Vision From Feeling - The Study

[Ashles]

As I'm sure everyone is aware Anita Ikonen (aka VisionFromFeeling) is planning on running a study to test her 'abilities'.

As has been accepted both by her and skeptics here and elsewhere, the study itself is not robust enough to be considered real independent testing.

As far as I understand it is purported by Anita to have two functions:

1) To test certain limits/strengths/general parameters of her abilities
2) If Anita fails to perform as she herself expects, she will accept that she may have been mistaken about receiving real-world information about the medical conditions of others

The details are here:
Vision From Feeling study

As trying to find clear information on the other thread is now like trying to locate a specific type of bolt in the middle of a demolition derby, I thought it might be worth starting a new thread specifically regarding the study to try to see if any useful testing or protocols have occurred, are likely to occur, or if any information at all is yielded.
Also in the hope that a real test may still someday happen, we could look at the protocols and see if we can help tighten them.

As several people have posted it seems that Anita really does believe she has this ability and really does intend to do some sort of testing. The problem has been the nature of the testing.

The first thing I find interesting is in one of the first paragraphs that concerns the survey suggested by posters here (I think it was Unca Yimmy and Miss Kitt but don't make me have to go and check):

Survey - Watching people and writing down the perceptions I have to find specific examples of what medical perceptions I have and roughly how often
It has been suggested by members of the JREF Forum that I go out to public places such as a mall and watch people and write down what medical perceptions I have. As Forum member Miss Kitt brilliantly pointed out, since I've experienced good or perfect accuracy in the past, it should be enough for me to simply state what I experience and to base a test on that. In other words, that it would not be necessary for me to then conduct a study in which the accuracy would be established for perceptions. Since this is a very simple thing to do, it will be done soon. Of course I worry about whether it bothers people, however there's always a lot of people at malls who do people watching and it is perfectly fine. Luckily my perceptions come about in a very quick and discrete way so no one would know what I'm doing! The results of these surveys will be posted right here.
January 3 2009 - A survey was done at the local mall. Results will be posted here eventually.

We have seen thousands of words posted by Anita on the other thread, and she has updated her website a few times, but we have not really seen anything described about the results of this test in over ten days.
And her use of the word 'eventually' seems very odd. Not 'shortly', not 'as soon as I get a chance', but 'eventually'.
There is absolutely no indication made of success rates.

As to the study itself it is based around protocols suggested by UncaYimmy, famed brilliant skeptic and all round well endowed guy.

Protocol Post 1
Protocol Post 2

So, any study specific thoughts?

 

[Ashles]

Here is her reference to the survey in the other thread:

Today I conducted what I refer to as a survey at the local mall. A survey involves going out and looking at people and making notes of what medical perceptions I experience, as well as details of the conditions under which they take place, and other comments and conclusions that are learned along the way. Unlike what I refer to as a study, the survey offers no opportunity to check for the accuracy of the perceptions, but to merely account for what was perceived. Some of the benefits of a survey include to become better acquainted with the paranormal claim and to gather a list of what specific health information I claim to perceive. The conclusions of this survey will be posted eventually.

Old man asked:

But, have you done ANY checking ON YOUR OWN?

In this post Anita responded:

I did a survey yesterday but did not happen to come across any perceptions of vasectomy or breast implants. The details of the survey will be posted eventually.

Since then there have been ten days and 462 posts in total on that thread. And no more detail on the survey. There are other mentions such as this one.

I never had a study at the mall. What I had was a survey. Based on the results of the survey I have not concluded that I can not detect vasectomy. Please read my explanation of the survey (which will be posted on my website eventually) before making conclusions based on the survey.

It just strikes me as strange it is always 'eventually' as though she is preparing us in advance for a long wait.
She has stated dates for the study so why no expectations around the survey?

Then there was this response to me on the subject:

The reason I did not detect it at the survey at the mall was because I was also testing out the details of the perceptions and not specificly testing for vasectomy. Please read the description of the survey, to be posted on my website eventually, before saying ridiculous nonsense about it that isn't true. I have not concluded that I can not claim to detect vasectomy. I just didn't detect any in this brief survey experience for reasons that become clear when you read about how the survey actually took place, rather than hallucinate about it in your own mind and place belief in your inaccurate delusions. Schizotypal personality, if you ask me, or just psychosis.

She seems to be getting angrier now as though it should be obvious she wouldn't have been able to detect anything because of the circumstances of the survey - which obviously we don't know as it hasn't been provided to us. The implication seems to have now developed that there were fundamental issues with the survey which prevented her from using her ability properly. Interesting.
This is now 6 days after the survey.

