Vision From Feeling

[Hokulele]

Greetings, JREF forum. I was contacted by someone (VFF) who has posted here a lot, and claimed to have the ability to see various medical ailments using something beyond normal sight.

I'm the Eric Carlson in NC that was mentioned at some point.

I thought I'd jump in to the discussion. I haven't read through the whole thread.

At present I'm trying to discuss a protocol which can be followed to test the claimant's claims. Since she apparently doesn't believe her ability to identify chemicals is sufficiently reliable to test, I made some suggestions about medical tests. Medical tests are hard to conduct, so it may be a while (if ever) before we agree on a protocol.

I'm sure members of this forum could suggest such tests, and may come back and ask advice from you. But I think it's premature until the claimant makes more specific claims about what they can and can't do.

If you want to contact me outside this forum, I am ecarlson@wfu.edu. I'm not that experienced with posting in forums, and depending on my schedule may not come back soon.

Eric Carlson

Welcome to the forum!

It may be difficult to set up on such a short notice, but I would recommend asking VfF which ailment she feels most comfortable identifying and which satisfies a binary condition (such as having taken lactobacilus/not having taken lactobacilus). I would strongly recommend staying away from a number of the ailments she listed for the IIG, as they are just too vague (heart problems, pain, throat/neck problems, etc.).

Have a pool of at least 10 people, and let VfF attempt to identify which of the pool have the ailment. They can all be seated in a room, and VfF will enter to make her selections. If that isn't acceptable with her, the people can be tested one at a time with the people (and VfF) entering and existing at fixed intervals. A video camera should be running at all time to exclude the exchange of communication between the guesser and the subjects. Do not indicate ahead of time how many of the 10 have and don't have the ailment, it may be 1 of 10, 2 of 10, etc. Have two other people (not VfF) perform the same test to act as controls and to verify that VfF is doing better than a person without her ability.

This isn't completely rigorous, but would serve as an intial test to confirm that she is 100% accurate (as she claims), and would also determine whether or not it is worthwhile to develop a stricter test.

 

[Uncayimmy]

JWideman:Yes, but, I have failed to dismiss the possibility of an ability.

Explain to me how you can fail to dismiss that which has never been proven to exist in the first place?

 

[Old man]

Originally Posted by Old man
Locknar, you're making a very common mistake typical of people that don't set up experiments - you want to include too many variables.

Quite a leap...

No, you want to include the possibility that she’s detecting an individual’s sex, too.

Originally Posted by Old man
To test +/- vastectomy, the ONLY difference in the subjects should be VASECTOMY. Mixing in sex will only muddy the waters.

I'd argue it depends on the claim criteria:
- "I can detect vasectomy" would open the pool to virtually anything
- "I can detect vasectomy in people" would include both male/female
- "I can detect vasectomy in men" excludes all but men
- etc.

I'm operating under the "people" scenario as, far as I know, VFF has not limited the pool to men only in her claim; rather this seems to be an assumption.

What if Anita detects a ‘vasectomy’ in a woman who’s had a tubal ligation? Is that hit? Or a miss?

a bit off topic:

I have known several color blind men in my life. In retrospect, there is something very similar about them, other than their color-blindness. Its hard to put a label on it; subtle stuff.

I wonder if I could pick out the color blind men in a line-up of strangers?
Probably not, but I wouldn't be shocked if someone could. Perhaps the body language is slightly different in the color blind. Could be similar with men that have been fixed.

quarky, color blind men dress ‘funny’. They’re not good with color co-ordination.

Originally Posted by Old man
I’m not talking about people who have gotten “used to it”. You claim that no one else you know has this ability. You do realize that people (especially young people) that have extraordinary (but normal) talent (i.e. math geniuses, Olympic athletes) get praise, recognition, even adulation, all of the time, don’t you?

I never get praise, recognition or adulation for this.

Like I said, you live in a strange world. Faith healers get attention, dowsers get attention, heck, the kid in school who knows all the answers gets attention, but you don’t?

Somebody upthread did point out that by starting this thread, you’re already getting a lot of attention.

Maybe you’re like the rich kid you complains “I never get anything!”

ETA: Or maybe you're from Lake Wobegon's (where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average,") opposite, a place where everybody's and everything is just 'normal'?

Originally Posted by Old man
Now, on to your upcoming skeptics meeting. I know time is short, but if you do any readings at this meeting, please (as a control) do the first one just like you’ve been doing it in the past (i.e. the vasectomy guy), including getting feedback as you go (I believe that that’s the way you’ve been doing it).

This will confirm that your ability is working. Your test subject should, of course, have listed - in secret, in advance - what his known health problems/conditions are. Also, problems/conditions that are not confirmable WILL NOT COUNT. Then proceed with any ‘blind’ reading that you plan to do.

