Vision From Feeling

[Pixel42]

I have suggested the same thing, but VVF won't do it; after all who wants a test that is self evident, controlled, and indisputable?

A ambiguous test with people, poorly defined controls, and convenient outs is the "woo woo" way after all.

I think you're being somewhat unfair to VFF. With so much riding on the test it's reasonable to want to give it your best shot, which means testing what you're best at. It does sound like real effort is being made by VFF as well as IIG to produce a reasonable test protocol.

After watching the squirmings of the likes of The Professor and Homeoproofer I'm finding VFF a refreshingly straightforward and amenable potential MDC candidate who deserves to be encouraged.

 

[Pup]

Yes I am doing the cereal test today as soon as I finish typing answers to you people. But I think you understand that I couldn't buy 50 boxes of cereal.

How did the test go?

 

[Locknar]

I think you're being somewhat unfair to VFF. With so much riding on the test it's reasonable to want to give it your best shot, which means testing what you're best at. It does sound like real effort is being made by VFF as well as IIG to produce a reasonable test protocol.

After watching the squirmings of the likes of The Professor and Homeoproofer I'm finding VFF a refreshingly straightforward and amenable potential MDC candidate who deserves to be encouraged.

Unfair how, by pointing out flaws in the current proposed test and suggesting a far more controllable alternative?

"Squirming" is all relative. I'd suggest that trying to in effect diagnose people's aliments in a ambiguous test with no hope of proving/disproving anything a fair amount of squirming...especially given s/he has already stated it won't change their opinion of their Superman like x-ray vision power.

 

[Pixel42]

I'd suggest that trying to in effect diagnose people's aliments in a ambiguous test with no hope of proving/disproving anything a fair amount of squirming

I agree, but that doesn't seem an accurate description of the proposed test protocol to me. The subjects each have one of a specified list of ailments, VFF attempts to identify which one each has; if (s)he picks the right one it's a hit, the wrong one it's a miss (if unable to tell (s)he simply moves on to the next subject). When (s)he has identified the ailments of at least 10 subjects the success rate is determined and, if it's greater than 90%, is deemed to have passed the test. I can't see much squirming room there myself.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Demerit points as the green goggles whoosh over my head.

Well. I will give you a point anyway as no one else even responded. :sniff:

When Dorothy and co are invited into the Emerald City the are told to put on some green goggles because otherwise the shining brightness will hurt their eyes. They put them on, enter, and are amazed how emerald green every thing in the city is.

 

[Locknar]

I agree, but that doesn't seem an accurate description of the proposed test protocol to me. The subjects each have one of a specified list of ailments <snip>

Who says any of the test subjects have these ailments, and to what extent do they have them?

VFF misses a aliment, s/he can claim "it's not serious enough for me to sense"....VFF mis-identifies someone with a ailment, s/he can claim "it's just not diagnosed yet".

Seems like lots-o-wiggle room to me.

 

[JWideman]

I agree, but that doesn't seem an accurate description of the proposed test protocol to me. The subjects each have one of a specified list of ailments, VFF attempts to identify which one each has; if (s)he picks the right one it's a hit, the wrong one it's a miss (if unable to tell (s)he simply moves on to the next subject). When (s)he has identified the ailments of at least 10 subjects the success rate is determined and, if it's greater than 90%, is deemed to have passed the test. I can't see much squirming room there myself.

And if she only finds 1 subject with an ailment? Even if correct, it's cherry picking the data.

 

[Hokulele]

I agree, but that doesn't seem an accurate description of the proposed test protocol to me. The subjects each have one of a specified list of ailments, VFF attempts to identify which one each has; if (s)he picks the right one it's a hit, the wrong one it's a miss (if unable to tell (s)he simply moves on to the next subject). When (s)he has identified the ailments of at least 10 subjects the success rate is determined and, if it's greater than 90%, is deemed to have passed the test. I can't see much squirming room there myself.

What bothers me about this protocol is that it skews the odds heavily in his/her favor. By not counting the unknowns as misses, the percentage of correct to not-correct rises dramatically.

 

[roger]

What bothers me about this protocol is that it skews the odds heavily in his/her favor. By not counting the unknowns as misses, the percentage of correct to not-correct rises dramatically.

In what way? I claim, for example, that I can identify a pit bull. So, you parade a bunch of dogs by me. Some of them I say "that's a pit bull". Of those, we score me right or wrong. My claim is not that I can say whether any dog is a pit bull or not, just that when I'm sure a dog is a pit bull, it actually is a pit bull. So, it is likely that I'll miss some of the pitbulls, and I'll be confused by a few mixed breeds, but overall my success rate should be high if I am correct.

