The VFF Test is On!

[LightinDarkness]

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.

This is exactly what is going on here. By submitting herself to tests - and failing, as he has with all the tests she has engaged in - she will make herself look all the more real to the woo community. That is because, using woo "logic", Anita will spin her failed results and offer these tests as proof of powers that operate even under the eye of us evil skeptics.

In the coming months and years, Anita will tell us that although she has never intended to use her superpowers on the woo circuit, the cries of the (ignorant) helpless needing her cures made her go into the woo business. We will be told that she has a moral obligation to help the less fortunate, since her att. treatments "work" and cost much less than conventional medicine.

 

[Moochie]

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.

Well, I'm almost 60, and "bonzer" is still current in my vocabulary, as is "fair dinkum" and "strewth!".

ETA: Sorry for the derail.


M.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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

No there is not. But I can't arrange it on my own. I will consider paying someone for their time and work of setting it up, though, so it should be fine. And once I get a job, I am donating money to the IIG as a thank you for their time and work, too. They don't ask for it, but they sure are entitled to it.

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

I detected that Dr. Carlson is missing a kidney without having any prior incentive to suspect it. What are the odds of guessing one missing kidney among twelve? 1 in 12. What are the odds of guessing one missing kidney among countless of other possible health information? 1 in thousands. And I knew the accuracy of the trials beforehand. It compels me to investigate further.

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

Yes, even though I said no when I was asked this question by someone at the test. I would not mention it because it is immoral to do so. In fact something in one of the IIG members also.

 

[bookitty]

I detected that Dr. Carlson is missing a kidney without having any prior incentive to suspect it. What are the odds of guessing one missing kidney among twelve? 1 in 12. What are the odds of guessing one missing kidney among countless of other possible health information? 1 in thousands. And I knew the accuracy of the trials beforehand. It compels me to investigate further.

I see...

Yes, even though I said no when I was asked this question by someone at the test. I would not mention it because it is immoral to do so. In fact something in one of the IIG members also.

Cute. Without naming names, what information did you pick up?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

This is exactly what is going on here. By submitting herself to tests - and failing, as he has with all the tests she has engaged in - she will make herself look all the more real to the woo community. That is because, using woo "logic", Anita will spin her failed results and offer these tests as proof of powers that operate even under the eye of us evil skeptics.

In the coming months and years, Anita will tell us that although she has never intended to use her superpowers on the woo circuit, the cries of the (ignorant) helpless needing her cures made her go into the woo business. We will be told that she has a moral obligation to help the less fortunate, since her att. treatments "work" and cost much less than conventional medicine.

And you believe in your delusions, because...? From my website: "The IIG Preliminary taught me that I am able to perform just as well in a test setting as anywhere else, and that being in the presence of Skeptics, video cameras, and an audience, and following a test procedure, does not inhibit my claim or performance in any way. I do not become nervous, and the claim is fully capable of expressing itself in a test setting."

You are a poor representative of your university, LightinDarkness. You are expressing your speculations in the form of accusations, of things that I never intend to do and have shown no inclination of ever doing. You are practicing prejudice and you fail as an objective Skeptic.

 

[Jonquill]

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.

This is a bad excuse, you didn't even need to look at the heavy set guy, if you'd looked at all the others first you would have had your answer before you got to him. Like when you are doing an exam you answer the questions that you are sure you can get right first and leave the hard one for last to do if you have time.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

ETA: Sorry for the derail.

I don't mind your derails, Moochie. You're fun to have around. And welcome to my Facebook, by the way. Feel free to derail there also.

Cute. Without naming names, what information did you pick up?

Someone, not one of the Subjects, has a weak heart and knows it and feels it too. No pain or heart attack, just weak contractions and possibly poor stroke volume (the amount of blood that the heart can pump out). Nothing to panic about. Just some exercise and healthy lifestyle would do it.

 

[bookitty]

I don't mind your derails, Moochie. You're fun to have around. And welcome to my Facebook, by the way. Feel free to derail there also.

Someone, not one of the Subjects, has a weak heart and knows it and feels it too. No pain or heart attack, just weak contractions and possibly poor stroke volume (the amount of blood that the heart can pump out).

And that was it? Nothing else?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I knew before he told me.

No you didn't. You said stuff like "I felt good" and "I was sure it was one of these 2" and so on.

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.

No you didn't.

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

No you don't, but this NEW CLAIM is irrelevant to the question I've been asking you.

Before the test you said that if you failed the test, you'd admit your claim was falsified.

Now you will not make that admission.

Please explain this.

Note well: I'm not asking about your NEW false claim that you know when you're right and when you're wrong beforehand.

