aarthrj3811 said:
Carl ---All the dictionaries have about the same difinition for Double Blind. Your Challenge is just that---a Challenge--- It could be called a Blind Test. It has a protocol. You seem to think this is some kind of super test. I have news for you... Millions and Millions of people do this kind of testing every day.
YOUR TEST WILL PROVE THAT ONE PERSON CAN OR CAN NOT USE HIS LRL. That may be why you can't get any one to take it...Art
Gee, Art, you put forth zero effort on my questions. Why am I not surprised?
OK, here are 2 examples of DB testing, which do not place the
people in groups. These are called product-preference tests.
Case 1: Taste test. Does any particular bottled water really taste better than others, or even better than tap water? To test this, you would take several numbered glasses, fill them with the different waters, and have test subjects taste the waters. There is no need to have a "control" group, because there is nothing to control against (there is no placebo effect). It is merely a comparison test. The test is "blind" if the taster does not know what water is in which glass. It is "double-blind" if, during the tasting phase, the proctor administering the test also does not know.
Case 2: Listening test. Does any particular speaker cable really "sound" better than others, or even better than zip wire? To test this, you would use something called an "ABX" box which switches the speaker signal between 2 cables, and have test subjects listen to music. The ABX box has 3 selections: cable A, cable B, and "X". When A or B is selected, then you obviously know which cable is being used. But the "X" position randomly selects A or B, and you have to look at a hidden indicator to see which it selected. Again, there is no need to have a "control" group, because there is nothing to control against. It is merely a comparison test. The test is "blind" if the listener does not know what cable has been selected. It is "double-blind" if, during the listening phase, the proctor administering the test also does not know.
These are well-known and well-accepted examples of double-blind testing that do not fit your very narrow definition. Similarly, a dowsing test is blind if the dowser does not know the actual location of the target. It is "double-blind" if, during the dowsing phase, the proctor administering the test also does not know. Is that really too difficult to understand?
I do agree with you, that my test will only show whether the person being tested can or cannot use his LRL (or dowse). But it's worth $25,000, for the person who "can". And, I've generally noticed, those who "cannot" tend to argue at length about how my test is unfair. You are welcomed to suggest your own test, which was the whole purpose of this thread.
- Carl
