Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,527
Ahhhhh RUN AWAY!
There are skeptic men interested in her? They think they can...what...fix her?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy
- Thread starter Uncayimmy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen
Ahhhhh RUN AWAY!
There are skeptic men interested in her? They think they can...what...fix her?
TheSkepticCanuck
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2008
- Messages
- 224
Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,527
What another skeptic man after her. I need a score card to keep track of this.
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
To impress her he could give her an oxygen tank.
Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,527
just roll down the car window while driving, she can stick her mouth out and get full.
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Well, that, and also that Anita runs into a lot of notable Americans. Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Abe Lincoln, Revolutionary War soldiers, Bigfoot...
Audible Click said:
Or, if he wants to go big, an air compressor...
Last edited:
You mean the part where I say "And while you did not win, nobody's saying that you did, it is interesting that you did beat random chance." ?
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
What do you mean "Huh?". You're telling us she's not interesting enough "to get excited about", but interesting enough to devote a fawning, hagiographic podcast to.
No, Jeff, although I did quote that too to be clear that I was aware you were not saying she was successful. I'm not quite sure what you're not understanding, so let me spell it out. You claimed "I don't think I've ever wavered from the fact that she completely failed.". Yet in the podcast you said, "It would be much better for everyone if you had failed completely or won completely." Which implies that Anita did not fail completely.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
But Nigel was terribly exited, he needs to be thrown a bone too.
Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,527
Al Hamilton. Cool. Does Hal Bidlack know?
I don't know about "fawning" and "hagiographic," but she was a good choice for a guest. I'm saying her results are not enough to get excited about, they're merely interesting.
If she chooses to spin what i said, that's her malfeasance. The context of that sentence was that "completely failing" would have meant getting zero right.
I see the confusion, and it's due to my wording. These podcasts are live, and these things happen. In the context there, I meant "fail completely" to mean "failed all trials." And she didn't, she actually got one right. To her, that's a very significant thing. To me, it still means she failed the protocol completely, but it's an interesting observation.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
You have a rather strange definition of "interesting", Jeff. Seriously.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Actually completely failing on a pass/fail test is failing any part that establishes, by the predetermined protocol, the fail condition. But if you actually understood the claim, the test, the protocol, and the results, you'd know that. And you don't. Unless maybe your apparent willful ignorance comes from something like an inability to admit when you're wrong. You do realize, don't you, that all your excuse making isn't flying? You do notice, don't you, the consensus opinion here, supported by a variety of explanations, is that you still appear to misunderstand the situation? (I know, I know, you haven't seen any explanations.
)Wow. I don't know where to start.
Let's start with these repeated claims about VFF beating chance. You actually said, "moderately impressive odds." You also said that odds are not your strong suit. If that's the case, and it certainly seems that way, you shouldn't be commenting on them in the first place. The breakdown of the odds are easily available, so you should have at least done the research. I'll recap for you.
* If somebody were to draw numbers out of a hat (1 to 12) three times (replacing the drawn number before the next trial) and try to guess what number was being drawn, that would be pretty damned close to random.
* The chances of guessing correctly once in those three trials is 22%, which is about 1 in 4. Guessing the roll of a single die is harder than that. If the whole world had played along at home, 1,472,246,660 (about 1.5 billion) people would have accomplished what she did.
This is not "moderately impressive." It is not "beating chance" by any stretch of the imagination. About 22% of the self-proclaimed psychics, spirit guides, and other deluded people would have done the same thing. What she accomplished was utterly meaningless.
It seems you are applying meaning to the fact that she guessed the right person but wrong kidney in one trial. I'll ignore for a moment how silly that is and address the stats.
* Take the above numbers in a hat game and change it to six numbers instead of 12. Repeat three times.
* The chance of getting two correct is 7.35% or about 1 in 13. The odds of rolling two dice summing to 4 is 1 in 12.
So, unless you say "Wow!" everytime somebody needs a four in Monopoly to land on Go and gets it, I find your claims of "impressive odds" to be disingenuous. Maybe it's just based on a gross misunderstanding of probability. If it's the latter, I recommend that you or anyone else interested buy The Cartoon Guide to Statistics. It's an easy read and covers the basics into some sophisticated topics.
If the test were to locate the person, then getting three out of three would have been a 1 in 218 chance. That is not good enough for the JREF or the IIG to even take the trouble to put the challenge money on the line. Neither organization would have done a preliminary test like that. Both organizations would have at least done four out of four with six people (1 in about 1,500).
