tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
There will be heating bills in hell before you see a test.
"To dream the impossible dream"
Vision From Feeling
- Thread starter VisionFromFeeling
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen
- Status
There will be heating bills in hell before you see a test.
"To dream the impossible dream"
Anita has specifically written:
It's a test that can only yield an actual result that is negative, by agreement on both sides.
Of course it is possible that she might claim a test in which she doesn't outright fail (the very generous falsification position) to be in some way an endorsement of her ability. But then, if so inclined, she could probably choose to do that from what has already happened anyway.
I don't see how it would help her in any way other than provide very specific issues for us to rebuke. And it would lessen her credibility in the long run.
At this stage I think we all know what might or might not happen and should proceed on the assumption that she won't claim any success from the study.
Also, if she proceeds with the study (unless she solely provides answers of N, 1 and 2 which would generate its own problems for her) she runs the risk of providing a clear incorrect answer which would ruin her 'never been incorrect' claim.
By taking the study Anita is for the first time putting the ability to at least some form of agreed judging, even if the judging is, by necessity of how she has designed the test, very generously skewed towards 'No new conclusions' (as opposed to outright falsification).
Would that really be any different to where her claim currently is?
Anyone who could read through all the information available regarding this claim (even after a potentially inconclusive 'study') and come to the conclusion that she has 'apparent accuracy', or has 'beaten' the skeptics or demonstrated ability, or in any way performed at a level that suggested the skeptics considered the paranormal ability to still be a possibility... anyone who still believed any of that would probably believe that even after a completely failed test.
There's not much we could really do to convince such a person.
Proper testing with a specific claim with agreed parameters, ailments, success/fail levels and controlled environment/volunteers.
And yes I know how unlikely that is to happen.
In my opinion, yes.
I don't know. Be fun to find out though.
(I must add that I am every bit as much against Anita entering the 'Paranormal Economy' as anyone else here. I am awaiting further info before I draw any conclusions about that.)
I don't know who is surrendering.
If the study is going to go ahead, it's going to go ahead.
All we have done is add to it a specific set of agreed measurements that would be considered falsification.
There is already agreement that there is NO set of results that would or could be considered a success for Anita or any indication that there is any ability worthy of further investigation.
If Anita later claimed there was, it would be colossally dishonest and we could easily link back to the accepted agreements ad also her own study documents.
It wouldn't help her in any way.
Again I take the position I have above.
Such a stance would only harm her credibility.
I don't know who such a claim would be aimed at convincing. Currently she seems to be aiming her attempts to convince primarily at us skeptics.
I cannot see how it will have any impact positively for her claim.
If she is going to do the study she is going to do it.
What do you propose? A stricter falsification scenario which she might simply refuse to accept? How does that do anything other than remove any potential for falsification?
The study is already being run in conjunction with a skeptics organisation so she can make the claims you are concerned about about anyway if she so chose.
The only difference I can see with the Falsification Scenario being accepted is that there will actually be one in the study (albeit one I agree is not particularly hard to pass).
I agree - As detailed above we should only count 'Now', 'Past Week', and 'Month' for the purposes of Falsification.
I also propose that if the volunteer leaves the time frame blank it it discounted for purposes of falsification.
(As the form stands it has 'N' as opposed to '0')
It would probably make sense to have some such scale on the form for reference, but I don't know if it would alter the results significantly.
Agreed.
If Jeff did describe a figure (which I am not sure he would as this study is really so open to interpretation and subjective scoring on both sides that it is of very little use for any detailed statistical analysis) I have no doubt it would be much more stringent than my proposal of 1:5 Hits:Misses.
But, precisely because the study is so resistent to detailed analysis I have deliberately made the falsification position so generous that there is no real reason for Anita to reject it.
I'd be interested to see if Jeff felt the 1:5 ratio is reasonable (if acceptedly very generous in Anita's favour) in light of the rest of the set up.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Like her refusal to acknowledge her dismal failure in her encounter with Wayne and her claim that there was no inaccuracy whatsoever? Yeah, it's possible that she might believe her lack of complete failure is tantamount to supporting the idea that she can do wondrous and magical things. It's possible that someone who hasn't been paying attention to this thread might italicize "possible" and "might".
