MWAK: Medium?

Intelligence is one of those games with a default "Impossible" difficulty. There really isn't another explanation for what I am about to tell you. This is the first ever official Monkey with a Keyboard (MWAK) post, and it will be obvious why before long.

In case you haven't noticed, I've been on a James Randi binge lately. Maybe it's because I'm an inherently trusting person and I very much dislike the notion of people preying on trusting people. Maybe it's because I'm a religious skeptic of sorts. Mostly it's because he's awesome.

While I was perusing some clips from a TV show he did back in 1991, I followed a trail of Youtube videos until I came to one titled "James Randi's Scam". I thought it was about his Project Alpha experiment. It turned out to be the confusing ramblings of a self-proclaimed medium about how Randi is a hack.

I haven't linked the video here, because it honestly doesn't deserve any attention.

However, here is a comment made by a supporter of the video's creator, going by the nickname skepticslayer1234.

I applied to be tested for the million and Randi lied to get out of testing me. He rejected my application saying I wanted no photos taken. Truth is I insisted the whole proceedure be video taped. I have offered Randi ten grand to meet me in public with his proof I wanted no photos but he runs from my "Honesty Challenge". Randi is a cowardly liar. Bill Perron

Now, being the skeptic I am, I needed to investigate this. I happen to know that the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) keeps an online record of all applicants. If this Bill Perron applied, as he claims, he and his application letter would surely be listed on the website.

This is the text of his application, copied here because it needs to be disseminated all over the internet as a casebook example of MWAK.

And I quote the unmodified, untranslated work of Bill Perron (sources following):

USING MY DELL LAPTOP COMPUTER AND LEXMARK PRINTER I WILL PRODUCE HOROSCOPES CONTAINING THE PLANETS, THEIR RELATIVE POSITIONING AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THESE POSITIONS AND WHAT THEY INDICATE ABOUT A PERSON THEIR PERSONALITY, CHARACTERISTICS, AND NATURE. I WILL DO THIS WITH A DEGREE OF ACCURACY THAT WILL BE OBSERABLY BEYOND MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY.

THEN I WILL OBSERVE HOW MR. RANDI FRAUDENTLY GETS OUT OF PAYING ME THE MILLION DOLLARS THAT I WIN.

MY PREFERED WAY TEST MY HOROSCOPES IS TO GO TO A PUBLIC PLACE PERHAPS A SHOPPING MALL AND ASK TOTAL STRANGERS WHO ARE MARRIED TO ALLOW ME TO DO A HOROSCOPE ON THE HUSBAND AND THEN TO HAVE THE WIFE READ THE 8 PAGES OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE HOROSCOPE AND TELL US HOW ACCURATE IT IS. I HAVE FOUND WIVES TO KNOW THEIR HUSBANDS VERY WELL AND THEY ARE NOT SHY ABOUT BEING VERY CRITICAL OF THEIR SPOUSES IF I GET AT LEAST A 60% OR BETTER ON THE HOROSCOPES THAT IS ABOVE CHANCE SO I WIN. I BELIEVE 5 HOROSCOPES ARE ENOUGH TO TEST THE ACCURACY BUT IF JREF WANT ME TO DO MORE I WILL BE GLAD TO BUT THERE HAS TO BE AN EVENTUAL LIMIT. SINCE JREF BELIEVES ASTROLOGY IS BUNK THEN ONLY ONE ACCURATE HOROSCOPE SHOULD BE SUFFICENT BUT REPEATABILITY IS REQUIRED SO I SUGGESTED 5 ACCURATE HOROSCOPES I WILL BE USING 12 ZODIAC SIGNS ALL THE PLANETS ALL 12 HOUSES PLUS ALL THE ASPECTS TRINES, SQUARES, ETC. THIS JUST FURTHER DOCUMENTS & SUPPORTS THAT MY ACCURACY IS WAY BEYOND CHANCE.

Sources arehere and here.

I'd like to highlight a few things.

Firstly, this application was hand written. I would have said, "this guy is an example of everything that is wrong with the internet", except he actually took a pen and wrote that out, in all caps. I don't know what OBSERABLY, FRAUDENTLY and TRINES are, but they must be the angels of his swift justice against Randi.

Secondly, this man has a computer and printer. It's part of his whole computer horoscope medium profession. Was it impossible for him to type up the letter instead? Would that have jived with the vibes of his electronic equipment or something? Was he afraid that somehow, Randi would be able to infer something about his computer from the paper and sabotage his ability to do horoscopes? It just baffles me that someone claiming to be able to use a computer for something as complex and important as prognosticating intricate information about a person and their future is incapable of typing up a letter and printing it out.

Thirdly, I believe this guy was yelling this out as he wrote it, one word at a time. Maybe he didn't, but it's a hilarious picture to imagine a grown man furiously scribbling in all caps, yelling out each word with long pauses. Pure speculation, humorous image.

Fourthly, I'm wondering if this is the same way he turns in job applications. I'm not sure McDonalds would accept anything written in that style.