But let's remember that she was not tasked to pick the person. It was merely a necessity in identifying a location. The coordinates for each kidney slot were person and side, much like the location of a cell in a spreadsheet is a row and a column. It's not kosher to look for meaning in things that were not tested.
Suppose I say I can command a royal flush be dealt to me. The odds are 1 in 649,739. Suppose instead I get 2C, 4C, 8S, 10H, 10D. Do you know the odds of me getting that exact hand? Try 1 in 2,598,956 - exactly four times as unlikely as me getting a royal flush! Wow!!
The odds of Anita getting all three locations correct were 1 in 1,728. The odds of her getting anything else were 1,727 in 1,728 or 99.94%. It is foolish to look at getting something else and pretend it means something.
With that out of the way (again), you need to understand that this was not a random test. The numbers in a hat is pretty close to random. Her test was far from it. All the numbers above are worst case scenarios for VFF. The reality is several things skewed the odds in her favor, but it's difficult to quantify how much.
First, the majority of kidneys removed are from the left side, and she guessed left every time. Second, the longer you live, the more likely you are to have had a kidney removed. I've explained this elsewhere, but the short explanation is that kidneys are removed every year. The more kidneys removed while you are of donor eligibility, the greater your chances of being called upon. Third, people suffering injuries are more likely to have had a kidney removed than those who have not been seriously injured because they have their own risk factor in addition to the general risk everyone has.
So, the simple fact is she was able to observe people for 30 minutes in each trial. She was able to see age and indications of major injury such as from a car or motorcycle wreck. On top of that, unless the test were completely blinded to the subjects, some or all might have known if they were targets or not. Their body language could have been a clue.
I'm sure all of the subjects were in some way aware they were doing a test for the IIG. A Google search for IIG Test brings up VFF's website. A search for IIG Test Missing Organs takes you to the JREF thread about her test. It was quite possible for the subjects to have had an inkling of the test, which blows randomness out of the water.
This leads us to a very interesting point. Bookitty, a member here, was one of the subjects. She knew she wasn't a target, and she knew what the test was about. Last year she shared a story of a friend of hers who lost a kidney and was also in a motorcycle accident where he suffered major injuries (can't recall if they were related). This friend was the one person VFF guessed correctly.
I have no evidence whatsoever that Bookitty told her friend or anyone else anything about test. I have no evidence whatsoever that Bookitty said anything to Anita about it. I do know that Bookitty is now a staunch defender of what she believes is Anita's skeptical transformation. It would be foolish not to at least consider this possibility. After all, if you want to talk about odds, what are the odds that the one person VFF got right would be that guy? Maybe it was because his injuries were partially visible, and she played the odds. It is interesting, that's for sure.
But still, you say, Anita was seemingly able to detect who was missing a kidney even if she got the wrong side. Because you didn't do the research, you bought into this synesthesia nonsense. Understand this: VFF as Alenara the Breatharian for years referred to her abilities as fact. She used them to explain all sorts of things she could do including seeing inside the body. A Google search shows she never once mentioned synesthesia during that time.
Synesthesia is an invention of hers to give her claims plausibility to skeptics. Those of us who have followed the story know that what she describes is nothing like she described to you. I refer you once again to the moderated interview thread I conducted.
Her claims of "sensing" things like colors and "feelings" about the person are simply some of the many ways she alters her story to appeal to an uninformed audience. If you had read her claims above carefully, you would have known that you were being fed a line.
There is absolutely no reason to think that guessing two out of three possible persons missing a kidney had any meaning whatsoever. The notion fails on many different levels.
Let's start with these repeated claims about VFF beating chance. You actually said, "moderately impressive odds." You also said that odds are not your strong suit. If that's the case, and it certainly seems that way, you shouldn't be commenting on them in the first place. The breakdown of the odds are easily available, so you should have at least done the research. I'll recap for you.
* If somebody were to draw numbers out of a hat (1 to 12) three times (replacing the drawn number before the next trial) and try to guess what number was being drawn, that would be pretty damned close to random.
* The chances of guessing correctly once in those three trials is 22%, which is about 1 in 4. Guessing the roll of a single die is harder than that. If the whole world had played along at home, 1,472,246,660 (about 1.5 billion) people would have accomplished what she did.
This is not "moderately impressive." It is not "beating chance" by any stretch of the imagination. About 22% of the self-proclaimed psychics, spirit guides, and other deluded people would have done the same thing. What she accomplished was utterly meaningless.
