VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[desertgal]

I would present myself as no more than an alleged psychic

There is no other kind.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Thinking of finding ways to gain more experience with the medical perceptions and with the possibility of checking for their accuracy, I once again came to think of psychic readings. If I were to offer psychic readings to people it would attract a lot of people who would perhaps otherwise not have been interested in participating in the study as it is. I would present myself as no more than an alleged psychic however, as someone who wants to find out what their skill is or isn't...

There is no such thing as a psychic. Not once in the history of the world have we seen someone demonstrate repeated psychic abilities under proper test conditions. You have been told this many, many times. Thus, they are all "alleged" psychics. Some are self-deluded while others are frauds. Which are you?

What do you all think? And please, no comments on that I'd be preparing for a "career in woo" because that just isn't true. I am a science student and my career will be in conventional science. I am simply investigating an unusual phenomenon and happen to be the unlikely combination of science and woo and that is a very interesting experience.

Unfortunately for you, you do not get to tell us what we are allowed to discuss or not.

You are suggesting that you promote yourself as giving "psychic readings" to people. Why? Your "apparent accuracy" where you claimed never to have been wrong seems to be pretty well debunked at this point. Now you are suggesting that you give psychic readings and only report back the hits? That's what psychics do - emphasize the hits and gloss over the misses. If you are getting things wrong, you have no business telling anybody anything.

Now you are putting yourself in the position of presenting yourself as a psychic to general public. Do you think the FACT members would have agreed to help you if they knew this is what you would do?

If you do not believe you are psychic, then you are suggesting openly that you lie to the general public. If you believe you are a psychic, then you are lying to us.

What's your motivation? Is it money? You applied for the IIG $50K challenge. Just today you posted that you would like to go for the MDC here. On your website you were soliciting people to pay for your travel expenses to demonstrate your ability.

BTW, if you are going to use a barrier or screen, then you do not need to solicit the general public. You could do a real test with the FACT group. If you can really detect that Dr. Carlson is missing a kidney, then it shouldn't be hard at all to devise a test to prove that.

But as I have said many times before, you don't deserve a test. You have not demonstrated anything worth falsifying. There's nothing to be explained. There's nothing to be studied. Even with Dr. Carlson's kidney you only claimed you could detect it after he told you he was missing one.

You are doing this for attention. Look at this list of claims (still incomplete) that we have gathered on the Stop Vision From Feeling website. You keep telling us to concentrate on your medical claim, but really that claim is just part of a larger set of attention-getting claims (25 and counting).

The medical claim just seems to be the one you can milk for the most attention. Some of the others are much more easily testable, so you avoid them. Still others are just kind of silly, like the ghost stories or your ability to "sense" and communicate telepathically with Bigfoot.

I don't know if this all just for attention or if you're planning to make some money off of this in the future (or both). The one thing I am convinced of is that you are not behaving like what you claim to be: a science student conducting a scientific study.

 

[Senex]

There is no such thing as a psychic. Not once in the history of the world have we seen someone demonstrate repeated psychic abilities under proper test conditions. You have been told this many, many times. Thus, they are all "alleged" psychics. Some are self-deluded while others are frauds. Which are you?



Unfortunately for you, you do not get to tell us what we are allowed to discuss or not.

You are suggesting that you promote yourself as giving "psychic readings" to people. Why? Your "apparent accuracy" where you claimed never to have been wrong seems to be pretty well debunked at this point. Now you are suggesting that you give psychic readings and only report back the hits? That's what psychics do - emphasize the hits and gloss over the misses. If you are getting things wrong, you have no business telling anybody anything.

Now you are putting yourself in the position of presenting yourself as a psychic to general public. Do you think the FACT members would have agreed to help you if they knew this is what you would do?

If you do not believe you are psychic, then you are suggesting openly that you lie to the general public. If you believe you are a psychic, then you are lying to us.

Hey, hey, hey, slow down my friend. Harsh words for the young lady who has yet to take the haunted motel rooms test. Let's let this testing stuff play out its course.

I have the haunted motel list along with placebo rooms. Let's see which rooms she feels a hit on before we get judgmental. OK?

I have in my possession a list of haunted rooms

 

[Ashles]

The first study was held and I am still waiting for the results and the data to be returned back to me. A second study is being designed which will only involve unambiguous and mostly test-quality health questions as well as a screen.

'Mostly' test-quality? What scientific research ever has 'mostly' test quality data?
If it's not test quality then there is no point. By definition. If it's not test quality then the studies do not indicate anything useful as the data and results... aren't test quality.