Fifthly, I'd be interested in statistics of his accuracy versus the length of marriage + courtship for couples. I wonder if the general assertions of a horoscope are more likely to ring bells with newlyweds over marriages going on 25 years.

Sixthly, as an officer in my guild I have to sort through people submitting applications. Admittedly our process is simply "Talk to us, if you're sane you're probably in", but a surprising number of people fail miserably. Specifically, their conduct and style of writing are expressly indicative of the maturity of a 6 year old child. Given that we're just a guild in a video game, that seems relatively understandable; chances are half of them were 6 years old. However, when someone's applying for a million dollar prize and drops sentences such as, "THEN I WILL OBSERVE HOW MR. RANDI FRAUDENTLY GETS OUT OF PAYING ME THE MILLION DOLLARS THAT I WIN" I can't help but shake my head.

Lastly, the old adage "a person is smart, people are stupid" needs updating. This man defies it, too bad there's no million dollar prize for that.

Thus endeth the first MWAK. I pray there aren't more to come.

Double Dose of Randi

In case you were wondering, the long rant was inspired by reading an article about James Randi scoffing at claims of a seven thousand dollar audio cable being "danceable". Specifically, the claims made by a review of the cable were for all intents and purposes supernatural. While better audio quality is probable, neither Randi nor anyone else looking rationally at the situation find it likely that the cable has some special power to make you want to get up and dance that is lacking in the $80 (and also overpriced) equivalent.

In any case, for an example of Randi at work, observe the following video. Below the video I will post some reactions with time stamps matching the video.



1:21: "That seemed to be the right one."

I don't know about you, but her explanation of how she made the choice isn't particularly satisfying. It's barely an explanation.

I'll admit as a writer of sorts that very often we pick words that "seemed to be the right one", but then again writing is a subjective art. The profession of healing people would, I hope, entail slightly more precision. Doctors may as "what seems to be the problem", but they at least poke you painfully in places, or X-ray you based on what you said, rather than just pulling remedies out of a hat.

1:42: The Muscle Test

That test seems far from scientific already. Is she really just pushing down on the arm? I would have thought that strength is a somewhat quantifiable measure. The love machine at the local pizza parlor qualified me as "Flaming Hot" with my right hand, "Eligible Bachelor" with me left, and "Prince Charming Himself" when I cheated and used both.

1:58: Testing testing....

And lo and behold, her arm isn't limp! It's a miracle! Get the Pope on the line! I don't know why just get him on the line we need to talk to him! No I don't speak Latin, maybe she has a crystal for that too!

If I sound unimpressed, it's because I am. Maybe I'm not giving her enough benefit of the doubt, but I'd rather prefer to be the one pushing on the arm myself. That, or use a machine to measure it. She was "Snores in bed" before, but with that crystal she's obviously upgraded a "Whoa Mama!" level of romance.

2:35: Randi has it in the bag

This is why Randi rocks. My test is too obvious. His is too awesome, yet should be so obvious.

Actually, it's interesting. He's a magician, how much do you want to bet that the crystal isn't even in the bag anymore, even though it looks like he put it in there?

That might cause the woman to call foul on the test though, so maybe he'll be honest.

4:22 If chance alone...

I'm going to bet alarm bells started ringing in the woman's head when Randi said, "If chance alone were operating here..."

5:00 Rats!

He was honest, but oh the hilarity of using rat poison.

5:17 ZOMG NUDE CRYSTAL

Obviously the crystal had to be naked, because that would explain why one out of five times the rat poison worked.

I hope you all enjoyed watching that debunking as much as I did.

Rant: Several Steps to Better Thinking

Regret is a dish best served microwaved.

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally there are several events in my life ranging from absolutely pathetically small to "How did I ever do something that was so monumentally in defiance of my basic, underlying principles and beliefs?" which reheat themselves from time to time and remind me of how I've failed in the past. Feelings of guilt, sorrow and the aforementioned regret take over until such time as the leftovers cool again and recess back into the depths of my sadistic subconscious. Approximately 101% of these events happened principally because of one reason.

I wasn't thinking.

Actually, it's somewhat deeper than that. I certainly was thinking at the time, but at a significantly reduced quality than standard. There wasn't a lack of awareness of what I was doing, or even a lack of self-consciousness, but a distinct absence of several streams of thought which normally keep those extremely idiotic suggestions from being carried out.

The severity of some of my transgressions troubles me deeply; they represent the kind of failings I very often criticize in others. I suppose I pride myself on my ability to think logically and rationally in any situation, such that when I fail to do so in a common situation I normally have mastery over it is humbling to say the least.

In any case, I'm a firm proponent of proper thinking. Proper thinking requires three things.

1) Awareness of oneself.
2) Awareness of one's environment.
3) Awareness of what assumptions are being made, and why.

The absence of any of those three spells immediate failure to engage in effective thought. They are three pillars that are unable to support an active mind should any fail. The more pillars that fail, the more startling the wake-up call is.

