VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Uncayimmy]

I read enough to form an opinion on them, and that opinion is that they're long, tortuous exercises in futility. All the logic in the world won't get VFF to admit to any wrongdoing. Even if UncaYimmy and the others are justified in their outrage, they're wrestling the metaphorical pig, and I think the metaphorical pig is enjoying it. I'm sure she's waiting anxiously for the next thread dedicated to her.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you are once again forming an opinion without a close examination of the facts. I and others gave up long ago trying to convince Anita of her delusions. That we rebut her claims is not evidence that we are working to convince her of anything. It's a public discussion, and claims like that should not be allowed to pass unquestioned on a forum such as this. Carl Sagan even touched on this to a degree in one of his books when he pondered his own reaction to a cab driver spouting off some woo. Should skeptics stand by quietly and allow these statements to stand unchallenged?

I'd be thrilled if she never posted again. As I already wrote in this thread, when she goes quiet, my website goes quiet and the VFF related threads here go quiet. When she comes out spouting the same spin, people react. And this thread is excellent evidence on why we should continue to do so. There is an incredible lack of context to her claims, and people, like the folks at Rational Alchemy, give her credit that is completely undeserved. People start attaching significance to information that doesn't deserve it.

It's not like Anita prefaces her posts with, "Hi! I am a 350 year old alien from Arcturus in human form here to help the human race. I can talk to ghosts, smell urine inside the body (everyone's urine is unique), go for 8 days without food or water and not suffer adverse health effects or discomfort, detect chemicals stored inside sealed steel containers, see inside the body down to the atomic level, detect cures for cancer in grocery store vegetables and talk to bigfoot via ESP. Oh, and the guy who runs what I call a fan site on my website? I've threatened to sue him and call the police, but I love him anyway. So, about my claim that I am investigating as a skeptic and science student..."

As for this thread my beef is with Rational Alchemy and Jeff Wagg specifically. For whatever reason Jeff, despite knowing that VFF has been the hottest topic in this forum since November 2008, chose not to announce that RA was interviewing her, so I announced it and expressed my objections. Had they not botched the interview, the thread would have died out quickly. Since they did blow it, we've spent a lot of time educating people who don't know the story and responding to people such as yourself who question our motivations.

 

[Farencue]

.....I have not given Anita time to discuss her claims during our normal meeting time, 6-8 PM on the 3rd Wednesday of the month, in over a year. We proved to our own satisfaction that Anita did not have paranormal abilities. I personally have not discussed her alleged abilities with her since our simple tests, yet we have had pleasant conversations on a variety of topics. How can we possibly change the minds of those that disagree with us if we don't engage them respectfully? And don't give me that "well, she said this or she did that." respectfully snipped

GodofPie, even though you don’t want to be given the “well, she said this or she did that”, surely you are aware that on your FACT group's page, when RSVPing to your March 17 meeting, Anita Ikonen was soliciting for FACT members who suffer with migraines, or people they may know who suffer with migraines?
"Would love to know if anyone has, or knows someone who has, migraines?"

If you were aware of this, do you not mind her solicitation because you do not give her time to discuss her claims and because you have proved to your own satisfaction she does not have paranormal abilities? Do you not mind her soliciting members of your group because you want to engage her in a respectful way to possibly change her mind?

It is possible, she could be soliciting for migraine sufferers because, as she said to Jeff Wagg:
"I recently had an experience where I tried to heal a man who is having devastating migraines, and he thinks it worked so now I'm having to investigate whether I'm a healer"

Now while a lot of people seem to think Anita should be left to get on with her healing in a respectful way and without condemnation, I for one vehemently disagree.
Because while Anita is investigating whether she is a healer this is her attitude, here on this board, to those who really do suffer migraines:

I have no suggestion for how to deal with the risk that what I do would make a person worse. Although it sounds dreadful to say so, all I can say is that I find it unlikely that my method makes a person worse. It is like throwing ice onto fire and worrying about whether the ice might make the fire hotter. What I do is soothing, and I can not imagine it making things worse. I also see no way to test this without human subjects.

For all her sweetness and charm, Anita has not actually demonstrated any respect herself when it comes to the proof of the multiple puddings she keeps cooking up.
From my side of the fence she is making a fool of a lot of self proclaimed skeptics. I would wager that was the plan all along

 

[zooterkin]

I only watched part of it, and I missed the beginning. If I had seen such a thing, I would have discussed it with her. She told me that she was positive she got the first one wrong, and I asked her why she chose someone if she knew it was wrong, and I don't recall her answer, honestly, but it's in the recording.

