The VFF Test is On!

[laca]

I am involving my confidence level into what I learn about the claim. I was confident that my answers in trial 1 and 3 were incorrect, and they were, and I was confident that my answer in trial 2 was correct, which it was.

Liar. No, you're not. You have stated repetedly that no matter what happens at the trial, you still detected Dr. Carlson's missing kidney. So there.

My investigation is not about verifying myself as a psychic. I already know, especially thanks to the IIG Preliminary, that what I do is not good enough to pass as some psychic ability. My objective has been to learn more about the experience I have that when I look at people I feel something, that then translates into health information.

There were several links in this thread to your specific personality disorder. Nothing more to add without you having checked out by a professional. Oh, and your objective hasn't been that, and I even doubt it is now, after the test.

I would like to expect the explanation to be very simple. Knowing that I need to see the person to initiate the perception, I would like to assume that I am using some automatic and subconscious cold reading skill of detecting visually accessible information that translates into health predictions. But it is not that simple after all, as it would not explain why I detected that Dr. Carlson is missing a kidney. Not having any prior reason to assume that a missing kidney might be an option, I would not have had any way of knowing how to translate any intentional or unintentional visual information from Dr. Carlson into it indicating a missing kidney. So the investigation goes on.

Maybe if you accepted that you only detected the kidney after he told you the investigation could stop. Occam's razor and all that.

I will arrange another test in which better screens will be used. Only the back areas of subjects will be visible, through a cut-out portion of an extensive screen. I have also identified two issues that I had with the Preliminary, that will both be eliminated from the next test. And no reason to get upset, people, all this is, is I am wanting to learn more about the experience. And if I am going to produce inaccurate results in that next test again, then all it does is further enhance that conclusion. And lead toward falsification of the claim. So be happy. If I can't do it, then any additional test will only confirm that I can't do it and will let me learn more about this.

So basically you've been lying when you stated that if you cannot pass this test there's no chance you could pass another one, more strict? What could you possibly learn from another, more strict test, which you will fail, even according to you, unless you still believe you have magical x-ray vision?

Prolly is just some cold reading skill. So then let me learn more about it. It's fascinating, because it's automatic, and involves felt shapes and images, and because I have been correct on things that I could never cold read myself to with conscious efforts and logical thinking skills. Sure, statistics would have allowed me to guess my way to some correct answers in the Preliminary, but the statistics of guessing that a kidney is missing, when you have no prior clue as to what might be the information you are looking for, is a little different.

I'd worry if I was seeing shapes and images out of nowhere and would seek help from a professional.

Oh, and if I would have had trial 2 incorrect, I would have falsified the claim just like that. Listen to what I say about trial 2, starting from 1 hour and 38 minutes into Part 1. The log of what I say can also be found at #1161. I almost regret that that didn't happen. It would have been all over for my investigation by now.

Unless, of course, if you knew you'd been wrong in the second trial too. Pathetic.

All it is is I want to learn more. So let me.

That's priceless, coming from you.

 

[laca]

Sorry, laca, but it's time to pay up.

Pay up? For what?

I refer you again to the Derek Ogilvie tests.
Especially the man's reactions after the third test. The one which permitted 'cold reading' and measured DO's brain activity whilst doing it.

I don't have to go there. Anita never acknowledged she's a failure, so it's irrelevant what some other person did.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, I know she admitted failing the test. What other choice did she have, except crying "cheat!"? That's not the same as admitting she's a failure. That would have happened if she were true to her word and admitting her claim is falsified. Which she explicitly denied.

I don't want to pick nits, but she's gotten people suckered into saying that the goal was to "falsify" her claim. It was up to her to prove that there was enough to the claim to warrant a *real* test with $50K on the line. For the umpteenth time she failed to demonstrate that there is anything worth investigating.

The claim has been false from Day One. There has never been anything to falsify. It has always been her burden to prove that there was even anything worth testing. I have told her this countless times.

It was over before it ever started. The only one who doesn't see it is her, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Akhenaten]

OK, I am trying to explain this to students and must make some demarcations that are not universally agreed upon. Maybe if can can get my book Critical Thinking For Frakin' Retards published there will be no problem. Maybe I can get the Bad ASStronomer to help.

That would be stunning.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippity>

All it is is I want to learn more. So let me.

I started here, and did pretty well for myself:

I=V/R​

Hope this helps.

 

[Tizzy]

Claimants, if you're lucky enough to get them to agree to be tested, almost always make excuses after failing even though they always agree up front that the protocol is adequate for them to demonstrate their abilities. It is simply not possible to develop a protocol that precludes excuses because when all else fails, they just say that there was cheating involved. This protocol was two years in the making and Anita repeatedly told us how "wonderful" it was.

