The VFF Test is On!

[desertgal]

[snip>P.S.: Hey, desertgal-- let's not forget about antisocial personality disorder! That REALLY would be my vote. And it's not true that more men than women are affected, either.

Well, it is possible for someone to display symptoms from more than one disorder, though, isn't it? Considering that many of those disorders share similar symptoms. And most of the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder also appear to fit Anita.

 

[Maia]

Well, it is possible for someone to display symptoms from more than one disorder, though, isn't it? Considering that many of those disorders share similar symptoms. And most of the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder also appear to fit Anita.

Okay. That's a possibility too. The thing about ASPD is that... well, I'm not making any accusations here or anything... but the other personality disorders are basically pretty harmless compared to it. You do not want to mess around with ASPD'ers, and all I'm going to say is that some of the behavior patterns I've seen specifically surrounding the issues of this test... well....

Anyway, I really don't believe that Natasha Demkina has any paranormal powers, but her test performance was far more impressive than anything we saw here. So why exactly did Anita consider that claim falsified when hers supposedly wasn't??

 

[desertgal]

Anyway, I really don't believe that Natasha Demkina has any paranormal powers, but her test performance was far more impressive than anything we saw here. So why exactly did Anita consider that claim falsified when hers supposedly wasn't??

Simply put, if Anita admits that her claim was falsified, then that might open the door to the reality that she isn't 'extraordinary' and doesn't have a sooper power. She's not going to let that happen.

She's also an attention addict. Falsified claim=no attention. Better to keep the ball rolling and possibly hoodwink some other organization into giving her the attention she craves.

Of course, what she always fails to accept is that there was never any claim to falsify. It was always a delusion.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm not quite following you. How can a claim be proven false if it hasn't been tested? I would go with "very unlikely" , but if the claim was proven false before the test, there would be no point in having the test.

There you go: There *was* no point in having the test.

* There were no extraordinary observations to be explained.

* The *one* observation had witnesses, and every single one of those witnesses claimed it didn't happen, including Anita. Only afterwards did Anita claim that something extraordinary occurred.

* Her claim does not use any mechanism known to science or even remotely similar to anything known to science.

* No human has ever even come close to proving that they can do what she claims.

* Countless people have tried to "prove" these types of claims and failed.

* Her other anecdotes, if assumed to be reported 100% accurately, could all be explained by ordinary means.

Unfortunately, there are some "skeptics" who think that everything is worth testing. That is far from the truth. If I claim that my farts turn lumps of quartz into diamonds, there's no reason to test this no matter how much I insist that I "really, really did it!"

In other words, the rantings of the mentally disturbed and scientifically ignorant are not justification for a test. We are absolutely entitled to say, "nothing to see here, folks. Move along."

 

[Rodney]

All you have to do is show where the protocol specifies some amount of credit was to be given for guessing a person missing a kidney but failing to guess the correct kidney. How about if you can, I send you $5, and if you can't, you admit you're wrong and shut up about it? Now please, unless you can show how your complaining has some relevance to the actual demonstration, please take it elsewhere. Maybe AAH would be a good category, you know, like some of your other out-of-line whining.

For anyone just coming into the conversation, the demonstration protocol required that Anita guess exactly which of 12 possible kidneys was missing in each of three rounds. The protocol also stipulated that unless she was able to guess all three missing kidneys correctly, she failed the demonstration 100%. She guessed one. Just like I did.

And those coming into the conversation might also be interested in knowing that I stated, in response to Maia questioning where my percentage of 66.7% came from: "That's simply the percentage of subjects (emphasis added) that Anita got right; i.e., two out of three." To which GeeMack responded: "Except that it's not true."

GeeMack, who has accused me several times of lacking reading comprehension, apparently does not understand that the protocol for Anita clearly distinguished between subjects and identification of missing kidneys: "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." See http://iigwest.org/anitaikonenprotocol.html

Therefore, my statement that Anita got 66.7% of subjects correct is 100% accurate. I have never claimed that Anita passed the test -- only that she did better than would have been expected by chance. If the reason for that is that the test was fundamentally flawed, that's the fault of the folks who designed it -- not Anita's. In fact, consider what would have happened had she passed the test: Most folks here would likely be moaning that her passing doesn't really count! So, the bottom line is that Anita evidently wasted a lot of her money on a test that -- through no fault of her own -- was poorly executed.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Everything that happened was entirely Anita's fault.. It couldn't have happened without her..

Poor execution ? Absolutely ...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Everything that happened was entirely Anita's fault.. It couldn't have happened without her..

Poor execution ? Absolutely ...

How is it my fault that bookitty made herself responsible for information leakage and that the IIG knowingly or unknowingly allowed her and her subject 24 into the test?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Either you can see kidneys or you can't.

All your excuses are, well, --- excuses... And laughable ...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Either you can see kidneys or you can't.

All your excuses are, well, --- excuses... And laughable ...

Yes, and how does that explain why you think it's my fault that trial 2 is now disqualified because of bookitty's knowing information leakage?

 

[Audible Click]

How is it my fault that bookitty made herself responsible for information leakage and that the IIG knowingly or unknowingly allowed her and her subject 24 into the test?

Confused? You failed the test before you ever got to subject 24. Ergo fini.

 

[Farencue]

Poor old Anita!!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, and how does that explain why you think it's my fault that trial 2 is now disqualified because of bookitty's knowing information leakage?

