The VFF Test is On!

[Moochie]

Did you hear the old man in the question session afterwards? He's a convert all right!

No, unfortunately a lack of sleep and some vodka & Pepsi Max, coupled with the later than expected start, meant I missed the aftermath. I'm hoping that anything of relevance will be reported here. Note, I didn't go to bed thinking she had a snowflake's chance in hell of passing this test.


M.

 

[dlorde]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

I think you missed the point a tad here - I agree with your reading of the scientific method, calculation of probabilities, etc., but JoeTheJuggler was saying that the protocol was poor and the fact that Anita failed doesn't mean it was a good protocol.

What this demonstration has actually demonstrated is that a lot more care and attention has to be taken with this protocol to tighten it up, and personally I'm not convinced that this kind of protocol can be made watertight.

Oops - just saw that JoeTheJuggler has already made this point... sorry

 

[Jeff Corey]

If she were guessing, I'd say that giving her credit for something over 1/3 might be reasonable. But if she were seeing missing kidneys, the right-person-wrong-kidney is just embarrassing.

Imagine I have the ability to see whether people are missing their arms. I look at a guy and notice he's missing an arm. I pick him, claiming that I can't see his right arm (which he has), but I can see his left arm (which he's missing).

Nope. That's not half right. That's just... silly. If anything, it's proof that I can't see his arms at all.

Very good point. And would you take 27 minutes of walking around behind six people, one of whom is missing an arm, to make a guess about who is missing an arm? What was the point of that? That was a weak point in the protocol, in my opinion. It allowed the sort of opportunity to pick up the cues mentioned by the man in the audience afterward.

 

[desertgal]

No, unfortunately a lack of sleep and some vodka & Pepsi Max, coupled with the later than expected start, meant I missed the aftermath. I'm hoping that anything of relevance will be reported here. Note, I didn't go to bed thinking she had a snowflake's chance in hell of passing this test.


M.

Note for those interested:

The IIG has posted the video taken during the demonstration.

 

[Ness36]

Check this out!

This quote from Anita really stood out to me while I was watching the challenge video. Basically she admits Dr. Carlson told her he was missing a kidney, and she thought, if I say I detected it, and stick with that story, I will be able to get a test.

She tells the kidney story 2 times in the videos, but does not mention that she did not say she saw the missing kidney, until after Dr. Carlson told her about it. When she is finally confronted about this, she says this is the reason she didn't write it down:

Anita Ikonen:

It did not cross my mind that there are healthy young kidney donors out there so logically it was impossible for me to think that this person would have had a sick kidney removed.

IIG Interviewer:

Yeah, but these are all part of the thinking process if you are going to guess whether or not a kidney is missing not whether you can look inside the person.

Anita Ikonen:

Well, my guesses and my thoughts are one thing and what I perceive is another.

My logic was saying he could not possibly be missing a kidney

The reason I did not write that down was because I was logically convinced it was incorrect and I wanted to have a test and I felt that if I'm going to be wrong with this, my other past experiences that I can not explain would not be given a test.

I know i detected the kidney missing in Doctor Carlson. I was very sure.

From
part 2 demonstration video


at about 1:10.

I think Dr. Carlson told her about the kidney, and she jumped at the chance, and decided to say she detected it and stick with her guns.

Missing kidneys are pretty rare in people you come across on a day to day basis, so it is not something we could say, "why did you never say you could see kidneys before?"

The seeing diaphragms is the opposite, since I would say it pretty common for women to have some sort of internal contraception, or tampons. Or even hysterectomies or tubal ligation. So it was kind of ridiculous she was being paranormal for 2 years before she mentioned diaphragms, since tons of people have some kind of artificial device, pacemaker, replacement joint, etc. I think this would have been met more skeptically than a missing kidney, which she could excuse as, well I never examined someone who was missing a kidney before. Whereas of all the people she examined, lots must have had these devices and she never noticed it before.

If she picked something very common and easy to arrange, she might have gotten another low profile test with the local FACT skeptics group, where they brought in 5 acquaintances, all young and healthy, one with an appendix removed, and that was that. It would probably have been much more rigorous, only yes or no, appendix missing or not, with no wiggle room. This would be a failure for her since she isn't getting a big fuss.

So kidneys was good, since it would take a big organization to find a random assortment of people she had no contact with, reasonably healthy looking who were missing kidneys. Plus you need an ultrasound to confirm kidneys, so she couldn't do it herself. Other things like tonsils, or some removable internal devices, (I mean, on the forum we even suggested things like holding coins in your mouth, etc., toes in a boot, etc) don't need expensive equipment to confirm, So there would be no reason Anita couldn't do a simple-no fuss retest with the FACT skeptics group if she chose one of these claims.

Plus kidneys are good, because there are two, left and right, so she can always hope to guess the right person, but wrong kidney, and claim that is a hit.

