Vision From Feeling

[Moochie]

Well, I think this is all very entertaining, Absurdly silly, but entertaining. It's like watching one of those "Minisodes" on cable.


M.

 

[nathan]

I'm shocked it took this long for you to being "quantum physics" into this discussion.

y'know, we should really hand out woo-bingo cards at the beginning of these kinds of threads. Yes, this thread was interesting, but has now regressed to the woo mean.

 

[Locknar]

In your time on this forum, you have claimed to be able to medically diagnose people by sight-in person, through pictures, and on television; to talk with and understand the thoughts and emotions of all animals; to encounter ghosts practically every time you walk out your front door; to commune with ghosts both human and dinosaur; to telepathically communicate with a mythical creature; and to be the reincarnation of a white dwarf star. While this thread may only be about your alleged ability to medically diagnose, all those claims should be taken into consideration concerning your credibility-and I gotta tell you, it ain't lookin' good.

When you put it that way, who could question the sincerity of VFF?

 

[Stout]

Back when you first posted, Anita, I made the psychic prediction that you would turn out to be indistinguishable from all the other claimants we've seen. Now, I didn't make this prediction public or even record it, so you'll just have to take it on my word. And not just that I made the prediction, but that it was only possible through paranormal means.

Hey....

I made the same prediction too, and I also kept it to myself

Maybe we're connected. Who were you in your previous lives ?

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, if I start a claimant thread, will you flirt with me??

You don't even need to start a claimant thread, my little buttercup!

 

[godofpie]

Sorry I didn't have this up sooner. VFF apparently sent this last night but I have been doing family stuff all day.
http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/files/

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

Seriously, though, there are two issues we need to separate. When I talk about the force of your personality and your good looks, I am concerned only with the reliability of the answers you get.

Don't forget that I too am concerned with the reliability of some of the past accounts of my accuracy! Past experiences have however failed to dismiss the possibility of extrasensory perception and all I conclude is to proceed toward further and more proper testing. You are quite right to express concern of the reliability of these accounts, because so do I, and I quote myself again from the famous post #427, "It is interesting that this person would agree with my description. Oh well, I can't wait to have real tests because how can I depend on the reliability of these persons' accounts of my accuracy?" There have however been plenty of perceptions where my looks and personality could not have been responsible for the accuracy. I will offer examples if you ask.

Do I have an explanation for what you are sensing? Sure, I think it's your imagination presenting visual imagery based on subtle clues and/or unconscious recollections. You clearly enjoy the attention it brings you (who wouldn't?), so that reinforces the unconscious behavior.

We can not conclude on the source of the perceptions yet because there is no evidence for or against at this point, only evidence that compels me to proceed toward further testing to find out. You may speculate all you want though, I don't speculate and remain open for either possibility. And on the contrary I am not here for the attention and am concerned with how this might affect my career, although it shouldn't since I treat this as a scientific inquiry. Your assumption that I enjoy the attention is incorrect and unfounded, what I feel is concern toward my career and the discussions here are often uncomfortable and hostile as opposed to enjoyable. There is no unconscious behavior, just the perceptions and my wanting to find out their origin and to establish what exactly is their accuracy in a test setting.

Of course, I have no direct evidence that this is the case, but it is not without precedent. I know *I* can take educated guesses about the health of people. In fact I bet given quality photos of 10 people, I would score higher than you. Give me video, and I'd do even better. Let me see them in person, and I'd score even higher.

I have had plenty of examples where guessing and cold reading could not be responsible. I am not here to test a claim on medical information from photos or video and no conclusions from such tests can be transferred to the performance of real life perceptions.

People with vivid visual imaginations are plenty common. I believe that many psychics genuinely believe what they are seeing/sensing, but every single time they are tested with proper controls, they fail.

I believe that I am seeing the perceptions of organs and tissue, however I am working on finding out what exactly is their accuracy in a reliable test setting, as well as what the source of that information truly is. Well, thank you for that anecdote about psychics failing tests. We'll just have to find out if I pass or fail tests and either case I'll be happy because my objective is to have the test and to obtain a result, which ever outcome it will be.