After this she twice refers to the survey in this post, citing it as an example of her progress and willingness to test herself. Even though we still have absolutely no idea as to what the survey showed other than she detected no vasectomies or breast implants.

8 days after the tests she posts this:

Survey, study, and test are not synonyms. Survey is when I go out in public and write down my perceptions. Study is when I arrange to meet with volunteers who let me see them, I write down my perceptions, and attempts are made at establishing accuracy. Please read www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html before posting anything at all regarding my intentions behind the study. A study is not a test and can not prove in favor of the paranormal claim. A study tries out various test conditions to learn more about the claim. A test is when all criteria have been established and will conclude on the claim.

We are being redirected to the study page again before we post anything about the survey. Even though it still tells us nothing about the survey.

UncaYimmy mentioned this today. I agree with him. I think the survey was actually done and did not work as Anita hoped.
I wonder if she is struggling to present her results in a way that doesn't appear like an exhibition of no ability, but without actually lying about her results or ability which I don't think she would intentionally do.

I'm really keen to find out more about this survey.

 

[desertgal]

It just strikes me as strange it is always 'eventually' as though she is preparing us in advance for a long wait.
She has stated dates for the study so why no expectations around the survey?

Is it mentioned anywhere else and I have missed it?

No. I just read all the pages of the other thread from Dec 31 on - the survey was done Jan 3, and there weren't any more mentions of the survey than what you have posted here.

ETA: Sorry, Ashles, I posted this before you amended yours.

 

[Old man]

I wonder if she is struggling to present her results in a way that doesn't appear like an exhibition of no ability, but without actually lying about her results or ability which I don't think she would intentionally do.

I think that she's a fundamentally honest person. Selling 'body art' could be a way to 'cash in' on her 'ability' without feeling like she's cheating people.

I'm really keen to find out more about this survey.

Me too.

No. I just read all the pages of the other thread from Dec 31 on ...

O - M - G !!1!!!11!

 

[ravdin]

I have supernatural powers as well. I can't describe exactly what they are, or perform an objective demonstration for observers. Nonetheless, I get offended when skeptical people don't believe me.

Where's my million dollars, Randi?

 

[Ashles]

It may also be worth mentioning in this thread that Pup offered another unofficial test to Anita which we may or may not hear results from.

Pup's test

Okay, here's the deal. PM me with a mailing address, and I will mail an envelope with several numbered ziplock bags, each containing a pill that's been crushed and colored with food coloring, but is otherwise unchanged, so it would still have its usual effect on the human body if ingested. There will also be a list of what the pills are.

When you receive it, only look at the powders, without using any scientific instruments or non-paranormal means of identifying them, and post here what pill each number is, and afterwards, I'll post the answers.

Obviously, this isn't a scientific test. I could cheat by lying about the numbers, and you could cheat by tasting, chemically analyzing or otherwise identifying the pills by normal means. But if you cheat, it would be found out immediately in more rigorous tests, and if I cheat, it would be pointless because you could still easily prove your ability in more rigorous tests, if it was real.

All I ask is that if this ability doesn't work after being tested to your satisfaction, you consider the possibility that maybe your other abilities aren't receiving real information through paranormal channels either. In other words, if you truly believe you're perceiving accurate medical effects and yet it turns out you're not, you can't just say, "Well, I don't have that ability, but I'm still sure I have this ability" without some serious self-doubts. Otherwise, your abilities become like the God of the Gaps. Maybe they only work face-to-face with adults, on Tuesdays, when it's raining, but you'd need to do a study to be sure. Eliminating every possibility would take a lifetime.

If the ability does work, then all I ask is that you cut me in on 10% of your Nobel prize and 1% of your million from the JREF. Seriously, if you do have these abilities, it would be the coolest thing ever and I'd love to play even a small part in the discovery. I just don't think you or anyone does.

Pup's next post.

I've got the samples all made up and addressed in the envelope, and I'll stop by the post office Monday and put it in the mail to you. They're:

calcium carbonate (an antacid)
phenylephrine hcl (a decongestant)
cetirizine hydrochloride (a 24 hour allergy medicine)
ibuprofen
aspirin

All individually crushed and mixed with green and/or red food coloring, but otherwise unchanged.

Again, this is way too casual of a test to actual prove anything, other than to satisfy my curiosity, since it's wide open to cheating, lying, lack of controls, and so forth. But neither of us would really gain anything by cheating or lying, since a stricter test would quickly show a different outcome. And in further tests, different ways of avoiding unintentional clues could be added.

If you don't experience anything, there's no pressure, no need to guess--just say so. If you only experience anything for one or two, just state the numbers you're sure of and ignore the rest.