For example, one of my more silly regrets was counting pennies out of a "give a penny, take a penny" in Spanish. I was ten at the time, and my awareness of myself was limited to the language I was speaking, the environment constrained to the pennies, and I had no awareness at all of any assumptions whatsoever.

When the store clerk angrily threw the pennies back into the small bin, it was a wake-up call that made me keenly aware of everything I'd been missing. A) My methodology for counting had been obnoxious and even condescending, B) The clerk was obvious Spanish himself, C) I had assumed it was okay to take 10 pennies from the bin, when I only had a nickel of my own. I ran out of the store crying.

My "vision" of all three points was narrow to the point of uselessness. My startling wake-up forced by the clerk's reaction helped me learn that one's mind must be wide open at all times or we do some very, very dumb things.

So, and without further ado, here are some steps to better thinking.

1) Stop.
2) Step back.
3) Observe.
4) Contemplate.
5) Test.
6) Conclude.
7) Repeat.

And to elaborate.

Step 1: Stop

The first step towards better thinking is to stop oneself from not thinking. Not thinking is the same thing as auto-pilot, and is a very easy thing to do. We do it on the way to work, in the grocery store, as we play video games, and even while watching movies with loved ones. When we are only doing and not thinking, we can end up getting ourselves in trouble.

Step 2: Step back

The second step requires us to pull ourselves out of our own perspective. This is probably the most difficult step. Pull away from where you are, even who you are, and get yourself in a position outside of yourself, where you are, and what's going on. This is so that we can more readily...

Step 3: Observe

In order to think straight, one must be aware of whatever facts are available at the time. Observe yourself, how are you feeling? What is on your mind? What was on your mind before? Observe the environment, are you shivering? Who else is there? What sounds are you hearing? What are you doing? Observe the assumptions, are you assuming it's okay to be out this late? To be falling asleep on this person's couch? To be eating hot wings?

Be careful not to get ahead of yourself. This is not the time for steps 4-7. You shouldn't be trying to figure out why you might think it's okay to eat hot wings, you should only note that you are assuming it is.

Step 4: Contemplate

Now that you have facts, it's time to evaluate them. Try and understand the hows and whys of the situation. For example, you have noted you are shivering. So we ask, "Why are you shivering?" We don't know, but we know that the room is not cold, so that can not be why. We know that you are feeling well, so unless this is a symptom of a sickness that is oncoming that can not be why. We know that a beautiful woman just rested her head on your shoulder. We also know that your heart jumped several beats. There is the possibility that you are shivering because of her.

Step 5: Test

If you're picking up on how this is similar to the scientific method, excellent. It is like the scientific method, and with good reason. When applied introspectively, accounting for factors both environmental and abstract, the scientific method is an "easy" way to be aware of what you're doing and why.

Unfortunately, this step is also very difficult. We have to ask, what is there to test? If we're trying to understand our feelings for someone, testing to see if we're shivering because of them doesn't have many sound environmental options (too many are likely to dramatically change the nature of the situation and alter far too many variables at once). Most situations require very specific, tailored tests.

In our current scenario, we have to ask ourselves "Do I like her?" as our test. The obvious answer is, "I don't know." Testing is now complete.

Step 6: Conclude

Conclusion is a very easy step. We have an answer to our test, and the answer is sound. "I don't know", while not helpful, is an answer. So, we move on to the next step.

Step 7: Repeat

This step is also straightforward. Go through all the steps again. Some of them will be significantly easier this time (unless you're getting all fluttery as you think, Stopping will be rather easy), and some of them will take more time (Contemplating "Why don't I know?" can take hours). However, this is the basic process by which one can think better.

Obviously these steps are largely guidelines. People think differently, and even my application of this method is not exactly in tune with this. However, it's a great starting point to figure out where your mind rails run.

The major advantage to thinking effectively is a much keener awareness of who you are, and why. People who think effectively aren't afraid to have a highly skeptical person ask them, "Why do you believe in God?" not because they can talk about what God has done for them, or how God speaks to them, but because they can answer the skeptic on their own terms. For example:

"It is obvious that I can not explain why I believe in God to you by describing my experiences through prayer. It is doubly obvious that I can not conclusively prove God's existence by my experiences in prayer, in church, or at other times. It is entirely possible that I am delusional to the point of being committable to an asylum. However, I believe in God (in summary) because the Big Bang doesn't explain where the matter came from in the first place. Neither the matter nor God have any better scientific explanation for their existence except that they have to be. At the same time, humanity has an observable need for spirituality among other aspects of the universe that point to but do not prove the possibility of a greater being. So long as I do not cease challenging my assumption that God exists, I judge this belief to be healthy."

I may not agree with all of the beliefs of James Randi, but I respect him a lot for his willingness to challenge his own and other's assumptions and beliefs. I enjoy reading about him, what he does, and watching his videos on youtube because he asks the fundamental questions many people overlook. "Why?" and "How?"

Having a similar ability to think rationally, actively, and without ceasing will help one in everything from video games, to gardening, to blogging. Although, it certainly didn't help me keep this short.

Thanks for reading.