Vision From Feeling

[volatile]

You've already claimed to be able to see through various (though not all) fabrics...so a man with a vasectomy you can see through say denim jeans & cotton briefs but add the blind fold and BLAM suddenly your "power" is rendered ineffective?

"Well I have to see the people I am reading, that's just the way it happens to be."

Cold reading. Clear, blatant cold reading. Vision - Locknar's question is strikingly perceptive... if your information is not being received through the conventional senses, why do you need to see the targets? If this really is vision "from feeling", what need do you have for your retinas?

 

[desertgal]

I've got a degree in Mathematics and I don't know that, 'cos it's rubbish.

If, say, 20% of men have had a vasectomy, then there is a 20% chance that each individual man you ask will say he's had one. Assuming that, just because there are only two possibilities, there's a 50% chance of getting each every time is an elementary schoolboy error. It's only true if both possibilities are equally likely, e.g. when flipping a coin.

Okay. I admit, I'm a mathematical dunce-although I'm not an elementary schoolboy-and I didn't understand that principle. Thanks for the clarification. I apologize, Anita. Unlike you, I never claimed to be brilliant or all knowing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

if your information is not being received through the conventional senses, why do you need to see the targets? If this really is vision "from feeling", what need do you have for your retinas?

I believe VFF has suggested before, that that her eyes are sensitive to vibrations and frequencies that normal eyes are not sensitive to - or that everyone receives these emissions, but their brain cannot interpret them .

 

[Locknar]

I believe VFF has suggested before, that that her eyes are sensitive to vibrations and frequencies that normal eyes are not sensitive to - or that everyone receives these emissions, but their brain cannot interpret them .

Yes, but nobody is suggesting removing her eyes.

She has also said she can see through clothing materials and skin; unless her eye lids are made of lead I don't see a problem yet she has already summarily ruled a blindfold out.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, her own skin is impervious to her "special power". A dark/black room, or a curtain made of material she can see through would work equally well.

In these scenarios, she can use her eyes all she wants.

 

[Ocelot]

Oh, stop deliberately misinterpreting-your disingenuous act is getting tiresome. If you ask a selection of men, individually, if they've had a vasectomy, then, individually, there will be a 50% that he did, and a 50% that he didn't. You know that.

Erm, no. According to Marie Stope Vasectomies are chosen by 13% of British Men. If you're assuming a 50:50 ratio then all I have to do is guess "no vasectomy" every time and I'd expect to be right 87% of the time.

If someone were analysing the statistics on the basis that I only had a 50% chance of guessing correctly then I'd expect them to record a statistically significant result after only 11 trials, and an MDC challenge winning result of 1000:1 after just 21 trials.

To make this a fair test you'd need two pools of subjects, one of which all had vasectomies and one of which had no vasectomies. You'd toss a coin to decide from which pool to present a subject to Anita. If you just pick a representative selection of the male public you're not going to get anywhere near 50:50

 

[desertgal]

Erm, no. According to Marie Stope Vasectomies are chosen by 13% of British Men. If you're assuming a 50:50 ratio then all I have to do is guess "no vasectomy" every time and I'd expect to be right 87% of the time.

If someone were analysing the statistics on the basis that I only had a 50% chance of guessing correctly then I'd expect them to record a statistically significant result after only 11 trials, and an MDC challenge winning result of 1000:1 after just 21 trials.

To make this a fair test you'd need two pools of subjects, one of which all had vasectomies and one of which had no vasectomies. You'd toss a coin to decide from which pool to present a subject to Anita. If you just pick a representative selection of the male public you're not going to get anywhere near 50:50

Yeah, I got that. It's been explained to me several times already in this very thread.

 

[Locknar]

To make this a fair test you'd need two pools of subjects, one of which all had vasectomies and one of which had no vasectomies. You'd toss a coin to decide from which pool to present a subject to Anita. If you just pick a representative selection of the male public you're not going to get anywhere near 50:50

Making the test fair is not the objective; making it meaningful is.

That is to say, specific to vasectomies:

1) VFF would wear ear plugs
2) No communication between VFF and test subject of any kind allowed
- Subject walk in, stands in silence for a predetermined time, leaves
3) VFF would not have direct line of sight; blindfold, dark/black room, curtain, etc.
4) Test subjects would be:
- Male (no specific age or marital status)
- Female (no specific age or marital status)
- None at all
- Nobody she has ever met before (within reasonable certainty), thus eliminating her local Skeptics group. Why, because after meeting them she would gather a certain amount of cold reading information about the potential test pool (ie. gender, age, marital status).

There you have it, a 4 step protocol that if followed would provide reasonable/credible proof of her special powers if her accuracy meets or exceeds claimed mark.

If she truly has these special powers, she'd have no problems in that she can see through clothing materials and the blindfold, dark/black room, curtain would eliminate any interference from her own eye lids.

I predict this type of protocol, where she can not do any type of cold reading (though she claims she does not cold read), is something she will never agree to.

 

[Ocelot]

3) VFF would not have direct line of sight; blindfold, dark/black room, curtain, etc.

Have you read the claim? Anita has stipulated that her ability is reliable when she has line of sight is required to bare skin. I see no need for a blindfold in this test.

If you want to be particularly stringent then the subject could stand with their back exposed to a hole in a screen.

 

[volatile]

Have you read the claim? Anita has stipulated that her ability is reliable when she has line of sight is required to bare skin.

No, she didn't. All of her medical claims involve seeing internal organs or whatever through clothing. A blindfold is just clothing nearer her face. and has the benefit, as Locknar pointed out, of eliminating cold reading clues.

If her power works through cotton underwear (as it must, if she can detect vasectomies on clothed men, as she claims she has done in the past), it works through a blindfold, which is still essentially just a piece of clothing blocking line of sight to the target.

 

[Old man]

There is absolutely no bias in my observations…

There is always bias in everyone’s observations.

Originally Posted by skeen
Go to a hospital reception area. When you "see" peoples ailments, write them down, then ask the patient if they have said ailment, and tick it off if it's correct.

The thing is I am very responsible when it comes to dealing with health information. I would LOVE to do what you suggested, but tell me is it legal? I would have to contact the hospital's administration, thoroughly explain what it is I want to do, and have their full approval. This is not trying to make excuses not to test these perceptions, I am just being careful and responsible that's all.

Can’t happen, skeen. Ever hear of HIPAA? http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/

Originally Posted by Akhenaten
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?

…Well I agree with that. So I am still thinking about how to go about a mall or a hospital experiment. Or, why not just have a table, with a sign that says "volunteers needed for psychic medical diagnose experiment", that explains that there is a person who will try to detect certain health information. I think actually a lot of people would be curious to participate, but where would I set this up, and legally?

Don’t use the word ‘psychic’. Just tell them that you’ve got a dimwitted acquaintance in New York who disagrees with you about the prevalence of appendectomies in your area.

Originally Posted by Hokulele
If that is the case, line up 10 professional male-to-female transvestites and 10 "real" women and see what how accurately she can identify which are which.

I would agree to take that test. However this test comes with a disclaimer that I have never had this specific experience. So if I get to have a preliminary trial where I find out if this is among what I can perceive, then I can accept to have a formal test of this sort whose outcome is evidence for or against.

You’ve never encountered a transgender person? You’ve lived a very sheltered life. No wonder you believe in ESP.

Originally Posted by Jonquill
Anita, do your parents and siblings (if you have any) claim to have any extraordinary abilities?
And what do they think of your abilities?

