Vision From Feeling

[al_capone_junior]

Weather you conduct the test doesn't matter, the fact that you talked about it with skeptics gives you street cred with the woos.

"The psychic that Randi couldn't debunk" has a nice ring,no?

Oops. I stand corrected.

I've now read the entirety of the moderated thread and most of the new posts from yesterday and this morning. Keeps getting funnier every day.

al

 

[Belz...]

So, Anita... how are you going to become a great scientist if you can't even design a simple test protocol ?

 

[Moochie]

Its a safe bet its one or the other and right now ( based on the thread and her site) its a coin flip.

Its true a persons education/intellect has no bearing on whether or not they are delusional. That said, in my opinion, looking at the whole of the parts, she is scamming.

I refer to Jaspers criteria for a delusion

>>>certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

If you accept VfF's words as true she doesnt have an "absolute conviction" but wants to "prove" it to herself ( and everyone else)- she is trying the "Kirk Solution" in the Kobayashi Maru to make the tests produce what she wants ( going against incorrigibility) and hiding in the ambiguity of falsity of content.

Her own words and site ( if you believe them) go against anything that could be construed as clinical delusion.

For the above reasons, I dont believe its her "ego" that will prohibit her but the effect on her end goals that will.

To those interested, check out the first item at:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/index.html

It's about a doctor in the States who had her physician's license revoked when it was found that she was profoundly delusional. Among other things, she's an ardent proponent of "vaccination causes autism." Click on the "transcript of her suspension hearing" -- it makes for fascination reading.

The link downloads a PDF of the transcript.


M.

 

[desertgal]

I've read this thread, a portion of the other, her site and the posted docs but not her posts on other threads.

You offer a compelling argument in favor of a deliberate scam over delusion. Of course, as you said, the jury is still out. As well, it's also possible that we are looking at a combination: a delusional person attempting a deliberate scam. If Anita truly believes that she is as extraordinary as she claims, then it isn't impossible that she would attempt to market herself.

I think, though, to get a complete picture, one has to read all her claims. It's all these, along with this thread, that led Unca, myself, and others to lean towards delusional.

Ghost Experiences

As well, there is the whole "white dwarf star" nonsense. I keep going back to that. It all may be part of a scam - but to write to the managers of a forum, and complain that she can't join because she isn't "human"-that's just delusional.

I think the tentative beginnings of your "end result" might be here, and here.

Whichever it is that Anita is doing, as you said, only time will tell.

 

[desertgal]

The trouble is, to those already committed to woo and who may be desperately flailing around for someone like VfF, all the writings here and elsewhere will probably be enough to convince them to seek her out. And if our hunches here are correct, after establishing (on the flimsiest of "evidence") that VfF does have a mystical ability to make diagnoses, offering her victims clients prescriptions for whatever ails them cannot be far behind.

<snip>


M.

I agree. And this has been one of my concerns all along.

When I was working my way through college, I was employed by a regulatory board-a state board of dental examiners, to be specific. One of our licensees, a pediatric dentist, developed bipolar disorder. The board did everything they could, within their power, to allow the doctor to keep his license-he had to agree to treatment, to stay on his medications, to submit to weekly urine tests, etc, etc. In the end, he refused to follow the agreement he had reached with the board, and his license was ultimately revoked. Once he went off the meds, and stopped treatment, during the period between the initial disciplinary agreement and the revocation, the effect on his patients was traumatic. As well, it destroyed his own life. It was devastating. And that was someone who was 'reined in' by the power of the board.

(I wish I had a copy of the revocation hearing transcript. It was like this thread, only with teeth.)

Imagine the damage Anita could inflict, on others and herself, unleashed and unregulated. She yammers on about this waiver and that disclaimer, but, in the end, those protect HER legally. They surely don't protect her victims clients from grief, distress, or worse. And this isn't akin to Sylvia Browne advising l-e-c-i-t-h-i-n. Technically, Anita is already violating the law. If she steps up her 'diagnosing', she could be looking at criminal charges.

