The VFF Test is On!

What are the odds saying "26 right" and having it be "26 left?" How do we interpret hitting the right person? Does it mean anything? If she is seeing, how is it that she missed the side? Is it no better than a random guess, this one happened to be the other one out of the 12 that was in the same person as the correct answer?

And, why?
 
Jeff Corey said:
True. But still, not very impressive for one who has superpowers. I found it interesting that she was preparing excuses during the setup for the final segment as, "I was tired after the first trial" (about 5:50 PM EST), and yet she got her only hit in the second trial.
But in the follow-up, she was really confident about the second trial.
Click to expand...

Actually, she was really confident about the second trial immediately after the second trial. They left the mics on during the intermission and she told Jim Underdown that she was really confident with that trial. It was the third trial she was least confident about. Immediately after she said something about her brain shutting down and just guessing.
 
Jeff Corey said:
P= about .19.
Click to expand...

In other words, slightly tighter odds than tossing a coin twice, and predicting the outcome correctly.

Or... not really significant at all.

To put it into stats 101 terms:

Ho = "There is nothing happening here" (P>0.05)
Ha = "There is something happening here that isn't adequately explained by random chance. Investigate further" (P<0.05)
 
Lisa Simpson said:
Actually, she was really confident about the second trial immediately after the second trial. They left the mics on during the intermission and she told Jim Underdown that she was really confident with that trial.
Click to expand...

Yep... but she also left two possibles even on that test.

Even if she *does* have powers, they certainly don't bear any relation to the way she has described them on this forum. I asked a question on the chatroom that was passed on - her quote that her visions come immediately and are always correct. Despite her wriggling, it's clear that that claim, at the very least, is blown out of the water.

The audience question about focussing on the hits was very telling. I wonder how she can square the fact that she "really, really" saw a gap where there was a kidney all along with her other claims?
 
volatile said:
I asked a question on the chatroom that was passed on - her quote that her visions come immediately and are always correct. Despite her wriggling, it's clear that that claim, at the very least, is blown out of the water.
Click to expand...

If and when she appears here again, I think we should throw that quote back at her over and over. If she wants attention, let's give it to her. ;)

The business about the question marks when she sometimes doesn't see a kidney when she looks for it belies the claim.

Further, it proves that she is fully aware that her claim is bunk.

If she could actually see inside a person clearly and immediately every time and never be wrong, there would be no question marks, and no need for 27 minutes, and so on. End of story. The claim is bunk, and she has know it's bunk all along.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
...and completely ignore it?
Click to expand...

Well... I will. I can't speak for everyone else, but I think it's not a bad idea. It's not as if Anita needs us to respond, anyway. She'll just keep yammering away, regardless. But. her ego has certainly been topped off enough tonight - and do we all want to listen to any more of "I really really did!"?

JoeTheJuggler said:
If and when she appears here again, I think we should throw that quote back at her over and over. If she wants attention, let's give it to her. :wink:
Click to expand...

ETA: I think Joe has the better idea.
 
Last edited:
Lisa Simpson said:
Actually, she was really confident about the second trial immediately after the second trial. They left the mics on during the intermission and she told Jim Underdown that she was really confident with that trial. It was the third trial she was least confident about. Immediately after she said something about her brain shutting down and just guessing.
Click to expand...

And that would matter if her claim was that she can sometimes get some notion (sometimes more visual and sometimes more tactile, and for some reason bare feet helps) and she can say when she's sure and when she's not so we ought only count those times she's confident.

But her claim was that she can immediately and always see inside a person's body to detect missing organs without fail.

And again, she wanted to make the subjects sit still for 30 minutes ("compromised" down to 27 minutes), so she cannot claim that fatigue was an excuse in the third round.
 
desertgal said:
Well... I will. I can't speak for everyone else, but I think it's not a bad idea. It's not as if Anita needs us to respond, anyway. She'll just keep yammering away, regardless. But. her ego has certainly been topped off enough tonight - and do we all want to listen to any more of "I really really did!"?
Click to expand...


My perceptions and my skeptical science student common sense are at odds here.


My SSSCS tells me that you are right, but my perceptions tell me that it will be impossible to resist the temptation to engage Anita upon her return.



ETA: It's not much of a windmill, Pancho, but it's the only one around.
 
Last edited:
Was it poor protocol design that allowed a 23% chance of a hit that too the layman *looks* much more unlikely? In fact, can someone talk me through how that % is arrived at?
 
Volatile, do you have that exact quote? I think we should just confront her with that over and over. Maybe she'll decide she doesn't want the attention after all.
 
Sun Countess said:
^^^This is why I would love to see a good cold reader do the test alongside Anita. I had a feeling she may be able to spot the non-blinded targets, but that it would be harder to pick which side was missing a kidney through cold reading alone. And I'm pretty sure she doesn't have any x-ray vision to help her make her guesses. ;)
Click to expand...

Yup. A guy in the audience says he used normal means (fidgeting seen from a distance) to get 2 right.

Terrible protocol.
 
Lisa Simpson said:
Actually, she was really confident about the second trial immediately after the second trial. They left the mics on during the intermission and she told Jim Underdown that she was really confident with that trial.
Click to expand...

That was the one that the audience member said was fidgeting most... She may well have picked up on that, not necessarily consciously. But what she said about confidence at any time has no bearing on the demonstration itself.
 
From the very first page of this thread:

VisionFromFeeling said:
<stuff about her previous tests and studies>

I was pleased to find that not only do the perceptions work if I see the person from behind, but that I would actually prefer that. I learned that I only need a few seconds to form and conclude on the perceptions. That the perceptions are not based on my thoughts or logic and are an entirely different process. That I do not use any interaction with the person, such as speaking or touching. But I also learned that I do need to see the person with my eyesight in order for the perceptions to form.

<self-promotion>
Click to expand...


Hmmm...
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yup. A guy in the audience says he used normal means (fidgeting seen from a distance) to get 2 right.

Terrible protocol.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, I wonder if the audience member was also "really really sure" about the second hit, where Anita felt most confident. Did that target fidget more than those in the first and third rounds?

eta: I see where dlorde noted the audience member said the 2nd target was the most fidgety. From there, it's 50/50 on whether the missing kidney is right or left.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom