Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

[VisionFromFeeling]

I agree that I should be able to agree to a test without being told a predetermined number of one-kidney subjects within any group of subjects. If the claim holds, it should be able to hold within these more difficult testing conditions. I have been considering that for a next test, since it would greatly simplify the work of test arrangements for those that arrange the test. It would also make the test results far more interesting. For instance, if the testing organization wanted to, or if they randomly predetermined it to be such, the test could involve all two-kidney subjects! That would be easy to set up, and I would have no way of knowing in advance.

UncaYimmy, you seem to be restating that you believe the IIG would have incentive to not let a true paranormal phenomenon pass their challenge. I disagree with that. First of all, they designed a test that gave my claim the very best chance of proving itself. And secondly, if they were to be involved in the discovery of a true paranormal phenomenon, this would immediately turn into a scientific discovery, something which holds high prestige and would earn them plenty more money than their $50,000.

You are sounding like the many claimants who think organizations such as IIG try to ensure that paranormal claimants fail, yet I participated first-hand in such a test and saw no evidence of that. Tell me why you think the IIG would not want to discover a true paranormal ability?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Why wouldn't the claimant accept an unidentified ratio of one- and two-kidney subjects? If she can tell when she's right and when she's not, the pass protocol should be enough.

Her ability to pass is unaffected *if* the ratio is determined randomly. Since we know it is very difficult to find people missing a kidney (this is patently obvious considering how few there are), her best bet is to assume more decoys than targets. That works to her advantage.

The IIG would want to set the number randomly. They don't want to draw the number "12" from a hat and be forced to find 12 people missing a kidney who are willing to give up a Saturday and are willing to give up the same Saturday. Talk about a headache.

The meaning behind her answer (if correct) may show nothing extraordinary at all. She could be right yet the odds of that particular answer being right could be 100%, which would happen if she answered "all missing a kidney" when the IIG had the bad luck of having all 12 subjects be missing a kidney. That particular answer does not show that she likely performed better than chance because there was no way for it to be wrong. If the ratio was equal, it would be a 1 in 1,728 event no matter what she guessed.

See my detailed post on the subject.

 

[ynot]

Oh, the irony! She is thick.

There is a difference between jumping around from idea to idea and actually discussing the objections to your ideas when people take the time to address them.



Merely stating something is "better" with explaining why or addressing the concerns already present is like, I dunno, saying you can detect kidneys through a shirt but not through a screen.


Actually, there is a very good reason for suspecting that. If you're wrong, you might lose $50K and give the woos of the world their first ever success at a paranormal challenge.



Yet another unsupported assertion. You need to spend less time writing and more time thinking. Only one person needs to be identifiable to ruin the entire test. This means you have to have perfect blinding visually, you also need to blind other senses as well, to two most important of which are smell and hearing.

Smell: People smell differently. It's not just a matter of perfume or cologne. There's soap and shampoo. There's armpit stink. There's general body odor, which can vary from day to day (I have a friend who stinks the day after eating garlic). There's flatulence (who wants to lose $50K because a subject had Taco Bell for lunch?). There's the smell on the clothes. Short of glass cages, the only way to control for this is to get the claimant to agree to wear a nose plug. Good luck with that.

Hearing: People breathe at different paces. Some like to sigh. Sometimes people are sleepy and yawn. Some grind their teeth. I have the sniffles today, which is clearly audible. Short of glass cages the only way to blind for this is ear plugs or head phones with white noise. Again, good luck with that.

Vision: Even if you put each person in a burqa, you need to be 100% sure that there's not a single little errant stitch or other mark that distinguishes the two. If you accomplish that, you still have the issue of the pace at which people breathe, yawning, sighing, and other mannerisms which may differ by person.

Your proposal is the least likely to be accepted by a claimant. I wouldn't blame her for refusing to perform wearing headphones and a nose plug. I wouldn't blame her for refusing to be in a glass cage nor would I expect it to be easy to find people in glass cages.

Even if the claimant agrees and the subjects agree, you still have the issue of blinding visual cues. The IIG would be foolish to attempt such a test.

“She”? - Is that meant as an insult to myself or women?

 

[AvalonXQ]

The meaning behind her answer (if correct) may show nothing extraordinary at all. She could be right yet the odds of that particular answer being right could be 100%, which would happen if she answered "all missing a kidney" when the IIG had the bad luck of having all 12 subjects be missing a kidney. That particular answer does not show that she likely performed better than chance because there was no way for it to be wrong. If the ratio was equal, it would be a 1 in 1,728 event no matter what she guessed.