What does that have to do with whether or not you can do, what you claim you can do ?

 

[derekcbart]

Round 2 Clarification:

Anita Ikonen failed to demonstrate the paranormal ability that she claimed to have during her Preliminary Demonstration for the IIG $50,000 Paranormal Challenge.

Anita was incorrect in Round 1 and incorrect in Round 3. Any incorrect choice during the Preliminary Demonstration meant a failure to demonstrate the claimed paranormal ability.

Anita was correct in Round 2. There has been a suggestion that her choice in Round 2 may have been the result of a hot or warm reading. If her choice in Round 2 was proven to be the result of a hot/warm reading then the results of Round 2 would have to be thrown out.

However, this does not in any way change the overall outcome of the Preliminary Demonstration. Anita Ikonen failed to demonstrate her claimed paranormal ability no matter how you look at it.

Thank you.

-Derek

 

[jhunter1163]

Yes, and how does that explain why you think it's my fault that trial 2 is now disqualified because of bookitty's knowing information leakage?

What does this have to do with you failing on trials 1 and 3?

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack, who has accused me several times of lacking reading comprehension, apparently does not understand that the protocol for Anita clearly distinguished between subjects and identification of missing kidneys: "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." See http://iigwest.org/anitaikonenprotocol.html

Every time I asked you to point out where the protocol specifies how much credit is to be given for guessing a person missing a kidney but failing to guess correctly which kidney is missing, my request has been met with outright ignorance on your part. The rest of us, those who have read and understood the protocol, realize that either you didn't read it, you have a problem understanding it, you're being willfully ignorant, or you're being dishonest in your interpretation of it.

Therefore, my statement that Anita got 66.7% of subjects correct is 100% accurate.

Only if you redefine the protocol. But if you want to play that silly game how about this... She got 100% correct! In each round she picked a person with a straw hat! Wow! But since no credit was specified in the protocol for correctly picking a person with a straw hat, you'd have to be an idiot to say she got 100% correct according to the requirements of the protocol. That claim to 100% success is true, but irrelevant, as is your claim that she got 66.7% correct. I'm sure you'd agree you'd have to be an idiot to say she got 66.7% correct according to the requirements of the protocol, now that it's been explained to you for the, what, seventh time?

I have never claimed that Anita passed the test -- only that she did better than would have been expected by chance.

Of course 4 out of all 14 people on record picked the exact same correct kidney in round 2. That's 28% of everyone on record. Big deal. It happens. Better than would be expected by chance is why some people come out of the casino with a pocket full of cash, but at the end of the day the casino still records massive profits. It's insignificant and not worthy of further exploration.

If the reason for that is that the test was fundamentally flawed, that's the fault of the folks who designed it -- not Anita's. In fact, consider what would have happened had she passed the test: Most folks here would likely be moaning that her passing doesn't really count! So, the bottom line is that Anita evidently wasted a lot of her money on a test that -- through no fault of her own -- was poorly executed.

What if the reason Anita got the exact same score as several of the observers was because she used the exact same method for her guessing? Since you haven't been able to show otherwise, any complaints you have are based on a flawed argument, an argument from ignorance and incredulity. The bottom line is, of course, that she stuck her neck out to the tune of a thousand bucks and lost. She was playing against the odds. She's a crappy gambler and a poor loser.

 

[GeeMack]

However, this does not in any way change the overall outcome of the Preliminary Demonstration. Anita Ikonen failed to demonstrate her claimed paranormal ability no matter how you look at it.

Thank you.

This bears repeating. And thank you, Derek.

 

[Farencue]

Thanks Derek for the clarification.
You may need to post it several thousand times for some people to eventually get it though.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Round 2 Clarification:

Anita Ikonen failed to demonstrate the paranormal ability that she claimed to have during her Preliminary Demonstration for the IIG $50,000 Paranormal Challenge.

Anita was incorrect in Round 1 and incorrect in Round 3. Any incorrect choice during the Preliminary Demonstration meant a failure to demonstrate the claimed paranormal ability.

Anita was correct in Round 2. There has been a suggestion that her choice in Round 2 may have been the result of a hot or warm reading. If her choice in Round 2 was proven to be the result of a hot/warm reading then the results of Round 2 would have to be thrown out.

However, this does not in any way change the overall outcome of the Preliminary Demonstration. Anita Ikonen failed to demonstrate her claimed paranormal ability no matter how you look at it.

Thank you.

-Derek

I was wondering when that was going to be pointed out. (Maybe it was before) She failed the test. Now saying that leakage providing cues for hot reading may have happened in no way changes that. All it would prove is that Anita can't score above chance even with previously provided cues.
And I watched the live broadcast. If she didn't see any braces in that 27 minute session of walking back and forth and peering all around the sitters, maybe she ought to be tested to see if she can see people wearing braces for the $50K.

 

[Maia]

How is it my fault that bookitty made herself responsible for information leakage and that the IIG knowingly or unknowingly allowed her and her subject 24 into the test?

You have seen MY opinion about that one. Nobody has to share that opinion, but you did ask. A very cute pic.

 

[Maia]

You have seen MY opinion about that one. Nobody has to share that opinion, but you did ask. THEY don't think it's your fault and it's rather telling, I think, that you assume they do. But... A very cute pic.

Anyway, there are so many problems with that study on so many levels that it's just about impossible to sort them all out. Any one of them would be sufficient to falsify it.