… My mother and sisters are used to me describing their health and feelings as if I was in their body and head and it is normal to them. I have a brother who doesn't like any woo so I couldn't discuss this with him, however unlike my sisters who are tolerant we did not grow up together so maybe that's why. I tell all my real friends and they are ok with it. After all they are real friends and they'd accept me as I am. In case it is relevant I will mention that no one I know treats me as anything special because of this so there are no "rewards" that would give me incentive to assume a non-existing ability. I am the only one in my family with any experiences like this…

Anita, come on. You’re actually trying to convince us that nobody you’ve ever confided in about this ‘ability’ thinks that it’s “anything special”?!!?!! You live in a strange, strange world.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
Well, I like to throw in information that I did not detect, just to see if the person is going to agree with everything I say. It is so much fun when I detect a shoulder problem and I say, "Do you have a shoulder problem?" and they say yes. I do not detect headaches, and I say "Do you have headaches?" and they say no. So that is one thing I like to do.

You should record yourself when you ask these questions. Psychics aren't the only people who pick up on subtle cues. You could give away the fact that a particular question is meant to be answered negatively quite unconsciously.

For example, perhaps when someone has a headache you say, "You have a headache don't you?" but when someone does not have a headache and you are simply testing their honesty you ask, "you don't have a headache do you?"

The subtle clue could be a slight, sub-conscious nod or shake of your head. I’ve seen a lot of people that do that.

 

[desertgal]

If it is not the case of ESP, the perceptions would not be defined as a psychiatric problem.

If the perceptions were the result of delusional thinking and/or hallucinations, yes, they would.

It is not fantasy to proceed toward further testing, as that is all I have concluded.

That isn't what I said at all. Again. I said, judging from ALL your claims here, I don't believe you can tell the difference between what is real and what is fantasy, whether you proceed with further testing or not.

 

[steenkh]

I believe VFF has suggested before, that that her eyes are sensitive to vibrations and frequencies that normal eyes are not sensitive to - or that everyone receives these emissions, but their brain cannot interpret them .

Some women have tetrachromatic vision that means that they can differentiate colours better than other humans (it has been estimated that 2-3% of all women have this mutation). If VFF has tetrachromatic vision she may well be able to notice things that other people might not be able to see.

 

[Belz...]

There is always bias in everyone’s observations.

Not in mine. No sir. Everything I observe is 100% correct. The miniature pink flying elephant that's hiding under my bed can attest to that.

 

[Locknar]

Have you read the claim? Anita has stipulated that her ability is reliable when she has line of sight is required to bare skin. I see no need for a blindfold in this test.

If you want to be particularly stringent then the subject could stand with their back exposed to a hole in a screen.

We are talking specific to vasectomy; unless she is "diagnosing" naked men I do not see where line of sight/bare skin is required.

A hole in a screen still provides for cold reading clues (ie. hairy back, child's back, no back at all, etc.) and would therefore not yield any credible/meaningful results.

I stand by my earlier prediction that VFF will proclaim this will not work under any circumstance and that she must have lighted sight of the test subject - ie. cold reading, nothing more.

 

[Ocelot]

No, she didn't. All of her medical claims involve seeing internal organs or whatever through clothing. A blindfold is just clothing nearer her face. and has the benefit, as Locknar pointed out, of eliminating cold reading clues.

If her power works through cotton underwear (as it must, if she can detect vasectomies on clothed men, as she claims she has done in the past), it works through a blindfold, which is still essentially just a piece of clothing blocking line of sight to the target.

I think you're taking it too literally when she says "see" Nowhere has she claimed x-ray vision. In the icecream test she said she'd discovered it was necessary for her to look at the person eating the ice cream. In her IIG protocol she stipulated that some bare skin would be required.

I don't need x-ray vision to know if I have trapped wind. I feel it. I don't need x-ray vision to see it in my minds eye.

If someone had the ability to sense what I was feeling by looking at me then it'd be even more appropriate for them to use the word "see" to describe this remote sensation.

