The VFF Test is On!

[JoeTheJuggler]

True, but the fact is that she identified two of the three people (of a total of 18) who were missing a kidney. The odds of identifying at least two of the three is 7.4%. The odds of doing what she claimed, on the other hand, was 0.06% (1 in 1728). But the focus should really be on her getting the two out of three correct. On average, a person without paranormal ability or non-paranormal clues would get none of the three people correct about 58% of the time and one of the three people correct about 35% of the time. So, do you think that she got two of three people correct because she was lucky or because she had non-paranormal clues? If the latter, what specifically?

Please read the thread. I have addressed this several times. It was a pretty bad protocol. It allowed for plenty of information leakage and the slight bias of missing left kidneys generally isn't considered in the calculation of probabilities. Also, the entire way it was done doesn't at all agree with her claimed ability (primarily making these people sit there for such a long time while she did a process of looking repeatedly and jotting down an X every time she thinks she saw a kidney on that side of that person and a ? every time she failed to see one and then doing some kind of tallying up of that to come up with her final answer).

To your point of the odds against the results she did get: there was only one result that is in any way significant. She agreed to this ahead of time. Again, I will quote from the protocol (my bolding):

The Applicant claims to be able to detect which Subject in a group of six Subjects is missing a kidney, to further identify which kidney (left or right) is missing in her selected Subject, and to be able to do this with 100% accuracy in three consecutive trials.

For this Preliminary Demonstration to be considered successful, the Applicant must correctly identify which Subject from each trial group of six was in fact missing a kidney and correctly identify which kidney (left or right) was missing.

And from VFF's website:

If I fail the Preliminary, it concludes that there is no paranormal or extrasensory ability involved.

and

I feel really good about the test I am about to have, but most importantly of all, I know that it is the best type of test design for my claim of medical perceptions and I can never expect to be able to design a test that would be any easier for me to pass. Therefore the results of the paranormal test will conclude on the claim, and if I fail the test I will be proud to announce that the claim of medical perceptions through extrasensory perception is falsified.

and

That is what the test is for. If I succeed in the test, there will be formal evidence, and if I fail I will know that the medical perceptions are not what they have seemed to be.

Those three are from her paranormaltest.html page.
and

The IIG asks me to travel to Hollywood to have a Preliminary test with them, and if I pass that test I am eligible for the formal test. If I fail the Preliminary test I announce my claim as falsified, but may re-apply for another test with the IIG after another year has passed, but I don't see why I would need to.

That one is from her testprotocol.html page.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Anita can see missing kidneys better than any other thing she's ever claimed, so much so that she has completely disavowed every other paranormal claim she ever made and stands on the kidney seeing thing as her one and only singular ability. She was insistent that seeing Dr. Carlson's kidney missing was her most vivid, most certain, most convincing vision ever. A one-off, which she didn't even think to mention until after the man told her he was missing a kidney, was her basis for this entire piece of performance art.

Yup. Also, see the quote I just posted from her site where she said that she cannot imagine any possible test that would be any easier than this one to demonstrate her claim.

So, hopefully she'll revise her website to be a cautionary tale of what happens when you don't use critical thinking skills on an issue like this. (Really, many of us suggested over and over ways that she could test herself, but she refused.)

I don't expect she'll do that. As I've been saying, the entire procedure she used (the multiple "looking" and the Xs and ?s on her note paper) shows that her claim was false and she knew it all along.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry to keep stacking on here, but. . . .

True, but the fact is that she identified two of the three people (of a total of 18) who were missing a kidney.

The test was not to identify which person was missing a kidney. She claimed the ability to see the actual organs. So you can think of it as each round having 12 kidney slots, and her task was to identify which slot was devoid of a kidney.

Getting the person correct but the side wrong is exactly the same as just getting it wrong (that is, picking the wrong slot out of the 12 possible slots). She did NOT see a kidney on one side and an empty place on the other side of that subject. And that's the claim that was being tested.

 

[roger]

No. There were 36 separate judgments, each with a p=.0833, and 1 hit..

No, the number of subjects is irrelevant. There could be 1000 people per trial, but reasonable ways to exclude people, such that the probability of getting the right answer was p=.0833. Also, there were not 36 separate judgments. They were not independent. She knew that in each trial there was one, and only one kidney missing.

Empirical proof: The following code prints out roughly 0.23 any time it is run.

int RangedRand(int range_min, int range_max)
{
   return (double)rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1) * (range_max - range_min + 1)
      + range_min;
}


int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
   srand ((unsigned)time(0));
   int successes = 0;

   for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
      int hit = 0;
      for (int trial = 1; trial <= 3; trial++)
         if (RangedRand(1, 12) == 1)
            hit++;
      if (hit > 0)
         ++successes;

   }
   double p = successes / 1000000.0;
   cout << p;


    return 0;
}

 

[ynot]

I haven’t taken part in this thread before but I watched the demonstration/test and here’s my two cents worth . . .

I think it’s great that Anita undertook the test/demonstration and I think she did so with aplomb and reasonable cooperation. I wish more people that claim to have paranormal abilities would do the same. Of course she obviously failed and of course she will only be able to see success in her failure. After all that’s what believers do and that’s why they have their beliefs.