Actually, I would suggest skipping that. Rather than performing in the way I normally do in real life situations I would prefer to write down what I perceive and do it that way. These skeptics, if they agree to participating, are one of the best volunteers for this type of tests and I would hate to waste that by not applying some additional measures of ensuring the quality of the results. But actually (and watch out!) whether they agree to participate or not, I will see their insides anyway. There is no privacy when you're near me.

Anita (sigh), you just don’t get it, do you? What will be your response if NONE of your readings (under the ‘altered’ protocol) are right?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Locknar:
But Locknar, as soon as anything suggests to me that it is a female, I will know that she has not had a vasectomy. Could we stop suggesting that women are involved in a vasectomy detection test right this very instant? I hate to tell you but you are beginning to look a little bit ridiculous. How old are you?

Exactly. A vasectomy test is NOT a sex recognition test, and shouldn’t include people that can’t have had one. I’m pretty sure that even I could do better than chance at sorting men from women, given a chance to see some of their skin.

Locknar, consider this scenario – a pool of ten men, and ten women. Half of the men have had vasectomies, the others are ‘intact’. Anita is correct for nine of the women, and six of the men. Did she really detect ‘vasectomies’?

 

[ecarlson]

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks. This is my first time trying to quote someone, so if I botch it, try to understand that some of the statements here are quotes, though perhaps improperly formatted.

It may be difficult to set up on such a short notice . . .

Though she is coming here in two days, there is no necessity that the test be conducted then. I agree, it will be difficult to set up a test that quickly.

but I would recommend asking VfF which ailment she feels most comfortable identifying and which satisfies a binary condition (such as having taken lactobacilus/not having taken lactobacilus).

If we pick a particular ailment, I need to find a significant number of people who might have that ailment. Hence, for example, if she says 'polydactism', I'd need to find a bunch of people with extra fingers or toes - not that easy.

As for the presence of supplementary bacteria, I would hesitate to encourage someone to take such bacteria if they weren't already doing so for some other reason (I have no medical training). But it is a pretty good suggestion. Far easier would be hiding pills in otherwise identical cereal boxes - but it's not clear if she claims she can detect that.

I would strongly recommend staying away from a number of the ailments she listed for the IIG, as they are just too vague (heart problems, pain, throat/neck problems, etc.).

My general criteria is that it has to be something where we will be able to determine right/wrong immediately and unambiguously, and where I can perform a statistical test to find the probability of luck. For example, "throat problems" is much too vague - I occasionally have difficulty singing, possibly because of the cold weather this time of year, but it is far from clear I have throat problems.

Have a pool of at least 10 people . . .

Generally this suggestion was a good one. Seeing whether someone else can "cold read" as well as her isn't foolproof, since the competition might be bad at cold reading. If I assign each slot to be with/without the ailment randomly, the odds of complete success are a bit less than one in a thousand, which is my normal goal.

At the moment I'm awaiting response to my first suggestion, that I find some number of people with specific medical indications which would be pretty easy to pick up, and then she takes a matching quiz.

 

[Ashles]

Like I said, you live in a strange world. Faith healers get attention, dowsers get attention, heck, the kid in school who knows all the answers gets attention, but you don’t?

If there were one overriding constant in many claimants posts, it is the overly casual way in which the 'ability' is described.
It is so often described as usual for them, no big deal, accepted by friends and family, something they have always had and are used to, sometimes they even express surprise other people think it is so remarkable.

Of all the claims I have read on these forums, I would say this is the most constant theme - the playing down of the amzingness of the ability.
While at the same time, ironically, the reluctance to accept it might not be real.

Maybe it is an important part of convincing themselves it is real, the deliberate acceptance or 'normalisation' of the 'ability'.
Maybe they feel it will be less likely to be 'taken away' if it is seen as more usual or accepted.
(I wouldn't at this point want to say whether this applied to Anita, but I believe it certainly has to previous posters)

 

[Uncayimmy]

Exactly. A vasectomy test is NOT a sex recognition test, and shouldn’t include people that can’t have had one. I’m pretty sure that even I could do better than chance at sorting men from women, given a chance to see some of their skin.

I agree 100%. Here's how:

* Body size and shape - it would be pretty tough to allow me to see the skin while completely obscuring the size and shape of the body.

* Hair - Men tend to have more of it, and it tends to be more coarse. Most American women shave it from their armpits and legs while most men do not.

* Proximity to gender parts- It would be difficult to expose a patch of skin without at the same time at least being close to parts of the body that are indicative of gender such as breasts and the curve of the hips.

