The VFF Test is On!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Interestingly, as I was feeling the emptiness inside subject 36, logic was telling me that it surely couldn't be this person, because it would be too obvious since she is older than the others, and perhaps she was among the subjects to try to trick me. I was trying to not pick her, because of her age.

This is the same point I've been making about her Xs and ?s process. This method is in complete contradiction to her claimed ability. (As others have said, this is just playing the percentages--cold reading.)

This not only proves that Anita's claim is false, it also proves that she's fully aware that she's not and never has done what she claims, and that she's a conscious fraud.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Correction: VfF did not contact the subject by PM. Her PM was to bookitty, inquiring whether her friend would be interested in having Anita examine him. It was particularly distasteful on Anita's part, since the fellow was, at the time, in the hospital with critical injuries, but, to be clear, she had no prior contact directly with that subject.

Ah--I stand corrected.

At any rate, I stand by my conclusion--the only way we'll know whether this information leakage is why VFF picked him in that round is dependent on her credibility. Since she has none, we can only suspect the worst.

And it was huge flaw in the protocol not to say how subjects were found and assigned to groups.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is the same point I've been making about her Xs and ?s process. This method is in complete contradiction to her claimed ability. (As others have said, this is just playing the percentages--cold reading.)

This not only proves that Anita's claim is false, it also proves that she's fully aware that she's not and never has done what she claims, and that she's a conscious fraud.

I don't think she realizes the consequences of what she says. If it was a conscious effort I reckon she would have a better story.

 

[desertgal]

<snip> I would like to do one more thing here though. I would like to post the protocol for the next test here and ask you to identify any issues that you see with it beforehand.

Gee, what happened to:

(in the same post as the above, no less) I will arrange to have another test and thanks to bookitty you will only find out about it after it has taken place.

None of you Forum Skeptics will have anything to do with my next test. I won't even announce when it is taking place, until it has happened and is over.

It is not a mental illness to genuinely feel something that corresponds to health information in people.

No, but it could be mental illness for someone to believe that they genuinely feel something that corresponds to health information in people when they actually don't-and that would be you.

It would be, if I were to assume those perceptions to be real each time, or if I were to try to convince others that what I feel is true.

You do assume your perceptions are real - you've made that abundantly clear time and time again. See, you can't use the term "I really, really did!" without the word 'real' in it.

And you do try to convince people that what you feel is true. That is all that you have done since you have been here.

I have had interesting accuracy...

No. You haven't. Turning misses into hits is not "interesting accuracy". It might be interesting to you, but it most decidedly isn't accurate.

...and it is not a mental illness to want to investigate that further.

Investigating something that isn't real could clearly be a sign of mental illness.

 

[Pup]

bookitty, thank you so much for volunteering yourself and your friend for my IIG test. But you have just disqualified the test results and kind of ruined it. You knew that this would be an issue beforehand, I highly doubt that this is an issue you would have identified only after the test had taken place. Still, you willingly signed yourself up and your friend, and knowingly ruined my test.

I paid close to $1,000 to arrange the whole thing. How could you?

That would only be an issue if you'd identified all three subjects correctly and passed the test. Yes, then, you might have some cause for complaint, since there might be a question whether the results were actually as good as they seemed.

Since you failed the test, the point turns out to be moot.

You will always disqualify my one good answer, that was based on my perceptions.

I thought the goal was not to get one good answer, but to get enough good answers that they had significance beyond mere chance.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think she realizes the consequences of what she says. If it was a conscious effort I reckon she would have a better story.

You got me (as did UY last time I said this). I should modify my conclusion to: either she is a conscious fraud or she has some serious cognitive deficit.

And if we look at the history of people making these kinds of claims, they're noted for making inconsistent and illogical statements in an attempt to keep belief in their claims alive despite contrary evidence.

She is nothing new or interesting or special at all.

 

[Moochie]

This is all so terribly, deeply saddening.


M.

 

[Maia]

Originally Posted by desertgal
Correction: VfF did not contact the subject by PM. Her PM was to bookitty, inquiring whether her friend would be interested in having Anita examine him. It was particularly distasteful on Anita's part, since the fellow was, at the time, in the hospital with critical injuries, but, to be clear, she had no prior contact directly with that subject.

Without knowing every last detail of the entire story, it's difficult to say, but personally, I think that this actually may make the result look even worse. If Anita knew that the friend was in the hospital with critical injuries, then there's something about it which seems sneaky on her part, I'm sorry to say. It seems to me that she might have thought about exactly how bad it would look if she could be linked to PM'ing the subject himself and instead covered her tracks by contacting bookitty directly. The snowball technique isn't a very good method of coming up with subjects for a study anyway, but in this case, it was just awful. Still, I can't blame bookitty from anything that we know. The protocol of the test was what it was. I'm sorry to say that I'm starting to seriously wonder if Anita planned to take advantage of that all along. I definitely don't think this is a case of inaccurate memory.

