The VFF Test is On!

[devnull]

Sorry if someone already said this, but a protocol is similar to a method of encryption - unless it remains secure after publishing the method, it isnt secure.

If you cant publish the protocol, it has serious problems, and you are relying on "security through obscurity". If you are afraid that some subjects may "give away" whether they have lost an organ because the protocol is published, then the "testee" has too much access to them already - you could probably get better than average results just by picking the people who look sicker.

Without seeing the protocol it is hard to comment further, but I hope that the subjects are covered in some way........ this smells really bad.

 

[SezMe]

SezMe, can you at least comment on the protocol as far as answering the question whether you think the protocol would be up to JREF MDC standards?

Uh-oh, this could be dicey. I can see me saying it is a good protocol and when it finally becomes public, you guys point out all the fatal flaws and I get to be a candidate for the Million Dollar Dofus Challenge.

Anyway, I did review it and sent some comments back to the IIG for their consideration. But since it has been formally signed off by the IIG and Ikonen, I think the horse is out of the barn.

I won't comment any more except to say that I don't think it would be up to JREF MDC standards. But that is the GOLD standard, right.

 

[pakeha]

This is reminding me more and more of the Derek Ogilvie testing as it goes along.
All the best to VFF and IIG.
As has been mentioned here, very few ever get even to this stage od preliminary testing and obviously we're all interested in that nothing upsets the apple-cart after so much time and effort.

Will there be live streaming?

 

[arthwollipot]

Guys, it's IIG's protocol, not yours. If they have decided to keep it under wraps, then they have every right to do so.

If VFF goes on to win the challenge, I'm sure that the protocol will be subjected to intense scrutiny. Until then, we trust them.

 

[Kariboo]

What's with you people? The IIG thinks it's a good idea to not publish the protocol, and so if I choose to agree with them I am criticized? Is your curiosity greater than your respect to protect the double blindness of the preliminary demonstration? Are you Skeptics, or nosy people?

It is not double blind if you already know the protocol.

 

[EHocking]

Guys, it's IIG's protocol, not yours. If they have decided to keep it under wraps, then they have every right to do so.

If VFF goes on to win the challenge, I'm sure that the protocol will be subjected to intense scrutiny. Until then, we trust them.

Problem is that there is a possibility that if the protocol is particularly flawed or lax that VfF might "win" by means other than VfF. Not cheating, but deriving clues etc.

Then she posts on her website,"TESTIMONIAL - SKEPTICS PROVE VISON FROM FEELING"

And the walks away from a tighter final test.

Win for her - $1,000 of international advertising for her medical scam, validated by a skeptical investigation group.

Just what she wants.

With THAT twist in mind, I would feel quite vulnerable if I was IIG and their protocol is that flawed. I also agree with others, a protocol that has to be kept private for fear of nullifying the double-blinding controls, seems to have some inherent flaws in it.

ETA: I can see the argument that not making the protocol available to test subjects may be a valid reason to keep it private.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Guys, it's IIG's protocol, not yours. If they have decided to keep it under wraps, then they have every right to do so.

If VFF goes on to win the challenge, I'm sure that the protocol will be subjected to intense scrutiny. Until then, we trust them.

Well, I agree with the first part, but not that last bit.

They can do as they like, they have the absolute right to keep the protocol secret -- and I *hope* they've set it up right. But I don't know them. Without knowing more, I cannot trust them. It isn't that I think they can't be trusted, it's just for something like this, trust is irrelevant.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I won't comment any more except to say that I don't think it would be up to JREF MDC standards. But that is the GOLD standard, right.

Thanks.

Though in my opinion a test like this is either valid or it's not. If it's not, then it's better not to do it at all, since no one will have to accept the results. If it's got flaws--problems with information leakage or the chance for her to use cold reading techniques, then there's no point in doing it at all.

Guys, it's IIG's protocol, not yours. If they have decided to keep it under wraps, then they have every right to do so.

If VFF goes on to win the challenge, I'm sure that the protocol will be subjected to intense scrutiny. Until then, we trust them.

And we have every right to complain about it.

From what I understand, she can't possibly go on to win the challenge based on this protocol. Apparently, the agreement is that if she passes the preliminary, they'll renegotiate a new protocol for the actual challenge. That tells me that the preliminary protocol isn't good enough.

Also, isn't the point of an objective test of such a claim to avoid the need for intense scrutiny after the fact?

Problem is that there is a possibility that if the protocol is particularly flawed or lax that VfF might "win" by means other than VfF. Not cheating, but deriving clues etc.

Then she posts on her website,"TESTIMONIAL - SKEPTICS PROVE VISON FROM FEELING"

And the walks away from a tighter final test.

Yup. That's exactly what's wrong with doing a half-assed test.

ETA: I can see the argument that not making the protocol available to test subjects may be a valid reason to keep it private.

I think the need to do so points out to a serious flaw in the protocol (it shouldn't matter what the subjects know if there is no chance of information leakage or cold reading techniques).

Also, the fact that both SezMe and Anita agree that the protocol would not be up to JREF MDC standards makes me a little suspicious that part of the reason it's being kept secret is to avoid a lot of criticism beforehand. Which means, all the criticism will come out afterwards, and the test will be worse than meaningless.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I won't comment any more except to say that I don't think it would be up to JREF MDC standards. But that is the GOLD standard, right.

I don't see a silver standard working too well.

