UncaYimmy:
People will not be approached and asked to participate in the study. A sign is placed and those who read it make their own decision whether to volunteer or not. Those who are interested are then given an information page with additional information and can make a decision then. No one is approached or asked to volunteer. It is entirely up to them.
If a volunteer leaves out answering a personal question and simply checks the box that they didn't answer all questions, then what happens when I detect the ailment that they have and they did not check the box. You would count that as inaccuracy,
I am sure.
The reason I don't use
your form and use
my form is because mine does not include ailments that I already know that I can not identify or describe, and includes additional ones that I want to find out whether I can identify several of which may be good candidates for a real test. Mine also asks for when the ailment was perceived and the extent of the ailment, two aspects that may be crucial in establishing the frames of what I can perceive.
The reason I didn't attempt medical perceptions at the recent meeting with the local skeptics (but only did with one of them) is because a proper questionnaire was not available then, one that asks for when and the extent of the ailments as well. I am now ready to do this with any of the skeptics or their acquaintances that they can bring to the next meeting. I might even ask for an extra meeting earlier and just for this purpose.
I am making progress. Even if slowly.
Sorry, I don't recall seeing you posting in this thread before, so I just assumed you were new to it. My bad. However, my point still stands in that she's acting like she's actually doing something. You know, like writing a letter to the parks people who already said there was no reason she couldn't go to the park.
I feel really excited all of a sudden. Are you absolutely sure about this? In that case - I AM ALL SET!
But do let me await the response from the Park and Recreation Department. They said they could have an answer to me within 24 hours, which should be 15 hours from now.
Yay! I get to have my study!
Akhenaten:
The "Mostly Harmless" bit is just an oblique reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which you should read. Especially the parts dealing with the Infinite Improbability Drive, one of which you appear to have.
I actually have that book in my room, a friend told me to read it but I haven't yet. He told me about the part about the monkeys and the typewriters and producing Hamlet. It is incredibly funny. Oh, and the most dangerous creature in the universe, except he is so dumb that when you close your eyes he thinks he can't see you so he doesn't find you.
ETA: PS Do you like my picture of everybody's favourite star?
I prefer white dwarf stars.
So now we know. I notice that only four levels are listed, and have to wonder if a "1" on this scale indicates "soon-almost".
See my
study form now posted. There is no extent involved with the question of pregnancy.
This is a shame because I was looking forward to reading the responses of the many volunteers who would report 100% kidney removal.
You are a joker aren't you.
Jonquill:
If Anita gives up on the skeptics she's not going to have any trouble finding supporters in the Woo crowd, who will reinforce her beliefs without questioning them, which is why it is good to see her still pointing in the scientific test direction even though the path to get there is ever so meandering.
No thank you, I am a
scientist science student. To a person who learns how every statement or physics equation has to have several pages of proof behind it I can not even assume reliability in my personal and subjective experience of medical perceptions without "several pages of proof".
You can't climb Mount Everest if you refuse to entrust your luggage to the sherpas.
Yes, but the sherpas never get the credit. Even though usually they are a lot better at reaching the top and do it first too.
The way I see it, I have put a great deal of effort into my investigation, I have to some extent trained and enhanced the ability of perceptions, and, I am the principal investigator into my claim. However, everyone who participates in my investigation will receive ample credit according to their contributions. Just look at how much praise I've given UncaYimmy, just for designing a way to ensure that volunteers remain anonymous.
nathan:
Recent events appear to indicate one can be pregnant on a scale of 0 to 8 ...
No scale of extent is involved with the pregnancy question. Please see the
study form now posted.
Agatha:
Flippin 'eck. Go see a psychiatrist, Anita; your posts are rapidly losing touch with reality.
How so? Give a specific example. Express it in a respectful manner without turning it into a personal assault.
Miss Kitt:
When I look at a piece of fried chicken (but can't smell it) I don't "taste" it, though I may remember that I like fried chicken. (When I can smell it, of course, I can nearly taste it because the majority of gustatory sensation is scent, not flavor.) If I hear a song that was my ex-husband's favorite, I may think of him, but I don't visualize him. To try to reconstruct a memory at that level requires focus and concentration, trying to resurrect it. Why do you say that "everyone" has these pseudo-real perceptions intruding into their thoughts?
My goodness. The extent of my automatic associations between one form of information that was actually experienced and to other forms of information that were associated to, is greater than I had thought compared to others! I must immediately take back that statement!
VisionFromFeeling said:
I am fully prepared to accept the results of the investigation. My objective is to find out the truth behind the perceptions and their actual accuracy. I am prepared to find out that the actual accuracy is not after all as high as the accuracy has appeared to be in the past. For instance people might have been lying to me or simply mistaken about their health leading to a false impression of correlation but not due to me.