There wasn't anything about this that really seemed deceitful to me until these details started to come out. It's possible to be honestly mistaken about your own abilities and it's possible to fool yourself, but I'm beginning to think that's not really what's going on here. I would have been willing to agree with the idea that Anita can set up additional tests on her own account if she wants to, no matter how pointless it is-- it's a free country, at least as far as spending your own money is concerned--but for the first time, I do not believe that she should. She is dragging in too many people who don't deserve to be blamed for their part in this mess.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The claim was falsified by the test, it is not up to you to decide it wasn't.

That's incorrect. The "claim" is false from the very start because she says she can do something no other human has ever demonstrated using means completely unknown to science. There is nothing to "falsify". It is up to her to demonstrate that something is happening that's worth investigating. She has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that informally or formally.

Please don't fall into the trap of using her "falsify" terminology because it lends an air of legitimacy that is undeserved. She's simply unwilling to let go of her fantasies.

 

[desertgal]

You got me (as did UY last time I said this). I should modify my conclusion to: either she is a conscious fraud or she has some serious cognitive deficit.

And if we look at the history of people making these kinds of claims, they're noted for making inconsistent and illogical statements in an attempt to keep belief in their claims alive despite contrary evidence.

She is nothing new or interesting or special at all.

Exactly.

It IS a 'conscious fraud', though, if in a different sense. It is a fraud in the sense that her claims are not real, and it is conscious in the sense that Anita DOES know her claims are not true, but she will do anything she can to keep from facing that.

Take, for example, her 'reading' with Dr. Carlson. Once Dr. Carlson said that he no longer had one kidney, Anita's mind latched onto that. I can guarantee you that she knew instantly that she was going to use that as a claim towards the 'accuracy' of her 'ability'.

Yes, it took her a few days to create the foundation of the 'memory', but it is also noteworthy that she elected to email her claim to Dr. Carlson, and not simply say it to him in person at the FACT meeting. Dr. Carlson is, apparently, an honest, straightforward guy whom she 'respects'. Anita usually disregards what is real to maintain her delusional reality-in this case, she revealed that she knows the truth because she flinched from it.

I'm sure she has met him since then, and repeated that claim-but she's also had time to convince herself thoroughly that it is true and inure herself to his reaction.

 

[desertgal]

<snipped>There wasn't anything about this that really seemed deceitful to me until these details started to come out. It's possible to be honestly mistaken about your own abilities and it's possible to fool yourself, but I'm beginning to think that's not really what's going on here. I would have been willing to agree with the idea that Anita can set up additional tests on her own account if she wants to, no matter how pointless it is-- it's a free country, at least as far as spending your own money is concerned--but for the first time, I do not believe that she should. She is dragging in too many people who don't deserve to be blamed for their part in this mess.

Is that truly a concern, though? I doubt there are any local skeptic groups that would be willing to help her at this point.

 

[GeeMack]

bookitty, thank you so much for volunteering yourself and your friend for my IIG test. But you have just disqualified the test results and kind of ruined it. You knew that this would be an issue beforehand, I highly doubt that this is an issue you would have identified only after the test had taken place. Still, you willingly signed yourself up and your friend, and knowingly ruined my test.

I paid close to $1,000 to arrange the whole thing. How could you?

Now you're crapping on bookitty for trying to help you with your demonstration! I can barely believe you have the gall to be so ungrateful, first, but then to actually say, "How could you," as if someone else should take any responsibility for your failure? Sounds a little like your blaming someone else for you failing that class at college, doesn't it?

If anyone still thinks Anita is being reasonable about this, at all, in any way, re-read what she's doing here. She's trying to play victim and blame someone else!

Anita, think about it for once. You could afford an awful lot of sessions with that mental health professional if you hadn't blown all that money on your silly IIG freak show.

 

[GeeMack]

Stop attacking me personally, it does not contribute to skepticism. You can express your concerns without personal insults and in a civil manner.

You chose to get yourself involved in the IIG demonstration. Maybe when you stop crapping on everyone who tries to help you and start taking responsibility for your own failures you'll merit the kind of respect you're demanding. But until then, until you can treat people with decency and consideration, how dare you whine about how people might be treating you? You're getting a lot better treatment than what you've earned after the way you've handled this kidney guessing game, and you should be thankful for that.

 

[Audible Click]

Anita,as has been pointed out upthread, trying to place blame on bookitty does nothing except make you look petty and desperate. You had already failed the demonstration why can't you see that? Take another "test" and, by all means, don't post the results here. It must be obvious to you that the posters here just don't care anymore. If you would have handled the aftermath with maturity,grace, and dignity then we'd be inclined to be interested in seeing any future "tests" and the results. As it stands now, we've watched your behaviour since the demonstration and, I for one, am no longer interested in any further "testing" of your claim.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

Interesting how you are trying to explain away any correct answers that I made, and it seems I am not allowed to do the same by explaining my incorrect answers. Just a thought.

This is the beauty of having an agreed upon porotocol, Anita.

No need for anyone to 'explain away' the results.

They are self-evident.

You failed.

 

[lexvonrockets]

One question: *Who* is going to administer another test for Anita? IIG is a reputable organization, backed by many skeptics and scientists. Having another test against her claims at this point would be a great waste of time and effort, and I think everyone knows that.