* Size of body parts - Men tend to be bigger and more muscular. It would be difficult to expose some skin without also giving an indication the size and/or musculature.

So let's put it back on Locknar: How could you construct a test given the need to expose skin and be relatively close to person yet control for indicators of gender given all the genetic and social components involved? Thinking of my wife and myself, I lack the imagination to construct such a test.

 

[Ashles]

Thanks. This is my first time trying to quote someone, so if I botch it, try to understand that some of the statements here are quotes, though perhaps improperly formatted.

You're doing it perfectly.

I have set up another thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130903

in which Protocol suggestions might also take place for Anita.

If Anita can see through clothing what about a test where people sit under a sheet and Anita simply identifies their gender? Would that work?
From reading previous posts it seems Anita is okay with identifying conditions if the material is in contact with the person:

I do however obtain information through materials. The air of course is a material, as are see-through glass or plastic containers. The information I reach in the human body is perceived through a layer of clothes, skin, and other tissues. Perhaps this is possible since the covering materials are connected, associated to, the object in question.

 

[Belz...]

Like I said, you live in a strange world. Faith healers get attention, dowsers get attention, heck, the kid in school who knows all the answers gets attention, but you don’t?

Somebody upthread did point out that by starting this thread, you’re already getting a lot of attention.

Maybe you’re like the rich kid you complains “I never get anything!”

Correct me if I'm wrong but he/she said "praise", "adulation" and "recognition". He/she didn't say "attention". So, what's the point of the above ?

 

[Ashles]

So let's put it back on Locknar: How could you construct a test given the need to expose skin and be relatively close to person yet control for indicators of gender given all the genetic and social components involved? Thinking of my wife and myself, I lack the imagination to construct such a test.

What about a large screen in which a small square (say 1.5 inches on a side) is cut, to which the underside of the forearm is pressed?

I am in the office staring at my own forearm ) check no-one is watching... good) and I think it would be fairly gender neutral.

Just select men (and women) who don't have a particularly hairy arm.

Or what about forehead? Palm of hand?

 

[Hokulele]

Thanks. This is my first time trying to quote someone, so if I botch it, try to understand that some of the statements here are quotes, though perhaps improperly formatted.

Looks good to me.

At the moment I'm awaiting response to my first suggestion, that I find some number of people with specific medical indications which would be pretty easy to pick up, and then she takes a matching quiz.

No problem. I would still recommend having one or more other people who do not claim to have her ability take the matching quiz as well in order to act as controls. It may be that certain ailments are noticeable to anyone, even if they do not have any special type of vision. These controls will demonstrate that any person could detect certain ailments (such as the color-blind example noted earlier in this thread), so it is unlikely that her ability is anything abnormal.

ETA: I agree, these controls aren't foolproof, but I cannot come up with anything stricter at the moment.


Sorry Ashles, if these posts need to be moved to your other thread, I can report myself and have a mod move them.

 

[Ashles]

Sorry Ashles, if these posts need to be moved to your other thread, I can report myself and have a mod move them.

Nah I'm sure we can carry on in both - the other one is just currently avoiding the 'explanations' that derailed this thread, although this one appears nice and back on track now.

I have had another thought - what about base of feet? A small square of foot soles - how would you identify gender from that?
And it would be easy to do - sit subjects on a chair - leg up resting on a support and placed against the hole, then when in the right position the hole is revealed from the other side.
Surely that could be done?

 

[Ashles]

Like this:

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I definitely wouldn't use soles of feet if trying to disguise gender. Men in general seem to have tougher thicker skin on the soles of their feet.

Personally, I would stick with all men, and if Anita confirms she can see this usually, I would pick circumcision. Should be easy enough to find enough men of both "status" circumcisionwise (in the US anyway, would be more difficult in the UK).

 

[Ashles]

I definitely wouldn't use soles of feet if trying to disguise gender.

Bu- but- my picture! Surely those minutes in PowerPoint weren't in vain?

(And I have to say you can't have seen the women's feet I've seen...)

 

[Uncayimmy]

What about a large screen in which a small square (say 1.5 inches on a side) is cut, to which the underside of the forearm is pressed?

I am in the office staring at my own forearm ) check no-one is watching... good) and I think it would be fairly gender neutral.

Just select men (and women) who don't have a particularly hairy arm.

Or what about forehead? Palm of hand?

I think the most important part of what you suggested is selecting people who don't have particular characteristics. That's a huge burden in my opinion. I have no doubt that given sufficient resources you could find 10 androgynous people that would stump me if I could see their entire body (fully clothed, of course). I don't think that's the exercise.

But to your specific suggestions:

* If I press my forearm against a flexible screen, you will get an indication of the size of my forearm. You would need an inflexible screen, which may not work as part of the protocol.