Plus, they are usually removed on the left, and she probably looked this up in between finding out he had a kidney, and announcing her claim. Anita seems to think everyone is stupid, so she would have no qualms about always guessing left. This gives her another advantage.

But, I think they are the most common large organ you can be pretty healthy without, so there are enough subjects for a test, and the skeptics would agree to it. They would never agree to something like a lung or missing most of a liver that would mean the subject was obviously old and sick. Or something that wasn't a yes/no answer like artery blockage or heart disease.

Otherwise, why would she be so adamant about the kidney, as opposed to any of the other random claims that have come and gone?

I think when Dr. Carlson told her about the kidney, she realized this was not so common that it would be ridiculous that she never mentioned it before and that she wouldn't be forced to do a simple test with the local FACT group.

But it was also not so rare or age and health linked that a test would never be agreed to. So she decided to stick with this claim. And it worked, she got her test!

 

[Sun Countess]

For me, the fact that she got "right person/wrong kidney" confirms that she's using cold reading techniques to find the target person, which has nothing to do with whatever body part/ailment the target has. I don't know if she's doing it all subconsciously while she really really atts. to see their kidneys, or if she's doing it consciously and outright being "a liar and a fraud" about her x-ray vision.

If she claims that she just out-and-out guessed on the third trial, I don't know how she could claim it was a hit anyway, if she didn't really really see the kidney.

 

[roger]

Many thanks to the IIG for bringing this off.
I followed the thing, of course.
From the audience, a gentleman demonstrated and explained how the 'body language' micro movements of the subjects could be read and woven into a plausible guess/perception. For me, that was possiby the most interesting part of the demonstration.

I have to strongly disagree that he demonstrated anything at all.

How big was the audience? The chance of somebody getting 2 people correct in a modest audience is quite high. We have no reason to believe that fidgeting was a tell. It may have been, or, more likely, it was just random luck on his part. Somebody else probably was biased towards women, or older people, etc. If that was how the distribution had fallen out, then they would be the ones talking about how they used a simple procedure to get better than chance results. It's nonsense (without data showing the procedure is actually capable of producing better than chance results).

 

[Pup]

I have to strongly disagree that he demonstrated anything at all.

How big was the audience? The chance of somebody getting 2 people correct in a modest audience is quite high.

Agreed.

 

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Moochie
If, as some here have thought, she is setting herself up for a life in woo, then she has probably succeeded, because the believers will buy any spin she weaves around the test. To them, she has genuine mystical powers.


M.

Did you hear the old man in the question session afterwards? He's a convert all right!

I agree with you two, and especially after having seen Derek Ogilvie's career after having been shown up in his testing.

 

[GeeMack]

I recorded the audio of the IIG Ikonen Show on November 21. The audio was broken into several parts by the broadcasting techs. I recorded it into those segments.

(1) There was the opening segment and onward through the first round of the test.

(2) There was the second round of the test.

(3) There was a small section where the audio was turned back on between round 2 and round 3.

(4) There was the third round of the test.

(5) And there was the conclusion.​

There are five segments in all, about 3 hours and 15 minutes of audio. I think I missed a couple seconds at the beginning of that 3rd segment because they turned the audio back on without any notice. Otherwise it's all intact, the entire event.

I compressed them into mp3's, fairly tight compression to get them to reasonable file sizes. The five files total about 45 Megs. Being just voices and not music, they are quite sufficient for listening. I don't have the bandwidth available to offer these for public downloading from my storage space at my ISP. If anyone has unlimited bandwidth, let me know and I can get the files to you to post on your site.

I still have the uncompressed WAV files I recorded. (Of course they went through some mp3-like compression on their way into the streaming video, too.) These original WAV files are approximately 1 Gig and fit onto 2 regular audio CDs. I can snail-mail the 2 CDs, but I simply don't have the space at my ISP to put the files there for storage and/or distribution.

 

[Savagemutt]

My apologies if this has already been discussed, but I seem to recall her saying that her powers didn't work when a person was behind a screen. She had to be able to see the person. If this is the case then how does she rationalize being able to "see" a kidney through their clothing (never mind the layers of flesh in the way).

 

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by pakeha
Many thanks to the IIG for bringing this off.
I followed the thing, of course.
From the audience, a gentleman demonstrated and explained how the 'body language' micro movements of the subjects could be read and woven into a plausible guess/perception. For me, that was possiby the most interesting part of the demonstration.

I have to strongly disagree that he demonstrated anything at all.

How big was the audience? The chance of somebody getting 2 people correct in a modest audience is quite high. We have no reason to believe that fidgeting was a tell. It may have been, or, more likely, it was just random luck on his part. Somebody else probably was biased towards women, or older people, etc. If that was how the distribution had fallen out, then they would be the ones talking about how they used a simple procedure to get better than chance results. It's nonsense (without data showing the procedure is actually capable of producing better than chance results).

