VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[volatile]

*shakes head*

 

[LightinDarkness]

Thank you Audible Click for bringing this post to my attention. The one post by LightinDarkness I skipped and it ended up having some interesting material rather than the same old remote viewing/not remote viewing discussion.

Its really not the same old, so I'll keep stating it over and over: Anita refuses do perform the most simple way to test her xray vision superpower. It was not remote viewing, but Anita thinks if she lies enough about what remote viewing is she can weasel out of it. She declined to do the most easy test because she knows she would fail.

If I weren't at least something of a Skeptic I would be out there and charging $5,500 for a head-to-toe Vision From Feeling^TM psychic reading and going to woo conventions rather than talking with you fine Skeptics and submitting my claim to a falsifiable, yet possibly not verifiable, test.

Oh, so because so far you only give out your xray vision for free on failed test this means your a skeptic? Sorry dear, but if you were a skeptic you would have accepted your multiple failed tests as evidence that you don't have supernatural powers. You are only talking to us on JREF because you crave attention above all else, and if you were at a woo convention you wouldn't be the only person claiming to be special.

Also, bold is key here - Anita is already setting herself up for excuses when she fails (if she ever takes the test).

I already said that we can confuse the volunteers as to who really is the target by lying to them! GeeMack thinks I should be able to lie to the volunteers.

No, they won't. You don't have to advertise for people with two kidneys - its most of the population. It would be obvious what the target is, and most people will want to know anyways before agreeing to a test unless there is some other incentive.

But for goodness sakes, LightinDarkness! It is exactly what I have been wanting to do!

I would say congratulations on reaching something that is testable (even though the whole kidney thing is pushing it) by accepting the screen cut out idea but in the past whenever you have accepted an idea you later rejected it - usually when you figure out how it would prevent a cold reading. We'll see how this goes.

 

[Ashles]

Thank you Ashles that is exactly correct. I would prefer for the shirt and screen to not have a distracting pattern, preferably a plain one-color material. As for the score I need to acchieve, I have seen it suggested by others and I accept a 1 in 1000, meaning that in this test I would have to get all 10 correctly.

Well as I calculate it, assuming you do not pass on any subject, the odds if selected at random would be 1 in 3 for each subject (2 kidneys, 1 left kidney, 1 right kidney) which would work out as 1 in 3¹⁰ which would be 1in 59,049.

BUT (and this is very important to remember) this would not be a representative probability as the likelihood is that there will be significantly more subjects with 2 kidneys than with one, so it is not an equal likelihood.

If you assume there is only likely to be one or two subjects with one kidney then the odds can be as little as 1 in 10.

Also, none of this factors in the weaknesses of the test that may allow you to pick up information by other means. Which is why the test cannot be considered as adding any weight to any of your claims if successful.

Also, by this protocol as described above if you pass on ANY subject you will have automatically have failed the test and will by default have falsified all the other claims indicated.
Can you confirm this?

 

[Akhenaten]

I posted that an hour ago, dude.

Dang! Sorry. I was time -travelling

 

[Akhenaten]

Alright people, the test will involve detecting how many kidneys a person has just by looking at their clothed back. Does anyone have real evidence that this is a skill anyone of us could be able to do by ordinary senses of perception?

I have already explained that we can confuse the volunteers as to who is the target, so the issue that the target person might reveal who they are by body language may not be a concern.

What are the real concerns of the suggested test protocol?

I will not address further questions about full-body screens, strapping bald people on a table and under a cloth (I think Jim Carr just wants to be a subject on the test), shoes, kidneys in a box, or remote viewing. I have outlined the claim and its limitations. Can we work out a protocol for that claim?

I'm with you. What do you reckon about the burquas? It looks like a basically good idea to me, but of course I'll listen to your objections.

I'll try and not mention sh__s at all.


Dave

 

[jhunter1163]

Actually, the odds of a volunteer in this test having two kidneys would be 9 in 10. So you'd expect VfF to score 90% just on statistical grounds. She would need a score above 90% to support her claim.

I'd also suggest some method of closing the opening between volunteers to minimize the chance of a "tell" being observed through the opening. Maybe a cardboard screen over the opening. Volunteer comes in, settles in, cardboard is removed, VfF does her thing, cardboard is replaced, volunteer leaves, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Ashles]

Actually, the odds of a volunteer in this test having two kidneys would be 9 in 10. So you'd expect VfF to score 90% just on statistical grounds. She would need a score above 90% to support her claim.

She has described the above protocol as "absolutely correct" in which she has stated:

in this test I would have to get all 10 correctly

This seems acceptable.

Also, for clarity, when Anita states in this post:

1. Will still be experienced as before but obviously have normal as opposed to paranormal origin.

in the event of a failed test it must be accepted by Anita that we do not have any interest in whether claimed non-paranormal perceptions actually exist at all.

