jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Aren't these new avatars spiffy?
The VFF Test is On!
- Thread starter SezMe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen iig
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Oh, then you are comfortable about treating hundreds of people like crap? Really? I mean, seriously you can spit on all the people who helped you with your IIG show and not be uncomfortable with that? Seriously?
When you're having that nice long chat with that qualified mental health professional, please make a point of telling him/her that you can crap on dozens upon dozens of people and not be uncomfortable with it. Tell him/her how you feel about using all those people to make your show happen, then ask him/her to explain psychopathic personality disorder. Seriously.
Well only because I wasn't there, but then of course you didn't guess it, either. He told you. There's only one person in this world who doesn't realize your Dr. Carlson story is a lie. But what concern are my medical perceptions to you anyway? This isn't about me, is it? It's about you. It's always been about you. Even though I got exactly the same score as you on the IIG show, and I knew exactly the same as you which ones I got right and wrong. I am as good as you are at this stuff, Anita. Better. I know more tricks. I'm right more often. I've been doing it since before you were born. And I don't ever have to treat anyone like crap to make it work.
You can't possibly understand love, not like a normal emotionally healthy person would, not if you can treat everyone who tries to help you like crap and feel no discomfort.
Now how about that announcement that you were going to make about how your claims have been duly and completely falsified. You get that prepared yet? Will you post it here or on your site or on UncaYimmy's site?
And how about that apology to all those decent people who helped you and who you eventually spit on? No thanks, no appreciation, no honesty, no scientific integrity, no holding up your end of a good faith agreement? How about a great big sincere thank-you and a long overdue apology. Then you publicly admit that you're wrong, go see a mental health professional, and start to get yourself back together after your dismal failure in the IIG show.
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
Welcome to the forum Lex!
Excellent idea.
ETA: Can anyone recommend a freeware version of Tetris suitable for Vista? I haven't played it in years and seeing that Space Invaders graphic got the old gnarly fingers a-twitching again.
M.
Last edited:
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
This thread is about VisionFromFeeling and her test - nothing else. Please stop the bickering and medical/mental comments & diagnoses (unless specific to the test).
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Locknar
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
No one here is going to believe that, no matter how many times you repeat it.
No one here is going to believe that, no matter how many times you repeat it.
So...go have another test. No one is stopping you.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
So, you were 100% sure you were wrong... And the opposite of this would be ... ?
Uh, huhhh ...
Attachments
lexvonrockets
Student
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 36
bookitty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 5,732
Let's just say that VFF really, really, really did see Dr. Carlson's supposedly missing kidney. Who cares? Even if she did have a vision that aligned with the facts she learned later, it does not matter. That particular event can not be replicated in a controlled setting. It is just an odd occurrence that show how quirky the human brain can be.
There is no need to discuss whether it happened or not. A certain observation may lead to an experiment, but that observation is merely anecdotal and carries no weight. Since VFF is a failed kidneyspotter, it is not significant.
Ditto, the "I know when I am right/wrong." It doesn't take any special powers to announce that you are failing at something you can not do. Nor to recognize that your warm reading* has something to go by and gently suggest that you might be correct. "I feel good about this!" is not a definite statement.
* Many thanks to those who clarified this.
There is no need to discuss whether it happened or not. A certain observation may lead to an experiment, but that observation is merely anecdotal and carries no weight. Since VFF is a failed kidneyspotter, it is not significant.
Ditto, the "I know when I am right/wrong." It doesn't take any special powers to announce that you are failing at something you can not do. Nor to recognize that your warm reading* has something to go by and gently suggest that you might be correct. "I feel good about this!" is not a definite statement.
* Many thanks to those who clarified this.
I've already thanked the IIG elsewhere but I want to reiterate those thanks here; to the IIG and to derekcbart and SezMe and wardenclyffe and bookitty, and everyone else. Thank you for being so generous with your time and effort for so little reward.
devnull
Philosopher
You know, there's a point where you all have to stop obsessing over someone who claims crazy stuff, and realise that you are feeding mental illness.
There's a point where *you* have to realize that if you "starve" a mental illness, it's still not going to go away. It's a medical condition, not a reaction to our behavior. It existed long before she encountered any of us and will exist long after we're another false memory.
If she's claiming "crazy stuff" in regards to the test, I think people ought to address it. We've clearly seen that some members here, especially new ones, don't know the history, so there's some repetition that might seem like obsession, but it's not. We're evaluating the test and her reactions to it in context with all of her other actions so that we can finally put this baby to bed.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
That's a good point. I don't want to get too far OT, but there are certainly things, patterns of behaviour, thought processes etc. that seem to be emerging here. To the casual observer like myself, if they weren't mentioned, I might be inclined to think differently.