I’m more disappointed with the way the test/demonstration was designed rather than that a believer hasn’t become a sceptic. Of course I don’t know how much Anita had to do with the designing of the test. If the claim is that she can externally “see” peoples kidneys (and lack of) I think a better test would have been to get a suitable number of people standing back-on in a line behind a screen with only the clothed, midsection of their bodies exposed (where their kidneys are). Either all, none or some of the people would have missing kidneys. Anita would have an suitable amount of time to say which people if any had missing kidneys and from which side they were missing.

I was equally disappointed with the design of the Connie Sonne test/demonstration as it seemed to have more to do with showmanship and entertainment than anything. Why weren’t the cards simply shuffled and spread facedown on a table or the floor for Connie to dowse? When she “identified” a card Connie should have simply turned the card over to see if it was correct. With heaps of people and cameras watching I don’t think it would have been possible for her to have palmed a card.

My two cents is spent.

 

[chillzero]

The protocol is very clear. Three trials, 6 Subjects per trial. One Subject in each trial missing a kidney, status (LF or RT) not specified.

Nonsense - read the protocol and stop being silly.

The protocol (found here) specifies...

Five of the Subjects will have two kidneys. One Subject (the Target) in the group of six will have only one kidney.​

alleracsum is not being silly. Five out of each six have two kidneys to the best of their knowledge. None of them were given any scan before the trial, and only those identified (by her or by being the Target) were scanned after. There could have been more, but we may never know.

 

[chillzero]

I think it’s great that Anita undertook the test/demonstration and I think she did so with aplomb and reasonable cooperation. I wish more people that claim to have paranormal abilities would do the same. Of course she obviously failed and of course she will only be able to see success in her failure. After all that’s what believers do and that’s why they have their beliefs.

I’m more disappointed with the way the test/demonstration was designed rather than that a believer hasn’t become a sceptic.

I'd prefer to leave a little timefor this to all sink in, and for her to review the video and read this thread before making assertions about what she'll think. I think she would do herself amazinng credit by admitting she has been mistaken, and reviewing her view of what skepticism is.

I'm not saying I'm holding my breath for a conversion, however, I personally didn't even get as far as taking part in any testor demonstration and I know that realising a belief is seriously flawed can actually happen. Let's just see.

 

[John Mayer]

Occam's razor is best stated as simply "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily.". What that means is not that the simplest theory is likely to be the best, but that the one that makes the least assumptions is likely to be best.

Thanks for this aside. I never did understand what that business about "multiplying entities" was all about. Your explanation goes a long way toward making it clearer for me.

 

[Anthem]

A bit late, but none the less: props for the IIG and Anita to get herself tested, it would have been nice to have seen it done within the alotted time.

Taking in account the test, the aftermath, her site and the multiple threads over here (lurking since she arrived) I find it a real pity she invests and probably keeps investing in something that elusive, if she was/is indeed a promising student...

My favorite of the whole set-up: I liked the Sonography very much, no fuss and results within seconds, the operator even spotted a bit of left/scar-tissue where the kidney was removed within the elder lady. (group 3).
(I only know a sonography for checking upon a pregnancy, but it's logical it could be used to check upon something like a kidney as well.)

 

[Rodney]

To your point of the odds against the results she did get: there was only one result that is in any way significant.

By your logic, if Anita had correctly identified all three of the individuals that were missing a kidney and identified the left or right side correctly two of the three times, that result would be no different than her failing to identify any of the three individuals that were missing a kidney. To be sure, she still would have "failed" the agreed-to protocol even under the first scenario, but the outcomes are very different.

Now, to the extent that the test allowed for her to discern who was missing a kidney through non-paranormal means, that's a serious problem. One obvious way to have evaluated this possibility would have been to request that all members of the audience make their own guesses as to who in each of the three test groups was missing a kidney. To the extent that the average member of the audience did as well as Anita, her performance could have been discounted. However, to the extent that 90% of the audience got either one or none of the individuals right, that would have indicated that, at the least, she got rather lucky in the test.

 

[Moochie]

By your logic, if Anita had correctly identified all three of the individuals that were missing a kidney and identified the left or right side correctly two of the three times, that result would be no different than her failing to identify any of the three individuals that were missing a kidney. To be sure, she still would have "failed" the agreed-to protocol even under the first scenario, but the outcomes are very different.

Now, to the extent that the test allowed for her to discern who was missing a kidney through non-paranormal means, that's a serious problem. One obvious way to have evaluated this possibility would have been to request that all members of the audience make their own guesses as to who in each of the three test groups was missing a kidney. To the extent that the average member of the audience did as well as Anita, her performance could have been discounted. However, to the extent that 90% of the audience got either one or none of the individuals right, that would have indicated that, at the least, she got rather lucky in the test.

What we call "an educated guess" up around my way.


M.

