Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

[ynot]

IIRC, this was proposed, and rejected by Anita.

Then perhaps she should have been rejected as a valid test applicant.

ETA - Can’t be bothered looking for her post in the other thread but she said that in her upcoming “secret test” that only the lower back would be visible with no skin or any other part of the body visible. Exactly what I’m suggesting yet when I suggest it she calls it “remote viewing”. DOH!

 

[Uncayimmy]

Didn’t say it was a mistake to test her per se. I’m questioning if the IIG test was good enough to warrant testing her. Especially when a better test was clearly available. It would be better to say that a persons paranormal claim couldn’t be tested because they wouldn’t agree to a valid test rather than run a poor test that allows them to claim they were partially right.

Why would it be better? Who are the parties that are better off, worse off, or unaffected by a test and by a refusal by the organization to have a test?

 

[ynot]

Why would it be better? Who are the parties that are better off, worse off, or unaffected by a test and by a refusal by the organization to have a test?

The IIG test allowed VFF to leave with a claim of success from failure that will be accepted by many believers. With time the detail of the facts will be lost and her claimed success will grow stronger. She will still be doing her thing long after we have tired of it.

IIG leaves with - She failed the test but we kept testing her anyway and then she completely succeeded, then half succeeded. To a believer a success and claimed half success trumps a single failure any day.

Testing for both a missing kidney and correct side is essentially running two tests concurrently that provide a half-right option ignoring the protocol (as believers do). A “better test” is one that only allows for a right or wrong result with no half-right claim available. “Does this person have a missing kidney?” would have been better than also including "From which side?" 50/50 odds are right or wrong, easy to calculate and hard to deny.

Are you saying that any test is better than no test?

 

[Uncayimmy]

The IIG test allowed VFF to leave with a claim of success from failure that will be accepted by many believers. With time the detail of the facts will be lost and her claimed success will grow stronger. She will still be doing her thing long after we have tired of it.

1) She had claims of success from failure before she ever got started.

2) The details will be lost? Not these days. The Internet makes sure of that.

IIG leaves with - She failed the test but we kept testing her anyway and then she completely succeeded, then half succeeded. To a believer a success and claimed half success trumps a single failure any day.

I do not care about True Believers. Why do you seem to find it important to be concerned about their belief systems?

What about the people in the middle? You know, the overwhelming majority who don't log in to skeptics boards and only pay attention to psychics if one happens to be on the news.

Testing for both a missing kidney and correct side is essentially running two tests concurrently that provide a half-right option ignoring the protocol (as believers do). A “better test” is one that only allows for a right or wrong result with no half-right claim available. “Does this person have a missing kidney?” would have been better than also including "From which side?" 50/50 odds are right or wrong, easy to calculate and hard to deny.

I already know the answer to this question, but I don't think you do: How many people would they have needed to arrive at 1 in 1,728 odds they felt comfortable with otherwise? At 4.5 minutes per person, how long would it take? And given those numbers, what are the odds of her getting 1 or 2 correct?

What's really funny is that if the IIG had done that, another contingent (or possibly the same people) would be bitching about how it really doesn't test her claim.

Are you saying that any test is better than no test?

I don't feel the need for any such rule. You evaluate each test on its own merits and make a judgment call. My beef so far is that people seem far too concerned about the wrong things.

* The test isn't for skeptics, and it's not for True Believers. It's for the middle.

* Passing the test, which has never happened, doesn't prove a damn thing no matter how you design it, so don't get all hung up on that.

* The test should be something that a reasonable person will believe is possible to pass assuming the claimant's ability is real. Nothing more and nothing less.

* If odds are involved, it should be easy to explain how they are calculated.

* There will be gaps due to logistical and financial restrictions as well as the fact that the claimant is not a lab rat and can refuse restrictions for whatever reason. Therefore, balance the odds and the gaps against possible success. Nothing else really matters.
'

 

[Furcifer]

Are you saying that any test is better than no test?

I'd say it is. It's the first one I've seen and it was very entertaining. I only popped my head in when I saw there was an actual applicant willing to be tested and a body willing to over see the test. It's pretty cool.

No test would have been a major let down, and I would personally question what kind of idiots are running the IIG that they can't test someone who claims to see inside people.

People are making it out like she had a chance. She never had a chance. None, nada, zero, zippo, zilch, no matter what test. All these tests are about is watching someone fail, then the wiggle afterwards.

Save it for when someone comes along that really has a claim. At some point someone will really make you think. A cold reading savant isn't entirely out of the question. When you read over things, I think this is what Anita really wants to be. She wants to be "Super" at things that come "Naturally" to her.

Like say math and physics? You think this is a coincidence? I don't. If she's holding a 3.9 in her 3rd year of physics (I don't even want to go into the details of the "F" she did or didn't get) and manages to keep up this VFF thing, she's probably pretty good at subjects that most people find impossible.

Is it a far stretch to imagine that in her mind, she's extended this to other areas of her life? I don't. I think it all falls in line.