You've said that this is something you experience, so I'm curious to see it work.

It's worth mentioning that in this post Anita made a sudden request for this:

Oh Pup! Before you mail anything! Is it possible for you to include in the envelope one each uncrushed sample, without food coloring, so that I can attempt to "tune in" to the pure and unaltered specimen, to get the strongest possible perception of the pure and unaltered material for matching purposes? Please?

I still don't think to this day she understands why that could possibly have been seen as a problem.

In this post she states:

Actually I was hoping to try the chemical identification approach but can also attempt the medicinal effects approach. In this case I have two options available to try. Thank you for arranging this.

So there should be the potential for two tests.

In this post from today (Wed 14th Jan) he explains:

Well, for what it's worth, I put the envelope in the mail Monday, with the five common medicines, each crushed and colored reddish green with food coloring and in a separate numbered ziplock bag, along with a list of the medicines. The clerk said it would take two-three days officially to get there, but unofficially the mail is sometimes slow between here and the Carolinas so allow another couple days. I didn't include any uncrushed samples.

So in theory it could be there today or tomorrow, but probably safest to assume definite delivery by next Mon (19th Feb).

 

[desertgal]

I wonder if she is struggling to present her results in a way that doesn't appear like an exhibition of no ability, but without actually lying about her results or ability which I don't think she would intentionally do.

I agree. I suspect, given her firm belief in her "ability" to perceive medical problems through vibrational information, Anita went into the mall expecting to do just that-and failed to keep any notes that would confirm or eliminate other methods of detection, such as cold reading. (Despite the fact that just about everyone in the other thread suggested she do just that.)

Since she likely didn't perceive anything with her "ability" (and if she did, I'll sell my computer and take up knitting), and likely didn't keep the recommended notes, she's stuck. Too honest to say her "ability" didn't work, or to fabricate anecdotes of "brilliant" cold reading.

Granted, her desire to prove something might override her conscience yet, but I'm willing to bet we don't see the results of that survey. I agree that the "eventually" gives her away.

As for the study, I have no expectations either way. It will be interesting to see if UncaYimmy's protocol actually gets put to use, though.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh NOES!!!

Now I have to follow two threads (or is it three?).

I admire the apparently infinite patience of the forum members who continue to engage with VFF.

 

[Agatha]

19th January, hopefully, Ashles.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Here are a few tidbits I recall (sorry, no citations - too lazy/tired) from Anita.

• She has only read close friends and family members.
• When she did read them, she says that she gave them a disclaimer saying not to take her seriously even though she's never been wrong. That's contradictory at best.
• In one case the related she read something in a stranger. It was a co-worker and apparently someone's first day (Anita or the subject). Anita said she senses cysts very strongly in this woman. She later learned through conversation that this woman was going in for surgery for cysts.
• I recall her saying she has made about 100 readings. I'm not sure if it was 100 people or 100 readings. Over a 10 year period I'm not sure how the "100" number jives "close friends and family." Perhaps her definition of close is different than mine and/or she has a wider social circle than I do.
• When she read my photos, she told me in our chat that she didn't actually have any images. She just had "impressions" or feelings. I likened it to when I looked at her photos and got the impression she was kind of shy in person.
• She believes she is accurate in many things for which she cannot possibly know. This includes using Vibrational Algebra^TM to come up with possible cures for cancer and flesh eating bacteria. She also believes she knows how insects and animals communicate and can hear sounds undetectable to the human ear. And now, of course, we have seeing a fetus in the womb.

I really don't have a point with the above. I'm just throwing it out there.

Her "study" using some form of the protocol I outlined is probably the only way to convince her that she has no special abilities. If she failed as miserably as I suspect, I wonder how she would react to protect her fantasy? At the very least you would think she would realize she couldn't take her show on the road.

But we know how well "you would think" works with Anita.

 

[Christian Klippel]

And her use of the word 'eventually' seems very odd. Not 'shortly', not 'as soon as I get a chance', but 'eventually'.

Helo Ashles,

for what it's worth, depending on her language background there could be simply a case of a "false friend" in the use of the word "eventually".

For example, when i learned english, it took me quite some while to remember that "eventually" has a completely different meaning than the german word "Eventuell".

Now, using the meaning of word "Eventuell" in some places where she wrote "eventually", things seem to make more sense.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Uncayimmy]

Helo Ashles,

for what it's worth, depending on her language background there could be simply a case of a "false friend" in the use of the word "eventually".

For example, when i learned english, it took me quite some while to remember that "eventually" has a completely different meaning than the german word "Eventuell".