Yes. Actually devising a test or study that doesn't allow her to maintain full control over the interpretation of the results will prove near impossible. That would bring Anita too close to the end of her game. And she's having a mighty fine time playing it.
Besides, submitting herself to that kind of legitimate scrutiny would require the courage to accept the possibility that she's wrong. She doesn't have that kind of courage. She's already turned and run a couple times when people actually started expecting her to come up with the goods. Then a while later she sashays back in with, "Who, little ol' me?" Manipulative? You bet. Oddly enough, some people think she still merits a gentler hand than would be given a self professed carnie who has already treated everyone in the room with disdain and contempt. Yep. Side show freak wannabe.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
Reply to Ashley, post 2242
No. The problem is the whole schtick, starting with, "What's the question?"
Like I tell my students, "Students, you have to start with a falsifiable question, like 'Can you tell the difference between ***** and Shinola?'"
No. The problem is the whole schtick, starting with, "What's the question?"
Like I tell my students, "Students, you have to start with a falsifiable question, like 'Can you tell the difference between ***** and Shinola?'"
Last edited:
I started replying point by point, but there was just too much repetition. Here's the thing: There is a huge difference between these two statements.
1) The skeptics could not devise a satisfactory protocol to test my abilities.
2) The skeptics designed a protocol to prove I had no abilities. I took the test, and the brilliant skeptic, Ashles, and I concluded that my abilities could not be falsified.
I want no part of #2.
Not one of us needs Anita to do any survey, study or test. She needs it, not us. I'd like to see her do a bunch of readings, but I'm not going to pretend that the results have meanings they clearly do not.
I also don't like the message that it sends, which is that the rigors of critical thinking should bow to the whims of delusional/fraudulent/naive believers in the repeatedly unproven.
Her claim is 100% Apparent Accuracy™ with no false positives out of 100 people. We started out saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now you're saying that falsifying extraordinary claims requires sucking at something really, really bad. Oh, and we're not even gonna do the math to even get a rough idea if our definition of "really, really bad" even has any basis in reality. Ironic, huh?
You and Anita can agree on whatever you want. You gotta get the FACT skeptics on board if you expect them to help, and Godofpie already indicated that his group doesn't want to be involved in something that is useless. Remember, once she reads them, they cannot be read again.
As for the scale, she needs to drop it. If she wants to record it for her own information, then so be it. When I analyze it, I'll say No means No and any number in extent means Yes. Period. The stuff you propose is, quite frankly, silly.
There are a few items I will not count at all (smoking and exercise). Others are too vague to be useful (right arm could mean triceps, biceps, forearm, elbow, and possibly deltoids depending on who you talk to).
She needs the test. She needs the cooperation of FACT. And yet she is dictating the terms? Meh.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
I agree. This "study" notion was an excuse to not ever get down to a real test of the original claim, which was that she could guess various conditions at a high level of accuracy. Better than chance at p < .01 would have been interesting enough to warrant a more extensive controlled experiment.
You people might have noticed that I have never speculated as to Anita's motivations, potential for delusionary ideation or pathological lying. That's because I just can't tell. Wiithout seeing her act in person, I have not one clue. Except, I bet someone so bad at science doesn't have a 4.0 in a double science major at a respected university.
Unless...nevermind.
You people might have noticed that I have never speculated as to Anita's motivations, potential for delusionary ideation or pathological lying. That's because I just can't tell. Wiithout seeing her act in person, I have not one clue. Except, I bet someone so bad at science doesn't have a 4.0 in a double science major at a respected university.
Unless...nevermind.
Last edited:
Jeff - I'm just throwing this out there and would like to hear your opinion. I haven't thought it through yet.
Assuming there are 15 skeptics at the FACT meeting, what do you think of the idea of having people fill out her form (minus age/gender) in advance of the meeting. Her mission, should she choose to accept it, would be to match up the form to the individual.