* My forearm has hair. Again, finding people with non-hairy forearms is an extra burden.

* My forearm shows veins, the size of which can (in my estimation) be indicative of gender. Though I have no clinical proof, I believe my veins got larger from years of lifting weights.

* If I were to have done this in years past, the lower body fat and musculature would have been visible in an area that small.

* Far more men work outdoors than women. A weathered arm is much more likely to indicate a man than a woman.

This just brings us back the point with which I do not disagree: Given sufficient resources you could probably find a group of men and women with similar forearm characteristics.

Palms of hands? Calluses, weathering.

Forehead? Weathering, texture, wrinkles, vestiges of makeup.

I have an idea, though. Since we know 1 in 6 men over the age of 35 have had a vasectomy, let's use, I dunno, a randomly selected group of men over the age of 35. Make them wear gloves so no evidence of wedding bands can be found. Control for other indicators of family and sexual orientation (gay men don't need them).

That's gotta be better than trying to jump through a bunch of hoops to try to find a group of men and women with sufficiently similar characteristics that make gender identification difficult.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1078494810fcf09a4.gif[/qimg]

I doubt that would meet Anita's standards even if the soles did not give some indication of gender. She says she needs to be able to see the people to "download information" and that she needs to know where they are. While one might think your suggestion should work, my best guess is that she wouldn't want to do it that way. Certainly she has never once attempted to do it that way.

I *really* can't believe we're wasting time on trying to figure out how to include women in a vasectomy test.

 

[Ashles]

Personally I think that if I selected 10 random men and women off the street right now your average person would struggle to tell gender from a 1.5 inch section of exposed skin from the underside of the forearm.

What about if the section of skin has cloth over it? I thought part of the claim was that Anita can see through clothing.

 

[Old man]

Correct me if I'm wrong but he/she said "praise", "adulation" and "recognition". He/she didn't say "attention". So, what's the point of the above ?

Belz, are you arguing that "praise", "adulation" and "recognition" are not forms of attention?

Like the man said, "the only thing worse than bad press is no press at all".

 

[Ocelot]

Yes...if you knew the test subject were female the answer would be obvious; in a sufficiently blind test you would have no insight into the gender except for your "vision"

That said, if your claim is (as previously mentioned) "detect vasectomy in men", or if a sufficiently blind test criteria can not be established, it is a moot point.

Locknar anybody can tell whether a woman has had a vasecotmy or not. The answer is allways no.

It is much harder to blind a test as to gender than it is to blind a test as to the presence of a vasectomy.

If all I can see is a six inch square of someone's back I don't know how I'd tell whether it was a 45 year old man with a vasectomy or a 45 year old man with no vasectomy. However I can think of quite a few cues that might help me tell the difference between a 45 year old man and an 18 year old girl.

You mentioned earlier that I made a personal attack. In fact the comment you referenced was not directed at you. In the comments directed at you I was careful to address only the argument. I gave plenty of reasons why your suggestions were idiotic.

Suggesting that women shold be test subjects in a test to detect vasectomies is daft. It unecessarily adds additonal variables that could potentially be detected thus aiding the claimant, making the test harder to blind. As many people have pointed out, in such a test, there should be minimal differences between between the pool of people who've had vasectomies and the pool of people who haven't.

Suggesting that women should be included in the pool of test subjects who've had vasectomies is monumentaly stupid. It implies that you think that there are women who have had vasectomies. Considering the wealth of juicy ad hominen attacks that I refrained from making when addressing that point I think I was remarkbly restrained.

However you're right. I shouldn't have refered to you as an idiot even when talking to someone else. Just because you have displayed a consistent stretch of behaving like one relating to one particular issue doesn't mean that you are. I appologise.

The only practical consequence I can see of adding women and children to the group is that the blinding required would make it impossible even for someone for whom Anita's claim was true. You'd need to stop them from being able to see any part of the subject when they've clearly stipulated that this is something they need.

If that were your purpose, to set up a test protocol that you know the claimant will reject, then that's not playing fair. It'd make a shambles of protocol negotiations and fuel potential claimants excuses about skeptics unreasonable expectations.

 

[Old man]

Suggesting that women shold be test subjects in a test to detect vasectomies is daft. It unecessarily adds additonal variables that could potentially be detected thus aiding the claimant, making the test harder to blind. As many people have pointed out, in such a test, there should be minimal differences between between the pool of people who've had vasectomies and the pool of people who haven't.

Even without "aiding the claimant", it makes the results harder to interpret.

...in such a test, there should be minimal differences between between the pool of people who've had vasectomies and the pool of people who haven't...

In an ideal world, we'd use clones.