From what is posted in this thread (I think that's where I saw it), that's an example of her spin. At the time, she is reported to have been confident that she got the first round right.

However, she did beat moderately impressive odds at finding who who was missing a kidney. I KNOW this wasn't the test... she had to also determine the side. But the point is, if she could simply tell who was missing a kidney, that would be impressive enough to win a challenge if it was possible to set one up that way.

But, she didn't didn't beat the odds. First, her claim was not that she could simply detect someone with a missing kidney; if it had been, then your comment, and Nigel's, might have had more validity. It was that she could actually see inside the body, and tell accurately whether there was a kidney there. That is what was being tested. Getting the right person but the wrong kidney is a fail; a double fail, in fact, since it means she's seeing a kidney when there isn't one, and not seeing one that is present.

Secondly, it appears she halved the odds by having two guesses per round. She further increased her chances by always choosing the left kidney as being missing; this is the one removed from kidney donors, which is, I understand, the most common reason for someone only having one kidney. Looked at that way, the odds were more like one in three; she got one out of three right.

I wonder if anyone thought to include a kidney recipient in the line-up; it would have been interesting to see if Anita managed to detect someone with three kidneys.

ETA: This is the reference I was thinking of, regarding Anita's reaction to the first test:

Upon revealing the results of the first trial, Anita mistakenly believed the target was actually the alternate she had on her worksheet. She was quite excited and started telling the audience about how she was actually right. That is, until someone pointed out that the target was not her alternate but a third person entirely.

 

[bookitty]

When we as skeptics start to take the claims of believers personally, we have lost the battle. I have been with VfF from the beginning and I understand the frustration of those that still engage with her. So that begs the question, why? I have not given Anita time to discuss her claims during our normal meeting time, 6-8 PM on the 3rd Wednesday of the month, in over a year. We proved to our own satisfaction that Anita did not have paranormal abilities. I personally have not discussed her alleged abilities with her since our simple tests, yet we have had pleasant conversations on a variety of topics. How can we possibly change the minds of those that disagree with us if we don't engage them respectfully? And don't give me that "well, she said this or she did that." What are we, 12? I am responsible for my actions and the words that come out of my mouth, and mine alone.
And on a side note, does anyone have a record of the chat that went on during the IIG test? You will clearly see that I accurately predicted all this drama. Million dollars, please.

Thank you, I wish I'd said this.

(Except for the million bucks, that's all yours.)

 

[Tumblehome]

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you are once again forming an opinion without a close examination of the facts. I and others gave up long ago trying to convince Anita of her delusions. That we rebut her claims is not evidence that we are working to convince her of anything. It's a public discussion, and claims like that should not be allowed to pass unquestioned on a forum such as this. Carl Sagan even touched on this to a degree in one of his books when he pondered his own reaction to a cab driver spouting off some woo. Should skeptics stand by quietly and allow these statements to stand unchallenged?

I'd be thrilled if she never posted again. As I already wrote in this thread, when she goes quiet, my website goes quiet and the VFF related threads here go quiet. When she comes out spouting the same spin, people react. And this thread is excellent evidence on why we should continue to do so. There is an incredible lack of context to her claims, and people, like the folks at Rational Alchemy, give her credit that is completely undeserved. People start attaching significance to information that doesn't deserve it.

It's not like Anita prefaces her posts with, "Hi! I am a 350 year old alien from Arcturus in human form here to help the human race. I can talk to ghosts, smell urine inside the body (everyone's urine is unique), go for 8 days without food or water and not suffer adverse health effects or discomfort, detect chemicals stored inside sealed steel containers, see inside the body down to the atomic level, detect cures for cancer in grocery store vegetables and talk to bigfoot via ESP. Oh, and the guy who runs what I call a fan site on my website? I've threatened to sue him and call the police, but I love him anyway. So, about my claim that I am investigating as a skeptic and science student..."

As for this thread my beef is with Rational Alchemy and Jeff Wagg specifically. For whatever reason Jeff, despite knowing that VFF has been the hottest topic in this forum since November 2008, chose not to announce that RA was interviewing her, so I announced it and expressed my objections. Had they not botched the interview, the thread would have died out quickly. Since they did blow it, we've spent a lot of time educating people who don't know the story and responding to people such as yourself who question our motivations.

I see your point and understand your reaction to her (now that I know about her shenanigans behind the scenes), but there must be a point somewhere where silence is the best response, especially to an attention seeker. Will this still be going on in a year? Five years? If no one responded to her next thread, what harm would that do? Pretty much everyone here knows the history of the VFF soap opera so I don't think there's any danger of anyone losing face. (I'm with Sagan too, but if he encountered the cab driver regularly instead of just once, I think he'd realize that there's a point when there's no point to it.)