 

[Audible Click]

I'd also suggest some method of closing the opening between volunteers to minimize the chance of a "tell" being observed through the opening. Maybe a cardboard screen over the opening. Volunteer comes in, settles in, cardboard is removed, VfF does her thing, cardboard is replaced, volunteer leaves, lather, rinse, repeat.

I think that would be a very good addition to the protocol.

 

[jhunter1163]

Hey! I actually made a useful suggestion! Yay me!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita, I would let you read me and gladly tell you that you failed if you dropped your delusions of grandeur and supernatural powers claims and lived a normal life. But that isn't going to happen, is it? Do you know why? Because even though you have failed at your own (very unscientific) tests again and again, you still are in denial about this.

If I describe the medical perceptions I have of you and those are incorrect I will admit that I was incorrect and that it is evidence against my claim. I would still go ahead and arrange some sort of test to falsify the claim properly, since, as Dr. Hyman said,

Any scientific hypothesis-especially a paranormal one-cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by one test or one experiment. Scientific investigation requires a series of experiments.

Can I expect to see you at the next FACT meeting then? Would be nice.

 

[Ashles]

Also, by this protocol as described above if you pass on ANY subject you will have automatically have failed the test and will by default have falsified all the other claims indicated.
Can you confirm this?

Hi Anita, we're just trying to get the protocol locked down.

Can you confirm this?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I would say congratulations on reaching something that is testable (even though the whole kidney thing is pushing it) by accepting the screen cut out idea but in the past whenever you have accepted an idea you later rejected it - usually when you figure out how it would prevent a cold reading. We'll see how this goes.

LightinDarkness, this is exactly the test protocol that I have been suggesting! Or, maybe I should not say that, because you might change your mind on it if you find out that you have just shown some acceptance to what was my suggested test protocol, so let's just let you think it was your idea. This is where I think I first suggested it: Post #571

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Also, none of this factors in the weaknesses of the test that may allow you to pick up information by other means. Which is why the test cannot be considered as adding any weight to any of your claims if successful.

Absolutely. If I pass the test all it means is the claim is not falsified and I may have another test.

Also, by this protocol as described above if you pass on ANY subject you will have automatically have failed the test and will by default have falsified all the other claims indicated.
Can you confirm this?

Oh that is tough to agree to. See I'd really like to verify or falsify the claim based on the perceptions, and so if a perception does not occur - which is unlikely - I would be hesitant to let that conclude on the claim since it does not represent an accurate or an inaccurate perception. Do I absolutely have to agree to this condition?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Also, for clarity (...) in the event of a failed test it must be accepted by Anita that we do not have any interest in whether claimed non-paranormal perceptions actually exist at all.

Of course. I would lose interest in the medical perceptions too and just let them occur just like when I see green when I read Nitrogen or just the letter N and don't think more about them.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If the odds of guessing whether a person has one or both kidneys is 1 in 2, then in a test with ten persons the total odds of getting all correct by guessing is 1 in 1024.

And how does one arrive at those odds? One way is by finding five people who are each missing a kidney. We've been down this same road several times before. Finding five people who are nephrologically challenged is a pain in the pass. Once you find them, you have to arrange for all of those people to show up at the same place and time to satisfy the whims of a petulant child science student.

And because we've been down this road before, the next issue is verification. How are we going to verify the kidney count? It is very unlikely people will submit to an ultrasound to satisfy the whims of a petulant child science student.

In other words, one reason this approach has been dismissed after careful consideration is that it is a logistical nightmare. You couldn't even get six people to volunteer for a psychic reading with the help of the F-A-C-T group, and that took weeks for you to organize. Your second study failed to produce any results whatsoever.

Yet you think this scenario stands a remote chance of being executed?

If I weren't at least something of a Skeptic I would be out there and charging $5,500 for a head-to-toe Vision From Feeling^TM psychic reading and going to woo conventions rather than talking with you fine Skeptics and submitting my claim to a falsifiable, yet possibly not verifiable, test.

My website will ensure that never happens.

 

[GeeMack]

I already said that we can confuse the volunteers as to who really is the target by lying to them! GeeMack thinks I should be able to lie to the volunteers.

No. Your reading comprehension skills are apparently as lacking as your honesty. I said that you do lie, not that you should be able to.

And nobody thinks you should have any contact with any volunteers for any reason at all. You shouldn't be able to recruit them, instruct them, say, "Hello," to them, ask them to move a little to the left, nothing. You shouldn't know if they're male, female, Chinese, four foot nine, blonde, missing a leg, speak Swahili, nothing. You shouldn't know the actual size of the group or the method of deciding who goes behind the screen, in what order, how often, nothing. You shouldn't know if there's a single person without a kidney in the group or five, or none. You shouldn't know if everyone in the group has a turn behind the screen, or three, or only one. Everything about the subjects should be as far removed from your knowledge as humanly possible. Controls such as subjects wearing multiple layers of clothing should be allowed in the mix. Controls such as a non-humans, like maybe a mannequin, should be allowed as part of the test, also.