For example, my current avatar (the black/white dog) has been called a pit bull from the rescue we got him from, but we really don't know what he is. I lean towards a bulldog mix, but don't really know. People have been breeding very nonconforming PB. So I pass on a positive identification. However, for any high conforming pit bull I can get it right about 100%. I see a lot of dogs where I have to scratch my head - they are mixes, nonconforming, or who knows what? My skill is not paranormal, it is limited, and it would have to be tested much like Vision is asking to be tested.

Am I missing something?

 

[JWideman]

Am I missing something?

Well, yes. Let's say that nobody has a sense of smell, except me. It would be very easy to test my claim - just blindfold me and present me with different items to identify. I'll even select the items to be tested with, since some things have no smell or smell similar. Now, we've got a pool of 10 items (to make it easier), and I have to identify 9 of them. This is a valid test, and I'm sure I can pass it. I'll even get all 10 right.
But let's say instead there are 15 or more items. Some of them have no smell or are too faint for me to detect. The protocol states that I pick the items that I think have a smell and identify them. Only the ones I identify incorrectly will count as misses, and I need to identify 9 out of 10 correctly. This isn't a valid test. I could claim that none of them had a smell or that the smell was all gone or that the box they came in masked the smell.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Well, yes. Let's say that nobody has a sense of smell, except me. It would be very easy to test my claim - just blindfold me and present me with different items to identify. I'll even select the items to be tested with, since some things have no smell or smell similar. Now, we've got a pool of 10 items (to make it easier), and I have to identify 9 of them. This is a valid test, and I'm sure I can pass it. I'll even get all 10 right.
But let's say instead there are 15 or more items. Some of them have no smell or are too faint for me to detect. The protocol states that I pick the items that I think have a smell and identify them. Only the ones I identify incorrectly will count as misses, and I need to identify 9 out of 10 correctly. This isn't a valid test. I could claim that none of them had a smell or that the smell was all gone or that the box they came in masked the smell.

Except that you won't have proved your ability unless there are 10 items you can pick. In which case I would call it an abandoned test due to unsuitable materials.

 

[Tapio]

Except that you won't have proved your ability unless there are 10 items you can pick. In which case I would call it an abandoned test due to unsuitable materials.

My thoughts exactly. It might be that it's just something in my understanding of Englihsh, but I can't see the problem. VfF can't squirm out of it by claiming an ailment she says to be present, but is not, being just "not diagnosed yet". If she accepts the protocol, and accepts a person to be 1 of 10 with an ailment she claims to identify, and is wrong, then it's a miss. This far I haven't read her denying this...

 

[Hokulele]

In what way? I claim, for example, that I can identify a pit bull. So, you parade a bunch of dogs by me. Some of them I say "that's a pit bull". Of those, we score me right or wrong. My claim is not that I can say whether any dog is a pit bull or not, just that when I'm sure a dog is a pit bull, it actually is a pit bull. So, it is likely that I'll miss some of the pitbulls, and I'll be confused by a few mixed breeds, but overall my success rate should be high if I am correct.

For example, my current avatar (the black/white dog) has been called a pit bull from the rescue we got him from, but we really don't know what he is. I lean towards a bulldog mix, but don't really know. People have been breeding very nonconforming PB. So I pass on a positive identification. However, for any high conforming pit bull I can get it right about 100%. I see a lot of dogs where I have to scratch my head - they are mixes, nonconforming, or who knows what? My skill is not paranormal, it is limited, and it would have to be tested much like Vision is asking to be tested.

Am I missing something?

The way I understood the protocol (and I may be misreading it), is that the claim is more along the lines of "I can identify different breeds of dogs, particularly X, Y, and Z)." The tester will then gather 20 or so dogs that have been certified as one of 10 breeds, and the list of breeds. All of the dogs match one breed on the list, and one breed may have several representatives. No mongrels or non-listed breeds allowed.

The testee will then be presented with the dogs one at a time and check off which breed he/she thinks it is. At the end, hits and misses will be tallied to determine a final score.

The problem is, the testee can wave off as many dogs as he/she wishes by simply saying "I can't tell." In the end, the testee may choose 4 out of the 20, and get three out of the 4 correct. Does the testee really have a 75% success rate for their ability?

This is partly why I do not think most of what VfF is describing is synesthesia, as in all cases I have heard of (mostly the number/color association), there is never any doubt, and never any situation where the associations are too faint or are not made at all. VfF may certainly have synesthesia, it isn't mind-bogglingly rare, but I don't think it has anything to do with what she is describing here.

 

[Tapio]

(snip)The problem is, the testee can wave off as many dogs as he/she wishes by simply saying "I can't tell." In the end, the testee may choose 4 out of the 20, and get three out of the 4 correct. Does the testee really have a 75% success rate for their ability?(snip)

I understood that if she can't find 10 people out of (15 was it?) with ailments she can identify, then the whole test won't be done.

