The VFF Test is On!

[Maia]

According to Drs_Res, they each made the following selections: Round 1, 12-L; Round 2, 24-L; Round 3, 36-L. Do you think that happened by chance?


That's simply the percentage of subjects that Anita got right; i.e., two out of three.


A lot more special than the performance of the Stop Vision from Feeling contingent -- and nearly statistically significant.

No-- and not just because Anita obviously did fail the specific terms of the test. I would say that if anything significant or interesting had actually turned up during the test that didn't quite meet the standards of the claim and yet came close to it (or was just plain interesting), then that really might merit another and differently designed test. But what finally torpeded that has nothing to do with stats-- it's the fact that the correct info we did see from her might be tainted. It's unlikely that we'll ever know for sure if it is or not, but anything coming out of that test is fruit from the poisoned tree.

It's silly to blame bookitty (and I hope nobody is), because a problem more or less along these lines was inevitable, given the inherent flaws of the study itself. Avoiding it is like trying to keep water from leaking out of a paper bag. (As a few people noted, one person who was correctly picked had a leg brace and fresh scars, and the other one (wrong side, I think), was at least 20 years older than the others in the trial.) If the study was going to be foolproof in the first place, then it needed to be done with... I don't know... 6 big glass jars which had 2 beef kidneys each in them, suspended in water. Cover each jar with a big black cloth, and then ask Anita to guess a.) which jar has a kidney and b.) which side the kidney is on. (She can even get partial credit! ) But the study wasn't designed that way (and there are a lot of better ways, I'm sure), so it was very flawed to begin with. There's no point in blaming anyone except Anita herself.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

This is dreadful! I absolutely did not notice subject 24's leg brace! My choice was purely based on my perception of his left kidney being missing, and I was highly confident in my answer because I clearly detected all but two kidneys being present!

bookitty, thank you so much for volunteering yourself and your friend for my IIG test. But you have just disqualified the test results and kind of ruined it. You knew that this would be an issue beforehand, I highly doubt that this is an issue you would have identified only after the test had taken place. Still, you willingly signed yourself up and your friend, and knowingly ruined my test.

I paid close to $1,000 to arrange the whole thing. How could you?

So, the very least you and your other Skeptics can do, is to not argue when I am intending to set up another test. My choice of subject 24 was absolutely not based on any prior knowledge of this person. But you will of course never know that fact. You will always disqualify my one good answer, that was based on my perceptions.

 

[Kariboo]

As for some visual leg brace and scars, I could never connect those to someone missing a kidney.

I absolutely did not notice subject 24's leg brace!

Pick one!

 

[Moochie]

Yes, I failed the third trial. I got the correct person, but the wrong side. I had also reached my limit, and was very nearly raising my hand up to cancel the trial. I was having a headache, my claimed perceptions stopped working, I felt an electrical imbalance all across my body, and I felt close to fainting. I never have these symptoms at other times in my life though, but have experienced them in the past when I have pushed myself to do too many trials, like in the bacteria detection tests at home.

Those are real symptoms, and not minor. I am not lying about them, or exaggerating them. And for those of you who are quick to judge, and would like to call me a liar on that, if the video that was taken from the front of the stage is released, you can all see it close-up. And once my draft papers, that were stapled to the back of the answer sheets, are published, you can all see that I clearly write that I am tired.

Surely you can not argue if I want another test that ensures that I do not get fatigue? I would hope for the next, and hopefully final, test, to have two trials in one day, and then another two trials the day after. Yes, there is a lot of work involved, but I will pay those that work with the test arrangements if that helps. (And I will be donating some to the IIG once I can. The IIG worked hard and deserves that.)

I absolutely do not refute the results of the test. But just to settle my own curiosity, I want to find out if the results are the same once two conditions that affected my performance are addressed. The test will also have more extensive screens, and only the back-area of the subjects will be seen.

They're serious symptoms, so I hope you don't dismiss them lightly. See a doctor.


M.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Am I right that there were 37 persons guessing at home in each of the trials of the IIG Preliminary? And some of the 37 persons got some of their guesses correct? Using a simple randomizer, randomizing numbers 1 through 12, and using 1 as the correct answer, I randomized numbers 1 through 12, 37 times in a sequence, and using the number that appears on the top of the randomized list as the answer, number 1 showed up on top of the list three times.