It seems you are applying meaning to the fact that she guessed the right person but wrong kidney in one trial. I'll ignore for a moment how silly that is and address the stats.
* Take the above numbers in a hat game and change it to six numbers instead of 12. Repeat three times.
* The chance of getting two correct is 7.35% or about 1 in 13. The odds of rolling two dice summing to 4 is 1 in 12.
So, unless you say "Wow!" everytime somebody needs a four in Monopoly to land on Go and gets it, I find your claims of "impressive odds" to be disingenuous. Maybe it's just based on a gross misunderstanding of probability. If it's the latter, I recommend that you or anyone else interested buy The Cartoon Guide to Statistics. It's an easy read and covers the basics into some sophisticated topics.
If the test were to locate the person, then getting three out of three would have been a 1 in 218 chance. That is not good enough for the JREF or the IIG to even take the trouble to put the challenge money on the line. Neither organization would have done a preliminary test like that. Both organizations would have at least done four out of four with six people (1 in about 1,500).
But let's remember that she was not tasked to pick the person. It was merely a necessity in identifying a location. The coordinates for each kidney slot were person and side, much like the location of a cell in a spreadsheet is a row and a column. It's not kosher to look for meaning in things that were not tested.
Suppose I say I can command a royal flush be dealt to me. The odds are 1 in 649,739. Suppose instead I get 2C, 4C, 8S, 10H, 10D. Do you know the odds of me getting that exact hand? Try 1 in 2,598,956 - exactly four times as unlikely as me getting a royal flush! Wow!!
The odds of Anita getting all three locations correct were 1 in 1,728. The odds of her getting anything else were 1,727 in 1,728 or 99.94%. It is foolish to look at getting something else and pretend it means something.
With that out of the way (again), you need to understand that this was not a random test. The numbers in a hat is pretty close to random. Her test was far from it. All the numbers above are worst case scenarios for VFF. The reality is several things skewed the odds in her favor, but it's difficult to quantify how much.
First, the majority of kidneys removed are from the left side, and she guessed left every time. Second, the longer you live, the more likely you are to have had a kidney removed. I've explained this elsewhere, but the short explanation is that kidneys are removed every year. The more kidneys removed while you are of donor eligibility, the greater your chances of being called upon. Third, people suffering injuries are more likely to have had a kidney removed than those who have not been seriously injured because they have their own risk factor in addition to the general risk everyone has.
So, the simple fact is she was able to observe people for 30 minutes in each trial. She was able to see age and indications of major injury such as from a car or motorcycle wreck. On top of that, unless the test were completely blinded to the subjects, some or all might have known if they were targets or not. Their body language could have been a clue.
I'm sure all of the subjects were in some way aware they were doing a test for the IIG. A Google search for IIG Test brings up VFF's website. A search for IIG Test Missing Organs takes you to the JREF thread about her test. It was quite possible for the subjects to have had an inkling of the test, which blows randomness out of the water.
This leads us to a very interesting point. Bookitty, a member here, was one of the subjects. She knew she wasn't a target, and she knew what the test was about. Last year she shared a story of a friend of hers who lost a kidney and was also in a motorcycle accident where he suffered major injuries (can't recall if they were related). This friend was the one person VFF guessed correctly.
I have no evidence whatsoever that Bookitty told her friend or anyone else anything about test. I have no evidence whatsoever that Bookitty said anything to Anita about it. I do know that Bookitty is now a staunch defender of what she believes is Anita's skeptical transformation. It would be foolish not to at least consider this possibility. After all, if you want to talk about odds, what are the odds that the one person VFF got right would be that guy? Maybe it was because his injuries were partially visible, and she played the odds. It is interesting, that's for sure.
But still, you say, Anita was seemingly able to detect who was missing a kidney even if she got the wrong side. Because you didn't do the research, you bought into this synesthesia nonsense. Understand this: VFF as Alenara the Breatharian for years referred to her abilities as fact. She used them to explain all sorts of things she could do including seeing inside the body. A Google search shows she never once mentioned synesthesia during that time.
Synesthesia is an invention of hers to give her claims plausibility to skeptics. Those of us who have followed the story know that what she describes is nothing like she described to you. I refer you once again to the moderated interview thread I conducted.
Her claims of "sensing" things like colors and "feelings" about the person are simply some of the many ways she alters her story to appeal to an uninformed audience. If you had read her claims above carefully, you would have known that you were being fed a line.
There is absolutely no reason to think that guessing two out of three possible persons missing a kidney had any meaning whatsoever. The notion fails on many different levels.