The VFF Test is On!

[Jonquill]

I don't know if Anita initiated the term or someone else did. It really doesn't matter. It just seems wrong. I ask students to roughly discriminate among hot, warm and cold reading and it might behoove the members of this educational forum to do so.
By the way, what does "bonzer" mean in aussi? It sounds like an excellent name for a dog.

I think she means picking up small clues that others would miss, like age, skin condition, posture or whatever and using those hints to determine whether or not a person has a kidney. I don't know what you'd call that, but to me cold reading would involve more interaction with the person.

Bonzer means really good, but I think you'd only hear Crocodile Dundee saying it nowadays.

 

[fromdownunder]

A number of people here have mentioned cold reading as an explanation for Anita's failed test.

Jeff, you may have also noticed that Anita wants her version of cold reading and "skills" in cold reading to be a little different than that traditionally accepted, almost as if her idea of cold reading is "special" and that she is unique.

I am not going to chase back through her posts (reading them once is more than enough pain to go through) but she seems to be claiming some "automatic" version of cold reading, as though it is something special - nothing new here. So her version of "cold reading" is spectacularly different that the accepted version, just as her claim of synthesesia is "something special"

She just needs to be special. Perhaps, like alcoholism, there is a term for attentionism. (Yes I know the one popularly used in Anita threads)

Norm

 

[Jeff Corey]

I think she means picking up small clues that others would miss, like age, skin condition, posture or whatever and using those hints to determine whether or not a person has a kidney. I don't know what you'd call that, but to me cold reading would involve more interaction with the person.

Bonzer means really good, but I think you'd only hear Crocodile Dundee saying it nowadays.

You are right. Those cues would help with warm reading, where an observant reader picks up cues that guide the reading. For example, one time I guy I hadn't seen in 4 or 5years comes up to me in a gin mil and says, "Hey, Slim, where you bin? Ain't seen ya for a while."
"Been around town, you been upstate?"
"Well yeah, where'd you hear that?"
"Those are home made tats."
And I did say the Bonzer would be an excellent name for a dog.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I don't know if Anita initiated the term or someone else did. It really doesn't matter. It just seems wrong. I ask students to roughly discriminate among hot, warm and cold reading and it might behoove the members of this educational forum to do so.
By the way, what does "bonzer" mean in aussi? It sounds like an excellent name for a dog.

We covered this way back in the original VFF thread. Basically, in this context "cold reading" has been used to mean "guessing correctly through ordinary means such as observation, prior knowledge, and playing the odds."

For example, 1 in 6 mean over the age of 35 (if I recall correctly) has had a vasectomy. She meets a 45 year old divorced man who was married for 15 years without having kids and who makes comments that he's not interested in getting married again. Anita then "senses" that he has had a vasectomy.

Or she is vaguely aware of hearing about a local air show coming up. The evening after the show a sunburned friend comes over looking slightly stiff, and she "senses" that he has a sore neck that hurts when bent backwards.

If there's a certain phrase that describes this adequately, what is it? I'll gladly use it and correct people. Otherwise, I'm not going to fuss if someone in this read uses "cold reading" as a convenient shortcut.

 

[Jeff Corey]

We covered this way back in the original VFF thread. Basically, in this context "cold reading" has been used to mean "guessing correctly through ordinary means such as observation, prior knowledge, and playing the odds."

For example, 1 in 6 mean over the age of 35 (if I recall correctly) has had a vasectomy. She meets a 45 year old divorced man who was married for 15 years without having kids and who makes comments that he's not interested in getting married again. Anita then "senses" that he has had a vasectomy.

Or she is vaguely aware of hearing about a local air show coming up. The evening after the show a sunburned friend comes over looking slightly stiff, and she "senses" that he has a sore neck that hurts when bent backwards.

If there's a certain phrase that describes this adequately, what is it? I'll gladly use it and correct people. Otherwise, I'm not going to fuss if someone in this read uses "cold reading" as a convenient shortcut.

