The VFF Test is On!

[GeeMack]

I don't believe that Anita has any special abililities, and I would LOVE to know how you did it!

As a matter of interest, if you go to Page 31 of this thread, you'll find several postings where Drs_Res made charts of all the people playing the game on the SVFF chat.

A total of 18 people played across the three rounds and the guessing that went on before the game even started. Of all 19 people recorded, 19 including Anita, 4 of them got the correct person and the correct kidney on round 2. That was a fraction over 20%!

And when you consider that, including Anita, only 14 people played round 2, either ahead of the game or during that round, it gets even more interesting. Between Anita and all the recorded players in round 2 from the SVFF chat, 4 out of 14 people got the correct person and the correct kidney. Anita, me, volatile, and McLuvin. That's 28% of the players in round 2 who got the exact correct answer.

Amazing!

 

[volatile]

I don't know what you were doing, Gee, but I used my FeelingfromGut™!

 

[Moochie]

Hold up to what? Do you think I'm drawing some kind of important conclusion by weeding through a chat log trying to figure out who chose what? C'mon, people were drinking, staying up late, and just goofing around while looking at a screen with tiny little people sitting in chairs.

I said at the start of the post it was for Rodney, the guy who has never encountered statistical noise that he didn't think was significant.

I can attest to all of the above!

(Is that a good thing?)


M.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

It doesn't seem to be over for Anita (post #1118), who has not come to any realizations (from what I gather you are talking about) regarding this perceived ability (please correct me if I have taken this out of context). It looks like the IIG test answered the question conclusively for many (for this claim being true or false), but Anita has already outlined some future protocols for a new test. I can understand why the IIG will not be involved, but why not JREF, FACT, etc.?

Trying to comprehend the logic of this all (post-IIG test) is not possible. Post #916 is a good example of how subjective this all is (which is where much of the difficulty originates from).

My claim is an interesting experience I am investigating. I learned a lot from the IIG Preliminary demonstration, and have more to learn about the experience and that is why I am setting up another test. I am not trying to pass as a psychic so there is no need to get upset about me having another test. I am not challenging the results of the Preliminary, any results of another test will simply add to those past official results.

Why not with the IIG, JREF, or FACT? I would assume that they are mostly interested in psychic/not psychic, rather than learning more about a claim.

My motives for having another test and what I still want to learn are outlined at
www.visionfromfeeling.com/paranormaltest.html
www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html

 

[volatile]

If you would have taken the option of passing when you *knew* your answer to be incorrect, would that have lead to you making only the correct answers, and a 100% accuracy in the trials that you did answer in? Just curious.

Yes.

 

[derekcbart]

Hello.

I just wanted to point out that the IIG, like the JREF, does not allow an applicant to re-apply for the Paranormal Challenge until after one year has passed after their Preliminary.

-Derek

 

[GeeMack]

Why not with the IIG, JREF, or FACT? I would assume that they are mostly interested in psychic/not psychic, rather than learning more about a claim.

As much as anything it could be because you treat people like crap and nobody really wants to indulge your delusion any longer. Say, how about that appointment with a competent mental health professional? You really should, you know, as a science student, work to eliminate all the mundane and most likely causes for your hallucinations. You get that process going yet?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita, which statement is a lie?

Before the test:

If I can't pass the Preliminary, there is no hope that I could pass a more elaborately and more strictly designed formal test, and I would be happy to conclude on the claim as falsified if I fail the Preliminary.

After the test:

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

Do you even recognize that these statements are contradictory?

The objective of my investigation is to learn more about my experience, and as such I have not completed that work and will proceed to having another test. It is a learning process. I still don't know what visual information I use to conclude on my answers, and so in a next test there will be much less visual information available.

It was meant that the testing conditions would have been carefully outlined by the time I submit the claim to an official test. I thought that was done, but I did not know that larger persons take longer for me to feel into and that three 27-minute trials would be far too much in one day. I can only identify what affects the perceptions as I encounter them. So I want to have another test with these two issues eliminated. And see how it goes.

Obviously, if I can not do this beyond statistical probability, then any additional test will only confirm that. I still have questions.

What I do is not a conscious intentional cold reading attempt, and that is why I find it interesting. I am also fascinated by how I knew that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney. So the work goes on.

As for a claim being falsified, I am not sure what that claim is really anymore. Let's just say I identify some skill and accuracy in the perceptions and I have more to learn about it. And that I do not have any sort of claim about being psychic. I am not done.