Now I don't think that what Anita experiences has a paranormal explanation. I think that the fact that she already knows that she needs some sort of visual cues to pick up this feeling is very telling. However your proposed experiement merely proves what she's already discovered for herself by looking away during her ice-cream games.

If you don't make the effort to find out what she's claiming then you're not well placed to plan a protocol.

 

[Hokulele]

You’ve never encountered a transgender person? You’ve lived a very sheltered life. No wonder you believe in ESP.

Just to clarify, I was thinking of male-to-female transvestites (men who dress as women) rather than transgendered individuals. All the, er, equipment would be there and theoretically able to be detected.

 

[Ocelot]

We are talking specific to vasectomy; unless she is "diagnosing" naked men I do not see where line of sight/bare skin is required.

I don't understand why it's required either. All I know is that she's stipulated that it is required. I'm not second guessing that her power works as x-ray vision, she hasn't claimed that so why should I. Neither am I second guessing that she simply sizes up people, reads their expression and conciously or otherwsie benefits from all those different strands of cold reading. (Though I think it's likely)

The purpose of testing would be to find out in what conditions her ability works and from that determine how her ability might work.

A hole in a screen still provides for cold reading clues (ie. hairy back, child's back, no back at all, etc.) and would therefore not yield any credible/meaningful results.

Rubbish! All you need to do is ensure that both pools of subjects are evenly represented across age groups. Shouldn't be that difficult to find 20 Men between 40 and 50 with vasectomies and 20 without.

I stand by my earlier prediction that VFF will proclaim this will not work under any circumstance and that she must have lighted sight of the test subject - ie. cold reading, nothing more.

Not an amazing prediction. was this before or after she stipulted that she must have sight of the subject that you predicted that she'd say she must have sight of the subject? Just curious.

C'mon if you can't develop a protocol that actually fit the claim she's making then don't bother. You CAN eliminate other sources of information without insiting that she perform from within a seonsory deprivation tank on the dark side of the moon.

 

[Locknar]

I think you're taking it too literally when she says "see" Nowhere has she claimed x-ray vision.

<snip>

If you don't make the effort to find out what she's claiming then you're not well placed to plan a protocol.

From her website

"With this ability I can see inside the human body."

"I have an internal spectroscope in my mind and can distinguish atoms around me by their color and feeling. "

"It is not just a picture, the vision is in real-time motion. I can watch the contractions and movement in organs and tissue, the flow of body fluids, and the movement and transportation of cells and chemicals. "

"X-Ray Vision" (to paraphrase) is exactly what VFF is claiming on her website and here, but on a atomic level.

Rubbish! All you need to do is ensure that both pools of subjects are evenly represented across age groups. Shouldn't be that difficult to find 20 Men between 40 and 50 with vasectomies and 20 without.

Why does the pool have to contain just men? Why can't the pool contain women, or "nobody"? If she can see inside the human body, as she claims, she'd know it was a woman, a child, or nobody at all.

C'mon if you can't develop a protocol that actually fit the claim she's making then don't bother. You CAN eliminate other sources of information without insiting that she perform from within a seonsory deprivation tank on the dark side of the moon.

What I've outlined fits exactly what she is claiming.

 

[Hokulele]

From her website:

"X-Ray Vision" (to paraphrase) is exactly what VFF is claiming, but on a atomic level.

This is why I have repeatedly suggested she update her claims, particularly on her website. If people keep misinterpreting her and exaggerating her claims, it may not be their fault.

 

[Locknar]

This is why I have repeatedly suggested she update her claims, particularly on her website. If people keep misinterpreting her and exaggerating her claims, it may not be their fault.

Misinterpreting? Those are her words from her website....

As far as updating, as recently as 11 DEC she is still claiming to have, in effect, "x-ray vision":

11 DEC:
"When I look at people I perceive realistic looking detailed images from inside their bodies and can describe their physical health condition as well as how they are feeling from their perspective. The information is specific and not vague nor open for interpretation."

http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/boards/thread/5928817