Actually, if the ratio were equal, it would be a 1 in 924 event, since there are only 924 orders to place six people with kidneys among six without.
The only way to have a 1 in 1,728 event with 12 subjects is if the chances of each subject having a kidney or not is independently randomized.
You could do this by actually getting 12 subjects with 2 kidneys and 12 subjects with 1, then flipping a coin to determine which group to randomly pull from on each trial.

 

[Ness36]

Vision from Feeling:

I would not agree to a test that uses the same two subjects repeatedly. ...

...Unfortunately, testing this claim does require new subjects in each trial. And that is what makes it difficult, but it is quite necessary.

Since you don't think the IIG protocol was sufficient to falsify your claim, would you agree to a test of your ability to tell the difference between vibrational frequencies?

I experience that what is vibrating is the substance that atoms are made of. ...

...the way I experience "vibrational information" is more consistent with it being a quantum physical wavefunction description of the atom as a whole, involving all the qualities of the nucleus and the electron distribution, and also other related parameters such as temperature, pressure, motion, etc...

...Electrons, protons, neutrons, and any other supposed particles that atoms are made of, can equally well be described as waves. And those waves are a vibrational pattern. But that is not what I experience to be the vibrational information. Together they form a composite pattern that depicts an atom. But I don't know if I feel that.I just experience feeling a landscape of vibrational patterns when I see a person....

I can do relative work, though, to compare what I feel with other reference values. ...

Does this mean we could put two objects vibrating silently at different frequencies behind a screen, and you could tell us which is which? What are the approximate range of frequencies that you can tell the difference between, if you were provided with known reference vibrations first?

a.) 1 vibration per minute vs 10 vibration per minute?
c.) 1 Hz vs 1000 Hz?
d.) 1000 Hz vs 1,000,000 Hz?
e.) other?????

I can tell the difference between something vibrating at a heart beat speed and at vibrating cell phone speed. Of course I would have to touch it. This would prove I can really sense those vibrations.

Obviously you cannot successfully do this with the atomic vibrations generated by a kidney, since you had access to reference vibrations of people with a kidney and without, and were unable to tell the difference on the IIG test.

So, since it would be difficult to create another test with missing kidneys, due to all the problems with hiding the subject's appearance, would you agree to a test of objects behind a screen vibrating at different frequencies? Or even one object vibrating, and another not vibrating.

If you can't do this, it would show that you don't really sense vibrations and your ability is better described as seeing colors and shapes in your head when you look at someone.

 

[AvalonXQ]

“She”? - Is that meant as an insult to myself or women?

No, it's a common English idiom. "Oh, the X, she is Y!"
"Oh, the agony, she is excruciating!"
"Oh, the fresh air, she is liberating!"
etc

 

[Uncayimmy]

I agree that I should be able to agree to a test without being told a predetermined number of one-kidney subjects within any group of subjects. If the claim holds, it should be able to hold within these more difficult testing conditions. I have been considering that for a next test, since it would greatly simplify the work of test arrangements for those that arrange the test. It would also make the test results far more interesting.

You don't understand the issue, which is not surprising given your history. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about it for you in particular since nobody will ever test you again. But thanks for the input about how other claimants might react.

UncaYimmy, you seem to be restating that you believe the IIG would have incentive to not let a true paranormal phenomenon pass their challenge.

That's an incredibly stupid thing to say. I have never said any such thing, so there's no way I would be "restating" such a belief. What I have repeatedly said was that the test needs to permit the claimant to demonstrate her abilities while at the same time ensuring that the money is not at risk due to passing by ordinary means.

And secondly, if they were to be involved in the discovery of a true paranormal phenomenon, this would immediately turn into a scientific discovery, something which holds high prestige and would earn them plenty more money than their $50,000.

Bzzzt! Wrong. You live in a fantasy world.

If any claimant ever passes both rounds of a challenge, it proves nothing because the tests are not designed to prove anything. They are only designed to demonstrate that the claims are patently ridiculous. If you had gotten all of them right in the preliminary and then again in the final, the most likely explanation would be collusion. Why? Because people cannot see inside the human body or "sense" kidneys.