 

[laca]

I don't want to pick nits, but she's gotten people suckered into saying that the goal was to "falsify" her claim. It was up to her to prove that there was enough to the claim to warrant a *real* test with $50K on the line. For the umpteenth time she failed to demonstrate that there is anything worth investigating.

Yes, for everyone else but her, that is true. For her, I can see how it could be about "falsifying" her claim.

The claim has been false from Day One. There has never been anything to falsify. It has always been her burden to prove that there was even anything worth testing. I have told her this countless times.

Again, that is true for everyone who's even marginally sane. Not her.

It was over before it ever started. The only one who doesn't see it is her, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Exactly

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Another test would be a waste of time. All of us (except Anita) know that she has no magical powers, if she could do a quarter of the things that she seems to think she can she could prove it in about 5 minutes, it wouldn't need a test that has taken months to set up.
It seems that she could fail a dozen tests and still not be convinced of her total lack of paranormal powers.

You are more concerned with psychic or not psychic than with a learning process. My goal never was to prove some psychic ability, that is why I am happy after the Preliminary. The reasons for why I am having another test are outlined on my website.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Let's just say I identify some skill and accuracy in the perceptions and I have more to learn about it. And that I do not have any sort of claim about being psychic. I am not done.

Complete and utter rubbish. Your so-called accuracy is no better than random chance, and as such, your skills are no better than what anyone else can do.

You should be ashamed to have wasted the time of so many people involved. Not that a test is a waste of time per se, but the way you handled it afterwards is an insult to anyone involved. You repeatedly said that if you failed this particular test, you will admit that your claims are falsified. However, you did not do what you said you would do.

That makes you a liar of one of the worst kind. You should have at least the decency to stand up to your own words, but you do not. Really, shame on you for how you handled this.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[GeeMack]

You are more concerned with psychic or not psychic than with a learning process. My goal never was to prove some psychic ability, that is why I am happy after the Preliminary. The reasons for why I am having another test are outlined on my website.

The IIG show only served to reinforce your existing delusion that you have some kind of special skill that other people don't have. You don't. Fully 28% of the participants on record in round 2 of the show got the exact same correct answers you got. I got the exact same score you got no matter how you try to analyze it. The only difference between you and I is your incorrect assessment of the results. If you were interested in learning you'd go see a qualified mental health professional and have your problem thoroughly assessed.

Oh, and how are you coming along on that apology to the dozens upon dozens of people you crapped on when you lied about announcing that your failure in this show would falsify all your paranormal claims?

 

[jhunter1163]

I am also fascinated by how I knew that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney.

He told you. Hardly worth being fascinated by, no?

 

[Moochie]

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.

Anita is a bright woman who has hit on an idea to make herself more "credible" to the unhealed masses. Give her a little more time so that her message can percolate to the target audience, some of whom have apparently already expressed an interest.

Anita makes protestations of "Nevah!" when it is suggested that she is poised to become the next "wonderful discovery" on Oprah, especially after her heartwarming, fascinating book is released, but eventually she'll be forced to relent when the groundswell of voices of the lame and crippled reaches a crescendo so high that Anita will be "forced" to capitulate and share her amazing ability with the rest of us mere mortals.

I hope that I am wrong, but that particular vision comes from more than a feeling.


M.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The objective of my investigation is to learn more about my experience, and as such I have not completed that work and will proceed to having another test. It is a learning process. <blather>

Once again, you have utterly failed to answer my questions. Everything you have put in this post was irrelevant to my questions. Just more evasiveness blathering on about stuff irrelevant to a couple of direct and clear questions.

Let's try again with just one simple question:

Before the test:

If I can't pass the Preliminary, there is no hope that I could pass a more elaborately and more strictly designed formal test, and I would be happy to conclude on the claim as falsified if I fail the Preliminary.

After the test:

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

Do you even recognize that these statements are contradictory?

As for a claim being falsified, I am not sure what that claim is really anymore. Let's just say I identify some skill and accuracy in the perceptions and I have more to learn about it.

That's what I thought. You've got some cognitive problem. Your memory seems impaired at this point.

Let me refresh your memory. Your claim was that when you look at people you can see inside their bodies and see their internal organs. You claimed that using that paranormal power, you could tell which kidneys were missing in a controlled test. You also claimed (repeatedly) that this test would be conclusive, and that if you failed, your claim would be falsified.