At what point do we actually reach proper test quality? Study 4? Study 8? Study 112?

For that matter at what point will this seemingly endless series of tests/studies/surveys with no aim actually have some form of falsification scenario?

If physics had been investigated at this rate then we would still be looking at a rock and saying
"Well if we pick it up and let it go, I reckon it will go up. My next study will involve stroking it with a feather. It won't be definitive or completely test-quality, but I am learning lots of things. Don't be so impatient. "

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Why psychics shouldn't necessarily take the MDC (split from Mia Dolan)

I am the unlikely combination of science student and one who experiences that which some who have it could interpret as psychic perception if they are not careful. The outcome is that I am scientifically investigating my perceptions, www.visionfromfeeling.com. When I look at people I perceive visual and other forms of impressions of their health, and seemingly with good accuracy. I won't place belief into it unless proven, but I see that depending on the character that experiences something similar to this, it could be easy to become a practicing psychic, if you happen to not be skeptically and scientifically inclined. I want to consider myself a skeptic and I do not express to others what I perceive, and I am investigating to find out how the perceptions come about and how accurate they will be in a test setting.

I am in favor of stricter laws against psychic services and other potentially fraud, misleading or harmful products out there. Whether a person constructs a supposed medical healing instrument, or offers medical advice based on any form of intuition rather than pure science, there should be strict regulations and government regulated certification and licence required. If no licence is required, for instance for discussing with a client their lovelife or something else harmless, I like the UK's approach that all such unproven practice is to be called "for entertainment purposes only" and then this should be clearly stated in their advertisement and practice. And that any services that pose potential harm, such as medical advice, should not be permitted to be handed out at all. Without a licence?

What I am saying is that all practicing psychics whose services pose potential harm, especially medical advice, should require a licence from the government. And should regardless go through great lengths of proving their claim. JREF and James Randi or not, psychics such as Mia Dolan should work on proving their skill. And we need stricter regulations against how much money may be involved in practice.

I do not need to give examples of cases where people have been hurt financially, emotionally and health-wise by psychics who think they can do something that they can not. We all know it has happened and continues to happen. Knowing frauds are one thing, but there are those who think they have a skill.

If you have a skill, then prove it!

If you can do it with clients, you can do it at a test!

Many psychics seem to think that the JREF, James Randi and the Million dollar prize is the only thing out there! And when they don't like the JREF, or Randi, they leave it at that. It is not about the JREF, it is not about the Million dollar prize, what this is all about is proving what you claim! And psychics can do that elsewhere too! And they should! The Million dollars is not the issue! The issue is proving what you say you can do. Perhaps all that some psychics can see is money. Money talks to them, so that is why to them there is only the JREF Challenge?

 

[Lanzy]

If you can do it with clients, you can do it at a test!

I would equate this to; "If you can fool a client you can fool the test." But no, you can't, not a well constructed test at any rate.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I am the unlikely combination of science student and one who experiences that which some who have it could interpret as psychic perception if they are not careful. The outcome is that I am scientifically investigating my perceptions, www.visionfromfeeling.com. When I look at people I perceive visual and other forms of impressions of their health, and seemingly with good accuracy. I won't place belief into it unless proven, but I see that depending on the character that experiences something similar to this, it could be easy to become a practicing psychic, if you happen to not be skeptically and scientifically inclined. I want to consider myself a skeptic and I do not express to others what I perceive, and I am investigating to find out how the perceptions come about and how accurate they will be in a test setting.

Just want to clear up a few things:

1) So far, the only one interpreting your anecdotes as psychic is you.

2) You do not have "seemingly good accuracy" based upon the results we've seen where we have reports other than from you.

3) You *do* place belief in what you perceive to be abilities. This is abundantly clear based on your website and the moderated thread here.

4) You *do* express to others what you perceive. Not only do you tell the person you're "reading" what you perceive, you tell the world via these forums and your website.

What I am saying is that all practicing psychics whose services pose potential harm, especially medical advice, should require a licence from the government.

If you want to be a skeptic, don't refer to these people as "practicing psychics" and suggest that they get endorsement from the government in the form of licensing. No psychic ability has ever been proven. Ever. Therefore, any license would be a sham.

And should regardless go through great lengths of proving their claim. JREF and James Randi or not, psychics such as Mia Dolan should work on proving their skill. And we need stricter regulations against how much money may be involved in practice.

Stricter regulations? What regulations currently apply?

As for testing, as James Randi himself pointed out in his book, Flim Flam, the ability should be proven first and refined later. Your "studies" have it all backwards since it presumes there is something that needs to be studied in the first place.