Collusion and fraud aside, the test doesn't actually prove that you are seeing kidneys. There could be other explanations. For all we know the lack of a kidney could be producing a chemical byproduct that affects brain patterns, and you're actually sensing brainwaves.

The IIG will lose $50K. There are not a scientific organization, so they are not going to get any grant money to do the research. Somebody else might, but that's just money for research. The notion that this would be a profitable venture is just a product of your grandiose delusions.

You are sounding like the many claimants who think organizations such as IIG try to ensure that paranormal claimants fail, yet I participated first-hand in such a test and saw no evidence of that. Tell me why you think the IIG would not want to discover a true paranormal ability?

You are babbling because I never said any such thing. Furthermore, it's really not on topic for this thread, so please take it elsewhere. I hear Arcturus is lovely this time of year.

 

[ynot]

Oh, the irony! She is thick.

There is a difference between jumping around from idea to idea and actually discussing the objections to your ideas when people take the time to address them.



Merely stating something is "better" with explaining why or addressing the concerns already present is like, I dunno, saying you can detect kidneys through a shirt but not through a screen.


Actually, there is a very good reason for suspecting that. If you're wrong, you might lose $50K and give the woos of the world their first ever success at a paranormal challenge.



Yet another unsupported assertion. You need to spend less time writing and more time thinking. Only one person needs to be identifiable to ruin the entire test. This means you have to have perfect blinding visually, you also need to blind other senses as well, to two most important of which are smell and hearing.

Smell: People smell differently. It's not just a matter of perfume or cologne. There's soap and shampoo. There's armpit stink. There's general body odor, which can vary from day to day (I have a friend who stinks the day after eating garlic). There's flatulence (who wants to lose $50K because a subject had Taco Bell for lunch?). There's the smell on the clothes. Short of glass cages, the only way to control for this is to get the claimant to agree to wear a nose plug. Good luck with that.

Hearing: People breathe at different paces. Some like to sigh. Sometimes people are sleepy and yawn. Some grind their teeth. I have the sniffles today, which is clearly audible. Short of glass cages the only way to blind for this is ear plugs or head phones with white noise. Again, good luck with that.

Vision: Even if you put each person in a burqa, you need to be 100% sure that there's not a single little errant stitch or other mark that distinguishes the two. If you accomplish that, you still have the issue of the pace at which people breathe, yawning, sighing, and other mannerisms which may differ by person.

Your proposal is the least likely to be accepted by a claimant. I wouldn't blame her for refusing to perform wearing headphones and a nose plug. I wouldn't blame her for refusing to be in a glass cage nor would I expect it to be easy to find people in glass cages.

Even if the claimant agrees and the subjects agree, you still have the issue of blinding visual cues. The IIG would be foolish to attempt such a test.

Both test people could wear the same piece of clothing, wear the same relatively strong perfume, have indistinguishable lower back shapes (would be hidden by a loose fitting top anyway) and music could be playing to override any personal sounds made. As I said this doesn’t have to be argued as it can easily be comprehensively tested before any real testing. I would put my money on the line for such a pre-tested test. Don't forget that it's a "one strike and you're out" test.

If this test suggestion is as bad as you say then claimants that wanted to win by cheating would line up for this test.

ETA - Given she has already been tested with many people sitting close together, the person that wasn’t being tested could also be sitting beside the other person along with all their smells and noises. You do realise that there would be a large screen that blocked out everything but the lower back of the test person?

 

[GeeMack]

I agree that I should be able to agree to a test without being told a predetermined number of one-kidney subjects within any group of subjects. If the claim holds, it should be able to hold within these more difficult testing conditions. I have been considering that for a next test, since it would greatly simplify the work of test arrangements for those that arrange the test. It would also make the test results far more interesting. For instance, if the testing organization wanted to, or if they randomly predetermined it to be such, the test could involve all two-kidney subjects! That would be easy to set up, and I would have no way of knowing in advance.

Of course you do recall that several people suggested that in previous discussions, but you steadfastly refused to consider it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Actually, if the ratio were equal, it would be a 1 in 924 event, since there are only 924 orders to place six people with kidneys among six without.

Please show your work. I don't understand what you're saying.

The only way to have a 1 in 1,728 event with 12 subjects is if the chances of each subject having a kidney or not is independently randomized.

I think I see what's going on. I wrote down the IIG number (1,728) instead of the correct number. I meant 10^12, which is 4,096. There are 4,096 possible results of flipping a coin 12 times.