Not only unethical, but scary.

 

[Locknar]

Anita intends to use chance and probability to her advantage. She fails to realize that any of us can do this; she cannot demonstrate something that we cannot do.

True enough; perhaps someone in this thread could, using Anita's protocol & scoring criteria, conduct their own "study" and post results.

Oh wait, that won't work because of all the time required to gather the appropriate local, State and Federal permissions necessary...

So, Anita... how are you going to become a great scientist if you can't even design a simple test protocol ?

Well...none of us are "brilliant undergraduate students taking the hardest classes the school has to offer and maintaining a 4.0 GPA." (to paraphrase)

Clearly those in this thread that are "professional scientists" of varying education levels have been humbled by this unassuming undergraduate student...can the Nobel Prize truly be far off? Perhaps her school will forgo the rest of her undergraduate studies and post graduate work, and award her a PhD outright?

 

[Moochie]

Cant say ( not enough evidence yet) but given the level of effort ( a website, all the postings at boards[ marketing] and time invested) it suggests to me that there is an end and it has some form of payoff attached.

Could be ego, could be a field study for a psychology thesis, could be the next "great" woo thing ( with money at the end)

This had occurred to me earlier, too. It seems as though she's testing someone's credulity.


M.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

This investigation is to explain why I can look at people and perceive medical images and felt information and why it appears to correlate to actual health information. That's what it's all about.

No, it isn't. There are so many holes in your story that I'm wondering whether you're Swiss rather than Swedish.


M.

 

[Agatha]

No, it isn't. There are so many holes in your story that I'm wondering whether you're Swiss rather than Swedish.


M.

As per page 3 of this thread, she's actually Finnish.

Yes I am Finnish!

Has she ditched the scale-that-can't-fail yet? I am finding it hard to be certain what is going to happen during the proposed study/test/waste of time.

 

[Belz...]

desertgal:
It has not been revealed as any of those things. I have not made a single verified incorrect perception.

You also have not made any single verified correct one, so there.

I am not mentally ill

How would you know ?

 

[desertgal]

No, I am working under the assumption that it is more likely the case of unintentional cold reading or no accuracy at all.

She's offering to sell "body art" on her website-her source being, of course, her alleged ability of being able to see inside the human body "better than an MRI". That is not "working under the assumption that it is more likely the case of unintentional cold reading or no accuracy at all."

That quoted statement is a complete crock. Anita wouldn't cross the street to tell the truth, but she'd apparently walk two miles to tell a lie.

 

[Belz...]

Anita,
In all seriousness, you need more sleep and less time wasted here if you want to learn the hard science you are trying to master.
Bon chance.

Bonne chance. Chance is feminine, in French.

 

[desertgal]

As per page 3 of this thread, she's actually Finnish.

I thought she was Swedish? Finland has been independent of Sweden since 1809. Perhaps she means she speaks Finnish?

Has she ditched the scale-that-can't-fail yet? I am finding it hard to be certain what is going to happen during the proposed study/test/waste of time.

Nope. As Cuddles pointed out above, said scale makes it extremely difficult for Anita to fail-hence it is guaranteed that Anita will use it. Gotta have that wiggle room.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling :
desertgal:
It has not been revealed as any of those things. I have not made a single verified incorrect perception.

How about: You have not made a perception that anyone could verify you perceived it with anything other than the usual human senses.

 

[Ashles]

The majority of correct results (which anyone could get by putting N to everything) would be No ailment detected, No ailment present. So we remove them (at this stage) as not useful.

Ashles:
The point scale system I suggested is not what I intend to use. It was just a suggestion and is seriously flawed.

Well why not use a non-flawed system?
I am only suggesting all this analysis as you insist on using this scale.
At this preliminary stage it would be far more sensible to conduct a more clear study to see if there is anything to detect in the first place, rather than formulating a badly designed study to test the strength of many variables which are not confirmed in the first place.

However as this is the only study you appear happy to conduct despite all the advice you have been given then we have to work with that. This is what I am tying to do.

