Vision From Feeling - Results from 'study'

[Ashles]

Thanks Unca,

So to recap:

• Anita still hasn't done the test she was planning to do
• The reason she hasn't done the test is the fault of the wicked skeptics again
• She still perservered with the skeptics even though they have made it clear they don't want anything to do with her awful protocol
• Instead of just setting up a test with psych students she went to the Psych professor
• So yet another Professor has heard her claim and, essentially, ruffled her hair, said "Ah bless" and sent her away without interest
• She still intends to fax UncaYimmy the study results but is too busy and, as we all know, faxing paper takes a least 3-4 days of solid work

and she still hasn't done any of these:

• Detail what happened in the Study on January 3rd
• Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts - I'm leaving this point in this list although I have already mentioned it)
• Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
• Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
• Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)

Unca, if you speak to her again can you ask her why she is still not mentioning Pup's pill test?
It would take her no more time to answer about that that to type any response whatsoever.

Let us remind ourselves that Anita came onto these forums on (remember, remember) the 5th November 2008.
So that is now almost 6 months in which Anita has managed to carry out precisely zero tests or moved forward in any way with an amazing and 'never been wrong' ability.
6 months in which we are still waiting for her to carry out the simple and quick list of actions detailed in my bullet points abve.

6 months in which she written thousands of words, but is always too busy to actually do anything practical towards her claim. 6 months in which breaks and testing are always just round the corner, but have never happened.

It's a very good cautionary tale and a detailed illustration of how claimants run into problems when their claims are analysed skeptically and in detail.

It is ironic that for all Anita's protestations that she is very unlike other claimants (in itself standard claimant behaviour), she has become almost a cliche standard claimant in following the usual pattern.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

On my calendar, that's about 4 1/2 months...

 

[Ashles]

On my calendar, that's about 4 1/2 months...

Oh yeah I miscounted a month somehow.

Can everyone pretend not to read that post for a month (I assume it will be identically applicable then).

 

[Akhenaten]

On my calendar, that's about 4 1/2 months...

Arcturian Months™ are slightly shorter than ours.


ETA: Oh Darn! Sorry Ashles, I was too slow to save your credz.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Arcturian Months™ are slightly shorter than ours.


ETA: Oh Darn! Sorry Ashles, I was too slow to save your credz.

 

[Locknar]

A little update for those who are interested:

I had a chat with Anita today. She was unable to conduct her Sidewalk Study over spring break. Turns out only one person from FACT was willing to assist her, and her protocol requires at least three people.

I asked her about using psych students like she said she was going to do. She said the psych professor she contacted told her to read up on synesthesia before attempting any such study. This could have been a polite way for the professor to say, "What you're describing ain't synesthesia." After all, there is no documented case of synesthesia that even remotely resembles the things she has described.

I also asked her again about the survey results. She once again promised to get them to me, but, of course, she is busying maintaining her pseudo 4.0 average, so she can't say when she will have the time.

Nice update; not at all suprising...all this time, all the talk, and no action.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

A little update for those who are interested:

I had a chat with Anita today. She was unable to conduct her Sidewalk Study over spring break. Turns out only one person from FACT was willing to assist her, and her protocol requires at least three people.

I asked her about using psych students like she said she was going to do. She said the psych professor she contacted told her to read up on synesthesia before attempting any such study. This could have been a polite way for the professor to say, "What you're describing ain't synesthesia." After all, there is no documented case of synesthesia that even remotely resembles the things she has described.

I also asked her again about the survey results. She once again promised to get them to me, but, of course, she is busying maintaining her pseudo 4.0 average, so she can't say when she will have the time.

I said to you that my study requires at least two participants. Not three. And the professor said that it really seems like synesthesia and if it didn't seem like it to her I'm sure she wouldn't have said so. But what ever. The next FACT Skeptics meeting is Thursday March 26 and I was told by one of the FACT organizers to try to gather participants then and in person. It's funny how UncaYimmy always picks his favorite selections out of our internet conversations and totally omits the rest. UncaYimmy, I might bring up the condition that if you and I speak over the internet again then I will do so only if you permit me to post our entire conversation here so that we can bring an end to selective representation of what was said.

