The VFF Test is On!

[SezMe]

I propose a run-off to determine who is more obstinately blind in their interpretation of the test results, Anita or Rodney. GeeMack is the final arbitrator.

 

[Rodney]

Anyway, there are so many problems with that study on so many levels that it's just about impossible to sort them all out. Any one of them would be sufficient to falsify it.

So, if Anita had passed, would you have said: 1) The test was flawed, but she passed, and so she is now eligible for the final test? or 2) The test was flawed, and so she should be re-tested prior to the final test?

 

[jhunter1163]

If I had been running the study I would have assigned all the volunteers a number (1 to 18) then had them draw numbers at random to determine the order in which they were to be presented to Anita. So in any given group of six volunteers there could be three, two, one or none missing a kidney. Of course, Anita would never have agreed to this, because it would have dramatically lowered her chance of guessing correctly.

 

[Rodney]

I propose a run-off to determine who is more obstinately blind in their interpretation of the test results, Anita or Rodney. GeeMack is the final arbitrator.

Is this the same GeeMack who managed to make the exact same picks as McLuvin in all three rounds? Is anyone else curious about how that unlikely feat was accomplished?

 

[bookitty]

Is this the same GeeMack who managed to make the exact same picks as McLuvin in all three rounds? Is anyone else curious about how that unlikely feat was accomplished?

Not particularly but if you have a theory, I'll be happy to listen.

 

[Maia]

So, if Anita had passed, would you have said: 1) The test was flawed, but she passed, and so she is now eligible for the final test? or 2) The test was flawed, and so she should be re-tested prior to the final test?

No-- I'd be saying the same thing I'm saying now. I will leave all of the other near-infinite number of problems with this test to everyone else. My considered opinion, which I do not state as fact because nobody will ever know for sure, is that the correct pick was a red-hot reading. Because of that, we'd have no way of knowing if the hypothetical other correct picks would also be blowing out the digital thermometer or not.

 

[TSR]

Is this the same GeeMack who managed to make the exact same picks as McLuvin in all three rounds? Is anyone else curious about how that unlikely feat was accomplished?

.
If you think this is significant, why don't *you* tell us how you think it was, and show us some evidence to support it?
.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just a quibble--a point I made before the "Demonstration":

Anita Ikonen failed to demonstrate the paranormal ability that she claimed to have during her Preliminary Demonstration for the IIG $50,000 Paranormal Challenge.

There was no agreement --or even likely chance at reaching an agreement --on a test protocol for the $50K Challenge. I think it's misleading to mention that prize in connection with the Preliminary Demonstration.

The $50K was never on the line, and it's extremely doubtful that it ever would be wrt to VFF's claim.

 

[jhunter1163]

Is this the same GeeMack who managed to make the exact same picks as McLuvin in all three rounds? Is anyone else curious about how that unlikely feat was accomplished?

This is off-topic, and I briefly considered reporting it but have decided not to be a *rule10*. However, I will point out that the thread topic is Anita's test, not GeeMack's or McLuvin's.

 

[Farencue]

Well I think this unlikely feat was achieved because the Geemack you were referring to might not the same Geemack that is posting here!
There is a conspiracy being cooked up just for you Rodney.
It goes along the lines of the other Geemack and McLuvin being evil twins and making things look like chance when we all know that is unlikely.

 

[Maia]

This is off-topic, and I briefly considered reporting it but have decided not to be a *rule10*. However, I will point out that the thread topic is Anita's test, not GeeMack's or McLuvin's.

Well... I'm not sure that it's off-topic. It kind of depends on what the theory is for why GM and McL had the same score. Does Rodney think it was something specifically related to the test itself that made this possible?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So, if Anita had passed, would you have said: 1) The test was flawed, but she passed, and so she is now eligible for the final test? or 2) The test was flawed, and so she should be re-tested prior to the final test?

What final test are you referring to ?

This test was a preliminary for the preliminary ..

Rest assured, she would have never agreed to the required protocol ..

 

[lexvonrockets]

Someone like Gary Schwartz?

Oh my! Oh my indeed! Who you gonna call?? LOL

 

[GeeMack]

Is this the same GeeMack who managed to make the exact same picks as McLuvin in all three rounds? Is anyone else curious about how that unlikely feat was accomplished?

Interestingly, if Anita had gotten her 3 correct guesses, she would have succeeded in the demonstration, and by the very same odds as any two observers matching all their guesses exactly. But you seem to believe the chances are so overwhelmingly against that happening that you assume there must be some trickery or deceit going on, and you want to toss out those results as invalid.

Obviously you wouldn't have accepted Anita's success as valid either. Same odds after all. Yet you think it's somehow extraordinary that she did succeed in meeting the odds required to guess how many fingers I'm holding up behind my back? You really don't understand how this chance stuff works, do you? Ask one of the math teachers there at your high school to explain it. Teaching you about probabilities and odds clearly isn't getting us anywhere and is off topic here.

 

[schlitt]

Rodney,
Lets see how you would feel about a similar test result if we take the supernatural out of the equation.

Here is a fictional scenario:

I claim to be able to detect red wine from a particular French vineyard. Not just whether it is white or red, but what type of red wine it is, and from which specific vineyard. I can do this because my taste is so finely attuned to certain molecular compounds in the wine that arise due to unique soil compositions at individual vineyards.

I have a test in a similar format to what was run with VFF, I am blindfolded so I cannot see the wine, and I taste various wines in 3 rounds. I am going to pick red wine from château margot out of what I taste.