According to her notes, Anita failed to detect a kidney in 6 locations. She had a 40% chance of being correct one time, and that's what happened. How in the world a somebody's hair distracted her so much that she could detect kidneys where none were, fail to find them when they were there, and at the same time being "100% accurate" in 30 other locations is beyond comprehension. No sane person should even entertain that objection.

You cannot convince a True Believer. That realization has to come from within. Playing into "but the tattoos distracted me" is pointless because next time it will be the halogen lights or the ventilation system or the cotton-polyester blend in the shirts.

It's over.

I am in agreement with the facts presented. The numbers don't lie. I am, however, not familiar enough with the history of this claim (the time or desire to read through thousands upon thousands of posts dating back two years is almost non-existent), but there is definite consistency in what members here (and others) are saying.

It doesn't seem to be over for Anita (post #1118), who has not come to any realizations (from what I gather you are talking about) regarding this perceived ability (please correct me if I have taken this out of context). It looks like the IIG test answered the question conclusively for many (for this claim being true or false), but Anita has already outlined some future protocols for a new test. I can understand why the IIG will not be involved, but why not JREF, FACT, etc.?

Trying to comprehend the logic of this all (post-IIG test) is not possible. Post #916 is a good example of how subjective this all is (which is where much of the difficulty originates from).

 

[Jeff Corey]

That would be stunning.

Rev. Spooner , innit?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Anita, you completely whiffed in your response to my post 935. I recast it as a pair of even more specific questions in post 1249, which I reproduce here:

Anita, which statement is a lie?

Before the test:

If I can't pass the Preliminary, there is no hope that I could pass a more elaborately and more strictly designed formal test, and I would be happy to conclude on the claim as falsified if I fail the Preliminary.

After the test:

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

Do you even recognize that these statements are contradictory?

(See post 935 for links back to the original posts.)
__________________

 

[Akhenaten]

Rev. Spooner , innit?

Off to the IIG meeting on his well-boiled icicle.

 

[Jonquill]

I am in agreement with the facts presented. The numbers don't lie. I am, however, not familiar enough with the history of this claim (the time or desire to read through thousands upon thousands of posts dating back two years is almost non-existent), but there is definite consistency in what members here (and others) are saying.

It doesn't seem to be over for Anita (post #1118), who has not come to any realizations (from what I gather you are talking about) regarding this perceived ability (please correct me if I have taken this out of context). It looks like the IIG test answered the question conclusively for many (for this claim being true or false), but Anita has already outlined some future protocols for a new test. I can understand why the IIG will not be involved, but why not JREF, FACT, etc.?

Trying to comprehend the logic of this all (post-IIG test) is not possible. Post #916 is a good example of how subjective this all is (which is where much of the difficulty originates from).

Another test would be a waste of time. All of us (except Anita) know that she has no magical powers, if she could do a quarter of the things that she seems to think she can she could prove it in about 5 minutes, it wouldn't need a test that has taken months to set up.
It seems that she could fail a dozen tests and still not be convinced of her total lack of paranormal powers.

If you can bear it you should try and read some more of her posts, they don't all make your brain bleed, some of them like the story about how she talked to George Washington are quite entertaining.

 

[Uncayimmy]

It doesn't seem to be over for Anita (post #1118), who has not come to any realizations (from what I gather you are talking about) regarding this perceived ability (please correct me if I have taken this out of context). It looks like the IIG test answered the question conclusively for many (for this claim being true or false), but Anita has already outlined some future protocols for a new test. I can understand why the IIG will not be involved, but why not JREF, FACT, etc.?

Before I answer, I throw it back to you: What is there to test?

The FACT group refused to do a formal test with her because her protocol was so ridiculous. They did allow her to read some individuals after meetings. She bombed. Of course, she doesn't think so, but her, ahem, interpretations of the readings differed from theirs.

The biggest bomb of all was when she did a reading of Dr. Carlson at a meeting. She had a form to complete with everything she observed. She did not write down that he was missing a kidney. After the reading, he revealed that he was, in fact, missing a kidney. Anita did not say a word. Two days later she sent him an e-mail claiming that she really did detect it, but she was too afraid of being wrong to write it down.

That was last winter/spring. From her first encounter two years ago with the IIG until this past July, she insisted that she would not be tested on missing organs. Suddenly she decided that she would, indeed, like to be tested on missing kidneys.

In the meantime she did a "survey" where she wrote down her observations of people in the mall. It was a joke, really. She claimed that "black people" have different body chemistries and tissues (she didn't mention different from what). This is nonsense.