 

[GeeMack]

By your logic, if Anita had correctly identified all three of the individuals that were missing a kidney and identified the left or right side correctly two of the three times, that result would be no different than her failing to identify any of the three individuals that were missing a kidney. To be sure, she still would have "failed" the agreed-to protocol even under the first scenario, but the outcomes are very different.

Now, to the extent that the test allowed for her to discern who was missing a kidney through non-paranormal means, that's a serious problem. One obvious way to have evaluated this possibility would have been to request that all members of the audience make their own guesses as to who in each of the three test groups was missing a kidney. To the extent that the average member of the audience did as well as Anita, her performance could have been discounted. However, to the extent that 90% of the audience got either one or none of the individuals right, that would have indicated that, at the least, she got rather lucky in the test.

But of course Anita claimed to be able to see a missing kidney clear as day, almost instantly, right through a person's clothes and flesh and any other bodily obstructions (but not a light cotton drape hung inches away from the subject). Never ever been wrong, not once, successful every single time. From her many descriptions of her magical powers it should have been as easy as if she had twelve empty beer mugs on the table in front of her and eleven of them had a golf ball in them. Fully lit room, clear glass mugs, no blindfolds, nothing. Pick the mug without the golf ball.

Regardless of the protocol set up for the IIG Show, if Anita didn't make a correct yes/no call on every single kidney, 100%, no misses, she failed to meet her own description of her actual claim.

 

[Marcus]

Anita

Okay Anita, it's time. Are you going to post your announcement now that your claim has been falsified? Without excuses? If you do so, I promise you will impress some of us.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By your logic, if Anita had correctly identified all three of the individuals that were missing a kidney and identified the left or right side correctly two of the three times, that result would be no different than her failing to identify any of the three individuals that were missing a kidney. To be sure, she still would have "failed" the agreed-to protocol even under the first scenario, but the outcomes are very different.

Yes, a failure is a failure. An "almost significant" result is not a significant result.

And, as I said above, choosing the correct person but the wrong side disproves her claim just as much as choosing the wrong person altogether. There is no "half-right" guess in this set up.

She claims the ability to see internal organs, not that she can simply detect a person who is missing an organ without seeing which one it is.

So why do you think it would matter if she picked the correct person all 3 times but got the side wrong? Even if she got just one left/right guess wrong, it would disprove her claim.

I have objected to this test protocol because it had room for all sorts of information leakage. About the only thing that redeems it is the fact that it specified 100% correct to be considered a successful demonstration of her claim.

You can't change that standard after the fact.

 

[GeeMack]

I have objected to this test protocol because it had room for all sorts of information leakage. About the only thing that redeems it is the fact that it specified 100% correct to be considered a successful demonstration of her claim.

You can't change that standard after the fact.

Oh, but if you have magical x-ray vision you can. You just wait. You'll see.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

alleracsum is not being silly. Five out of each six have two kidneys to the best of their knowledge. None of them were given any scan before the trial, and only those identified (by her or by being the Target) were scanned after. There could have been more, but we may never know.

That wasn't in the protocol. The protocol stated that 5 subjects in each group have both kidneys. Since there was nothing else in the protocol about how the subjects were chosen and assigned to groups, as written, it would require that 5 people in each group actually had both kidneys. If there were two missing kidneys, it would certainly change the probability of her guessing correctly.

But then again, it wouldn't surprise me that this point was ignored (and as you say that there was actually a chance for more than 1 missing kidney in each group). Similarly, most of the controls meant to prevent cueing (the standard hat/head coverings, identical t-shirts, being allowed to rest against the chair backs) were not part of the protocol.

 

[Kariboo]

By your logic, if Anita had correctly identified all three of the individuals that were missing a kidney and identified the left or right side correctly two of the three times, that result would be no different than her failing to identify any of the three individuals that were missing a kidney. To be sure, she still would have "failed" the agreed-to protocol even under the first scenario, but the outcomes are very different.

The odds of that would have been smaller but still not significant. The only outcome that was decidedly agreed upon to be significant was to get all 3 of them right.

One obvious way to have evaluated this possibility would have been to request that all members of the audience make their own guesses as to who in each of the three test groups was missing a kidney.

They did this and I assume the results of that will be posted later

 

[Rodney]

Regardless of the protocol set up for the IIG Show, if Anita didn't make a correct yes/no call on every single kidney, 100%, no misses, she failed to meet her own description of her actual claim.

Agreed, but aren't you more interested in knowing whether she has any paranormal ability to determine whether a person is missing a kidney than you are in whether she can do so perfectly?

 

[Rodney]

They did this and I assume the results of that will be posted later

Thanks. That will be very instructive as to whether Anita did anything out of the ordinary by correctly identifying 2 of the three people in the test who were missing kidneys.

 

[Paul2]

Agreed, but aren't you more interested in knowing whether she has any paranormal ability to determine whether a person is missing a kidney than you are in whether she can do so perfectly?

If the test is to determine which person is missing a kidney, and not on which side of which person she can't see a kidney, then the test protocol, particularly the number of subjects, trials, etc., would likely have been very different, especially in order to make sure that the chances of success by pure luck would be ruled out.

A test designed to determine one thing may not be proper to determine another thing.