I still don't understand what independently randomized means or what you were trying to accomplish with the incorrect number I gave (1,728).

You could do this by actually getting 12 subjects with 2 kidneys and 12 subjects with 1, then flipping a coin to determine which group to randomly pull from on each trial.

Again, I'm not following at all what you are saying nor am I seeing the relevance to what I said about the odds of a particular correct answer being correct.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Please show your work. I don't understand what you're saying.

Y = one kidney
N = two kidneys
Your 4,096 guesses assumes any guess from YYYYYYYYYYYY to NNNNNNNNNNNN. But if we know that there are 6 Y's and 6 N's, then both of those guesses have a 0 chance of being right. There are only 12 choose 6, or 924, guesses with exactly half Y's and half N's in them.
In order to actually have a 1 in 2^16, or 4096, test, each subject needs to have an equal chance of being Y or N. Randomly mixing up a group of 6 N's and 6 Y's doesn't do this. However, having a pool of 12 N's and a pool of 12 Y's, and secretly flipping a coin to decide which pool the next subject will come from, does give you these odds.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Whereas I might admire your honesty in not wanting to be able to cheat, I can’t help but also suspect that you merely want to make the test unnecessarily difficult for reasons best known to yourself and suspected by others

Unfortunately, I have tested my claim under various testing conditions to learn about which conditions it works under. Of course, when you are investigating the effects of various parameters on a phenomenon under study, you only change one parameter at a time so that any changes to that phenomenon can be attributed to that change in parameter.

So in one series of tests I had myself in a dark room to see if I could still claim to feel or see the kidneys, and I couldn't. Had I been able to, the IIG test would have taken place in the dark and you'd been watching it over infrared camera because any testing conditions that enable the claim and make a test more reliable are immediately implemented.

I tested myself with a blindfold and facing the person, and couldn't do it. I tested myself with my back facing the person and couldn't do it. I tested many different materials of screens, and screens that expose different parts of a person at a time. I tested many different testing conditions and many variations of each. And with that I have determined that I do need to see the clothed back of the person. And any test will have to allow for that. And if a test were unable to allow for that, the claim would be considered untestable.

It is sad that you have to suspect something disingenuous. Forum Skeptics have accused me in the past of making up difficult testing conditions so that I would not have to have a test. I am simply outlining what the claim requires, and we work based on that.

Trust me. I would have loved for the test to take place with the subjects in an underground bunker and with me blindfolded and in a dark room and to also give you the winning lottery numbers. This is not some claim of magical powers, it is an intricate experience that is inhibited under certain conditions. If I was making this up, it would truly be an X-ray vision that works through metal and concrete.

I would be very confident that I could present you with the clothed backs of two people and you and nobody else wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. This isn’t some thing that needs to be argued as it could be very easily tested before any real testing started. If it could be pre-test proven to you that you (and nobody else) couldn‘t distinguish between the clothed backs of two people, would you agree to this test? If not why not?

As you know, I am very interested in having another test. If you can arrange for another test, over there in New Zealand, let's talk. However, the results a test that involves the same two or few subjects would have questionable credibility and could easily end up being disqualified. I would forever be left wondering whether any accurate answers would have been due to the wonderful automatic and non-paranormal cold reading skill that we all have and not due to the paranormal claim that I make.

How would we prove that I can not distinguish between the two persons? By asking the claimant before the test? What if the claimant deliberately lies about it before the test even though they can somehow distinguish between the two? Unfortunately, when we are dealing with paranormal claims, the test can never be designed in a way that depends on the claimant telling the truth.

And if I do not agree to a testing condition, it is either because it inhibits my claim from working or because it makes the test results questionable.

Why is this discussion starting to feel like when Locknar was insisting that women be included in a vasectomy detection test? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4274707&postcount=579

And I will respond to that in the same way I did to Locknar... how old are you?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Both test people could wear the same piece of clothing,

So now you have to find volunteers willing to swap clothes with each other. What if the clothes get damaged during the process?

wear the same relatively strong perfume,

So, are you going to have the claimant confirm what is an acceptable scent from 3,000 miles away? What if when she arrives she says the scent is too strong and bothers her? What if one of the subjects has an allergic reaction to it?