I do not need to give examples of cases where people have been hurt financially, emotionally and health-wise by psychics who think they can do something that they can not. We all know it has happened and continues to happen. Knowing frauds are one thing, but there are those who think they have a skill.

What harm have you caused? You have advised people about very serious subjects such as heart disease.

If you have a skill, then prove it!

That's what we have been telling YOU.

If you can do it with clients, you can do it at a test!

Except in your case, where apparently multiple "studies" are needed first. Speaking of which, we've been waiting for the results of your big study. Spare us the accusations of impatience. If you're going to make multiple announcements before the test, then expect people to want to hear about the results after the test.

 

[Senex]

Except in your case, where apparently multiple "studies" are needed first. Speaking of which, we've been waiting for the results of your big study. Spare us the accusations of impatience. If you're going to make multiple announcements before the test, then expect people to want to hear about the results after the test.

Hold your horses. VFF and her entourage haven't chosen the where and when of testing yet. Who made you the boss? Testing isn't really what is the point anyway. Helping people is what is most important. What's wrong with that UncaYimmy? Get your priorities in order. Mine are

 

[Ashles]

Copuied from his post on the forum at StopVisionFromFeeling with the permission of E Carlson.

I am new to this list, and not that familiar with posting here. I may not be back, but thought I would interject myself into the discussion. If anyone wants to contact me, I am ecarlson@wfu.edu. I went to the JREF forum first, but it wasn't obvious which thread was the right one to post on, but you have my permission to repost this email on JREF wherever appropriate.

I haven't followed EVERYTHING VFF/Anita has claimed, but the problem is that she has, until recently, never done a sufficiently systematic study that she was able to make a truly testable claim. For this reason, she recruited some members of FACT, a group here in Winston-Salem, who assisted her in performing a study of her own devising. Without going into details, it involved getting volunteers off the street, having them give information about themselves in survey form, and then allowing VFF and three controls to look at them and try to assess what physical health problems they had. The overall goal of the study was to see if VFF could perform better than the three controls who also looked at the person. A complex scoring system was devised by VFF. It isn't worth explaining all the details at this point, but had VFF performed better than the controls, there are many possible explanations. In addition to obvious ones (maybe VFF is just better than her competitors at deducing medical conditions from observations) there are other potential ways to "game the system." Hence one's "score" could be inflated by following appropriate strategies. For example, had I been one of the controls, I could have chosen a few common symptoms for each volunteer, and then marked them at the lowest possible level of severity. It turns out that such a strategy would have guaranteed me a better score than either VFF or any of the controls. I do not know if VFF or any of the controls consciously tried to strategize their answers.

The test was devised in such a way that any time one correctly identified a medical condition that was also marked on the volunteer's form, one received a positive score, and whenever one identified a medical condition that was not marked on the volunteer's form, one received a negative score. All three controls, as well as VFF herself, had net negative scores. Indeed, with the five volunteers who were examined, neither VFF nor any of the controls had a net positive score on more than one volunteer (out of five).

In looking over the results, it is clear that VFF performed noticeably better than one of the controls, and slightly worse than the other two. Because of the confusing way the scoring was done, it is difficult or impossible to tell if these differences are statistically signficant. The one control who did especially poorly, in my opinion, did so because he employed a very poor "strategy." Nonetheless, it is clear that if one were to rely on VFF's diagnoses for medical decisions, based on this test, you could do as well by picking random people off the street and asking them what they think is wrong with a patient.

It is clear from this study that VFF has not yet found any ability which is worthy of devising a full-scale test.

So when compared with three other random people Anita performed third out of the four.

It's hard to see why this claim need go any further.

 

[Uncayimmy]

In addition to what Ashles posted, I would like to add that on Anita's website, http://visionfromfeeling.com/study.html, she made these comments amidst a much larger post about her study:

(After the volunteers' forms were returned to me and total correlation had been calculated but I still do not have the other forms):
*The ambiguity in the questionnaires worked against me! When describing the same region, a volunteer could say neck and I would say back of the head! This ambiguity needs to be removed for the second study.
*The claim is not falsified, the study was not designed to be able to prove or falsify the claim. The study was designed to teach me more about the medical perceptions, and it has.
*More added soon.

Here's the thing that doesn't make any sense to me. She has made all sorts of claims of being able to see inside the body better than a MRI. She has made vivid descriptions of seeing inflamed ovaries, fatty tissue around the heart, a snipped vas deferens and missing organs. So, what did she see in the readings in her study? Surely she saw something or she wouldn't have written down anything.

