The VFF Test is On!

[pakeha]

VfF's track record tells us that she is very attached to the notion of there being "something" to what she experiences. The fact that that "something" is something most humans take for granted hasn't penetrated her thick skull as yet, or so it seems. It's called "guessing," with maybe some cold reading thrown in.

She's angling for a career in woo. What other explanation can there be?


M.

I agree with you, moochie.
Via ghosts, perhaps?
Or 'enhanced' jewellry like her fellow Arcturian?

 

[bookitty]

My guess is that she just wants to feel special. She's of a different class than Sylvia Brown. At least Anita isn't stringing people along and charging them. When I say "stringing people along" I mean it in the sense she isn't telling people to get their kidneys removed or telling them to come to her for diagnosis. At least from what I've read over the last few weeks. I'm not familiar with how or when this all started.

I wonder if guessing about Anita's future in woo is merely rational people looking for a rational reason for the way she clings to her delusion. To anyone with a modicum of common sense, this test should be the end of it. For Anita (and every claimant before her) it is only a beginning, a gateway to something greater. It's only natural to wonder if there is a purpose behind this perceived greatness.

Personally, I think Anita hasn't got anything else. Without her "Vision From Feeling" she is merely a 27 year old college student with a reputation for applying deep significance to everyday events.

 

[Furcifer]

Personally, I don't want to stop the hedging. I like it because it reveals the true nature of the claimant. We now know that in 36 locations, Anita determined that 6 were missing a kidney and was correct only once. Statistically, she was better off not revealing her hedges because it looks a lot more "impressive" if she only took three guesses.

That's actually a good point. The good cold readers start hedging, but when they don't get a "hit" they usually stop and very emphatically claim they are unequivocally correct. Hedging is probably the biggest indicator the claimant is a fraud. It takes a "paranormal" claim and reduces it to a "statistical" probability.

What makes this so interesting is that she's a science major, and physics to boot. She has to know what she's doing, and yet every time I see it mentioned to her she gets all spacey and new agey. It's a fascinating case study in logic verses mysticism.

 

[ynot]

Paranormal claims always seem to boil down to - “Something seems to work some of the time in some circumstances”. Believers seem to completely miss the point that this description applies more to dumb luck than anything else.

 

[GeeMack]

And have you contacted a qualified mental health professional, yet? Seems you're scared to answer that one. What's the matter, Anita, afraid you just might find out the awful truth?

For what? For having some sort of good automatic cold reading skill? For detecting that Dr. Carlson's kidney was missing, without having any prior clues or incentive to find just that? Or for knowing when I was right and when I was wrong? For investigating further? I don't think so.

You don't have any special cold reading skills. I got exactly the same number of correct guesses you got and I didn't have to wander around staring at people's backs for an hour and a half. If you used cold reading and you couldn't get any better results than rolling a die and flipping a coin, then your cold reading skills are neither good nor automatic. Your narcissism, obvious by the way you go to any length including treating other people like crap in order to keep a grip on your delusion, is a good reason for you to see a mental health professional.

And you didn't detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a kidney until he told you. Don't you think you ought to take that lie in for a retread by now? Your compulsion to lie might be a good reason for you to see a mental health professional.

And I knew when you were right and wrong at exactly the same time you did. It was when the moderator of your IIG freak show told you the results. Your continued refusal to remember reality in the actual order in which it occurred might be a good reason for you to see a mental health professional.

And as far as investigating further, since you think guessing how many fingers I'm holding up behind my back merits further investigation, I'd say that's a pretty compelling reason for you to see a mental health professional.

Now go reread Post #1265. You've still got a lot of apologizing to do.

Of course, every failure will be excused by True Believers. There is nothing, and I mean nothing you can do about them, so don't bother to try. Anita has revealed herself to be a True Believer. It seems, however, that some people still believe that if they say just the right thing, ask her just the right question or suggest just the right test, Anita will finally see the error in her ways.

It won't happen.

Yep. That's why I try not to engage these nutcases in discussions about the details of their claims. There's the clearly insane guy who thinks the surface of the Sun is made of solid iron. He can't possibly support his fruitcake fantasy, but absolutely loves to converse all sciency with quantums and orders of magnitude and that kind of talk. Doesn't even have the math skills to balance his own checkbook but fancies himself capable of overturning all of physics as we know it. And there's the crackpot UFO believer who simply will not answer a yes/no question if it requires an honest reply that goes against his belief, but he'll talk and talk as long as people are engaging him in a discussion about decades old UFO sightings.