Assuming there are 15 skeptics at the FACT meeting, what do you think of the idea of having people fill out her form (minus age/gender) in advance of the meeting. Her mission, should she choose to accept it, would be to match up the form to the individual.
UncaYimmy --
She'll never do that. She doesn't want to "waste" her precious skeptic pool with a prelimanary study--especially one before she has had more time to observe and note (consciously or not) any behavioral clues on illnesses in the group.
I'm disappoint, albeit not surprised, that Anita didn't respond to my pointing out that her expectation that "everyone" can taste food by looking at it, have images of past events appear visibly in their mind due to hearing a song, etc. means that she has unusually strong mental response to memory-trigger stimuli.
My earliest guess on Anita's ability (probably 30 pages ago) was that her 'hometown' successes and possiblity co-worker events were due to her having heard, seen, or overheard the medical information, and then forgotten that she had done so. When the person then triggers the strong, visual response that apparently is not uncommon for her, she perceives this as "seeing" something real in the world.
I still don't know if she's fooling herself, not all screwed down tight, or fudging about how much she knows she knows. But I'm quite, quite certain that she'll refuse to do a direct test that is not subject to wiggle-room and interpretation. Whether she still thinks it is valid or not, that "100% accuracy on all attempts to verify" is very important to her, and she's not going to risk it.
@ Kuko4000 -- Go back to, say, page 30 or so and check out the many hundreds of posts of people patiently and helpfully trying to get a description, a test design, a clarification. It's certainly true that recently people have been snippy, but remember, many of them are very tired of the Same Old Song and Dance, and the alternating "My beloved skeptics" / "You guys are hateful, you're jealous of me, you're delusional" treatment from someone they've put a lot of time into honestly trying to work with. That might give you a broader perspective on why a lot of patience is no longer on offer.
Regards, Miss Kitt
She'll never do that. She doesn't want to "waste" her precious skeptic pool with a prelimanary study--especially one before she has had more time to observe and note (consciously or not) any behavioral clues on illnesses in the group.
I'm disappoint, albeit not surprised, that Anita didn't respond to my pointing out that her expectation that "everyone" can taste food by looking at it, have images of past events appear visibly in their mind due to hearing a song, etc. means that she has unusually strong mental response to memory-trigger stimuli.
My earliest guess on Anita's ability (probably 30 pages ago) was that her 'hometown' successes and possiblity co-worker events were due to her having heard, seen, or overheard the medical information, and then forgotten that she had done so. When the person then triggers the strong, visual response that apparently is not uncommon for her, she perceives this as "seeing" something real in the world.
I still don't know if she's fooling herself, not all screwed down tight, or fudging about how much she knows she knows. But I'm quite, quite certain that she'll refuse to do a direct test that is not subject to wiggle-room and interpretation. Whether she still thinks it is valid or not, that "100% accuracy on all attempts to verify" is very important to her, and she's not going to risk it.
@ Kuko4000 -- Go back to, say, page 30 or so and check out the many hundreds of posts of people patiently and helpfully trying to get a description, a test design, a clarification. It's certainly true that recently people have been snippy, but remember, many of them are very tired of the Same Old Song and Dance, and the alternating "My beloved skeptics" / "You guys are hateful, you're jealous of me, you're delusional" treatment from someone they've put a lot of time into honestly trying to work with. That might give you a broader perspective on why a lot of patience is no longer on offer.
Regards, Miss Kitt
She did indicate that she wanted to do a study with the skeptics, but I'm not going to bet against you.
FACT is aware of the issue of the more she sees of them, the less qualified they are as test subjects.As long as test requests are reasonable, I'm okay with making the offers without regard to whether she will accept. If she's delusional, then she'll have to continue to spin things. I don't want to give her a safe haven in which to hide. If she's a fraud, then the day after "We Accept PayPal" goes on her site, my counter website goes on-line.
In one of our Facebook chats I discussed this very same thing before it even came up here. Never once in my life have I met a person and got some "perception" or "image" about their health that I couldn't block. I told her, like you did, that such vivid, strong, lasting, and malleable imagery is not considered typical.