Now, using the meaning of word "Eventuell" in some places where she wrote "eventually", things seem to make more sense.

I don't speak for Ashles, but I did bring up the use of the word eventually. In English the word eventually means at some indefinite point in time. Using that word has a couple of implications based upon how much control you exert over the event.

When I say that my house will be paid off eventually, I mean that I'll keep making the payments and perhaps someday the balance might be low enough that I could afford to pay it off early. In other words I couldn't possibly do it today. I also might "eventually" learn to speak Hungarian, but there's no way I can do it today.

If I can do something now but choose to do it eventually, then I am saying that not only does it not deserve my immediate attention, it doesn't even deserve enough attention to set a timetable. It was this usage that struck me as strange. Why would something so important deserve so little attention?

Several of the translations you cited mean that it's only possible that she might do it. Again, that is still saying that it does not deserve any immediate attention but adds the possibility that it may not be done at all. In the end it still begs the same question: Why would something so important deserve so little attention that she might not even do it all?

Am I not catching your point?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Am I not catching your point?

Hello UncaYimmy,

hmm, might be. From what i have learned, the term "eventually means that something will be done/happening/etc. Like, it may take some time but will definitely be done, or that something has been done or happening and a series of events led to that.

The german term "Eventuell" means that something may happen, or not. It's completely undecided if/when it will be done. Basically, it's an option but not a must-be.

Hope that made my understanding a bit clearer, and sorry for the derail.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: So my point is that someone with a different language background might use "eventually" where "maybe, or maybe not, we'll see" is actually meant. Whereas someone else might read "eventually" as "definitely, but maybe later and not now"

 

[Uncayimmy]

Hello UncaYimmy,

hmm, might be. From what i have learned, the term "eventually means that something will be done/happening/etc. Like, it may take some time but will definitely be done, or that something has been done or happening and a series of events led to that.

The german term "Eventuell" means that something may happen, or not. It's completely undecided if/when it will be done. Basically, it's an option but not a must-be.

Hope that made my understanding a bit clearer, and sorry for the derail.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: So my point is that someone with a different language background might use "eventually" where "maybe, or maybe not, we'll see" is actually meant. Whereas someone else might read "eventually" as "definitely, but maybe later and not now"

I don't think it was a derail at all, and I'm glad you brought it up. English is her second language, so if we're trying to pick apart words, everything you brought up is relevant. My wife is from Hungary and I have a number of friends for whom English is not their first language. This kind of stuff happens all the time.

I think I understand what you mean by the definition, but maybe I'm not explaining what concerns me. I'll try to illustrate.

Anita: "I will write up the results of the survey, but I do not know when I will do it. I can't even say when I will do it except that it's not any time soon."
Me: "Huh? This is one of the most important steps you've taken yet. You should share this immediately."

or...

Anita: "I may or may not write up the results of the survey."
Me: See above. Same reaction.

Wait a sec...I think I get what you're driving at. Maybe she really is saying that she doesn't feel the need to write it up and is actually telling us as much. So while we take "eventually" to be her putting us off hoping we'll forget about it, you're saying she might have been telling us that she really doesn't see the need. In other words she's not hiding anything but actually being forthright.

Am I getting it now?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Am I getting it now?

Hello UncaYimmy,

yes, that's exactly what i have thought of. And it appeared to me to be this way only because of my own experience when i learned english, where i sometimes used "eventually" in the sense of the german "Eventuell".

That led to quite some confusion with people back then, as you can imagine. Like, when i once said to someone "Eventually i am going to do x in a week", and after a month he was pretty annoyed that i did nothing at all.

However, as far as Anita is concerned, it's all just speculation on my side. She would be the only one to tell us for sure. But then, she telling things "for sure" seems the big problem here right from the start

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: Just googled for some german/swedish dictionaries and indeed there is "eventueller" ins swedish for the german "Eventuell". So it really might be the case of using a word wrongly.

 

[Ashles]

So you're saying that either way it seems the word implies don't expect it soon, but one possible meaning could indicate it may not get done at all?
I hope it's not that one.

 

[Christian Klippel]

So you're saying that either way it seems the word implies don't expect it soon, but one possible meaning could indicate it may not get done at all?
I hope it's not that one.

Hello Ashles,

yes, thats what i mean in case she wrongly used that word. As said, "eventuell" in german means "maybe", "optionally", "possibly", but in no way it implies that anything will happen.
Whereas my understanding of the english word "eventually" is that it will happen, but that, as UncaYimmy said, the point in time when is undefined.

Greetings,

Chris

P.S.: Here is a list of more "false friends" as far as the german language is concerned. As noted in my previous post, in swedish there is "eventueller" which is equivalent to the german "eventuell", and so means something different from "eventually".