Using warm reading involves this from Skepti Wickipedia: "Warm reading is a method used by psychics, spiritualists, mediums and other charlatans which falls between cold reading and hot reading. Instead of fishing for a response from their "victim" they utilise known techniques of psychology and statistics which apply to nearly everyone, or at least the majority of people.

For example, most people in the western world will have a box with old photographs, or, if grieving for a loved one, will tend keep a memento which belonged to the deceased such as a watch or piece of jewelry. Additionally, common causes of death such as stroke, heart attack, cancer, falls, or car-crashes often affect or damage the head or chest as these are where most vital organs are situated, so the reader will suggest this area of the body for how somebody died. "
For example, knowing the left kidney is most likely missing.

Hot reading is using prior knowledge. These distinctions are important because they point people to the different ways that these scams work.

 

[pakeha]

James Underdown of the IIG just published on his own blog his initial take of the preliminary test:
http://hollywoodrealitycheck.com/?p=1319


I think the title "Human MRI Crashes and Burns" about says it.

Thanks for posting this link, Calculon.

 

[GeeMack]

So, my probability calculation of P=.0567 is not at all a case of "taking experimental results and combing them for patterns outside the strict requirements of the protocol." Rather, it is the proper statistical way to evaluate her performance. The improper way is to pretend, contrary to the protocol, that Anita's test was a one-step process, and that her result produced a P of only .2297.

Where again did the protocol specify how much credit was given for guessing a person without a kidney but failing to guess which kidney was missing? Oh that's right, it wasn't in there. It seems obvious that picking the person missing a kidney would be pretty much a prerequisite to specifying which kidney was missing. Can we all say, "Duh?" And since the protocol didn't specify any credit for guessing a person but failing to guess which kidney, obviously the guessing of the person wasn't considered significant, other than, as I've said before, a person makes a darned good container for one or two kidneys.

Now, it is true that Anita failed in her attempt "to do this with 100% accuracy in three consecutive trials", but it is perfectly valid to note that she performed barely outside the range of what is generally accepted to be statistically significant. Perhaps her performance was due to clues that she picked up or perhaps she just got lucky, but that's unknown at the moment.

And perhaps she really was telepathically guided by other inhabitants from her home star Arcturus. She does claim to be from there. And it might be that I'm psychic and I transmitted the answers to her. We got the exact same ones correct after all. Odd that you're not suggesting there's any significance to my guesses. Not x-ray vision. Not remote viewing. Not cold reading. Nothing. Someday after the dust settles and even the last hold outs realize Anita was a complete failure and there was nothing significant or special about her performance, I'll let you know how I did it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Everything that could have been done differently in the IIG test so as to avoid future reasons and/or excuses why Ms. Ikonen failed the test.

Claimants, if you're lucky enough to get them to agree to be tested, almost always make excuses after failing even though they always agree up front that the protocol is adequate for them to demonstrate their abilities. It is simply not possible to develop a protocol that precludes excuses because when all else fails, they just say that there was cheating involved. This protocol was two years in the making and Anita repeatedly told us how "wonderful" it was.

According to her notes, Anita failed to detect a kidney in 6 locations. She had a 40% chance of being correct one time, and that's what happened. How in the world a somebody's hair distracted her so much that she could detect kidneys where none were, fail to find them when they were there, and at the same time being "100% accurate" in 30 other locations is beyond comprehension. No sane person should even entertain that objection.

You cannot convince a True Believer. That realization has to come from within. Playing into "but the tattoos distracted me" is pointless because next time it will be the halogen lights or the ventilation system or the cotton-polyester blend in the shirts.

It's over.

 

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by pakeha
By the way, it seems I was right in predicting AI would go the Derek Ogilvie route-"I am a failure, not a fraud".