That's pretty much my take on it. That's why in our Facebook chats I "read" a number of things about her before I saw her picture. I was reasonably accurate about some specific things regarding her family and friends. When I finally saw some photos, I "read" a number of other things and was pretty accurate. I got some great reactions.
She acknowledges that this can be done, but she doesn't accept this as the likely explanation. That's not surprising considering the imagery that is triggered in her mind.
That's a good point. I'm sure many of us, myself included, have been snippier than we would prefer. Even the most patient of us gets frustrated after a while.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I've seen so much ... attempted in this very thread that I have no doubt it's the only real ability we're dealing with here.
But what can we possibly do that prevents her from claiming 2) anyway? She has already done that.
If she does that I will do what you did and insist she alter such a statement to reflect reality, which is that this study will no more "fail to falsify" the ability than sitting at home watching TV "fails to falsify" the ability.
Who is?
If the study is going to go ahead it will go ahead.
Who does it send such a message to?
Could anyone possibly be taking away from this that anyone thinks the Scale is a sensible way to test?
Usually in these cases that is exactly what it ends up requiring. Not to skeptics, but to the claimant themselves (or anyone who believes in the claimant). Did you see the man who could read babies minds?
It's a fairly simple calculation. Anita has claimed success in instances where she has detected something of 100%.
I am suggesting a failure rate of 16.7% or below. Compared to her own claim this is a massively lower position.
This study is not anything like a genuine scientific attempt to discover a perfomance higher than chance.
As discussed this would mainly be because I don't (and I don't know if anyone else could) work out what would be results obtained from chance in the first place.
As you know I am trying to run a rule of thumb version that might yield some interesting answers, or it might not.
You know as well as I do that in the event of a proper test Anita would problably reject skeptics anyway.
Anyway if Godofpie rejects her study I am all for that. But I don't think it would change Anita's intentions in any way. She would probably proceed with the study with Uni friends instead.
I'm only working on the asumption the study will go ahead no matter what.
Well I guess we will have to disagree on that one.
And how does it help in any way to analyse the results in a way that was not pre-agreed? We have already seen how that work. You will have another exciting couple of pages that resemble the Wayne's shoulder dicussion.
What would that achieve? You think she failed certain answers, she thinks she didn't. And that would move us on fro where we currently are... how exactly?
The scale absolutely should go as I have said over and over and everyone else has. Anita isn't shifting on it. I think everyone has their opinions on why that would be.
So we could all simply turn our back completely on the study and ignore Anita from hereonin (which doesn't look likely) or we can try and get something useful from it.
I have simply converted the scale into a Hit and Miss (and indeterminate) format. If it is agreed we have a level of possible Miss agreed by Anita. This will be new.
Do you not think we could get anything useful from instances where Anita claims a perception at a level she agres is significant, yet it is incorrect?
I'm still not clear what your counter proposal is. Simply say no to Anita and hope she listens and ditches the study completely? Is that likely?
What do you want? Anita to suddenly say "Oh hang on this study isn't a sensible way to analyse my ability, I hadn't realised until you pointed that out for the 68th time!"
It's not a sensible way to test the ability. We all know that. Anita knows we know that. Anita knows why we all know that. And we are pretty sure we know why Anita is proceeding anyway.
What do you suggest? If you have a plan to force Anita to run a decent and sensible test I am right behind it.
I am unclear as to FACT's current position. I thought they were agreeing in principle to the study as it stands?
Look Unca I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I don't see how simply ignoring the study achieves anything.
I don't represent this thread or anything. Nobody has to take my suggestions on board.
I'm just working on the current assumptions that this study will in some form go ahead, and if we don't add anything to it it will simply end up generating a random mass of data that Anita will only then formulate the method and goals by which she wants to actually analyse it.
And I'm pretty sure I can guess how that would end up.
Last edited:
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
Well, that's your opinion.
The problem I have with the publicity theory is that this is negative publicity that is not even reaching her target audience. However, I can see a science student with a delusional belief looking for reinforcement fro skeptics.