You can not equate my answers, me being a single person, with two or three correct answers made by 37 persons guessing at random. I have not taken statistics at college, but I do know that you just can not do that.

The probability of one person guessing correctly, is not the same when 37 persons are doing that. So, if 2 persons out of 37 got the same accuracy as I did, does that suggest a 2 in 37 chance of guessing correctly to that extent? That is 5.4%.

I don't know what to make of it. But I do know I am having another test. Especially since bookitty disqualified the test. None of you Forum Skeptics will have anything to do with my next test. I won't even announce when it is taking place, until it has happened and is over.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Pick one!

What do you mean by "pick one"? I did not notice any leg brace and scars. And if I had noticed it, I would not connect those to someone missing a kidney.

Of course people notice things subconsciously. Yet another reason why I need to have another test with better screens, so that you can stop trying to disqualify the results. No head, shoulders, arms, legs, or long hair will be visible on the next test. No tattoos, leg brace, or scars will be visible what so ever.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is dreadful! I absolutely did not notice subject 24's leg brace! My choice was purely based on my perception of his left kidney being missing, and I was highly confident in my answer because I clearly detected all but two kidneys being present!

bookitty, thank you so much for volunteering yourself and your friend for my IIG test. But you have just disqualified the test results and kind of ruined it. You knew that this would be an issue beforehand, I highly doubt that this is an issue you would have identified only after the test had taken place. Still, you willingly signed yourself up and your friend, and knowingly ruined my test.

I paid close to $1,000 to arrange the whole thing. How could you?

So, the very least you and your other Skeptics can do, is to not argue when I am intending to set up another test. My choice of subject 24 was absolutely not based on any prior knowledge of this person. But you will of course never know that fact. You will always disqualify my one good answer, that was based on my perceptions.

Quit the dramatics. Nobody is impressed. One good answer was never going to be good enough was it - face it you failed.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

They're serious symptoms, so I hope you don't dismiss them lightly. See a doctor.

Do you see a doctor if you are taking part in a running competition and experience leg cramp and shortness of breath? They would advise you to learn your limits and not run for more than you are able and to rest.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Quit the dramatics. Nobody is impressed. One good answer was never going to be good enough was it - face it you failed.

I failed the IIG Preliminary, but I have not falsified the claim yet. I will have another test. And you can see it once it has already taken place.

 

[Moochie]

This is dreadful! I absolutely did not notice subject 24's leg brace! My choice was purely based on my perception of his left kidney being missing, and I was highly confident in my answer because I clearly detected all but two kidneys being present!

bookitty, thank you so much for volunteering yourself and your friend for my IIG test. But you have just disqualified the test results and kind of ruined it. You knew that this would be an issue beforehand, I highly doubt that this is an issue you would have identified only after the test had taken place. Still, you willingly signed yourself up and your friend, and knowingly ruined my test.

I paid close to $1,000 to arrange the whole thing. How could you?

So, the very least you and your other Skeptics can do, is to not argue when I am intending to set up another test. My choice of subject 24 was absolutely not based on any prior knowledge of this person. But you will of course never know that fact. You will always disqualify my one good answer, that was based on my perceptions.

Anita, regardless of how you phrase it, your "perceptions" look more and more like guesses, especially in light of this recent information from bookitty, and the fact that most missing kidneys are left kidneys. Indeed, if there were anything to your claim, you definitely would have gotten 3 out of three. A child can see this (and did).


M.

 

[desertgal]

Jesus H. Christ - five rabid wall o'texts in 40 minutes. Take a frikkin pill, lady.

Yes, I failed the third trial. I got the correct person, but the wrong side... <snippety>

Interestingly, as I was feeling the emptiness inside subject 36, logic...<snippety>

I did not recognize subject 24...<snippety>

This is dreadful!...<snippety>

Am I right that there were 37 persons...<snippety>

What do you mean by "pick one"?...<snippety>

Do you see a doctor if you are ...<snippety>

Excuses, dodges, excuses, babble speak, excuses, dodges, babble speak, excuses...