They're just like Anita and her desperate need to talk about the results of the IIG Show as if the explanations and excuses are important. She wants another test so she can get dozens of people to coddle her and serve her. She doesn't care about the claim. She doesn't care about the people. She cares about talking vibrations and synesthesia and cold reading and whatever special crap she can shovel. And she'll do that as long as people are feeding her new protocol ideas and criticizing the old ones. But simply point out where she's irrational or lying, or how she's lost contact with reality, and she ignores it like the words are invisible.

 

[dlorde]

However, the if situation just didn't occur, and the problem is that this theoretical question would only have relevance if it did. The question has to stand on its own without that, and it really can't. Nothing happened in this test that showed any ability even close to what's been claimed (or to any ability that HASN'T been claimed, either. Or to anything that's been claimed in the past...) The bizarre post-test comments definitely aren't helping anything.

Rodney's post-test modifications to the simple demonstration protocol of 'which kidney is missing?' to support some doubt in the conclusiveness of Anita's failure are a classic example of the dangers of taking experimental results and combing them for patterns outside the strict requirements of the protocol. By all means look at inconclusive results with regard to how tight the protocol was, and allow some leeway to point you towards further studies with tighter protocols, but it is a serious and basic error to look for other significance in results that was not explicitly required by the protocol. Admittedly it is human nature to be tempted to do this kind of thing, which is why so much trouble is taken to draw up strict protocols and analyse the results solely according to their requirements.

Naturally, if some unexpected pattern is obvious in the results, unrelated to the experimental protocol, this can be used as a basis for new hypotheses and tests of these new hypotheses, but it can have no experimental significance of itself.

 

[Maia]

See it? Is there anything but? Trying to pin VFF to a rational idea is like eating soup with a fork. You occasionally come up with a chewy morsel but mostly it's time consuming and rather unsatisfying.

I had to smile when I read this, because it reminded me of when one of my Alzheimer's patients was being fed lunch yesterday. Once people get to the feeder table, it's because they can't remember how to use silverware anymore, but you never know when they'll have their moments. I looked over at Mr. Smith just when he was trying to eat his iced tea with a fork. He wasn't getting very far, but I really admired him for the attempt. The difference from this situation, of course, is that Alzheimer's patients are struggling as hard as they can to hold onto their rational thinking abilities.

The moral of the story is that the capacity to think logically is precious. Nobody should throw it away or ignore it. There are all too many ways that it can be taken from us all, and we may start to appreciate it only when it's not so easy to exercise that gift.

 

[dlorde]

Listen very carefully to what I say after each trial. Also, you may want to contact Karen, James Underdown, Mark Edwards because they heard how absolutely sure I was that trial 1 and 3 were wrong, and trial 2 was right. You just want to argue, and want to disbelieve everything I say. Even when the evidence is there, that I am telling the truth. I knew the accuracy or inaccuracy of the trials beforehand.

The claim still is that when I know I am right, I am right. See my post about excuses somewhere upthread.

OK, so now you've changed your claim that you could detect with certainty a missing kidney in each of the 3 sets. You agreed to the protocol for testing that claim, undertook the demo trial, and failed to uphold your claim.

If you want to start a new claim based on the idea that the probability of your being correct about the absence of a kidney is correlated to your certainty of being correct for each set, or individual subject, or whatever, then do so, but your claim that you were certain you would be correct for all three sets has failed. You can't use the results of a trial of a claim under one protocol as evidence to support a different claim under the same protocol. You're supposed to be a scientist, you should know this.

 

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
Listen very carefully to what I say after each trial. Also, you may want to contact Karen, James Underdown, Mark Edwards because they heard how absolutely sure I was that trial 1 and 3 were wrong, and trial 2 was right. You just want to argue, and want to disbelieve everything I say. Even when the evidence is there, that I am telling the truth. I knew the accuracy or inaccuracy of the trials beforehand.

The claim still is that when I know I am right, I am right.

I really don't see how this is significant or even very interesting. You had a test of an impossible talent. You said in two out of three cases that this impossible talent had failed. That was the expected result. It is unimportant.