When I claim to detect an ailment then I am simultaneously claiming that the ailment occurs to an extent significant to be perceived by the person.

But Anita this is the problem. This directly contradicts what happened with Wayne's shoulder and throat. Had it been truly insignificant then you would not have mentioned it.
You cannot report something and then say your answer should be ignored as it 'wasn't really an answer'. Presumably you perceived something otherwise you would not have reported anything.

So what we must do is agree beforehand that such a level of reporting (i.e. a '2' or '1') is considered not an answer. So even if you are correct in the area and ailment it will not count. You cannot have it both ways.
But the good news is that it appears we have made progress with that below.

Once I make a claimed perception it is open to be checked for accuracy as correct or incorrect. When I do not detect an ailment there is nothing to be checked for or against.

Again, to reiterate, since you claim answers of strength '2' are not really answers then we will consider '2', '1' and 'N' to be the equivalent of you recording 'N'. Any ailment recorded by the volunteer in this area at any strength will not be counted as successful.
Convesely a lack of ailment by the Volunteer will not be counted as a failure.
Let's call this Analysis Method 1)

In the interests of completin I will also add that if you disagree with this that is fine:

The alternative is that your '1' and '2' aswers can be counted as significant answers in which case if the Volunteer has an ailment you can count this as succesful, but if the Volunteer puts 'N' then this will be an indisputable incorrect perception and be counted as a Miss.
Let's call this Analysis Method 2)
I am assuming this is a less desirable method to you as it doesn't seem like how you interpreted the results previously.

Please decide on one of those two analysis methods. You cannot mix them.

The when and extent columns are intended for educational purposes for me to get clearer about the details of the claim. The when and extent columns are used for determination of correlation only if those who determine the correlation choose to include it. I will of course look heavily on the extent columns to learn more about my claim, since part of my claim is to be able to perceive to what extent a person perceives their ailments.

And my suggestion for this is as follows:

(N.B. This part of the analysis is purely for your own usage and interpretation and will indicate nothing particularly to skeptics.
If there is ever an actual test hopefully these results would help you decide what ailments to concentrate on)

Similar to your percentage analysis I would suggest that an exact match =100%, and then you deduct 20% for each 'point' on the scale away from what the volunteer put).
Then simply add all the percentages for each ailment. In theory the ones with the highest percentage will be the ones you feel you perceived most closely to what the volunteers put.

There is a bit of a problem in that some rarer ailments are more likely for both you and the volunteer to put 'N' for. In theory those will end up yielding the highest scores, so you would have to compensate for that.
I could suggest ways to do this with weighting calculations, but we can do that at a later stage if necessary - this stage is only for your own analysis so it won't impact our overall perception of accuracy and we can discuss different ways of looking at this bit seperately.

Oh well. It is a study, not a test. But trust me (although none of you will) I will be looking heavily to try to find reasons toward falsifying the claimed ability. *no one believes me that I would do that *

Well if you accept my proposal of 1:5 Misses to Hits and my analysis method then you will at least have agreed to a potential method of falsification.
I consider this good progress.

Also it helps you because if you write down N and the subject actually puts a 5 (or anything indicating an ailment) it will still not be counted.

That is correct. If I do not detect an ailment that is not counted against me as a miss. Even though I missed an ailment. Only when I claim to perceive an ailment is it open to be checked for accuracy.
I like that. I like that a lot.
I feel that as the claimant I am not able to determine what ratio would conclude no ability so I will leave it up to the skeptics.
Yes.
Yes.
I will do that.

It sounds like you agree with my proposal. This is excellent.
All you need is to confirm that you agree with using Analysis Method 1) (you can of course change to Analysis Method 2) if you want but it seems like you are happy with the first one)

I think I wrote the Hit: Miss ratio incorrectly.
Just t be clear, I am suggesting the ratio of 1 Hit to 5 Misses (or worse) to be considered a falsification.
E.g. if you only got 5 Hits and 25 Misses this would be considered a falsification of the ability (bearing in mind the Analysis Method 1) definition of Hits).
Personaly I feel this is fairly generous in your favour which seems appropriate at this stage of study.