Arm waving and all that...

None of you Forum Skeptics will have anything to do with my next test.

That'll be a relief. I doubt any skeptics will have anything to do with your next...ahem...test.

I won't even announce when it is taking place, until it has happened and is over.

So...go do that, then. Buh-bye...

 

[Moochie]

Do you see a doctor if you are taking part in a running competition and experience leg cramp and shortness of breath? They would advise you to learn your limits and not run for more than you are able and to rest.

Of course I would! How do you know you hadn't developed DVT as a result of your flight? That's just one possibility -- based on an actual event from my own life -- the only difference being the duration of the flight.


M.

 

[chillzero]

Interestingly, as I was feeling the emptiness inside subject 36, logic was telling me that it surely couldn't be this person, because it would be too obvious since she is older than the others, and perhaps she was among the subjects to try to trick me. I was trying to not pick her, because of her age.

This is not interesting... at least not the way you mean it. This is an excellent example of you attempting warm/cold reading of the subjects, and it is really important that you realise this and accept it. You also need to accept that cold reading is not a skill (as you define it) and that this shows you do not have any unusual skill or ability and need to stop this.

I can be prepared to accept that maybe you were right about Dr Carlson. It does not demonstrate anything,as it has not been repeatable and wasnnot correctly recorded anyway.

I am willing to state that the fact that somebody discussed one of the subjects with you prior to the test completely invalidates it, an you are right to be angry about it, although you need to also examine what it means for your results. Again .... warm reading in action.

Anita,
I have been where you are. I came here to win a million bucks for psychic abilities and intended to demonstrate them via tarot readings, or predictions. I also toyed with trying to test for the MDC for touch-free healing. While discussing these things and others with members here I learned about cold reading, about the ideometer effect and most importantly about confirmation bias and memory tricks. I had no selfish intentions - I intended to use the money to help me setup a system in the UK (to begin with) whereby other psychics and healers would face similar testing to prove their skills,and be placed on a register for'real' psychics and healers. I wanted to protect the public and also protect those psychics and healers who could actually do the job. Well, at least I succeeded in that to a degree.

Please Anita. Think through what has happened, and take more time to understand what is meant by warm or cold reading,and what is meant by confirmation bias. For you in particular, please understand what is meant by cold reading, because however unintentional, that's playing a large part here, and it is not an ability to decideto make further use of. Indeed... lilke the ideometer effect it is usually dramatically reduced in effect by realising it is happening.

I remember what it is like to believe you have an ability that sets you apart, and in many ways it makes people like you and I similar to those in programs like American Idol / X-Factor ... except we aren't the finallists I'm afraid. This road to understanding what happens when you look at people and think you see what's going on inside enough to even diagnose people ... it's a very scary road. I know that. It's often very painful. I said many pages back and I'll say again that it is absolutely worth every single step.

You seem to be a reasonably good student. Learn to set aside the personal issues here when you study this situation. Review explanations and don't be on the defensive so much that you ignore the heart of what is being said.
You're well written, well spoken and bright. Put those tools to good use.

Much as I was initally pissed off at people here, and particularly a member called Druid who invited me here in the first place, I thank them and him wholeheartedly for helping me get all the answers that those around me in the new-age community were angry I even asked for. Someday I hope to see you thank the JREF members ...maybe even UncaYimmy ... for the time and effort they have put in to your exploration of your experiences. I didn't get a tenth of this amount of effort and attention, and I'm embarrassed that I stayed away from the criticisms for a long while as I adjusted to my new life free of spritual connections and guides. I am impressed how much you have weathered the criticisms levelled at you, but I would hate to see you waste all the time and effort - on your part as well as everyone else's.

Please ... take a break by all means, but please - please - take on board the valid information that is being shared with you here. Don't waste any more money, or more time that should be spent on your studies on this matter. Get your grades, get your qualifications, and then look back. Hopefully, like me, you'll feel all the better for it.

 

[Chimera]

Interestingly, as I was feeling the emptiness inside subject 36, logic was telling me that it surely couldn't be this person, because it would be too obvious since she is older than the others, and perhaps she was among the subjects to try to trick me. I was trying to not pick her, because of her age.