She also involved a few FACT members in an unofficial study on the streets of Charlotte. The FACT group reviewed the data. Anita scored third out of four people (there were three controls reading people as well). The FACT group once again concluded there was nothing worth testing. Anita promised to share the raw data numerous times but never has.

You can read a more robust but still brief rundown of all the tests Anita Ikonen has already failed on my website.

Once you do, please explain why anyone should waste any more time with her?

 

[Tizzy]

Before I answer, I throw it back to you: What is there to test?

The FACT group refused to do a formal test with her because her protocol was so ridiculous. They did allow her to read some individuals after meetings. She bombed. Of course, she doesn't think so, but her, ahem, interpretations of the readings differed from theirs.

The biggest bomb of all was when she did a reading of Dr. Carlson at a meeting. She had a form to complete with everything she observed. She did not write down that he was missing a kidney. After the reading, he revealed that he was, in fact, missing a kidney. Anita did not say a word. Two days later she sent him an e-mail claiming that she really did detect it, but she was too afraid of being wrong to write it down.

That was last winter/spring. From her first encounter two years ago with the IIG until this past July, she insisted that she would not be tested on missing organs. Suddenly she decided that she would, indeed, like to be tested on missing kidneys.

In the meantime she did a "survey" where she wrote down her observations of people in the mall. It was a joke, really. She claimed that "black people" have different body chemistries and tissues (she didn't mention different from what). This is nonsense.

She also involved a few FACT members in an unofficial study on the streets of Charlotte. The FACT group reviewed the data. Anita scored third out of four people (there were three controls reading people as well). The FACT group once again concluded there was nothing worth testing. Anita promised to share the raw data numerous times but never has.

You can read a more robust but still brief rundown of all the tests (website removed as my post count is too low for links) has already failed on my website.

Once you do, please explain why anyone should waste any more time with her?

I haven't got the multi-quote feature down yet, so I'll try to respond as you have written.

For Anita, there's still something more to test regarding kidney detection. For me, there's nothing left to test. It was a failure. Statistically she would get all three control groups right if given enough chances (add in other variables and the odds can become better). I have a problem with that. For someone who is absolutely certain about their ability, it was a very poor showing. I would not, however, look away if another test did in fact happen, but I can see the novelty wearing off after so much time. I'm indifferent; it won't affect my life either way if another test happens. I really can't think of any vast changes in protocol; after the IIG test, I would be much more critical of any future test.

I was not aware of the FACT group's refusal based on protocol, but reading about what the IIG went through to do the preliminary test, I'm not very surprised. I am somewhat familiar with the Dr. Carlson incident. It's impossible to prove, but the IIG test results alone heavily discredit any missing kidney detection. Please don't take this as me believing it happened, either with Dr. Carlson, or the IIG. It's one of those "prove me wrong" scenarios with detecting missing kidneys consistently, with zero margin of error. The whole Dr. Carlson thing can be written off completely, in my opinion.

You have certainly invested a lot of time and effort into Anita. Without that, myself (and certainly others) would have many more questions. I appreciate the work you've put into this and for addressing my posts. It has been helpful in understanding many of the aspects I would have had to otherwise find via a staggering number of posts.

 

[Tizzy]

Another test would be a waste of time. All of us (except Anita) know that she has no magical powers, if she could do a quarter of the things that she seems to think she can she could prove it in about 5 minutes, it wouldn't need a test that has taken months to set up.
It seems that she could fail a dozen tests and still not be convinced of her total lack of paranormal powers.

If you can bear it you should try and read some more of her posts, they don't all make your brain bleed, some of them like the story about how she talked to George Washington are quite entertaining.

Part of the reason why we have to screen people so thoroughly in what I do is because everyone needs to trust everyone with their lives (with no question), not unlike conventional medicine. If even a quarter of the claims were made (forgetting for a moment the background checks would find these things out anyway, especially video of the IIG test) it would be grounds for termination unless the possibility of seeing a mental health professional existed (which is also part of the initial process, but this is assuming the person were already employed). If it happened during the screening process, the subject would likely be eliminated. No question. No second attempts. It's honestly about the same as showing up under the influence for the drug screening. If Anita thinks that this won't negatively impact a career in medicine (or anything involving being responsible for the lives of others), I'm afraid she is wrong. That isn't to say she can't become a doctor or won't find work in science or medicine, but this will eventually come full circle. I know this because I have seen this (and anyone can get independent verification from the US and/or Canada, I can even tell you how). I have not read the George Washington thing, but I did see the claim of being a reincarnation of a non-sentient mass of electron degenerate matter. That kind of caught my eye. I haven't spend much time on this and it has already brought out some serious concerns. I cannot force myself to read through nearly all of those posts (seriously, unless it was required of me). I apologize for this being somewhat off-topic from the IIG, but understanding the background (which UncaYimmy helped with) is rather key to understanding what's going on.