What? After all I said above?
I did no such things!

I must admit I didn't expect you to agree straightaway to my proposals.
You have so I think that's great.

It is not a test! It is a study! It's like if you find a new insect you've never seen before and you want to study its behavior patterns at first you want to observe it in its own environment and take notes and only then do you think about taking it into a lab to subject it to controlled environments in order to find out what specificly caused what! *why can't I do a study on my paranormal claim*

As explained above that is not an appropriate analogy.
In your analogy the existence of the insect is already assumed and accepted. That is not the case with your claim. The analogy of the Leprechaun is very good - you are trying to narrow down the specifics of something that has not been demonstrated to exist in the first place.

That's why stage one should be a more generalised test to see if the ability exists in the first place. You have chosen to do this the other way around, even though you initially presented us with a specifically described set of ailments and the ways in which you perceived these ailments, as though you were already past that stage.
In effect you are saying that all the specific claims on your website should now be discarded as we are starting from scratch and you don't actually know when the ability works or doesn't, or what it can/can't detect.

ignored undesirable results

I have done no such thing. I have acknowledged that the perception of strain below the sternum as associated with the small intestine might not at all be associated with the small intestine while realizing that in fact it might. I had stated that I found no health problems with Wayne but that I sensed the left shoulder and adam's apple and that neither of those were perceptions of health problems. Besides if results are of inaccuracy I would not consider them to be undesirable.

Let me put it as clearly as I can.
It is indisputable that there is a huge difference in interpretation of the reported results regarding Wayne's shoulder and throat. You view it one way, everyone else views it in a different way. You cannot deny that.

Therefore it is imperative we take these steps to agree how results should be interpreted before any testing/study/results are recorded. That should prevent any such future differences in interpretation.

have no method of data analysis, and cannot so far come up with a method of falsification...those take away from your "skills as a scientist

Look at the insect analogy again. Why can't a scientist first study the subject before it is to be investigated further.

Because whether the subect actually exists has to be the first part of the study.
Could anyone study the behaviour of the Bogotian Swamp Ant before actually demonstrating such a thing existed?

Interesting that your first instinct to get backup for your scientific position is to go to another non-scientist who makes paranormal claims who also leaves his experiments open to interpretation.
As a scientist you should moving away from such clealry inconclusive research and towards stricter scientific protocols.

No, I was intending to conduct that research properly.

You are, at the moment, a very long way away from that.
And anyway I thought you wanted to concentrate on optics and healing with vibration?
Scientists, especialy in groundbreaking fields, can't be generalists, jumping from field to field.
And you really should research the history of scientists who have dedicated careers to trying to find evidence for the paranormal. It would hopefully explain why real scientists tend to view the field as fruitless and not worth wasting a career on.

The few who do so tend to be either the subject of elaborate (or not-so-elaborate) hoaxes, or so keen to find positive results their work is subject to great criticism of cherry-picking, file-drawer effect, confirmation bias and lack of replicability.
Some have dedicated entire careers towards attempting to demonstrate the paranormal. Not one so far has.

It seems that your leaning towards Mr Emoto before all the other areas a potential future scientist could study imply you have a pre-disposition towards believing in the paranormal.

And yet you have the opportunity to start that brave stance even as a student, yet constantly shy away from it by refusing to run tests at your own Uni?
In fact this directly contradicts your earlier claims that you don't want asociation with the paranormal to endanger your career..

No contradiction. I started being very hesitant to involve my career with my spare time paranormal investigation. Now that I've communicated with various people about the investigation I feel more encouraged since it wasn't as bad as it could have been. So I am gradually changing my position with regard to this as I learn more about what people in fact do think about this kind of thing.

So your position has changed? That would be why it looked like a contradiction to me. Fair enough. Changes of stance are to be encouraged.

Some of the worst work in these fields have been caried out when individuals claiming paranormal ability have been 'tested' by those who also want to believe.