 

[Hokulele]

I understood that if she can't find 10 people out of (15 was it?) with ailments she can identify, then the whole test won't be done.

This is what puzzles me. She has stated what types of ailments she can identify, 15 people are found with those ailments, and yet there is a chance that she won't be able to identify them.

To take JWideman's analogy about scent a bit further, it is as if we know how to use gas chromatography to determine what things should smell like (even if we cannot smell them directly ourselves). We then line up 15 things that have been tested, and then the "nose" comes by and says, "Well, I can't smell anything from these samples, but I still know I have a sense of smell."

I agree the test is non-conclusive, but the testee is still drawing a conclusion.

 

[Tapio]

This is what puzzles me. She has stated what types of ailments she can identify, 15 people are found with those ailments, and yet there is a chance that she won't be able to identify them.

To take JWideman's analogy about scent a bit further, it is as if we know how to use gas chromatography to determine what things should smell like (even if we cannot smell them directly ourselves). We then line up 15 things that have been tested, and then the "nose" comes by and says, "Well, I can't smell anything from these samples, but I still know I have a sense of smell."

I agree the test is non-conclusive, but the testee is still drawing a conclusion.

I get your point. But she's told that her ability doesn't work always, but when it does it's accurate. That's why I asked her about how many people she thinks are needed to get 10 "hits" to do the test on. The whole thing seems rather difficult to me.

And hey, if she proves her claim, even if it's after loads of time and effort, won't it be truly worth it all?

ETA: I'm definetely not saying VfF IS going to score (no offense, Anita). But I'm willing to give her a chance.

 

[Hokulele]

<snip>

And hey, if she proves her claim, even if it's after loads of time and effort, won't it be truly worth it all?

<snip>

Oh, absolutely! Which is why I find the idea of a string of non-conclusive tests to be extremely frustrating, and would prefer to have a protocol written for a test that would be fundamentally conclusive.

I am having strong doubts that it would ever happen.

 

[SezMe]

I have the proposed protocol from the IIG. It's too big to make an attachment but I'll see what I can do to make it available here. IMHO, it has a number of problems but I have not read it in detail.

 

[Ashles]

I have the proposed protocol from the IIG. It's too big to make an attachment but I'll see what I can do to make it available here. IMHO, it has a number of problems but I have not read it in detail.

Why is it too big? Is it a PDF? If you want some reduction done I probably can help.
PM me and I'll try and assist in stripping out the text.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, help us out here...

Your website lists over 25 areas of the body where you can identify one or more ailments. You claim 100% accuracy detecting things like breast tumors, anemia, pregnancy, hearing loss (including extent), color blindness, kidney stones, etc.

All of this tells me (and probably others) that you've done plenty of testing on your own already. How else could you have knowingly identified nearly 100 ailments? I think about my own life. As I went through the list, for most of the ailments I couldn't name anybody I knew (past or present) whom I knew to actually have had the condition. The number people with whom I had been in physical contact during the ailment was even smaller.

Surely, then, you must have spent some time exploring your gift and asking some highly personal questions. Therefore, you should be able to provide more information about a protocol.

Sometimes I sense things in photos, but not to the great detail as I do in real life and I would prefer not to have a test based on photographies.

This tells me that without a doubt that your observations are not happening due to vibrations or electromagnetic radiation as you believe. What led you to believe that it was electromagnetic in nature to begin with?

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.

Do you understand that the skin may be connected to a shirt which is connected to the air? Your explanation doesn't seem well thought out since there is a physical connection between you and the subject (that's how we hear).

How do you know about other materials being a problem? Again, it leads me to believe that you've done more testing than you're letting on.

It seems that I need to see where the object is in order to locate the source of the information. Most of the time I only take a quick glance to "download the information" and then look away to concentrate on the information and analyze it further in my thoughts. I would be less successful if the object was behind a screen or a door such that I could not see its outline or exact placement.

Anita, the above quote about a "quick glance" and looking away seems to contradict your website where it reads, "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." Only here did you mention the need to download and concentrate.

Again, this leads me to believe you have done a lot more testing than you're letting on. I mean, if you can see the chemicals flowing inside a body and determine that it's a "diabetes precursor" that takes some serious training and verification. I mean, if you showed me somebody's blood work from a hospital I *still* couldn't tell you what was wrong with them.

I have tested myself on identifying materials that are concealed in non-opaque containers, but it can take me longer and it is harder to obtain the information.

Anita, did you mean opaque rather than non-opaque?

Tell us more about these tests. And tell us more about exploring your gift by looking at insects. Perhaps that will lead to a simplified protocol, which is really what we all want.

If I said I could identify cracks and faults in buildings, I would devise a simple test to identify a single brick out of 20 that had a crack in it that was not visible to the naked eye. I wouldn't ask them to build a house first.