Either the protocol is good enough to exclude other sources of information or it isn't -- it seems more pass/fail than gold-silver-bronze.

And a less-than rigorous test is worse than no test at all.

 

[Moochie]

What's with you people?

<snip>

Are you Skeptics, or nosy people?

Skepticism and nosiness go hand in nose.


M.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry if someone already said this, but a protocol is similar to a method of encryption - unless it remains secure after publishing the method, it isnt secure.

If you cant publish the protocol, it has serious problems, and you are relying on "security through obscurity". If you are afraid that some subjects may "give away" whether they have lost an organ because the protocol is published, then the "testee" has too much access to them already - you could probably get better than average results just by picking the people who look sicker.

Without seeing the protocol it is hard to comment further, but I hope that the subjects are covered in some way........ this smells really bad.

I missed this post earlier. Well said. That's exactly what I've been trying to say, but you put it much more eloquently.

And also ditto what NoZed sed---er said.

 

[SumDood]

In the old thread where you guys discussed potential protocols, what was the criteria for determining and proving which "testees" (he he) do and do not have missing organs?

 

[EHocking]

In the old thread where you guys discussed potential protocols, what was the criteria for determining and proving which "testees" (he he) do and do not have missing organs?

Medical records, such as XRays and/or valid records of surgery can be the only way to verify presence or absence of an organ. This would have to apply to both those missing organs and those not missing organs, since the results need to be self-evident and Anita, quite rightly, could protest that without such records neither "state" could verified, therefore her result could verified.

 

[SumDood]

Medical records, such as XRays and/or valid records of surgery can be the only way to verify presence or absence of an organ. This would have to apply to both those missing organs and those not missing organs, since the results need to be self-evident and Anita, quite rightly, could protest that without such records neither "state" could verified, therefore her result could verified.

I figured as much, but has she agreed to how it will be determined? If the testees say "I'm missing a kidney, here's an xray that says so", will that be sufficient proof for her? She could always say "no, that must not be an xray of you". And then when she goes to the hospital and sees all the testees get xrayed she could then say "the films must have gotten mixed up. this is wrong, i'm right". I'm assuming this has been discussed before in the previous thread and i'm wondering what the consensus was.

 

[SezMe]

It is not double blind if you already know the protocol.

This is just not true. A testing protocol establishes the procedures to be used. Thus, it HAS to be known to the applicant and the proctors, at a minimum. Knowing how a test is to be done is not equivalent to being able to game it.

 

[Akhenaten]

I figured as much, but has she agreed to how it will be determined? If the testees say "I'm missing a kidney, here's an xray that says so", will that be sufficient proof for her? She could always say "no, that must not be an xray of you". And then when she goes to the hospital and sees all the testees get xrayed she could then say "the films must have gotten mixed up. this is wrong, i'm right". I'm assuming this has been discussed before in the previous thread and I'm wondering what the consensus was.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is just not true. A testing protocol establishes the procedures to be used. Thus, it HAS to be known to the applicant and the proctors, at a minimum. Knowing how a test is to be done is not equivalent to being able to game it.

I agree.

And, if the protocol were well-designed, it shouldn't even matter that the subjects know the protocol. Again, I suspect an information leak that they're trying to plug up ("protect the integrity of the test") by keeping the protocol secret.

As Devnull's encryption analogy points out, that's not the right way to handle it.

 

[wardenclyffe]

While it would be cool if we could all read and dissect the protocol, I think Roger had a point when he brought up the Milgram Experiment. This is an example of a very effective protocol where prior knowledge of the protocol (by experiment subjects) would be very harmful to the experiment.

I know that if I were a subject for an experiment like this, I would go online and try to find out everything about it. For some reason, it seems as though the IIG does not want that to happen. This DOES suggest that the possibility of cold reading exists. For some, that will completely invalidate the exercise. I'm of an opinion that it's possible to minimize (without eliminating) the danger of successful cold reading.

You may recall that the IIG came under similar scrutiny when they were conducting a preliminary test for the MDC a few years ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38792

That test ended up working out.

I think that if she were doing tests on chemicals or if she were looking for cards in envelopes, like Connie Sonne, it would be easy for them to publish the protocol. Since VfF will be looking at human beings (one assumes), not playing cards, it seems reasonable that a little more secrecy might be in order.

Or, they could totally blow it. I doubt it, though. Please remember that when she did a test with members of the F.A.C.T. skeptics group in North Carolina, she came in 3rd out of 4 in accuracy. This was a cold reading exercise in which members of F.A.C.T. scored better than she did. She does not appear to be a very effective cold reader.

Some find the very idea of testing her to be repellent. I have no answer to those folks.

Ward

 

[pakeha]

...I know that if I were a subject for an experiment like this, I would go online and try to find out everything about it. For some reason, it seems as though the IIG does not want that to happen. This DOES suggest that the possibility of cold reading exists. For some, that will completely invalidate the exercise. I'm of an opinion that it's possible to minimize (without eliminating) the danger of successful cold reading. ...

Here's the youtube for the first part of mr Ogilvie's testing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziUN1jAm3Jg

Part two illustrates how well the man's gift functioned when allowed, in the third test, to give his undoubted talents for cold reading any scope whatsoever.

That said, I'm glad the test is very nearly upon us.
Is there any chance of live streaming?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Here's the youtube for the first part of mr Ogilvie's testing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziUN1jAm3Jg

I'm glad kidneys don't make me cry.