If I test the claims of a woo I will have no interest in seeing them pass or fail. Don't make the assumption that my research would be biased.

And of course that is exactly what everyone who has ever performed research later shown to be biased has said.
Who ever says they are biased before research?
Any assumption I make about your bias, or any claim you make about your objectivity is absolutely irrelevant.

The point is you can say or claim what you like - the truth will come out in testing, or, in the cases I am referring to, replicability or analysis of the raw data.
You are still making the mistake that you will somehow change our opinions of your motivations or claim by simply stating what you would like us to accept.
Only independently verified test results can do that. (I think I may have mentioned this repeatedly starting a couple of months ago - you'll note nothing has changed since then)

And I am doing all that. I am taking responsibility and I am open to the possibility of falsifying my claim.

Actions speak louder than words, and now you have agreed to a methodology whereby falsification is possible then I accept that.

The study is not a test. And it is a decent study.

It is not really a decent study. We are having to work round the flaws in it.
It is not unworkable, but it is certainly not the best study that could be run at this stage.
But as you want to run primarily a study that will help you decide which ailments can be best detected (although you have not designed any method of interpreting or extracting that information) and only peripherally have a falsification scenario (which I had to add in for you) then it really could not be said to be a well designed study.

You want us to concentrate on talking about the study - you should too.

And I do.

Okay let's firm up the protocol. Are you agreed to Analysis Method 1) and a 1:5 (or worse) Hit:Miss falsification ratio?

It seems like you are taking this study and 'ability' to be already assumed and simply the first stepping stone onto an inevitable and exciting career.

Paranormal investigations will not be my career. It might become an interesting hobby on the side. I am definitely learning a lot by doing a paranormal investigation, so what ever.

So Mr Emoto would just be a quick study/test then?
You wrote:

I intend to be one of the brave scientists who is willing to put her reputation in line to look into unconventional claims or hypotheses that relate to my field of study...
If a woo comes up with some strange claims about some electronic instrument or healing powers then I can be one to objectively consider their claim ...
and perhaps even devote some of my own spare time and resources to find a way to prove and explain why their claims are flawed.

If you open yourself up to such claims you will have no time for anything else.
If you reject some, how are you going to decide which?

 

[Asm]

Asm:
a) I am still just as convinced as I was then that I have accurately perceived health information in cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available and there still hasn't been a single case of confirmed inaccuracy.

But... In this thread people have taught you about confirmation bias, chance, that memory cannot be trusted, the power of imagination/delusions, etc. This SHOULD have made you less convinced.

a) I know I am not deluded.

How can you possibly know? Deluded people are often unable to notice that they are deluded by themselves. It takes a third person (or as in this thread, MANY a third person). I still think you should see a psychiatrist. Just in case.

The perceptions in themselves are no reason for concern

True.

and the way I handle the perceptions are also no reason for concern.

Untrue.

In fact it seems to have taken control over your life. I am not only referring to your medical perceptions, but other claims and statements you have made in other threads and on your web page.

(BTW, I too am still undecided whether this is a scam or a delusion. It IS either/or. (Edit: OR some kind of field study as LONGTABBER PE pointed out. If that is the case, don't expect me to applaud and respect you when the truth is revealed. Talk about wasting people's time!))

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have to repeat, that this is the easiest thing in the world to test. As someone said, merely get 5 skeptics in a room, some of whom have ailments detectable as according to Anita.

We can even tell Anita what ailments are in the room. All she has to do is pick the person for said ailment. And viola! Sorted. Done. Finished.

Your test is fine except that it's not a test of her claims. I'll explain this again because it keeps getting lost.

Anita claims 100% accuracy in about 100 people. This accuracy is defined as, "Whenever I sense something, the ensuing conversation tells me I am right. When I do not sense something, I never attempt to find out what, if anything, missed. Thus while I have detected one vasectomy accurately, I have no idea whether anyone else I read had a vasectomy. I continue to find new things that I can sense, but I make no claim that I can sense those things in every person."

This is why the IIG could never develop a test protocol that Anita would accept.