And, in case nobody ever told you, perfume doesn't cover body odor. It doesn't mask a fart either.

have indistinguishable lower back shapes (would be hidden by a loose fitting top anyway)

You still haven't explained how much of the body is visible. As I recall, a the idea of a simple cut-out showing just a few square inches was rejected. If you allow torsos to be seen, you reveal quite a bit of information that could be used to distinguish two people whom have been previously seen and identified.

and music could be playing to override and any personal sounds made.

Same problems with the perfume in terms of the claimant bitching about it being too loud. Furthermore, music is not going to drown out every sound such as the sniffles.

As I said this doesn’t have to be argued as it can easily be comprehensively tested before real testing. I would put my money on the line for such a pre-tested test.

So, you're saying you need volunteers to show up for the comprehensive testing as well as the real testing? Is the claimant going to fly across country as well to certify that the conditions are acceptable?

If this test suggestion is as bad as you say then claimants that wanted to win by cheating would line up for this test.

Yeh, that makes no sense. The IIG and the JREF don't write protocols and look for takers. People contact them and present claims. The IIG and the JREF then try to negotiate a protocol, and to the best of my knowledge, I haven't seen one like that suggested by either organization.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Y = one kidney
N = two kidneys
Your 4,096 guesses assumes any guess from YYYYYYYYYYYY to NNNNNNNNNNNN. But if we know that there are 6 Y's and 6 N's, then both of those guesses have a 0 chance of being right. There are only 12 choose 6, or 924, guesses with exactly half Y's and half N's in them.
In order to actually have a 1 in 2^16, or 4096, test, each subject needs to have an equal chance of being Y or N. Randomly mixing up a group of 6 N's and 6 Y's doesn't do this. However, having a pool of 12 N's and a pool of 12 Y's, and secretly flipping a coin to decide which pool the next subject will come from, does give you these odds.

If you had responded to my detailed post, you would have known that the test involved returning the ball to the bucket just like subjects would be put back into the pool after being selected and thus could be presented more than one time.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Why is this discussion starting to feel like when Locknar was insisting that women be included in a vasectomy detection test? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4274707&postcount=579

Wasn't this the thread where she said she needed to see skin in order for her powers to work? But now she says that seeing skin in the IIG test was distracting, along with hair, pants and body mass.

Ward

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you had responded to my detailed post, you would have known that the test involved returning the ball to the bucket just like subjects would be put back into the pool after being selected and thus could be presented more than one time.

I was pretty sure we had already determined that re-running the same subject more than once was a very bad idea.
Regardless, I'd prefer to get enough subjects to independently randomize their presentation. I guess it all depends on the volunteer pool.

 

[bookitty]

<snip>

I tested myself with a blindfold and facing the person, and couldn't do it. I tested myself with my back facing the person and couldn't do it. I tested many different materials of screens, and screens that expose different parts of a person at a time. I tested many different testing conditions and many variations of each. And with that I have determined that I do need to see the clothed back of the person. And any test will have to allow for that. And if a test were unable to allow for that, the claim would be considered untestable.

<snip>

If we admit the possibility of cold reading, then a need to see the subjects is interesting. It suggests that you are getting normal, external, visual clues.

How would you design a test of your possible cold reading skills? It doesn't have to be a large test with witnesses, it could between you and a friend.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

“She”? - Is that meant as an insult to myself or women?

If it helps, I knew you were a man.

 

[Ness36]

However, the results a test that involves the same two or few subjects would have questionable credibility and could easily end up being disqualified. I would forever be left wondering whether any accurate answers would have been due to the wonderful automatic and non-paranormal cold reading skill that we all have and not due to the paranormal claim that I make.

Vision From Feeling,

To eliminate any possibility of cold reading, which seems hard to eliminate with human subjects, and since you say you are sensing vibrations inside the human body, would you be able to tell the difference between an object vibrating, and an object that was not vibrating, behind a screen. Of course the objects could be as close to the screen as possible so they would be similar to a human back covered by a shirt. And you could specify the vibration frequency you feel you can differentiate from something that is not vibrating.

Or do you see shapes and colors when you look at a kidney, not really vibrations?

 

[Furcifer]

You are sounding like the many claimants who think organizations such as IIG try to ensure that paranormal claimants fail, yet I participated first-hand in such a test and saw no evidence of that. Tell me why you think the IIG would not want to discover a true paranormal ability?

Strawman. The fact is the IIG and the rest are the ones that will bring forth an actual claim if ever one exists. Even if it's close to being a paranormal claim. You simply wren't even close.