You have an extraordinary claim that can be explained with known processes, yet you have offered unproven explanations without first addressing these known processes. That's not very scientific of you.

The past experiences I have described are only what compels me toward further testing. I have never presented them as evidence toward having an ability. I have presented them only as examples of why I am personally compelled to proceed toward tests. I have been unable to have real tests or to obtain real results yet since it involves the participation of other people and the work is on its way. I am doing all I can, although modestly so because I deal carefully with this provocative subject.

And while some discoveries may begin with just one person, far more failures and misguided beliefs start with one person not looking to known processes first.

I have done what I can in terms of simple tests on my own and have failed to dismiss the possibility of an extrasensory ability. That is no failure on my part. I think I am doing pretty well in my investigations, although we are all frustrated and impatient because progress is slow.

ETA: I also don't see the misguided belief. I perceive images of organs and tissue and give descriptions of health and of how people feel, and the information appears to be accurate. My belief is therefore to have a paranormal investigation. I don't think it is misguided to believe so.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Pixel42:

1. VFF looks at each person and writes down what health issues she thinks they have
2. Each person is given a copy of everyone's health description and picks out the one they think fits them best

I very much like this suggestion and have considered it myself. One concern I have with it however is what if information is included in a card that is obvious and could be guessed or cold read or is just based on a person's looks or on something apparent, things that a person will relate to and that will make them choose a particular card among others. A test of this sort might be suitable for preliminary testing whose objective is to see if I "fail" or "proceed toward further testing" but perhaps not on real, formal testing. To make it very obvious what I am saying here, what if each person has a different hair color and each card states among health problems the hair color, so obviously a person would pick the "right" card.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Sorry I didn't have this up sooner. VFF apparently sent this last night but I have been doing family stuff all day.
http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/files/

If you can't detect anything more than a third of the time, I'd call that a failure of ability. If a doctor, a plumber, or a mechanic was unable to make any kind of diagnosis 33% or more of the time, he or she would be doing poorly.

Her saying that she cannot detect things all things all the time is not prima facie evidence of failure. What it shows is that testing is premature because the claim is vague.

What Anita seems to be asking for with this protocol and what IIG appears to be trying to do is set up a test to see what, if any, abilities she has. Of course this is leading to all sorts of problems.

While I am not a member of the IIG, I humbly suggest that any protocol be put on hold until Anita can be much more specific in her claims. The IIG should not be submitting a list of ailments for her approval - Anita should provide a list of ailments she believes she can reliably detect in anyone (or specific characteristics of the people she can read). Anita must also be specific about the conditions under which she can do it rather than sitting back waiting to see if IIG comes up with a condition under which her ability won't work.

From what I have seen Anita claims 100% accuracy on those she "reads" but has never actually said she reads 100% of the people she encounters. She claims to have made a number of different diagnoses but has never claimed that she always sees a particular diagnosis.

How could this even be tested to be true? Would you even want to? Naturally, the applicant will want to tailor it just as she has done: restrict it to detecting known ailments in people she is able to read. In the end it proves nothing as far as I am concerned.

Anita, on her own, must refine her knowledge of her ability. I have said as much to her already. That's going to involve asking a lot of people some very personal questions. Right now she has no idea how many people with ailments she is not reading. For example, it's one thing to "read" that someone had a vasectomy and be correct. It's quite another to ask a bunch of men, "Excuse me, but I don't sense that you have had a vasectomy. Can you confirm this for me?"

Note: I've had more than one attractive college girl ask me that in a bar, but I'm yer UncaYimmy. Mere mortals are not used to that kind of attention.

I hope I'm getting my point across, especially to Anita. It's not to IIG to figure out if you have an ability or not. That's your job. Once you are very confident in your ability, then IIG will help you eliminate the normal and mundane as an explanation (or not).

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Miss Kitt:

Vision -- I have to concur with several of the other posters that you are showing several behaviors typical of "psychics" in regards to their claims. For example, in the photo readings, you went through the listings that showed how you didn't find what was wrong, and found things that weren't wrong, with the person's health--and tried to find ways to claim success for aspects of your reading. This process of 'fishing' for successful nuggets out of a pan of muddy failure is how cold reading works.