And that I do not have any sort of claim about being psychic.

You keep saying this as if someone is running around saying you claimed to be a psychic.

I suggest you see a psychiatrist or neurologist. Something is wrong with your thinking. (And it's not synesthesia!)

I am not done.

And of course this statement is in complete contradiction to what you said before the test. You claimed the test was indeed conclusive (if you failed, though you admitted it would be inconclusive if you succeeded).

 

[dlorde]

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 ...

The protocol makes the criteria clear:

"Applicant is reminded that to be considered a success the test requires 100% accuracy (i.e. correct Target and correct kidney status of Target) in all three trials." [my bolding]

So correct target, wrong kidney, counts as a miss. This is what Anita agreed to. As the missing kidney always belongs to the correct target, this is logically equivalent to picking the missing kidney alone.

If you would like to propose a trial where Anita gets specific credit for identifying the target and additional credit for identifying which kidney is missing, then by all means do so, but that is not the trial protocol she agreed to.

 

[Rodney]

As a matter of interest, if you go to Page 31 of this thread, you'll find several postings where Drs_Res made charts of all the people playing the game on the SVFF chat.

A total of 18 people played across the three rounds and the guessing that went on before the game even started. Of all 19 people recorded, 19 including Anita, 4 of them got the correct person and the correct kidney on round 2. That was a fraction over 20%!

And when you consider that, including Anita, only 14 people played round 2, either ahead of the game or during that round, it gets even more interesting. Between Anita and all the recorded players in round 2 from the SVFF chat, 4 out of 14 people got the correct person and the correct kidney. Anita, me, volatile, and McLuvin. That's 28% of the players in round 2 who got the exact correct answer.

Amazing!

It's especially amazing that you and McLuvin had the exact same guesses in each round. Synchronicity?

 

[Maia]

Do you even recognize that these statements are contradictory?


That's what I thought. You've got some cognitive problem. Your memory seems impaired at this point.

(snippety snip)


I suggest you see a psychiatrist or neurologist. Something is wrong with your thinking. (And it's not synesthesia!) (handy highlighting added)

Now, this is an idea. Maybe the real problem here is something neurologically based. The "synesthesia" confusion would at least lend credence to that angle...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

He told you. Hardly worth being fascinated by, no?

I knew before he told me.

Let me refresh your memory. Your claim was that when you look at people you can see inside their bodies and see their internal organs. You claimed that using that paranormal power, you could tell which kidneys were missing in a controlled test. You also claimed (repeatedly) that this test would be conclusive, and that if you failed, your claim would be falsified.

I knew that trials 1 and 3 were wrong as I submitted the answers to those trials, and I knew that trial 2 was correct. Trial 2 was based on a perception I was highly confident in, in fact if you care to listen to what I say from 1 hour 38 minutes into Part 1, a log of which can be found in post #1161 or here, I was so convinced in fact that I clearly announced that would I be wrong in trial 2, the claim would "clearly be just nonsense", "it would be obvious that this isn't anything, and that I can't do it", and "the claim would definitely be over", and I even thought that that would have been "nice".

I suggest you see a psychiatrist or neurologist. Something is wrong with your thinking. (And it's not synesthesia!)

I know when I'm right and when I'm wrong beforehand.

And of course this statement is in complete contradiction to what you said before the test. You claimed the test was indeed conclusive (if you failed, though you admitted it would be inconclusive if you succeeded).

I knew trial 1 and 3 were wrong and trial 2 was right, and there was a subject in trial 1 that took longer and in trial 3 I was exhausted and almost cancelled. I will have another test.

 

[bookitty]

The objective of my investigation is to learn more about my experience, and as such I have not completed that work and will proceed to having another test. It is a learning process. I still don't know what visual information I use to conclude on my answers, and so in a next test there will be much less visual information available.

Is there any reason you need to involve anyone else in these tests?

Obviously, if I can not do this beyond statistical probability, then any additional test will only confirm that. I still have questions.

There is no aspect of the IIG demonstration that proved you have any ability beyond the realm of statistical probability.

As for a claim being falsified, I am not sure what that claim is really anymore. Let's just say I identify some skill and accuracy in the perceptions and I have more to learn about it. And that I do not have any sort of claim about being psychic. I am not done.

I asked this earlier but it got lost in the shuffle. When you were examining the subjects, did you get any incidental medical perceptions?