When I wrote that post I hesitated over the word 'demonstrated'- thanks for showing me how right I was to question it.
I don't what the literature on 'micro movement' body language is like in English so I'll do a Google and post up the most relevant stuff I can find.
It's a fascinating subject, one most useful, of course in 'cold' reading. In fact, from what I can see, those who claim they were doing inadvertant 'cold' readings are simply people with a talent for reading 'micro movements'.
I agree that without data this technique is just a theory.
I'll see what I can find on the subject.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Many thanks to the IIG for bringing this off.
I followed the thing, of course.
From the audience, a gentleman demonstrated and explained how the 'body language' micro movements of the subjects could be read and woven into a plausible guess/perception. For me, that was possiby the most interesting part of the demonstration.

I agree.

It also shows why this was a pretty bad protocol. As I mentioned, some of the measures taken in the actual demonstration to reduce the chances of this kind of information leakage (using the chair backs to help minimize movements, uniform shirts and head coverings) were not required by the protocol.

But even with them in place, I would say there was substantial information leakage--just what many of us were concerned with all along. When you factor in the slight bias for missing left kidneys, I don't think her results even beat the 1:50 (or whatever it is) that one fully correct guess supposedly beats.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have to strongly disagree that he demonstrated anything at all.

How big was the audience? The chance of somebody getting 2 people correct in a modest audience is quite high. We have no reason to believe that fidgeting was a tell. It may have been, or, more likely, it was just random luck on his part. Somebody else probably was biased towards women, or older people, etc. If that was how the distribution had fallen out, then they would be the ones talking about how they used a simple procedure to get better than chance results. It's nonsense (without data showing the procedure is actually capable of producing better than chance results).

You're right, of course. It would have been interesting, as someone suggested, to have a skilled cold reader/skeptic (just one) on stage to do the test basically along with Anita and compare results.

However, the opportunity for this kind of information leakage certainly was there. It is certainly possible that fidgeting or other subtle cues skewed the odds a bit.

 

[volatile]

My apologies if this has already been discussed, but I seem to recall her saying that her powers didn't work when a person was behind a screen. She had to be able to see the person. If this is the case then how does she rationalize being able to "see" a kidney through their clothing (never mind the layers of flesh in the way).

She needs to "orientate" her vision, apparently.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to us either.

 

[roger]

For VFF:

This is entirely honest reporting. I just picked up a nickel, flipped it, called heads in the air, and it landed heads. I flipped it a second time, called tails, and it landed tails.

It was only 2 flips, I did not try again and again until I got 2 flips correct.

The odds of me doing that was the same as your performance.

 

[pakeha]

Here's where to start on the subject of Microexpression^WP. I see it's gone far since I had to study the subject.
Yes, JoetheJuggler, it would have been interesting to have had a cold-reader on the platform. But wait- we did! VFF herself.
volatile-when any 'energy' perception claim needs to actually look at the person, you can be 'certain' it's all about cold reading.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For me, the fact that she got "right person/wrong kidney" confirms that she's using cold reading techniques to find the target person,

Yep. I'd go beyond that and say the fact that she uses the question marks and X system in her notes shows plainly that her claim is false (and that she is fully aware it is false).

Her claim (from her website), "When I look at people, I see images in my mind of the inside of their bodies. I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals, and even what I call the vibrational level inside the atoms." Elsewhere she has explicitly claimed that she can see these things immediately and that she has never been wrong (never failed to see). Also from her website, "I've had some very interesting accurate perceptions, and so far I haven't produced a single verified inaccurate perception yet!"

The business of making question marks and using her x-ray vision repeatedly (and sometimes getting different outcomes--like failing to see a kidney 2 times and then seeing it once or whatever) completely contradicts her claim.

Here's a question for you if you're back Anita: is this the method you have used in the past? That is, the looking repeated times and recording Xs and ?s to tally up the outcomes. Your anecdotes and claims indicate otherwise. You claimed to spot a diaphragm (or IUD or something like that) in a woman instantaneously when she walked down the hallway outside the open door of a room you were in, for example.

I contend that the reason you demanded the subjects sit for so long was NOT so you could do something contrary to what you've claimed--but only so that you could open up possibilities for information leakage or find any other advantage that might skew the odds in your favor. And even so, you went into the demonstration, I suspect, knowing you would fail but hoping to get at least one right so you could make something of it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

She needs to "orientate" her vision, apparently.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to us either.

Yup--and we came up with several work arounds for this objection. The one I suggested, that she take a basic anatomy course--'cause if she can see subcutaneous fat and bones, as she claims, she could easily orient her vision, I didn't expect she'd take. Any number of others would've worked. (Have markings on the screen that correspond to the subject's head or hips or whatever.)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let me first say that my prediction that the test would not take place was wrong .. Not sure what my punishment should be, but I will take any neener-neeners that come my way ..

Then, I want to congratulate Anita on her amazing powers . She has the ability to stare at a group of people's backs for half an hour and determine who fidgets the most .
I hope this fantastic ability takes you far.. Your efforts in college are a total waste of time IMO ...