I apologize if my behavior with the picture tests was not proper. With real life perceptions I am more confident, more specific, more detailed, more accurate, and do not behave in the same manner. I hope to video tape myself reading people in real life so that you can see me "in action" with what my claim actually is.

Now, before you dismiss the foregoing with "I never claimed that I can work from photos" dodge, pay attention to what I **actually said**: That the manner of selecting "hits" and "close calls" was characteristic of psychics who use cold reading in some form. (Also of junk science believers.) That manner of selection is applicable for discussion whether the test on which you were using it was your strongest "ability" or your weakest. You demonstrated a willingness to re-interpret the negative response in a way to make yourself right, or partially right, rather than acknowledge a failure.

I do not behave that way with real life perceptions, which you should hopefully see shortly. In real life there is no dialogue and no discussion or speculation. I give my perceptions, people state the accuracy, and that's all.

The same thing happened with your claim on the gastro-intestinal issue, where you said that you had reported a particular region of the small intestine near the sternum was "locking up" or cramping--and when Old Man pointed out that the small intestine isn't located there, you waffled into, "...but I can not rule out that there'd been that feeling of cramp in that exact region and that it would somehow also involve the small intestine and have been perceived in that connection." (Post #427 in this thread, your reply to Old Man) It is logically impossible to disprove an arbitrary assertion--so "I cannot rule out" should not be the place you start from, nor even a place you go to (except after you have examined the other likely options and evaluated their probability).

I quote myself as having said in post #427, "I realize that now and agree that this represents incorrect information, thank you for pointing that out. It is interesting that this person would agree with my description. Oh well, I can't wait to have real tests because how can I depend on the reliability of these persons' accounts of my accuracy? See, I embrace all results."

If you are truly interested in taking a scientific approach, you would have to say, "That was an error, not a correct perception." You would actively seek other answers than your perceptive "ability" to explain how you might have gotten this answer.

And I quote myself from post #427, "I realize that now and agree that this represents incorrect information, thank you for pointing that out. See, I embrace all results."

1) You would consider that you had been talking with this person, had been around them (it appears to have been your first meeting, perhaps at a social event? from your description) for "several hours" and have had time to notice some facial expression, postural change, gesture, or action -- like adjusting a jacket, rubbing the area, or taking an antacid or several small sips of water--that could have cued you to discomfort in that region.

I have already stated that the observations on my website are not reliable, however they have me conclude that I have failed to dismiss the possibility and to proceed toward real tests. I have never presented these as real evidence toward having an ESP ability. There have been other experiences, not listed on the observations page, that are even more compelling. Tests will give evidence, hopefully on video, that we can all observe and then talk about.

2) You would have asked yourself if there are other reasons than an actual correct perception that the target agreed with your perception. Such as: being polite; adjusting for a near miss (from their perspective) due to selection bias; trying to get into your pants, etc.

And I have considered that, and I quote myself yet again from post #427, "It is interesting that this person would agree with my description. Oh well, I can't wait to have real tests because how can I depend on the reliability of these persons' accounts of my accuracy?"

3) You would say, "I will go to my website and edit my Observations to indicate that it has been pointed out to me that this was in fact incorrect."

I will edit and add to the webpage.

That you are not doing these things shows a strong willingness to engage in selection bias on your observations. Are you able to accept, and willing to genuinely consider, that your observations are inaccurate?

There is absolutely no bias in my observations. Of course I consider this, I have constantly stated that I am open to either possibility. I have not encountered evidence against ESP yet, and tests will give plenty of opportunity for such to surface.

Because I think you may well be sincere, I will suggest that the very last thing you need to do--if you are truly interested in determining what your ability may or may not be--is to spend any time watching a "professional psychic" do her thing. Why give your clearly high-functioning mind more ability to fool itself? Why watch someone who is a successful cold reader do her job?? Why "test" your abilities on people who--by their very willingness to go see a psychic--have demonstrated a willingness to "play along" with imprecise or open-ended readings? If you sincerely want to test and evaluate your perceptions, you need to be as controlled in your self-testing as possible.

And once again a skeptic makes a quick assumption that is incorrect, unfounded, and rather embarassing on their part. Nowhere did I mention that I would go see a psychic work. What I said was, and I quote myself from post #434, "I wrote to a local alleged psychic (I feel obliged to say "alleged" especially since I am in skeptic territory) asking whether it would be possible for me to meet with some of her clients or for her to promote my interest in meeting with volunteers for psychic medical diagnose." and "I assumed that this would be a good way of finding volunteers and could give me some more valuable experience and understanding into what these perceptions are, however not evidence." My intention was to find a psychic and see if I could borrow her clients to get more experience. And I have already expressed my understanding that volunteers who already seek out psychic medical diagnose may be inclined to agree with me, but I really want to have more experience one way or the other.

I am interested enough in your pursuit to have stuck with the thread so far, and I hope to see you making better progress next time I check in.

I am making progress as fast as I can, although I am somewhat modest since I have to be careful with such a provocative topic of investigation. Thanks for both the comments and the nonsense though.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:Past experiences have however failed to dismiss the possibility of extrasensory perception

Please, oh, PLEASE stop saying that. ESP has never, ever been proven in the history of the world. As a scientist things that are unproven are not on your list of things to dismiss. You can only dismiss things that are known to be possible. When you run out of those, your next step is to run it by other people to see if they can come up with other proven ideas to test and be dismissed. If they run out of things, bring it to even more people.

Once you have done that, all of us here will be thrilled to help you identify the true nature of this previously unknown ability.

I have had plenty of examples where guessing and cold reading could not be responsible.

No, you haven't. You might think that, but you're mistaken. On your Observations page you say you "used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition."

That's wrong. The instant you see a person, you gain a wealth of knowledge about their health. This is an inescapable *known* method that must be eliminated as much as possible.

In that same reading you say that you guessed peanut oil or "some other oil" and it turned out to be peanut oil. You thought this was significant because you "assume that most people use olive oil or other vegetable oils" for frying.

That's wrong. Olive oil has a low smoking point and is not a good choice for many types of frying. Peanut oil is one of the preferred oils for frying because of its high heat tolerance.

What I'm driving here is that you are making far too many assumptions to even begin considering the paranormal.

ETA: I also don't see the misguided belief. I perceive images of organs and tissue and give descriptions of health and of how people feel, and the information appears to be accurate. My belief is therefore to have a paranormal investigation. I don't think it is misguided to believe so.

See my first paragraph.

Every time I look at my clock on the wall, the second hand moves. Therefore, should I demand I be tested for telekinesis or try taking the battery out?

Every morning no matter what the time my dog *always* knew when I was going to take him out to pee. Should I test him for ESP or see if he acts the same way if I *don't* put on my shoes and socks?

My father was the oldest of 10 kids and not close to his family. At age 16 I met them all for the first time at a family reunion with over 100 people including aunts, uncles, cousins, and second cousins along with spouses and significant others of varying ages. As we were approaching the picnic area I began pointing out blood relatives before I could even distinguish faces. My father was amazed. ESP? No. I could tell by body shape and posture.

To be blunt, Anita, you are being selfish by asking to be tested for the paranormal when you haven't even taken the rudimentary steps of eliminating the ordinary and mundane. As outlined elsewhere you don't even have a solid claim to test. That's why the protocol is such a struggle.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

JWideman:

Back when you first posted, Anita, I made the psychic prediction that you would turn out to be indistinguishable from all the other claimants we've seen.

Rude. I haven't even gotten to testing my paranormal claim yet.

Kuko 4000:

Anita, I just want to make sure, are you serious about not being a human? Or about you understanding yourself as something other than human? No disrespect or anything meant, just out of curiosity and to form a better idea of what you think

We will leave that as a mystery.