Someone mentioned this, and I noted it as well, her (VFF) seems to be getting more and more assured that she actually accomplished more than she really did. If this was something new I would be inclined to believe people here are being, I think I know where this comes from now, "meanies".
Instead, the people more familiar with VFF have put this into context by noting this is a typical response from her. That being the case, the more experienced ones aren't feeding some mental illness, they're simply identifying her delusion.
It could be argued that ignoring her, and letting her go and spread more falsehoods to other unsuspecting inquisitors would be facilitating her...not so normal way of thinking.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I won't comment on the effect of what is said to Anita herself, but I have to agree with 3bodyproblem that some insights are needed to help newcomers, and brief comments on Anita's approach to everything she does add important context to discussions of the IIG test.
I've seen a lot of eyes opened in this thread, and it's pleasing in most ways. Sad obviously to see that even the test has changed little for Anita herself.
I wanted to speak ever so briefly about the Meanie thing.
It's an epithet that was directed AT us because, according to Vision from Feeling, our attempts to construct meaningful trials and tests were labelled as obstructionist and mean. I hope it's being borne out that this was not the case, and that others are also finding themselves to be labelled meanies for their valid and reasonable analyses of the IIG test results.
I'm somewhat surprised that the IIG itself hasn't been meanified yet, although I note individual members don't share this temporary immunity.
I've seen a lot of eyes opened in this thread, and it's pleasing in most ways. Sad obviously to see that even the test has changed little for Anita herself.
I wanted to speak ever so briefly about the Meanie thing.
It's an epithet that was directed AT us because, according to Vision from Feeling, our attempts to construct meaningful trials and tests were labelled as obstructionist and mean. I hope it's being borne out that this was not the case, and that others are also finding themselves to be labelled meanies for their valid and reasonable analyses of the IIG test results.
I'm somewhat surprised that the IIG itself hasn't been meanified yet, although I note individual members don't share this temporary immunity.
Assuming the information posted by Drs_Res is accurate for all of the rounds, the Stop Vision from Feeling contingent managed a total of nine hits in 40 attempts (22.5%) at identifying the three subjects out of 18 (16.7%) in the test who were missing a kidney. Anita, on the other hand, recorded two out of three hits (66.7%) in that same endeavor. Further, the SVFF contingent batting average was bolstered by the fact that McLuvin and Gee Mack made the exact same picks (subject and kidney) in each round, and -- like Anita -- each were credited with two hits out of three subjects. However, the odds that McLuvin and Gee Mack would have independently made the exact same picks are slim. So, if we count only the SVFF subject picks that appear to be independent, we get seven hits in 37 attempts (18.9%) -- pretty much what you would expect by chance.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
All of this debate over Anita and the IIG demonstration may be moot due to the quote below.
I do not know you very well, and I have not been here while you were at your best as a Forum Skeptic, but I wish you all the best and may you recover anything that was lost!
And, in case any of the mean woos' curses had anything to do with this, as some of them claim, here's one other woo who happens to be a nice one and hereby cancels any of their ill intent!
Hugs and blessings, Mr. Lancaster, whether your skepticism permits belief in those things or not.
Since Locknar is the one in the middle, you can be the one on the far right. Always room for more of my favorite Skeptics.
Last edited:
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
You keep saying this and you remain wrong. Even Anita is admitting that she failed the third trial. Why do you continue to claim for her a "power" that she denies herself?
Norm
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Rodney? I ask because you seem to still be grossly misunderstanding the protocol. Just a bit of helpful advice here. You might be able to take a remedial reading course there at your high school. Ask your principal about it. But in the meantime, here's how it came out...
Anita only scored one correct answer. That's not 66.7%. It's a 100% failure according to the requirements specified in the protocol. There was no credit for picking a person without a kidney but missing the guess on the correct kidney.
Of course the possibility exists that you're being intentionally ignorant, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll go with you having a reading problem. So here, once more, in language that a typical fifth grade child would understand: The protocol didn't make any allowance for picking a person missing a kidney but failing to guess the correct kidney. Anita made one correct guess and failed the demonstration 100%.
Maia
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,259
I still don't understand how any of this would make sense even if Anita did get credit for picking the right person and the wrong kidney. What on earth does Rodney mean by saying that McLuvin and GeeMack somehow didn't have "independent" picks? Where did the 66.7% figure come from, no matter how the results are interpreted? I just don't think that Rodney is going to be satisfied until he understands why even giving Anita credit for getting the person right and the kidney wrong would still not make the results into anything special.
Anyway, I do like Anita's hug icon...
Last edited: