I thought that throwing large numbers of vague, open to interpretation comments was a classic cold reading technique?
Vision From Feeling
- Thread starter VisionFromFeeling
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen
- Status
Belz...
Fiend God
You might want to look into the WHY.
Actually you've demonstrated time and again that you DO mind.
Belz...
Fiend God
VisionFromFeeling said:
Of course. All perceptions correlate to reality when one fails to test them properly. You can retro-fit anything into reality when you really want to.
By the way, just stumbled across this from a previous post:
Why all the turning to the side business in the 'study'? This is the problem. Anita claims to be trying to iron out details in the 'study' but she never tells us what details until afterwards.
And it seems this time she was trying to iron out a detail she thought wasn't an issue nearly a month before!
And the videoing? Is that no longer an option?
Onto my main post:
(I still can't figure out the nested quote thing. Thought I had it that time.)
You probably can't keep track of all your claims yourself. I understand that. How lucky you have us to help you.
Of all these claims (and yes making different claims mean there is more than one claim... I know you haven't studied statistics yet but still...) you are choosing to test one (well sorta), but you have made many different claims. Oh they may be claimed to be all part of one uber ability, but the claims themselves are very distinct and different.
You have yourself stated that the medical identification is simply the claim you think is strongest.
)
The other claims are better to test because the testing can be FAR more easily controlled and FAR more easily set up.
The ability does not have to be perfect, it only has to performe above chance.
If you can detect these things above chance then a test can be designed that would be far better than the mess of the 'study'.
If you cannot detect these things above chance... what on earth makes you think you have the ability to do so?
Why try if it's not something you think you can do?
You have also said you can detect health information of celebrities. Presumably from pictures and TV.
You have also claimed to be able to detect information from a scanning electron microscope picture.
And again what about the celebrity claim?
If you have them electronically (as you must do or be able to easily get if you are happy to email them to me) then simply add a page to your website with the scans on. You don't need to link from the main page, just post the URL of that page.
I'm curious as to why you are going to be unable to do that. But almost psychically I feel you won't.
And I notice you don't address the issue of breaching the test protocol by talking.
Anyway it still doesn't really address why you couldn't simply perform the crystal test.
That kind of thing?
You won't because you don't understand scientific testing, the null hypothesis, confirmation bias... etc
Your criteria for not having the ability is different to what real scientists would define ut as.
Also I have no doubt your criteria would change further if ever actually met.
The failure to examine your own claim critically or scientifically in any way whatsoever is what is a little tedious.
I assume the videoing will not happen.
And if you do nothing else, ditch The ScaleTM unless you are prepared for any perceptions recorded to be judged as relevant and offered for analysis.
If they are too weak to count as a 'real answer' do not bother recording them. That is the choice. You cannot have it both ways.
So the back-view thing actually wasn't as decided as this post may have lead us to believe?
Why all the turning to the side business in the 'study'? This is the problem. Anita claims to be trying to iron out details in the 'study' but she never tells us what details until afterwards.
And it seems this time she was trying to iron out a detail she thought wasn't an issue nearly a month before!
And the videoing? Is that no longer an option?
Onto my main post:
(I still can't figure out the nested quote thing. Thought I had it that time.)
No you have made many paranormal claims:
Those are just from your website. Also on this thread there have been various chemical claims... the sensing marijuana from seeing a photo of it claim... and sensing health conditions of clebrities from... TV and pictures?
You probably can't keep track of all your claims yourself. I understand that. How lucky you have us to help you.
Of all these claims (and yes making different claims mean there is more than one claim... I know you haven't studied statistics yet but still...) you are choosing to test one (well sorta), but you have made many different claims. Oh they may be claimed to be all part of one uber ability, but the claims themselves are very distinct and different.
You have yourself stated that the medical identification is simply the claim you think is strongest.
You applied for testing with the IIG over a year ago. You claim to have had this ability in varying degrees for over 12 years! Why can you still not describe what you claim to be able to do, to what level of ability and in what circumstances?
(I thought you said there was only one claim?
)The other claims are better to test because the testing can be FAR more easily controlled and FAR more easily set up.
The ability does not have to be perfect, it only has to performe above chance.
If you can detect these things above chance then a test can be designed that would be far better than the mess of the 'study'.
If you cannot detect these things above chance... what on earth makes you think you have the ability to do so?
You actually made an attempt to do so with UncaYimmy.
Why try if it's not something you think you can do?
You have also said you can detect health information of celebrities. Presumably from pictures and TV.
You have also claimed to be able to detect information from a scanning electron microscope picture.
Well you said in this post:
You obviously thought it was a possibility.
And again what about the celebrity claim?
I won't give my email address out to a complete stranger on the internet.
If you have them electronically (as you must do or be able to easily get if you are happy to email them to me) then simply add a page to your website with the scans on. You don't need to link from the main page, just post the URL of that page.
I'm curious as to why you are going to be unable to do that. But almost psychically I feel you won't.
You clearly made two incorrect perceptions that are indisputable (see above).
And I notice you don't address the issue of breaching the test protocol by talking.
Well it appears we shall have to shoose to believe your account or Jim's. Hmmm... tricky...
Anyway it still doesn't really address why you couldn't simply perform the crystal test.
The failed internet picture test. The failed internet video chemical identification test. The 'survey' that never had details revealed. The 'study' that missed the single large identifiable medical symptom, and incorrectly identified two positives. The pill test that you could not carry out. The continuing refusal to adopt proper scientific testing....
That kind of thing?
No you can say you were fooling yourself if you do not perform above chance.ME: "Of course whether Anita will accept the logical conclusion is something else.
"I have an amazing ability that I would like to test to see if it is real"
is so much more interesting a story than
"I thought I had an amazing ability, but it turned out I was fooling myself.""
I can not say that I was fooling myself until incorrect perceptions are revealed.
You won't because you don't understand scientific testing, the null hypothesis, confirmation bias... etc
Your criteria for not having the ability is different to what real scientists would define ut as.
Also I have no doubt your criteria would change further if ever actually met.
Don't really understand that.
The failure to examine your own claim critically or scientifically in any way whatsoever is what is a little tedious.
Let us know if that ever happens.
So some form of outing in which random protocols will be made up and discarded on the spur of the moment?
I assume the videoing will not happen.
And if you do nothing else, ditch The ScaleTM unless you are prepared for any perceptions recorded to be judged as relevant and offered for analysis.
If they are too weak to count as a 'real answer' do not bother recording them. That is the choice. You cannot have it both ways.
Last edited:
paperskater
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,491
Okay, just a quick question for the more experienced skeptics here from an inexperienced budding skeptic! I want to throw this out there just to see if I can make a good comparison/analogy.
Please correct me if I'm wrong or if I have misunderstood. I've been following this from the beginning, but my eyes have tended to glaze over at times.
Anita says that things that she does not detect should not count against her, right? Even if there is something there, if she doesn't detect it, it shouldn't count as a miss. All of the skeptics here are saying that if she fails to detect something, it counts as a miss. Anita seems to be railing against this and doesn't seem to understand why this is a problem and why we must count the "failures to detect" as a miss.
What if we put it this way, in a context that Anita could relate to since she's in school? Say you're taking an exam for a class. It's a 20-question true or false exam.
Let's pretend the following are the correct answers for the exam:
1. True
2. True
3. False
4. True
5. False
6. False
7. False
8. True
9. False
10. True
11. True
12. False
13. True
14. False
15. False
16. True
17. True
18. True
19. False
20. False
My exam sheet looks like this (RED indicates that I got an answer wrong):
1. True
2. False
3. True
4. True
5. False
6. True
7. False
8. False
9. True
10. False
11. True
12. False
13. False
14. False
15. True
16. True
17. False
18. False
19. False
20. False
So, I got 10 out of 20 questions wrong. This would be graded as a 50% or a failing grade in most classrooms. But, what if I just didn't answer the questions that I didn't know and just left them blank?
1. True
2. -- blank --
3. -- blank --
4. True
5. False
6. True
7. False
8. -- blank --
9. -- blank --
10. -- blank --
11. True
12. False
13. False
14. False
15. -- blank --
16. True
17. False
18. -- blank --
19. False
20. False
By conventional grading terms, I'd still get points docked off for the questions I left blank and still get a 50% grade for this exam.
But by Anita's terms, the teacher should exclude the questions I left blank since I technically didn't get it right or wrong. In my second example, I left 7 questions blank and those should not count against me. So, subtract 7 from 20 original questions, leaving me with 13 questions that I did answer and I got 3 wrong out of those. By Anita's terms, I should get a 77% grade on the exam, WAY different from the previous grade.
Am I interpreting this correctly and is this an acceptable analogy? Hopefully if it is, it will help Anita understand why "failure to detect" is a miss.
Please correct me if I'm wrong or if I have misunderstood. I've been following this from the beginning, but my eyes have tended to glaze over at times.
Anita says that things that she does not detect should not count against her, right? Even if there is something there, if she doesn't detect it, it shouldn't count as a miss. All of the skeptics here are saying that if she fails to detect something, it counts as a miss. Anita seems to be railing against this and doesn't seem to understand why this is a problem and why we must count the "failures to detect" as a miss.
What if we put it this way, in a context that Anita could relate to since she's in school? Say you're taking an exam for a class. It's a 20-question true or false exam.
Let's pretend the following are the correct answers for the exam:
1. True
2. True
3. False
4. True
5. False
6. False
7. False
8. True
9. False
10. True
11. True
12. False
13. True
14. False
15. False
16. True
17. True
18. True
19. False
20. False
My exam sheet looks like this (RED indicates that I got an answer wrong):
1. True
2. False
3. True
4. True
5. False
6. True
7. False
8. False
9. True
10. False
11. True
12. False
13. False
14. False
15. True
16. True
17. False
18. False
19. False
20. False
So, I got 10 out of 20 questions wrong. This would be graded as a 50% or a failing grade in most classrooms. But, what if I just didn't answer the questions that I didn't know and just left them blank?
1. True
2. -- blank --
3. -- blank --
4. True
5. False
6. True
7. False
8. -- blank --
9. -- blank --
10. -- blank --
11. True
12. False
13. False
14. False
15. -- blank --
16. True
17. False
18. -- blank --
19. False
20. False
By conventional grading terms, I'd still get points docked off for the questions I left blank and still get a 50% grade for this exam.
But by Anita's terms, the teacher should exclude the questions I left blank since I technically didn't get it right or wrong. In my second example, I left 7 questions blank and those should not count against me. So, subtract 7 from 20 original questions, leaving me with 13 questions that I did answer and I got 3 wrong out of those. By Anita's terms, I should get a 77% grade on the exam, WAY different from the previous grade.
Am I interpreting this correctly and is this an acceptable analogy? Hopefully if it is, it will help Anita understand why "failure to detect" is a miss.
I meant with regard to all the amazing stories we had heard about previously.
I'm only counting cold reading as an applicable technique if the reader actually gets some information out of it. It doesn't seem like Anita actually does get any useful information at all.
I think Anita was getting to quite like the alternate possibility of potentially being a brilliant cold reader. But it appears that this option is definitely not the case.
It's like 'reading' is only 'reading' if you discern meaning from the words on the page. Otherwise it's just moving your eyes back and forth.
Last edited:
Yes, that's right, paperskater. Also, Anita's "hits" are just obvious things. Like, "there's nothing wrong with your brain". Erm, okay. I could do that all day. It's not impressive. And sure, there's a possibility she could have been wrong, but it wouldn't be very high.
If you play it safe, you can get 100% right every time.
As I said, Anita is immune to logic. She doesn't even see why this is a problem. She doesn't even see why this would lessen her credibility. She doesn't even see how ridiculous this is. She is in her own little world.
She interprets not explicitly failing (and at the same time, not explicitly succeeding) as furthering the need for more study. She would say, "We have not dismissed no ESP ability". But this lends nothing to the possibility that she has it. The possibility is still zero.
At that point, you have failed. Your test has yielded no useful results. The test is a failure. But not in her mind. In her mind, it's actually a form of success! Truly fascinating from a psychological point of view.
If you play it safe, you can get 100% right every time.
As I said, Anita is immune to logic. She doesn't even see why this is a problem. She doesn't even see why this would lessen her credibility. She doesn't even see how ridiculous this is. She is in her own little world.
She interprets not explicitly failing (and at the same time, not explicitly succeeding) as furthering the need for more study. She would say, "We have not dismissed no ESP ability". But this lends nothing to the possibility that she has it. The possibility is still zero.
At that point, you have failed. Your test has yielded no useful results. The test is a failure. But not in her mind. In her mind, it's actually a form of success! Truly fascinating from a psychological point of view.
A good analogy but with some tweaking I think it sums up the study very well.
Judging by the recent study this would be Anita's actual results:
1. --blank--
2. --blank--
3. --blank--
4. --blank--
5. --blank--
6. --blank--
7. --blank--
8. False
9. --blank--
10. --blank--
11. --blank--
12. --blank--
13. --blank--
14. True (but I only feel that 2 on a scale of 2 to 5)
15. True (but I only feel that 2 on a scale of 2 to 5)
16. --blank--
17. --blank--
18. --blank--
19. --blank--
20. --blank--
8. Is clearly wrong, but Anita would declare that it was only an error in which she put False instead of True and she isn't counting that type of error - only True for False errors count as her being incorrect.
14. and 15, are both incorrect and in the way she counts as incorrect, but because she only rated these answers as 'weak' answers they don't count.
Anita would judge this test as 100% successful for her.
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Welcome, and it's a very good analogy.
Two points to clarify, though:
Anita says that if she fails to detect an existing ailment in a "non test" setting, it shouldn't be counted as a miss. It's really unclear, at this point, what the criteria for a formal test will be, and if this condition will be included, since she can't even be nailed down on the specifics of her claim.
Anita also says that if she fails to detect an ailment that she doesn't know exists, it shouldn't be counted as a miss. (Whether in an informal "survey" or "study" or a formal "test".) IOW, if the person she is gawking at suffers from spina bifida, and Anita doesn't know that spina bifida is a disease, it can't count against her. Of course, again, nailing her down on what ailments she DOES know exist and CAN detect is like trying to nail jello to a tree.
None of that, naturally, jibes with her repeated explanations of her "ability". She knows all, sees all, can detect anything wrong through vibrational dissonance-until she is put to the test/study/survey.
(I think I've got that right - after 42 pages, it's hard to remember all the twists and turns.)
Last edited:
I thought that as well. I would have thought people would want to watch, and even if they didn't have a video camera handy I would have taken at least some video of the test on my phone.
Maybe suggested they all stand in front of Anita and see if she got any particular impressions from any of them.
I don't know, maybe it just didn't come through in the descriptions. It just would be nice to see one of these tests recorded.
This -
It's reasonable to assume that some discussion took place concerning her environmental requirements. If I'd been there, I'd certainly have wanted to leave her to her 'reading' and spend the time waiting eating pizza and talking with my friends.
Maybe I'm just projecting what I'd have done, based on her waffling in this thread.
We certainly don't need to give her any excuses to 'reason' her way out of her failures!
Belz...
Fiend God
There. Corrected that for you.
(now if that avatar isn't you I'm going to look like a fool)
I meant with regard to all the amazing stories we had heard about previously.
I'm only counting cold reading as an applicable technique if the reader actually gets some information out of it. It doesn't seem like Anita actually does get any useful information at all.
I think Anita was getting to quite like the alternate possibility of potentially being a brilliant cold reader. But it appears that this option is definitely not the case.
It's like 'reading' is only 'reading' if you discern meaning from the words on the page. Otherwise it's just moving your eyes back and forth.
Highlighted is the pulp fiction magazine "Anita's" stories belong in.
M.
I've said this before, but it gets lost in all the noise:
Anita does not have a specific claim. Tens of thousands of words, but no specific, testable claim. You are talking hits and misses as if it is some sort of test. It is not a test. This is a study to help her determine what, if any, abilities she has. Repeatedly failing to detect an ailment doesn't mean she doesn't have any abilities - it just means she can't detect that ailment. Therefore, she won't be tested on that ailment should we ever arrive at an actual test.
She has no idea what she thinks she can detect. She can't be "wrong" for failing to detect something she never said she could reliably detect in the first place. You can argue what you think she "should" be able to do based on all her fantasies about subatomic vibrational information, but at best that's conjecture on your part. Her defense is easy: "I have no idea why that is. That's why I am doing the study."
Now, a reasonable person would say there isn't anything here worth even studying. Yep. But nothing is going to persuade Anita that her "apparent accuracy" from her past is meaningless. She clings to that as tightly as a mother to a baby. She claims to have read about 100 people without ever being incorrect once.
Therefore, the only thing that's going to convince Anita of anything is for her to repeatedly be wrong about the things she claims to see. No amount of reason regarding her failures to detect will affect her. You can and should bring them up, but it's really not going to do much good for her. It's fun for the rest of us, though.
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Well, let's look at Garrette's famous "Mayday" list:
1. Delusional claim.
2. Seemingly reasonable request for explanation (in this case, assistance)
3. Dismissal of first responses
4. Change of details to allow dismissal of second to eighteenth responses
5. Occasionally reasonable
6.
7. Sporadic interjection of even more delusional claims.
8. Anger and vitriol
9.
10. Absence (Sort of)
11. Re-appearance
Yeah, I can't imagine why any of us would believe that Anita might be following a preconceived pattern of about paranormal claimants.
Group hug
(Locknar is still the one in the middle)
See #5 above.
VisionFromFeeling said:
So, don't come here. It doesn't seem like your manipulative mock flattery has gotten you very far at all-certainly not enough to make the anguish of posting here worth your time.
Last edited:
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
It's reasonable to assume that some discussion took place concerning her environmental requirements. If I'd been there, I'd certainly have wanted to leave her to her 'reading' and spend the time waiting eating pizza and talking with my friends.
Maybe I'm just projecting what I'd have done, based on her waffling in this thread.
No, I think we just got our wires crossed. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the skeptics would have wanted to give her privacy-I just don't see anything to indicate that Anita wanted privacy, as well. She appears to have considered it rude that the skeptics weren't hanging over her shoulders, watching avidly.
I did get the impression, like others, that there was a disinterest on the part of the skeptics, but it could very well be incorrect. Hard to say, since none of us were there. Maybe they were just hungry and wanted to focus on their pizzas.
We certainly don't need to give her any excuses to 'reason' her way out of her failures!
I dunno...she's pretty much run the gamut...might be amusing to toss her a bone and see what she does with it.
VisionFromFeeling
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,361
Jeff Corey:
Well since I haven't taken statistics courses yet would you please explain the issue with my reasoning? After all, I am here on the JREF Forum for help with test design and especially with statistics. What is wrong with the approach that if I have a study that by its design can not provide evidence in favor of ESP but can provide evidence against ESP, then if the results indicate no ESP why is it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? Why then would we have to proceed to have a real test that would only conclude the same? Would you please explain rather than just question my intelligence. I really want to know.
Well since I haven't taken statistics courses yet would you please explain the issue with my reasoning? After all, I am here on the JREF Forum for help with test design and especially with statistics. What is wrong with the approach that if I have a study that by its design can not provide evidence in favor of ESP but can provide evidence against ESP, then if the results indicate no ESP why is it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? Why then would we have to proceed to have a real test that would only conclude the same? Would you please explain rather than just question my intelligence. I really want to know.
Here's the thing about the test at the meeting. They usually have agendas. It's not just a social thing where people hang out. GodOfPie said, "She and her friend (Chris?) really wanted to test someone at the meeting. Wayne, a new member, his first meeting, volunteered to be read by Anita at the end of the meeting."
She said she wants at least 10 minutes to read somebody. Figure another 5 minutes to handle the analysis. Thus if four people were willing, the last person would have been there an hour after the meeting was over. That's just not workable.
This is why I have repeatedly told Anita to organize something with the group. You can't just show up at a meeting that already has an agenda and pull off the kind of study she wants. It needs to be organized. It's also another reason why her mall study will fail. Even if she gets two volunteers, who wants to wait around for 15 minutes just so they can sit around for 15 more minutes and divulge highly personal medical information?
Another thought just occurred to me. Is Anita an evil genius? She has now been in two meetings with the skeptics group. She has had more than ample opportunity to catch a number of clues about health conditions. For example:
* The person who gets up to pee five times during the meeting.
* The person constantly shifting in his seat to get comfortable.
* The person rubbing her neck a lot.
* The person popping medicine.
* The person ordering bland food and milk.
* The person she overheard talking about a doctor's appointment.
The testing pool in contaminated at this point. What a shame. That doesn't mean the group couldn't figure out something, but reading people who attended the meetings will be pretty easy for a halfway decent cold reader.
She said she wants at least 10 minutes to read somebody. Figure another 5 minutes to handle the analysis. Thus if four people were willing, the last person would have been there an hour after the meeting was over. That's just not workable.
This is why I have repeatedly told Anita to organize something with the group. You can't just show up at a meeting that already has an agenda and pull off the kind of study she wants. It needs to be organized. It's also another reason why her mall study will fail. Even if she gets two volunteers, who wants to wait around for 15 minutes just so they can sit around for 15 more minutes and divulge highly personal medical information?
Another thought just occurred to me. Is Anita an evil genius? She has now been in two meetings with the skeptics group. She has had more than ample opportunity to catch a number of clues about health conditions. For example:
* The person who gets up to pee five times during the meeting.
* The person constantly shifting in his seat to get comfortable.
* The person rubbing her neck a lot.
* The person popping medicine.
* The person ordering bland food and milk.
* The person she overheard talking about a doctor's appointment.
The testing pool in contaminated at this point. What a shame. That doesn't mean the group couldn't figure out something, but reading people who attended the meetings will be pretty easy for a halfway decent cold reader.
- Status