I've said many times, you should define your claim, clearly and unambiguously. You've barely done that, and it's taken you dozens of tries. You should define the limits of your claimed ability, clearly and unambiguously. You've barely done that, and those limits are bound to change several more times before any test ever occurs. And on the negligible chance that a test ever does occur, the limits of your claim are bound to change again after the test. It's your style. You've done it in almost every instance, and it's part of the reason we know you're a liar.

You should, after you've defined your claim and the limits of your claimed ability, accept any protocol suggestions that can conceivably test for that supposed ability within the limits you describe. But every single time you've described your limits, people have come up with suitable protocols. Then what happened? You changed your definitions of the claim and/or the limits.

But it's likely that it will never happen because you clearly don't want it to happen. And why don't you want it to happen? Because then you'd pretty much have to admit what we already know, that you're a fraud.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you assume there is only likely to be one or two subjects with one kidney then the odds can be as little as 1 in 10.

I think this is a huge problem, and reason enough to abandon the "number of kidneys" approach. If I were taking the test, I would guess 2 kidneys for every subject. In all likelihood, I will get no more than 1 wrong. I could claim a 90% hit rate. Even if I agreed before the test that a success has to be all 10, you can bet I'd crow all over the interwebs that I was 90% accurate.

Heck that's better than Sylvia Browne claims, and she can't support her claims with ANY kind of evidence!

ETA: And the odds are skewed more in her favor by seeing the subjects (even if only their waists covered in a uniform t-shirt). If only one one-kidney person is in the subject pool (very likely), and that person is used more than once, it would only be a matter of recognizing that person.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think this is a huge problem, and reason enough to abandon the "number of kidneys" approach. If I were taking the test, I would guess 2 kidneys for every subject. In all likelihood, I will get no more than 1 wrong. I could claim a 90% hit rate. Even if I agreed before the test that a success has to be all 10, you can bet I'd crow all over the interwebs that I was 90% accurate.

That's a good point, which is one reason why many of immediately went for the multiple trials of 1 in 10.

Heck that's better than Sylvia Browne claims, and she can't support her claims with ANY kind of evidence!

If only somebody had closed the barn door before that horse got out.

ETA: And the odds are skewed more in her favor by seeing the subjects (even if only their waists covered in a uniform t-shirt). If only one one-kidney person is in the subject pool (very likely), and that person is used more than once, it would only be a matter of recognizing that person.

Anita knows this - she just likes to pretend that she doesn't by saying, "how can I know who is missing a kidney?" Nobody ever said she could "know" just looking, but there are plenty of things she could observe to increase her odds. So far she has resisted every attempt to level the playing field between herself and random chance.

ETA: Just a quick story. Years ago in the dial-up, ANSI BBS days, there was a poker game on the MajorBBS platform. The site I was on charged for "credits" which translated into time/privileges on-line. You could wager credits in this poker game. I noticed a subtle pattern in what should have been random draws of the cards. At first I just started having hunches for lack of a better term. When those started paying off, I had a better feel for what was going on. At no time did I actually try to intellectualize and/or quantify the pattern - I just knew roughly what the tendencies were. Being sane and humble, I never thought I had super powers - I was just doing what humans do naturally and very well: pick up on patterns.

It did not take me long to go from 200 credits in my account to literally hundreds of thousands of credits. It got so bad that I started giving away credits to friends because you could only have so many at once. At no time did I know for certain what card was going to come up next, but I was able to make a series of educated guesses that, were we to do the math, would leave random chance smoldering in a ditch. Later, they upgraded the poker game. It didn't take long at all to figure out that they had fixed the bug.

You could compare your scores to other people. I was one of a handful who actually noticed and took advantage of a subtle flaw in randomization. Anita's protocols have known flaws in randomization, so imagine what might happen.

 

[Chimera]

Anita, you're ignoring the fact that you were caught in (another) blatant lie.

Which of the following statements by you is true?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
Look, this isn't some kind of claim of X-ray vision that penetrates through steel,

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
"When I look at the air with my ability I see neon green nitrogen. I also see it in nitrogen gas tanks at the college chemistry department."

Which is it, VFF?

 

[Sun Countess]

1) I like the idea of adding a mannequin into the mix, as a possibly decoy from behind the screen.

2) Why would somebody lean against a cloth screen? Am I the only one who thinks VfF never actually tested her ability to see her visions when the subject is behind a screen? I mean, I've seen a few cloth screens in my day, and I always make sure not to lean against them, because they tend to fall over.

3) Since it's going to be difficult to advertise for one-kidney folk, would it be easier to design a protocol to detect some other medical condition? Pregnancy, maybe? If you can determine that a woman is having her period, surely you should be able to tell if there's an embryo inside her uterus. At the early stages of pregnancy, it should also be as easily viewed from the back. And burkhas could always be used.