 

[Furcifer]

I already know the answer to this question, but I don't think you do: How many people would they have needed to arrive at 1 in 1,728 odds they felt comfortable with otherwise? At 4.5 minutes per person, how long would it take? And given those numbers, what are the odds of her getting 1 or 2 correct?

'

Assuming 8 hour days, with no breaks, exactly 1 month (February, September, November, April and June excluded). The odds of her getting 2 correct would be about 99.998%.

I think I did the math right.

 

[ynot]

I already know the answer to this question, but I don't think you do: How many people would they have needed to arrive at 1 in 1,728 odds they felt comfortable with otherwise? At 4.5 minutes per person, how long would it take? And given those numbers, what are the odds of her getting 1 or 2 correct?

You may know the answer to your question but your question has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I’m not only suggesting testing one person at a time but also that an incorrect answer stops the test (she fails). One strike you’re out. The test would therefore have a half a chance of only taking 4.5 minutes.

The odds of correctly guessing 50/50 odds 11 successive times is 1 in 2048.

 

[Furcifer]

You may know the answer to your question but your question has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I’m not only suggesting testing one person at a time but also that an incorrect answer stops the test (she fails). One strike you’re out. The test would therefore have a half a chance of only taking 4.5 minutes.

The odds of correctly guessing 50/50 odds 11 successive times is 1 in 2048.

Ahh, I see what you're saying. This is acceptable as well. At least to me.

Somehow I doubt if Anita would have went for this. Even if she did, there's nothing to say she wouldn't have made the exact same excuses right? All this does is take the cat and mouse out of it and go straight to the excuses. To each his own.

 

[ynot]

Ahh, I see what you're saying. This is acceptable as well. At least to me.

Somehow I doubt if Anita would have went for this. Even if she did, there's nothing to say she wouldn't have made the exact same excuses right? All this does is take the cat and mouse out of it and go straight to the excuses. To each his own.

She wouldn’t have had the “half-right” option to claim. I would have given her 4 minutes to offer an answer then a further minute of “are you absolutely sure?” time. That’s half a minute more than she asked for!

Of course she wouldn’t have agreed to this protocol. She knows she has no actual x-ray vision and she‘s not totally stupid. The best and most valid methods of testing paranormal claims are always the ones that are unsuitable to the claimant.

I have been expecting her to come up with a “synesthesia dyslexia”^TM excuse as to why she often got the wrong side. Or perhaps why she also got the wrong person given how close they sat together.

Don’t think we will hear any more from Blondie until she does her “secret test”. Then we will hear how successful it was.

 

[alleracsum]

I’m not only suggesting testing one person at a time but also that an incorrect answer stops the test (she fails). One strike you’re out. The test would therefore have a half a chance of only taking 4.5 minutes.

You can crunch numbers all day. Crunching human beings is a little harder.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You may know the answer to your question but your question has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I’m not only suggesting testing one person at a time but also that an incorrect answer stops the test (she fails). One strike you’re out. The test would therefore have a half a chance of only taking 4.5 minutes.

The odds of correctly guessing 50/50 odds 11 successive times is 1 in 2048.

Good test design determines the number of trials in advance and does not provide feedback to the subject as to accuracy. Your test does the opposite.

Your test would require how many people short a kidney? I'm guessing at least 7 if you figure 6 for the test and 1 for the open trial. That certainly takes a lot more effort to set up. And, of course, you have to have get the claimant to agree to it. If the targets were easy to find, it would be less of an issue.

What Anita did on the IIG test (if you look at just picking the right person) was the equivalent of getting the first four correct in your test. Let's say she missed #5. Do you honestly think ordinary people aren't going to say, "They should have let her keep going because if she had gotten four more correct again, that's like a 1 in 50 chance! If she got six more, then that would have been 1 in 200 and worth checking out. Hell, they should have just let her do all 12 people they had lined up because getting 11 out of 12 would have been exceptional!"

All things considered, I don't see the advantages of your method over what they did.

 

[Moochie]

I am under the impression that my opinion is worth the same as your's

Redundant apostrophe alert.


M.

 

[tsig]

1) She had claims of success from failure before she ever got started.

2) The details will be lost? Not these days. The Internet makes sure of that.



I do not care about True Believers. Why do you seem to find it important to be concerned about their belief systems?

What about the people in the middle? You know, the overwhelming majority who don't log in to skeptics boards and only pay attention to psychics if one happens to be on the news.


I already know the answer to this question, but I don't think you do: How many people would they have needed to arrive at 1 in 1,728 odds they felt comfortable with otherwise? At 4.5 minutes per person, how long would it take? And given those numbers, what are the odds of her getting 1 or 2 correct?

What's really funny is that if the IIG had done that, another contingent (or possibly the same people) would be bitching about how it really doesn't test her claim.


I don't feel the need for any such rule. You evaluate each test on its own merits and make a judgment call. My beef so far is that people seem far too concerned about the wrong things.

* The test isn't for skeptics, and it's not for True Believers. It's for the middle.

* Passing the test, which has never happened, doesn't prove a damn thing no matter how you design it, so don't get all hung up on that.

* The test should be something that a reasonable person will believe is possible to pass assuming the claimant's ability is real. Nothing more and nothing less.