Peer review is at the heart of every scientific inquiry. It's true that us humans are not without fault, but this is the best system of checks and balances we have, and it seems to be a system that has served us rather well. If Anita has isolated the institution in general, to whom will she turn to test her claims? To whom, even, will she turn to *make* her claims?

 

[Akhenaten]

I did not recognize subject 24. The reason I chose him is because I perceived his left kidney as being missing, and because all but two kidneys in that trial were easy to find. You may certainly wonder whether I might have recognized subject 24 from your Forum posts, but for you to conclude that this would be the case, when it is not, is ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous. I think you'll find quite a lot of people thinking that it's a quite reasonable thing to conclude. Why do you think it's ridiculous?

All the more reason to have another test, since you are accusing yourself of having disqualified the test. And since none of your personal acquaintances will be involved in another test, nor yourself, you can start thinking of other excuses to try to disqualify my answers next time.

No excuses are needed from this side of the table, Anita. You failed, and we need no excuses for having observed that.

 

[Sideroxylon]

One question: *Who* is going to administer another test for Anita? IIG is a reputable organization, backed by many skeptics and scientists. Having another test against her claims at this point would be a great waste of time and effort, and I think everyone knows that.

Peer review is at the heart of every scientific inquiry. It's true that us humans are not without fault, but this is the best system of checks and balances we have, and it seems to be a system that has served us rather well. If Anita has isolated the institution in general, to whom will she turn to test her claims? To whom, even, will she turn to *make* her claims?

Someone like Gary Schwartz?

 

[Akhenaten]

This is dreadful!

Well, here's a rarity. I agree with you.

I absolutely did not notice subject 24's leg brace!

But couldn't you see the atoms in the leg brace? What colour are steel atoms, by the way?

My choice was purely based on my perception of his left kidney being missing, and I was highly confident in my answer because I clearly detected all but two kidneys being present!

That can't be right. There was this test which falsified your claims of having perceptions, remember? It was either a lucky guess or other clues gave you the answer.

You have no perceptions of missing kidneys.

bookitty, thank you so much for volunteering yourself and your friend for my IIG test. But you have just disqualified the test results and kind of ruined it.

Ruined how? You've just finished saying that the leg brace thing wasn't a factor.

It's an XOR situation, Anita. Pick one.

You knew that this would be an issue beforehand, I highly doubt that this is an issue you would have identified only after the test had taken place. Still, you willingly signed yourself up and your friend, and knowingly ruined my test.

What ruined the test, at least from your perspective is that you failed it.

There's little doubt that if bookitty's perfectly reasonable oversight affected the test, then it was to make it a lot easier for you, and yet you still failed.

I paid close to $1,000 to arrange the whole thing. How could you?

With my Visa card, most likely.

So, the very least you and your other Skeptics can do, is to not argue when I am intending to set up another test.

News flash to Arcturus! It's none of your business what we argue about, thank you very much.

My choice of subject 24 was absolutely not based on any prior knowledge of this person.

I've been warning you of your credibility issues for more than a year now. Guess what?

But you will of course never know that fact. You will always disqualify my one good answer, that was based on my perceptions.

The other two answers stand, regardless of Legbracegate™.

You failed.

 

[laca]

You are all comfortable questioning any results that would support the claim that I might have some strange subconscious cold reading skill for missing organs, and you do not allow me to question any circumstances that I identify that might have reduced my performance.

Exactly. What's the problem here? Of course we question any results that would prove some supernatural ability. And in the protocol (which you agreed to, remember?) you did not specify any "circumstances" that would reduce your "performance". Instead, you were so happy with the protocol, you stated on multiple occasions that should the test fail, you'd consider your claim falsified.

You are willing to accept the results of trial 2 to be flawed, when they are not flawed, but you won't similarly consider whether the results of trials 1 and 3 might be flawed. For instance, if I experience fatigue and the claim stops working, how does such a trial test that claim.

Pathetic.

I will arrange to have another test and thanks to bookitty you will only find out about it after it has taken place. The two conditions that I identified with the Preliminary will be addressed. And the issues brought up by you of visual information, will also be addressed in the next test. The screens will be more elaborate, and only the backs of the subjects can be seen. So most visual information, such as arms, legs, hair, gender, age, tattoos, leg brace, scars, will no longer be an issue. I would like to do one more thing here though. I would like to post the protocol for the next test here and ask you to identify any issues that you see with it beforehand.

I suggest you go to a mental health professional for some sessions, and we can discuss after. Deal?

It is not a mental illness to genuinely feel something that corresponds to health information in people. It would be, if I were to assume those perceptions to be real each time, or if I were to try to convince others that what I feel is true. I have had interesting accuracy and it is not a mental illness to want to investigate that further. If I have some interesting automatic cold reading skill, I am interested to find out how it works, or if tests reveal inaccuracy, I would like to know that also.

Stop attacking me personally, it does not contribute to skepticism. You can express your concerns without personal insults and in a civil manner.

We're not attacking you personally, we're attacking your actions, statements etc. Stop trying to play the victim here. We're all responsible for our words and actions.