In the other trial, you said you were sure. At that point, you had a 50% chance of being right (I am sure/not sure). You got lucky. Even if it was instinct, that only implies that you had more clues for your cold reading.

Had you been right about trials 1 & 3 and wrong about trial 2, your instincts would have been ignored. You have already proven this by trying to take credit for the near-miss of trial 3.

 

[Audible Click]

Listen very carefully to what I say after each trial. Also, you may want to contact Karen, James Underdown, Mark Edwards because they heard how absolutely sure I was that trial 1 and 3 were wrong, and trial 2 was right. You just want to argue, and want to disbelieve everything I say. Even when the evidence is there, that I am telling the truth. I knew the accuracy or inaccuracy of the trials beforehand.

The claim still is that when I know I am right, I am right. See my post about excuses somewhere upthread.

We don't need to contact the people listed above because we watched you fail the demonstration utterly and completely. The IIG website says you failed the demonstration and James Underdown's blog states emphatically that you failed. It's true that we don't believe you because you have shown time and time again that you lie whenever it suits you or your agenda. Even if we were to believe that you knew, beforehand, what trial was good or not good, it makes no difference because you failed a protocol that you signed off on. If you had accepted the results gracefully you would have gained the respect of many of the posters who have followed this saga to the bitter end, and it is the bitter end for you because you have tried to wiggle your way out of the obvious demonstration results. You took this claim into a very public arena and all of your excuses will not change the outcome one bit. You own this now and, hopefully, you'll spare us anymore of your excuses and lies.

 

[Jeff Corey]

A number of people here have mentioned cold reading as an explanation for Anita's failed test. Aside from the fact that a failure of some claim to be demonstrated needs no explanation, I think cold reading is a barely plausible explanation in this case. Cold reading typically utilizes immediate feedback from the target in response to a fishing expedition on the part of the reader. The feedback may be verbal or nonverbal expressions.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that having a woman stalk back and forth in back of you for 27 minutes, sitting down, peering around, getting up again and walking over to another chair, and forth with the sitters mute would generate much in the way of feedback. Grant, her presence in back of the people who knew they didn't have two kidneys could generate some nervous fidgeting. But I think the other people would also be uncomfortable and generate activity, too. I would.
I can't fit this into the typical view of cold reading.
"In the course of a successful reading, the psychic may provide most of the words, but it is the client that provides most of the meaning and all of the significance." --Ian Rowland (2000: 60) http://www.skepdic.com/coldread.html

 

[Akhenaten]

Cold reading was just a term that VfF adopted without understanding it. As with most things, she automatically assumes that she can do it.

 

[Maia]

Rodney's post-test modifications to the simple demonstration protocol of 'which kidney is missing?' to support some doubt in the conclusiveness of Anita's failure are a classic example of the dangers of taking experimental results and combing them for patterns outside the strict requirements of the protocol. By all means look at inconclusive results with regard to how tight the protocol was, and allow some leeway to point you towards further studies with tighter protocols, but it is a serious and basic error to look for other significance in results that was not explicitly required by the protocol. Admittedly it is human nature to be tempted to do this kind of thing, which is why so much trouble is taken to draw up strict protocols and analyse the results solely according to their requirements.

Naturally, if some unexpected pattern is obvious in the results, unrelated to the experimental protocol, this can be used as a basis for new hypotheses and tests of these new hypotheses, but it can have no experimental significance of itself.

I agree completely, but I do think it's also important to point out to Anita that no matter what interpretation is put on the results, there is just no way to get anything significant out of any of it. The original claim is obviously falsified, but what she seems to be saying now is that this fact somehow isn't true or important because something else outside the boundaries of chance happened. This additional claim is false on two levels. Yes, the reasoning doesn't make any sense, but what's also the case is that nothing else happened which fit this description. Even if we take her claim of identifying correct or incorrect guesses at face value, there's nothing about this action which couldn't have happened by chance. No matter how much anybody combs the results, nothing unexpected, unusual, or even mildly interesting took place during this test. There are just no loopholes here.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney's post-test modifications to the simple demonstration protocol of 'which kidney is missing?' to support some doubt in the conclusiveness of Anita's failure are a classic example of the dangers of taking experimental results and combing them for patterns outside the strict requirements of the protocol. By all means look at inconclusive results with regard to how tight the protocol was, and allow some leeway to point you towards further studies with tighter protocols, but it is a serious and basic error to look for other significance in results that was not explicitly required by the protocol. Admittedly it is human nature to be tempted to do this kind of thing, which is why so much trouble is taken to draw up strict protocols and analyse the results solely according to their requirements.