 

[GeeMack]

I would like to expect the explanation to be very simple.

Oh it is. It is. But for some reason you refuse to go have yourself properly analyzed by a competent mental health professional.

But it is not that simple after all, as it would not explain why I detected that Dr. Carlson is missing a kidney.

But you didn't know he had a kidney missing until he told you. Seems like a pretty easy call to everyone except you.

Prolly is just some cold reading skill.

I got the same correct answers you got. And I say you're wrong.

All it is is I want to learn more. So let me.

You could learn an awful lot more if you go get yourself thoroughly checked out with a mental health professional.

 

[GeeMack]

My contention is that it is not skilful at all. There has been nothing demonstrated to indicate special ability, skill, rare medical condition, or accomplishment of any sort.

Absolutely. I don't understand why anyone thinks there's anything special about the outcome of a child's guessing game. Did volatile and I use some well developed cold reading skills to make the same correct guesses as Anita? Like I said before, whenever everyone drops the notion that Anita has any special abilities that helped her get any correct answers, I'll tell you how I did it.

What makes it interesting is that despite the lack of any of the above, the claimant has clung so tightly to the belief.

Absolutely that, too. And another round of the silly game isn't going to determine that. But the woo claimant taking several trips to the appropriate mental health professional probably would.

 

[GeeMack]

It doesn't seem to be over for Anita (post #1118), who has not come to any realizations (from what I gather you are talking about) regarding this perceived ability (please correct me if I have taken this out of context). It looks like the IIG test answered the question conclusively for many (for this claim being true or false), but Anita has already outlined some future protocols for a new test. I can understand why the IIG will not be involved, but why not JREF, FACT, etc.?

Go read my Post #1265 for a pretty good idea why FACT or JREF or any other reputable organization won't bother with this particular huckster again. People, for the most part, don't like being treated like crap, and Anita has demonstrated a propensity for doing exactly that.

 

[Pup]

"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."

However, the implication is that she'll do it with the paranormal power that she claims to have, which is the ability to see through clothing and skin to the internal organs.

The miss in the third trial clearly demonstrated she wasn't able to do that, since she "saw" a kidney where there wasn't one and "saw" one where there was.

So if she's sometimes able to identify people who are missing kidneys, it's either due to chance, some mundane ability to notice fidgeting or other minor differences in people, or due to some unknown unidentified paranormal power that even she doesn't claim to have and isn't aware of.

In my opinion, and probably in the opinion of most of the posters here, it's one of the first two, and not the last. If you find the situation interesting enough to investigate, go for it. It's not particular interesting to me, since there are a lot of lucky and/or perceptive people in the world, including a few who were in the audience.

 

[scarlettinlondon]

Absolutely. I don't understand why anyone thinks there's anything special about the outcome of a child's guessing game. Did volatile and I use some well developed cold reading skills to make the same correct guesses as Anita? Like I said before, whenever everyone drops the notion that Anita has any special abilities that helped her get any correct answers, I'll tell you how I did it.

I don't believe that Anita has any special abililities, and I would LOVE to know how you did it!

 

[Sasha]

Trying to understand Anita's "reasoning" about the test results is enough to make one dizzy. By her standards, if she had gotten all three tests completely wrong, she would count herself even more extraordinary becuase then she'd say she knew all her answers were incorrect when she submitted them!

 

[Maia]

You could learn an awful lot more if you go get yourself thoroughly checked out with a mental health professional.

Yes, I have to agree with GeeMack on that point. I'd like to add that all of the information about the different levels of hot, warm, and cold reading has been absolutely fascinating. It's made me realize that a big part of my social work training (and yes, psych social workers actually do the largest part of the mental health work in America, mostly because we're cheaper) is kind of about learning how to deliberately avoid cold reading. When I guess you could say that I've learned and practiced how to do "warm reading" and I get all the info about clients that I'd ever need to do "hot reading", not doing "cold reading" is at least as hard as doing it. But it's the only ethical way to do mental health work. And I think that Anita could benefit from consulting a professional so much. This isn't meant to be cruel or judgmental, either.

The link to the story about the test is really good, and it's obviously a lot shorter than watching the video would have been. But really, the comments about her weight were not only mean, but uncalled for. I think she just shouldn't have worn all white and would have looked much better in a darker color.