Specifically, what do you mean by strategy?
I don't even think he was slick. He also produced a movie about Bigfoot narrated with "circus-like prose" a full year before the famous PGF. It was a for-profit movie marketed to Bigfoot believers. I don't like this comparison because it contains two key elements that Anita has not demonstrated: profit making and appeal to the target audience. It also lacks the element of appealing to the skeptical while ignoring the gullible.
>>>I'm going to argue and challenge you on this, but it's just my opinion. I'm genuinely interested in learning from your experience.
Thats cool. I'll be glad to explain any position I hold.
>>>The problem I have with the publicity theory is that this is negative publicity that is not even reaching her target audience. However, I can see a science student with a delusional belief looking for reinforcement fro skeptics.
Negative publicity sells. I remember reading in Flair's book that people paid a lot of money because they wanted to see him get beat up all the time. Right now, we dont know for sure who her target audience is.
>>>Specifically, what do you mean by strategy?
I think she is intelligent enough to realize she needs a Beta test and thats what she is using these groups and this board for. She has been shown the "right" way and been shown the "wrong" way and had her flaws pointed out. Thanks to the efforts of all, she now knows what will and what wont and what to look out for and how to sidestep. All with her letting everyone else do the work for her responding to her stimuli just lika Pavlov's dog.
>>>it contains two key elements that Anita has not demonstrated: profit making and appeal to the target audience. It also lacks the element of appealing to the skeptical while ignoring the gullible
I see her "selling" her woo art and comments regarding the legality of practicing her gift and claims that she would never profit from it. ( that last claim is a dead giveaway that thats what they are up to because when a person has to "tell" you about how ethical they are- you better watch out) I expect to see profit come in eventually.
Heres the thing about the rest. I'm not big on the psychic stuff but all the kings skeptics and all the kings men havent dented their scams. Busting Miss Cleo didnt shut down the telephone psychic industry. Outlawing porn didnt shut down 900 numbers.Exposing frauds doesnt matter because the "target audience" is woo-istic and will simply shake off the exposure as a carefully crafted government conspiracy to keep us "enslaved".
The skeptic ( doing what skepics do) is nothing more than another tool in her box.
I think you missed the intent behind my italics. My point was that Anita can pretty much take anything about this thread, the study, the FACT meeting etc. and attempt to spin it in her own favour. And already has.
But that shouldn't mean we become paralysed by inaction (because we are concerned how Anita might misrepresent our suggestions) while Anita goes ahead with whatever badly designed study she wants and then claims whatever she likes anyway.
I'm suggesting we add our suggestions and thoughts into the mix anyway and if Anita misrepresents them, well we deal with that afterwards.
I'm pretty sure I have been paying fairly good attention to this thread.
Anyway I think it's all moot - looks like Anita has left this forum anyway.
BTW on her site it looks like version 3 of the form is on its way.
I realy am trying my best to remain patient with this claim. I understand why some people have become frustrated and snippy with Anita (I have certainly posted a few posts like that myself in this thread).
It is getting very difficult when simply no progress is being made.
I am waiting to see what, if anythng, happens with the study before detailing my opinion on Anita's motivations.
BTW on her site it looks like version 3 of the form is on its way.
I realy am trying my best to remain patient with this claim. I understand why some people have become frustrated and snippy with Anita (I have certainly posted a few posts like that myself in this thread).
It is getting very difficult when simply no progress is being made.
I am waiting to see what, if anythng, happens with the study before detailing my opinion on Anita's motivations.
Belz...
Fiend God
Hey, Ashles. Happy birthday.
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
I would have agree with UncaYimmy.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
So it's unlikely that we're going to get any guesses on the pill test that was sent to her, what, a month ago?
btw. Happy Birthday.
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
Given that Vff has stated that using her Vibrational Algebra TM she can determine the effects of chemicals/compounds, and has thus far produced ZERO results this can be ruled a failure.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Not by vff rationalisation.
She'll say (as she's done for missed medical complaints failures) that if she hasn't attempted it she can't say she can't do it.
- Status