Naturally, if some unexpected pattern is obvious in the results, unrelated to the experimental protocol, this can be used as a basis for new hypotheses and tests of these new hypotheses, but it can have no experimental significance of itself.

And your assertion is a classic example of not reading "the strict requirements of the protocol", which stated:

"The Applicant claims to be able to detect which Subject in a group of six Subjects is missing a kidney, to further identify which kidney (left or right) is missing in her selected Subject, and to be able to do this with 100% accuracy in three consecutive trials." See http://iigwest.org/anitaikonenprotocol.html

Note that the protocol does not specify a one-step process, along the lines of: "The Applicant claims to be able to detect which kidney (left or right) is missing from among a group of six Subjects, five of whom have two kidneys." Rather, it clearly specifies a two-step process: (1) "The Applicant claims to be able to detect which Subject in a group of six Subjects is missing a kidney," and, (2) "to further identify which kidney (left or right) is missing in her selected Subject."

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.

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.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Cold reading was just a term that VfF adopted without understanding it. As with most things, she automatically assumes that she can do it.

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.

 

[Tizzy]

Not having read most of the thousands of posts written about Ms. Ikonen's claims (in her own words, and others had to say), I tried to view the test as objectively as possible. The detection of a missing kidney in each of the three control groups was the most relevant matter at hand, I'm sure most can agree. Part of what I do involves studying the idiosyncrasies of people and cross-checking what they have written/spoken for inconsistencies. It does not take much to find them, and many others have pointed them out. It is so convoluted I would not profile Anita unless I was being paid.

If a test is going to be conducted again, all of the variables must be considered (even the new variables, ranging from heavyset persons being difficult to read to the fact it was stated the IIG tried to find individuals with their right kidneys missing). It will be a long process, as Mr. Undertown even alluded to major difficulties in setting the preliminary test up, (not to mention being swift and critical in his blog). One of the more controversial points I have read had to do with Ms. Ikonen viewing black people differently. What about half-black, half-white (and so on)? Can they be part of any new testing? 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.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'd say that it seems unlikely that Ms Ikonen will be able to arrange future testing with any reputable agency. It also seems unlikely that any attempt to organise and conduct a test on her own would prove well beyond her current resources and capabilities.

 

[Tizzy]

Anita, with respect, you are an intelligent person and certainly have a way with words. There are a few questions I am hesitant to ask because I fear they will not be answered directly and truthfully largely to do with possible public embarrassment.

And while I appreciate your optimism, you mustn't carry the attitude of "bronze is the gold of third place." Accept the test was a total failure (and move on to further testing, if that is your desire). Further justification and defense holds no water.

GeeMack, working on the assumption you were not in the audience during the testing, wouldn't the answers you got be considered "remote viewing" if you were a claimant?

 

[Tizzy]

I'd say that it seems unlikely that Ms Ikonen will be able to arrange future testing with any reputable agency. It also seems unlikely that any attempt to organise and conduct a test on her own would prove well beyond her current resources and capabilities.

That is quite likely the case. Mr. Undertown's blog suggested the IIG has no further interest.

 

[Jeff Corey]

And your assertion is a classic example of not reading "the strict requirements of the protocol", which stated:

"The Applicant claims to be able to detect which Subject in a group of six Subjects is missing a kidney, to further identify which kidney (left or right) is missing in her selected Subject, and to be able to do this with 100% accuracy in three consecutive trials." See http://iigwest.org/anitaikonenprotocol.html

Note that the protocol does not specify a one-step process, along the lines of: "The Applicant claims to be able to detect which kidney (left or right) is missing from among a group of six Subjects, five of whom have two kidneys." Rather, it clearly specifies a two-step process: (1) "The Applicant claims to be able to detect which Subject in a group of six Subjects is missing a kidney," and, (2) "to further identify which kidney (left or right) is missing in her selected Subject."

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.

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.

"To further" functions here as an AND gate, subtly indicated by the word "and" in front of it. That means that she had to do both, in one fell swoop.
Quod erat demonstratum.