 

[Audible Click]

No matter what you say or how you say it , you have still not done one thing that you said you would do. You choose to cherry pick from posts on this thread asking you to give details or , even , fax details from a study supposedly done by you on Jan. 3.
I know this has all been said before and by much better posters then me. I'll go back to lurking and reading the ongoing saga of VfF if only to see how long and how far Anita will go to get her negative attention fix.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I said to you that my study requires at least two participants. Not three. And the professor said that it really seems like synesthesia and if it didn't seem like it to her I'm sure she wouldn't have said so. But what ever. The next FACT Skeptics meeting is Thursday March 26 and I was told by one of the FACT organizers to try to gather participants then and in person. It's funny how UncaYimmy always picks his favorite selections out of our internet conversations and totally omits the rest. UncaYimmy, I might bring up the condition that if you and I speak over the internet again then I will do so only if you permit me to post our entire conversation here so that we can bring an end to selective representation of what was said.

You are certainly entitled to post it, just as I am legally permitted to do so with any e-mail or snail mail sent to me, without the sender's permission. Of course, I would think that UncaY probably wouldn't mind posting the conversations , just to demonstrate who is selecting what.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You are certainly entitled to post it, just as I am legally permitted to do so with any e-mail or snail mail sent to me, without the sender's permission. Of course, I would think that UncaY probably wouldn't mind posting the conversations , just to demonstrate who is selecting what.

Actually, Jeff, in the USA you do not have the right to publish e-mail or snail mail sent to you. The creator owns the copyright. In the case of snail mail, you can, of course, sell the paper itself, but you cannot publish them without permission.

As for publishing an entire IM, who really wants to read all that crap? I'm long winded as it is.

 

[Jeff Corey]

From Pierce Law, take it with a homeopathic dose of salt:Fair use.
Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks.

Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)

Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I said to you that my study requires at least two participants. Not three. And the professor said that it really seems like synesthesia and if it didn't seem like it to her I'm sure she wouldn't have said so. But what ever. The next FACT Skeptics meeting is Thursday March 26 and I was told by one of the FACT organizers to try to gather participants then and in person. It's funny how UncaYimmy always picks his favorite selections out of our internet conversations and totally omits the rest. UncaYimmy, I might bring up the condition that if you and I speak over the internet again then I will do so only if you permit me to post our entire conversation here so that we can bring an end to selective representation of what was said.

Check this out, Anita. I'm gonna do something that you have yet to do since you've been here: Admit a mistake. You did indeed say that you needed at least two, not three people. I mistakenly recalled that as you saying you needed at least two more, which would make three. Your "protocol", as I recall, seemed to need at least four.

As for the second bit you crossed out, that was purely my opinion of why the teacher would tell you to read up on synesthesia. I don't think anyone reading what I wrote would have come to any other conclusion since I wrote, "This could have been..."

I don't know about you, but I don't go around sharing the entire contents of a conversation. I select what I consider relevant. If I make a mistake, then by all means correct me. If I omit something, then you are welcome to fill in the blanks.

Since you are implying that I did not relay the gist of our conversation, I will reproduce it here in its entirety. I will take your comments above as giving me permission to do so.