Again, my perspective is different than yours. If I was in your shoes, I might react as you have or worse , so please consider this a suggestion, not criticism.

As for inviting her to Rational Alchemy, I don't think the show gave her any "credit", just as interviewing a murderer doesn't legitimize his actions in any way. She was allowed to explain her claims, and in my opinion she hanged herself without the need for any aggressive prompting from the panel. Since she was invited, it would have been bad form to be confrontational with her IMO.

I've already spent too much time on the subject myself, so with that, I'll haul my butt out of here. Whatever happens with it, good luck.

 

[Tumblehome]

I can't really argue with that mate. It is indeed a hard slog, and I can't really fault anyone for not wanting to wade through every post in every VfF thread. I've done it myself, and it's made me as mad as a March Hare.

My excuse and I'm stickin' to it.

I'm sure you're right about VfF's anticipation of her next thread, and I can't help but note the irony of the fact that the star of our little show here still has two weeks worth of suspension to serve before she can enjoy it. There's something significant that could probably be said about that state of affairs, but I don't think I'll say it.

Cheers

If you're mad as a March hare, we should all be.

Cheers back at ya.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I see your point and understand your reaction to her (now that I know about her shenanigans behind the scenes), but there must be a point somewhere where silence is the best response, especially to an attention seeker. Will this still be going on in a year? Five years? If no one responded to her next thread, what harm would that do?

What I did in a newsgroup several years ago with a knucklehead who single-handedly doubled the monthly volume of posts was to create a web page that outlined his nonsense and explained why no responses would be forthcoming. When he would start up, I'd post a link to that page. It calmed things down a bit, but people still replied to him anyway. Never in my life have I seen a situation even remotely similar where nobody actually responded.

Pretty much everyone here knows the history of the VFF soap opera so I don't think there's any danger of anyone losing face. (I'm with Sagan too, but if he encountered the cab driver regularly instead of just once, I think he'd realize that there's a point when there's no point to it.)

Before this thread, I and others had pretty much taken to responding to VFF's post about her IIG test with rather succinct comments telling her she failed and that there's nothing to investigate.

Her latest thing is the migraine healing stuff. Oy vey. I don't see that one going to bed anytime soon.

Again, my perspective is different than yours. If I was in your shoes, I might react as you have or worse , so please consider this a suggestion, not criticism.

It's funny. I've had people tell me that they are amazed I have acted with such restraint. I've not received a single infraction in a VFF related thread. Other people tell me I've overreacted. Nobody has told me I've done it just right.

As for inviting her to Rational Alchemy, I don't think the show gave her any "credit", just as interviewing a murderer doesn't legitimize his actions in any way. She was allowed to explain her claims, and in my opinion she hanged herself without the need for any aggressive prompting from the panel. Since she was invited, it would have been bad form to be confrontational with her IMO.

It's the spin she puts on her website that bothers me a lot. It's like last year when she joined a local skeptics group. They refused to formally assist her in her "study" because it was so poorly designed. However, a couple of members agreed to help her on their own time. Bam! Now she's telling everyone that members of the local skeptic group helped her conduct a study. She also dropped Dr. Carlson's name numerous times on her website without every mentioning that he thinks she has nothing worth investigating.

Last I looked Anita was telling everyone that RA spent a "whole hour" talking about her IIG test. Of course, they indicated a retest is in order. Yep, Jeff Wagg, who has dealt with more paranormal claimants than anyone, thinks she should have another test.

I've already spent too much time on the subject myself, so with that, I'll haul my butt out of here. Whatever happens with it, good luck.

Thanks for stopping by and giving your input. I mean that.

 

[Ashles]

No one is saying that she did anything other than fail the IIG test. However, she did beat moderately impressive odds at finding who who was missing a kidney. I KNOW this wasn't the test... she had to also determine the side. But the point is, if she could simply tell who was missing a kidney, that would be impressive enough to win a challenge if it was possible to set one up that way.

That said, it's very possible that there were poor controls, or she had some prior info, or she just got lucky. Possibly, it was a combination of these things. I don't really care; I'm just pointing out that of all the challenges I've watched, hers was among the most impressive. Does that mean I think she won? No. Does it mean I think she has powers? No. It means what I said and nothing more.

I think this post exactly sums up everything that is wrong with the Anita Ikonen claim(s).