Miss Kitt said:
These two bolded sentences cannot both be true. If you are prepared to accept that the actual accuracy is not high, you must be open to the possibility that self-deception, faulty memory, selection bias and other issues that would indeed be due to you. Failing to include your own contributions to the perceived results is failing to seek the truth. I'll put this next statement in big type:
Not all systemic testing errors are deliberate, even though the tester may be responsible for them.
Your refusal to blind your 'study' protocols to any contribution unintentional bias on your part might make to apparent success is one of the things the skeptics here have been consistently calling you on. Yet you ignore them.
Of course I am open to the fact that cold reading etc would be due to me and I have consistently stated that in many past experiences cold reading was available, but that I do not know what cold reading was available for all of them which is why I have the study and tests. If there is apparent accuracy because a person lied or was mistaken about their health then it was not "due to me" as in it was not "my fault". I already know all that.
The study began with my everyday experience of the perceptions. I have then gradually implemented one test condition after the other, one at a time. For instance, I am now writing down my answers and presenting them in full after the viewing, and am seeing the persons from behind rather than front. I do not want to plunge into some test setting right away and all at once because if the perceptions then cease I would have to work backwards again to try to identify what specific condition was the reason for that. I am not only trying to falsify a non-ability but I am also trying to understand when and why a non-ability would be revealed. So I am gradually working in the forward direction.
As the study progresses there will be less and less cold reading available, until the study takes place exactly like a test would. At that point if the perceptions persist, I am fully prepared for a real test. This first study will not implement all of the test conditions that I have up ahead to add such as the use of a screen. I am considering a second study after this first one unless the claim is falsified at the first or if it seems that I am ready for a real test.
VFF said:
From the way in which I have conducted this investigation so far I see no reason for concern for my mental well-being. I have contacted two skeptics groups and taken in all of their advice and been fully conforming to their suggestions regarding how a test of my claimed experience should take place. And according to the suggestions of these skeptics I am now conducting a study into my experience.
Miss Kitt said:
The two bolded statements are demonstrably not true. You modified UncaYimmy's protocol into something that he has repeatedly stated is not his design and that he does not want his name associated with. You have ignored, pooh-poohed, belittled, or denied the validity of or need for, numerous suggestions of what and how to test. It is within your rights to design your own "study" or "test" protocol; but to say you are "fully conforming" is just a bald-faced lie. Contacting a couple of skeptic forums (in USA and the UK) and taking what scraps of comment you think can be construed to support you is not "taking all of their advice", nor is your proposed study according to skeptics' suggestions. That's baloney, Anita.
Yes they are true. I have contacted the IIG West skeptics group and the FACT skeptics group, and that is a total of two skeptics groups. I do not count the JREF Forum into this because the IIG and/or FACT groups are able to arrange a test for me whereas I am in this Forum just for discussions. All of the suggestions that were e-mailed to me by the IIG regarding our test protocol I have accepted except the one that there should be music since I do not know yet whether that would be a distraction yet. So I have accepted all except one suggestion by the IIG. The FACT group suggested that I have a study, and I took that advice and am conducting the study. So it is true that I have followed all advice. It is true that I have not taken in all the advice given here at the Forum but that is because I have a different approach to the investigation. Unfortunately it is a gradual approach and you guys don't like it.
Please note how the unbolded portion of the quote contradicts the bolded statement. When there are, say, 15 people pointing out that--and how--you made incorrect perceptions in your study, and you vigorously deny it, that's certainly not rational.
I noted that I felt a slightly tired shoulder as the most significant sensation, yet that this too was very minor. I also felt his adam's apple. And I concluded that neither were ailments. The fact that you guys don't know that is not delusion on my part. You guys are deluded as to what actually occurred. The discrepancy between your analyses and with my understanding of the outcome of the reading with Wayne is not due to interpretation on my part, but due to lack of insight on yours.
I can see that you have not countered the arguments of those who demonstrated that they were incorrect perceptions.
Are you deluded for saying this, or did you just not see my earlier replies?
Repeating the same rationale over and over--sometimes by the paragraph--when it has already been demonstrated to be faulty is not something scientists, or reasonable people, do.
I made no incorrect perceptions with Wayne. My conclusion was that I detected no health problems.
I am not a psychologiest, but I know that one of the things about delusional states is that the person cannot tell they're delusional. So statements like the first one are useless. What you could do, is go talk to a counselor at the health service of your school, and share your Perceptions and the frustrating experiences you have had on this Forum with them.
The issue you have raised is not a reason for me to do so. I made no incorrect perceptions with Wayne.
LONGTABBER PE:
Just curious, how much longer are you going to continue your scam?
This
investigation continues until I reach a final conclusion. A conclusion might be that this is not a testable claim, or that there is no accuracy between my perceptions and actual health information, or that there is accuracy but due to cold reading, or that there is accuracy but due to other reasons, or other conclusions. I expect to be involved with this for several months more. Unless the study falsifies the claim in which case we're done with this within a few days from now. *exciting*
'Tis indeed me in my avatar!)
