From Naomi Tickle
To: Darren McBride
Subject: Re: Re Offer
Naomi: "After taking a look at the JREF website and looking through what you outlined below, I have decided against applying for the challenge of proving the Face Pattern Recognition system. You may well think I have come to this decision because I don't think my system works. Well, I know it does. "
Yes, most people really like this kind of thing. And you’re so personable and confident and friendly no one wants to challenge you. Even the guy who misread your book (chapter 5) and said it was racist has taken a lot of heat behind the scenes. It is unfortunate he jumped on you like that.
Naomi talked about the validity of her charts and face reading technique.
I’m not sure what charts you are referring to here (from your book?) I don’t doubt your sincerity or that you are a very genuine person. In my opinion you are just not aware how to go about scientifically verifying your theories.
Naomi stated that the major reason for not participating in the challenge is that she doesn't want her work to be torn apart and believes people jump to conclusions without fair evaluation and hoped I wouldn't be offended that I was one of these people. She didn't want me to put my own spin on things.
No offense taken. I have, in fact, “jumped to the conclusion” that your face reading probably doesn’t work. I have done so without having my own face analyzed by you. But even if I had an assessment and you nailed my personality perfectly, I would consider the evidence completely anecdotal which is why I didn’t avail myself of the opportunity when you came to town. Plus, I had already shown you some of my personality by asking you a question after your presentation. Whether I (or anyone else) feels your assessment of them is correct is not validation of the science behind your method. Only double blind testing can validate your technique – and you are afraid of doing that apparently. I think accessing someone’s “personality” is a very slippery thing. I even think formal “personality tests” don’t have definitive science behind them, which is why I suggested doing these tests by determining who is in what very different career.
As for “putting their own spin on things” – that is the reason YOU design the JREF challenge. If you document what you can do in writing in advance, the people testing you can’t easily spin it if they accept the challenge and you succeed. What you’re really saying is you don’t believe the $1Million prize is real or you don’t think it will be given if you succeed because it’s hard for me to believe you’re worried about “tearing the work apart” if you’re really confident it works.
Naomi stated she has client testimonials but I would believe she made them up.
Please understand I do not think you “made it all up”. I don’t think you are deliberately lying. As I said, I think you’re merely deluding yourself and others. I have seen demonstrations where the same horoscope is handed out to a group of 30 people and they are asked if they feel the horoscope is accurate. 85% of them raise their hands only to discover they’ve all been handed the exact same horoscope. You see, if you say things like “You sometimes drive your spouse crazy by over analyzing things” lots of people will resonate with that vague assessment.
Naomi indicated people in the USA are more close minded then elsewhere and refuse to dig deeper. She also said she's tested her theory to her satisfaction.
Oh Bullshit Naomi. People are people the world over. Plenty of Americans are as susceptible to woo woo as are the Chinese or the whoever. Americans are generally better educated so maybe that’s the reason
I’m trying to dig digger into the subject – but you don’t want to subject your beliefs to double blind science. You are happy and confident in your deluded state. Except you didn’t test out the theory correctly. You used vague personality suggestions and let people nod like lemmings.
Naomi suggested I test out face reading for myself using her book. Restated that Robert Whiteside conducted a study of 1008 people in 1963 that showed it was 88% accurate.
I wouldn’t even begin to know how to test the observations for myself as I don't believe I have your magical observation skills. Googling the study you reference lead me to this entry in the skeptics dictionary in which they indicate they have been unable to find any such publication in any scientific journal. http://www.skepdic.com/personology.html
Naomi indicated what mattered most was helping people and that takes importance of tearing work apart by people who haven't taken time to research it. She thanked me for outlining the JREF challenge and suggested if they were open to researching one trait at a time she'd consider that.
If you’re OK with this being the placebo effect so be it. The work would only be torn apart if it deserves to be torn apart – because it’s bunk. If it holds up you have nothing to worry about. Testing one trait at a time seems reasonable – Again if the trait were something scientifically undeniable and testable such as a persons career or whether they got A’s in math versus C’s in math (say by looking at pictures of high-school students).