Firstly we have Nigel and Jeff both ignoring the actual goal and claim (correct kidney and side) and highlighting a completely different claim (can detect just number of kidneys).
That's not the claim.
This needs particular emphasis because it is not what Anita says she can do, and when you read her descriprions of being able to see the kidneys (hence 'Vision From Feeling) it can only be considered as a fail.

Secondly the odds on paper are not the same as the odds in reality because of potential issues with the test.
I won't belabour that point too much because I think it pales next to the next and most important issue:

Anita is running test after test after test.

This test cannot be taken in isolation. Anita has made many claims, several of which she has run tests on.
There is the identifying pills test.
There is the test on Dr Carlson.
There is the test on the guy at the skeptics meeting (was it Brad?)
There is the tests Anita did in the street.
There is the test Anita did in the park.
Now the test with IIG
(I forget if there are others).

The problem now becomes that, simply according to probability, if you keeping running tests some will yield results above chance.

People keep saying that Anita should be encouraged, but to what purpose?

My coin toss example
If I tell you I can predict the toss of a coin, I could run a test (100 coin tosses) and perform no better than chance.
Then I could perform another test, and perform no better than chance.

People might then advise me that I don't really have the ability.
But I say that I believe I do and I used to be able to do it really well.
I do another test and perform no better than chance.

People still tell me I should consider that I don't have this ability.
But I keep thinking I do. And I say that last test taught me new things about my ability. Also last test I was sure I had got it wrong the times I was wrong, and I felt confident the times I got it right.

I run another test and perform no better than chance.
But on this one I get 12 predictions correct in a row (even though overall I performed only at chance).
Some people point to the odds of my getting 12 right in a row and how unlikely the odds are of that.
Fine but that wasn't the test or the claim.

Someone then agrees to interview me about my experiences.

But, and this is the point I really want to make.

I might decide to carry on doing tests. I am after all convinced and no amount of failed tests are convincing me otherwise.

Now sooner or later, if I keep running tests, on one trial I am bound to perform above chance.

What is the likely effect going to be on me and my convictions?
Or the people who encouraged me to carry on testing?


On almost any claim of this type, success is guaranteed by random chance if you keep at it long enough.
This is why I don't think it should be encouraged.

And Jeff talks about the JREF allowing people to reapply for the challenge, but it sets a minimum time period of a year for exactly this reason. to stop people taking test after test until they get the result they are looking for.

Anita's claims have changed drastically from very specific claims about amazing abilities at an atomic level, to claims that are essentially guessing games.

That is why I believe desires to encourage this claimant are actually misplaced and potentially damaging.

At this stage a single random result above chance could send Anita on a path of delusion (of herself and, worse, others) that she may stay on for years.
She already has one of the clearest and strongest desires for fame and attention as a paranormal claimant that I think many of us have ever encountered. Being interviewed by one of the key figures at the JREF (which Jeff Wagg indesputable is, regardless of whether he felt he was in that role at the time or not) can only feed this desire for attention. Especially when many of the most crucial and important skeptical questions about this series of claims were not asked.

 

[Locknar]

GeeMack / Locknar... untrue, it's about person and then kidney. As per the protocol published on the IIG website. It's all in the interpretation of the "and" but statistically it matter little.

"For this Preliminary Demonstration to be considered successful, the Applicant must correctly identify which Subject from each trial group of six was in fact missing a kidney and correctly identify which kidney (left or right) was missing."

The word "and" is not ambiguous; BOTH conditions must be true. Please show me where, in the IIG protocol, "partial credit" is to be awarded and explain how this does not conflict with the below (specifically the highlighted) "100% accuracy" aspect.

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.

The correct scoring would be "fail."

 

[Uncayimmy]

In the thread about the IIG test we went through this "guessing the person" thing at length. It was simply a set of coordinates like row & column - person & side. This is a Arcturian in human form who claims to see DNA and gaps in the vas deferens (vasectomies), so it's even more foolish to assign meaning here. Let's also remember that the IIG test was a preliminary. Had she passed those odds, it would only have meant that she would have been entitled to engage in an real test with much more difficult odds to overcome by guessing.

It's a shame that the RA cast cannot admit their mistakes in this interview. It doesn't reflect very well on the show that they don't basic research or understand the basics of testing claimants.

 

[Daylightstar]

On that show VfF was asked an "important question":
[51:35] I actually have a, a very, what I think is an important question and that is ... [52:13] I would like to hear from you as a woo, if you'll allow me to put it that way, uhm, what it is that you find uhm that skeptics do to either encourage you to open up about your experiences or that will just turn you off and make you not want to talk to skeptics.

It was at least a more or less decent question, but this question was never answered. The interviewers of this presumably skeptical show didn't seem to have a need for an actual answer to this "important question".

