm not even sure if I'm doing /that/ correctly). Is that right?

Edited to add: Many thanks to Ravenwood, who if I am not mistaken, is the one who originally asked if Pavel can tell between a blank photo and a photo with an image in it.

The statistics are correct. But this is a much easier test than having all the photos together and sorting them into two groups, which is what Remie suggested. The difference is that doing it this way if you get one envelope in an attempt right you automatically get the other one right, where in the "big pile" approach you have to get the first 19 right and then the last one is automatic. Basically the odds in Remie's method are 1 in a million for perfection. That's what lets Pavel make some errors and still win.

So Pavel, since you'll have the photos it's a great idea to practice on this suggestion, but make sure you also try out Remie's suggestions exactly.

[Gmonster2]

Jackel girl and gr8 wight you may not have read all the other long long long thread but Pavel already did this same test you are describing for his affidavit from 10 pairs of photos which he knew what 2 photos there were out of 5 trials he guessed 7,7,7,8 and 4 right out of 10.

As Jref requires 1:1000 odds i.e. 10 out of 10 he failed the preliminary test 5 times already.


Only diff now is there will be one blank and one photo, Not 2 known photos but still 50% chance to guess just the same..

regards Gmonster

[Startz]

Originally Posted by Gmonster2

Jackel girl and gr8 wight you may not have read all the other long long long thread but Pavel already did this same test you are describing for his affidavit from 10 pairs of photos which he knew what 2 photos there were out of 5 trials he guessed 7,7,7,8 and 4 right out of 10.

As Jref requires 1:1000 odds i.e. 10 out of 10 he failed the preliminary test 5 times already.


Only diff now is there will be one blank and one photo, Not 2 known photos but still 50% chance to guess just the same..

regards Gmonster

Pavel has always said that his talent is imperfect, so it's not quite fair to ask for a test that requires perfection. The suggestion Remie has made, following ideas suggested here on the forum, presents a much higher bar for perfection and therefore allows some room for error.

[pavel_do]

I made prints of photos that I need, including a few just blank-black photographs..

Will try to have 3 types of test, by 3 trials each.
1. When all 20 ( 10 each of a kind) will be mixed up and I will try to separate them in 2 pails…
2. When I will have them separated by pairs, where I need to identify one of two(as the second one will be known as soon as first will be named) I will do it with opening every photo that was named as I usually do.
3. Test where I have to identify pairs.. same as in N.2 but the results will be unknown till the end of the test and last pair is identified.
4. Will make a few pairs with 1 photo and 1 blank-black and try it too.



p.s. Re to Gmonster2 comment

if you can get same results as I did for affidavit letter.. Good luck to you.. it still over chance..
Any ways when we ran test at psychology department. I was given 1 photo of two to identify.. Now I have both photos in my hands to choose the one I am sure most of.. that make difference for me.. Beside at that time all the pairs was different.. and this time I will use only photos that I am usually getting most of the times correct.. that is also make difference for me..

[Startz]

Originally Posted by pavel_do

I made prints of photos that I need, including a few just blank-black photographs..

Will try to have 3 types of test, by 3 trials each.
1. When all 20 ( 10 each of a kind) will be mixed up and I will try to separate them in 2 pails…
2. When I will have them separated by pairs, where I need to identify one of two(as the second one will be known as soon as first will be named) I will do it with opening every photo that was named as I usually do.
3. Test where I have to identify pairs.. same as in N.2 but the results will be unknown till the end of the test and last pair is identified.
4. Will make a few pairs with 1 photo and 1 blank-black and try it too.



p.s. Re to Gmonster2 comment

if you can get same results as I did for affidavit letter.. Good luck to you.. it still over chance..
Any ways when we ran test at psychology department. I was given 1 photo of two to identify.. Now I have both photos in my hands to choose the one I am sure most of.. that make difference for me.. Beside at that time all the pairs was different.. and this time I will use only photos that I am usually getting most of the times correct.. that is also make difference for me..

Pavel:

This is excellent. Very few applicants have been as willing to follow up on suggestions as you have. We'll look forward to seeing the results of these informal tests and also to the results of the official test when it comes about.

[pavel_do]

by the way just wanted to show you the photos that I am usually most sure of and the ones I will use for the testing this time.
it is on this link.. I posted them here..

www.jaimypage.narod.ru

the photos was redone by me in photo shop, I tried to make them as different and as "bright" and significant as I could.. Like I can “get them” by shapes or colors.. Like pyramids it is either Pyramids shapes, pointed up sharp corners or something of a kind.. or red colors that I pick up.. The earth is Blue and round.. The Ship is in ship shape and gray colors.. and The cross is usually I pick up either as crossed lines or black shadow of the cross etc

p.s.
Sorry about the size of the photos.. as on the photo paper they all fit well

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by pavel_do

1. YES I CAN DO THAT significantly more often than half the time.. It is not complicated at all when there is only 2 envelopes to identify. Cause out of two I will pick one that I am getting image and most sure of.. Though sometimes I don’t see photo as I said still I would be able to hold both and compare my fillings and even slight visions. Just that the black photo has to be black. No colors or shapes or anything.

Pavel, please be aware that blank photographic paper is white, not black. Apart from white, there will be no colours, shapes or anything, just like you stipulate.

[Ravenwood]

Pavel, if you are printing these out on an inkjet or laser printer, there is no difference between regular or photo paper. The toner or ink is being deposited on the paper by the same mechanism, unlike printing a photographic negative on photographic paper which is a completely different process... That being said, if you are using a printer, there should be no discerrnable difference in size or weight of a blank sheet vs a printed sheet of the media you are using once they are in the envelopes.

[pavel_do]

Originally Posted by Ravenwood

Pavel, if you are printing these out on an inkjet or laser printer, there is no difference between regular or photo paper. The toner or ink is being deposited on the paper by the same mechanism, unlike printing a photographic negative on photographic paper which is a completely different process... That being said, if you are using a printer, there should be no discerrnable difference in size or weight of a blank sheet vs a printed sheet of the media you are using once they are in the envelopes.

NO I print them on the photo paper in the Photo lab. As photo copies or photos printed on inkjet printer.. I don’t see them the same as photos on the photo paper.

Re to Steenkh.
The photos I’ve done as blank.. are BLACK not plane white.. as I would mix it up with Photo of Titanic that is Gray-light or Cross that has allot of white on photo..