Note that my first message to her was sent on the 13th. A second was sent on the 17th. Her first response was on the 18th.
[3/13/2009 11:08:59 PM] Jim Carr: How did your sidewalk test go?
[3/17/2009 10:13:23 PM] Jim Carr: Wake up!
[3/18/2009 2:30:51 PM] Anita Ikonen: It didn't. Only one Skeptic volunteered to participate this time. So, one of the organizers of the FACT Group suggested that we meet up in the next FACT meeting where I can gather up some volunteers. *sigh* It does take forever, doesn't it?
[3/18/2009 2:31:29 PM] Anita Ikonen: I won't do the study without at least two skeptics. One who acts as a control and tries to do what I do, and one who handles the paperwork with the volunteers. I can't do it without.
[3/18/2009 2:31:58 PM] Anita Ikonen: And, now you're gonna post something on the JREF Forum saying that I write a lot when you're not here. So I'd better stop writing now or I'll be hearing about it.
[3/18/2009 2:32:41 PM] Jim Carr: What about the psych students you were going to contact?
[3/18/2009 2:34:12 PM] Anita Ikonen: Well, the Psychology professor I contacted said that I should read up on synesthesia plenty before commencing on a psychology-related research project which involves some of her students. I started reading on synesthesia, but with all the college work to do... It does sound like excuses, doesn't it. But it really isn't. I do wish I could do this very soon. Maybe I can combine it and just find some students on my own without the involvement of a faculty, and have both skeptics and students participate in the study.
[3/18/2009 2:35:59 PM] Jim Carr: Yes, it sounds like more excuses.
[3/18/2009 2:36:03 PM] Anita Ikonen: But it isn't.
[3/18/2009 2:36:19 PM] Jim Carr: Do or don't do. There is no try.
[3/18/2009 2:36:22 PM] Anita Ikonen: I'm very eager to have the study, but college does come first.
[3/18/2009 2:36:41 PM] Jim Carr: You promised to send me the survey results. I have yet to receive them.
[3/18/2009 2:37:14 PM] Anita Ikonen: Oh, and you wrote somewhere that since I was on Spring break I should have plenty of time to post on the JREF Forum? No, Spring break I studied more than ever before. It's the most relaxing thing I can think of, to return to school keeping up with classes.
[3/18/2009 2:37:25 PM] Anita Ikonen: Survey results... I have them right here.
[3/18/2009 2:37:34 PM] Anita Ikonen: Come and get them! Just joking.
[3/18/2009 2:37:47 PM] Anita Ikonen: Yes, I need to get them to you. Soon.
[3/18/2009 2:38:19 PM] Anita Ikonen: Let me take a look and read some of them to you, just to ease some of your curiosity.
[3/18/2009 2:39:51 PM] Jim Carr: Simply following through on your promises would suffice.
[3/18/2009 2:41:10 PM] Anita Ikonen: Excerpts... excerpts...
[3/18/2009 2:41:14 PM] Anita Ikonen: Sorry, my food just got here.
[3/18/2009 2:41:42 PM] Anita Ikonen: I wrote that it's "far too loud and busy to do this compared to the calm and quiet that usually takes place"
[3/18/2009 2:41:45 PM] Jim Carr: As for Spring Break, YOU are the one who wrote, "Next week is Spring break so I will definitely have the time."
[3/18/2009 2:41:55 PM] Anita Ikonen: "mostly young people"
[3/18/2009 2:42:21 PM] Anita Ikonen: Yes, time for THE STUDY! But not to type stuff on the JREF! There's a difference! If I could have the study right now, I'd put all other things aside!
[3/18/2009 2:43:27 PM] Anita Ikonen: I wrote that there were mostly healthy and young people at the mall and a hospital would be a better place. The survey notes are mostly observations like these.
[3/18/2009 2:44:01 PM] Anita Ikonen: I write that I have a hard time taking the 5 seconds to stare at strangers because I would feel impolite.
[3/18/2009 2:44:36 PM] Jim Carr: Please do not continue typing your notes to me via IM. Just send them as promised.
[3/18/2009 2:45:00 PM] Anita Ikonen: Alright.
[3/18/2009 2:45:16 PM] Anita Ikonen: Just giving an idea of what's there.
[3/18/2009 2:45:35 PM] Anita Ikonen: When are you going to call me on the phone?
[3/18/2009 2:45:39 PM] Anita Ikonen: That would be fun.
[3/18/2009 2:47:23 PM] Anita Ikonen: You and two others are the only skeptics who've spoken with me outside of JREF.
[3/18/2009 2:47:50 PM] Jim Carr: I dunno. We'll see. You go eat. I have to get back to work.
[3/18/2009 2:48:12 PM] Anita Ikonen: Alright. Nice talking to you. Take care.
Note: What you see below is that she phoned me via Skype, but I did not answer.
[3/18/2009 2:49:10 PM] *** Missed call from Anita Ikonen. ***
[3/18/2009 2:49:14 PM] *** Call ended ***
Anita Ikonen
[3/18/2009 3:09:09 PM] Anita Ikonen: Can I call you?
[3/18/2009 3:16:47 PM] Anita Ikonen: By the way, I saw some of your work on your company website. You take beautiful pictures.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

AC -- Probably because you've been following her threads.