You quoted me as having said, "I have often thrown in perceptions that I've known to be false, just to see if a person answers "no" to them and they did." and to that you replied "I hope you understand how that looks for some of us who have seen claims similar to yours before?" and to that I reply:
I would have thought it is a splendid idea to give a person what my perceptions are and check with them their accuracy, and to also say thing that I didn't see and see if the person still answers in agreement with me. For instance, "You have a pain in your right shoulder?" if I sense pain in the right shoulder, and to also say "You have headaches?" if I do not sense headaches. Everything I do is wrong to you guys.

One more question, when did you first start seeing more advanced medical issues in people? Did the descriptions and images change to more scientific, complex and detailed the more you studied?

The complexity and detail of perceptions increases with time and experience. The images and information are the same and do not change if I learn more about anatomy for instance. What does change when I learn more about anatomy is I become better at describing what I see in words. Good question.

Pup:
We will leave it as a mystery.

desertgal:

Personally, I don't think you did sense reproductive cysts and told no one. That entire explanation smacks of "after the fact" diagnosing.

How rude. All that matters is that my past experiences compel me toward further tests. Here is the truth of this experience: When I saw one of my new coworkers for the first time something screamed at me "CYSTS IN THE INTERNAL REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM!" I had to work hard to ignore it and to continue along as normal. I just wanted to sit her down, and to try tell her somehow that I thought there was something wrong with her health. I didn't think it was appropriate to talk about her health problems, and I didn't know her in a way to talk about this. However I was absolutely certain and confident in the information. Every time I saw her, I saw and knew the health problem again. Months later she sat down with all of us and shared that she was diagnosed with cysts in the reproductive system and was scheduled for surgery. To me personally this is one of those examples that compels me to find out where my perceptions come from, and all I ask of you is to remain objective. To be accused of being deceived or a liar when I have given you the truth is going to end up making me exhausted and I just might leave.

Femke:
Nice to meet you. I absolutely love your suggestion, because in the test nothing psychic is mentioned in any way. However I would not dare do this by myself. Maybe someone from my local skeptics group would join me both for moral support and also by being there could verify the results. This is the single most productive suggestion that has been posted on this Forum thread! I hope to hear from you again!

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm shocked it took this long for you to being "quantum physics" into this discussion.

Don't be. This non-sequiter appeared way back in Post #10:

I have not tried telepathy with the person in another room. I expect that true telepathy would be more difficult with increasing distance, and, again, I would not be seeing the person and it seems that I need to see the objects in order to use my ability. I can definitely try this out and see whether I can develop this ability further to reach this kind of standard, however I am not interested in testing my ability on telepathy unless strongly insisted by others.

Atomic and molecular vibrational patterns may be the very same thing as what quantum physics describes as wave functions. These vibrational patterns are detectable by many scientific instruments, including the spectrometer, and offer a means of identification of the chemical species, composition, and structure.

On the contrary I do not believe for or against actually passing a test. I am merely curious to find out. As I've said, I would not take it personally if I fail a test. I am more concerned with truth than deception and have no personal preference for having either synesthesia or actual verifiable extrasensory perception. In either case, it is a tremendous source of inspiration and ideas that I will definitely benefit from as a scientist.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Great. Now you can tell everyone at the JREF that you had a private chat with UncaYimmy and he suggested looking at pee-pees and boobies.

(Sorry UncaYimmy! I just had to! You've been tough on me too!)

Clarification: I had a private conversation with UncaYimmy on Facebook and he suggested if I am able to detect circumcision, and later he suggested if I can detect breast implants, among many other things. He then said this so I thought I would post it here.

It was nice talking with him. It's good to know the enemy... eh the skeptics I mean.

 

[Pixel42]

To make it very obvious what I am saying here, what if each person has a different hair color and each card states among health problems the hair color, so obviously a person would pick the "right" card.

Whenever this method of eliminating subjective validation is used part of the protocol is to ensure that only information which cannot be obtained in any other way than by the supposed ability being tested is included. So, for example, when using it to test the accuracy of horoscopes comments like "As a Leo you ..." or "For someone aged over 50 ..." - information that the astrologer knew simply from the subject's date of birth, which they were given - will be Tippexed out before making the copies to give to the subjects. Likewise your test protocol would require a third party to check what you had written so that any information that could be obtained simply by looking at the person was removed. But that's exactly the information you want to exclude anyway, isn't it, if you're going to prove that it's your ability that is giving you the health information?

