Comments on: The Results of Booze on Telepathic Ability

By: Adam Onymouse

Adam Onymouse — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:00:57 +0000

if somebody did by chance pass the test… wouln’t that be “proof by example”?

By: Daryl Dollar Bet

Daryl Dollar Bet — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:30:16 +0000

There are many legislations involved and your first port of call should be a lawyer/solicitor/attorney who specializes in the gambling arena. Just like the adult industry… do the wrong thing and sit behind bars!

By: TonyC

TonyC — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:27:06 +0000

Anybody else notice that the guy went 12/20 on suit for the first 20 send-receive pairs (I’m excluding card 16)? By my calculations that’s about a 1070/1 shot – probably a little less if you adjust for the fact that the mix of suits would be changing after each card was revealed, though this is an adjustment I doubt Regen would have been capable of on the night.

For clarity, no I don’t think Regen’s telepathic; I just think it’s amazing what you can find if you play “hunt the anomaly” often enough and for long enough (And yes, I’m a statistician if you’ve not guessed already).

By: Donna Gore

Donna Gore — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:11:27 +0000

I sent that to one of my now-sober alcoholic friends, who replied as follows:

The ability to predict the future — is that considered telepathic ability? Because back in my drinking days, I definitely had the ability to predict the future. Whenever the bartender asked me if I’d be having another drink, I always predicted, “Yes, I will.” And I did!

By: Jeshua

Jeshua — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:06:10 +0000

The wisest comment so far was the one that advocated immediately canceling any challenge involving people who are obviously drunk or otherwise drug-impaired. At least it should be checked ahead of time to ensure that participants have some kind of record or following in the contested ability. Farces like this are not nearly as funny as Cheech and Chong and only serve to discredit the challenge. (By the way comedy is subjective. I used to laugh till my sides split listening to the their early albums.)

By: dithergirl

dithergirl — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:44:26 +0000

I believe that if skeptics are to be seen as fair we must investigate the claims of idiots. That said, I feel very sorry for everyone who put hard work into the challenge and felt slighted. On the other hand, this kind of work is so very important to the skeptical community and shouldn’t be viewed as a waste of time. A big thanks to all who participated!

By: Brian Hart

Brian Hart — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:44:58 +0000

I am a long-time member of the IIG, and was involved in this test. (I was the online chat moderator, and took the pictures that Mark used in this article).
The IIG is not related to JREF in any way, except for friendship and our utmost respect for this fine organization. We modeled our $50K prize on the JREF’s $1M in many ways. However, there are some differences.

We do not require any media to recognize the individuals to be tested. Out of approximately 2 to 3 claims we receive per week, we get to test, on the average, about 1 person every 2 YEARS!

Why is this so? First of all, MOST first time claimants never respond with a second e-mail after being contacted by our First Responder Team. When we ask for more specific information on the claim, this usually this stops about 85% of the claimants.

If the claimants do respond, it usually takes 10-20 more e-mails back and forth to qualify what it is they claim and what we can actually test. This can take months, if not years!

Finally, we get down to the protocol procedure. As many of you already know, this is a give-and-take process with BOTH parties agreeing on the testing procedure. This can also take many months of negotiation.

Lastly, the day of the test. Many of these people do not show up or even call. Traynor was given an unprecedented second chance when he told us he was in jail for the original test date. This was a first-time excuse for the IIG, no one had ever used this particular one before, so we were curious and amused enough to try him again.

So, when Traynor and Fernando showed up for the test, we were all delighted that all our work had not been in vain. We had no procedures in place at the time to weed out inebriated or “stoned” individuals, so we proceeded with the test exactly as planned.

Every IIG member took this test very seriously, even when we realized that these guys were stinking drunk. Jim Underdown handled himself especially well, given the circumstances, and we were all respectful of the subjects and the test itself.

In conclusion, it is difficult to find and weed out these special individuals, it takes a great deal of effort to set up and coordinate these tests, and we are not in any position to dismiss ANYONE for any reasons that are not in the protocols. That is why we proceeded and why we continue to test and reports the results.

Their failure must become part of the culture of testing paranormal claims.

By: Wendy H.

Wendy H. — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:49:04 +0000

Many applicants/claimants over the years for the IIG Challenge have described really weird powers or have made elaborate demands during negotiations for testing conditions. One dowser had the IIG making detailed plans to set up lumber and plastic tubing in our parking lot that took time out of our lives, and I don’t think he ever showed up for the test. One claimant sent pictures that claimed to show that he had a camera that could magically change perspective; now is that mental illness? And is his mental illness worse than Regen Traynor’s schizophrenia that was being street-treated with alcohol? One stand-out claimant actually did travel all the way from another state to Hollywood, was in the neighborhood, but didn’t come to our office for her test. And should IIG attempt to winnow out of the application process those with mental illness from those with extraordinary claims in order to find people with normal mental health, but who think they can prove in a testing situation that they can demonstrate ESP? I think we cannot do that. And which claims do we stop testing for? Telepaths? Dowsers? UFO sightings? Do we narrow down our focus to product liability, as in protecting the public against nurse woo? We do that too, but I don’t think that’s all we want to do…
I’m sorry that Regen Traynor’s homelessness and alcoholism shook everyone up so much — but as I’ve commented on another blog — I’m not sure I wouldn’t start drinking if there were more voices in my head than the ones that belong there. It’s important to demonstrate against the Sylvia Brownes and the John Edwards that have somehow become publicly acceptable — it’s a good thing to spend part of our time explaining cold reading. But to give up on planning exercises in the practical application of science, which is what we are doing every time we plan a test of a claimant, would be thoughtlessness. At least some of these claimants think they have some kind of power… some of them are misinterpreting noises in their houses, and think they are haunted. If we can explain that to them, we’ve won. If Jim Underdown can explain that Sparky the Dog was responding to unconscious hand signals, and not reading his owner’s mind, we’ve won. These small, but significant successes are the results of practice at learning how to plan and execute a test with scientific rigor. Maybe I’m not writing with the most skill, but what I’m trying to say is that it’s important to at least try to evaluate whether a claim can be tested; if it can be tested, then to try to negotiate with the claimant. That’s the scientific method. As long as we are careful to protect ourselves against cold readers and other cheaters, and as long as a claim can be refuted… why not?

By: Karl Withakay

Karl Withakay — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:46:50 +0000

“While I generally agree with IIG’s Jim Neuman that we have to respond to each claimant in some way or we might be thought of a s cherry-picking or not fair, this particular challenge bordered on being worthless”

I don’t know what your terms and conditions are, but JREF requires some form of media reporting to be an eligible claimant.

If you can’t at least get on your local TV news once or written up in your suburban journal with your abilities, you’re probably not worth testing.

By: oldebabe

oldebabe — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:43:30 +0000

A good and, yes, worthwhile effort by I. I. G. Even if it was supposed to be a joke, it did show the serious effort and, essentially, the processes and success of investigations; and perhaps the skepticism of the participants (!) i.e. these `drunken bums’ (no skepticism needed here) got it right, and knew they couldn’t pass the test… in any condition.

I hope the group doesn’t get too disgusted or all uptight about this particular investigative fiasco. In a round-about way, it may serve to direct attention to the program.