Ofcourse just a quick glance of the jref forums reveals that there is nothing that skeptics do to turn her off to make her not want to talk to skeptics.
The answer to the other part of the question would have been interesting.
But, unfortunately VfF's ramblings seemed to have made these skeptics forget all about this important question.

 

[godofpie]

I read enough to form an opinion on them, and that opinion is that they're long, tortuous exercises in futility. All the logic in the world won't get VFF to admit to any wrongdoing. Even if UncaYimmy and the others are justified in their outrage, they're wrestling the metaphorical pig, and I think the metaphorical pig is enjoying it. I'm sure she's waiting anxiously for the next thread dedicated to her.

QFT

 

[Uncayimmy]

For those who dismissed the "spin" Anita would make from appearing on the show with Jeff, she now has this on her paranormal claim page:

Me and JREF's Jeff Wagg have a talk about whether or not I should continue with this investigation and whether to have another test. We also wonder what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sounds like. Jeff is unpacking after his move so that is all the noise you are hearing. From 03-25-2010.
.
Well the whole thing is available now, but I am looking for another format.
Not an official statement by the JREF, just a private conversation between me and Jeff.
Jeff Wagg is not necessarily in agreement with the views I express on this website

On her Study page she has the following:

"Skepticism is exploration, not debunking."
- Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Coordinator of JREF​

The formatting is an accurate representation. The following is a quote from my OP (emphasis added).

Her IIG test has been talked to death. The video tape is there for those who missed it. The IIG has been interviewed about it. What is the purpose of giving her a platform, especially when the interviewees seemingly don't participate in the discussions here? That's just the type of thing that can be exploited.

 

[Audible Click]

I can't say this surprised me, although it's a shame because this whole fiasco could have been avoided.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Fortunately, Jeff was not representing the JREF when this happened. Phew!

 

[Akhenaten]

Gosh. What a surprise. Never saw that coming.

Why didn't you warn us that this might happen, Yimmy?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Gosh. What a surprise. Never saw that coming.

Why didn't you warn us that this might happen, Yimmy?

I'm sorry. Maybe when I stop making rookie mistakes Jeff will reconsider inviting me as a guest on Rational Alchemy. Quite frankly, I'm puzzled as to why I was considered and rejected. After all, VFF was wanting to chat with me anyway, and nobody (no offense to the Meanies^TM) knows more about her than I do.

I know Kittynh was on RA and Geek Goddess is supposed to be on (or has been, I'm not sure). I'm trying to figure out what Jeff is looking for. Kittynh and Geek Goddess both have blue titles under their names (Auctioneer and JREF Amazon Librarian), but I don't think that's a factor because Jeff says he does RA completely separate from the JREF. Besides, VFF didn't have a blue title, so that can't be it.

Kittynh has posted in GS&P 111 times in the last year and Geek Goddess has posted five times. I max out the search results at 275. That's probably not a factor anyway because VFF has probably just as many posts here as I do, so posting in General Skepticism and the Paranormal too often is not a factor.

Kittynh and Geek Goddess both max out the search for posts in Community. I have 54. That's probably not a factor anyway because VFF has only one post in Community, and that one was made when the thread was still in GS&P. Not posting in Community is not a factor.

All three of them are articulate and able to carry on a conversation. I'm pretty sure I'm articulate. I don't think that's a factor.

I do have a Stop website under my belt, but I believe Kittynh and Geek Goddess have their own skeptical websites/blogs as well. And Anita claims to be a skeptic on her website, so that's not it either.

Now, Jeff and I have had our differences, but that was with JREF Jeff, not RA Jeff, so that can't be a factor either.

As I said, I'm puzzled. I'll keep plugging away, though, and prove I am worthy of being invited as a guest.

 

[lionking]

You no doubt know that I post a lot in the Humor section, but I spend a lot of time in VFF threads for the very same reason.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You no doubt know that I post a lot in the Humor section, but I spend a lot of time in VFF threads for the very same reason.

By that do you mean that you find these threads humorous or that you prefer not to contribute to skepticism and critical thinking? You have about 127 posts in GS&P in the last year and max out humor at 275. I'm confused?

 

[monoman]

UncaYimmy,

Your post 218, and others, comes across as very bitter and twisted. I don't know if you know that, I just thought I'd let you know as an impartial observer.

Added to the fact that you said Geoff should have been spending more time researching the interview than cooking up April fools jokes is just laughable.

Having said that, I think they should invite you on. Sometimes pod-casts need a little controversy to widen the audience. I for one would download it if you were on.