Also note, that before the test, you claimed you were never wrong, so this NEW CLAIM is logically inconsistent with the OLD CLAIM.

For your new claim to be right, your old claim must be false.

This is simple stuff, and you should be embarrassed that you are unwilling to admit that your claim has been falsified.

I knew trial 1 and 3 were wrong and trial 2 was right,

No you didn't. Repeating this won't convince anyone but yourself. And frankly, I'm not interested in this new claim.

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.

And again, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying stuff like this. (Though it is what all the charlatans of your ilk have done for many many years--so there's nothing exceptional about you at all.)

It was you who argued for the longer trial times. And you agreed that this was the absolute ideal conditions to demonstrate your ability. You said with certainty that there was no possible condition that would be more favorable to you.

You really should be ashamed.

 

[ynot]

I knew before he told me.

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

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.

Your claim that - “I know when I'm right and when I'm wrong beforehand” doesn’t make any credible sense (along with many claims you make).

If you know you are giving a wrong answer why do you give the answer at all?

If you only realise an answer is wrong after you have given it, but before the correct answer is revealed, then why not clearly cancel the answer before the correct result is revealed?

I’m sure no test protocol would object to a “woman's prerogative” last minute mind changing option.

 

[Rodney]

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.

So does three correct targets and two correct locations. What's your point?

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.

Nice spin, but that's not what the protocol clearly stated.

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.

That's not the issue. The issue is what the probability is that Anita's results would have been achieved by random chance. And the answer is 5.67%.

 

[Moochie]

Interesting article that may have some bearing on our discussions:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120873368&sc=nl&cc=nh-20091127

Sense Of Touch Can Help Hearing, Study Says

M.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Interesting article that may have some bearing on our discussions:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120873368&sc=nl&cc=nh-20091127

Interesting subject, but I guarantee it has nothing to do with what's wrong with Anita.

She simply lacks basic critical thinking skills.

She's now saying her claim has all along been that she knows when she's right and wrong beforehand, when that's obviously a lie.

In fact, her new claim, that she knows when she's right and wrong before hand, is logically inconsistent with her claim that that we've been discussing for months (and that the IIG demonstration was set up to test)--that she can see internal organs with her magic "vision from feeling" power and that she is never wrong.

 

[tsig]

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.

I don't understand how three attempts in one day tires you out when you say this is a spontaneous ability that you have all the time.

 

[Moochie]

I am in agreement with the facts presented. The numbers don't lie. I am, however, not familiar enough with the history of this claim (the time or desire to read through thousands upon thousands of posts dating back two years is almost non-existent), but there is definite consistency in what members here (and others) are saying.

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).

Anita will keep designing protocols and "testing" until she hits the "right" combination of protocol and test that will render her a "winner." This shouldn't be a problem, as she will be handling the entire event, from protocol design through to test subjects through to actual test herself. She can't fail.


M.

 

[tsig]

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

Chance.

 

[Jonquill]

Re: Did you sense any other health problems

N\
Yes, even though I said no when I was asked this question by someone at the test. I would not mention it because it is immoral to do so. In fact something in one of the IIG members also.

I seem to recall that what VFF actually said was no because she was too busy looking for kidneys.

 

[Moochie]

Trying to understand Anita's "reasoning" about the test results is enough to make one dizzy. By her standards, if she had gotten all three tests completely wrong, she would count herself even more extraordinary becuase then she'd say she knew all her answers were incorrect when she submitted them!

Yes, on is off, up is down, black is white, and the devil take the hindmost. Anita through the looking-glass.


M.

 

[Moochie]

I don't mind your derails, Moochie. You're fun to have around. And welcome to my Facebook, by the way. Feel free to derail there also.

Don't worry, dear, I'm just there to have a gander. I'll be gone before you know it.

Someone, not one of the Subjects, has a weak heart and knows it and feels it too. No pain or heart attack, just weak contractions and possibly poor stroke volume (the amount of blood that the heart can pump out). Nothing to panic about. Just some exercise and healthy lifestyle would do it.

Que?


M.

 

[laca]

I knew before he told me.

Prove it or shut up.

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".

Riiiight, just like you said that if you failed the test, your claim would be falsified. You had your chance to prove you're honest, and you blew it. From now on, Liar is your middle name.

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

No, you don't. You had 6 people, not thousands. Pick one at random. "Feel" that you're wrong. Move on to the next one, until you "feel" you're right. Choose that as your final answer. 100% success rate. Guaranteed. Unless of course, you don't actually know whether you're right or wrong beforehand.

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.

Make that a psychological test, one that can pinpoint the exact mental illness you have. We've long passed the point where it wasn't sure you had one.