* If odds are involved, it should be easy to explain how they are calculated.

* There will be gaps due to logistical and financial restrictions as well as the fact that the claimant is not a lab rat and can refuse restrictions for whatever reason. Therefore, balance the odds and the gaps against possible success. Nothing else really matters.
'

When do we get your test?

 

[Moochie]

What I think was “wrong” about the IIG test . . .

The test shouldn’t have been to detect kidneys. It should have been to detect people.

Multiple people shouldn’t have been tested together. Only one person should have been tested at a time.

The whole person shouldn’t have been visible. Only the clothed lower back of the person should have been visible.

The test shouldn’t have continued after her first wrong guess. The test failed on the first wrong guess so why continue?

The general retort to this is that "my powers only work sporadically," but that doesn't obtain here since VfF claimed, and has always claimed, 100% success.


M.

 

[ynot]

VfF claimed, and has always claimed, 100% success.

M.

This is an important point that makes a “one strike and you're out” test valid.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The general retort to this is that "my powers only work sporadically," but that doesn't obtain here since VfF claimed, and has always claimed, 100% success.


M.

Actually, I think you will find that from the very beginning she has only said that when she has made an observation, she has been 100% correct. One of the very early sticking points was that she wanted a test where she could "pass" on some people (with no penalty), because she didn't always "see" something and some people were harder to read than others.

 

[ynot]

Actually, I think you will find that from the very beginning she has only said that when she has made an observation, she has been 100% correct. One of the very early sticking points was that she wanted a test where she could "pass" on some people (with no penalty), because she didn't always "see" something and some people were harder to read than others.

I don’t see any problem with a “pass with no penalty” clause in the protocol. Especially if a 100% success claim is being tested. As long as the test didn’t allow Blondie to make an accurate guess by viewing the exterior of the person rather than the interior.

 

[desertgal]

Actually, I think you will find that from the very beginning she has only said that when she has made an observation, she has been 100% correct.<snip>

In fairness, Anita has conceded that she has made observations where she has no way of knowing if they were accurate, such as the 'diaphragm' observation.

 

[ynot]

Good test design determines the number of trials in advance and does not provide feedback to the subject as to accuracy. Your test does the opposite.

Your test would require how many people short a kidney? I'm guessing at least 7 if you figure 6 for the test and 1 for the open trial. That certainly takes a lot more effort to set up. And, of course, you have to have get the claimant to agree to it. If the targets were easy to find, it would be less of an issue.

What Anita did on the IIG test (if you look at just picking the right person) was the equivalent of getting the first four correct in your test. Let's say she missed #5. Do you honestly think ordinary people aren't going to say, "They should have let her keep going because if she had gotten four more correct again, that's like a 1 in 50 chance! If she got six more, then that would have been 1 in 200 and worth checking out. Hell, they should have just let her do all 12 people they had lined up because getting 11 out of 12 would have been exceptional!"

All things considered, I don't see the advantages of your method over what they did.

Good testing directly tests the claim not just a by-product of the claim. Blondie’s claimed ability is that she can see through clothing, skin and flesh with 100% accuracy and this is what should have been tested. That this claimed ability allows her to see kidneys is of no more consequence than that she can also see other internal organs and bones. She wanted to be tested for kidneys because it fudged the issue. She wasn’t seeing kidneys she was seeing red herrings. “Is there a person behind the clothing?” Is a better and more valid test of her claim than “Does the person behind the clothing have a missing kidney and if so from which side?” (two test with two possible “correct” results).

That aside, this is how I think an “I can see missing kidneys with 100% accuracy” claim could have been tested better than the IIG test . . .

One person is presented to Blondie and she has a pre-agreed time to say if the person has a missing kidney or not. Simple yes/no answer and the answer given is the final answer. An “are you sure” amount of time could be allowed for if required.

If she can’t give a definite answer she can “pass with no penalty” and continue with a different person.

The subject people are “screened” so she can’t tell if a kidney is missing from an external view. The lower back area only needs to be screened with clothing.

If she gives a correct answer another person is tested and this continues until an incorrect answer is given or a pre-agreed number of tests has been successfully completed. The number of tests is sufficient to reasonably reduce the chance of success from lucky guess. 10 - 11 times should be sufficient for a preliminary test (1 in 1024 - 2048 odds).

As a 100% success claim is being tested a single wrong answer means the test has failed and the testing immediately stops.

All, Some or none of the subject people may have a missing kidney or not.

ETA - As a “double-blind” for his test several other people that don’t claim to have have any paranormal ability would also do the tests at the same time and the test would also be done by coin toss (tails = no kidney ;-). This would give a practical example of success by lucky guess to people that don't understand odds. There would be a good chance that some lucky guessers or the coin would do better than Blondie.

 

[ynot]

In fairness, Anita has conceded that she has made observations where she has no way of knowing if they were accurate, such as the 'diaphragm' observation.

This is why an “is there a person there or not” test is much better for her. To establish if there is a person there she can see bones or any internal organs. Much better chance of success for her and she should insist on this test if her claims are genuine. Wonder why she refuses it?