Do point out where she acknowledged she's a failure. All I can find is that her claims are still not falsified, she's taking another test, blah-blah. Seriously. I'd owe you one.

hi, laca
See this post of AI's: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5348939&postcount=1258
And from that post

I was not fooled. I failed fair and square. The only problem is that you do not realize, that if a paranormal claim were true, it would be very
easy to pass a paranormal challenge with that claim. I failed because I
chose the wrong person in trial 1, and chose the wrong kidney in trial 3.
Warn me of what? Warn me of having a reliable and well-carried out test
with a credible organization? I was not used, other than to perhaps set a
valuable example of falsified woo, and that was sort of my agenda all
along. I support truth, skepticism, and science. Even though I have an
unusual experience. But I am not a fraud. The IIG test was not a waste of
my time, I learned plenty more valuable information about my claim in my
investigation.

Now compare that with Derek Ogilivie's reactions after the second test he took and then after the third 'test'.
Then go to his current website.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Using warm reading involves this from Skepti Wickipedia: "Warm reading is a method used by psychics, spiritualists, mediums and other charlatans which falls between cold reading and hot reading. Instead of fishing for a response from their "victim" they utilise known techniques of psychology and statistics which apply to nearly everyone, or at least the majority of people.

Right, and cold reading is described as "Without prior knowledge of a person, a practiced cold reader can still quickly obtain a great deal of information about the subject by analyzing the person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc."

She appears to have done that as well, probably in conjunction with "warm reading." I wouldn't put it past her to use hot reading as well, meaning she might have had foreknowledge in some of her anecdotes. And Wiki talks about "subconscious cold reading," which I think might have been in play as well.

Unfortunately, it looks like the English language once again has a word/term that has a general and specific meaning. Fortunately, if someone looks up "cold reading" in Wiki, they learn about all of the mentioned techniques. If they are confused, they can ask.

 

[Uncayimmy]

...as I've said before, a person makes a darned good container for one or two kidneys.

Did you catch the exchange where Anita was asked if the person missing a kidney might also be missing the other one? She said he "probably" had both. I had to chuckle.

 

[Jonquill]

Do you think if Anita had got 0% right she would still want to do another kidney test since she 'really truly' saw Dr C's or she'd decide that something else was her main claim and want to be tested for that instead?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Right, and cold reading is described as "Without prior knowledge of a person, a practiced cold reader can still quickly obtain a great deal of information about the subject by analyzing the person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc." k.

That's warm reading. Cold reading is using the feedback from the subject. Maybe we ought to ask Randi.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Do you think if Anita had got 0% right she would still want to do another kidney test since she 'really truly' saw Dr C's or she'd decide that something else was her main claim and want to be tested for that instead?

Fair question. Anita stated in advance that this would only falsify her medical perception claims. However, she specifically pointed out that she would continue with the migraine healing touch investigation. The migraine treatment involves Anita locating the correct part of the brain to treat with "light" she transmits via thought. That sounds medical to me, but it doesn't stop her.

She still has a variety of claims out there that are not medical. Of course, they are easily tested. She's avoided testing them in the past, so why should that change?

 

[Jonquill]

Right, and cold reading is described as "Without prior knowledge of a person, a practiced cold reader can still quickly obtain a great deal of information about the subject by analyzing the person's body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc."

That quote is from the wiki entry on cold reading, but then it says

"Cold readers commonly employ high probability guesses about the subject, quickly picking up on signals from their subjects as to whether their guesses are in the right direction or not, and then emphasizing and reinforcing any chance connections the subjects acknowledge while quickly moving on from missed guesses."

So you observe the person and then based on what you see you begin your cold reading.

 

[pakeha]

That's warm reading. Cold reading is using the feedback from the subject. Maybe we ought to ask Randi.

This subject was mentioned earlier in this epic thread.
It's about reading Microexpressions^WP
A fascinating subject and it apparently accounts for a high percentage of 'first impressions'.