 

[Akhenaten]

Don't forget that I too am concerned with the reliability of some of the past accounts of my accuracy! Past experiences have however failed to dismiss the possibility of extrasensory perception and all I conclude is to proceed toward further and more proper testing.

The only reason that your past experiences have failed to dismiss the possibility of extrasensory perception is that you totally lack any objectivity about your hallucinations.

You are quite right to express concern of the reliability of these accounts, because so do I, and I quote myself again from the famous post #427, "It is interesting that this person would agree with my description. Oh well, I can't wait to have real tests because how can I depend on the reliability of these persons' accounts of my accuracy?" There have however been plenty of perceptions where my looks and personality could not have been responsible for the accuracy. I will offer examples if you ask.

So your answer to criticism of anecdotal evidence is to offer more anecdotes? Good luck with that.

We can not conclude on the source of the perceptions yet because there is no evidence for or against at this point, only evidence that compels me to proceed toward further testing to find out.

We can conclude that the source of your "perceptions" is your self-delusion. There is ample evidence for this, and only one person here is unable to see it.

You may speculate all you want though, I don't speculate and remain open for either possibility.

What's this dichotomy all about? You keep referring to "either" possibility as though there are only two. Whatever your choices are, I'll bet I can think of others.

And on the contrary I am not here for the attention and am concerned with how this might affect my career, although it shouldn't since I treat this as a scientific inquiry.

When you started this thread, were you hoping that nobody was paying attention?

If your "ability" was real then your career of choice is redundant. If it's not, you'd better switch to an Arts degree. Scientific inquiry does not appear to be your forte.

Your assumption that I enjoy the attention is incorrect and unfounded, what I feel is concern toward my career and the discussions here are often uncomfortable and hostile as opposed to enjoyable.

The Wall o' Text™ posts are hardly the mark of someone who shuns attention. Neither are the outrageous claims.

The discomfort and hostility shouldn't be a complete surprise. People from other stars who have x-ray vision tend to upset our sense of reality. Maybe we react out of fear.

There is no unconscious behavior, just the perceptions and my wanting to find out their origin and to establish what exactly is their accuracy in a test setting.

If you truly think you can perceive the things that you say you do, then wanting to find the origin of these hallucinations is a good thing. Attempting to establish their accuracy is like trying to establish the health benefits of having Cholera.

I have had plenty of examples where guessing and cold reading could not be responsible.

You may have, but we aren't privvy to them. That's the trouble with anecdotes.

I am not here to test a claim on medical information from photos or video and no conclusions from such tests can be transferred to the performance of real life perceptions.

That's not what you said when you were offering to do the tests here that you failed so dismally.

I believe that I am seeing the perceptions of organs and tissue, however I am working on finding out what exactly is their accuracy in a reliable test setting, as well as what the source of that information truly is. Well, thank you for that anecdote about psychics failing tests. We'll just have to find out if I pass or fail tests and either case I'll be happy because my objective is to have the test and to obtain a result, which ever outcome it will be.

I don't.

The past experiences I have described are only what compels me toward further testing.

This is a good thing. You definitely need to get some tests done.

I have never presented them as evidence toward having an ability.

This is EXACTLY what you've been doing.

I have presented them only as examples of why I am personally compelled to proceed toward tests. I have been unable to have real tests or to obtain real results yet since it involves the participation of other people and the work is on its way.

There are many people already participating. Remember us? You've already done real tests, and obtained real results. You failed. Remember?

I am doing all I can, although modestly so because I deal carefully with this provocative subject.

Introducing the Arcturus thing wasn't very careful. Avoiding the subject now, as you are, is certainly careful, but it's awfully obvious. Puss has escaped the sack.

I have done what I can in terms of simple tests on my own and have failed to dismiss the possibility of an extrasensory ability.

I have done what I can in terms of simple tests on my own and have failed to dismiss the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.