 

[Akhenaten]

Some thoughts on The Study™

http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html

Study - Arranging to meet volunteers to gain more experience with medical perceptions, checking for accuracy of perceptions, and trying out test conditions, and forming a more specific paranormal claim

This apparent definition of The Study™ is nothing more than a restatement of the advice given to Anita during her brief meeting with the IIG.

The study has several objectives:

1) To provide with more experiences with the medical perceptions to improve on a list of ailments that I claim to be able to perceive, and from this list, suitable ailments can be selected for a test.

This is a re-statement of The Survey™, although The Survey™ and The Study™ are usually referred to as separate entities. This blurring of boundaries between The Survey™, The Study™ and TheTest™, etc has long been a source of confusion.

In any case, Anita has never seemed to understand that the most that could be concluded from this objective is whether or not she believes she can detect ailments. Since her whole claim from the beginning includes that she already believes this, there seems little to be gained.

2) To have the opportunity of determining the accuracy of my perceptions in a proper way. In the past, most of my accuracy was determined when I told the person what I perceived, and in other cases the accuracy was determined in other ways for instance the person told me about their health condition and I had perceived it in the past. In the study the accuracy will be determined in an objective way that is not influenced by what I or the volunteers say.

This seems to be a convoluted way of saying that the study will remove subjectivity from the results and replace it with objectivity. Without saying anything whatsoever about how this will be achieved, it's too general to have any meaning at all.

3) Out of all the health conditions that are considered to be present among the volunteers, to determine the extent of how many I do not detect. For instance if the study reveals that I detect a certain condition 33% of the time, and a test requires me to identify the condition 10 times, then we would need at least 30 persons with the condition for the test.

For someone attending universty and studying a double science degree, this abuse of arithmetic is absolutely unbelievable.

4) To try out various test conditions so that I know whether I can claim that the perceptions work under those specific test conditions. For instance, do I have the perceptions if I see a person from behind rather than front-view, or if a person is behind a screen. This will help me decide whether I can or can not agree to specific suggested test conditions.

This is again far too generalised to have any meaning. "Various test conditions", "specific test conditions" and "specific suggested test conditions" are obviously intended to mean something, but what?

The examples included here are odd too. The front view/back view question has never been mentioned anywhere and is probably irrelevant, considering that Anita has claimed to be able to zoom in on The Perceptions™ and view them from any angle, after only a quick glance to locate the person. The screen thing has been discussed at length throughout the other thread and remains untested, despite the fact that it would have taken minutes and could have been tested YEARS ago.

5) In case the perceptions do not involve extrasensory perception (ESP), the study will provide such a non-ability the opportunity to be revealed as such, if I claim a statistically significant amount of incorrect perceptions. The study is thus able to falsify the claim and to end this paranormal investigation.

There's no mention of HOW the study will reveal that the perceptions do not involve ESP. Perhaps this is an objective of The Investigation™.

In any case, the really interesting inference to this "objective" is that The Perceptions™, and their Apparent Accuracy™, will in no way be falsified by The Study™. The only thing that can apparently be falsified is the ESPness of The Perceptions™, which will remain as an unexplained phenomenon. Exactly what we started with.


My point overall, in addressing this section of VfF's study page, is that these aren't objectives at all. They're a word salad of ill-defined terms, appalling arithmetic and half-formed criteria, all displaying an outrageously poor understanding of how to conduct research.

 

[desertgal]

The examples included here are odd too. The front view/back view question has never been mentioned anywhere and is probably irrelevant, considering that Anita has claimed to be able to zoom in on The Perceptions™ and view them from any angle, after only a quick glance to locate the person.

Fine point, and I agree with your overall point, but, yes, UncaYimmy did ask her, in the original thread, if she could perceive health information from the rear as well as the front - and she didn't know. Nor did she have an explanation as to why she didn't know, since, according to her, she has these perceptions all the time.

 

[EHocking]

Fine point, and I agree with your overall point, but, yes, UncaYimmy did ask her, in the original thread, if she could perceive health information from the rear as well as the front - and she didn't know. Nor did she have an explanation as to why she didn't know, since, according to her, she has these perceptions all the time.

In that case, she's a liar.

The following is from the page entitled Ability, from her own homepage.

"The vision is in actual, natural color. Much of the inside of the body is in pink, orange and red. Images are three-dimensional and often perceived from many angles at once, from the front, behind, up, down, left and right at the same time. So images are not constructed from the sides that I am facing only. "

In previous posts I had called these statements contradictory - I've changed my view on her true motives, in light of her postings here.