May I suggest checking out reason1's thread on "staring" (but not simulated staring--it depends on the starer's intent, which BTW he has never asked)...

 

[Locknar]

I said to you that my study requires at least two participants. Not three. And the professor said that it really seems like synesthesia and if it didn't seem like it to her I'm sure she wouldn't have said so. But what ever. The next FACT Skeptics meeting is Thursday March 26 and I was told by one of the FACT organizers to try to gather participants then and in person. It's funny how UncaYimmy always picks his favorite selections out of our internet conversations and totally omits the rest. UncaYimmy, I might bring up the condition that if you and I speak over the internet again then I will do so only if you permit me to post our entire conversation here so that we can bring an end to selective representation of what was said.

Two participants vs three, a professor that said "it really seems like synesthesia"...and yet still no action on your part.

 

[Akhenaten]

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

It's funny how UncaYimmy always picks his favorite selections out of our internet conversations and totally omits the rest.

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>


Since you are implying that I did not relay the gist of our conversation, I will reproduce it here in its entirety. I will take your comments above as giving me permission to do so.

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

Underneath UncaYimmy's avatar, in sekrit invisible writing, it says "Do not poke with stick". You don't seem able to see it.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

It is totally ironic, but I never intended to call UncaYimmy on Skype. I wanted to open the Chat window again and accidentally hit the Call button. I would not call through Skype, I don't even have a webcam to speak over Skype and it wouldn't work and I've never done it. I would only call over the phone, and even though I have UncaYimmy's phone number I have never ever tried to call him over the phone since I have not received his specific permission to do so.

The irony was that just as I had been asking to talk with him over the phone I had then accidentally hit the call button.
Just a clarification.

ETA: The study procedure calls for four participating skeptics which would be most convenient. However I would do with two if necessary to have the study. I would not do the study with one or none participants since the results would be officially unreliable if handled by me or my close acquaintances.

 

[Ashles]

It is totally ironic, but I never intended to call UncaYimmy on Skype. I wanted to open the Chat window again and accidentally hit the Call button. I would not call through Skype, I don't even have a webcam to speak over Skype and it wouldn't work and I've never done it. I would only call over the phone, and even though I have UncaYimmy's phone number I have never ever tried to call him over the phone since I have not received his specific permission to do so.

The irony was that just as I had been asking to talk with him over the phone I had then accidentally hit the call button.
Just a clarification.

ETA: The study procedure calls for four participating skeptics which would be most convenient. However I would do with two if necessary to have the study. I would not do the study with one or none participants since the results would be officially unreliable if handled by me or my close acquaintances.

Still waiting for you to address any of these bullet points:

It's getting a bit hard to pretend you haven't read them now.

• Detail what happened in the Study on January 3rd
• Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts )
• Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
• Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
• Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)

Once again let me remind you it would have taken less time to update us on what happened with Pup's pill samples than it would to write yet more irrelevant posts.

If you wont respond to any of them would you at least have the decency and honesty to at least acknowledge you are deliberately avoiding them. Maybe even try to explain why.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Detail what happened in the Study Survey on January 3rd
"Survey" - Experience the medical perceptions and record the experience to learn more about it. Involves no means of checking for accuracy since persons whose medical information is allegedly perceived are not approached.
"Study" - Experience of medical perceptions in staged settings that try out various test conditions, but a study does not implement all necessary test conditions to be considered of test quality, thus a study can never provide evidence toward the existence of the claimed ability. The study is also for educational purposes to learn more about the claimed experience of medical perception.
"Test" - Implement test conditions and is designed to be able to provide evidence for or against the claim and to reach a final conclusion. A test is based on the material learned from surveys and studies.

I will *do my very best* to scan the survey notes of January 3rd this weekend and e-mail them to UncaYimmy.

Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts ) Same as above.

Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
Will be attempted this weekend.

Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
I would love to acquire pure uncrushed samples of the pills that were used in order to have a reference by which to compare what I feel from Pup's prepared samples. Two of the medical substances I have never encountered before, and I am not sure about how to identify the others. I feel that I can not conclude anything on Pup's test other than that I would love to be able to follow it through but need the reference material.

Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)
Unfortunately I presented most of my conclusion regarding my impressions of Wayne's health verbally and in full at the end of the viewing and had not written down everything that I said. I realize that this is unscientific and many complications have arisen because of it. I am taking much better notes since then and it is one further thing I learned from this particular reading experience with this person. At the moment I can't find the paper where I wrote this down. It's in my room but there are so many Physics papers around and everywhere!

 

[Ashles]

Oh My God!
[faints in shock]
[recovers consciousness]
Okay, firstly thank you for addressing these points Anita, and it only took me posting them approximately seventeen times to get some form of response.

Detail what happened in the Study Survey on January 3rd
"Survey" - Experience the medical perceptions and record the experience to learn more about it. Involves no means of checking for accuracy since persons whose medical information is allegedly perceived are not approached.
"Study" - Experience of medical perceptions in staged settings that try out various test conditions, but a study does not implement all necessary test conditions to be considered of test quality, thus a study can never provide evidence toward the existence of the claimed ability. The study is also for educational purposes to learn more about the claimed experience of medical perception.
"Test" - Implement test conditions and is designed to be able to provide evidence for or against the claim and to reach a final conclusion. A test is based on the material learned from surveys and studies.

I will *do my very best* to scan the survey notes of January 3rd this weekend and e-mail them to UncaYimmy.

Unfortunately that in no way answered my question, it merely repeated definitions stated elsewhere (and definitions of other things at that).
You knew exactly to what I was referring so it's a rather silly and pointless answer.
Why are you now scanning the images and emailing them when you were gpoing to simply fax them before?
Oh well, we'll believe it when we see it.

Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts ) Same as above.

So to recap... "I am going to..."
Sure.
Right.
Believe it when we see it.

Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
Will be attempted this weekend.

I predict with 100% confidence that you wont.

Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
I would love to acquire pure uncrushed samples of the pills that were used in order to have a reference by which to compare what I feel from Pup's prepared samples.

And it has been repeatedly explained why that would defeat the whole point of the test.
You were simply asked to use your 'ability' in ways you have yourself claimed it working before.

Two of the medical substances I have never encountered before, and I am not sure about how to identify the others.

Eh? If you are saying the others you have encountered then just say what they are. Or at least provide some description.
If you can't how can you say you have encountered them before? And how could you say the control samples would then help.

I feel that I can not conclude anything on Pup's test other than that I would love to be able to follow it through but need the reference material.

So, to confirm, you were unable to identify any of the substances then?

Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)
Unfortunately I presented most of my conclusion regarding my impressions of Wayne's health verbally and in full at the end of the viewing and had not written down everything that I said. I realize that this is unscientific and many complications have arisen because of it.

It's strange that you deviated from your own protocol in the first instance you had with a real subject.
Hopefully you have learned from this.

I am taking much better notes since then

What notes? Have you been taking notes on subjects in a similar situation?
Can we see these new notes? Maybe we can help confirm whether they are thorough or detailed enough

and it is one further thing I learned from this particular reading experience with this person. At the moment I can't find the paper where I wrote this down. It's in my room but there are so many Physics papers around and everywhere!

You should consider investing in some sort of filing system.
I realise it won't afford you quite the same opportunities to project the image of a delightfully serious yet slightly scatty genius science student, but it might allow you to actually find things.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Ashles! Stop being a big ol' meanie!!

We are going to see Anita try her "very best" to scan and e-mail some documents to UncaYimmy. And since she's a career 4.0 Science Student, her Very Best is going to be good!

I admit to confusion on the pill thing, though, since she said she could use her Vibrational Algebra^TM to compare them to a human body and see what they were good for...

Waiting with bated breath, MK