That is no failure on my part. I think I am doing pretty well in my investigations, although we are all frustrated and impatient because progress is slow.

I see no failures here. Your investigations have revealed a great deal.

And we aren't all frustrated and impatient. There's only one stakeholder in this, and we aren't her

ETA: I also don't see the misguided belief. I perceive images of organs and tissue and give descriptions of health and of how people feel, and the information appears to be accurate.

You do not have x-ray vision. You cannot see inside bodies. Your descriptions are made up. You have no idea whether your information is accurate.

These are misguided beliefs, and we see them, whether you do or not.

My belief is therefore to have a paranormal investigation. I don't think it is misguided to believe so.

Is that Arcturan? It sure isn't English.



BTW. Are there going to be pyramids in this story? I like pyramids.

 

[Femke]

Femke:[/B]
Nice to meet you. I absolutely love your suggestion, because in the test nothing psychic is mentioned in any way. However I would not dare do this by myself. Maybe someone from my local skeptics group would join me both for moral support and also by being there could verify the results. This is the single most productive suggestion that has been posted on this Forum thread! I hope to hear from you again!

Thank you. This is my first attempt at helping someone with an informal way to test a claim, so I'm glad you like it. Maybe a friend might want to come along, like your assistant with the cereal trials?

Another thing I thought of:
Take a comfortable bench near a not too busy entrance, and count the people coming in. Every tenth person has or has not had an appendectomy, which you should be able to see. You write down which it is, while your friend/sceptic goes to the person to verify.
Sounds easy, no?

 

[desertgal]

Pup:
We will leave it as a mystery.

Told ya. It makes no difference, though. That it came up at all, in the context that it did, answers the question. No mystery there.

desertgal:
I didn't think it was appropriate to talk about her health problems, and I didn't know her in a way to talk about this. However I was absolutely certain and confident in the information. Months later she sat down with all of us and shared that she was diagnosed with cysts in the reproductive system and was scheduled for surgery.

Ah. You didn't know her in a way to talk about it, but she, apparently, knew you (and every other coworker) in a way where she could. Right.

...and all I ask of you is to remain objective.

Fine. You first.

To be accused of being deceived or a liar when I have given you the truth is going to end up making me exhausted and I just might leave.

So leave. Seek help. Heal thyself.

ETA: For the record, I don't think you are intentionally lying. Judging from ALL your claims, I think you are delusional, and the first test you should consider doing should involve your own psychiatric evaluation. Seriously. Proposing to diagnose strangers in a mall (or anywhere else) might, in your opinion, prove or disprove your alleged ability, but it could also have serious repercussions if you "sense" something that could cause someone great distress and anxiety, especially when it turns out not to be true. The only difference between you and someone like Sylvia Browne is that she knows she is making her conclusions up. You are inherently more dangerous because you apparently can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and all the "for entertainment purposes" waivers in the world wouldn't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to that.

 

[Akhenaten]

Femke:
Nice to meet you. I absolutely love your suggestion, because in the test nothing psychic is mentioned in any way. However I would not dare do this by myself. Maybe someone from my local skeptics group would join me both for moral support and also by being there could verify the results. This is the single most productive suggestion that has been posted on this Forum thread! I hope to hear from you again!

Say what? "Nothing psychic is mentioned in any way"? What about the bit where you're seeing inside people?

As for not daring to do it by yourself, there's a reason you feel that way, and for once you should go with your feelings. I think I know how a lot of people would answer a single-question "survey" like that, especially if they were apprised of the real reason you were asking. "Security!"

Of course you may choose Femke's suggestion and lie to the punters about the nature of the "survey", but that would just be adding "unethical" to "unbelievable" and wouldn't be a good career move for a prospective scientist, now would it?

 

[Uncayimmy]

For the record, Anita said she detected a vasectomy, which led me to the idea of being able to see circumcisions. That's a clear yes/no test, and rounding up subjects should be easy.

She also said she could see someone's back from the front. [ETA: So why not the front from the back?] That led me to thinking about detecting breast implants. Again, a clear yes/no condition with no lack of suitable subjects.

She has agreed to look into thus further.