The cornerstone of everything that is going on here is Anita's belief in her Apparent Accuracy™. Her study is based on the assumption that her anecdotal evidence is reliable enough to justify an attempt at detecting the limits and learning more about it so that she can come up with some sort of testable claim.

What I argue is that in a way we have been distracted to the point where we are no longer attacking her Apparent Accuracy™. Anita must start from scratch and create reliable data to be able to assert Apparent Accuracy™.

Her study can do this. If she meets with 20 people and produces not a single false positive, it will be a great start to replacing her anecdotal data with real data. Since she did not use a scale in judging her Apparent Accuracy™, then she must not be allowed to use that scale now. She is welcome to collect the data, but under no circumstances must it be used to determine her accuracy.

At this point the only way to prove to Anita what we already know is for her to be judged on the accuracy of what she believes she can see. She says she doesn't see things that are not there, so that is the basis for the test: false positives.

She has repeatedly told us that she knows she doesn't always see what is actually there. This doesn't bother her. To her it means either that ailment is not detectable or that it is only detectable some percentage of the time. No amount of persuasion will change that. Purge it from your mind.

Of course, a critically thinking person will be saying, "Gee. If she reads 20 people and declares them all healthy, then we haven't gotten anywhere." Yep. We'll be exactly where we are now. Nobody here believes she has an ability and she gets to keep her delusion.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Ashles,

I really like where you're heading, but I think your 1:5 ratio is premature at this point. We don't know how many people she will read, now many ailments are on the form, or the frequency at which people select ailments. For example, I've seen estimates for some types of pain that reach 80% in the general population.

Also, I haven't seen how the time frames come into play. In my own case I can circle "Longer Than a Year" for just about every pain listed. Anita told the IIG that she needed people to be currently in pain for her test. That might be a good start.

 

[Ashles]

Her study can do this. If she meets with 20 people and produces not a single false positive, it will be a great start to replacing her anecdotal data with real data. Since she did not use a scale in judging her Apparent Accuracy™, then she must not be allowed to use that scale now. She is welcome to collect the data, but under no circumstances must it be used to determine her accuracy.

At the moment I am assuming the scale to be simply something to assist Anita in detailing her own ability.

Which I agree is very strange as when she first started this thread she semed to know far more about the 'ability' and its limitations than she does now - in fact when you look at her claims page it seems like an actual test should have been relatively straightforward to set up based on those specific body parts and ailments. Reading that page for the frst time I think the average reader would be surprised to know that Anita does not appear to be certain of what body parts or ailments she actually can detect, or with what frequency or in what situations.

But anyway the scale can be converted into hits and misses for the purposes of potential falsification, as Anita appears to be agreeing to. And this study by Anita's own agreement, can provide no evidence towards the ability, but does stand a chance of falsifying it (according to results we seem to have agreed on).

Agreed, a real test must have no scale.

 

[Old man]

Originally Posted by Ashles:
Please describe in as much detail as necessary what results would lead you to conclude your claim had been falsified at this stage.

… I have not been verified incorrect a single time yet …

Except for “bones in the Adam’s apple”.

Originally Posted by Ashles:
Quote:
To be honest you should simply remove the falsification goal from the objectives from this study because there is no way it can, as described, be falsified.

I simply will not remove the falsification objective. If there is no ability then it might be very clearly so on the study. I think the better thing to do is to work on establishing what falsifies the claim rather than to remove one of the more important objectives of the study.

You do realize that, using your methodology, You can’t possibly get ‘zero %’ hits, don’t you? What level of performance will indicate falsification? Below 90%? 75%? 50%? 10%? Let me guess –

None of the above

UncaYimmy is in a grumpy mood today...

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy:

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy:
Yes. I did it while working a full time job. When I struggled to meet my obligations, I didn't make excuses. And I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time rewriting protocols and questionnaires I considered to be brilliant. If I did, I would have stopped when people with experience told me I was doing it wrong. Learn to manage your time.