Round 1 – I pick a wine that is red but it is not from château margot.
Round 2 – I pick a white wine.
Round 3 – I pick a wine that is red but it is not from château margot.

After I fail the test I claim: “No I didn’t fail! I identified 2 red wines out of the three trials.” – but this is completely bogus, because I failed to do what I said I could, which was identify the wine from a specific vinyard. None of the criteria I outlined before the test was met by me.

The components involved in a correct identification:
A - Wine must be red
B - Wine must be from château margot.

Both must be true, just one would not constitute a correct identification.

Round one:
A – Yes
B – No

Fail.

Round 2:

A - No
B – No

Fail.

Round three:
A – Yes
B – No

Fail.

100% failure rate.

If I could taste a red wine specific compound then why did I guess a white wine in one of the rounds? - If VFF can see the missing kidneys why did she fail in one of the rounds to identify someone who was missing one?

If I can pick the compound from the specific region, then why did I fail to do so every time? – If VFF can tell which organ is missing, then why did she fail to do so each time?

Would you would agree that the result of my testing in this matter constitutes a failure for me?
Would you also agree that the failure is pretty good evidence that I cannot do what I claim I can?

I am betting you would agree. But you have no emotional stake in the matter like you do with the supernatural.


You are letting your desire to believe in the supernatural cloud your judgement.

 

[Rodney]

Well... I'm not sure that it's off-topic. It kind of depends on what the theory is for why GM and McL had the same score. Does Rodney think it was something specifically related to the test itself that made this possible?

Here's the issue: In the type of test that Anita took, the random odds of any two persons matching picks in all three rounds (including kidney locations) are 1/6 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 = 1/1728. That, in turn, means that the odds of those two persons not matching all picks are 1727/1728. Now, if you have 1728 persons or more picking, someone is going to exactly match somebody else. However, according to the statistics that Drs_Res posted, only eight persons from the Stop Vision From Feeling contingent posted picks for both the subject and kidney location in all three rounds. That means there were only 28 possible ways of two persons exactly matching picks (Person 1 could have matched Persons 2-8, Person 2 could have also matched Persons 3-8, Person 3 could have also matched Persons 4-8, Person 4 could have also matched Persons 5-8, Person 5 could have also matched Persons 6-8, Person 6 could have also matched Persons 7-8, and Person 7 could have also matched Person 8). So, the formula for no two persons exactly matching in all three rounds with a group of eight persons is 1727 divided by 1728 (equals 0.99942), raised to the 28th power. That works out to be 0.984, or 98.4%. So did McLuvin and GeeMack just happen to defy the odds and coincidentally match every pick? Was synchronicity involved? What's the explanation?

 

[fromdownunder]

If the reason for that is that the test was fundamentally flawed, that's the fault of the folks who designed it -- not Anita's.

And I wonder who designed the test? According to Anata's own words, she did. She was so proud.Unless of course she has edited this out of her blog (which is, I believe where I recall reading it. Or simply aske her here.

In will chase up her specific post/blog comment claiming this, if you wish me to, but it is not all that important - she failed.

Norm

 

[SezMe]

Is this the same GeeMack who managed to make the exact same picks as McLuvin in all three rounds? Is anyone else curious about how that unlikely feat was accomplished?

How is it a "feat"? What exactly was "accomplished"? It's merely an occurrence, an event. Not every coincidence has to be explained. And you have yet to tell us why this is more than coincidence. Nor what explanation would satisfy you beyond nefarious coordination.

 

[derekcbart]

Just a quibble--a point I made before the "Demonstration":

There was no agreement --or even likely chance at reaching an agreement --on a test protocol for the $50K Challenge. I think it's misleading to mention that prize in connection with the Preliminary Demonstration.

The $50K was never on the line, and it's extremely doubtful that it ever would be wrt to VFF's claim.

Not true.

You have made this statement before and it is simply not true.

Just like the JREF MDC the IIG Paranormal Challenge has a preliminary round that uses easier odds of success (usually 1:10,000) and a final round that uses harder odds of success (usually 1:1,000,000). If Anita had been successful in the preliminary then we would have gone forward on doing a final round test that would have had the odds of success to 1,000,000 to 1.

What may be causing you confusion is that for this particular preliminary we used odds of success much easier than we would have normally done because of the logistical issues involved. This preliminary took 3-4 hours to do for odds at 1,728 to 1. We could have done it with our normal 10,000 to 1 odds, but we really didn't want to ask volunteers to have to spend 8-10 hours involved in this setup.

Again, IF Anita had been successful then we would have made plans to increase the numbers of test subjects and the time necessary to do the test. This would have been a logistical nightmare that would have taken 2-3 days to do with 3-5 rounds of 10 subjects per round per day, but it would have been doable.

Thank you.

-Derek

 

[Pup]

Here's the issue: In the type of test that Anita took, the random odds of any two persons matching picks in all three rounds (including kidney locations) are 1/6 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 = 1/1728. That, in turn, means that the odds of those two persons not matching all picks are 1727/1728....(snip)

That works out to be 0.984, or 98.4%.

I'm admittedly lousy at probabilities, but that doesn't sound right. It sounds like you're calculating the odds for someone else choosing the same picks as GeeMack (for example), not the odds for any two people in the group choosing the same picks. I think we're getting into the birthday problem, and the actual probability would be much more likely. Can anyone who knows this stuff comment on the calculations?

And of course, that doesn't take into consideration that the picks were probably not random and may have been based on clues that more than one person might use.