Thanks for posting this, Anita.
This is Basic Cold Reading 101.

 

[Marcus]

I failed the IIG Preliminary, but I have not falsified the claim yet. I will have another test. And you can see it once it has already taken place.

The claim was falsified by the test, it is not up to you to decide it wasn't.

The disappointment comes in because it appeared(to newbies like myself, anyway) that you would be the first claimant to recognize this.

By all means, have another test, but it now appears virtually certain(knowing more about your history) that you will have a fresh set of excuses afterwards.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You are all comfortable questioning any results that would support the claim that I might have some strange subconscious cold reading skill for missing organs, and you do not allow me to question any circumstances that I identify that might have reduced my performance.

You are willing to accept the results of trial 2 to be flawed, when they are not flawed, but you won't similarly consider whether the results of trials 1 and 3 might be flawed. For instance, if I experience fatigue and the claim stops working, how does such a trial test that claim.

I will arrange to have another test and thanks to bookitty you will only find out about it after it has taken place. The two conditions that I identified with the Preliminary will be addressed. And the issues brought up by you of visual information, will also be addressed in the next test. The screens will be more elaborate, and only the backs of the subjects can be seen. So most visual information, such as arms, legs, hair, gender, age, tattoos, leg brace, scars, will no longer be an issue. I would like to do one more thing here though. I would like to post the protocol for the next test here and ask you to identify any issues that you see with it beforehand.

It is not a mental illness to genuinely feel something that corresponds to health information in people. It would be, if I were to assume those perceptions to be real each time, or if I were to try to convince others that what I feel is true. I have had interesting accuracy and it is not a mental illness to want to investigate that further. If I have some interesting automatic cold reading skill, I am interested to find out how it works, or if tests reveal inaccuracy, I would like to know that also.

Stop attacking me personally, it does not contribute to skepticism. You can express your concerns without personal insults and in a civil manner.

ETA: PS. There won't be any chair-shuffling on the next test. I will have a chair behind each of the subjects.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Interesting how you are trying to explain away any correct answers that I made, and it seems I am not allowed to do the same by explaining my incorrect answers. Just a thought.

What?!! This is perhaps the deepest balderdash you've shoveled at us!

You've done nothing but explain away your failure! We have all been trying to play by the rules by applying the standards of the protocol that you agreed to.

Again, before the test, you said you would accept a failure as the falsification of your claim. After the test, you refuse to admit your claim is falsified, and you've done nothing but "explain away" your failure.

Now, as to this serious source of information leakage: the subject who was missing a kidney was already mentioned in the forum, and YOU had already contacted him by PM. And he was easily identified by a visible brace. I suspect the only way we'll ever know whether or not this is the reason you picked the right person in the 3rd round is if you are completely honest.

Trouble is, you've already demonstrated that you are a liar, so we can only suspect the worst.

As I've been saying for some time, one of the worst problems with the IIG protocol is that it says nothing about how subjects were selected or assigned to groups. This sort of thing is exactly why that's such a big issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stop attacking me personally, it does not contribute to skepticism. You can express your concerns without personal insults and in a civil manner.

See post 935. You flat out contradict yourself. You said you'd consider your claim falsified if you failed, but after you failed, you refuse to admit your claim is falsified. That makes you a liar. This is not a personal insult.

I've given ample evidence for this charge. Skepticism is about following the evidence to provisionally accept or reject a proposition. (And since you still think you could see Dr. Carlson's insides to know he was missing a kidney, you're not a person to lecture anyone on skepticism!)

You've also said that your new claim (the one where you know when you'll be right and when you'll be wrong) is the claim you "still" have (implying that it's not a NEW claim).

Also, your NEW claim is in contradiction to your old claim.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Anita, do you have anything to say about chillzero's recent post?

 

[desertgal]

<snipped>Now, as to this serious source of information leakage: the subject who was missing a kidney was already mentioned in the forum, and YOU had already contacted him by PM.

Correction: VfF did not contact the subject by PM. Her PM was to bookitty, inquiring whether her friend would be interested in having Anita examine him. It was particularly distasteful on Anita's part, since the fellow was, at the time, in the hospital with critical injuries, but, to be clear, she had no prior contact directly with that subject.