Let's compare that to the real world. If I looked at someone and saw they were missing an arm and had a bleeding wound, I would say as much. If I learned I was wrong, I would immediately go see a doctor, probably a mental health professional. It doesn't make any sense whatever for me to believe that maybe my eyesight just wasn't working properly at the time.

Does Anita understand that the rest of us in this world don't think we can see things inside a human body? Most people who thought they could would think they were hallucinating. At the very least a reasonable person would conclude that it was the imagination at work, but most of us recognize when we are creating mental images. Anita has repeatedly denied that her Vision From Feeling is her imagination.

Her denial is very disconcerting.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Copuied from his post on the forum at StopVisionFromFeeling ...
It's hard to see why this claim need go any further.

It was hard for me to see why, a looooooooong time ago..

 

[TraneWreck]

...I will continue to tell my loved ones what I sense about them. Because everyone does that, and most always it is harmless stuff like, "Honey, your neck muscle is tired today", or "Hon, you really need to go to the bathroom!"

Everything else aside, how much would it suck to have a parent that said stuff like that to you?

I just realized how much better my life was because my parents didn't magically know when I had to go the bathroom.

 

[TSR]

I just realized how much better my life was because my parents didn't magically know when I had to go the bathroom.

.....
To be fair, while potty training my three wee ones, I would notice the peepee dance and ask -- but of course, that stopped when they developed the ability to know when to go by themselves
.....

 

[Gmonster2]

I predict

I predict she will spin this epic fail in her favour

I wonder if Dr Carlson knows that Anita picked his missing kidney but didnt mention it!

 

[Moochie]

In addition to what Ashles posted, I would like to add that on Anita's website, http://visionfromfeeling.com/study.html, she made these comments amidst a much larger post about her study:



Here's the thing that doesn't make any sense to me. She has made all sorts of claims of being able to see inside the body better than a MRI. She has made vivid descriptions of seeing inflamed ovaries, fatty tissue around the heart, a snipped vas deferens and missing organs. So, what did she see in the readings in her study? Surely she saw something or she wouldn't have written down anything.

Let's compare that to the real world. If I looked at someone and saw they were missing an arm and had a bleeding wound, I would say as much. If I learned I was wrong, I would immediately go see a doctor, probably a mental health professional. It doesn't make any sense whatever for me to believe that maybe my eyesight just wasn't working properly at the time.

Does Anita understand that the rest of us in this world don't think we can see things inside a human body? Most people who thought they could would think they were hallucinating. At the very least a reasonable person would conclude that it was the imagination at work, but most of us recognize when we are creating mental images. Anita has repeatedly denied that her Vision From Feeling is her imagination.

Her denial is very disconcerting.

It looks to me that by doing these "studies," she is attempting to add a veneer of "scientific" inquiry to her claimed "abilities," in the knowledge that her "walls o' texts" will definitely fool some of the people, some of the time.

I think there's no longer any doubt -- she's preparing herself for a full-time career in woo. Just don't go adding any credibility to her nonsense.


M.

 

[desertgal]

I am the unlikely combination of science student and one who experiences that which some who have it could interpret as psychic perception if they are not careful.

And if they are careful? What do they call it then? Synesthesia?

The outcome is that I am scientifically investigating my perceptions.

"Investigating", perhaps. "Scientifically"? Not a chance.

I am in favor of stricter laws against psychic services and other potentially fraud, misleading or harmful products out there.

No, you aren't.

Whether a person constructs a supposed medical healing instrument, or offers medical advice based on any form of intuition rather than pure science, there should be strict regulations and government regulated certification and licence required.

Licensing and regulating abilities that haven't been proven to exist in the first place? Do tell how the government is supposed to manage that.

If no licence is required, for instance for discussing with a client their lovelife or something else harmless, I like the UK's approach that all such unproven practice is to be called "for entertainment purposes only" and then this should be clearly stated in their advertisement and practice.

So much for your concern about fraudulent practices. Such a waiver protects the psychic, not the victim.

And that any services that pose potential harm, such as medical advice, should not be permitted to be handed out at all. Without a licence?

Does that mean you'll stop making medical diagnoses, or you'll just cover your butt with a "for entertainment purposes only" waiver?

What I am saying is that all practicing psychics whose services pose potential harm, especially medical advice, should require a licence from the government.

Again, do tell us how the government should regulate unproven abilities.