But you're right and more than right: Let's ask the Amazing.

added- the Wiki entry is about facial expressions. Tiny movements in the shoulders, hands and feet have entered into analysis as well. Again, 'reading' these micromovements is something we do without thinking about it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

That's warm reading. Cold reading is using the feedback from the subject. Maybe we ought to ask Randi.

Jeff, I quoted Wikipedia and they specifically stated that this was cold reading. I'm not saying that Wiki is ultimate source. What I'm saying is that these are not scientific terms where a field of study relies upon strict definitions.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So you observe the person and then based on what you see you begin your cold reading.

This thread must be nearing the end because we're debating semantics.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Most speakers of American English would say that they "read" a person by observing them. I might say, "Did you get a good read on his reaction to the news report?" In response I might her, "They way I read him he was kinda shocked."

If I "observe" someone and simply state, "You're menstruating" what have I done? Is that a cold reading or a warm reading?

If instead I say, "I sense you're feeling a bit off? Yes? Maybe bloated? Are you menstruating?" is that a cold or warm reading?

In both case I start with the same observations. Anita has told us that she essentially does the former.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Do you think if Anita had got 0% right she would still want to do another kidney test since she 'really truly' saw Dr C's or she'd decide that something else was her main claim and want to be tested for that instead?

I am involving my confidence level into what I learn about the claim. I was confident that my answers in trial 1 and 3 were incorrect, and they were, and I was confident that my answer in trial 2 was correct, which it was.

My investigation is not about verifying myself as a psychic. I already know, especially thanks to the IIG Preliminary, that what I do is not good enough to pass as some psychic ability. My objective has been to learn more about the experience I have that when I look at people I feel something, that then translates into health information.

I would like to expect the explanation to be very simple. Knowing that I need to see the person to initiate the perception, I would like to assume that I am using some automatic and subconscious cold reading skill of detecting visually accessible information that translates into health predictions. But it is not that simple after all, as it would not explain why I detected that Dr. Carlson is missing a kidney. Not having any prior reason to assume that a missing kidney might be an option, I would not have had any way of knowing how to translate any intentional or unintentional visual information from Dr. Carlson into it indicating a missing kidney. So the investigation goes on.

I will arrange another test in which better screens will be used. Only the back areas of subjects will be visible, through a cut-out portion of an extensive screen. I have also identified two issues that I had with the Preliminary, that will both be eliminated from the next test. And no reason to get upset, people, all this is, is I am wanting to learn more about the experience. And if I am going to produce inaccurate results in that next test again, then all it does is further enhance that conclusion. And lead toward falsification of the claim. So be happy. If I can't do it, then any additional test will only confirm that I can't do it and will let me learn more about this.

Prolly is just some cold reading skill. So then let me learn more about it. It's fascinating, because it's automatic, and involves felt shapes and images, and because I have been correct on things that I could never cold read myself to with conscious efforts and logical thinking skills. Sure, statistics would have allowed me to guess my way to some correct answers in the Preliminary, but the statistics of guessing that a kidney is missing, when you have no prior clue as to what might be the information you are looking for, is a little different.

Oh, and if I would have had trial 2 incorrect, I would have falsified the claim just like that. Listen to what I say about trial 2, starting from 1 hour and 38 minutes into Part 1. The log of what I say can also be found at #1161. I almost regret that that didn't happen. It would have been all over for my investigation by now.

All it is is I want to learn more. So let me.

 

[Garrette]

I think the only potential value left in this saga is as a case study, with names and emotions removed, listing only those items that are verified (or reasonably certain).

Strip it to the bones and present it for what it is: A typical, non-special, defense of belief in the face of both evidence and reason, albeit a sadly packaged defense.

A side trip might involve dissection of the post-test attempt to tease meaning from noise, which represents another frequently used defense of belief.

No names required; just chronologies and facts. (I do not mean to imply that Rodney is an attention-seeker. Having typed/chatted with him several times over the years, I am convinced he is not.)