No, you cut out a part of my entire statement which was "Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits with all A's with some of the hardest undergraduate level courses offered?" There is a difference. You put a lot more work into it if you get A's than B's or just C's. And it also depends on what classes they are. So we are probably not in the same situation. I do manage my time: by prioritizing my studies. There..

Yeah, UncaYimmy, failin’ basket weavin’ don’t count! Looks like you need ta change yer user name. How about "SoftballYimmy", instead? (BTW, when did she get a holda yer transcripts, ya big meanie?)

If you read the first response from Park and Recreation,

"Anita: I have reviewed the information and we are not going to permit this in a park setting. I wish you the best in this endeavor. It sounds very interesting."

how can you argue when I interpret this e-mail that we are not allowed to have the study in the park? The next e-mail response arrived later that evening,

"you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described, but we won't reserve open space in a park or allow you to set up a booth in a park. You would need to contact the city of charlotte about streets and sidewalks, but my guess is they will not permit it either."

Mecklenburg Park and Recreation Department:

“Hey, Ted, look at this wacky email I got. She wants to set up some kinda phsyco’ test in the park. I told her no.”

“Uh, Bob, you can’t do that. There’s nothin’ in the regs about people asking other people questions.”

“Oh… Well, if she writes again I’ll straighten it out.”

Originally Posted by Coveredinbeeees:
The question remains, to what extent would your results need to deviate from those of the sceptic group in order for you to consider further study worthwhile?

I don't know, I'm sorry. I'm just hoping that if there is no ability in accurately perceiving health information then that would be *obvious enough*. The main objectives of the study remain, to learn more about the paranormal claim. A non-ability might slip through the first study but it would be caught in a second study which I will design to be much more rigorous or the test, which ever would follow next.

Anita, the fact that you have “no ability” is ALREADY “*obvious enough*”, to everyone but YOU.

Originally Posted by Asm:
Hi Anita,

Just out of curiosity,

When you started this thread you seemed convinced that you had paranormal abilities. Now, a couple of thousand posts later, are you:

a) Still just as convinced?
b) Less convinced?

a) I am still just as convinced as I was then that I have accurately perceived health information in cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available and there still hasn't been a single case of confirmed inaccuracy. However I am not convinced that I have paranormal abilities since unintentional cold reading or guessing might be responsible. The study and tests will find out.

Except for “bones in the Adam’s apple”.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
... and not a single case of inaccuracy.

Originally Posted by GeeMack
But that is simply not true. If you know it's not true, you're a liar. If you believe it is true, you're sick. Which do you think it is, Anita?

Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.

I thought you’d never ask!

“bones in the Adam’s apple”

I definitely did not fail with Wayne. He wrote *a list* of his health problems which, turns out only contained a past accident which he has fully recovered from which only has the scar after it and no sensations of discomfort or other permanent damage or discomfort. That was all. Then I was fully expecting logically there to be a lot of health problems with the person but I couldn't find any no matter how hard I tried. I tuned up the "ability" to desperately try to find at least "one of those things on his list" and all I could sense was a very insignificantly tired left shoulder, and the adam's apple. So I concluded that I found nothing wrong. And, turns out, there was nothing wrong to be found. Just a scar. Which I missed. And that is not a failure. I did very well.

“bones in the Adam’s apple”

Originally Posted by GeeMack:
He had one medical issue. You completely missed it. You failed. 100%. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt by considering that you might have a mental illness, Anita. You can fix mentally ill. But it's looking more and more like several of these other people are right in their assessment. Maybe you really are nothing but a side show freak wannabe, a simple lying carnie.

My paranormal claim then is not to detect the scar after an injured diaphragm. I do not consider having a mental illness because I didn't detect a particular scar! It was not even consistent with my claim! How rude! Wait until I've read more people and actually claimed to detect health information and then we can have a field day discussing the implications of the results!

But you DO claim to see abnormalities, like “bones in the Adam’s apple”. And yet, in Wayne’s case, there was “nothing wrong with him”. You ‘saw’ something, and it WASN’T THERE. That’s a MISS, Anita.