And should regardless go through great lengths of proving their claim. JREF and James Randi or not, psychics such as Mia Dolan should work on proving their skill. And we need stricter regulations against how much money may be involved in practice.

"We"? Who is "we"? Are you a citizen of this country?

I do not need to give examples of cases where people have been hurt financially, emotionally and health-wise by psychics who think they can do something that they can not. We all know it has happened and continues to happen. Knowing frauds are one thing, but there are those who think they have a skill.

Like yourself.

If you have a skill, then prove it!

If you can do it with clients, you can do it at a test!

Many psychics seem to think that the JREF, James Randi and the Million dollar prize is the only thing out there! And when they don't like the JREF, or Randi, they leave it at that. It is not about the JREF, it is not about the Million dollar prize, what this is all about is proving what you claim! And psychics can do that elsewhere too! And they should! The Million dollars is not the issue! The issue is proving what you say you can do. Perhaps all that some psychics can see is money. Money talks to them, so that is why to them there is only the JREF Challenge?

To which we can only say, put your money where your mouth is, sweetheart.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Many psychics seem to think that the JREF, James Randi and the Million dollar prize is the only thing out there! And when they don't like the JREF, or Randi, they leave it at that. It is not about the JREF, it is not about the Million dollar prize, what this is all about is proving what you claim! And psychics can do that elsewhere too! And they should! The Million dollars is not the issue! The issue is proving what you say you can do. Perhaps all that some psychics can see is money. Money talks to them, so that is why to them there is only the JREF Challenge?

Anita, just in case you are serious about all this, if a person with real psychic powers would exist, the JREF million dollars would not be that impressive compared to the money she / he / it would get from countless other sources.

 

[wardenclyffe]

So, as of this hour, VfF should be meeting with the North Carolina Skeptics Group (http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/). I think someone there still has some paperwork from last month's study. Hopefully, they will bring it for her so we can get a complete look at the study from her point of view.

Things have been fairly quiet around here and on UncaYimmy's "fan" site www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com, but VfF's website (www.visionfromfeeling.com) has been updated. I don't think she dates her posts on her own website, so I don't know when those updates occurred. It looks like she is back-peddaling from her paranormal claims (but not completely). She seems to be re-focussing on creating an actual testable claim for the IIG (www.iigwest.org).

OK, I've now linked to enough websites.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

So, as of this hour, VfF should be meeting with the North Carolina Skeptics Group (http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/). I think someone there still has some paperwork from last month's study. Hopefully, they will bring it for her so we can get a complete look at the study from her point of view.

Things have been fairly quiet around here and on UncaYimmy's "fan" site www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com, but VfF's website (www.visionfromfeeling.com) has been updated. I don't think she dates her posts on her own website, so I don't know when those updates occurred. It looks like she is back-peddaling from her paranormal claims (but not completely). She seems to be re-focussing on creating an actual testable claim for the IIG (www.iigwest.org).

I periodically check her site for updates. That update was posted within the last two day or so.

Once again she is embarking on silly tests, only this time it's something new (so much for focusing only on her medical perceptions, eh?). Her new claim is called "Induced Information" when it's really Deduced Information considering she is actually looking at a person doing something.

It's as if she has learned nothing from anyone. She didn't set the number of trials in advance. We impatient skeptics covered in detail how this is a problem. In at least one test she is allowing the subject to "randomly" choose one of four options even though we have explained that if somebody chooses something, it's not random. At least in one test she had the person roll a die.

But even then, her tests lack any real controls. I know, she's just "studying" to see what she can do. But why? I mean, who wakes up one day thinking, Hey! I know! I bet I can tell which hand someone is dunking in a bowl of ice! I'm gonna set up a experiment to see how accurate I am, but it won't be a test. That way I don't have to set up any real controls. I can just play "Paranormal Investigator" in my living room and write about it on my website.

I also find it interesting that when it came to the chemical identification tests, she claimed it made her physically ill to do even 10 guesses, ahem, readings. She flat out refused to do anymore testing despite repeated claims and anecdotes about this ability. She even refused to do two tests per day for a few weeks just to get some data.

Now, though, apparently she is able to make make than 10 guesses (collectively) in one evening about fist clenching, ice in a bucket, cotton in the hand, and tasting stuff.

Strange...

 

[wardenclyffe]

At least the new claims she's studying are testable. Her methodology might be questionable, but hopefully the F.A.C.T. group will keep her in line. Despite the fact that the first study was flawed, she seems to (mostly) accept the fact that she failed to do better than the controls. If she continues to work with them, she might finally get to the bottom of all this.

Ward